Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

 
Creating a better society

A Constitution for a New City

Part 6:  Virtuous Monkeys
11 July 2021


C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S

What is a “virtuous monkey”?
Our motives are significant
We need an understanding of animal emotions
We must earn what we want, not grab it
Our leaders should set morality
Our emotions are analogous to supervisors
A child's social environment is critical
We should reduce all types of pornography
We should adjust culture to fit our characteristics
Virtuous people are suffering




What is a “virtuous monkey”?

What is a “virtuous pedophile”?

The expression "virtuous pedophile" was created by some men who admit to having sexual attractions to children, but who exert enough self-control to refrain from pedophilia. Their website is virped.org.

Some people have responded that the virtuous pedophiles are just as disgusting as the "normal" pedophiles because we should judge people by their thoughts rather than their actions, but that is an absurd conclusion. To understand why actions are more important than thoughts, consider our attraction to food.

All of us are "Virtuous Gluttons"

Aside from the people with Prader-Willi syndrome, all of us regularly exert self-control over our cravings for food in order to avoid overeating, and to force ourselves to eat some food that we assume will be beneficial to our health. What is the difference between:
a) A man who suppresses his cravings for food.
b) A man who suppresses his cravings for sex with children.

Both of those men are doing the same thing; specifically, using their intellect and self-control to do what they think is best, rather than what their emotions want. Both of those men are displaying advanced mental characteristics that animals do not have. They have the ability to pass judgment on which of their emotional cravings should be satisfied, and which should be ignored. They are able to choose an intellectually sensible policy rather than whatever is most emotionally titillating.

The people who have enough self-control to refrain from excessive eating could be described as "Virtuous Gluttons" because they are behaving in a similar manner as the "virtuous pedophiles", except that they are doing it with their craving for food rather than their craving for sex.

We are virtuous with all of our emotions

Our craving for food and sex are just two of the emotions that we occasionally exert some self-control over. Some more examples of how we could be described as a "virtuous something-or-other" are:

• If you are a married man, and if you encounter a woman that you are attracted to, but you refrain from trying to have an affair with her, then you could be referred to as a "Virtuous Adulterer".

• When you make a mess in the kitchen or bathroom, and your emotions want you to ignore the mess, but you push yourself into cleaning the mess, then you could be described as a "Virtuous Slob".

• If you see a material item that your emotions want you to steal, but you refrain from stealing it, you could be described as a "Virtuous Thief".

• If you have a craving to become intoxicated, but you limit the amount you drink to avoid intoxication, you could be described as a "Virtuous Alcoholic".

• When you have an urge to pout or whine, but you refrain from doing so, you could be described with one of these adjectives:
A Virtuous ________   a) Sulker  b) Pouter  c) Sniveller  d) Crybaby  e) Whiner.

• When you feel like insulting somebody, boasting about yourself, or showing off your material wealth, trophies, or college diploma, but you refrain from doing so, you could be described as:
A Virtuous ________   a) Narcissist  b) Snob  c) Braggart  d) Egomaniac.

• When you have an urge to try to get something for free, such as behaving in a deceptive manner towards a wealthy relative in the hope that they increase your inheritance, or when you have an urge to beg a friend, coworker, or neighbor to provide free services to you, but you refrain from doing it, you could be described as:
A Virtuous ________  a) Parasite  b) Freeloader  c) Con Artist.

• If you see an item that you want to purchase, but you refrain from purchasing it because you realize that you don't have enough money, then you could be described as:
A Virtuous ________  a) Spendthrift  b) Shopaholic  c) Oniomaniac.

• If you become so frustrated that you feel an emotional craving to yell or throw an object, but you refrain from doing so, we do not have a word for people who do that, but if we referred to them as "Tantrumists", then you could be described as a "Virtuous Tantrumist".

• If you are a man, and you see a woman that your emotions want you to touch, but you refrain from grabbing at her, then you could be described as a "Virtuous Groper".

The virtuous pedophiles are admirable

The virtuous pedophiles have the intellectual ability to realize that their sexual cravings are abnormal and inappropriate, and they also have the emotional ability to refrain from satisfying those cravings. They are exerting self-control and doing what they think is best. They are behaving in an admirable manner.

Insulting them as "pedophiles" is not helping them, or society. Rather, we should encourage more people to exert self-control over their inappropriate cravings. If everybody had as much self-control as they do, and over all of their emotions, not just their sexual cravings, there would be no crime, pouting, overeating, drug problems, gambling problems, tantrums, or similar problems.

Some adults could be described as "virtuous monkeys"

Babies do not have any self-control, but all adults, other than the severely retarded, regularly exert some self-control over our emotional cravings. Even the worst behaved criminals are regularly exerting some self-control. The reason we control our cravings is because even the stupid people have enough intelligence to realize that our cravings are sometimes inappropriate.

If a person were asked why he is exerting self-control, he might respond that he's trying to avoid getting into debt, or wants to avoid overeating, but we could describe the reason we exert self-control is to avoid behaving like a monkey. If an adult human had zero self-control, and did exactly whatever his emotions wanted, he would have a very strong resemblance to a monkey, or a baby. Therefore, we could describe every adult as being a "virtuous monkey".

However, none of us has perfect control of ourself. We all have self-control, but not enough to avoid occasional overeating, excessive gambling, debt problems, theft, temper tantrums, or some other problem. Therefore, each of us would fit somewhere along a bell graph in which the people with the least self-control are at one extreme, and the people with the most self-control are at the other.

If we could observe everybody's life, we would find that half the population is below-average in controlling themselves. Therefore, an interesting perspective of human behavior would be to describe the people with high self-control as "virtuous monkeys", and the people with low self-control as "emotional monkeys".

Another way of looking at this issue is to classify people as ranging from a monkey to a human. The majority of people would be in the middle, which we could describe as "intermittent humans", or "intelligent monkeys".

The people who cannot control themselves are troublemakers

The virtuous pedophiles are not bothering children. It is the pedophiles who cannot control themselves who bother the children. Likewise, the virtuous thieves are not causing trouble. It is the people who cannot control themselves that steal things.

What is "self-control"? Is it an emotion? Or is it an intellectual talent? Why do some people have more of it than others?

Although nobody knows why some people have more trouble controlling themselves, it is obvious that it is sometimes due to genetic defects, such as Prader Willi syndrome, and sometimes due to environmental issues, such as brain damage as a result of concussions, drug abuse, and strokes.

The people who have the least control over themselves will behave more like a monkey and less like a human because they will be more likely to do what their emotions want rather than think about the issue and choose an option that is sensible. They are more likely to do whatever is most emotionally pleasing rather than what is most beneficial for themselves and society. They are more likely to waste their time and irritate us with crimes, boasting, lewd remarks, pouting, revenge, envy, insults, begging for handouts, asking for forgiveness, and exploiting those of us who are trusting.

If we define a "criminal" as a person who violates a law, then almost everybody is a criminal since almost everybody has violated some law, especially traffic, alcohol, and drug laws. To add complexity to the issue, some people violate laws in order to do something useful, such as prevent a crime.

In this document I will consider a person to be a "criminal" only if he commits the more "serious" crimes, such as burglary, rape, murder, and shoplifting, and only if he does so for his own selfish benefit, not for the nation.

By restricting the word "criminal" to the people committing the more serious crimes for their own benefit, if we could measure everybody's level of self-control, the chart for the criminals might show that most of them are below-average.

This Constitution does not regard criminals as "evil". Rather, they are people, just like you and me, and many of them have some admirable talents and qualities, but they choose to commit crimes because there is something inferior about them. Some of them may have low levels of self-control; others may have extreme selfishness; and some may have a defective intellectual unit. Regardless of what their problem is, criminals should be described as "low quality people" or as "inferior people" rather than as "evil".

This concept also applies to the honest people who follow the law but who cannot behave in the manner we regard as desirable. For example, there is no law against obesity, but the obese people are not behaving properly. If we could measure everybody's mental and physical characteristics, we might discover that some obese people have low levels of self-control, and others have excessively strong hunger emotions.

As with criminals, many obese people have admirable qualities, but there is something substandard about them. Regardless of what their problem is, the obese people should also be described as "low quality people".

This concept also applies to the people who abuse alcohol or other drugs, gamble excessively, spend money faster than they make it, shop for items they don't need, hoard items in their home, or who have an abnormal amount of temper tantrums. All of the people who behave in manners that we disapprove of should be regarded as inferior people.

We should admit to and control our cravings

A man who admits to having sexual cravings for children is likely to be ridiculed and condemned, but he is superior to a man who has the craving but deceives us by pretending he does not have the craving. It is better to live among people who are honest about their characteristics than people who lie to us about their characteristics.

Of the men who can admit to having cravings for children, those who have the self-control to suppress their cravings are superior to the men who don't have enough self-control, or who don't have the desire to control themselves.

This concept applies to every emotion. For example, a person who can admit that he would like to eat more food, and who has the self-control to stop eating, is displaying superior mental characteristics compared to a person who lies about his desire to eat excessively, or who doesn't have the desire to control his cravings for food.

Nobody is ashamed to admit that they have enough self-control to limit their consumption of food, so why should a man be ashamed to admit that he has the ability to control his sexual cravings?

This concept also applies to the people who can control their spending of money. A man who wants to purchase an item, but who has the self-control to avoid doing so because he realizes that it would cause him to go in debt, or because he doesn't actually need the item, is displaying superior mental qualities compared to a man who wants the item but pretends that he doesn't.

Why do we deny our emotional cravings rather than be honest about them? Three reasons are:
• To avoid insults. A person who admits to having sexual cravings for a child is likely to be insulted.
• To make ourselves feel better. This is similar to Aesop's fable of the fox and the sour grapes. A man who wants to purchase something that he cannot afford might make himself feel better by pretending that he doesn't want the item.
• To impress other people. A single man who is looking for a wife might pretend that he doesn't want to purchase an item because he doesn't want to admit to the woman that he cannot afford it.

I pointed out in other documents that we have a strong desire to impress one another, so our natural tendency is to hide the characteristics we are embarrassed of, and create a phony image of ourselves to impress other people.

We are so accustomed to the phony images that if any man were to be honest about himself, he would be regarded as a dangerous lunatic. For example, imagine a man publicly admitting that he wants to steal a lot of the material items that he sees, wants to have sex with a lot of the women he encounters, and wants us to admire him and treat him like a world leader. Most people would be shocked and frightened rather than realize that he is just a typical man.

We should regard the people who have a good understanding of themselves, who are honest about themselves, and who can control their cravings, to be superior to the people who deceive us about their characteristics, or who do not have the desire or ability to control themselves.

Humans are very arrogant, but how many people can admit to being arrogant? Admitting that we are arrogant should be no more embarrassing than admitting that we have a craving for food.

None of us would be impressed by an obese person who boasts that he does not have a problem with overeating, or an alcoholic who boasts that he does not have a problem with alcohol. What is the difference between:
a) An alcoholic who boasts that he does not have a problem with alcohol.
b) A man who boasts that he is not arrogant.

Every culture is encouraging people to deny their arrogance while at the same time encouraging our arrogance. For some examples of how our arrogance is encouraged:
• The democracies promote the belief that the majority of people are so intelligent and educated that they can make wise decisions about who to elect, and what our government policies should be, and which nation should be bombed.
• The free enterprise systems promote the belief that most people are so intelligent that they will make wise decisions about products and services, and that the businesses should pander to their wise customers.
• The religions promote the attitude that humans are a special creation of a supreme being, and that we are different from, and superior to, the animals.

No culture yet encourages people to be honest about themselves. Instead, every culture is encouraging people to regard themselves as super intelligent, super talented, super geniuses. No culture encourages people to believe that the majority of people are "ordinary", and that half the population is below-average. No culture is encouraging people to admit that every human is a haphazard jumble of genetic traits, and that we all have physical and mental defects. No culture is encouraging us to analyze ourselves, or acknowledge our defects.

We will create a more pleasant social environment if we encourage everybody to be honest about themselves. The people who can admit to being arrogant, and who can control their arrogance, should be regarded as superior to the people who claim they don't have any arrogance, or who cannot control their arrogance.

Likewise, the people who can admit to having cravings for food, sex, status, material wealth, and children, and who can control their cravings, should also be regarded as superior to the people who cannot admit to having those cravings, or who cannot control their cravings.

Our motives are significant

Not all virtuous pedophiles are equal

Although all adults exert some self-control once in a while, there are subtle but significant differences between us. In order to truly understand a person's behavior, and in order to make a wise decision about who among us is inferior, we must understand the reason a person chooses to exert self-control. For example, two reasons that a person might control his cravings are:
1) The person is doing it for his own benefit.
2) The person is doing it for the benefit of society.

There is a significant difference between people who do things for themselves, and people who do things for society. Here are some examples:

1) Why does a man become a virtuous pedophile?




Imagine two virtuous pedophiles:

1) George is a virtuous pedophile because he realizes that he would make life miserable for the child, and he doesn't want to hurt the child.

2) Irving is a virtuous pedophile because he is frightened of being lynched.

Although both men would be suppressing their cravings for pedophilia, they are not equal. George is superior to Irving.

The reason is because George will continue to avoid pedophilia even when he is provided with the opportunity without any risk.



For two examples of why George is superior to Irving:
• If both George and Irving worked at children's hospitals, when they encountered a child who was under anesthesia in a room by himself, Irving would be tempted to take advantage of the situation, whereas George would continue to be a virtuous pedophile because he would be concerned about the child.

• If Jeffrey Epstein invited both George and Irving to his island, George would refuse to go but Irving would love the opportunity.

Irving regards children as "opportunities", and he will exploit those opportunities when he gets the chance to do so, but George regards children as "friends" or "people", and he will protect them.

We could describe George as a "Virtuous Pedophile", but it would be better to describe Irving as an Intermittent or Suppressed Pedophile. George is analogous to a dog that is so well behaved that we can allow him to roam freely without a leash, whereas Irving is like a dog that cannot be trusted and must be kept on a leash or in a cage.

2) Why does a man become a virtuous rapist?

Imagine if George and Irving are controlling their desire to rape women, but Irving is avoiding rape because he is afraid of being arrested, whereas George is avoiding rape because he realizes it would disrupt society and hurt the woman.

If both of those men were to encounter a woman who was sleeping, or unconscious from alcohol, or under anesthesia at hospital, Irving might take advantage of the situation by raping her, whereas George would continue to suppress his cravings because he wants to do what is best for the woman and society.

As in the example #1, it would be best to describe Irving as an Intermittent or Suppressed Rapist, rather than a "Virtuous Rapist".

3) Why does a man become a virtuous thief?

All of us have cravings to grab at the items that attract our attention, so all of us could be described as virtuous thieves. However, let's assume Irving is avoiding theft only because he is afraid of being arrested, whereas George avoids theft because he realizes that it is detrimental to society, and he wants to be a team member who contributes.

George is superior to Irving because if the social environment were to change, such as a hurricane were to destroy a portion of the city, Irving might take advantage of the situation by stealing items from homes and businesses, whereas George would refrain from stealing because he wants to be a productive team member and do what is best for society.

4) Why does a man become a virtuous glutton?

Probably everybody's craving for food is excessive, so most of us could be described as virtuous gluttons. However, there are some interesting aspects to this issue that you might not have considered.

Imagine that George and Irving are ordinary working class men who have an ordinary income. Neither of them eats an excessive amount of food, but Irving is limiting his consumption of food so that he has more money for other things, whereas George limits his consumption of food because he does not want to become a burden on the people involved with the production, distribution, and cleanup of food and meals.

Although both of them are using self-control to eat the same amount of food, George is the superior person. The reason is because George will continue to eat an appropriate amount of food even when the environment changes and provides him with less expensive or free food.

For example, if they were to take a cruise on a ship that offers free meals, or if they were living in a city such as Kastron in which the food is free, Irving would take advantage of the situation by eating excessively, and he would not care if he put more food on his plate than he could eat, thereby wasting the food. By comparison, George would continue to eat an appropriate amount of food because he would not want to be a burden on society.

This concept applies to all other resources, such as electricity, water, natural gas, and material items. Many of the people who are avoiding the wasting of resources, and who are taking care of their cell phones, cameras, and homes, are doing so only to save money. If they were living in a society in which everything was free, they would no longer care if they were wasting resources or material items.

Providing people with free food, homes, electricity, and material items is practical only if the people have the mental ability to behave responsibly in that type of situation.

Imagine a city of virtuous monkeys

If a city were to consist entirely of virtuous monkeys, rather than emotional monkeys, then there would be no crime. We would not have to worry about letting our children wander around the city, even at night. Children would be able to take a sleeping bag into the city parks and sleep in the grass at night with their friends because they would not have to be afraid of pedophiles or kidnappers.

Furthermore, we could provide food for free without worrying about people wasting the food. We would also not have to worry about people wasting water, batteries, clothing, or anything else. There would be no need to put water meters or electricity meters on everybody's home. We would want meters in certain locations to identify leaks, but we would not need to be concerned about people wasting resources.

Imagine living among people with a concern for society

If a person takes care of an item or avoids wasting a resource only because he is worried about the cost to himself, he is a selfish creature who is behaving more like an animal than a human. The superior people are those who care about their effect on other people.

For a different type of example, imagine that Irving controls his consumption for food only because he's afraid of becoming obese, whereas George is refraining from excessive eating because he realizes that a lot of labor and resources are required to produce and distribute food, and he does not want to be a burden on other people. He also realizes that farmers use some possibly harmful herbicides and insecticides, and he does not want to eat excessive amounts of food partly because that would require growing more food, which means using more of those potentially dangerous chemicals.




The difference in attitude between George and Irving has a significant effect on a society. The reason is because the people with Irving's attitude are controlling their food consumption only to avoid obesity, so if they figure out a method to avoid obesity, they will lose their interest in controlling their food consumption.

To understand how this difference in attitude affects society, imagine that there are two cities that are identical in all respects, except that the people in one city have the attitude of George, and the people in the other city have the attitude of Irving. If a business develops a drug that causes our intestines to absorb less of the nutrients in food, or a drug that makes vomiting much easier and less irritating, the people in Irving's city might start producing those drugs so that they can eat more food without becoming overweight.

However, the people in George's city will refuse those drugs because they realize that eating more food will put more of a burden on the people who produce food, make meals, and clean up the messes. They also realize that producing more food means producing more herbicides, insecticides, and sewage.

Furthermore, they realize that producing the drugs requires people to work in factories, and many of those jobs are monotonous and unappealing, and they don't want anybody to work at a miserable job unless the product has enough of a benefit to compensate for the suffering of the employees.

Life in those two cities will be noticeably different as a result of the different attitudes of the people. The people in Irving's city might boast that they get more enjoyment for from life because they can eat more food, but they will suffer the disadvantage of having to put more of their labor and resources into producing the additional food and drugs, and dealing with larger quantities of sewage and/or vomit. If they cannot produce the additional food without additional pesticides or other toxic chemicals, then they will increase the toxic chemicals in their environment. They will also spend more time on the toilet, so their city might need more public bathrooms.

Furthermore, the city will have to spread out over more land in order to allow them to produce, distribute, and process the additional food and sewage. The increase in the size of the city will increase the distances that some of the people have to travel, and it will increase the maintenance burden on their transportation system.

By comparison, the city where George lives will be noticeably smaller because the farms, sewage treatment plants, and food processing businesses will be smaller. Their city would not need as many public bathrooms, either. The smaller size of the city also reduces transportation times, and it reduces the labor and resources that are needed to maintain the transportation system.

Why does a man want to be leader?

This concept also applies to the people who want a leadership position. For example, consider two men, Irving and George, both of whom want to be leader. George wants to be leader because he enjoys analyzing the city's problems and finding ways to improve the canals, bicycle paths, plazas, and school system. Irving wants to be leader because he wants to feel important, have sex with lots of women, be pampered by servants, get revenge on the people he doesn't like, and help his friends get elected. Obviously, George would be the superior leader.

Mark Cuban wants to be the leader of the United States, but why? He said that when he was younger, he would drive around the wealthy neighborhoods to stimulate himself with mansions. That behavior shows an intense craving for material wealth, not an intense craving to analyze society's problems, do research, and conduct experiments to improve our nation.

Voting should be restricted to the men who have the ability and desire to analyze the history of a candidate and pass judgment on whether he wants to become a leader because he truly has the desire and ability to provide us with guidance.

The voters must also be concerned about deception. Specifically, when the candidates realize that voters are looking at their motives, they are likely to look for ways to deceive the voters into believing that they have the motives that the voters want.

A similar situation occurs in the battle between police and criminals. Specifically, when criminals realize that the police are looking at fingerprints and DNA, then they wear gloves.

Humans have the intelligence to understand what somebody is looking for, and we have the selfishness to deceive them into believing that we have the characteristics that they want. This creates a significant problem for the voters. The voters need an above-average ability to understand and handle this deception. The voters must be able to ignore what a candidate appears to be, and make a wise decision on what the candidate truly is.

We need an understanding of animal emotions

Most people misinterpret their emotions

When we notice that a wolf is staring at us and slowly creeping towards us, an intense and unpleasant emotion will be triggered. That emotion is intended to cause us to stop whatever we are doing, become more aware of what is going on around us, and be prepared for a potential danger.

Likewise, an unpleasant emotion is triggered when we are exposed to nudity, sex, blood, poop, and other body functions and fluids. Our natural reaction to an unpleasant emotional feeling is to avoid whatever triggered the feeling. This in turn leads us to the idiotic conclusion that we will protect children from harm by preventing them from being exposed to those things. As a result, television documentaries and YouTube videos are censoring a lot of educational images and information about surgical procedures, autopsies, digestion, sex, childbirth, and childcare.

Since phony blood, wounds, and murders do not trigger unpleasant feelings, we have no desire to protect children from those things. Rather, we allow businesses to entertain the entire family with fictional murders, blood, and surgeries.

Actually, some people do not merely allow the phony violence, they demand it. For example, when a British television company censored the face-melting scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark (the photo below, at the right), many people complained that the censorship was unnecessary.

Instead of letting children acquire realistic information about human bodies and medical information, we allow Hollywood and other businesses to fill their minds with idiotic and absurd images of phony violence and nonsensical monsters.



We censor the educational information about human bodies and medical issues, and fill our minds with nonsensical violence and monsters, such as the Halloween costume to the left in which an alien is breaking through the body of a baby.




There is no quality control in a democracy or a free enterprise system. Therefore, there is no requirement that any organization or citizen be beneficial to society. Nobody has to justify what they do. For example:
• Hollywood executives do not have to show evidence that we benefit from their movies.
• Facebook executives do not need evidence that their censorship is beneficial.
• No religion has to provide supporting evidence for any of their beliefs.
• No school has to show evidence that students are benefiting from the education.
• Businesses do not have to show evidence that their astrology predictions or Ouija boards are beneficial.

This Constitution reverses that situation. The city of Kastron is regarded as a team of people, and everybody is required to contribute to the team. In the previous document of this series, I explained that people who want to form an organization must show that the organization is beneficial. Now I will explain why we should apply that concept to everything that people do. For example:
• The people who want to censor surgeries, nudity, or other information, must provide evidence that society benefits from the censorship.
• The people who want to provide children with costumes of monsters breaking through their chest, or create movies in which people's faces are melting, or create cartoons in which animals speak and behave like humans, must show evidence that such things are beneficial to us.

It would be difficult for people to provide evidence that what they want to do is beneficial to society, so it might seem unrealistic to allow a government to have such a requirement. However, this policy is in effect for most organizations.

Many businesses, militaries, and other organizations provide their members with recreational facilities, daycare facilities, cafeterias, parties, and other activities and services, but they don't allow their members to create whatever they want. The management demands that all of the proposals show evidence that they will be beneficial to the team. The management makes the decisions, not the members. For example:
• The members who want to arrange for a social event cannot create any event they please. They must convince the management that it is a worthwhile event.
• The members who want the organization to provide food to its members cannot create any type of food services or meals that they please. They must show that they are going to provide a service and meals that the management considers appropriate.
• The members who want to provide recreational or day care facilities cannot create whatever they please. They must show the management some evidence that the organization will benefit from their proposal.

Businesses, militaries, orchestras, sports groups, and other organizations do not give their members the freedom to do anything they please. They don't allow their members to do things that create fights, reduce morale, deceive people, frighten people, or disrupt the work of other people.

Families also follow this philosophy. Responsible parents don't allow their children to make changes to the family. If a child wants to change something about the family, he must explain to his parents what he wants changed, and he has to hope that his parents approve of his proposal.

Nations are the exception. Nations do not care about the effect a person or organization has on the team. Nations refer to this as "freedom", but an organization would describe such an attitude as "anarchy", a "lack of quality control", a "lack of leadership", or as a "disregard of the team".

The freedom that nations provide their members is allowing businesses, religions, think tanks, and even crime networks to get away with a lot of abusive, wasteful, and destructive behavior.

This Constitution regards the city of Kastron as being one large organization, and the government officials as the management. The government will control what the people do just like every other organization. People who want to make changes to the city or the culture will have to show evidence that their proposal will be beneficial.

This policy will make it difficult for people and organizations to censor educational information. For example, there is no historical evidence to support the belief that children are harmed by nudity, surgeries, or other realistic information. Therefore, it will be difficult for a person to justify censoring that type of information from school books or television documentaries. However, the type of nudity that we find in the Hollywood movies should be classified as "pornography", not "educational".

This will also make it impossible for any person, including a government official, to censor historical information, or arrest people who investigate historical events.

This policy also makes it difficult for people and businesses to promote phony violence and nonsense, such as talking animals, the magic in the Harry Potter books, and the frightening monsters in the Halloween costumes. People will not be able to justify something simply by claiming: "The people like it!"

The "action stunts" in the movies make it appear as if we can jump from high distances without breaking our legs; walk into a burning building to save a child; and survive being hit by an automobile so hard that we fly through the air. There are lots of schools to train people to do stunts, but there is no concern for what effect the stunts have on the attitudes of children. (This site is collecting a list of stunt schools around the world.) There are also schools to train people to be Santa Claus, but are the graduates of that school doing something of value for society?

We are allowing children's minds to become filled with nonsensical information. Where is the evidence that children benefit from the nonsense? There is more evidence that it is having a bad influence on people. For example, as I explained here, the phony Hollywood violence has given many people the belief that a person will die immediately when shot with a gun, or when hit over the head with a bottle.



The Hunger Games movies show people wearing clothing that is on fire. This might be acceptable entertainment for adults, but what effect does it have on children?
We ought to investigate the effect the phony violence has on children. We might discover that some of them are hurting themselves as a result of being fooled into believing that it is safe to jump from high distances, or that fire is fun to play with.

The Kastron government will have the authority and responsibility to decide what type of nonsense is acceptable for both children and adults, including whether people should be allowed to promote Santa Claus, ghosts, and astrology.

The management of an organization doesn't allow their members to do something simply because "the people like it". Likewise, this Constitution does not care what people "like". The Kastron government is required to have the same attitude as responsible parents. Specifically, they must do what is best for the people rather than pander to them. The government must consider what effect something has on their attitudes, behavior, and relationships, and in the future, not just the next few days.

All societies are giving people the freedom to do whatever they please, but there is no evidence that the children are benefiting from this. Actually, there is more evidence that children today are more socially awkward, confused, frustrated, angry, and miserable than the children of previous centuries. The modern children are entertained by the Hollywood movies and Harry Potter books, but their loneliness, confusion, and bad attitudes justify experimenting with a different social environment.

This Constitution suggests prohibiting the businesses and authors from filling the minds of children with nonsensical and phony violence, magic, and talking animals, and experimenting with an environment that provides children with more sensible and realistic information.

Our culture is becoming entertaining, not sensible

The culture of prehistoric tribes was very simplistic. They did not have many social or recreational activities. Today we have thousands of recreational and social activities. We have holiday celebrations every few weeks, and all sorts of contests. We have imaginary characters to entertain children, such as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, Ronald McDonald, and an Easter bunny. We have created so many different types of fictional materials that we have categories for them, such as crime, horror, romance, science-fiction, and western.

Our culture has been evolving for thousands of years, but there has been no intelligent leadership to guide its evolution. Instead, it has been changing as a result of people reacting to their emotions, rather than thinking. This gives us culture that is emotionally pleasing but irrational.

For example, we experience an unpleasant emotional feeling when we watch a surgeon cut a person's skin, and people react to that feeling by censoring that information, but that information is not dangerous. Censoring realistic medical information, while allowing them to watch horror movies, is causing children to develop a warped and ignorant view of health and medical issues.

We should experiment with providing children with realistic and honest information, but that requires leaders who have a better understanding of our emotional feelings.

Unpleasant emotional feelings are for our benefit, not to hurt us

We need to understand our emotional feelings instead of reacting to them like a stupid animal. For example, we experience an unpleasant feeling when we see a surgical procedure for the same reason that we have pain sensors all over our body. Specifically, to make us protect ourselves from harm. It is not because surgery is dangerous or disgusting.

Consider what would happen if a prehistoric man did not have any pain sensors, and did not have an unpleasant reaction to blood or open wounds. If he were pounding rocks together to make a knife, he would have no concern if he were to accidentally hit his finger. He would have no sensation of pain, and he would not care that he was bleeding, or that he had an open wound.

It would be even worse if a prehistoric man enjoyed the sight of blood and open wounds. In such a case, when he accidentally hit his finger with a rock, he would be titillated by the blood and wound. Rather than try to stop the bleeding and close the wound, he would be tempted to open it even further, and watch more blood come out.

The animals and humans who survived the struggle for life were those who became upset when they saw blood and wounds, and who had such sensitive pain sensors that they could notice a potentially dangerous situation before it became serious. We could say that the animals and humans evolved to be "crybabies" who become upset over a trivial cut that produces only a drop of blood.

The robots that we are building today are crude, but eventually robots will have sensors around their body to let them know when they are causing damage to themselves and other objects. They will react by stopping what they are doing, analyzing the situation, and making adjustments to avoid damage. We could describe those robots as being able to "sense pain".

Eventually the robots will have cameras to inspect themselves occasionally, and to stop when they see hydraulic fluid or other liquids dripping from them. We could describe those robots as becoming upset at the sight of "robot blood", or as being "crybabies".

To summarize this concept, we become upset when we see blood and open wounds, but not because blood and open wounds are dangerous to children. Rather, it is to grab our attention and make us do something to stop the bleeding and damage. It is idiotic to interpret that unpleasant feeling as a sign that blood and surgery is dangerous to children, or that it is "disgusting".

In order for us to truly enjoy this modern world, we need a much better understanding of our emotions, and we need to push ourselves into thinking about our behavior and policies rather than doing whatever our emotions want us to do. We need to realize that there are two primary reasons that we experience unpleasant emotional feelings:
1) For our protection.
An example is the unpleasant feeling we experience when we see blood or a wolf that is staring at us. Our fear of the unknown, of dark areas, and of heights is also for our protection.

The videos posted by people who climb towers, such as this, can trigger our fear of heights, but we are not harmed when we experience that unpleasant emotion. Rather, the emotion is analogous to the warning light that turns on in an automobile when the oil level is too low.

2) To fit into society.
The unpleasant feeling that we experience when we see a naked body, poop, a crotch, or mucus is not because those images are dangerous, but rather to cause us to deal with those issues in private. These emotions cause us to have what we refer to as "manners".

Since every society is misinterpreting their emotional reactions, children are being raised in an environment in which they are kept ignorant about human bodies, sex, childbirth, breast-feeding, digestion, constipation, and other issues related to the human body. This ignorance causes a lot of sexual problems between men and women, and is causing a lot of boys to develop a neurotic obsession for nipples, vaginas, and sex.

To add to the problem of boys becoming fascinated with women's bodies, the women today are capable of making themselves much more sexually attractive than our prehistoric ancestors because they have access to bathtubs, cosmetics, beautiful clothing, and jewelry. To further aggravate this problem, businesses, television programs, and movies are constantly using sexual titillation to attract the attention of boys and men. To further add to the problem, many mothers are dressing their young daughters in sexually attractive clothing.

If exposed to nudity, we would appreciate clothing

This Constitution advocates experimenting with a social environment in which children are exposed to sex, nudity, and other issues while they are young, and that we also prohibit the women from dressing in sexually titillating clothing when they are working, and restrict the sexually titillating behavior to certain social affairs.

Most people believe that exposing children to nudity and sex will cause them to become emotionally disturbed, psychotic, and sexually perverted, but if that theory was accurate then all of our prehistoric ancestors would have been perverts. However, the sexual perversions, and the excessive amount of masturbation, pornography, and sex, seem to be occurring only in the modern societies.

This Constitution is based on the belief that modern children should be exposed to the same realistic information that prehistoric children were exposed to. Although we will not be able to verify whether this belief is accurate until we experiment with it, three of the changes that I predict are:

1) The adults will be less likely to giggle, become hysterical, or feel awkward when they see a naked body, a mother breast-feed her baby, or other issues related to the human body.

2) The men will be less likely to develop an obsession with sex and female bodies, thereby reducing the time they waste making lewd remarks and jokes, and the time they waste wondering what is underneath a woman's clothing. This in turn will result in men who spend more time on productive activities and behavior, and who form more pleasant and stable relationships with women.

3) The adults will develop a greater appreciation of attractive clothing.

In regards to prediction #3, I mentioned in previous documents that we get more enjoyment from food when we are hungry. That concept applies to clothing, also. Specifically, we will enjoy clothing much more when we have had so much exposure to nudity that we lose our fascination with naked bodies.

If we were forced to live in a city in which everybody was required to be naked all day, every day, and in which everybody was forced to have sex, masturbate, give birth, pee, poop, and breast-feed babies in public locations, there would initially be a lot of hysteria, awkwardness, whining, and fights. However, that is the type of social environment that our prehistoric ancestors experienced every day of their lives.

If we had to live in a city in which everybody was always naked, we would eventually become tired of looking at other people's hairy crotches and butt holes. We would consider clothing to be a pleasant alternative. We would enjoy dressing up in attractive clothing.

The men would lose their fascination to see a naked woman. They would not have any desire to look underneath a woman's dress. Rather, they would prefer to look at the women who were wearing attractive clothing.

The woman in the photo to the right is wearing a dress that is essentially a plain sheet of black material that is wrapped around her, similar to some of the clothing of the ancient Greeks and Romans.

Do you think that such a simplistic and bland dress is attractive? Or does it need more colors, patterns, or designs in order for you to consider it to be attractive?

Whether a man considers such a simplistic dress to be attractive depends partly on whether he has been raised in such an improper environment that all he can think about is to wonder what is under the dress.

A man will not appreciate clothing, and will be more concerned with what is under the clothing, if he has been deprived of the knowledge of what a woman's body looks like. If a man has seen a lot of naked women, he will lose his fascination of naked women.

Likewise, if a man is exposed to naked men on a regular basis, he will get tired of looking at their naked bodies. He will prefer men who wear attractive clothing.

If we could go back in time to a prehistoric tribe that was wearing loincloths, I doubt if we would find any of the boys or adult men trying to look underneath the loincloths of the women.

Why don't children learn from previous generations?

This Constitution proposes exposing children to naked bodies, sex, and related issues, but I don't know the best way to do it. Rather than set specific policies, this Constitution encourages endless experiments with culture.

For example, we could experiment with a policy in which mothers are required to occasionally take their children to a park or swimming area where everybody is required to be naked so that the children become accustomed to nudity and breast-feeding. Another option would be to not produce any bathing suits for children or teenagers, and require they be naked at swimming areas.

Some people might respond that it would be easier, and less emotionally traumatic for the adults, to arrange for the schools to teach the children what they need to know rather than force everybody to go through some type of psychological training program, such as being naked at a swimming area.

This brings up a very important issue. Specifically, why does each generation tend to make many of the same mistakes that the previous generations made? Why don't children learn from the advice and mistakes of the adults?

Children are capable of learning certain information from adults without any trouble, such as arithmetic and language, but it is very difficult for children to understand a concept that their emotions are stimulated by. For example, consider a child's fear of the dark. The schools can provide a child with an extensive education about how there are no monsters under any bed, or in any closet, or in the dark areas of any house, and the schools can also explain that humans inherited an emotion from the animals that causes our mind to create imaginary monsters for the purpose of protecting us from snakes, wolves, and other dangers of the prehistoric world.

However, a child does not have the intelligence to understand these concepts, or the self-control to suppress his emotions. The end result is that regardless of how well educated a child is, he will continue to have a fear of monsters under his bed.

This concept applies to sex, food, and other issues that are emotionally stimulating to children. A child is emotionally attracted to sweet foods, so it doesn't make much difference whether an adult educates him about nutrition. The child is likely to make decisions about food based on his emotions.

When a child becomes an adult, he is capable of thinking and exerting self-control, but animals and humans do not have a strong desire to think, analyze, research, or exert self-control. Furthermore, adults have a strong resistance to changing their behavior. Therefore, if a child develops a habit of eating candy, ice cream, and processed foods, he will become an adult who wants to continue eating those foods.

The most appropriate way to raise a child is to get him doing things that are appropriate as an adult so that he doesn't have to change his behavior as an adult. A child should become accustomed to eating healthy foods, for example. It is not wise for parents to allow their children to develop bad habits, and then expect them to change when they become adults.

Consider how this concept applies to issues about sex and human bodies. It is easy for us to educate a young boy about these issues, and to teach him that there is nothing special about a woman's vagina or breasts, and that he should not have any fascination with women's bodies, or feel awkward or embarrassed around naked women. However, that information is not going to have much of an effect on his behavior. The reason is because he has emotions that are strongly affected by those issues. For example, when he sees a naked woman for the first time, his emotions are going to have a strong reaction, and that is likely to cause awkwardness, embarrassment, or fascination.

A more appropriate way of teaching children about sex is to allow them to accumulate memories of real life. By exposing children to nudity from a young age, their mind accumulates memories of naked bodies of different sizes and shapes. By allowing them to see sex, childbirth, and breast-feeding, they accumulate a lot of memories of those activities. Therefore, when they see a naked woman, that visual image will not be unique. Their memory will have thousands of similar images, so a naked woman will not seem special or fascinating.

However, the memories have to be of real women. We are not going to help children deal with sex or nudity if we expose them to pornography or drawings of women because that will fill their memory with unrealistic images. Children need to accumulate memories of the real world.

There are many issues that children need to experience, rather than be taught by a teacher. Another example are relationships. It is ridiculous to assume that a child is going to learn how to interact with other people by reading a book about relationships. The adults must put children together so that they can interact with one another and accumulate memories of those interactions. Children need to experience life, not read about it.

This concept also applies to criticism and failure. Many parents believe that they are protecting their children from harm, and providing them with a better life, by doing all the chores for them, and helping them avoid disappointment, failure, and criticism. However, protecting children from disappointment will create dysfunctional children. Children need to experience failure, criticism and chores so that they learn how to deal with such issues.

Children should realize that sex is a small aspect of life

Prehistoric children lived in a social environment with almost no secrecy or privacy. The children observed adult behavior every day. They accumulated thousands of memories of the adults, and most of those memories were of men searching for food or making tools, and of women taking care of children, looking for food, and doing other tasks. Only a small portion of their memories would have been of adults having sex or masturbating. Sex would appear to be a small, almost insignificant part of life.

However, when children acquire most of their information about life from the Hollywood movies, fiction books, advertisements, pornography, and television programs, their minds will accumulate thousands of images of adults having sex all the time, including at doctors offices, police departments, in automobiles, and in elevators. The television programs sometimes show women having sex with men that they met only minutes or hours earlier.

Many children watch several hours of television a day. Since many of those television programs have at least one scene in which adults are having sex, trying to have sex, making lewd sexual remarks, or grabbing at one another, that means the children are exposed to several sex related scenes every day. This can give them the impression that sex is one of the primary concerns and activities of adults.

The children will also see lots of scenes of women who are almost as sexually active as men, and who often giggle at lewd remarks, and who occasionally allow men to grab them and kiss them.



Television programs, such as Grey's Anatomy, give children a distorted view of sex, jobs, and adult behavior.
I have only seen a few bits of the television show Grey's Anatomy, but it appears to be one of many television programs in which sex is the primary activity of the people. The image at the right shows two doctors kissing each other in one of the rooms of the hospital. Those doctors could not wait until they were home. They had to do it in the hospital.

Those type of television programs can give children the impression that having sex is one of the primary activities of adults at hospitals, police departments, and other jobs, and that it is normal for adults to take a break from their jobs so that they can kiss, make lewd remarks, and have sex.

The adults in most television programs don't show much self-control. They encourage children to do whatever they please, and whenever they please.

The bits of James Bond movies that I have seen also create the impression that adults are constantly having casual sex, and have no desire to control their sexual cravings. Furthermore, the women who have casual sex with James Bond are not criticized. Rather, many people admire them, and refer to them as Bond Girls.

The children who watch several hours of television a day are exposed to unrealistic sex scenes every few minutes, and every day. Although nobody knows what effect this is having on their attitudes, goals, and behavior, we should consider the possibility that it is part of the reason that so many adults have obsessions with sex, pornography, masturbation, sex robots, and bestiality. Those television programs could also be fooling the boys into believing that women enjoy lewd remarks and casual sex.

When prisoners of war are forced to listen to inaccurate political information for several hours a day, we regard that as indoctrination, propaganda, torture, brainwashing, or mind control. However, when people have the freedom to choose their television programs, they will watch whatever they find the most emotionally titillating, even if those programs are more detrimental than the propaganda that prisoners are exposed to.

This situation also occurs with food. When people are given the freedom to choose their meals, they have a tendency to choose whatever is most emotionally titillating, and in excessive quantities.

If prisoners of war were forced to eat the same excessive amounts of sweet and unhealthy foods that many people are choosing for themselves, some people would complain that the prisoners are being abused.

What would happen if obese people were glorified?

Imagine that obese people dominated the world, and they were creating movies, television programs, and fiction books that glorified excessive food consumption. Imagine that the James Bond movies were showing an obese James Bond getting together with obese women to eat excessively, rather than to have sex. Imagine that, instead of glorifying the "Bond Girls", the movies were glorifying the "Bond Meals".

Imagine that Grey's Anatomy was showing obese doctors and nurses who were constantly talking about food, and who would regularly sneak into a closet to hide so that they could eat a box of donuts or a hamburger. And imagine that they would also secretly use their work computers to titillate themselves with videos of people stuffing themselves with food.


And imagine that the television programs about crime were showing obese police officers who were frequently sneaking into closets, empty jail cells, and elevators in order to eat an excessive amount of food.

Imagine that when the police arrested somebody at his home, they would secretly eat some of the food in the person's kitchen. Imagine that when they were giving a traffic ticket, they would search the person's car, purse, and pockets for candy bars, sodas, and other food items, and eat whatever they found.

What effect would television have on children's attitudes towards food if most programs were constantly glorifying obesity and "food pornography"? We cannot be certain, but it is possible that children would be encouraged to eat more food, and that they would end up as adults who are even more overweight than they are right now.

Our mind determines what classifies as an insult

Another example of how we can misinterpret our emotions is in regards to insults. For example:
• When somebody mispronounces a word, it is sometimes amusing to us. However, if a person laughs at the mispronounced word, the other person may interpret the laughter as an insult.

• When I hear certain Chinese names, such as Xi Jinping, images of forks and knives dropping on a hard kitchen floor appear in my mind. If I mention that Chinese names sound like metallic objects falling on the floor, some Chinese people, and some non-Chinese people, respond that I am insulting the Chinese people.

If Joe laughs when George mispronounces a word, is Joe insulting George? Not necessarily. He may be laughing at the sound of the mispronounced word. Of course, if Joe does not like George, then he might be using the mispronunciation as an opportunity to laugh at George, but that is a different issue.

We don't know enough about the human mind to understand why we sometimes find a mispronounced word amusing, but we don't need to know the details of the human mind to realize that something is amusing due to an emotional reaction. We also know that emotions are stupid, and that our emotional reactions can change according to our attitude, physical condition, and social environment. Therefore, it is foolish for us to assume that laughter is an insult.

When we hear laughter, we have the option to interpret it as an insult, but we also have the option of regarding it as a meaningless emotional reaction, and we also have the option of asking the person what he finds amusing.

This concept also applies to how we interpret a Chinese name. Is it an insult to the Chinese people that I think their names sound like metallic objects falling on the floor? No. It's not my fault that their names remind me of that sound, and it has nothing to do with the Chinese people. It is simply the way my brain analyzes sounds and compares them to previous memories. If a Chinese person wants to interpret that event as an insult, that is his choice.

If I had grown up in a home with wooden chopsticks, rather than metallic utensils, or if the kitchen floor had been soft, such as a bamboo mat, then I would not have had memories of the sound of metallic utensils falling on a hard kitchen floor.

I know of a man in Germany who does not speak English, and he said that when people speak English, it sounds like they have marbles in their mouth. Is that an insult? When I heard his remark, I had the option of assuming that he was insulting me and other people who speak English, and I could have become angry, or pouted, but instead I regarded his remark as a harmless description of how the English language sounded to him.

I interpreted his remark as a sign that English does not have a lot of sharp sounds, as does German, Chinese, and certain other languages. I also considered his remark as more evidence of my suspicion that the American version of English developed its "softer" pronunciations because so many of the early Americans were low-quality people who could not pronounce words properly.

In regards to the issue of mispronounced words, it is impossible to determine where the syllables are in many of our words, and this can result in a person making incorrect assumptions. For example, in Australia they say "kilo" in "kilometer" whereas in England they say "ki•lom•eter". We recognize "kilometer" regardless of how a person pronounces it, but there are other words that are unrecognizable when people a mistake about where the syllables are. For example, I thought the word "spatial" was pronounced as "spat•i•al", and that "superfluous" was "super•fluous".

Our arrogance causes us to believe that our language is advanced, but it is just a bunch of monkey noises. It is possible that the people a million years in the future will develop a far superior language that is much more orderly, easier to figure out, and which allows more accurate communication. They might even figure out how to design words so that people can figure out where the syllables are.


Did I insult people with OCD?

Many months after I posted this video in which I made a remark about how a person with OCD could enjoy making patterns with the pieces of a banana as he ate them, it occurred to me that some people might regard that as an insult to the people with OCD.

That remark came about because I had watched some of episodes of the British television program Obsessive Compulsive Cleaners, which is about people who have an obsession with cleaning things. Those people made me wonder how we determine whether a person should be described as having OCD.

For example, when I eat pieces of banana, peach, or other food, I often make patterns of the pieces as I eat them, as I showed in that video. Is that a symptom of OCD? When I eat other foods, I try to eat them in a manner that keeps the remaining food looking neat and orderly. Is that OCD?

The remarks I've made in my videos about OCD were not intended to be insults. Rather, they came about because of my contemplation of the issue, and wondering where I belong on the OCD bell graph. If a person wants to interpret my remarks as an insult, that is his decision, and he is responsible for any emotional suffering that he whines about.

We no longer need to be defensive

Animals evolved for a very dangerous environment. They are constantly watching for predators and competitors. They protect everything they have, such as their body, their food, their babies, and their home. Animals live in fear, and they are always ready to run or fight.

Female animals evolved such a strong desire to protect their babies that they will risk their life to do so. However, modern humans are now capable of raising almost every fertilized egg, even those that are born several weeks prematurely, and those that are born without brains. Today it is absurd for us to protect every fertilized egg. We need to pass judgment on which of them are worth giving life to.

We are also extremely defensive and protective with our ideas, clothing styles, recreational activities, and other culture. We treat the information in our mind as if it is a baby that needs our protection. In reality, that information should not be protected. Rather, we should look for ways to improve it.

It is especially important for the leaders of society, scientists, and engineers to understand this concept. We should welcome improvements to our culture and knowledge, rather than boast about and defend the established ideas.

For an example, a scientist in France, Fabien Condamine, found evidence that some of the dinosaurs were starting to go extinct before the meteor crashed 66 million years ago. The appropriate reaction from other scientists would be to determine whether his data and conclusions are sensible. However, a journalist for Live Science contacted a couple of men who gave idiotic remarks instead. For example, David Cerny pointed out that:
"I have reservations about how much stock to put in these findings" because the "fossil record is rather limited".
"it's hard to say for sure" what happened to the dinosaurs.
"I don't think we've heard the last word on the subject yet."

Steve Brusatte is quoted as saying that although some large dinosaurs were disappearing before the meteor:
"What it means is open to debate".
"I doubt that this decline meant that dinosaurs were in any serious trouble..."

Neither of those two men provided a serious analysis of Fabian Condamine's work. Rather, they are trying to dismiss his work with generic and vague insults. Their remarks are so meaningless that we could use them to criticize the meteor theory:

"I have reservations about how much stock to put in these findings because the fossil record is rather limited, so it's hard to say for sure if the meteor caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. I don't think we've heard the last word on the subject yet. Although there is evidence of a meteor hitting the earth 66 million years ago, what it means is open to debate. I doubt that the meteor caused the extinction of the dinosaurs."

Nobody has the answers to life, so we could say that every scientific theory is "open to debate," and that "it's hard to say for sure" what the truth is, and that "I don't think we've heard the last word on the subject yet". Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether somebody doubts something, or whether he firmly believes something. All that matters is what the evidence shows.

The journalist, and those two men, are defending the established theory with idiotic remarks. If we had a quality control department, they would pass judgment on why the journalist selected those men, and why those men made such idiotic arguments.

We should improve existing knowledge, not defend it

The meteor theory became the established theory, and because we have a resistance to change, and because we are very protective of ourselves and our possessions, our natural attitude is to protect the established information. However, we must suppress our desire to protect information.

This article points out that "The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe", but there does not appear to be any significant amounts of antimatter. That is not some trivial imperfection in one of the minor details of the theory. It is a flaw with the foundation of the theory. That should invalidate the theory, but many scientists support it anyway.

Years ago I pointed out that the truth does not need protection. We could restate that concept for scientists by saying that the accurate aspects of a scientific theory can withstand all critical analyses without our protection. Only the inaccurate information needs protection.

We must learn to avoid becoming emotionally attached to our brilliant ideas, and to the existing knowledge. We must learn to enjoy putting information through critical analyses. We should look forward to improving and adding to the existing knowledge, rather than defending it.

For an example of this concept, consider the theory that the "missing matter" of the universe is dark matter and dark energy. Since it is the established theory, people have an emotional desire to defend it. If some other theory had been proposed first, and the dark matter theory was proposed only a few years ago, I suspect that it would have been ridiculed for having absolutely no supporting evidence. Some scientists might even make sarcastic insults about it, such as:
Researchers at the Catholic Church have just verified the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter is heaven, and dark energy is hell, but we cannot see either of them while we are still alive.
The dark matter theory proves that it is possible to reach absolute zero.
The dark matter is the antimatter predicted by the Big Bang theory, but those of us made of matter cannot see it, and the aliens made of antimatter cannot see us.

In order to improve our scientific knowledge and culture, we need to suppress our emotional craving to defend ourselves, our ideas, and our tribe. Our emotions regard critical remarks as an attack, but we need to relax and learn to regard constructive criticism as a valuable analysis.

We must regard all of the established scientific theories, recreational activities, economic systems, clothing styles, and everything else as imperfect and incomplete. Our goal should be to improve everything, not protect or defend the existing information. We should look forward to improvements, not be frightened of changes.

Women need to understand and control their prudishness

The photo of Marilyn Monroe's dress blowing upwards has titillated so many millions of men that the city of Chicago installed a giant statue of her to allow men the opportunity to walk underneath her dress and look up at her crotch.

Although that is considered appropriate behavior in the world today, this Constitution considers that statue, and the men who are titillated by such things, to be evidence that we are raising children in an improper social environment.

This Constitution believes that a woman's crotch is fascinating only to a man who has been deprived of a proper childhood.

This Constitution wants the government to experiment with exposing children to nudity and sex issues in order to figure out how to help them become adult men who are better able to deal with nudity, sex, childbirth, and other issues.

Unfortunately, this requires the cooperation of women. This is "unfortunate" because a woman's natural emotional desire is to hide her body. Therefore, we must put pressure on the women to exert enough self-control to allow boys to learn about women.

To understand why women are so prudish, imagine what a boy would experience if he were living in a prehistoric tribe in which everybody was always naked. Every day he would see naked children and adults, and he would regularly observe people peeing and pooping, picking and blowing their nose, having sex and masturbating, giving birth and nursing babies. Do you think the boys who grew up in that type of environment would be excited to see a naked woman?

I think as humans developed intelligence, the adults became tired of looking at people's hairy crotches, and tired of listening to and seeing people have sex, masturbate, and pick their nose.

Imagine living in a primitive tribe in which the women are always naked. Which of these women do you think you would be most attracted to:


a) A woman who bends over in front of you with no concern about whether she is exposing her crotch to you.



b) A woman who is tired of looking at crotches, and doesn't want to expose her crotch to other people, so when she has to bend over in front of you, she does so by bending at her knees.


Likewise, which of these women would you be more attracted to:
a) A woman who picks her nose and cleans her vagina in front of you.
b) A woman who does such things when nobody is looking at her.

For millions of years the men have been preferring the women who are prudish. This has resulted in women developing such extreme inhibitions that many women today cannot even say the word "vagina", and many women cannot look at what is between their legs, and they don't want to know anything about what is down there.

We could say that men have been preferring prudish women for so long that they have caused women to evolve into a sexually neurotic creature. Furthermore, men preferred other men who kept their crotch hidden rather than exposing it to the other men, thereby causing men to become somewhat prudish, also.

The prudish people did not cause any trouble during prehistoric times because there was no way for them to prevent the boys from learning about sex, women's bodies, childbirth, or related issues. Rather, their prudishness made them more desirable to both men and women because it caused them to have "manners".

Today, however, clothing, bathrooms, and houses are allowing the prudish people to prevent their children from learning about sex, medical issues, and human bodies. This is creating boys who are ignorant about sex and human bodies, and who develop obsessions and fascinations with women's bodies and sex.

Prehistoric behavior is no longer acceptable

It did not matter if a prehistoric woman misunderstood her prudishness because her ignorance and false assumptions could not prevent the children from learning the truth about human bodies, sex, and other issues. It was also acceptable for prehistoric people to be stupid, have no interest in thinking or learning, and be too arrogant to look critically at themselves.

However, as our societies become more complex, people need to behave better than a primitive savage. We must raise standards for people, especially those in leadership positions. People today need to be much more interested in thinking and learning, have much more self-control, and have a much better understanding of emotions.



Men should not want to take such photos.
This Constitution wants the government to experiment with exposing children to information about human bodies, medical issues, and sex while they are young. The goal is to create adult men who can interact with women without trying to see what is under their clothing, grab at them, make lewd remarks, or become hysterical when a woman breast-feeds a baby.

Adult men should not giggle at wardrobe malfunctions. Ideally, that expression would not be needed, and would not have an entry in the encyclopedia.

Likewise, they should not giggle about "camel toes", or have any desire to put cameras in bathrooms, or underneath women's dresses.

A while ago I posted this document about a style of underwear that is incredibly comfortable for me, but most people are so incapable of dealing with issues related to the human body that the descriptions of this underwear cannot have serious information or details. The descriptions have to refer to a penis and testicles as "a man's junk", or as "man-parts", and they cannot provide details on the use or purpose of the underwear.

This Constitution advocates experimenting with the social environment in an attempt to cause young boys to become adults who can remain calm when dealing with issues related to human body.

Why do we enjoy torture?

Another example of how people misinterpret their emotions is the manner in which our societies respond to bad behavior. We have a strong emotional craving to hurt the people who annoy us, but most people don't understand why they have this craving, and this causes them to develop idiotic theories to justify their violence. For example, we justify hurting criminals by claiming that the punishments will cure them of their bad behavior, and some people claim that it "serves justice".

During the Middle Ages, people did not bother exerting much self-control, and this resulted in government and religious leaders creating a variety of devices to torture people in public. They were not ashamed or embarrassed to hurt people.

Some of the torture devices were created by people who assumed that they were helping society, such as the people who believed that torture was an effective interrogation method, or that torture would cure a criminal of his bad behavior. However, some criminals were tortured simply for the entertainment of the people who were irritated by them.

We no longer allow the government to torture people for entertainment, but we continue to allow governments to torture criminals with jail in an attempt to cure them of their bad behavior, and to "serve justice".

In order to understand why we like to hurt people we need to understand why we have this emotion, and that requires us to acknowledge that humans are monkeys, and that we inherited this emotional craving from the animals.

Furthermore, it is necessary to realize that emotions are stupid. The human brain was not designed by an intelligent, responsible, supreme being. The human brain is just a large monkey brain, and our emotions are extremely crude monkey cravings. For example, our craving to hurt people who annoy us is so crude that it will become activated even when an inanimate object annoys us.

For example, when we become frustrated with a computer, or when we hit our finger with a hammer, that emotion can be triggered, and that will cause us to want to hurt the computer or the hammer. If a person does not have much self-control, and does not understand this emotional feeling, he may react by yelling at, hitting, or insulting the computer or the hammer.

Animals use violence to supervise one another

Animals cannot discuss issues or create laws, so the only method they have for controlling the behavior of one another is through violence, such as glares, biting, and kicking. Humans inherited that same desire to control one another through violence. This is the reason we enjoy hurting the criminals and other people who annoy us, such as our spouse or children.

In a modern society, this emotion is detrimental because it encourages violence, and it wastes our time. It might help you to understand how wasteful this emotion can be when you consider the extreme cases, such as when we use violence with animals. For example:

This Chinese man tortured a rat that ate some of his rice.
This man in India tortured a mouse that chewed on his phone charger (photo to the right).
• This Palestinian man tortured a rat that chewed on his paper money.
This Chinese farmer tortured a squirrel that ate some of his corn crop.

A person who tortures animals or people who irritate him is going to increase his chances that he is a failure in life. He will titillate his emotions, but he will waste his time.

Is it true that "revenge is sweet"?

Imagine two different athletes. When they lose a sports event, one of them reacts by analyzing his performance and looking for ways to improve his performance. The other athlete reacts with anger, and he spends a lot of his time looking for opportunities to hurt the successful athletes with insults, poisons, or sabotage.

Some people might respond that the athlete who hurts his competitors will enjoy his life because "revenge is sweet", but that is as idiotic as claiming that a person who spends hours a day pouting is enjoying himself because pouting is emotionally pleasurable.

Why are some people more successful with their friendships, activities, and goals? Why are some scientists, engineers, farmers, carpenters, and athletes more productive and successful?

There are a lot of factors that determine what our life becomes, but one factor that we have control over is the amount of time that we waste on hatred, revenge, envy, and trying to hurt other people.

This concept also applies to organizations, including nations. For example, if this news article is correct that the Chinese are analyzing techniques to attack and conquer Taiwan, they are just wasting their time. They should put their effort into improving China rather than being envious of Taiwan and trying to steal their technology.

Organizations that cheat are extremely dangerous

Although an individual person will hurt himself when he wastes his time on hatred, revenge, and sabotage, when a group of those people get together to form a crime network, their violent behavior can become beneficial to them because it will allow them to suppress and cheat their competitors, thereby giving them an advantage over the people with better behavior.

Prehistoric people did not have to be concerned about crime networks, but modern societies need a security department to constantly watch for people who form secretive organizations for the purpose of cheating us. It is nearly impossible for individuals to successfully compete with organizations, so it is important that we prevent crime networks.

Every nation puts a lot of effort into observing athletes and trying to stop them from cheating and forming crime networks, but we don't yet make much of an attempt to stop crime networks within our governments, schools, businesses, religions, or other organizations.

Actually, we have the opposite situation. Specifically, there are so many criminals within our entertainment businesses, government offices, schools, and courts that our societies are glorifying criminals. For example, businesses are providing us with thousands of different movies, fiction books, television shows, toys, and costumes that glorify Pirates, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, Gypsies, Mafia gangs, and Bonnie and Clyde.



This is not the clothing of female pirates.
Our societies are glorifying criminals to such an extent that many people fantasize about being pirates. Millions of people have been deceived into believing that pirates were wonderful people who wore colorful clothing and had exciting lives.

Although none of us truly knows what life was like for the pirates, or how they treated one another, it is very likely that they resembled other criminals of their era, and our era.

Specifically, they were likely to be mentally defective people with unpleasant and irritating behavior, and who lived in miserable conditions. They would not have had desirable lives or relationships, or worn clean and colorful clothing, as in the photo to the right.

They did not choose to be pirates because of the excitement of such a life. Rather, they became criminals because their mental disorders prevented them from having a normal life and normal relationships.

Since all animals are random jumbles of genetic traits, half of every generation will always be below-average in their physical and mental traits, and a smaller percentage will always be extremely low quality.

Some of the low-quality people have trouble making a living, but others become influential and wealthy. However, all of them have miserable lives, and they torment themselves and other people with their irrational decisions, bad temper, low level of self-control, violence, hatred, envy, and/or pouting.

This Constitution is based on the theory that humans are jumbles of genetic traits, but no other culture is willing to believe this. The refusal to acknowledge that every generation has genetically inferior people is resulting in the idiotic attitude that criminals are ordinary people who got involved with crime due to something environmental, such as poverty, a bad childhood, the death of their mother, abusive parents, or bad luck. It causes people to believe that pirates, Bonnie and Clyde, and other criminals, were just a random sample of the population.

That belief makes it impossible for us to reduce crime because it requires that we figure out how poverty, or the death of a mother, is causing only some people to become criminals.

That belief also implies that any of us could have become pirates, bank robbers, or serial killers, if our mother had died when we were a child, or if we had experienced poverty.

The refusal to believe that criminals are genetically inferior to the rest of us is causing a lot of people to have a favorable view of criminals. There are so many people with a favorable view of pirates that businesses are competing to produce toys, movies, books, and costumes to allow adults and children to fantasize about being pirates.

The original Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyland (in the 1960's) was glorifying the pirates as they burned villages and raped women. Imagine if Disneyland were to create a ride that is more modern, such as "Pedophiles of Epstein Island" or "Pedophiles of Washington Pizza Parlors".

Imagine a ride in Disneyland that glorifies the pedophiles who travel to Epstein's Island to rape children, torture them in dental chairs, and ship them to and from the island in submarines and yachts. Would you consider that to be "family entertainment"?

Lego is producing toys to glorify pirates. What would you think if they were also producing toys to allow children to pretend to be buying and selling children for sex and murder rituals?

If we decide to create children's toys about the subject of pirates, it should be toys in which the children can pretend to fight pirates, not be pirates.

Likewise, the pirate costume in the photo above is attributed to female pirates, but it would be more beneficial to teach children that the decorative, clean clothing was worn by the military troops and honest citizens who were fighting the pirates. That costume should be described as a pirate-fighter costume, not a pirate costume.

Children should be given realistic views of criminals. We are encouraging destructive attitudes when we encourage children to believe that criminals are admirable people with exciting lives.

However, teaching the truth about criminals requires convincing a lot of people to stop feeling sorry for the underdogs, the disadvantaged, the criminals, the alcoholics, and the retards, and switch to admiring the people with skills and honesty, who contribute to society, and who are willing to earn what they want rather than cheat, deceive, exploit, murder, inherit, or plagiarize.
We must earn what we want, not grab it

We should understand why humans are better than animals

Some people like to whine that humans are destroying the world, and that animals are better than humans, but animals are much worse than humans. Animals appear to have better behavior because they are too stupid for their incredible selfishness and lack of self-control to cause trouble.

I've described this concept in other documents, but it is important for people to understand what makes humans better than animals, especially the people who are allowed to vote. The voters should pass judgment on which of the candidates has qualities that are more like a human and less like an animal. This requires the voters to have a better understanding of both humans and animals.

Animals believe that they own the world

Every animal is so arrogant that they believe they own the world. If another animal has something that they want, they try to grab it.

An example is the Seagull in the photo to the right. That bird does not think of itself as a thief. Rather, it thinks of itself as getting the food that it deserves. Another example are these baboons that grabbed food from people's grocery bags.

Human children are more similar than adult humans to animals, so observing the behavior of children can help us understand how selfish the animals are.

Human children have no desire to work for what they want. They are selfish creatures that grab at whatever attracts their attention, and they expect other people to give them what they want. They also try to manipulate us into giving them what they want.

Since humans inherited these characteristics from the animals, we can see this same behavior with the babies of other animals. For example, when a mother bird arrives at her nest, the babies will fight one another for food. They have no desire to share the food, or even behave in a pleasant manner. They struggle to attract the attention of their mother and get all of the food for themselves. They don't care if their brothers or sisters die of starvation.

It might help you to understand how selfish the animals are if you imagine what the animals would behave like if they truly had better behavior than humans. In such a case, the baby birds would wait patiently for their mother, and when she arrived, they would calmly wait for her to provide food. Then they would divide it up among themselves, and they would have a meal together. Furthermore, they would eat at a relaxed pace, rather than swallow food as quickly as possible.

In reality, the birds have no desire to share food, or eat at a relaxed pace. Instead, there is a battle for food every time the mother or father brings food to the nest. However, it does not appear to humans to be a battle because the birds are too stupid to do such things as murder, sabotage, blackmail, or poison one another. We misinterpret their fights for food as adorable.

This selfish behavior can also be seen with pet dogs. Dogs differ in their selfishness, aggressiveness, and other mental qualities, so there are some dogs who are somewhat well behaved. However, imagine if there were humans who behaved like dogs. Here are some examples:

• The more selfish and aggressive dogs will walk away from their own bowl of food and eat the food of the other dogs, even if they have plenty of their own food. Their behavior is much worse than anything the humans do. For example, we can eat in a restaurant without having to worry about aggressive humans walking away from their own food, and coming over to our table and eating our food.

• There are dogs that become violent with another dog that we are giving attention to because he wants all of our attention for himself. That behavior is much worse than the humans who react by interrupting a person, or by making sarcastic remarks about him, in an attempt to become the center of attention.

• The men who rape women and children are displaying crude qualities, but even they are better behaved than the dogs that grab our legs whenever they are in the mood for sex.

• The billionaire investors and business executives are selfish, but they don't grab our material items as we pass by one another, as animals often grab food and nesting materials from one another.

• Women have such strong cravings for babies that they occasionally steal babies from one another, and some women cut open pregnant women to steal an unborn baby, but they don't try to steal one another's babies as often as these Penguins do, and in such a blatant and cruel manner.

If a television program were to have humans behave as badly as animals, the characters in a Bevis and Butthead cartoon would seem well mannered. For example, imagine a group of people sitting down at a dinner table. As soon as the food is served, some of the people start grabbing at it and swallowing it as fast as possible. One man ignores his own food and eats the food of the person next to him. Another man becomes upset that he is not the center of attention, and he gets out of his seat to bite and bark at the person who is the center of attention in order to chase him away. One of the women gets up from her seat and tries to steal a baby away from her mother, while everyone ignores her.

There has never been a cartoon or horror movie in which the people are as badly behaved as the animals. However, very young children are almost as badly behaved as the animals. For example, there have been times when children have grabbed food or toys away from other children, even though they had plenty of their own. There have also been children who became angry when another child was the center of attention.

As we grow up, we become much better behaved than the animals, but due to subtle genetic differences between us, some adults remain more similar to an animal than the rest of us.

The adults who retain more of their animal qualities are more likely to grab at what they want, be more selfish and aggressive, have less of an interest in sharing things or earning what they want, have less desire to work for the benefit of a team, and have more trouble socializing and forming friendships.

We must pass judgment on other people's behavior

Our prehistoric ancestors lived in small tribes, and the people were closely related to each other. Furthermore, there was not much mental illness in that era. This resulted in the people of a tribe having very similar mental characteristics and beliefs.

Today we live in gigantic nations that are a mixture of races and cultures, and a significant percentage of the population has a variety of serious mental disorders. If our nations were controlling the badly behaved people, then they would not be a problem, but only professional athletes are under a lot of supervision. There are almost no restrictions on, or supervision of, government officials, business executives, scientists, journalists, professors, religious leaders, or lawyers.

There are even fewer restrictions on the ordinary people. This allows people to live in homes that are cluttered with trash, and which are breeding mice, rats, and cockroaches. Citizens are also allowed to irritate their neighbors with marital fights, beatings of their children, loud music, bonfires, and obnoxious parties.

Instead of dealing with the irritating citizens, we allow businesses to profit from them, such as by providing us with television programs about them, such as The Nightmare Neighbors Next Door, Fear Thy Neighbor, and the Hoarders.

Every society supervises the professional athletes because even the stupid people have enough intelligence to understand the concept that if athletes are allowed to cheat, murder, sabotage, and bribe, then the dishonest people will win the athletic competitions regardless of their athletic talent.

Unfortunately, we are not applying this concept to other types of competition, such as business activity, science, journalism, and government. By not having high standards of behavior, and by not supervising the competitors, we allow the dishonest, abusive, violent, and neurotic people to have an advantage. This allows the easy-going, honest, generous, and trusting people to be dominated by those who are selfish, dishonest, deceptive, aggressive, manipulative, and violent.

This concept applies to animals, also. Animals evolved to be selfish and aggressive because that type of behavior dominates the animals that are polite and willing to share.

A free enterprise system does not supervise the competitors, and this results in an economy that is dominated by the people who are abnormally selfish, aggressive, and dishonest. To add to the problem, most of them demand the right to provide their children with enormous inheritances, thereby forming economic monarchies, which allows their children to get into leadership positions without earning it, which in turn further reduces the quality of leadership.

It is important for a modern society to restrict voting to the people who will pass judgment on the behavior of people who are getting into influential positions. We must ensure that our leaders are showing desirable qualities.

Furthermore, we must not allow any type of monarchy. We must demand that everybody earn what they want, and in a fair manner.

Animals treat other animals as peasants

The animals that form societies appear to be more successful than humans at forming friendships and working in a team, and the animals that mate for life appear to be creating relationships that are more stable than most human marriages.

In reality, animals are selfish creatures who regard their "spouse" and the other members of their society as inferior creatures. They are constantly fighting each other for status because they all believe that they should be the leader, and that the others are inferior.

The reason the animals form "stable" relationships is because each of them have emotional cravings that are compatible with what the other animals want. Animals don't have to deal with the options that humans must deal with, such as how to spend money, what type of recreational activities to engage in, how to raise the children, or whether males and females are unisex creatures.

It's difficult for us to understand the relationships of animals, but since we inherited the same mental characteristics, we can get an understanding of animals by looking at humans, especially children.

One characteristic of humans that can help us to understand animals is our tendency to force or deceive people into becoming our friend, or spouse. We treat other people as if we are the owner of the world, and they are our slaves.

At one extreme edge of the bell graph are the men who beat or kill their wife when she wants a divorce. Those men regard other people as their personal possessions, not as team members or friends. There are also some women who react with violence when their husband wants a divorce.

We also see this attitude with the people who purchase or kidnap children for use as their own children, or as a sex slave. Some parents, such as Joseph Fritzl, treat their own children in this manner.

Although only a small percentage of the human population displays such extreme levels of violence and selfishness, the fact that there are humans with that characteristic shows that it is in the human gene pool, and therefore, it is in the animal gene pools.

All of us inherited those crude, animal characteristics. There are only subtle differences between us. You and I have the same characteristics as Joseph Fritzl, Jeffrey Epstein, and Harvey Weinstein. We are simply at different locations on the bell graph.

We are the descendants of the dominant animals, and this causes each of us to believe that we are so special that we should be the leader. We want other people to listen to us, obey us, and respect us. We react to criticism with anger. We regard our children and spouse as our personal possessions. We regard other people as inferior to us.

Our arrogant attitude is the reason that people are constantly fighting with each other over religion, politics, raising children, racism, sexism, and other issues. All of us are convinced that we have the answers to life, and that we are surrounded by ignorant and stupid people. We frequently become angry with the morons who don't understand our intelligent opinions, and we want to react to their rebellious behavior just like the dominant monkey; essentially, biting, kicking, and glaring at them.

All of us have these crude, animal characteristics, but to a different extent. The people who cause the most trouble are those at the extreme edge of the bell graph. Those are the people who react with violence if their spouse wants a divorce, and who will try to force us to accept them as friends, coworkers, or citizens.

An example are the Jews. During the past few thousand years, they have been moving into other nations, and many people reacted by trying to keep them out of their neighborhoods, social clubs, businesses, schools, and recreational activities. The Jews could have accepted this and created their own neighborhoods, and formed their own businesses, schools, and social and recreational activities. Or they could have reacted by going back to their homeland and stop trying to force other nations to accept them.

The Jews have the attitude that they are the superior race, but they don't want to live with their own race. They want to live with us. Therefore, when we try to push them away from us, the Jews react by demanding that we stop discriminating against them, and that we allow them into our neighborhoods, schools, parties, social clubs, and recreational activities.

Their selfishness and arrogance is so extreme that they demand that we stop discriminating against them, but they have no hesitation to discriminate against us. The most obvious example of Jewish discrimination is the Orthodox Jews who control the diamond businesses in New York City. However, the Jews will not tolerate any person who describes what they do as "discrimination". For example, the Smithsonian magazine wrote this article that describes the diamond businesses as operating like an "Old World Bazaar". Would they allow us to prohibit them from our neighborhoods, businesses, and social activities on the grounds that we are operating like an "old world bazaar"?



How obvious and blatant does the discrimination by Jews have to be before the Jews acknowledge it?

What if the Jews were putting "No Goyim" in their help-wanted signs and advertisements?



Likewise, the Jews that control CNN and other media companies rarely hire anybody for an influential position other than a Jew, a pedophile, or a blackmailed criminal. They discriminate against all of us who are honest and non-Jewish. And they are also discriminating in who can get into our legal system.

Give me a job! Stop discriminating against me! Your companies have the obligation to accept us!

However, our businesses have the right to operate like an Old World Bazaar.

What is the difference between:
a) Ken Manzanares, who beat his wife to death when she wanted a divorce.
b. Brian Mitchell and Wanda Barzee, who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart and forced her to become Brian's wife and sex slave.
c) A Jew who demands that we let him live in our neighborhood, hire him, and accept him in our social club.

All of those people have the attitude that they own the world, and all of the people in it. If they want one of us to be their friend, spouse, or sex toy, we must give them what they want.

People who try to force us to accept them as a friend, spouse, employee, neighbor, or citizen should be regarded as behaving like an animal. We should not be intimidated by them, or pander to them.

Imagine an extreme example of this behavior. Specifically, imagine people from other countries demanding that you let them live in your home with you, and claiming that you have no right to discriminate against who lives in your home. What is the difference between a person demanding:
• To live in your home.
• To live in your neighborhood.
• To live in your city.
• To live in your nation.

In all cases, they are refusing to live with their own people and trying to force us to accept them. This should be considered unacceptable animal behavior. We should tell them to improve their nation rather than force themselves on us.





Let us into your nations and social clubs!

We have the right to live with you!

You have the obligation to treat us as your friends!”



Likewise, the people who cannot react peacefully to the breakup of their marriage, friendship, or other relationship should also be regarded as behaving like an animal. No woman should be afraid that she will be beaten or killed for getting a divorce, and no organization should be afraid that one of its members will have a violent tantrum for being fired.

We will create a more beneficial and pleasant social environment when we demand that everybody earn what they want. Our marriages will be more pleasant and stable when each spouse actually wants to be with the other rather than remaining in the marriage out of fear of being killed. Our jobs and cities will be more pleasant when we have the freedom to live and work among people we enjoy, rather than being forced to accept people we don't like, or who insult us as an inferior species.

We were designed to continuously earn leadership, not cheat for it

Animals and humans evolved for an environment in which we are constantly under pressure. We were not designed to be pampered like babies, collect welfare, or survive from inheritances or investments.

It is especially important to realize that this concept applies to our leaders, also. When an animal becomes the leader of the group, he must continuously earn that position by competing with the other males. An animal cannot form a monarchy, or arrange for tenure, or censor or blackmail his competitors.

Nature is no longer putting pressure on human leaders to continuously earn that position, so it is mandatory for voters to take that role. This Constitution also creates a quality control department to further ensure that the leadership is appropriate. The voters and quality control officials have the authority and responsibility to observe the leaders, pass judgment on their performance, and routinely replace the worst performing leaders.

The voters and quality control department must be actively involved with preventing people from getting into, and holding onto, leadership positions by blackmail, censorship, deception, nepotism, tenure, and other forms of cheating. Voting and quality control jobs must be restricted to people who understand this concept.

  We must be critical of our leaders

It was desirable for prehistoric people to have a powerful craving to follow their leaders and be frightened of everything that is different from what they were accustomed to, but in this modern world, people who behave like that are easily manipulated and exploited, and they interfere with progress.

An example of how incredibly easy it is to manipulate people are the people who have been fooled by CNN, Wikipedia, and other organizations into believing that the Proud Boys are a group of "white supremacists". The deception is so obvious that a child should be able to notice it. For example, look at the Wikipedia entry for the chairman of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio.


Four remarks from the Wikipedia entry for Enrique Tarrio:

1) Enrique Tarrio (born 1984 or 1985) is the chairman of the Proud Boys, a far-right, neo-fascist, and male-only white nationalist organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada.

2) Tarrio, who's Cuban American and of Afro-Cuban background...

3) Tarrio is of Cuban heritage and identifies as Afro-Cuban.

4) In regard to his own ethnicity, he has said, "I'm pretty brown, I'm Cuban. There's nothing white supremacist about me."


Does this man look like a white nationalist to you?


The chairman of the Proud Boys has African ancestry, but CNN, Wikipedia, and other journalists and organizations ignore that fact and insult the Proud Boys as "white nationalists" and "white supremacists".

The only way an adult will believe that Enrique Tarrio is a white supremacist is if he avoids looking at information about Tarrio, or if he disregards any information that contradicts what his leader has told him.

If it seems strange that CNN can get away with describing Tarrio as a white supremacist, consider that all of the organized religions are getting away with equally idiotic claims. Most people also believe lies about the Apollo moon landings, the 9/11 attack, the world wars, and the Holocaust.

It is not natural for an animal to look critically at his leaders, his group, or himself. Humans are more advanced than the animals, but we still have a strong resistance to looking critically at ourselves, our leaders, and our culture. Most people also have almost no incentive to learn or think, or experiment with something different. These characteristics make them as helpless as children. Many of them are above-average in intelligence and education, and many of them are friendly and honest, but they should not be allowed to vote, or influence our future.

Furthermore, it is important to note that these people are so easily manipulated that it is risky to give them any freedom. For example, they are easily fooled into doing something beneficial for society that is in reality destructive, such as donating money to a children's "charity" that is in reality a network of pedophiles, or helping to elect a political candidate who is a member of a crime network.

This brings up a very important issue. Specifically, we want people to do things that are beneficial, but only some of us have the intellectual and emotional ability to make sensible decisions about what is beneficial. The majority of people are so helpless that they should not be allowed any freedom to make decisions about what is beneficial.

People with good intentions are not necessarily beneficial

Although humans are selfish, we have a desire to do something that is beneficial for one another. The confusing dilemma that doesn't have an answer is: What is beneficial?

Is it beneficial for us to donate money to the Red Cross, a church, or the Breast Cancer Research Foundation? Are we helping other people when we become religious missionaries who travel around the world to inform them of the correct religion? Are we helping the world when we join a protest to stop abortions, the eating of dogs, or police brutality? Are we helping the world when we donate toys to the Toys For Tots organization?

Our conclusions about what is useful depends upon our particular mental characteristics and education. This results in different people coming to different conclusions about what is beneficial, and many people are coming to conclusions that are destructive, idiotic, worthless, or wasteful.

No nation is collecting data on who is involved with helping the world, or what any of those helpful organizations are really doing, but from my casual observations of life, it seems that the people who call themselves "liberals" are more likely to be involved with activities that are actually destructive. The reason is because the liberals are the most likely people to believe that they can help the world through censorship, jail, hatred, intimidation, rehabilitation, reeducation, threats, torture, beatings, and other cruel methods. A few examples are:
Firing James Damore for promoting sexism.
Arresting, torturing, or killing people for Holocaust denial, climate change denial, democracy denial, white supremacy, racism, anti-Semitism, and sexism.
Censoring the information that they condemn as conspiracy theories, demonstrably false accusations, pathological political delusions, misinformation, and baseless allegations.
Beating, arresting, and rehabilitating people with a different opinion, including people with different food preferences, such as the people who regard cats, dogs, and horses as food.

The liberals boast about being loving and nonviolent, but they are the most likely to use violence, insults, hatred, sarcasm, and jail as a way to "help" us. An example are the liberals who try to stop us from eating meat by staging obnoxious and destructive protests in the street, restaurants, and supermarkets. They are trying to make us feel as if we are cruel to animals, such as the demonstrators who went into the McDonald's restaurant with pig and chicken masks, and spread fake blood on the floor (photo to the right).


The obnoxious and violent protests are continuously failing to stop us from eating meat.
The people who are develop alternatives to meat are succeeding in changing people's diets.





The people who try to improve the world through protests, beatings, and other types of intimidation and violence are failing over and over, but they continue to do it because they are following their animal cravings to bite and kick the people who annoy them.

The people who are successful in changing the world are those who use their intellect to analyze problems and experiment with improvements. They are peacefully and quietly trying to impress us, not intimidate, frighten, blackmail, murder, or censor us.

The people who are trying to stop us from eating meat are an example of how we cannot solve problems or improve the world by acting like monkeys. The people who are protesting the eating of meat are not heroes, and they are not doing anything beneficial for anybody. Rather, they are wasting their time, wasting resources, and creating anger and disgust.

By comparison, the people who are peacefully developing alternatives to meat are slowly changing our diets. The reason is because none of us actually care whether we eat an animal. We eat animals only because we evolved to eat them. We love the way they taste, and our body evolved to depend upon them for nutrients. However, none of us actually care whether we are eating an animal. Therefore, if somebody can develop a food that tastes just as good, and is just as nutritious, we will eat it.

As of 2021, our food technology is crude, but I predict that there will be a point in the future at which people are capable of creating artificial foods that are better tasting, easier to digest, more nutritious, and which produce less poop and farts, and cleaner poop. People will want to switch to those artificial foods, and nobody will want to bother growing or eating any type of natural fruit, nut, vegetable, or meat.

People should not have the freedom to be heroes

How can a person determine whether he is truly beneficial to the world, or whether he is inadvertently causing trouble in his attempt to be a hero? Unfortunately, there is no procedure that can determine whether a person's ideas are sensible or irrational. It is a judgment that each brain has to make.

During prehistoric times, nature took care of this dilemma by putting the tribes into competition with one another. The tribes with the lower quality minds suffered in the long run. However, we no longer have that type of competition. Today the people whose brains do not function properly are able to survive and reproduce. Today we need a quality control department to pass judgment on who among us has a properly functioning mind.

Every nation allows each citizen to decide for himself whether he wants to be a hero, and what his agenda will be. We allow citizens to become heroes who try to stop us from eating horses, dogs, and beef, and we allow citizens to become heroes who try to stop us from promoting sexism, white supremacy, and climate change denial.

We also allow the heroes to use any tactics they can think of to achieve their noble goals. We allow them to have demonstrations in the street, make sarcastic and insulting remarks about us, splatter fake blood in restaurants, and demand that we be arrested.

Giving people the freedom to be a hero is giving them the freedom to self-appoint themselves to leader of the world. This is as idiotic as letting people self-appoint themselves as doctors, dentists, and pilots.

We make people qualify to be a doctor because doctors have a significant effect on other people's lives. We restrict that job to people who can show evidence that they can do it properly. We should do the same for all influential positions.

A person who tries to stop us from eating dogs, pigs, beef, or horses, or who tries to stop us from producing carbon dioxide, or who tries to stop us from being sexist, is self-appointing himself to leader of the world. He is trying to control our future, our behavior, our thoughts, and our culture.

As I mentioned in this previous document, we can visualize these people as grabbing the steering wheel of the bus that we are riding on. We are fools to tolerate this behavior. We should not give citizens the right to try to control us through intimidation, insults, violence, arrests, censorship, or rehabilitation.

The people who are developing alternatives to meat are an example of people who are peacefully presenting their ideas to the world and letting us analyze those ideas. We must demand that everybody who wants to influence the world behave in this manner. People must earn their position of leadership by impressing us with their ideas.

We cannot impress a moron

Unfortunately, this issue is more complex than it may appear. Specifically, whether we can impress other people with our ideas depends upon the minds of those other people. For example, scientists are continuously failing to impress millions of people with their theories of evolution, and the religious people are failing continuously to impress us with their theories. It is also difficult to impress children with intelligent concepts.

How do we determine whether somebody should be impressed by our opinions? Should scientists be impressed by the Bible or the Koran? Or should the religious people be impressed by zoology and biology?

Nature resolves this dilemma by putting the animals into competition for life, but it is undesirable for us to resolve our differences with fights to the death, so we need a better way of resolving disputes.

Our only method is for our leaders to set standards for what is sensible. This is happening right now, but our leaders are so incompetent, dishonest, and mentally ill that they are not doing a very good job. For example, they have succeeded in making the school system promote evolution, but they are also allowing the schools to teach lies about the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, sexism, white supremacy, and other issues. The only way we can improve this situation is for people to do a better job of selecting leaders.

A leader should find the source of a problem

Most of the people in influential positions of the world today seem to have gotten into those positions through some type of cheating, such as by joining crime networks, or through inheritances. This is giving us leaders who are incredibly incompetent and dishonest. It is possible that we would have better leadership if a computer were to pick people at random.

An example of how incompetent our leaders are is that they believe that we can prevent crimes by following the "buyer beware" attitude, and that we can cure criminals through punishments and rehabilitation programs. Their policies fail over and over, but they will not acknowledge their failures, or try a different policy.

These people are not leaders. A leader should analyze problems to determine the source of the problem, and then he should experiment with methods to deal with the source of the problem. Unless we understand the source of the problem, we cannot solve it. I will explain this concept with three of the problems we face today:  feminism, racism, and gay rights.

Example #1: Feminism

There is no evidence that there were feminists 20,000 years ago, or even a few thousand years ago. Feminism has been growing in popularity mainly during the past few centuries, but why? What is the cause of feminism? We cannot deal with the issue unless we understand why it is becoming increasingly popular.

Some men in leadership positions complain about feminism, such as Rush Limbaugh, who insulted the feminists as "Feminazis", but we do not solve our problems with complaints or insults.

Feminism is not a simple problem, and there is no simple solution to it. As with all of our social problems, we have "options" rather than "solutions". In order to deal with feminism, we need a better understanding of why women are attracted to it. I would say that the seven main reasons that feminism has been growing in popularity during the past few centuries are:

    1) Technology has changed our lives

Life has changed dramatically for humans during the past few thousand years. One of the significant changes in a woman's life is that they are no longer living in close contact with other women and children. Today they are frequently alone in a large home while their children and husband are at school or work. However, they are misinterpreting their loneliness and boredom as due to discrimination by men who are forcing them to stay at home.

There is no solution to this problem. We want separate homes, but that prevents us from living in the intimate environment of a campsite.

The loneliness and isolation that results from separate homes is one of the reasons that I suggest that we build tall apartment buildings that are in clusters, and which are surrounded with gardens, parks, and recreational areas. This puts us in close contact with one another.

Of course, this will not reduce loneliness if Kastron is like the USA, in which people dislike and fear their neighbors. Therefore, the people in Kastron will be free to move to any apartment they please, whenever they want, and everybody is free to discriminate against who their neighbors are.

Furthermore, some of the apartment buildings will be restricted to single adults, and others to families, in order to allow mothers and children to be in close contact with one another, and to prevent the single adults from being annoyed by children, and vice versa.

We can also reduce the loneliness of mothers by changing our economic system so that the pregnant women and women with young children have more part-time job opportunities. That does not happen in a free enterprise system, but the Kastron economy puts human life ahead of profit, so we can force the businesses to adjust some of the jobs to be suitable to those women.

     2) The belief that there is a dividing line between male and female

This Constitution is based on the belief that male and female characteristics are genetic, and that each of us has a slightly different blend of male and female characteristics in our mind and body. Most of us are "typical", but a small percentage of people have abnormally masculine or feminine minds and/or bodies.

If a society believes that there is a distinct dividing line between male and female, then all of the people with mixed up sexual characteristics are going to be under pressure to behave like typical people, rather than accepted for what they are. Furthermore, if those mixed up people don't realize that they are unusual, they will assume that they are under pressure because other people are cruel, sexist, or homophobic, rather than ignorant.

This idiotic situation occurred with left-handed people in some societies a few centuries ago. The ignorant people assumed that everybody was supposed to be right-handed, and that caused them to force the left-handed children to become right-handed. Today people realize that these characteristics are genetic, and there is no dividing line between left and right-handed people. Instead, there is a spectrum from extreme right-handed, to ambidextrous, to extreme left-handed.

We now accept left-handed people for what they are, rather than torment them, but no society yet is acknowledging that there is a spectrum of male and female characteristics, also. This ignorance is resulting in a lot of idiotic accusations and fights.

For example, consider a young girl who has an unusually masculine mind. She will have less of an interest in playing with dolls and becoming a mother, and more of an interest in exploring the creeks, and becoming a mechanic, soldier, astronaut, or farmer. She will feel pressure to spend her time with other girls, play with dolls, and become a wife and mother. If she does not realize that she is unusual, she will assume that every other girl is just like her, which will lead her to the false assumption that all of the girls are being forced to play with dolls and become mothers. She is likely to assume this abuse is due to "sexism".

The masculine women who whine about sexism are behaving as foolishly as, and causing as much trouble as, a left-handed person who is so ignorant that he assumes that he is a typical person, and who comes to the absurd conclusion that everybody is forced to be right-handed because of "right-handed supremacy".

It is true that most products are designed for right-handed people, but it is not because of "right-handed supremacy". It is simply because most of us never think about the issue. Likewise, when we design bathrooms, stairs, and other facilities, we design them for typical people, not for people in wheelchairs, or for people who are unusually short, tall, blind, or obese.

The people with mixed up sexual characteristics should acknowledge the evidence that they are different, or defective, and the rest of us should accept those people for what they are. For example, the masculine women should be allowed to be masculine, and the feminine men should be allowed to be feminine. We should not insult them, or try to change them.

Actually, it might be beneficial if women became more masculine. It is no longer necessary for women to be full-time mothers, so we might create a better world if women had less of an interest in children and more of an interest in other things, and more talent in science and mechanics.

In my documents I have pointed out that the Kastron schools should put children through a variety of tests to help them determine their abilities, limitations, and characteristics. This will help the girls determine which of them are unusually masculine, and help the boys determine which of them are unusually feminine.

If a society can accept the sexually mixed up people, and if those sexually mixed up people can accept themselves, then we will not bother one another.

However, if the sexually mixed up people cannot understand that they are unusual, or it they refuse to accept it, they are likely to treat us in the manner that they complain about. For example, many of the masculine women insult the feminine women for wanting to be mothers. They complain that being a mother is unsatisfying and degrading. They demand that schools and businesses allow girls to become engineers, farmers, technicians, or soldiers.

The masculine women do not like the pressure to be mothers, but they are treating the feminine women in that same manner. Specifically, they are putting pressure on the feminine women to behave like a man.

We would create a more pleasant society if everybody would accept what they are, and allow other people to be different. We should allow the masculine women to do what they want to do, and they should allow the feminine women to do what they want to do.

Likewise, the feminine men should be allowed to be feminine, and they should let other men be the way we want to be. They don't want us complaining about their characteristics, and we don't want their idiotic accusations that we are holding back tears, or that we are suppressing our craving to play with babies.

We need to understand ourselves and one another, and find a way to accept our differences, rather than make idiotic accusations about one another.

     3) Mentally defective women who assume they are healthy

Some people have mental or physical defects that cause them to be occasionally, or perpetually, unhappy. Unfortunately, no culture yet encourages people to consider the possibility that their misery is coming from inside their own mind and body.

Actually, we have the opposite situation. Specifically, businesses, sports groups, charities, religions, and other organizations are exploiting the unhappy people by fooling them into believing that they will find happiness, love, and the true meaning of life simply by purchasing their particular product or vacation, or by playing their sport, or bringing Jesus into their heart, or by joining their charity.

By encouraging unhappy people to believe that their misery is caused by something outside of them, they become more likely to blame other people for their problems. For example, an African-American might assume that his problems are the result of racism, and a woman might come to the assumption that she suffers as a result of glass ceilings, sexist men, and toxic masculinity.

In order to improve this situation, the Kastron school system is required to teach children that when they are unhappy, the first thing they should consider is that their unhappiness is coming from inside their own mind.

     4) The Zionist movement

Although secrecy prevents us from knowing exactly what the Jews are doing, there is evidence that the Zionist organizations are encouraging feminism in order to hurt us.

I explained here why organized religions are prohibited in Kastron, and that concept applies to all other organizations. The quality control department has the authority to pass judgment on whether an organization is beneficial to society, and if they conclude it does not have enough of a benefit, they have the authority to dissolve it.

    5) Men who cannot provide leadership in our modern world

Another reason that feminism has been growing in popularity is because the men are not doing their job. Male monkeys evolved to be the leaders, and the females evolved to be mothers, so the men should provide leadership to their wives and children. Unfortunately, most men are so overwhelmed with the modern world that they cannot even provide guidance to themselves.

One method to improve this situation is for the voters to restrict leadership positions to the men who have shown an above-average ability to provide guidance to women. A democracy gives us leaders who make us feel good, but a leader should not be an entertainer. Furthermore, our leaders should not be so desperate for female attention that they pander to the women.

We should learn from our leaders, and they should help us improve our lives with their intelligent analyses and suggestions for experiments. A man who cannot bring improvements to our society should be regarded as a failure as a leader.

     6) Women react to problems by crying

Another reason that feminism exists is because it could be described as a woman's natural reaction to problems. Feminism should be regarded as a symptom of an improper social environment.

Everybody is willing to acknowledge the evidence that children were designed to cry when they have problems, and the purpose is to attract the attention of other people. We have emotions that create unpleasant feelings when we hear or see a child that is crying, and that causes us to respond to the crying by analyzing the situation and figuring out how to stop the crying.

However, no society is willing to acknowledge the evidence that women also have a tendency to cry when they become overwhelmed with a problem. The feminist movement could be described as a "temper tantrum" of adult women.

Feminism is not an intellectual activity in which the women get together to study human life and relationships, and experiment with improvements. Rather, it is just a bunch of women who are whining, pouting, making accusations, and hating.

Women have temper tantrums when they are frustrated with life, and the purpose is to attract the attention of adult men. Men are emotionally stimulated by women who are crying and pouting, and the purpose is to make the men stop what they're doing and try to help the women. However, as explained above in reason #5, the men are too overwhelmed with modern life to take care of the women. Instead of analyzing why the women are upset, and instead of experimenting with solutions, the men either do nothing, or they pander to the women.

We must restrict leadership to men who have shown an ability to analyze the problems that women are complaining about, and to provide the women with intelligent guidance. For example, our leaders should be able to provide an intelligent response to this article by Juliana Kaplan, in which she complains about sexism and "systemic biases" among the men who develop products.

She claims that seatbelts are one of the examples of sexism in products. She claims that until 2003, the automobile companies were using male dummies in the crash tests, thereby designing seatbelts and automobiles to be more protective of men than women.

She claims that facial recognition software is both sexist and racist because it is more effective with white men than women and people with dark skin.

Those two examples of "sexism" are so absurd that it should be easy for the men in leadership positions to explain to the women that those examples do not prove that women are victims of sexism.

In regards to the crash test dummies, there are probably a lot of different types of people that the automobile companies never created crash test dummies for, such as midgets, obese people, amputees, pregnant women, Siamese twins, and elderly people. Are they creating any crash test dummies that simulate scrawny men? If not, should I accuse them of discriminating against men like me?

The complaint by women and minorities that facial recognition software is more successful at recognizing the faces of white men is equally stupid. If we discover that the facial recognition software developed by China is more effective at recognizing Chinese men, or if the facial recognition software developed in India is more effective at recognizing Indian men, does that justify making accusations of discrimination or racism?



The men who allow women to make idiotic accusations should be regarded as failures as leaders.
The woman who wrote this article about the racism of facial recognition software complained that when the software analyzed a photo of Barack Obama, one of the operations that it performed on the photo was to remove his skin color, which she complained "turned him into a white man". She regarded this as proof that the software is racist.

Her remark is so stupid that it makes me wonder how absurd a woman's complaint has to be before the men in leadership positions decide to stand up to the women and provide some guidance.

For example, imagine if Juliana Kaplan discovered that the facial recognition software converts people's faces into triangles, and she complained about it, as in the image to the right.

The men in leadership positions who ignore or pander to these idiotic accusations should be regarded as incompetent, and they should be replaced.

Imagine if some aliens from another solar system come to visit us, and that some of them have the mental abilities of Juliana Kaplan. In such a case, they might accuse us of being "human supremacists" because our facial recognition software assumes they are animals. And imagine that the human men in leadership positions either apologize to the aliens, or ignore their accusations, rather than provide them with intelligent guidance.

     7) The people who believe that humans are unisex creatures

The physical and mental differences between men and women will result in one sex dominating certain jobs, sports, school courses, and other activities. Therefore, when a particular sex continuously loses a particular competition, the people who insist that men and women are equal will come to the false assumption that the loss is due to sexism.

For example, most of the technicians, engineers, carpenters, plumbers, and scientists are men, and the people who believe in the unisex theory will assume that sexism is preventing women from being hired for those jobs.

The solution to this type of "sexism" is for everybody to acknowledge the evidence that men and women are genetically different, to study the differences between the sexes, and to accept whatever particular strengths and weaknesses we discover.

Example #2: Racism

The second example of how leaders should provide us with intelligent analyses of the source of our problems is the issue of racism. In the USA, there are endless complaints from people that they are victims of racism, white supremacy, and white privilege. Some non-white Americans have become so convinced that they are being abused that they have advocated killing white people.

One of the most extreme examples is the psychiatrist, Aruna Khilanani, who gave a speech at Yale University in which she made such remarks as "white people make my blood boil", and:
"I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step, like I did the world a favor."

Khilanani wanted Yale to release the video of her speech to the public, which should cause us to wonder why she wanted such an insulting and worthless speech released to the public.

The management of Yale did not want to release her speech to the public, but somebody gave the audio of the speech to Bari Weiss, a former New York Times reporter, and she posted it on her website. This should cause us to wonder why Weiss posted that audio file. Was she hoping that it would instigate racial fights?

Weiss claims to provide us with "common sense" and "honest news", but some (or most?) of the people who tell us that they are honest are actually dishonest, and they are hoping to deceive us. We must be aware of that trick, and watch for it. For example, many of the people who have insisted that they hate pedophilia have later been discovered to be pedophiles.

A couple months after Aruna Khilanani gave that insulting speech at Yale, she was interviewed by a former CNN journalist, and she made more insults about white people, and several journalists provided news reports about the interview, such as this. Are the journalists really providing us with "news" when they tell us about her insults?

Democracies and free enterprise systems are based on the assumption that the ordinary people will make wise decisions about which journalists to support, but most people cannot make wise decisions about journalism.

This Constitution improves that situation by creating a Quality Control Department with the authority and responsibility to pass judgment on whether a journalist is making a wise decision about what is and is not "news", and when he is trying to manipulate, exploit, entertain, or deceive us.

Getting back to the issue of racism, we cannot stop racism with accusations, hatred, pouting, or fights. We need to analyze the situations and experiment with improvements. I suspect that an analysis of the racist events will show that most people are misinterpreting the situation. I suspect that most of the people who whine about racism belong in one of these two groups:

1) The people who assume that all races are identical

Two of the paragraphs in # 7 (above) can be repeated here if we replace the word "sexes" with "races":

The physical and mental differences between the races will result in one race dominating certain jobs, sports, school courses, and other activities. Therefore, when a particular race continuously loses a particular competition, the people who insist that the races are equal will come to the false assumption that the loss is due to racism.

The solution to this type of "racism" is for everybody to acknowledge the evidence that the races are genetically different, to study the differences between the races, and to accept whatever particular strengths and weaknesses we discover in a race.

2) The mentally defective people who assume they are healthy

This is similar to the reason # 3 (above). The mentally defective people are going to have trouble in competitions no matter what their race, age, or sex is, so if they do not realize that their failures are due to their mental disorders, then they might come to the conclusion that they are being discriminated against because of their particular race.

For example, if a mentally disturbed black person assumes that he is a normal, wonderful person, then when a white policeman loses his temper with him, or when he is turned down for a job by a white person, he might come to the false assumption that those encounters were unpleasant because those white people were racists. He will not consider the possibility that his mind is defective, and that he is irritating to all people of all races.

Racism is not a simple problem with a simple solution

The issue of discrimination and racism is not a simple issue. The people who whine about racism, white supremacy, and white privilege make it appear as if the only racism in the world is coming from white people. They also claim that the solution is something very simple, such as passing a law against racism, or setting quotas for businesses and schools.

In reality, our social problems are extremely complex. Racism is complicated by the fact that all animals and humans have a bias for their own race. This bias results in different races separating from one another.

Furthermore, even if there was only one race of humans, we would continue to separate into groups and be biased against one another according to such things as religious beliefs, alcohol habits, drug preferences, social activities, recreational activities, and clothing styles.

To further complicate the problem of racism, many of the people who whine about racism are refusing to leave the USA and live with their own race. They insist upon living with the white people that they accuse of abusing them.

Those people are behaving like rats that have gotten into our house. They are not interested in joining our society or being part of our team. They are intruders, foreigners, or an alien species. They want to exploit us for their selfish benefits.

Many white Americans react to the angry and ungrateful foreigners by ignoring their accusations and hateful remarks, or by feeling sorry for them, or by offering them reparations for what happened more than a century ago, but nobody benefits from that.

Our neighborhoods, cities, and jobs will be more pleasant if we have the freedom to live and work among people we feel comfortable with, rather than be intimidated into allowing people to live with us that we don't like, or who hate us, or who accuse us of racism, or who want to do the world a favor by emptying a revolver into our heads.

What would the people in India think if a white American were to move to India, and then give a speech at an Indian university about how the brown people make his blood boil, and that he would like to empty a revolver into their heads for the good of the world?

It would be more sensible to treat the people who complain about us in the same manner that a business treats employees who complain about the other employees. Specifically, an employee would be fired if he complained that the other employees made his blood boil, and that he would like to unload a revolver into their heads. He would be told that since he does not like the people, he is being evicted. A business does not feel sorry for, or pander to, the angry and hateful employees.

Everybody is a racist

We cannot stop racism or bias with laws, punishments, insults, or anything else. Our bias is coming from inside our brain. We would have to modify our brains to stop it.

We have an emotional desire to associate with people that we have something in common with. Although this behavior can be described as "discrimination", bias, or racism, nobody will suffer from it if we understand it and accept it. This discrimination causes trouble only when the groups fight with one another, or when a person tries to force a group to accept him, such as when migrants try to force themselves into a nation, or when a Jew tries to force a group of people to accept him in their social club.

This Constitution encourages discrimination. People are allowed to freely move anywhere in the city and discriminate against who their neighbors are so that they can live among people that they feel comfortable with. The organizations will also be able to discriminate against who they hire so that people can work among people that they enjoy.

The restaurants, recreational groups, and social clubs will be able to discriminate, also. This will allow restaurants and social activities to be restricted to mothers with young children, elderly people, teenagers, men only, or women only. A restaurant could also discriminate against people they regard as sloppy or obnoxious.

The people who cannot accept the fact that we want to associate with people we feel comfortable around, and who instead make idiotic accusations of racism, discrimination, or white supremacy, are to be evicted from the city. We must stop feeling sorry for the people who whine and hate, and we should especially not pander to them.

Example #3: The LGBT issue

The LGBT issue is very similar to what I mentioned about feminism in example #1. The men and women who have such a mixup of male and female characteristics that they are homosexual or bisexual, or that they want to switch to the opposite sex, have been insulted and abused all throughout history. In some Muslim nations, they are still being killed occasionally, sometimes by their own family members.

There could be tens of millions of people around the world in the LGBT category, so there will be lots of different opinions among them, but those that get publicity seem to blame their abuse primarily on conservatives and religious people.

It is interesting to note that the LGBT people consider the liberals to be their friends, but the liberals are inadvertently suppressing them and tormenting them. For example, the liberals are causing trouble when they:
• Promote the unisex theory, and censor and suppress all alternative opinions, such as by firing James Damore.
• Promote the theory that the human mind is like a piece of clay that can be molded.

Neither of those theories help us to understand the LGBT people. Actually, both of those theories are more evidence of what I said in other documents, which is that the liberals, as a group, are more mentally defective than the conservatives.

For example, the unisex theory claims that men and women are virtually the same. However, if we are the same, then what are the gay, lesbian and transgender people? Are they unisex creatures, also? How can all of us be unisex creatures at the same time all of us are different from one another?

Likewise, the theory that our mind is like a piece of clay that can be molded doesn't make any sense. If that theory is true, then we should be able to mold all of the homosexuals into heterosexuals, and mold all of the transgenders into normal people.

What exactly is the unisex theory? Scientists have created a lot of detailed information about the evolution of animals, and animal behavior, but the liberals have almost nothing about what unisex means. The Wikipedia has this entry for unisex, but it doesn't tell us anything about the differences or similarities between men and women, or why some people are homosexual. The unisex theory is as vague, confusing, and idiotic as astrology, clairvoyance, and ghosts.

The Wikipedia has a lot of details about feminism, but it doesn't explain anything. For example, it has remarks similar to this:
Modern feminism challenges the essentialist view of gender as biologically intrinsic.

The feminists do not provide any supporting evidence for their views. They only challenge the theories that they don't like. Their remarks are as idiotic as somebody saying:
Modern astrology challenges the scientific view of the universe.

The lack of a sensible explanation and supporting evidence for feminism, unisex, and the clay theory is evidence that the people who promote these theories have seriously defective emotional and/or intellectual characteristics. Their defective mind is causing them to believe in concepts that are extremely vague and confusing.

Many of the liberals are also dangerous, such as those that boast that they support freedom of speech, while at the same time demanding that we be fired, arrested, or reeducated for having a difference of opinion.

We are not going to understand the LGBT people until we recognize that humans are just a jumble of monkey traits. We need leaders who can acknowledge that a minority of the population is sexually mixed up, and we need to alter our culture to deal with them, and accept them for what they are. It is as idiotic to torment and insult them as it is to torment and insult the left-handed people.

Furthermore, the sexually mixed up people need to acknowledge and accept the fact that they are mixed up rather than pretend that they are normal, and they should not pretend to be special, either. Tim Cook, for example, said:
"I'm proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me."

That attitude is as stupid as me making the remark:
"I'm proud to have a problem with my thyroid hormones, and to also be bald and scrawny. I consider these characteristics among the greatest gifts God has given me."

Or a Siamese twin announcing:
"We are proud to be a Siamese twin, and we consider being a Siamese twin among the greatest gifts God has given us."

Or how about a man boasting:
"I'm proud to have such a small and deformed penis that no woman wants me. I consider this characteristic among the greatest gifts God has given me."

I pointed out in previous documents that it was beneficial for prehistoric people to titillate themselves with fantasies because that would help them to maintain morale as they struggled to survive in a very confusing and brutal world. In this modern era, however, it is better for people today to be able to deal with reality.

It is idiotic for the homosexuals to titillate themselves with the fantasy that homosexuality is a special gift from God, or that they are special people. Those fantasies might make them feel better, but it will encourage arrogance and idiotic attitudes and behavior. For example, it can cause them to become so proud of their homosexuality that they want to flaunt it in parades, or boast about it.

The gay pride parades are as idiotic as a group of people getting together for Thyroid Pride parades, Scrawny Men Pride parades, Siamese Twin Pride parades, and Small Penis Pride parades.

The gay pride parades might have begun as a rebellion to the abuse that homosexuals were receiving, but rebellion is not a solution. We will improve our lives by analyzing ourselves and experimenting with our culture.

Radar Productions created the concept of the Drag Queen Story Hour, which is an international network of drag queens who read stories to children in public locations. If their motives were simply to help children read, or to help children understand that there is no dividing line between male and female, their activities might be useful, but they seem to be promoting the sexually mixed up people rather than educating the children.

This is as idiotic as a group of men with small penises forming an international network to support the Small Penis Story Hour, during which they promote small penises rather than educate the children about how humans and animals are random mix of genetic traits, or help the children to identify and deal with their particular defects.

I agree with the LGBT people that we should accept them rather than insult and torment them, but they are not improving people's attitudes through their protests, by firing James Damore, by censoring information about genetics, or by demanding the arrest of homophobes or sexists. That obnoxious behavior will cause people to become disgusted with them.

Earlier in this document I pointed out that the people who protest the eating of meat are doing nothing to change our attitudes towards food. The same concept applies to our attitudes towards men, women, homosexuals, and transgenders. Attitudes are improving, but not because of protests, whining, censorship, or the firing James Damore. Rather, attitudes are improving as more people realize that our sexual characteristics are genetic.


The protests, censorship, firings, accusations, and whining is continuously failing to improve our attitudes towards the sexually mixed-up people.

The people who research and discuss the differences between male and female are succeeding in improving attitudes.





Our leaders should encourage us to face the reality that all of us are jumbles of genetic characteristics, and we all have defects and limitations. Our leaders should help us identify and deal with our defects, not encourage us to boast about our defects. Our leaders should encourage us to understand ourselves, discover our strengths and weaknesses, and adjust our life to deal with our particular characteristics.

Tim cook is not showing leadership abilities. He is not encouraging beneficial attitudes. Neither are the people involved with the Drag Queen Story Hour, Radar Productions, or the Gay Pride Parades.

Our leaders should set morality

What is “virtue”?

Is there a difference between virtue, morality, or ethics? The dictionaries define each of those words by using the other two words, which implies that they represent the same concept.

Let's define "morality" as a set of rules that we follow, and a person as "virtuous" if he follows those rules. Ethics is being used in the same manner as morality, so it is an unnecessary word.

Our "morals" are similar to our "laws", except that a society does not enforce morals. A person who violates a moral is regarded as crude, rude, immoral, unmannered, or impolite, rather than arrested.

When we regard morality as "a set of rules", it becomes easier to understand that we should have leadership to set morality for us rather than give everybody the freedom to choose their morality. Allowing people to choose their own morality is almost as idiotic as allowing people choose the laws that they want to follow.

Modern humans cannot have much freedom

Governments have been continuously reducing the freedom of the people during the past few thousand years because improvements in technology cause issues of no importance to become a significant source of fights, inefficiency, and insults.

An example is clothing. Clothing was difficult to create in prehistoric times, and since the people were nomadic, they could not have much clothing. There were no businesses to produce clothing, so each person had to make his own. This resulted in everybody wearing unique clothing, which in turn meant that there was no such thing as namebrand clothing, the "latest fashion", school uniforms, work clothing, bathing suits, or clothing styles.

As I pointed out here, the paintings made in the 1400's show that everybody still had unique clothing. An example is the painting for the month of May (a portion is to the right), which shows wealthy men wearing different styles of hats and dresses.

During the past century, technology has dramatically changed the situation with clothing. We can now produce a tremendous variety of clothing, shoes, gloves, belts, and hats, and with a variety of different fabrics, patterns, colors, zippers, buttons, and Velcro.

We also create clothing for specific purposes, such as swimming, sleeping, hiking, working near hot furnaces in a factory, and jogging. We produce uniforms for school children, police officers, waitresses, and hospital employees. We also have clothing for entertainment purposes, such as for parties and festivals.

We have incredible options for clothing compared to our ancestors. Therefore, if human life improves as a result of having the freedom to choose from more options, then all of us would be much happier than our prehistoric ancestors because we have so many more clothing options to choose from.

However, as I have pointed out in other documents, men don't want freedom with clothing. Rather, we want to mimic other men in our peer group. As a result, modern clothing for men has less variety than it did a few centuries ago,

Women's clothing has more variety, which might seem as if they are taking advantage of their freedom, but they also mimic one another.

When people are provided with the freedom to choose from thousands of clothing options, they ignore their freedom and mimic the people in their peer group. To make the situation more absurd, each group arrogantly boasts that they wear the proper clothing, and they insult the groups that wear different styles.

All throughout history we find people whining for more freedom, but none of us truly want freedom. We are social monkeys, so we want to be a member of a group. We are not cats that live alone and want to make their own decisions.

Understand emotions, don't deny them

The desire to be a team member and mimic other people is what allowed us to create this modern world. We should not be ashamed of this characteristic, and we should not ignore or deny it. Instead, we should understand and accept our emotional characteristics, and figure out the best way to deal with them.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not have to be aware of their tendency to mimic people, and they did not have to be concerned with who their leaders were, or who they were mimicking. Today, however, people must be aware of our desire to mimic, and we must be finicky about who we mimic, and who we allow to be our leaders.

Our leaders should set clothing styles

No nation has proper leadership, so none of the people in any nation are being provided with sensible guidance. The end result is that within every nation we find people coalescing into different arrogant groups that insult one another and argue over the proper culture. In regards to clothing, most of the arguments are about women's clothing. For some examples:

• Some people argue over whether a woman should wear a hijab, burka, niqab, chador, or khimar.

• Some people want women to cover their breasts and their baby when they breast-feed their baby, and other people don't want women breast-feeding babies in public even when they cover themselves.

• In regards to the clothing at beaches and parks, some people want to allow women to be topless, others want women to allow bikinis, others want women to be completely covered from their ankle to their neck, and some want to permit nudity.

We would reduce arguments and awkwardness in regards to clothing, and create a more pleasant social environment for ourselves, by taking away people's freedom to choose clothing and allowing the government to determine clothing styles.

Some people would undoubtedly respond that the communist governments of China, Russia, and Cuba did a terrible job of controlling clothing styles, but the people who use that type of argument are not thinking properly. They are assuming that because the communist leaders failed at the task, everybody else is going to fail also, but that is a stupid assumption.

The communist leaders failed to improve clothing styles, but the communist leaders also failed with their school system, economic system, city design, social activities, and just about everything else. We should not use people who are failures to frighten one another. We should learn from the people who are failures, not use them as excuses to do nothing.

We can learn a lot of important lessons from the communist leaders. To summarize the problems of the communist leaders, their attitudes and behavior are very similar to the leaders of crime gangs, Google, YouTube, the ADL, CNN, and Facebook. For just one example, they react to criticism and alternative opinions with hatred, suppression, murders, arrests, and censorship.



These employees would not benefit by having the freedom to choose their own clothing.
The leaders of almost every organization have been successful in controlling the clothing styles of its members. The supervisors of factories, for example, have been successful in setting clothing styles and safety equipment for their employees.

The two men in the photo to the right do not have any freedom to choose their clothing or safety equipment, but they are benefiting as a result of being oppressed by their dictatorial leaders. They are wearing advanced clothing and safety equipment that was developed by people who put a lot of time and effort into research and experimentation.

The military leaders do not give their members the freedom to chose clothing, shoes, or hats either. Airlines don't give the pilots or flight attendants much freedom in selecting their clothing, hats, or shoes, and many orchestras require their musicians wear black clothing, sit on black chairs, and wear black shoes. Sports organizations don't give their athletes much freedom in regards to clothing or safety equipment. Some restaurants require their customers to wear shoes and shirts, and some of them want the men wearing suits.

Children also form arrogant groups that insult one another for having different clothing styles, and some schools have responded by setting styles of clothing for both teachers and students.

A group of people will not necessarily suffer if their leaders restrict their clothing freedom. A concept that I have mentioned many times in many documents is that whether our leaders provide us with guidance, or whether they abuse us, depends upon who we put into leadership positions. The communist leaders did a terrible job of managing clothing styles because they were people with low-quality minds.

If we provide ourselves with leaders who are better than those in the communist nations, the ADL, CNN, and Google, we would benefit by letting them restrict our clothing freedom because they would make more intelligent decisions than the people would make.

Free enterprise will never provide us with appropriate leaders

Although I often praise business executives for having better attitudes than government officials, it is important to realize that being better than a government official is nothing to boast about. For example, as I pointed out here in this previous document, our government officials are so worthless that they cannot even cope with an issue that businesses deal with on a regular basis; namely, outdated equipment and machinery.

The people who rise to the leadership positions in a free enterprise system will be better quality leaders than those who rise to the top of a democracy, but a free enterprise system will never provide us with appropriate leadership.

The reason is because the people who win the battles of a free enterprise system are going to regard us as profit opportunities, as in the image to the right.

They will be the people who excel at exploiting and manipulating us, not the people who excel at analyzing culture or experimenting with our options. Their primary interest is acquiring absurd amounts of material wealth and status, not improving our lives.

To add to this problem, we are allowing crime networks to get control of businesses, and we allow economic monarchies.

Devising standards for voters is more important than freedom

The social animals do not want or benefit from freedom. We want to be a member of a team. Women and children have even less of a desire for freedom than adult men. They want and need leadership more than the adult men, but instead of providing it to them, our businesses, religions, and other organizations are exploiting them.

There is no benefit to giving women the freedom to choose clothing styles. When provided with such freedom, they allow themselves to be exploited by selfish or neurotic businesses, religions, journalists, and Hollywood celebrities. For example, businesses exploit the desire of women to mimic the women with high status, such as Michelle Obama, and they offer Cinderella surgery to compensate for the absurd shoes that they produce for women.

Likewise, children don't want or need the freedom to choose clothing, as I described here. Businesses exploit the children, and cause them to develop idiotic cravings for "namebrand" clothing and shoes.

There is no point in giving people the freedom to choose their own clothing because they won't use that freedom. We should acknowledge this characteristic of humans, stop pretending that we need freedom, and acknowledge the evidence that we want and need intelligent guidance.

We are going to follow somebody, so we should ensure that we are following leaders who are worth following. Instead of demanding freedom, we should be putting our effort into trying to figure out how to provide ourselves with better leadership. That is not a simple task.

We can no longer let men fight for leadership, as the animals do. We need a group of voters to make the decisions. Therefore, our leadership depends upon who we allow to vote. This requires that we treat voters the same way we treat pilots and doctors. Specifically, we are going to have to experiment with educational programs for voters, and standards for them to meet. A person who wants to be a voter must show us that they have an above-average understanding of the issues that a voter must deal with, and the intellectual ability to make wise decisions. We must also routinely replace the worst performing voters.

The Kastron government will set morality

This Constitution gives the Kastron government the authority to set all aspects of culture, including morality. However, the government officials must make decisions that they can justify with intelligent reasoning. They are not allowed to pander to the citizens or organizations, or make decisions that are based on their emotional cravings. Also, they cannot make decisions secretly. They must provide reasons for their policies so that we can pass judgment on their thinking abilities, and so that they can be held accountable for their decisions.

The concept of allowing a government to determine our culture and morality might seem bizarre, but the leaders of businesses, militaries, and other organizations have been doing that for their members for centuries. Although some leaders are selfish, dishonest, and neurotic, they all tend to make decisions that are more intelligent than what the ordinary person makes.


For example, in regards to clothing, the military leaders design clothing according to the weather and the type of work the person will be doing, rather than according to religious beliefs, emotional cravings, or what Prince Charles is wearing.

The clothing styles for women in the military is a good example of the difference in attitude between the military and the rest of the population. The military does not give their female members the freedom to dress like prostitutes or sex toys.

Also, the military leaders do not care about the clothing styles worn by Princess Markle or other "celebrities".

Businesses compete to exploit women, but militaries try to provide women with comfortable and practical clothing that fits their particular job. They don't care about the latest fashion trends, or what the women want.

The photo to the right shows a maternity uniform for a woman in the Air Force. It should also be noted that the article that describes the uniform points out that the Air Force is testing the uniform.

The Air Force leadership is not so arrogant that they believe that they know what style of clothing is best. They realize that they must conduct experiments.

Their attitude of experimenting in order to improve culture is not something we find among government officials, and especially not among religious leaders.






Many organizations also set moral standards for the visual appearance of clothing.

For example, the military personnel, hospital staff, and airline employees do not have the freedom to wear dirty or worn clothing, or wear their pants below their waist, or wear their helmets or hats backwards, or allow their shoelaces to drag on the ground.



The leaders of most organizations put restrictions on the freedom of their members because they want to ensure that the people are working as a team. Also, they want the members to inspire one another, rather than irritate one another.

Freedom and teamwork are opposite qualities. In order for a team to exist, the people must follow an authority. They cannot have the freedom to do whatever they please.

We cannot improve bad leadership with freedom

Many of the supervisors of factories are doing an excellent job of setting rules for clothing and safety equipment, but many business executives are setting clothing rules according to what they think will be most profitable. For example, some executives require some of the female employees to dress in sexually titillating outfits, including the wearing of high-heeled shoes, even if that causes their feet to hurt, bleed, or be damaged.

Although some business executives are enforcing some idiotic clothing rules, businesses must compete for employees, so they cannot set rules that are too idiotic, or else they will lose employees. As a result, the executives are under pressure to develop fairly sensible clothing rules.

However, some organizations are not in competition, and so they don't have to be concerned about being sensible, such as the courts of Britain. This allows the British courts to require their members to continue to wear white wigs.

A business that is incompetent will loose sales and employees, but a court system that is incompetent, or even totally worthless, will be able to continue operating.

Nobody cares whether their court system is successful at reducing crime. This allows the most incompetent judges, lawyers, and district attorneys to retain their jobs. This also allows those people to continue following rules that should be modernized, such as the wearing of white wigs. In the USA, nobody even cares if the judges or the president are senile.

If a business was as much of a failure as our courts, they would quickly go bankrupt. However, there is no competition with courts, the FBI, the IRS, or other government agencies. Therefore, the incompetent and dishonest government officials can remain on their job as long as they please.

Some people react to dishonest and incompetent government officials by demanding more freedom, but giving people more freedom is not a solution to dishonest and incompetent governments. A more sensible reaction to bad leadership is to raise standards for voters and leaders.

We must also change our attitudes towards leaders. We must stop behaving like stupid monkeys who follow whoever happens to be our leader. We need to treat our leaders and voters as employees, and we must continuously replace the worst performing leaders and voters. It is idiotic to let incompetent leaders and voters remain in their job.

The freedom of the business executives will be restricted

Since there is no authority in a democracy or free enterprise system, everybody is free to decide for themselves what is "moral". This results in some business executives and salesmen creating products or advertisements that they regard as moral but which other people regard as immoral, dishonest, unethical, abusive, or worthless. An example are the advertisements and pharmaceutical products of the 1800s. For a more modern example, a few years ago Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of a tablet of the drug Daraprim from $13.50 to $750, which resulted in some people complaining that the executives were selfish and unethical.

There have been so many complaints about unethical salesmen and products that governments have been pressured into passing a lot of laws to force people to behave in a better manner. However, as I mentioned in previous documents, those laws are "pieces of economic duct tape" that are trying to hold together a crude economic system that cannot function properly in our modern era.

Providing people with the freedom to determine morality will always result in arguments because morality is a personal opinion. Unless we have an authority to set standards, we will argue about the issue.

We want the freedom to do as we please, but that is "anarchy". We cannot solve problems, or unify people into a team, unless we have an authority to restrict our freedom. However, the restrictions must be for the benefit of the human race. For example, the executives of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Google have been routinely censoring information and people, but not for our benefit.

Some people want the government to create laws to stop those businesses from censoring information, and other people suggest breaking those companies into pieces that compete with each other, and some people suggest that the government regulate those businesses, similar to how the government is involved with the postal service.

Although we could certainly improve the behavior of the business executives by applying a few more pieces of economic duct tape, it would be better to acknowledge the evidence that free enterprise has two characteristics that make it impractical for a modern society:

1) Citizens must be able to compete fairly

Free enterprise depends upon the citizens having the freedom to compete fairly so that a person with a superior business can drive the deceptive, incompetent, and abusive businesses to bankruptcy. However, that freedom disappeared centuries ago.

It was possible for an individual citizen during the Middle Ages to start a bakery and drive an incompetent or dishonest competitor to bankruptcy, but it is not possible for a citizen today to start a business by himself and drive Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Walmart, or other gigantic businesses to bankruptcy.

2) Citizens must be able to make wise decisions

A free enterprise system depends upon consumers making wise decisions about which products and businesses to support, and which to drive to bankruptcy. That is possible in a primitive economy when the only products for sale are things like food items, clothing, and straw baskets, but it is impossible in a modern economic system because the products are too complex, the businesses are too large, and there are too many businesses.

Rather than create more laws in an attempt to fix the free enterprise system, this Constitution will give the Kastron government total control of the economy. The government will have the authority and responsibility to set standards for products, product descriptions, and the behavior of business executives.

The government will determine morality

The Kastron government has complete control over all of the moral standards, recreational activities, social activities, music concerts, and other culture of the city. Each organization will be regarded as a department of the city government, rather than as an independent entity. This will allow the government to ensure that the leaders of businesses, sports groups, social clubs, and other organizations are treating people properly, and doing work that is beneficial to the city. For example, the government will be able to prohibit businesses from requiring female employees to wear high-heeled shoes and dress like sex toys.

The government will also be able to determine which organizations exist. A business, sports group, or other organization will not be able to exist unless the city officials believe that it provides more benefit than disadvantages. As described in the previous document of this series, this will allow the government to prohibit organized religions, and to decide whether to allow such organizations as Nambla, the BLM, and ADL.

The officials will also have the authority to pass judgment on which recreational and social activities to allow and authorize resources for. This will allow the government to determine whether people are allowed to arrange for fart competitions; wet T-shirt contests; and beer drinking contests.

The government will also be able to prohibit the type of music concerts in which people leave trash everywhere. They could also prohibit the production of equipment for sports that are a significant burden to our medical system, including skateboards, or tell the people who do risky sports that they are responsible for their injuries and will not get any medical care, just as if they were alive in a prehistoric tribe and did something idiotic.

People in Kastron do not have the freedom to create any organization or activity they please. In order to use resources of the city, they have to show evidence that their organization or activity will have a benefit that outweighs its disadvantages.

Since everybody will be held accountable for what they do, the people who are the most successful at producing beneficial organizations or activities will have an easier time getting their proposals authorized by the city officials, and it will be easier for them to get leadership positions in the government.

We are no longer isolated tribes

Prehistoric tribes were so isolated that they did not have much of an effect on anybody other than their closest neighbors. The tribes in Denmark, for example, had no effect on the tribes in England or China. Therefore, it did not make any difference if different tribes had different morals.

Actually, it was beneficial for them to have different morals because they were in competition for survival, and that competition caused the tribes with the superior morals to dominate in the long run.

Today, however, the groups of people with the inferior morality are no longer being driven to extinction. Rather, some of them are forming crime networks and getting into positions of importance in our governments, media, schools, and other organizations. This is the opposite of what should be happening.

The world needs coordination and leadership

We are no longer isolated tribes. Today we interact with and affect one another as a result of business activity, the Internet, telephones, tourism, and migration. We also affect one another through the production of trash, air pollution, toxic waste, and radioactive waste.

As I discussed this issue years ago here, it is now possible for an individual person to affect the entire world, and an organization, including a crime network, can have even more influence than an individual person. It is no longer sensible to let every person, religion, nation, business, and other organization, do whatever they please. We must now consider what affect we have on other people.

We must stop thinking of ourselves as independent and isolated tribes. We must think of ourselves as a large group of people who are sharing a planet. We can allow different groups of people to have different culture, but we must all be concerned with the effect we have on other people, and on the future generations. This requires that the planet have some type of leadership.

Although the concept of world leaders frightens many people, as I have mentioned many times, whether leadership is good or bad depends upon who the voters are, and who they select as leaders. It is imperative that we raise standards for both voters and leaders.

Also, the world government would not have the authority to control any of the societies. Rather, it's purpose would be more similar to that of a quality control agency. It would help the different societies do business with one another, and ensure that none of them are causing trouble for the others.

Our emotions are analogous to supervisors

Our emotional cravings are no longer appropriate

In order for us to enjoy our modern world, we must understand and control our crude, animal emotions, and push ourselves into doing what is intellectually sensible. Although I have discussed various aspects of this issue in other documents, I will now discuss some other aspects of it, and I will start by pointing out how this concept applies to how we treat animals.

When people design a zoo, or when they get pet dogs or cats, they design a social environment for the animals that they assume is best for the animals. Unfortunately, none of us knows what the best environment is for an animal. Therefore, we must observe the behavior of the animals, and experiment with the environment until the animals are behaving as we assume they should.

One of the symptoms of an improper environment is that the animals do not eat or reproduce, but just because animals are eating and reproducing doesn't mean that we have created the most appropriate environment for them.

I don't have pets, but there have been times when I have taken care of other people's dogs. One of the informal "experiments" that I conducted with the dogs was that instead of putting their dry food in a bowl, I would toss some of it out into the grass or onto the patio for them to chase after. After they found it, I would toss some more.

Since dogs and other the predators evolved a desire to hunt for their food, I assumed they would get more emotional satisfaction from their meals when they have to hunt for the food compared to when I provide it to them in a bowl.

I also assumed that by making them spend 10 to 30 minutes searching for and eating their meal, they would get more enjoyment from the meal compared to when they gobble the food within a few seconds from a bowl.

Although I have no idea what a dog is feeling, it appeared to me that the dogs were getting more enjoyment from being fed in that manner compared to eating from a bowl. They did not show any signs of becoming angry at me.

Consider how this concept would apply to a zoo. If it is true that the predators get more satisfaction from hunting for their food, then we would provide a more appropriate environment for the predators by arranging for them to hunt for their food.

There are different ways of making animals hunt for their food. One method would be to set up something similar to a mechanical rabbit at a racetrack. It would have food attached to it, and the animal would have to chase after it for a while before it slowed down enough for the animal to capture the food.

When robots become more advanced, it would be easy for a robot to make an animal hunt for food because the robot would be able to take a piece of food, and then run around a while before allowing the animal to "capture" the food. Since machines don't get bored, they could spend hours a day making the animals chase after their food.

We want pampering, but get more satisfaction from working

Many of us have occasionally fantasized about becoming so wealthy that we can quit working, do what we want to do, and hire other people do the chores that we don't like. We fantasize about lounging at a beach in Tahiti, or on a yacht in the Mediterranean, or being pampered in an expensive restaurant by lots of people who provide us with fancy meals, and who clean up our mess.

We do not yet know what environment is best for an animal or a human, but we can be certain that we will not design the appropriate environment if we follow our emotional cravings. The reason is because our emotions want us to spend the day lounging and being pampered like a baby, or a pet dog. Unfortunately, although that life is very appealing, if we were to achieve it, we would quickly become annoyed by it.

There are thousands of people who have acquired extreme wealth, but none of them spend every day lounging, other than those with serious physical or mental problems, such as the elderly.

Simon Cowell is just one example of a man who achieved the popular goal of extreme wealth, and he could be doing what billions of men have fantasized about, which is to lounge all day with lots of young, pretty women, while servants pamper him.

So, why doesn't Simon Cowell quit working and spend the rest of his life doing what we all have fantasized about? Why don't any of the other wealthy people spend their life lounging all day, every day, on their yachts, or on a beach in Tahiti? It doesn't take much intelligence to figure out that the answer is that our fantasy of doing nothing is unrealistic.

If we were to achieve our fantasy of extreme wealth, and if we were to spend every day lounging, we would be excited for only a few weeks, and then we would become bored, restless, and miserable. We would start looking for things to do. This can result in us doing something worthless with our life, such as collecting automobiles, getting involved with some worthless charity, or going to idiotic social events that were arranged by other bored, wealthy people.

For some people, extreme wealth truly does improve their life

Although material wealth and pampering does not bring us happiness, life is always more complex than it seems. Specifically, wealth and pampering can truly improve the lives of people who have certain mental or physical problems.

For example, the people who have trouble following orders, concentrating on a task, following time schedules, and working in a team, as well as the people who suffer from frequent headaches, hallucinations, depression, and other mental or physical disorders, will have a more pleasant life when they don't have to work.

However, a person who is in good mental and physical health will become irritated by lounging. He will suffer from boredom.

During prehistoric times, the people who had trouble taking care of themselves tended to die, but today they can easily survive and reproduce. This is causing every generation to have a higher percentage of people who whine about "work" and fantasize about lounging.

Our emotions are like jockeys


Years ago I described our emotions as being analogous to dinosaurs within our mind. The dinosaur analogy was intended to emphasize the concept that our emotions are the crude cravings from our very distant animal ancestors.


An analogy to show how emotions affect us is that they are analogous to a jockey. A jockey does not hurt the horse. Rather, he makes the horse exert more effort by irritating him.



For example, our hunger emotion does not harm us. Rather, it is analogous to a jockey who makes us search for food by irritating us with an unpleasant feeling.

Likewise, as soon as we start doing some work, an emotion is triggered to irritate us. That emotion can be visualized as a jockey that is whipping us over and over the entire time that we are working.

That unpleasant emotion is not intended to hurt us, or make us suffer. Rather, it is intended to make us accomplish our task quickly and efficiently. It is essentially telling us, "Hurry up! Get the job finished! Then you can relax."

Near the beginning of this document I mentioned that if a prehistoric man did not have an unpleasant reaction to blood or open wounds, he would not care if he was bleeding. Now consider what would happen if an animal or a prehistoric human did not have an unpleasant reaction to "work".

It might be easier to understand this concept if you consider the more extreme situation; specifically, a prehistoric man who enjoyed working. In such a case, he would experience pleasure when he had to work, which would cause him to want to continue working.

If he was chipping a rock to make a knife, he would not care how long it took him to finish the job, and when he did finally finish, instead of feeling relief, the pleasure sensation would stop, and he would become upset. He would want to do more work, so he might create another knife, and then another, thereby creating excessive numbers of knives and wasting his time.

Even more interesting, since he gets pleasure from working, he could titillate himself by doing some worthless chore over and over, such as digging a hole, and then filling it up, and then digging it again. It would be a form of masturbation that none of us can enjoy.

The animals and prehistoric humans who survived the battle for life were those who were irritated by work. That feeling of irritation caused them to want to accomplish their tasks as quickly as possible. This resulted in the prehistoric people developing technology, and finding more efficient methods of accomplishing their tasks.

Neither animals nor prehistoric humans can retire, so after they finished a task, they would rest for a few minutes or hours, and then they would have to do some other task. Their life was spent in an endless cycle of working, relaxing for a moment, and then working again.

Today, however, it is possible for some people to become so wealthy that they can hire other people to work for them, while they spend their entire life relaxing. It is also possible today for a spouse to be taken care of and pampered.

If we do not understand this emotion, we will be fooled into believing that work is miserable, and that lounging is pleasurable. It is important for modern humans to realize that the unpleasant feeling that we experience when we work is analogous to a jockey. Specifically, its purpose is to stimulate us into working efficiently and quickly. It is not intended to make us suffer. We must learn to enjoy the "emotional jockey on our back".

Our emotions are also like supervisors

Another analogy that can help us understand why we have a craving to avoid work is to consider our emotions to be analogous to a supervisor of a construction crew who is yelling at the crew to work harder, and offering them rewards for completing the job quickly and efficiently.

We could also describe our emotions as being "deceptive" because they "trick us" into doing things, such as looking for food, or working efficiently.

The emotions that irritate us are not intended to hurt us, and we do not suffer when we experience those emotions. They are intended to make us do something. Hunger, for example, is intended to make us find food, not make us suffer.

The feeling of hunger does not hurt us. It is an irritation, but it is only "painful" if we focus on it, and convince ourselves that we are suffering.

A person who learns to ignore or enjoy the "suffering" of hunger will discover that his meals taste better compared to somebody who eats so often that he is never very hungry. People who avoid hunger by eating all day are not making their life better. They could be described as preventing themselves from experiencing the maximum pleasures of food.

These concepts also apply to sex. It is a mistake to assume that our sexual emotions are intended to make our lives pleasurable. Our sex emotion is analogous to a supervisor or a jockey. It can also be described as a "deceptive trick". Men evolved strong cravings for sex only to make us chase after women, reproduce, and remain with a woman while she raises children. Sex was not intended for our pleasure.

We must learn to enjoy emotional pain

We are making a mistake when we assume that we must satisfy our emotional cravings, and that the more we stimulate ourselves, the better our life will be. We also make a mistake when we assume that we must avoid unpleasant feelings.

Animals are so stupid that they always do what their emotions want. Humans, however, have the ability to think about what to do, and this gives us the ability to avoid the situations that stimulate unpleasant feelings, and find ways to stimulate the pleasurable emotions. This ability can be used for both beneficial and idiotic purposes.

For an example of a beneficial use of this ability, when our hunger emotion is pushing us to eat, we have the ability to ignore it, and we can use our intellect to plan for a meal that is healthy, has appropriate quantities of food, and is at a more appropriate time.

Unfortunately, if we don't understand our emotions, we can make stupid decisions about what to do. For example:
• We can convince ourselves that the irritation of work is causing us to suffer, and that we need to become wealthy so that we can quit working and "enjoy life".
• We can be deceived into believing that acquiring more material items, or eating more food, or putting more sugar into the food, will provide us with more pleasure.

Ideally, our leaders would provide us with sensible guidance, and encourage us to learn about our emotions, exert self-control, and think about what is best for us. Unfortunately, every society is dominated by people who are following the Marquis de Sade philosophy. They encourage the gathering of absurd amounts of material items, having absurd amounts of sex, including with children, and avoiding all types of criticism and unpleasant feelings. They are encouraging terrible attitudes.

Who among us is truly stuck in a rut?

The people who dominate society are putting so much emphasis on material wealth, pampering by servants, and lounging that they have caused a lot of people to become convinced that they are miserable because they have to work for a living, don't have much material wealthy, and cannot lounge on a beach in Tahiti. The "poor" people today are incredibly wealthy, but millions of them have been fooled into thinking thoughts similar to:

• I am stuck in a rut.
• Life is passing me by.
• I have a dead-end job.
• My life is going nowhere.
• I want to get somewhere in life.
• I have no way to advance in my job.
• I want to do something with my life.
• My life has no point/purpose/meaning.
• I don't have any opportunity for growth.
• I am working all the time, but have nothing to show for it.

What is a "dead-end" job? How can somebody be "stuck in a rut"? The people who believe that material wealth is the most important aspect of life are going to consider a job as a "dead-end" job if it doesn't offer the opportunity to become wealthy.

To add to this problem, the women who are convinced that material wealth is the key to enjoying life are going to prefer the men with high incomes, and that will encourage the men with low-paying jobs to regard themselves as "stuck in a rut". Those women inadvertently torment the men with low-paying jobs.

The extreme emphasis on material wealth is causing a lot of people to torment themselves by convincing themselves that they are living like rats, and some of them seem to waste hours a day on worthless fantasies, such as lounging on a beach, or winning a lottery.







Some people complain that every day is the same; that they are wasting their life on an endless cycle of working, eating, and sleeping. They believe that their life will improve if they can switch to an endless cycle of lounging, eating, and sleeping, or, the most popular fantasy, “doing what I want to do”, eating, and sleeping.

That inappropriate attitude can cause a person to pout, or to become envious of the wealthy people. Those people will convince themselves that they are "poor" and miserable, and some of them might become so upset over their "poverty" that they get involved with crime, thereby making their life even worse, and causing trouble for the rest of us.

We could describe the billionaires as the people who are "stuck in a rut", and who have "a life that is going nowhere" because they spend so much of their life trying to gather material items that they don't get to enjoy many of the aspects of life that you and I can enjoy. And the people who get involved with crime to become wealthy could be described as ruining their life by causing themselves to suffer from stress.

Our prehistoric ancestors spent every day of their lives searching for food, taking care of children, and finding a place to sleep. We could describe all of them as stuck in a rut, suffering from extreme poverty, and having dead-end jobs with no growth opportunities.

Incidentally, our ancestors have had to find a place to sleep every night for so many millions of years that I suspect that our minds evolved for that activity. For example, when I walk around my area for recreation or to go to a market, I often find myself thinking, "That area by those trees and bushes is nice. I could sleep there if I had to."

When I first noticed that I was having these thoughts, I assumed it was because I have such low energy levels that my mind was worried that I might eventually be unable to take care of myself and I would become homeless.

However, years ago, I don't remember the details now, I heard a man make a remark about how he was doing the same thing when he walked around. So perhaps our mind has evolved a concern about where we are going to sleep at night.

It is an emotion that I don't notice unless I am walking alone, relaxed, not thinking about anything in particular, and enjoying the bushes, flowers, and trees. Have you noticed yourself thinking such thoughts?

Life is how you look at it. You can enjoy a job if you want to, or you can convince yourself that you are suffering. The only people who are truly suffering at their job are those who are physically or mentally incapable of doing the job. For example, people with low quality knees are going to suffer if they get a job installing roof tiles.

One of the reasons that most jobs appear to be miserable is simply because we put so much emphasis on acquiring a large amount of material wealth. We have strong cravings to get to the top of the social hierarchy, but we do not consider a person to be important unless he has a lot of material wealth. Women contribute to this problem by having a preference for the wealthy men.

This type of culture encourages men to select jobs according to the level of wealth it will provide, and to regard the jobs that don't offer much wealth as being "dead-end" jobs. The men with the low-paying jobs are looked down upon by both men and women. This can cause those men to convince themselves that their job is miserable, and that they are suffering, even though they might enjoy the job if it offered a higher salary.

In order for us to enjoy "work", we need to make some significant changes to our attitudes and culture. One change that this Constitution makes is to create an economic system in which everybody is provided with the same level of material wealth, and none of the jobs have salaries.

This will prevent people from comparing their income to other people's incomes, and looking for jobs that offer higher salaries, or feeling as if they are a slave who is making somebody else wealthy. This will also reduce the tendency of people to regard some jobs as "dead end jobs".

In Kastron, the emphasis will be on finding a job that we can enjoy and do properly. Of course, there are certain to be people who cannot find a job that is ideal for them. In a free enterprise system, there is no attempt to help those people, but in Kastron, human life has priority over profit, and this allows the government to adjust jobs to fit the people. For example, the jobs that are mentally unpleasant, or which cause physical problems, such as tendinitis and carpal tunnel syndrome, can be set as part-time.

Also, we can arrange for engineers to redesign products and factories to reduce the undesirable jobs, even if that means forcing the people to make a sacrifice of some type, such as having more of the bolts and nuts exposed to make assembly and maintenance easier, similar to the steampunk items.

We can also discontinue the products that we regard as not providing enough of a benefit to justify the suffering of the people who produce and maintain them.

For example, do we need s'mores machines? or marshmallows? Eliminating those products will reduce some undesirable factory jobs, allow engineers to do something more useful with their talent, and improve people's health (marshmallows are almost entirely sugar).

Why does lounging seem so pleasurable?

If lounging is truly boring, why does it bring us so much pleasure? The reason is similar to why we experience pleasure when we remove a thorn from our finger. Specifically, they are temporary pleasures that are due to ending an irritation. They are not "sources of pleasure". They are better described as the relief that we feel when we stop something from irritating us.

The more intense an irritation is, the stronger the feeling of relief will be when we stop the irritation. Unfortunately, it is easy for us to misinterpret a feeling of relief as a source of pleasure. This is happening all the time with "work".

We are irritated when we must work, and when we are finished working and relax, we feel relief, and that feeling of relief can fool people into making the mistake of assuming that if they continue to do nothing for the rest of their life, they will continue to enjoy that pleasant feeling.

Unfortunately, the feeling of relief diminishes over time, so after a while we start becoming bored. In order to enjoy relaxing, we must first be irritated by work.

This concept also applies to weekends and vacations. In order to enjoy vacations and weekends, we must be irritated by working. The more irritated we become from working, the more we will enjoy the vacations and weekends. At the other extreme, if we do nothing every day, a weekend will have no meaning to us.



We get the most pleasure from pools of cool water when we become uncomfortable from the heat.
This concept applies to all of our pleasures. For example, when the summer temperatures are so high that we are irritated by the heat, jumping into a pool of cool water will be much more pleasurable compared to a cold day. The hotter the day is, and the more we suffer from the heat, the more pleasure we will feel when we jump into the water.

During the winter, the opposite situation will occur. Specifically, when we become irritated by the cold weather, we will experience pleasure by going into a sauna or a pool of warm water.

Consider how these emotions would have made life wonderful for our prehistoric ancestors. Almost every day the adult men had to search for food. They did not have any weekends, holidays, vacations, or sick days. Every day they had to suffer the irritation of "work", but every time they found some food they would receive pleasure by bringing it home to their appreciative wives and children, and relaxing with everybody in the tribe.

Our prehistoric ancestors never tormented themselves with fantasies of retirement, inheritances, vacations, weekends, or lounging on a beach while servants pamper them with food. Furthermore, none of them were employees or peasants who spent their lives making somebody else wealthy. Therefore, they never had any hatred or envy of wealthy people. They regarded the people they lived with as their friends.

Today, however, millions of people around the world are struggling to find a way to avoid "work". These people are tormenting themselves and other people, especially when they get involved with crimes.

We would have a much better world if everybody would change their attitudes towards "work" and "happiness", and if they could exert enough self-control to enjoy working, and to treat other people as friends.

The Marquis de Sade philosophy is inaccurate and idiotic. We are not going to suffer by doing work, or by experiencing unpleasant emotions. One of the bizarre aspects of life is that in order for us to enjoy life, we must first suffer. Our minds evolved for a cycle of suffering and relaxing.

Some businesses have experimented with a four-day work week, and they have reported that some employees were more productive. It is possible that those employees were doing jobs that are somewhat irritating, and so they prefer suffering 10 hours a day for 4 days and then having 3 days of relief compared to suffering for 5 days with only 2 days of relief. By comparison, the people who enjoy their job might prefer working 5 or 6 days a week.

What is the best work environment? We need to control our arrogance and admit that we don't know. We need leaders who have the courage to experiment with our culture. We also need leaders who have the courage to admit that there are differences between men and women, and between adults, pregnant women, children, and elderly people. We need to study ourselves and learn more about our mental and physical characteristics. We also need an economic system that puts human life ahead of profit so that we can alter job environments to fit the person, even if it is less profitable.

No pain, no gain. No suffering, no pleasure.

If we were living on a planet that did not tilt, there would be no seasons. Every day would be the same as every other day. There would be no winter or spring. There would be no particular time of year at which flowers bloom, and there would be no need for the leaves of trees to change color. The people on that planet would never suffer from the cold of winter or the heat of summer. Would they have a better life than those of us who must "suffer" from the seasons?

My home is about 1.2 kilometers from the Pacific Ocean, and that keeps the climate surprisingly stable throughout the year. The summers are not very hot, and the winters are not very cold. It feels as if I am living in a climate controlled retirement center. (Here is the closest weather station, or try this when that one is offline.) Furthermore, there are not many insects flying around my house, perhaps because the breeze usually comes from the ocean.

When we must live in a city in which we are dependent upon automobiles, and almost none of the walkways, parks, or bicycle paths are covered, I would rather live in my current home than in an area with ice, snow, rain, humidity, and insects. However, if we were living in the type of cities that I've suggested, I would rather live in an area where there is more variety in the weather.

I love the variety of the universe, but our modern cities do not let us enjoy the universe. It is annoying and dangerous to drive on ice and snow, and our cities are ugly, noisy, and filthy. And as bad as the cities in the USA are, those in other nations are even worse. (Search the images for "Urban Hell" to see how ugly some cities are. Those photos will make you understand why so many immigrants to the USA regard Chicago and New York City as beautiful cities.)

We need to develop a better attitude towards happiness and work. We are not going to improve our lives by avoiding work or unpleasant emotional sensations. Rather, we need to realize that some of our unpleasant sensations are actually useful.

For example, the heat of summer is beneficial for enjoying cool water. However, there is no benefit to potholes in a plaza or bicycle path, or a city that floods during rainstorms, or a city in which rats are reproducing uncontrollably.

We need intelligent leadership to analyze the irritations of life and figure out which of them is acceptable, and which should be eliminated. This issue is not as simple as it may appear. For example, businesses are removing walnuts from their shells, but do we benefit from that?

The businesses are reducing the work that we have to do, but in the process they allow the walnuts to go rancid. If we leave the walnuts in the shell, then the walnuts will remain alive for a while, and that will give us fresh walnuts. Although we will have to do some work to remove them from the shell, if we change our attitude towards "work", we could learn to enjoy getting together with our friends, and cracking a couple of walnuts for an appetizer.

We could enjoy the time we spend together instead of whining about the "hard work" of removing them from the shell. It would be especially nice if we could do this in a beautiful city in which we can look out onto trees, grass, ponds, and flowers, rather than parking lots and automobiles.

There are some businesses that sell walnuts in their shells, but they put the shells through such an intensive cleaning process that they crack some of them, thereby defeating the purpose of leaving them in the shells. Those businesses are pandering to the ignorant consumers who choose foods according to their visual appearance, but businesses should produce products according to what is best for us.

For another example, I think automobiles are an incredibly significant economic burden on us, and that they cause a lot more suffering than pleasure. I think that we would have a significantly better life by switching to an underground train system and leaving the surface of the land for parks, recreational areas, foot paths, plazas, bicycle paths, and social activities. That type of city would allow us to enjoy the seasons because we would no longer have to risk our lives driving on snow or ice, or be bothered by hot cars in the summer. Furthermore, a train system is less of an economic burden.

We would also improve our lives by enclosing more of our plazas, parks, and pools in large glass or acrylic enclosures to protect us from the weather and insects. That would allow us to get out of our house more often because it would provide year-round recreational and social activities, and it would allow us to see and enjoy the sunshine, moon, stars, and storms.

When creating the foundations for the buildings in a new city, we could use the dirt to make artificial hills to create a more interesting landscape, and to reduce the wind at the ground level.

Businesses are already creating small artificial hills on a small scale for parks and golf courses, as in the photo to the right, but we could create large hills, and on a gigantic scale for an entire city.

Understanding that pleasure comes from suffering can also help us design meals so that we get more enjoyment from our food. Most people believe that the more food they eat, the more happiness they will experience, but that is not true. The reason is that because our hunger emotion evolved to push us into finding food, the result is that we get the most pleasure from food when we are hungry, and when we have to "suffer" from doing some work to get the food. The more hungry we are, and the more work we do to get the food, the more exciting the food will be. Furthermore, the more hungry we are, the more we will notice subtle flavors in the foods.

People who eat all throughout the day will never be very hungry when they eat, and as a result, they will not experience the same amount of pleasure as somebody who is hungry. Furthermore, they will not notice the subtle flavors, which will cause some foods to seem bland.

If you have never noticed that you enjoy food much more when you are hungry, you could conduct a simple experiment. Specifically, eat something that is bland after you have had a meal. For example, I think nuts, mushrooms, and avocados are bland. Therefore, after you have had dinner, eat a walnut, or a piece of avocado, and notice whether it has a nice flavor, or whether it seems bland. Then, on another day, make sure you are truly hungry and then eat a walnut or piece of avocado. You should notice that it has a stronger and more pleasant flavor.

This is also true for foods that have strong but less pleasant flavors, such as chocolate, hazelnuts, and coffee. When I am very hungry, hazelnuts and unsweetened baking chocolate actually taste good. However, if I eat them at the end of a meal, the chocolate is very bitter, and a hazelnut recalls memories of having dirt in my mouth.

The people who eat throughout the day will assume that they are enjoying life because they are eating a lot of food, but because they are never truly hungry, they will never enjoy the subtle flavors of food. They will want to increase the sugar and spices, but that will give them a monotonous diet because all of their meals will be dominated by a few of the strong flavors and spices.

A similar situation occurs with sex. There are reports of some homosexual men using "poppers" during sex, but why would they want to use such chemicals? They would undoubtedly claim that it is to enhance the sex, but I suspect that they are having such excessive amounts of sex that they are analogous to obese people who eat so much food that they cannot enjoy the subtle flavors of food.

Once we have eaten enough food to satisfy our body's demands, our desire for food diminishes, so the only way we can continue to get pleasure from food is to switch to foods that are more emotionally titillating, such as foods that are higher in sugar, spices, or artificial flavors.

This situation occurs with all of our emotions. For example, once a person has had sex or masturbated, his craving will diminish, so if he continues to have more sex or masturbate again, he will not get as much pleasure. If the person does not realize that the pleasure of sex is decreasing because he has had enough, he might make the assumption that he needs to use drugs or pornography to increase the stimulation.

By comparison, the people who don't masturbate or have sex very often will get more pleasure from the act, so they will not need drugs or pornography.

If a man does not understand this concept, he can make idiotic assumptions. For example, a married man who has excessive amounts of sex will eventually notice that he's not getting as much pleasure from the sex as when he first got married. If he doesn't understand that he is having too much sex, he may come to the false assumption that the sex is less exciting because his wife is becoming old and ugly, and that can lead him to the false assumption that he needs to switch to a younger woman, or a woman who is more attractive.

Another possibility is that the man comes to the false assumption that sex is less exciting because he is always doing it in the same position, and that can lead him to the conclusion that sex will become more exciting if he experiments with bizarre positions, or has sex in the bathroom of an airplane. Even worse, he might come to the conclusion that he needs to experiment with homosexual sex, or sex with animals or children.

The people who dominate our nations today are involved with stimulating themselves to an extreme with material wealth, status, and sex. This is encouraging other people to get involved with excessive stimulation.

We would create a more pleasant and sensible social environment if our leaders were encouraging us to understand and control our emotions, and to learn to enjoy "work", the heat of summer, the cold of winter, and the feeling of hunger.

Our leaders are promoting the attitude that the best way to enjoy food is to be pampered by lots of servants who bring us large amounts of food, and clean up our mess. In reality, we would enjoy food much more if we ate appropriate quantities, and if we had to contribute something to the meal, even if it is trivial, such as cutting up some vegetables, or arranging the plates on the table. Being hungry, and getting together with people to do a bit of work for the meal, will make the meal taste better, and we will enjoy the interaction with the people.

Likewise, we will get more enjoyment from our city parks, foot paths, plazas, museums, and gardens if we contribute even something trivial to them. We were designed to work, not be pampered like babies.

I suppose religions are the primary reason that most people believe that the world exists to entertain us. In reality, we are just creatures, like all others. The universe was not created for our pleasure. We have emotions to make us do something, or avoid something, not to give us pleasure or make us suffer.

The universe is beautiful, but it is not beautiful for our enjoyment. The beauty of the flowers, for example, is simply to attract bees and butterflies. The beauty of some fish, caterpillars, and frogs came about because they are poisonous. Many butterflies, birds, and other animals often have beautiful colors and patterns, but not for our entertainment. It is for some other purpose, such as to help them identify their own species from a distance.

In order to truly enjoy this incredible universe, we need a more accurate perspective of ourselves and everything else.

I predict future generations will share the chores

In the previous document of this series, I predicted that the future generations will switch from spectator sports to participatory sports. I also predict that they will switch from having servants to sharing the chores.

For example, instead of having servants pamper people at restaurants, they will expect the people to do some of the work, such as setting the table and cleaning up when they're finished. Instead of having servants clean and maintain the plazas and parks of the city, the people will be encouraged to get involved with some of those activities themselves.

It is not practical to share the chores in any of our current societies, but if we were living in a city that had higher standards for behavior, we could create a city in which we are truly a team rather than a gathering of selfish monkeys who try to exploit one another. In that type of city, we could enjoy getting together with other people to do chores.

Besides, this Constitution advocates the government put more resources into developing machines to do the monotonous and irritating work. Therefore, when we "share the chores", we will spend most of our time supervising machines.

For example, the Spot robot could search for and eliminate weeds that grow in the cobblestones and tiles of foot paths and plazas, and we could create robots to search for and eliminate rats, gophers, and other pests.

Some people might respond that those robots are expensive, but that is only because they are produced in small quantities. It is foolish to make excuses to avoid robots. It is much more difficult to produce and maintain modern automobiles and roads, but nobody complains about that burden.

There are also people who criticize the robots that perform surgery, but that is as stupid as people a century ago criticizing airplanes, computers, electric lights, and other technology that was in its infancy. Robots will be able to perform many surgical procedures better than humans, but only if we put a lot of effort into improving them. The people who look for excuses to avoid new technology are inhibiting progress.

What is the best way to feed humans?

We assume that we know how to feed ourselves, but all we really know is what we picked up from other people, and what our emotions like and dislike. We don't truly know the best way to raise humans.

If there was some intelligent life in another solar system, and if they decided to set up a zoo exhibit of humans, it would be idiotic for them to ask the humans how to feed the humans. It would be more sensible for them to do what we do with animals, which is to experiment with meals, feeding techniques, and feeding schedules.

In previous documents, I suggested that the restaurants in Kastron do not have to provide complete meals, or offer menus, or remain open for long periods of time. This will make it easy to experiment with different feeding methods. For example, instead of having people sit for an hour or two for a large dinner, we can experiment with a dinner that is spread across several hours and several different restaurants.

Our emotions may prefer that we eat dinner by sitting in one location while servants provide us with a lot of food, but we should not design meals according to what our emotions want. We should experiment with our meals just like we do for animals. We should observe how our meals affect our lives.

In other documents I suggested that the restaurants provide only small amounts of food (similar to the prix fixe concept), thereby forcing us to go to another restaurant for additional food. Our emotions may not like the concept of walking from one restaurant to another to have a complete meal, but we might discover that it provides advantages that outweigh the irritation, such as:

• It might be better for our health by forcing us to let our food settle and digest a bit, and by forcing us to get a bit of exercise.

By eating several small meals, rather than having all of the food delivered at once, we reduce the problem of some of the food getting cold. Since we get more pleasure from warm foods, this will give us more pleasure from the meals.

• If we design the city to be beautiful, then walking from one restaurant to another will increase the chances that we appreciate our incredible universe. We are likely to notice and enjoy the beautiful architecture, flowers, plazas, tiles, trees, ponds, sunshine, clouds, stars, and moon.

• We will occasionally encounter some friends as we walk around, which will encourage socializing, and it can cause people to occasionally separate into different groups, rather than always eat with the same people.

• We might occasionally decide to go to a music concert, or get involved with some recreational activity, before getting more food to eat, which in turn can reduce our tendency to overeat, as well as get some exercise, meet some people, and enjoy some of the activities of the city.

Rather than insist that we know what is best for ourselves, we should suppress our arrogance and consider that we do not know the best way to raise and care for humans. We should experiment with our feeding methods, work environments, courtship activities, recreational activities, and other culture. Furthermore, we must judge the experiments according to how they affect our lives, not according to what our emotions like or dislike.

Parents should not feed their children according to what their children want, or when their children want to eat. Parents should realize that their children need guidance. However, we do not want to believe that adults are also in need of guidance. We like to believe that we know so much about ourselves that we can choose our own meals, and when we want to eat. In reality, none of us knows much about the care or feeding of humans.

We must eliminate secrecy to improve our culture

We cannot determine if an experiment with our culture is improving our lives if everybody is being secretive or deceptive about their lives. In order for our experiments with culture to be useful, we must be able to observe the effect the experiment is having on our attitudes and lives. This requires that we eliminate as much secrecy and deception as we can tolerate. This will cause all of us to occasionally be embarrassed or uncomfortable, but the rewards are worth the occasional and harmless emotional irritation.

For an example of the benefits to eliminating secrecy, some people claim that pornography became much more popular during 2020. If we had such extreme surveillance of the human population that we knew when and how often people were looking at pornography, masturbating, and having sex, we would have a better understanding of why pornography increased at that time, and whether the increase was significant or meaningless.

We might discover that pornography increased suddenly and significantly after this article was published, which claimed that masturbation can "boost" our immune system. We might also discover that the reason they were using pornography was because they masturbating so excessively in the hope of boosting their immune system that they could not do it without pornography. We might even discover that some of the businesses that made pornography were involved with spreading the theory that masturbation would boost our immune system.

Our emotions cause us to be paranoid that somebody will know the truth about us. We want to keep secrets, and we want to deceive people with false images of ourselves. However, we will benefit much more by eliminating secrecy, studying ourselves, and understanding ourselves.

Eliminating secrecy will cause us to occasionally experience an uncomfortable emotional feeling, but those feelings will not hurt us. The benefit from understanding human behavior is worth the discomfort.

The people who are paranoid about scientists analyzing their data are working themselves into a state of hysteria over imaginary issues. They torment themselves with unrealistic images of scientists who get together to laugh at them. In reality, scientists must collect so much data from so many people that looking through it is a difficult and monotonous chore. They develop computer software to help them analyze the data. They do not get together to laugh at the people that they collected data about.

It is foolish for us to let criminals collect data about us, but if we can provide ourselves with honest and competent leaders in our businesses, law enforcement agencies, government, and scientific laboratories, then we would benefit tremendously by allowing scientists and doctors to collect data about us.

Many people would be embarrassed if some scientists knew when they were masturbating or having trouble sleeping, but that information would be valuable to us. For example, analyzing the sleeping habits of people could help us understand how our sleeping is affected by weather, pollen, recreational activities, diet, caffeine, children, and jobs.

Knowledge should not be feared. It should be regarded as incredibly valuable. If we had been born 10,000 years ago, we would have behaved like all of the other ignorant savages of that era. The reason we behave so much differently today is because of the intangible information in our minds. However, that information is inaccurate and incomplete, and all of us have acquired some bits of nonsense from religions, businesses, and mentally defective people.

If we could get access to the information about human behavior that people will have a million years in the future, we would have a much better understanding of ourselves and life, and that would allow us to do a much better job of planning our life. We would benefit more from that information than we would by having a giant mansion, a big yacht, or a group of servants.

Example: what effect did the "Sexual Revolution" have?

When I was a child in the 1960s, the people in influential positions were pushing for a "Sexual Revolution". I was told that Sweden had already gone through this revolution, and that they had "liberated" themselves from oppressive sexual inhibitions. The leaders of society were also promoting Ouija boards, clairvoyance, feminism, meditation, drugs, love-ins, and astrology. I remember being told that we should "do what feels good".

What effect did the sexual revolution have on the behavior and attitudes of people in the USA, Sweden, and other nations? We don't know because of the secrecy that we provide everybody, but if scientists had been able to maintain a database with details of everybody's life, I suspect that we would discover that it had a detrimental effect.



How many people wasted their lives as a result of the "Sexual Revolution"?
For example, I suspect that we would discover that many people responded by getting involved with drugs, or quitting their job to become hippies who meditate or join a commune. We might also discover that a lot of men decided that they needed more sex with more women, which in turn may have increased the unwanted pregnancies, venereal diseases, adulterous relationships, and divorces.

There were advertisements on television that told us that we should not be ashamed if we have a venereal disease, as if getting such a disease was a normal part of life. We were also told that the women who get raped are "normal" women, and they should not be ashamed, either.

Feminism was also pushed on us, and I was convinced that women were as intelligent as men, and have similar desires, including a similar interest in sex, and that the women of previous centuries did not show much of an interest in sex because they were oppressed.

When I was a teenager, I was frequently disappointed to discover that another of the girls in school was stupid. I started to wonder if girls really are as intelligent as boys.

At some point I also came to the conclusion that girls do not have the same interest in sex that boys have. I assumed that this was a new discovery, and that I should let other people know about this. However, before I told anybody of my brilliant theory, I noticed a remark in a book (I cannot remember which book) about women having less of an interest in sex, and the author wrote about it as if it was such common knowledge that he did not need any explanation or supporting evidence.

That book confused me because if our ancestors had known that women were different from men, why were we being told that men and women are unisex creatures?



During the 1960's and 1970's, men were encouraged to let their hair grow long, and to wear bellbottoms. Tie-dye clothing was also popular.
After the 9/11 attack occurred, I got into the habit of looking for information on the Internet, and I noticed accusations that the Jews were the primary group behind feminism, and for the purpose of destroying our society.

We provide people with so much secrecy that it is difficult to determine what effect Jews have on our culture, but the Jews seem to be the primary group who were promoting the sexual revolution, the use of drugs, clairvoyance, Ouija boards, and the Marquis de Sade philosophy of doing what feels good.

What effect did those Jews have on people's lives? How many people wasted their life as a result of picking up their idiotic attitudes? How many marriages did they ruin? How many people pursued a life of "doing what feels good" rather than behaving in a sensible manner? How many people were tricked into getting involved with drugs, communes, or feminism?

The leaders of society are no longer pushing astrology, Ouija boards, clairvoyance, or communes, but they are continuing their attempts to manipulate our attitudes and behavior. For example, they are pushing men into desiring cosmetics, earrings, nose rings, skirts, dresses, tattoos, body piercings, hair gels, hair colorings, mink coats, and purses. How many young boys are being influenced by these propaganda programs? How will it affect their life as an adult?









There are few, if any, businesses or militaries that would allow some of their members to promote a sexual revolution, or to encourage the other members to do what they please rather than follow the rules. The leaders of most organizations are concerned with who is influencing the team, and what their effect is. They do not tolerate members who reduce morale, or who encourage destructive or worthless behavior, or who instigate fights.

The Kastron government is expected to have the same concern about the team as the leaders of a business and military. The government officials are responsible for ensuring that everybody has a beneficial influence on society, and that nobody is ruining morale, instigating fights, or encouraging idiotic or wasteful behavior.

Why do we allow ourselves to be abused?

In every nation, and all throughout history, we find the majority of people praise their culture and insult the culture of other societies. Most people refuse to look critically at their own culture, and refuse to look favorably at other people's culture.

This crude behavior is most obvious with the organized religions, perhaps because the organized religions are most attractive to the people who have a stronger craving than the rest of us to form small, arrogant tribes.

When I was growing up in the 1960's and 1970's, Russia was communist. Occasionally I heard about a Russian who boasted about communism and criticized the free enterprise system, and I would notice Americans and Europeans respond by boasting about free enterprise and criticizing communism.

I don't remember hearing any Americans acknowledging that some of the complaints about free enterprise by the Russians were valid. Nobody showed any interest in learning from other nations, or looking critically at their own nation.

Our tendency to boast about ourselves and insult other people is so natural that we don't think anything strange about it, but this is the behavior of animals. It is detrimental for modern societies because it encourages fighting, hatred, and arrogance. Worst of all, it inhibits progress because we cannot improve our culture unless we look critically at it and can admit that it has characteristics that should be improved.

A man who refuses to look critically at himself or his culture, and who refuses to look favorably at other people, cannot improve his ideas or his life. Rather, he will boast that there is no way he can improve upon perfection. He will remain the same throughout his life, just like a stupid animal on a migratory path.

Recently a book was published in which the author claims that President Trump told John Kelly that Hitler "did a lot of good things". The author claims that Kelly responded by reprimanding Trump with "you cannot ever say anything supportive of Adolf Hitler. You just can’t."

OMG! You cannot ever say anything favorable about Nazis or Hitler or you will be criticized by Jews!
Kelly was a general in the US Marine Corps, so I would expect him to be brave and courageous, not frightened to look favorably at Hitler, but obviously at least some of our military leaders are cowardly.

Prior to perhaps 1860, military conflicts were deadly. The military battles were similar to the battles between animals and prehistoric humans that determined which group was truly in better physical and mental health.

The military leaders centuries ago had to make wise decisions about when to back away from a fight and when to go forward. The military leaders who made the best decisions were those who were capable of looking critically at their team to understand what their limitations and problems were, and who could look favorably at their enemy to see what advantages their enemy had. In order to understand their enemy, they would send some of their own people to secretly observe the enemy.

The military leaders who were successful were those who wanted to know the truth about their team and their enemy. They wanted a realistic analysis of what was going on so that they could make a wise decision about what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. They were not afraid to look favorably at their enemy, or look critically at their own team.

During the past few centuries, however, military conflicts have become more like games that follow rules and Geneva Conventions. Also, the people who get promoted to the top military positions, at least in the USA, are those who are puppets of government officials or crime networks.

We no longer want to live in a world in which we get into deadly fights with one another, but our leaders should have the same ability of the successful military leaders from centuries ago. A modern society should restrict voting and other leadership positions to people who have demonstrated an above-average ability to:
Look at critical analyses of themselves and their culture.
Learn from those critical analyses, rather than look for ways to dismiss them.
Look favorably at other people and their ideas, acknowledge their achievements, learn from them, and add to their knowledge, rather than insult, suppress, or censor other people.
Experiment with improvements to their ideas, rather than make excuses to keep everything as it is.

A child's social environment is critical

Humans react to our environment

A paramecium, and other extremely stupid creatures, cannot be educated or trained. They don't need a "childhood". They always behave in the same manner no matter how we raise them. They are not affected by "information" because they do not have a memory or intelligence.

By comparison, the brains of dogs, humans, monkeys, and certain other animals have the ability to accumulate information about the world, and they also have the ability to think about that information, thereby causing the behavior of those animals to be affected by their environment.

This also causes the babies of those animals to be helpless. They need a "childhood" during which they pick up information about how to behave.

The people who raise animals for the purpose of releasing them in the wild have discovered that the animals will become much more likely to survive if their contact with humans is minimal, and if they can grow up among some older members of their species so that they can learn how to do whatever their species does, and how to interact with other members of their species.

If a baby wild animal is given an inappropriate environment, it becomes an adult that has trouble interacting with its own species, and has trouble surviving. An example is the female chimpanzee that was raised in the home of the Temerlins as if she was a human child. The documentary Lucy, the Human Chimp has details about it.

The Temerlins did not want to believe that animal and human behavior is genetic, so they assumed that by raising Lucy as a human girl, she would behave like a human girl, although a girl with the intelligence of a chimpanzee.

During her childhood, Lucy behaved as the social scientists expected. Specifically, she learned about 120 words in the human sign language, thereby allowing her to communicate some simple thoughts. She also learned how to put on human clothing, and use human eating utensils. She appeared to be a dumb human. Unfortunately, as she became an adult, she became more independent, and began behaving more like a chimpanzee.

The reason it is easy for us to raise a baby monkey, wolf, or lion is because all intelligent animals are extremely helpless and submissive when they are babies. They will accept almost any creature as their parent, and they will treat that parent very nicely. They will also mimic that parent.

The non-violent and submissive personality of baby animals can fool us into believing that the mind of an animal is like a piece of clay that we can mold to whatever we want it to be. However, as a baby animal becomes an adult, it becomes more independent and less submissive, and its behavior becomes more influenced by its genetic emotional cravings.

The Temerlins came to the conclusion that Lucy should be sent to a nature reserve in Africa where she could be rehabilitated and released in a forest. However, it was not easy to rehabilitate her. She had grown up with humans rather than chimpanzees, so she did not know how to interact with chimpanzees. She was a social misfit. Furthermore, she had become accustomed to eating human food, so she did not want the natural diet of a chimpanzee.

After many years of trying to rehabilitate her, she was released into a forest, but her dead body was discovered about a year later.

Most people now realize that the only way to successfully raise a baby animal so that it can be released into the wild is to provide it with a childhood that allows it to pick up the type of information that it would have picked up if it had been raised by its parents. Also, the animal needs to be provided with the food that is natural for its species, not human food. Unfortunately, no society is yet willing to believe that these concepts apply to humans, also.

Humans are more intelligent than animals, and we have a longer childhood, and we need to learn more information than any animal. Therefore, our childhood is more important to us than the childhood of a chimpanzee or a wolf. However, instead of having a greater concern for the childhood of humans, we are more concerned about the childhood of pet animals.

For example, there are so many people who are concerned about the food that they provide their pet cats and dogs that a lot of businesses are putting a lot of labor and resources into researching the dietary needs of animals.

By comparison, the businesses that produce food for human children tend to advertise their "great taste". They provide children with food that has large quantities of sugar, artificial flavors, processed white flour, and other ingredients of questionable value. An example are the "Magical Unicorn Marshmallows" in the Lucky Charms cereal. That ingredient is added to manipulate and exploit children, not to improve the health of children.






There is more concern for providing dogs with appropriate meals than humans.


The businesses that produce dog food have created different foods for different types of dogs, and for dogs of different ages, but the people who design foods for humans do not show much of an interest in whether children have different nutritional needs than adults, or whether elderly people have different digestive characteristics or nutritional needs.

To make the situation more absurd, the "liberals", "anti-fascists", and "freedom lovers" don't allow anybody to consider the possibility that men and women, or different races, have slightly different nutritional needs, digestive abilities, or desires for food.

Free enterprise gives us the foods we want, but that tends to be the foods with excessive amounts of sugar, salt, fats, artificial flavors, and flavor enhancing chemicals. This causes children to eat unhealthy foods, which creates another problem. Specifically, they become accustomed to unhealthy foods. Since adults have a strong resistance to change, it results in adults who believe that they prefer the unhealthy foods, and who put up resistance to healthy foods. Raising children on magical unicorn marshmallows is as idiotic as raising a chimpanzee on human food.

If children grow up in an environment in which the adults provide them with guidance, rather than exploit or pander to them, then the children would have had no option except to eat healthier foods, and that would prevent them from having a concept of, or desire for, Magical Unicorn Marshmallows.

Although we have certain genetic desires for certain smells, visual patterns, and other sensations, part of what we like and dislike depends upon what we have become accustomed to during our childhood. Unfortunately, we cannot expect a free enterprise system or a democracy to provide us with an appropriate social environment.

Young animals need contact with other animals of their species

The people who have raised wild animals to release into the forest have noticed that the animal will be a social misfit if it doesn't have a lot of contact with other members of its species during its childhood. However, no society is applying this concept to humans.

During prehistoric times, all of the children grew up in small tribes in which they were always surrounded by other people. The children did not spend the day or evening sitting alone in a large house, isolated from other people. They did not pick up any information from Hollywood movies, cartoons, video games, organized religions, or think tanks.

Today most parents believe that they will provide their children with the most appropriate childhood when they provide their children with large houses, lots of toys, televisions, video games, cell phones, pet dogs, and organized sports activities that put extreme emphasis on winning.

We assume that our modern childhood is beneficial because the parents and children enjoy it, but just because we enjoy something doesn't mean that it is beneficial to us. An obvious example of this concept is candy. Most parents have the intelligence to realize that we hurt a child by letting him eat as much candy as he wants, but what about providing children with toys, television, Hollywood movies, cartoons, and pet dogs? Are any of those truly beneficial to children?

Nobody yet knows what environment is best for a child, so this Constitution wants the government to experiment with these issues. Based on my own personal life and observations of other children, my suspicion is that most of the modern activities for children are detrimental. For example, I picked up a lot of stupid attitudes from television, fiction books, and movies. An example that I mentioned in other documents is that I developed a craving for a house with a staircase similar to the one I saw in the Beverly Hillbillies television program. Another example that I mentioned here is that I and other children picked up the "smartass" remarks that were common in television shows.

I suspect that children will develop into better adults, and their bodies will be healthier, if they spend more time interacting with other children and less time lounging in front of a television or video game. As with animals, children may prefer to spend their day lounging and eating, but parents should provide them with a childhood that will help them become functional adults.

It is certainly possible to create video games that are beneficial for children. For example, the advanced equipment and software in the photo to the right could certainly be modified to provide children with beneficial tasks, such as helping them learn how to operate vehicles or industrial equipment, design a city, perform surgery, or control a robotic arm to fix something underwater or on a space telescope.

In a free enterprise system, children will be provided with the games that they want, rather than the useful games, but in Kastron they will not have any option. This will create a situation that is similar to what I mentioned earlier about food. Specifically, the children would know only of the video games that are useful, and they would have no concept of the silly games.

Furthermore, everybody in Kastron will have access to material items for free. The city will not produce any low quality items for consumers. Rather, the children and adults will have access to what would otherwise be prohibitively expensive videogame equipment, drones, 3D printers, robots, arts and crafts equipment, microscopes, and musical instruments.

In a free enterprise system, software must be purchased, and the businesses do not share their source code with one another. In the Kastron economic system, the software belongs to the city. This will allow everybody to have access to all software, no matter how expensive it is. Every business will be free to improve upon any software they please, also. This policy will allow the children to have access to software routines that the adults use, thereby allowing video games that are much more advanced and entertaining. We will benefit tremendously by sharing the material wealth.

Children should have a more appropriate education

Prehistoric children accumulated realistic and valuable information about life in their era, and that allowed them to make wise decisions about how to treat other people, and what their goals in life should be. By comparison, children today are accumulating a lot of nonsensical, worthless, and false information as a result of businesses, Zionist organizations, psychologists, religions, and feminist groups. This is resulting in children who become adults who are socially awkward, ignorant about sex, and who develop idiotic goals in life, such as becoming a YouTube celebrity, or choosing one of these suggestions for setting a world record.

This Constitution gives the government the authority to experiment with the information that children are exposed to, including fiction books and television programs. The goal is to figure out what type of information will allow the children to become adults who can form stable friendships and marriages, and who have a better understanding of, and more sensible attitudes towards, food, jobs, sex, material wealth, nudity, fame, and happiness.

We need to experiment with the information we provide children, and the manner in which we provide the information to them. Through these experiments we will slowly figure out how to provide them with an environment that allows them to become adults who are better able to deal with modern life. For two examples:

1) Food and health issues.

Children today are accumulating a lot of unrealistic but emotionally titillating information about food from businesses and adults that titillate them with candy bars, Magical Unicorn Marshmallows, and McDonald's "Happy Meals".

Furthermore, adults keep children ignorant about many health issues because they believe they are protecting their children from harm by censoring the "disgusting" information about digestion and waste products, thereby creating adults who are ignorant about digestion, pee, and poop.

For example, most adults do not care if they get blood on their hands when they help a child put a Band-Aid on a cut on their finger, and they consider it to be acceptable to rinse blood off in a sink or bathtub, but they are horrified if they get pee on their hands, or if somebody pees into a sink or shower. Not many adults realize that pee is nothing more than blood without the blood cells and food particles, and with a slightly different balance of chemicals, and most adults are so ignorant about poop that they don't realize that it is an indication of their meals, digestive system, and health.

The censoring of health issues and medical information is also preventing children from acquiring an accurate view of some health problems. For a personal example, I did not realize how serious diabetes was when I was a child because a lot of the information about diabetes is being censored because it is considered "disgusting".

For example, children are not allowed to see people sticking themselves with lancets and needles, so I did not realize how often the diabetic people are doing that, or what effect it has on their skin. We also prohibit children from watching surgeons amputate the toes of diabetics. The adults are censoring so much information about diabetes that I assumed it was a trivial health problem, similar to a person with an allergy or crooked teeth. We allow children to see the horrible monsters at Halloween, but we hide information about diabetes.

I was aware that diabetes can cause blindness, but I thought it was extremely rare. I did not realize how common "diabetic retinopathy" is until I wrote the paragraph above, which inspired me to look on the Internet to find out how common it was.

If a person in a prehistoric tribe was a diabetic, and if he had access to modern medical supplies, every child in the tribe would see him poking himself every day, and throughout the day, to get blood samples, and they would see him sticking needles into his body every day. They would also see him suffering mood changes as his blood sugar levels go up and down. If he developed any circulatory problems in his toes or feet, they would see the problem, and they would notice the person groaning and suffering. They would also notice how many of those diabetic people have problems with their vision. By the time those children were adults, they would have accumulated thousands of memories of how a diabetic person suffers every day. They would not regard diabetes as a trivial problem.

We are censoring so much information that children don't even realize how unpleasant it is to be overweight, or obese, until they become overweight.

This Constitution authorizes the government to experiment with providing children with access to honest and detailed information about food, health, and nutrition. Children should be provided with the truth about what happens to people who don't take care of their health. That information is not going to hurt them. Rather, it will help them make better decisions about how to take care of themselves.

As I have mentioned many times, life is more complex than it seems. Providing children with the truth about health and nutrition will help only some of them make better decisions. Other children will continue making terrible decisions about food and nutrition. Our natural tendency is to feel sorry for the children who suffer as a result of their decisions, but it is more sensible to acknowledge the evidence that each child is a jumble of genetic traits, and some of the children will be unable to cope with this modern world. We should design culture for the high-quality people, not the low-quality people.

2) Drugs.

In the beginning of the twentieth century, many American adults believed that they could stop their children from smoking marijuana and using other drugs by frightening them with false stories about how the drugs would cause them to become sexually perverted, dishonest, neurotic, and miserable. The movie Reefer Madness is an example.

It is true that filling a child's mind with frightening stories about marijuana will likely cause him to avoid marijuana. The problem with that policy is that if the child discovers that the stories are false, then he is likely to lose respect for his parents and the authorities. That is what happened to many teenagers (including myself) and adults during the 1960's and 1970's.

The people who discovered that marijuana is mild compared to alcohol realized that the authorities are either ignorant about drugs, or they are liars. This caused many people to lose respect for the authorities. Some people even got together to watch Reefer Madness, smoke marijuana, and laugh at the authorities.

Our leaders should impress us with the knowledge and behavior, not cause us to be disgusted or disappointed with them. We should admire and respect our leaders, not ridicule them.

It is idiotic to believe that we can help children make wise decisions by filling their minds with false information. A better way of helping children make wise decisions is to provide them with accurate information. So, why is every society trying to help their children by giving them false information?

I suppose that one reason is because children do not think very well, especially when it comes to issues that titillate their emotions, as I mentioned earlier in this document. Many parents react to the stupidity and ignorance of their children by trying to control them with punishments, rewards, intimidation, threats, lies, and deception.

Another reason that we tend to use lies, deception, and intimidation to "help" children is because we inherited that behavior from our animal ancestors. The animals that are high in the hierarchy control the lower-level animals by glaring at them, hitting them, kicking them, and intimidating them.

Very young children can be controlled through punishments, rewards, and intimidation, at least to a certain extent, because young children are more similar in behavior to an animal than an adult human. However, as a child becomes more intelligent and educated, those techniques become increasingly ineffective.

It should also be noted that when monkeys punish one another for bad behavior, the punishments are trivial. They glare at, slap, growl, and hit one another, but they don't cause damage. Their intention is not to hurt the other monkey. Rather, it is to attract their attention and make them realize that they are misbehaving.

The adults who inflict physical injuries on children are punishing them to an excess. A child should respond to the same insignificant punishments that a monkey responds to, such as glares, angry tones of voice, and trivial slaps. If a child does not respond to insignificant punishments, the adults should consider the possibility that the child is defective, rather than assume that the child needs more brutal punishments.

This Constitution wants the government to experiment with providing children with the truth about drugs rather than frighten them about drugs. As I mentioned in regards to food, providing children with the truth about drugs will help only some of them make wise decisions. Other children will continue to abuse drugs.

Our natural reaction to those children is to react like a monkey, such as hitting them, or trying to frighten them into avoiding drugs. A more sensible policy is to face the evidence that some people simply don't have the characteristics necessary for our modern world.

We should provide all children with accurate and honest information about life, and those that choose to make idiotic decisions should be regarded as inferior. They should either be restricted to one or two children, or prohibited from reproducing. This will result in each generation having more of an interest in thinking, controlling their emotions, and making wise decisions.

Do children benefit from pet animals?

We realize that in order for a wild animal to develop properly, it should be in contact with members of its own species, not with humans or other species. However, we are not applying this concept to humans. Instead, we have the opposite attitude. Specifically, a lot of people believe that their child will develop into a better adult if he forms a close relationship with a pet animal.

If human children truly benefited by having pet animals, then we should see lots of evidence of this in the USA because there are millions of children growing up with pets, and forming very close relationships with their pets. We should notice that the adults who are having the most stable and pleasant friendships and marriages, or who are the best behaved, are those who spent the most time with pet animals during their childhood.



Pet dogs may be causing children to believe that lounging and pampering provides the best life.
We don't have a database to show us who had the most contact with pet animals during their childhood, so it is difficult to determine whether pets are helping children become better adults. However, I doubt if children learn anything of value from a pet animal.

We can learn a lot about animal and human emotions and behavior by studying animals, but I doubt if we benefit by forming a friendship with an animal. That seems to be as worthless as forming a friendship with a porcelain doll, a robot, a fictional character in a Star Trek movie, or Jesus.

Many people envy the life of a pet animal. They make such remarks as, "In my next life, I want to be a pet dog!" They assume that the dog is enjoying his life and "relaxing", but a pet dog sleeps almost all day, every day, because he has nothing to do. He is so bored that he would rather sleep than be tormented by the boredom.

I don't believe children learn anything of value by having a friendship with an animal. Actually, I suspect that children who form close relationships with animals may be more likely to become socially awkward because they are learning how to interact with what is essentially an emotional idiot. That might help a child deal with retarded people, but I don't see how it will help him deal with normal humans.

We must suppress the "pigpens"

In addition to being influenced by television and fiction books, I also picked up some bad attitudes and desires from other children who I now regard as neurotic, confused, or misguided. Children will form friendships with almost anybody, and so they need adults to protect them from the badly behaved children.

For a personal example, when I was 7 or 8 years old, I was walking down the sidewalk with a neighbor boy the same age who I regarded as a friend. I don't remember where we were going, but we might have been going to the creek to do our typical exploration of it. As we were walking, my mother came out of the house and called out to me for something, perhaps to come home. The neighbor boy told me to ignore her and yell something at her, like "jackass" or "go to hell". I wanted to do what my mother asked, but being a submissive child, I did what he told me to do, and we continued on our way, and I have felt guilty ever since.

A year or so later we moved to a different neighborhood, and I didn't see him again, but when I was a teenager I heard that he had been arrested (I think it was for burglary, but I forgot the details). This is another pattern that I've noticed. Specifically, the children who are badly behaved tend to become badly behaved adults.

Teenagers can be troublesome because that is the age at which they start to think, and in our nations today, they are being lied to, exploited, and manipulated rather than provided with intelligent guidance and a realistic view of life, but young children are controlled primarily by their emotions, so their behavior is an indication of what their true personality is. Therefore, a good way to judge an adult is to look at how he behaved as a child.

Children are very trusting and submissive, and they are not very finicky about who their friends are. Therefore, adults should help their children choose friends, and they should remove the badly behaved children so that they do not become a bad influence on the other children.

Unfortunately, there are so many badly behaved adults in the world today that there is a lot of pressure on us to feel sorry for the badly behaved children, and to make excuses for them, such as, "He is just a child!"

The badly behaved children and adults are analogous to the pigpen character in the Peanuts comic strip, but instead of spreading dirt everywhere they go, they spread idiotic or false information, or encourage destructive behavior or attitudes. However, we do not always recognize them as a bad influence because some of what they spread to us appeals to our emotions.

For example, the people who flaunt their expensive automobiles, jewelry, and other items are encouraging us to put excessive emphasis on material wealth, but we don't regard them as bad influences because we envy their wealth. We regard them as "successful".

The people who flaunt their material wealth are masturbating in public. They are stimulating themselves over and over with the thought that they are special people, and that we admire and love them.

Likewise, the people who react to those wealthy people by becoming angry, envious, or sad are also masturbating in public, but they are stimulating unpleasant emotional feelings. They are foolishly tormenting themselves.

The flaunting of wealth, and the pouting about not having it, is creating the idiotic social environment that is in the Dr. Seuss book about the star bellied sneetches.

People are very competitive, and we have a tendency to mimic one another, so raising children among adults who boast about something will encourage the children to fantasize about those achievements.

Likewise, the people who boast about traveling to "exotic" locations are encouraging us to believe that we need to travel. They are masturbating in public in order to make themselves feel special, and their behavior can cause people who cannot afford to travel to become envious, angry, or sad.




People who boast about worthless achievements are a bad influence.


The same is true of the people who boast about having lots of sex, or who boast about having sex with lots of different women, or who boast about having sex with young women.

The same concept applies to the people who boast about doing risky activities. They boast that they are adventurous, or thrill seekers, or courageous, or that they love excitement. They encourage white water rafting, skateboarding down the handrails of a staircase, climbing Mount Everest, or ridiculing the use of safety equipment and procedures.

Militaries and most other organizations are concerned about the behavior of their members, so they pass judgment on which of their members are encouraging beneficial behavior, and which are destructive.

For example, if some of the employees of a business were flaunting their high salaries in front of other employees, thereby causing some of the lower-paid employees to become upset, most business executives would regard those high-paid employees as behaving in a destructive manner. This is one of the reasons that most executives want to keep everybody's salary a secret.

Likewise, if some employees were boasting about doing risky things on the job, such as sliding down stairway handrails, swinging from light fixtures, or not wearing safety goggles while using a grinder, the executives would regard them as a destructive influence on the team. The executives would also prohibit them from posting videos of their reckless and dangerous activities.

The executives would not allow their employees to boast about their sexual activities, either. For example, if a business was located in a tall office building, and if the 23rd floor was restricted to the managers, the executives would not tolerate a group of managers who boasted about being part of "The 23rd Floor Club," in which they have sex in the bathroom of the 23rd floor. That type of boasting could result in some of the employees developing bad attitudes, such as wishing that they could join the club, or becoming angry that they do not have access to the 23rd floor.

If a group of people were boasting about being members of the 23rd Floor Club, they would be masturbating because they would be titillating themselves over and over with remarks about how they are special people who enjoy life more than the rest of us.

Likewise, the people who react to that boasting by becoming angry, sad, vengeful, or envious would also be masturbating, but they would be stimulating unpleasant, detrimental emotions.





What is the difference between:
a) A man who believes that his life is worthless because he cannot have sex in the bathroom on the 23rd floor, and who repeatedly stimulates his feelings of anger, revenge, sadness, or envy.
b) A man who believes that his life is worthless because he has an ordinary income, and who repeatedly stimulates his feelings of anger, revenge, sadness, or envy.

Both of those men are masturbating, but in a way that causes them to develop bad attitudes. They are undesirable team members, and a bad influence on other people, especially children.

Likewise, what is the difference between the opposite type of behavior:
a) A man who titillates himself over and over with praise for having sex in the bathroom on the 23rd floor, and who convinces himself that his life is better than ours because of it.
b) A man who titillates himself over and over with fantasies of other people admiring him because he has a high income, and who convinces himself that his life is better than ours because of it.

Both of those men are masturbating, also. They are titillating themselves, and by doing so, they become undesirable team members because it gives them a bad attitude, and they become a bad influence on other people, especially children.

The leaders of most organizations realize that a member can be a destructive influence even if he follows the rules of the organization. Therefore, they pass judgment on whether the members are a good influence on the team, and if not, they do something about that member rather than ignore him and let him continue to cause trouble.

Our government officials, however, have a different attitude. Government officials routinely flaunt their material wealth and status, and they allow other people to do so, as well. Government officials do not encourage self-control or thinking, and they do not demand that the people in influential positions be good role models for children.

Imagine a "Mile High Club" for food

Those of us in the USA, and probably some other nations, have grown up around adult men who giggle or become hysterical about nudity and breast-feeding, make so many "Dick Jokes" that there is an entry for that issue in their Wikipedia, boast about having sex with lots of women, boast about having sex in the bathroom of an airplane, and boast about having sex in lots of weird positions. We regard this as "normal" behavior for an adult man. To understand how abnormal this is, imagine the same behavior with food.

Imagine living in a nation in which our leaders were frequently boasting about eating food in unusual locations and while in unusual positions, such as eating while they are doing yoga, taking a shower, inside the bathroom of an airplane, or inside the vault of a bank. Imagine that there are so many people so frequently making the same joke about eating food in strange locations, (namely, "That's Where She Ate"), that there was an entry in the dictionary for it, as there is for "That's What She Said", and with just as much detail.





Imagine some people boasting that they can drink a smoothie while holding certain difficult yoga poses, and that makes them members of the exclusive and prestigious "Yoga Smoothie Club".

Imagine those people drawing pictures to show us some of the "exciting" Yoga positions that we should try to maintain while we drink a Smoothie.






Imagine some people responding by struggling to become a member of the Yoga Smoothie Club.

We would regard a person as psychotic if he was struggling to join a Yoga Smoothie Club, but there are hundreds of millions of people around the world who are involved with competitions that are equally idiotic.





What is the difference between raising a child to believe:




a) We must join the Yoga Smoothie Club.

b) We need a lot of money.
c) We must have sex in dozens of odd positions.
d) We need a Guinness World Record.


In order for children to develop sensible attitudes and goals, the adults need to exert enough self-control to stop encouraging the pursuit of simplistic emotional titillation. The adults need to be "virtuous monkeys" who can recognize that some of their cravings are inappropriate and need to be controlled.

We should observe the behavior of the children and adults, and we should adjust the environment until we find people behaving in what we have agreed is the most sensible, pleasant, and productive manner.

Ideally, all adults would be good role models

Ideally, all adults would encourage beneficial attitudes. Humans may be too similar to monkeys for that situation to occur during our lifetimes, but we can certainly provide a city with leaders who are much better role models than the leaders in the world today. We can also raise standards for the citizens.

With this Constitution, the residents of Kastron are analogous to employees of a large business. Everybody in the city is part of the same team. Therefore, everybody should work together, and inspire one another. They will compete with one another, but it is to inspire one another, not hurt each other. Furthermore, the leaders of the city will ensure that the competitions are beneficial, not beer drinking contests.

The government officials are required to pass judgment on whether the citizens are productive team members, or a destructive influence. With that attitude, people must do more than follow the laws. They must also encourage beneficial behavior and attitudes.

Everybody in the city will have the same level of material wealth, so it will be impossible for people to flaunt material wealth, but it will be possible for people to flaunt other things, such as sexual activities, traveling, and status. For example, it would be possible for a man to boast that he is having lots of sex, or that he has sex in unusual locations, such as elevators, swimming pools, and in the trees at the public parks. It is also possible for people to boast about winning some recreational event, or that they have traveled to "exotic" locations on the planet.

The concept that a government should deal with citizens who boast might seem bizarre, but this is not a new concept. Most military, businesses, and other organizations dampen this type of behavior among their members. It is a strange concept only to governments.

As I pointed out here, all current societies have two, very different social environments:
1) While we are working at our job, we have to follow high standards and treat people with decency.
2) During our leisure time, we have the freedom to behave like jerks, slobs, and freaks.

This Constitution eliminates that second social environment and requires everybody to continue behaving in the same respectable manner that they do at their job. The people in Kastron will have the freedom to do whatever they want during their leisure time, but nobody has the freedom to ruin morale or encourage bad attitudes or behavior.

Pornography gives us unrealistic attitudes and expectations

Men are strongly attracted to sexual pornography because it titillates us, but that doesn't make it beneficial. If pornography was truly beneficial, then we would notice that the men who spend more time with pornography are having a better life, or are better in some way, than the men who spend less time with pornography.

Since we don't have a database to show us who spends the most time with pornography, we cannot be certain what effect it has on our lives, but I doubt if it is improving anybody's life. I suspect that it is giving men, and especially young boys, an unrealistic view of  life.


Sexual pornography is especially detrimental to young boys because they don't know much about sex or women. The pornography will give them unrealistic expectations of sex and women.
Likewise, the romance novels and movies that young girls are attracted to should be described as "romance pornography", and it will give them unrealistic expectations of marriage and men.




By comparison, prehistoric children developed realistic views of marriage and sex because they didn't have businesses, religions, feminists, or other people trying to manipulate their attitudes and desires. The children knew exactly what to expect from a marriage, and how men and women treat each other, because they were always in close contact with adults. The children regularly observed the teenagers and adults flirting, having sex, giving birth, breast-feeding babies, masturbating, and sleeping.


A prehistoric boy expected his wife to be a mother, not a sex toy. And he expected her to provide her with food while she remained at "home" with the other women and children.
A prehistoric girl expected her husband to spend the day making tools and hunting with other men, not holding her hand while she gives birth, or taking care of babies.


When a man has been fooled into believing that women are sex toys, and that the more often he has sex, the better his life will be, he will become disappointed with women and sex. This can cause him to come to the false conclusion that he needs to find a "better" woman, or a younger woman, thereby wasting his life chasing after a pornographic fantasy, and ruining his relationships. He will also be irritating to the women.

Children need a realistic view of life

Prehistoric children did not have goals of becoming billionaires, collecting hundreds of trophies, retiring early, or being pampered by servants. Also, they knew exactly what they were going to do as adults, and what skills they needed to learn. The boys knew that they were going to hunt animals, and the girls knew that they were going to take care of children and the campsite. Today, however, children are being exposed to a wide variety of unrealistic information about jobs and goals. The television programs, for example, are giving children extremely distorted views of the job of a lawyer, policeman, and doctor.

Many children become adults who are disappointed when they discover that their "dream job" is not what they expected. Some of those adults then waste time and resources trying to switch to a different type of job, and they are sometimes disappointed again, and then repeat the cycle. This situation should be considered as evidence that we have created an inappropriate social environment for children. Children should pick up a realistic view of jobs. Their minds should not be full of idiotic fantasies. Many parents are concerned with what their children eat, but no society yet shows much of a concern for the information that is going into their brain.



Schools should prepare students for jobs,
not deceive them about jobs.

Some people are promoting the STEM education for girls. They tell the girls that they are just as talented as the boys in science and engineering, and that the reason there are not many girls in those jobs is because of sexism. Those people are deceiving the girls, wasting their life, and wasting society's resources.

The chemistry classes that show students how to create explosives and cause chemical solutions to change color are entertaining the students, not educating them, or preparing them for a job. They give students an extremely warped view of what a chemist does.

Young girls should be told the truth; specifically, that boys and girls have subtle differences in our physical and mental abilities and desires. We don't know exactly what our differences are, but it should be obvious that boys are usually better at engineering and science. We are not helping the girls by lying about this issue.

Children who are independent can appear to be neurotic or rebels

Another example of why it is important for people today to understand emotions and genetics is to allow us to realize that children are going to vary in their independence and their desire to think for themselves, and that this will have a significant effect on their behavior.

The children who are more independent are more likely to do what they want to do, but since children are uneducated and cannot think very well, this can result in those children doing a lot of idiotic and dangerous things. This can cause adults to assume that those particular children are stupid, irresponsible, disobedient, or mentally ill, when in fact they are simply more independent.

The children who are the least interested in thinking for themselves are going to be more likely to mimic other people and follow orders, which will make them appear to be polite, obedient, and well behaved.

At the other extreme, the children who are more interested in thinking for themselves are going to frequently ask why they are being told to do something, which can irritate other people. Furthermore, since children are uneducated and don't think very well, they may not understand the reasons, and that can cause them to do something else, thereby appearing to be neurotic, badly behaved, or rebellious.

I can see examples of this in my own childhood. An example that I mentioned years ago is when my mother taught me to sit on the plastic toilet seat but did not explain the reason, and one day I decided the seat was unnecessary, so I decided to sit directly on the porcelain bowl.

Although that did not cause any trouble, there was another time when I did something that could have been deadly. Specifically, sometime around the age of 10 years old, I was in the kitchen by myself, and for some reason I was looking in one of the cupboards along the floor.

I noticed a bottle of applesauce. My mother did not keep applesauce in that location, and that triggered a "fear emotion" to tell me that something is wrong. We have a fear emotion that warns us that something is different from what we are accustomed to.

Furthermore, the applesauce was red rather than the usual pale green, so my fear emotion was triggered over the color, also.

Finally, about 25% of the applesauce was missing, which implied that we had already eaten some of it, but I did not remember seeing anybody eating red applesauce, so my fear emotion told me that something is wrong about that, also.

If I had been a "normal" child, the fear that something is wrong would have caused me to leave the applesauce alone. However, I seem to be more independent than average, and more interested in thinking, and so I thought about the issue and came to the conclusion that it was applesauce made from red apples, and the green applesauce was made from green apples, so I disregarded the fear that the color was incorrect.

I don't always notice when my parents eat, so I assumed that one of them had eaten some applesauce, which would explain why the bottle was not full, so I disregarded that fear, also.

I could not think of a sensible reason as to why my mother would put the applesauce in that location, but I disregarded that fear. I suppose my successful dismissal of the other two concerns gave me confidence that I could dismiss this issue.

I opened the bottle and poured a bit into my mouth, trying not to get my mouth on the edge of the glass so that I would not contaminate the applesauce. As soon as the applesauce went into my mouth it occurred to me that feels and smells like paint, and that caused me to wonder if it was the red paint that my mother had let us use for painting. I cannot remember if I swallowed the red substance or spit it out, but if it had been poisonous, or some type of acid, I could have been injured or killed.

As I look at my life, I can see why animals and humans have a very strong craving to mimic, and a strong fear of anything that is different. It is dangerous for animals and prehistoric humans to ignore established procedures and think for themselves. It is especially dangerous for children.

However, animals and prehistoric people benefit from exploration. Therefore, it is beneficial for a small percentage of the population to have a desire to explore.

We must watch for children who are abnormally independent

The children who are more independent will be more trouble to take care of. Fortunately, I learned from my mistakes and became more cautious, but if I had been stupid or mentally ill, I might have made a lot of idiotic decisions. Children who have an explorer's personality, but who are stupid, rebellious, or neurotic, are dangerous to themselves and other people.

A lot of children have hurt or killed themselves or other people, and our tendency is to assume that those children are stupid, rebellious, or neurotic. However, some of them may simply be more independent and more interested in thinking for themselves. They may actually be quite responsible and intelligent, but they make "honest mistakes" as a result of their lack of education and their undeveloped intellectual abilities.

This concept also applies to adults. The adults who are more independent and more interested in thinking for themselves can hurt themselves and other people because no matter how intelligent and educated a person is, the universe is much too complicated for any of us to figure it out.

We need to be aware of which of our established procedures are arbitrary, and which developed for a good reason. For example, the established procedures for how to place eating utensils on a dinner table are arbitrary, but the concept that we should never look directly at the sun developed for a very good reason, and should not be disregarded.

We should provide reasons for established procedures

I was not rebellious, and I did not disregard established procedures simply to become the center of attention. I would consider disregarding an established procedure only if it did not make any sense to me, and only if I could think of something that made more sense. Also, I was often looking for a way to improve something.

I wanted to know the reason for doing something. Most children, by comparison, do not need reasons. They will follow established procedures without asking why, and without looking for a way to improve the procedure. Those children are easy to raise because they will quietly do what they are told.

The children who are more independent are likely to ask for reasons, which can irritate adults. Furthermore, if the adult doesn't know the reason, or if the child doesn't think the reason makes sense, the child may do what he thinks is best, which can be dangerous since children's minds have not fully developed, and children are extremely ignorant.

Most people react to the independent children by becoming angry and demanding that they do what they're told and shut up. However, it is not wise to ignore or suppress the children who are more independent. The best policy is to provide them with intelligent reasons for what they should do so that they are less likely to do what they think is best.

This concept also applies to adults. Even though I am now an adult and aware of these concepts, I continue to want reasons for what I'm supposed to do. Most other adults, however, will follow established procedures regardless of whether they have a reason, and even when they think the reason is idiotic or dangerous.

Some people are claiming that the Covid vaccine is infecting people with some type of prion disease, and I would not be surprised if some of the people who are taking the vaccine suspect this, but their desire to mimic is overpowering their fear of being infected.

The people who are more independent are more likely to disregard procedures that nobody has an explanation for, or which seem idiotic to them. This can be dangerous, especially with safety procedures.

For example, when I first heard about some of the safety procedures to avoid explosions at the factories that process sugar and rice, I thought the management was excessively cautious. Sugar and rice do not explode, so why should employees follow safety procedures to avoid explosions?

It is true that sugar crystals and rice grains do not explode, but the dust that forms at the factories that process those materials is extremely explosive. In 2008, for example, the sugar dust at a factory in Georgia exploded, killing 14 people, and injuring 36 others. Those type of disasters caused people to realize that we must follow a lot of "senseless" safety procedures.

The people who are more independent need to be aware that many, or most, of our safety procedures developed in response to accidents. Therefore, we should push ourselves into following safety procedures even if they don't make sense to us.

It is also important for us to realize that the human mind is not capable of figuring out the universe. A lot of things do not make sense to us simply because the human mind is not nearly as intelligent as we think it is, and we are ignorant about a lot of issues.

In other documents I emphasized that schools should help children to analyze themselves, and discover their talents, limitations, and problems. That type of school system would help the children determine if they are abnormally independent, and if so, those children should be told to be especially cautious about disregarding established procedures and doing what they think is best.

We must recognize that each of us is a jumble of genetic traits. We all have the same characteristics, but we are not identical. There are subtle differences between us, and we should identify those differences rather than pretend that we are all the same.

Every society is already following this concept to a certain extent with physical characteristics. For example, children are regularly analyzed by doctors, and they are given eyeglasses, hearing aids, drugs, or whatever they need to compensate for their physical defects. However, we are not analyzing their mental characteristics, or helping children to compensate for their particular mental characteristics and defects.

The more independent you are, the more cautious you must be

Ideally, each of us would have an excellent understanding of our particular mental characteristics. This would allow us to compensate for our particular characteristics.

For example, the people who are unusually independent should be aware of that characteristic so that they realize they are likely to ignore established procedures and wander away from the crowd. Those people should visualize themselves as explorers in an unknown land who must be more cautious, think more often, and do a better job of thinking, so that they can avoid drowning in quicksand, or running out of water.



The successful explorers were cautious,
and most were part of a team.

It is also very important to realize that the explorers who were successful, such as Ferdinand Magellan and Leif Erickson, were leaders of a team, and that gave them an advantage over an individual.

By comparison, an independent child is on his own, and that makes it even more important for him to be cautious.

Parents and teachers should analyze the characteristics of children so that they can be aware of which children are more independent. The adults should expect those independent children to be less likely to follow orders and established procedures. The adults will make the situation worse by yelling at the independent children, or by punishing them. We need to figure out a more intelligent response.

We must distinguish between independence and mental disorders

The city of Kastron is likely to attract the adults who are much more independent than typical. Therefore, we should expect the children in the city to be abnormally independent. This will create a city in which there are a lot of children who frequently ask "Why", who disregard established procedures, and who do what they think is best.

Unfortunately, children with mental disorders can behave in a similar manner. Therefore, we must pass judgment on whether a child is truly independent, or whether he should be classified as badly behaved, rebellious, neurotic, or stupid.

This concept is similar to what I mentioned in the previous document of this series about how people with mental disorders can appear to have initiative. It is also similar to the concept I mentioned earlier in this document about how we must be concerned about the motives of a person.

We don't yet have any parenting knowledge

Farmers, scientists, and other people have been studying animals for centuries, and they have acquired a lot of knowledge about how to raise and care for animals. A person who wants to raise pigs or chickens can find a lot of valuable information on how to take care of those particular animals.

However, we still don't have any useful knowledge about the raising of human children because social science is still as worthless today as it was thousands of years ago. The social scientists and religious fanatics are still providing parents with the same absurd advice they were providing 2000 years ago.

Some of the best information available for parents is coming from other parents who have already experimented with techniques of raising children. For example, Kelly Holmes created this website in which she explains what she has learned about raising her children. In this particular document, she points out how frustrated she became as a result of her daughter frequently asking "why", and eventually she discovered a better way of dealing with that issue.

Her document, and some of the documents from other parents, are more useful and intelligent than those coming from the religious leaders and social scientists. This is not because those parents are super-geniuses; rather, it is because religion and social science are nonsense.

We must experiment with raising humans

In order to develop useful knowledge about the care of humans, we need to acknowledge that humans are a species of monkey, and that we follow the same biological rules that the animals follow. We must also find the courage to conduct experiments with ourselves.

This Constitution authorizes school officials and scientists to experiment with the method we raise children. The school officials are not to be concerned with what parents or students want. They are to have an attitude similar to that of farmers who are managing pigs or chickens, or scientists who are studying wolves or dolphins. We have to be willing to experiment because there is no way we can figure out what is best.

For example, consider the layout of a city. The people who manage zoos and farms are often conducting experiments to determine the best structures and environments for animals, but we are doing nothing to determine what type of city is best for humans. Instead, we allow people and businesses to do whatever they please. Unfortunately, most people follow their emotional cravings, and this results in people who want a giant home on a large plot of land. Many people want their own swimming pool, and they want to provide their children with lots of toys, and they want expensive automobiles, boats, jet skis, snowmobiles, and off-road vehicles. However, as I discussed in other documents, I don't believe we benefit from that type of city.

Although I don't know what is best, I suggest designing Kastron so that people are living in clusters of tall apartment buildings, and that everybody's home be a place for people to sleep and relax, not a place to entertain guests, make or eat meals, or for children to play in. I advocate that the city provide lots of facilities and activities for adults and children so that the people don't want to spend much of their leisure time in their home.

Each of the apartment clusters will have schools, cafeterias, and other facilities for children. This will allow the children to be within walking distance of other children, meals, schools, toys, swimming areas, and other activities. This type of city will prevent homes from becoming cluttered with toys, and parents won't have to be bothered with transporting their children to school or recreational areas. Parents will not have to be bothered repairing toys, either.

An additional advantage to that type of city is that the children will spend most of their time in public facilities, which will make it easier for the teachers, doctors, and scientists to observe and manage them.

Why not develop some “Why Robots”?

IBM created the Watson software that is capable of playing the game of Jeopardy, and we could use it to create a robot that is capable of answering the questions that children have. The robots would not have much computer hardware within them. Instead, they would connect to the city's larger and more advanced computers.

When parents and teachers become annoyed by children who ask "why", they could tell the children to ask the "Why Robot".

Since robots have the ability to display video, they can provide much better answers than parents.

The robots could be especially useful for answering a child's questions about sex and other issues related to the human body, since most adults are too inhibited to do that properly.

The robots would also get the children accustomed to learning from a computer, thereby preparing them for the Kastron schools in which the teenagers are expected to learn from computers, and the human teachers only provide guidance and assistance to the students.

The robots as of 2021 are too crude to be teachers, but they will eventually be able to walk and use their hands almost as well as a human, and that will allow them to demonstrate techniques, such as how to use, lubricate, or clean a machine, how to use a cell phone or drone, and how to perform maintenance on a bicycle.

The robots would be useful for adults for both leisure and work. Businesses could provide the city's computers with information about their assembly lines, manufacturing processes, farming technology, and other procedures, thereby allowing the Why Robots to help people learn their job. The robots could make it much easier and quicker for employees to get useful information compared to searching through manuals or asking people for help.

We already have the Watson software, so we could modify it to give answers to questions, instead of using the silly Jeopardy-style questions and answers. And then we could make it available through cell phones and the Internet so that all of us can ask it questions.

Incidentally, in case you believe that a computer that plays Jeopardy is asking a question when given an answer, rather than answering a question, that is not true. The contestants are answering questions, but the questions are presented in the form of a statement, and the contestants have to give the answer in the form of a question. It is a silly concept that is intended to be entertaining, but I think it is annoying, and the contestants occasionally have to be reminded to put the answer in the form of a question because it is unnatural for us to follow that format.

If you have trouble understanding how silly that game is, then reverse the order of the answers and questions. For example, there are some sample Jeopardy answers here. One of them is:
Answer: This number, one of the first 20, uses only one vowel (4 times!).
Question: What is Seventeen?

Now reverse the situation by asking somebody that question, and see if such an answer makes sense:
Question: What is Seventeen?
Answer: This number, one of the first 20, uses only one vowel (4 times!).

I prefer the game use conventional questions and answers, like this:
Question: Which number, from one to twenty, uses only one vowel 4 times?
Answer: Seventeen.


It should be noted that the Watson software would be useful only if it is provided with honest information. In our world today, the leaders of society would be certain to fill it with propaganda about climate change denial, sexism, white privilege, Holocaust denial, and "toxic masculinity".





A nation that is dominated by pedophiles, lunatics, Zionists, crime networks, and people who inherited their leadership positions will not produce robots that are educational.

It is detrimental to suppress a child's curiosity

Most parents are suppressing the curiosity of their children. The most obvious examples are the religious people and the people who oppose genetics. There are also a large number of people who have been convinced that nobody should show any curiosity about the Holocaust, Anne Frank's diary, or the world wars.

When a society is dominated by people who suppress curiosity, it has a detrimental effect on both the children and adults who are more curious than normal. I will give a couple of personal examples:

• I met a man who worked for a company that was involved with the charging stations for electric cars. I was curious about what he did at his job, but he seemed irritated to answer my questions. For some reason I mentioned that I had watched some videos that were posted by this man in Canada who repairs jet engines, and he asked me if I work with jet engines, and when I said no, he had a confused facial expression and asked me something like: "Then why would you watch those videos?"

His reaction is similar to what I have had from other people. They are perplexed as to why I would want to learn something that I don't need to learn about. Why would I want to learn how a person repairs a jet engine? Why would I want to learn what a farmer does to produce food? Why would I want to watch a video from Britain about how people keep the sewers clean?

I think it's interesting to find out what people do for a living, and how they do their jobs, and what sort of work is necessary to support a modern society, but most people have so little curiosity about the world that they are irritated when I ask them about their job. And they consider me to be weird for watching videos about what other people do for a living.

• When I was 8 or 9 years old, there was a boy who had a lot of toys. He had so many that some of them were in a box in his closet, and one of them was a telephone. When I asked him why the telephone was in the box, he said it was because he didn't use it any more. I was intensely curious as to what was inside a telephone, so when he said he doesn't use the phone anymore, I thought I should take it home and open it up to see what's inside. I didn't think of myself as "stealing", but that's what it was.

I stole the unwanted phone. When I got home, I climbed to the top of the hill behind our house, which at that time was a vacant lot, and busted open the phone. I had been fascinated by the interesting and colorful components of pill bugs, flowers, butterflies, and other creatures, so I was expecting a telephone to have lots of interesting and colorful components. However, I was very disappointed to find out that there was nothing colorful or exciting inside. I felt guilty and foolish, but it was too late to give it back, and besides, he didn't want it. At least I learned not to make that type of mistake again.

Now that I look back at that incident, I have to wonder, why didn't I just ask an adult what was inside a telephone? An adult could have explained what I was looking at. Why was I more afraid to ask that question than I was to steal the phone?

My guess is that our societies are causing children with curiosity to feel as if we are deviants, and that is causing us to be cautious about asking questions. Throughout my childhood I can remember being afraid to ask questions, and perhaps that fear came from people who respond with a condescending tone of voice and facial expression: "Why are you asking? Why do you care? Why do you want to know? What difference does it make?"

Women have so little curiosity that they often become irritated with questions about themselves, and they often respond with a critical remark, such as: "Why are you so nosy?", or with the demand: "Don't be so nosy!" or "It's none of your business!" Unlike some children, I don't have to be reprimanded very often before I learn to avoid those situations.

All animals and humans have a tendency to do the minimum amount of work possible, but most people have such a lack of interest in thinking, exploring, and learning that they will do it only when they are under a lot of pressure, such as from school teachers or their boss.

During prehistoric times, it was beneficial for most people to follow established procedures, but today those people are interfering with progress by dampening curiosity, research, analyses, and discussions. If they were a small minority of the population, they would not be a problem, but they dominate. This can result in a child being routinely reprimanded for having curiosity, wanting to explore, and questioning established ideas. This in turn causes some children to suppress their questions, which can fool the adults to believing that they have improved the child's behavior, but reprimanding and punishing children does not change their genetic characteristics.

My suggestion is for Kastron to develop the Watson software to be useful for children and adults, and to encourage the children to use that software.

Schools should help children understand themselves

The prehistoric children did not have career choices. The boys knew that when they became adults they would spend most of their time hunting and making tools, and the girls knew that they would spend their time "at home" in the campsite with children and other women.

Today, however, children have thousands of possible jobs to choose from, but they don't get much help in selecting jobs. Instead, the democracies and free enterprise systems pander to and exploit the children and their parents.

Instead of providing children with guidance, the businesses ask the children what they want to do with their life, and the businesses compete with one another to offer the educational courses that the children and parents desire. There is no requirement that the businesses show evidence that their educational courses have some value to the children, or that there will be a job available to the children when they graduate.

The Kastron schools will have a different attitude. The Kastron schools will not ask the students, "What do you want to learn?" Instead, they will tell the children:
"We are going to put you through a variety of courses and tests in order to help you determine your talents, limitations, and desires, which will help us narrow down the choice of jobs that you should consider."

The Kastron schools will not design educational courses according to what parents or children want. Rather, the school officials will work with businesses to design courses according to what jobs are expected to be available when the students graduate.

The schools will not let the children take just any course they please. Instead, the schools will put the children to a variety of courses and tests to determine their abilities and desires, and restrict them to the courses that they show the potential for doing properly. Ideally, every student who graduates will be able to get a job in the field that he studied for.

Furthermore, it is important that a student enjoy the job that he has trained for rather than be disappointed and want to switch to some other job. This is happening frequently in the free enterprise system because children are picking up unrealistic expectations of jobs.

The Kastron school officials are required to help children develop realistic expectations of jobs. Children should not be fooled into believing that certain jobs are going to be "exciting". The children should understand that whether they like a job depends upon their particular abilities and desires. Therefore, it is important for every student to develop an accurate understanding of his particular characteristics and desires, and an accurate understanding of the jobs. The students should also try different tasks to see which of them they enjoy, and which of them they can do properly.

This type of school system does not give the students much freedom, but it is similar to the training programs that have been in use at militaries and businesses for centuries.

The organizations that have training programs for their members do not design those programs to pander to the people. They create training programs to provide the organization with the skills that it needs. They don't care what the people want. They care what the organization needs.

Furthermore, they don't allow a person to get into a training program unless he shows that he has the potential to do the job properly, and they don't allow so many people to be trained that they end up with an excess of people with that skill, and a shortage of people with some other skill.

The school systems in the world today are providing students with the freedom to choose their own education, but modern children do not benefit from this freedom. The end result of this freedom is that most students graduate without any useful skills, and often with very large debts. Our modern era is so complex that we need to restrict our freedoms and provide children with guidance.

Children will never get guidance from a free enterprise system or a democracy. Instead, those systems allow exploitation and abuse. For example, the Hollywood movies, television programs, and fiction books are giving children unrealistic expectations of what it is to be a doctor, fireman, lawyer, and policeman. Likewise, NASA is hiding the undesirable aspects of being an astronaut, thereby fooling millions of children into wanting to be an astronaut. Some children have also been fooled into believing that a sensible career option is a YouTube Celebrity or a Social Media Influencer.

We should consider that our misery is internal

The people who dominate the world today promote the attitude that we can improve our lives simply by titillating ourselves with material items, sex, servants, fame, and lounging. This is encouraging people who are unhappy to pursue such titillation.

This Constitution wants the schools to teach children that if they are not enjoying life, the first thing they should consider is that their suffering is due to an internal problem. The schools should teach children that all people are just a random collection of animal traits, and that all of us are imperfect, and we all have defects in our brain and body.

Whenever we are unhappy, the first thing we should consider is that our misery is coming from something inside of us, and has nothing to do with other people, other nations, other races, material wealth, our job, our spouse, or the devil.

If a person who is suffering from an internal problem does not consider that his suffering is due to his particular mental or physical defects, he might come to the false conclusion that his suffering is due to a lack of money, his job, his spouse, or his children. That mistake can cause him to become angry at other people, or quit his job, or get a divorce.

Or he might react to his misery by trying to find a way to titillate himself, such as by having sex with more people, or by eating more food. Or he might try to mask the misery with alcohol, or distract himself from his misery by getting involved with dangerous athletic events.

Earlier in this document I pointed out that some people misinterpret laughter and emails as insulting. If we could examine the people who have a tendency to whine about being insulted, I think we would discover that - as a group - they have more internal problems than the rest of us. Their internal pains are causing them to be irritable, so an event that would be meaningless or amusing to a normal person can cause them to become angry, pout, or cry.

We should consider that our misery is self-inflicted

Some people are miserable because they developed an unrealistic or detrimental attitude. An example is Chris Morgan, who became somewhat famous for his tantrum about women having a preference for tall men. He believes that his life is miserable because he is short, but his life is miserable because of his bad attitude.

A man's life is not ruined simply because he is shorter than the average man. Chris Morgan is tormenting himself by convincing himself that short men cannot enjoy life. There are other short men, such as Danny DeVito, who found a way to benefit from being short, rather than waste their life whining about it.

I am bald, scrawny, and have thyroid problems, but I don't waste my life whining that my problems are preventing me from enjoying life.

Women have certain preferences for men, and men have certain preferences for women. The men with the most desirable characteristics will have more women attracted to them, but a man's happiness doesn't depend upon how many women are attracted to him. Besides, everything in life has advantages and disadvantages. Some of the men who are very attractive to women have ruined their lives because they did not have enough self-control to resist the women, making it difficult for them to form a stable marriage. Some of those men also had unwanted children, or picked up a venereal disease, or were pestered at their job by aggressive women.

The issue of being attractive to the opposite sex is similar to the issue of fame. Just as we want to be attractive to the opposite sex, we also want to be famous. We assume that the more famous we are, the more happy we will be, but this is a false assumption. In reality, fame has advantages and disadvantages.

Everybody could be described as being "famous". The difference between us is that some people are famous only to a few people, such as their friends, parents, neighbors, and coworkers, and other people are famous to hundreds of people in their city, and other people are famous to millions of people in the nation, and a few people are famous to people around the world, and some people are famous even thousands of years after their death.

Our emotions fool us into believing that the more people we are famous to, the more happy we will be, but a person who is famous only to a few of his friends is capable of enjoying life just as much as a Hollywood celebrity who is famous to a billion people. Our prehistoric ancestors were famous to only the few people in their tribe, but they enjoyed life.

Furthermore, the people who are famous to a large number of people, such as the Hollywood celebrities, have a similar problem as the men and women who are extremely attractive to the opposite sex. Specifically, they cannot mingle among us without being pestered by other people.

People who believe that they need to be more famous, or that they need to be more attractive to the opposite sex, are tormenting themselves. They have destructive attitudes.

Furthermore, their bad attitudes make their life even worse because it makes them even more undesirable than they would otherwise be. For example, a short man who whines that women prefer tall men is more undesirable to both men and women than a short man who quietly accepts the fact that women have a preference for tall men. Nobody wants to be around a man who is constantly whining and hating, except perhaps other people who want to whine and hate.

During prehistoric times, the men and women did not have many choices for a spouse. Today we have a lot more choices. The short men do not have as many choices as the taller men, but they have more choices than our prehistoric ancestors had.

Furthermore, a man does not need a wife. Men have such a strong craving for a wife that we can easily fool ourselves into believing that our life is worthless without a wife. Likewise, women have such a strong craving for babies that they can fool themselves into believing that their life is worthless if they cannot have babies. In reality, having a wife, and having babies, has both advantages and disadvantages.

The purpose of an animal or plant is to reproduce, so we have intense cravings to do that, but it is entirely possible for a person to enjoy his life without satisfying that particular craving. The men who believe that they must have a wife, and the women who believe they must have a baby, are tormenting themselves. They are suffering because of their attitude, not because they are unable to satisfy an emotional craving.

It is entirely possible for a person to accept his mental and physical defects, and find a way to enjoy his life. I don't waste my time being envious of other people, or convincing myself that I cannot enjoy life because of my problems. I accept my problems and find other aspects of life to enjoy. I try to understand my problems and limitations, figure out what my talents and abilities are, avoid what I am not good at, and do what I am better at.

There are probably millions of people around the world who are frequently in a state of anger, envy, pouting, depression, or misery because they have convinced themselves that they are suffering from poverty, racism, discrimination, or sexism, or because they are short, ugly, or have a small penis. However, they are suffering because they are tormenting themselves. They are suffering because of their bad attitudes. They also irritate the rest of us with their whining and accusations, which causes us to want to avoid them, which in turn makes their life even worse.

This Constitution wants the schools to experiment with reducing this problem by getting the children accustomed to looking critically at themselves, and accepting their defects. The school should also teach children that the first thing they should consider when they are unhappy is that their misery is coming from inside themselves, and not to blame other people, or mysterious concepts, such as poverty, racism, or white supremacy.

The children who become adults who cannot understand these concepts, and who continue to complain that women discriminate against short men, or who accuse other people of sexism, need to be regarded as unable to cope with the modern world. They need to be put on restrictions or exiled so that we don't have to suffer from their bad attitudes and idiotic accusations. We must stop ignoring or giving pity to the people who are dirt in our transmission.

Weird people should be investigated, not punished or pitied

This Constitution wants the quality control department to observe people, and to consider that the people who have bizarre behavior are suffering from an internal problem. We should investigate the people with weird behavior, not ignore them or make excuses for them. Some of our internal problems are now correctable to a certain extent through medical drugs or changes in diet, so we should check to see if we can help those people.

The National Institutes of Health recently released the results of an analysis of young American adults, and it showed that the people who smoke marijuana are more likely to have suicidal thoughts than the rest of us, and the people who smoked the most marijuana tended to have the most suicidal thoughts.

The primary scientist of the study, Nora Volkow, (a great-granddaughter of Leon Trotsky!), admits that she cannot claim that smoking marijuana increases suicidal thoughts, but she and other people are frequently trying to convince us that marijuana will cause mental health problems.

It is possible that some drugs can cause brain damage, but a more sensible explanation for why the people with the strongest attraction to marijuana have the most suicidal thoughts is because of a concept that I mentioned in other documents. Specifically, the people who are suffering from certain mental and physical disorders are likely to look for relief, such as through drugs. Therefore, the people who have attractions to drugs should be investigated to see if they are suffering from a problem that we can help them deal with.

Likewise, the people who spend an abnormal amount of time masturbating, shopping, eating, and struggling to be the center of attention, should also consider that they are suffering from some type of mental or physical disorder, and that they are reacting to their misery by titillating themselves.

Children should be taught that the first thing they should consider when they feel miserable is that their misery is coming from inside them. If everybody had that attitude, then we would not regard the people who have cravings for alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs as being evil, stupid, ignorant, or rebellious, and would not try to cure them of their drug problem with punishments or rehabilitation programs.

Instead, we would analyze them to determine whether they are suffering from an internal problem that they can reduce by changing their diet, getting more sleep, or adjusting their hormone levels. We would also realize that the unhappy people are genetically inferior to the rest of us, and that the only way to reduce this problem is to restrict reproduction to the higher-quality people.

The environment affects what we "like"

Everybody knows what they like and dislike in regards to food, clothing, hairstyles, music, and art, but our mind is never aware of how our desires are influenced by our social environment. To rephrase this, we assume that what we like and dislike is something definite, rather than something arbitrary and easily changeable.

Our emotions have genetic preferences for certain colors, patterns, foods, and odors, but our mind also has the genetic flexibility to adapt to our environment to a certain extent. Therefore, if we had grown up in a different era or a different society, we would have developped slightly different desires for foods, music, clothing, hairstyles, and art.

Furthermore, it is important for us to realize that once we become an adult, our mind resists changes, which can fool us into believing that what we like and dislike is definite rather than arbitrary. Our resistance to change can fool us into believing that something that is different from what we are accustomed to is dangerous, unacceptable, or unappealing.

If we do not understand these emotions and characteristics, we can be afraid of things that we would otherwise enjoy, and we will insist that we enjoy something that we became accustomed to during our childhood but would not otherwise have much interest in. An example that I have mentioned is that the American children who grew up eating American ice cream become adults who are frightened by the Japanese ice cream called Mochi.

I will now give a personal example of how our desires in artwork are also influenced by our environment. When I was in sixth grade, the teacher gave each of us students a piece of clay, and told us to make something from it. She had arranged for our clay objects to be fired in a kiln, and then we would be able to glaze it, and she would then fire it a second time. The year was either 1966 or 1967.

At that time the Jews were pushing the "sexual revolution" on the world. It was also the time when LSD was legal, and there were lots of people burning incense, playing with Ouija boards, and promoting clairvoyance and horoscopes. It was the era of beatniks, hippies, and "Love-Ins".

One of the styles of pottery that was popular at that time, and which attracted my attention, were the miniature vases with tapered necks, similar to the three vases in the photo to the left, below. I decided to make a vase that was the same size and shape of my hand, and then add a tapered spout to each finger and the thumb to create a vase with 5 of those tapered spouts. The result is in the photo to the right. (I did not have access to a pottery wheel, so I had to form the tapered spouts with my fingers, so they are somewhat defective.)





I made some more pottery in high school, and I had access to a pottery wheel, but I was still so lacking in creativity that I ended up making a vase with a long tapered spout that resembled the "hippie vases" that had fascinated me as a child. (The vase at the right in the photo below.) The other vase was my attempt to be unique, but it ended up being just a slight modification of the hippie vases.

The point I want to make is that my pottery was influenced significantly by my environment. They were not designed according to what I "wanted", or what I "liked". Rather, they were just modifications of the vases that fascinated me as a child.

The point I want to make is that if I had grown up in a different era or society, I would have created different pottery. For example, if I had grown up in a prehistoric tribe, I might have created a clay figure of an animal or a fat woman, and if I had grown up in ancient Egypt, I would have made something that resembled the pottery of that society.

If I had been born 700,000 years in the future, I would have been exposed to a much wider variety of pottery, and I cannot guess at what I might have created.

We all believe that we know what we like, but in reality what we like and dislike should be regarded as arbitrary or "nebulous". A person who doesn't understand these concepts can become obsessed with achieving desires that are meaningless or idiotic, thereby wasting his time and resources, and possibly causing him to get into lots of arguments with his spouse or friends.

For example, a man who convinces himself that he must decorate his house with a certain style of furniture, or he must have a certain style of ice cream and pizza, or he must celebrate Christmas in a particular manner, or that he must have a sailboat, private airplane, or certain model of automobile, will have endless arguments with his wife if she has convinced herself that they need a different style of furniture, foods, holiday celebrations, and recreational activities.

Both of them will be convinced that they must satisfy their particular desires, when in reality they picked up those desires during their childhood, and they are as arbitrary as their language, clothing styles, and hairstyles.

Our prehistoric ancestors were not affected by this particular problem for two reasons:

1) They grew up in tiny tribes that were isolated from most of the world, and so they only knew the culture of their tribe. Therefore, there was not much of a disagreement on what to do or believe.

Today we grow up around thousands of people who have a variety of different beliefs, and we are exposed to the cultures of people from around the world. This is resulting in children developing a wide variety of desires and attitudes.

2) They had very few desires. Their primary goal was finding food and water every day, a safe place to sleep at night, and protection from animals.

Today, however, not many of us are concerned about finding food or a place to sleep. Instead, we develop desires for furniture, television, snowmobiles, yachts, mansions, pets, Guinness World Records, expensive cars, airplanes, Olympic gold medals, and a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Modern technology provides us with a phenomenal number of products and activities. If we don't look critically at our desires, we can waste our life pursuing meaningless and arbitrary desires. We can also get into lots of arguments, and get into a lot of debt.

Our desires are affected by our physical condition

To complicate the issue of what we like and dislike, our desires can be affected by our physical condition. For example, our hunger emotion becomes activated we need to start looking for food. The more hungry we are, the stronger our attraction to food will be, and the more sensitive we will be to the flavors of food.

As I mentioned earlier in this document, a food that has a mild flavor, such as mushrooms, walnuts, and almonds, will seem bland if we eat them at the end of a meal, when we are not hungry. However, if we are extremely hungry, our mind will be much more sensitive to the subtle flavors of those foods. We will notice that almonds and walnuts actually have a pleasant flavor. (This is assuming that we have access to fresh nuts, not the stale nuts that most retail markets are selling.)

Our hunger emotion was not intended to allow us to enjoy food, or to make our lives more pleasant. Rather, it is similar to our sexual emotion. These emotions are tricks that stimulate us into doing something, such as looking for food, or reproducing. Once we have had enough food, our hunger emotion diminishes in order to make us stop eating.

If we do not understand our emotions, we might assume that we will increase our pleasure in life by continuing to eat at the end of a meal. However, since food tastes bland at the end of a meal, we will switch to foods that are more stimulating, such as foods that are high in sugar. This has resulted in our custom of having sweet desserts at the end of a meal.

We assume that having sweet desserts at the end of the meal is a sensible method of feeding humans, but in reality it is a method to circumvent our hunger emotion. The end result is that we increase our chances of becoming overweight and unhealthy. Having sweet desserts at the end of a meal is analogous to a robot that disables one of its safety switches so that it can do something that it is not supposed to do.

A similar situation occurs to the people who never let themselves become hungry because they eat all throughout the day. Since they are never hungry, the foods with subtle flavors will seem bland. This will cause them to be more attracted to the foods with sweet, salty, and strong flavors. For example, raw almonds will seem tasteless, so they will prefer the almonds that are flavored or have a candy coating. They will prefer salads that have dressings with artificial flavors and sugar, and they will prefer meats that have sugar, sodium nitrate, smoke flavorings, and spices.

Our desires are affected by our attitude

When we are happy, everything in life will be more pleasant. Food will taste better, the flowers will be more attractive, other people will be more enjoyable, and the chirping of birds will be more pleasurable. At the other extreme, when we are unhappy, the same things can be seem unpleasant, dreary, or even irritating. This concept is similar to a concept I mentioned years ago here in which we can develop attractions to, or become repulsed by, inanimate objects.

Understanding these concepts can help us to identify mental and physical problems in ourself and other people. Specifically, when a person is suffering from an internal pain or mental disorder, their threshold for irritation will be lower, thereby causing them to be irritated by events that would not bother normal person.

When somebody is not enjoying what other people are enjoying, and especially when they complain about what other people enjoy, we should consider the possibility that he is suffering from some type of mental or physical disorder.

Many people have noticed that when they are lacking in sleep, or suffering from an injury, they are more irritable, but we are not yet considering that there are lots of mental and physical problems that can put us in a state of irritability and misery.

A person who is in good mental and physical health will be able to enjoy life, but a person who is suffering from a mental or physical disorder will be in a state of misery, so trivial irritations can increase his misery to the point at which it causes him to complain, frown, make sarcastic remarks, or want to be alone.

In the world today, we don't regard complaining, sarcasm, accusations, or antisocial behavior to be a symptom of a problem. We are more likely to ignore or pity those people, or make excuses for their strange behavior. We are especially likely to make excuses for the weird behavior of children because we have such a strong craving to protect children.

A more sensible reaction is to treat ourselves and other people in the same manner that we treat animals and machines. When a machine is behaving abnormally, we investigate. We don't make excuses for the machine, pity the machine, ignore the machine, or punish the machine. Likewise, when a farmer notices that an animal is walking differently, or behaving differently, or making strange noises, he does not ignore the problem or make excuses for the animal. He investigates.

This concept applies to the people I mentioned earlier who interpret laughter and other meaningless events as insults. Instead of being intimidated by those people, and instead of apologizing to them, we should consider the possibility that they are suffering from some type of internal pain, which puts them in a state of irritability, which in turn causes them to become upset by meaningless events.

Businesses have quality control departments to deal with defective products, and human societies need a quality control department to investigate the unhappy and weird people. Ignoring those people can allow their problems to become worse, and some of them might eventually become violent.

People today need the education and intelligence to realize that every animal, plant, and human is just a jumble of genetic characteristics. We should not pity the people with bizarre behavior, or who do not seem to be enjoying life. We should investigate them. Some of them may have problems that we can deal with, such as blood sugar problems, kidney problems, thyroid problems, or allergies.

If the conclusion of our investigation of an unusual person is that we cannot figure out what his problem is, he should at least be made aware that there is something wrong with him to reduce the chance that he makes the mistake of assuming that his misery is due to other people.

Furthermore, the security force and the voters should be aware of who is miserable because the miserable people are the most likely to cause trouble. One reason is that they may blame their misery on other people, and try to get revenge. Another is that they may get involved with absurd quests for happiness. An extreme example is Benjamin Sifrit and his girlfriend, who got involved with crimes and random murders in the hope that those activities would bring excitement to their miserable lives.

Some other examples of people who seem to be suffering from internal problems and are on a quest for happiness are those who are:
• Struggling to become billionaires, famous celebrities, and government officials.
• Engaging in risky stunts, or encouraging dangerous pranks.
• Shopping for things that they don't need.

Our desires are affected by the strength of our emotions

We all have the same emotions, but there are subtle differences in their intensity, what will trigger them, and how long they stay triggered. This results in each of us reacting slightly differently to the same environment. Some men have a stronger craving for sex, others have a stronger craving for status, and others have a stronger craving for food.

All men have a craving to be at the top of the hierarchy, but our emotional differences cause us to be attracted to slightly different aspects of leadership. For example:

• A man with a strong craving to feel important is likely to be impressed by the attention and pampering that our leaders receive. He will want to be a leader so that he can become the center of attention. He will fantasize about crowds of people applauding him, and groups of photographers following him around, and military personnel laying red carpets on the ground for him to walk on.

• A man who has an abnormally intense craving for sex is more likely to notice the young women that pursue the men in leadership positions, so he is more likely to fantasize about becoming a leader so that he can have access to those women.

• A man who has a strong craving for material wealth is likely to be impressed by the mansions, yachts, or private jets of the men in leadership positions, so he will be more likely to want a leadership position so that he can have that extreme amount of material wealth.

Have you ever considered what impresses you, or what attracts your attention? For example, when you see a billionaire, are you most impressed by his material wealth? Or by the young and pretty women who chase after him? Or by the groups of photographers that follow him around?

The better we understand ourselves, the better we will do at making decisions about our lives and our culture. For a simplistic example, consider the two wristwatches in the photos below.


If you were told to select one of these watches for yourself, which of them would you prefer?




Although wristwatches are no longer popular, if they were, and if you were truly given those two watches to select from, you should notice that your emotions want you to hesitate about making a decision until you know the brands and prices. The reason is because your emotions want to make a decision based upon what you assume other people will like. You want to choose the items that other people will be impressed by. Some of us are more concerned with our status than others, but all of us are concerned with our status.

If we could measure everybody's emotional feelings as they look at those watches, we would likely discover that the men who are suffering from low self-esteem, or who are trying to attract a wife, or who have above-average cravings for status, have a greater concern with the brand and prices than other men.

Furthermore, it is important to note that our emotions are concerned about the status value of the watches, but not their quality or ease of maintenance, and especially not the ease of recycling them.

This characteristic can also be seen when people choose foods, wedding rings, and clothing. For example, as I pointed out in other documents, the expensive foods, such as lobster and caviar, are considered "delicacies", and I think the extreme attraction to expensive foods is only because they are expensive, not because they taste better than pork, beef, or chicken.

Likewise, tennis was considered to be a special sport during the 1960's, and I think the attraction to it was only because at that time it was a sport of the wealthy people, not because it's more enjoyable or useful than other sports.

The free enterprise system gives us the products and activities that we "want", but our emotions are concerned only with status, flavor, odor, and visual appearance. Our emotions do not care about such issues as maintenance, quality, health, or recycling. When businesses provide us with the products that we are emotionally attracted to, they give us items that are wasteful, polluting, high maintenance, worthless, low-quality, and unhealthy.

In order to provide ourselves with better products and activities, we need an economic system that allows an authority to ignore our emotional cravings and make decisions according to what will truly improve our lives. Likewise, in order to provide ourselves with better meals, we need leaders who have enough self-control to make decisions for humans as if they are making decisions for animals.

This Constitution gives the government officials control of the economy, but the government officials can authorize a product only if they can show that it truly brings improvements to human life. They must also take into account the maintenance and recycling issues of the product, the effect the product has on the environment, and the effect it has on the jobs of the people who must build and maintain it.

Getting back to those two wristwatches in the photos above, the photos don't have enough detail for you to truly decide which one is most visually attractive, but pick one of them anyway. Then look at the prices by clicking on each watch. Then try to notice whether you can feel your emotions reacting to the prices.

You are likely to notice your emotions are triggered when you discovered which watch was the most expensive. For example, if you picked the lower cost watch, you might find your emotions praising yourself for not caring about price, whereas if you picked the more expensive watch, you might find your emotions praising you for recognizing the "better" watch. Or, if you picked the lower cost watch, you might find that your emotions are trying to push you into changing your decision so that you can feel special.

The point is that if you observe yourself carefully, you will notice that your emotions try to influence your decisions. In order for us to truly enjoy our modern era, we need to understand our emotions, exert some self-control, and make intelligent decisions.

The free enterprise system is based on the assumption that consumers will make wise decisions about products, but one of the reasons that consumers cannot make wise decisions is because our emotions influence our decisions, and most people do not have much self-control, or much of an understanding of their emotions. This results in most purchasing decisions being significantly influenced by our emotions.

The businesses respond by providing us with advertisements that titillate our emotions rather than provide us with intelligent information. Likewise, the websites that most businesses create are dominated by idiotic but emotionally titillating images and remarks. There is almost no useful information in their product descriptions, or their videos.

The videos that most businesses create to explain their products are usually just some simplistic images and boastful remarks, and often have more music than intelligent narration. We learn almost nothing from their videos. We learn more about products by watching the videos posted by ordinary citizens who purchased the product and decided to tell us what they think about it.

By allowing the government officials of Kastron to control the economy, and by restricting the government officials to people who have demonstrated an above-average level of self-control, we will have leaders who will ensure that businesses are producing products that are truly beneficial, and easy to manufacture, maintain, and recycle. The businesses will also be under pressure to provide product descriptions that are useful.

False beliefs are no longer acceptable

False theories are detrimental to everybody, including prehistoric people. For example, if a prehistoric tribe believed that they could cause rain by sacrificing a child, they would murder one of their own members every time they wanted rain. Today the false theories can be even more dangerous because we have a significant effect on one another, and on the future generations.

People today need more intelligence, a greater desire to think and learn, and much more self-control. We also need an understanding of emotions, and we must be able to understand the concept that what we "want" and "like" is not necessarily what we truly want, like, need, or benefit from. We also need enough intelligence and knowledge to understand that human behavior is genetic, and that we are a species of monkey.

It is no longer acceptable for people to follow some idiotic fantasy. False beliefs cause a lot of fights, frustrations, and disappointments because humans do not behave as those theories predict. For example, the feminists are continuously failing to make men and women become unisex creatures, and in the process they cause a lot of resentment, fights, frustration, and anger.

It is important to realize that some of these false theories appear to be sensible because they are based on real people or real events. However, they are based on only a tiny sample of the population. People today need to understand that we cannot base theories on the exceptions.

For example, when a feminist wants to convince us that men are cruel, she tells us about the small percentage of men who are extremely violent with their wives and/or children. When a feminist wants to convince us that women are just as intelligent as men, she finds the unusual women who have unusual intellectual abilities. When a psychologist wants to convince us that punishments can cure a criminal, they find the unusual criminals who appear to become honest after spending time in jail.

Those people are picking out a few unusual people to justify a theory that would be disproven if we looked at a larger group of random people.



The religious people, feminists, Freudian psychologists, and many other people are tormenting themselves and the rest of us by trying to force humans to behave in a manner that is unnatural and unrealistic.
The people who follow a false philosophy are tormenting themselves and other people by trying to force people to behave in a manner that is unnatural.

An example are the religious people who insist that there is a distinct dividing line between male and female. They torment the masculine women and the feminine men since they cannot tolerate the concept that some people are a mixture of male and female traits.

Everybody today realizes that it is cruel and senseless to force left-handed children to become right-handed. Everybody is capable of acknowledging that this characteristic is due to genetics, and that we cannot control it or change it.

However, most people are continuing to believe lots of equally stupid theories, such as the theory that we can force the badly behaved people to behave in a better manner by punishing them with jail, sarcasm, or beatings. And some people believe that they can cure homosexuality, mental illness, alcoholism, and depression with punishments or rehabilitation programs.

We should reduce all types of pornography

We should expand the definition of pornography

We consider "pornography" to be material that stimulates our sexual emotions, but we should consider the stimulation of any emotion to be pornography. For example, I mentioned here that the travel agencies could be described as producing "travel pornography".

They design the travel information to be stimulating, not honest, educational, or accurate. They accomplish this stimulation using the same techniques that businesses use to create sexual pornography. Specifically, they edit photos and videos to make them more emotionally titillating, and they create descriptions that are emotionally titillating.

One of the tricks that businesses use to make their travel pornography more exciting is to increase the intensity of the levels of the colors in the photos. If you're not familiar with what that can do to a photo, and how it can affect your emotions, compare the two portions of a photo of Zion National Park. At the left is a portion of a photo from the website. (Click it to see the full sized photo.) Somebody edited it to increase the intensity level of the colors. At the right is the same photo after I reduced the color levels.



Website photo

After I reduced its intensity





Those two photos will look different on different computer monitors, but all monitors should show that when the color level is increased, the colors become more intense. It creates photos in which the water sparkles, and the leaves and flower petals glow in the sunshine. It can create some spectacular images, but they are as unrealistic as a cartoon.

Zion National Park has some beautiful rocks, but they are not nearly as spectacular as those in the edited photos.

For example, in the photo to the right, the skin color of the people is fairly accurate, which is a sign that it has not been edited. Notice how the water, rocks, and trees seem to be dull compared to the edited photo (above, left).

Increasing the levels of the colors can make a photo more emotionally titillating, but when a person doesn't realize that he is looking at an edited photo, he might be fooled into believing that those areas of the world have more spectacular plants, rivers, flowers, and rocks.

Those edited photos make the area where he lives seem dull, dreary, and lacking in color. That in turn can cause him to develop a craving to travel to those "exotic" locations so that he can see the spectacular scenery, and discover the meaning of life.

The edited photos are fooling people into believing that some parts of the earth are much more beautiful than others. In reality, all areas of the planet are spectacular, other than the areas that have been destroyed by humans. The people who create the artificially exciting photos are deceiving people with what should be described as "travel pornography".

Likewise, the people who write articles in which they make traveling appear to be the key to finding happiness should be described as creating travel pornography. For example, this article claims that there are 10 locations on the earth that we "need to visit". That article should be described as "travel pornography" because it is titillating our emotions rather than educating us, and it is causing us to develop unrealistic attitudes, goals, and expectations. It is analogous to an article in a Playboy magazine that claims that there are 10 positions that we must have sex in, or that there are 10 Playboy models that we must have sex with.

The travel pornography is causing a lot of people to develop a desire to travel to the "exotic" and "exciting" places, and it causes some of the people who cannot afford to travel to become sad, angry, envious, or bitter. Both groups of people are victims of deceptive and abusive businesses that have tricked them into developing idiotic desires and attitudes.

Travel pornography is causing a lot of people to develop unrealistic expectations of other areas of the earth. This can cause those people to become disappointed, angry, or confused.

This site and this one has dozens of their stupid remarks, such as the man who visited Stonehenge and made the sarcastic remark: "It’s a bunch of rocks."

He had apparently been fooled into believing that when walked over to Stonehenge, a beautiful Angel would appear in the sky, and she would provide him with the meaning of life.

If travel agencies were offering trips to the moon or Mars, people like him would very likely come back with complaints such as, "It's just a bunch of crushed rocks and dust!"

In this document, I pointed out that people were traveling to areas that they knew nothing about, and the travel agencies do not make any attempt to educate their customers, and the government officials who encourage tourism do not bother to provide information about their area.

I pointed out that it would be much more sensible for every city to maintain a website with serious information about their area. A tourist to Florida would then be able to learn if there are alligators in the city he wants to visit, and if so, how people should react to alligators.

That page of customer complaints shows why it is important for people to be educated before they travel. For example, a citizen in England who visited Mexico complained:
 "I got sunburned. They should warn you that the sun is brighter in Mexico than it is in England. I would have worn sun cream if I knew."

The free enterprise system is becoming increasingly abusive and disgusting as the economy becomes more complex. It encourages us to treat one another as profit opportunities rather than as friends. It is resulting in all of us picking up idiotic ideas and goals about travel, sex, material items, food, babies, and pets. That in turn is creating a lot of frustration, fights, complaints, and disappointments. For example:
• It causes a lot of people to waste time and resources on traveling.
• It causes some men to irritate their wife by trying to imitate the idiotic sexual activities of the pornography videos.
• It causes some women to waste time and money trying to achieve the fantasy wedding that titillated them in the "wedding pornography" brochures.
• It causes some young girls and adult women to develop obsessions with owning a horse.

In Kastron, the business leaders, engineers, scientists, and everybody else is required to be honest about their products, services, theories, and suggestions. Everybody must differentiate between serious information and entertainment. The serious information must educate us, not titillate us. The people who edit photos that are intended for serious documents should be doing so to clarify information, not titillate us.

By comparison, when producing entertainment or art, it is acceptable to alter photos and videos to be more emotionally stimulating, and there is no need to identify the photo as being edited. By editing photos, and by doing tricks with cameras, we can create photos that are useful as art, such as the two photos below that I edited.








If we were to travel to the forest in England where those purple flowers are growing, we would not find any area that resembles that photo. Likewise, if we were to travel to Australia where those rocks are located, we would see only a few stars in the sky, and the rocks and fog would seem bland. Those photos are unacceptable in an educational document about England and Australia, but they are acceptable as art.

Incidentally, if you want to experiment with altering the intensity, colors, and contrast of photos, and don't have photo editing software, you can download the software I make from here. Although it's not intended for photo editing, it does all of those simplistic operations. I used it to make those two photos above, and for a lot of the editing of the other photos in my documents. I also use it as a text editor to create these documents.

Masturbation is excessive today


This Constitution considers material that is designed to titillate our emotions to be a form of "pornography". With that definition, there was no pornography during prehistoric times. Today, however, there are lots of organizations producing a wide variety of emotionally stimulating documents, videos, photos, and products. This Constitution regards all of that material as forms of pornography.

Every society is putting restrictions on sexual pornography because many people have noticed that it has a detrimental effect on boys because it can cause them to develop unrealistic expectations of sex and women, fool them into believing that sex is more exciting than it actually is, and cause them to waste a lot of their time on masturbation or trying to have sex. Some women also complain that sexual pornography is causing adult men to develop cravings for bizarre sex acts and excessive amounts of sex.

However, every society is allowing all other types of pornography. This Constitution changes that by considering all pornography to be detrimental because all of it has a bad effect on our attitudes, goals, and expectations. For example, the travel pornography causes us to develop cravings to travel. That in turn can cause us to waste time and resources on traveling, and get into arguments with our spouse or family members about when and where to travel. If we cannot travel, we might pout, whine, or become angry.

Likewise, the magazines and television programs that show wealthy people "enjoying" mansions and private jets should be described as "material wealth pornography". That type of pornography can fool us into believing that the people with mansions, private jets, and diamond jewelry are having a better life than the rest of us.

Businesses involved with weddings could be described as producing "wedding pornography". They titillate young girls to such an extreme that millions of them waste a lot of their youth on fantasies of an extravagant wedding, and cause many women to waste a lot of time and money on a wedding.

Likewise, the businesses that produce romantic books and television programs could be described as producing "romance pornography". They titillate women with fantasies of becoming the center of attention of knights in shining armor.

What is the difference between:


a) Boys titillating themselves with sexual or material wealth pornography.
b) Girls titillating themselves with wedding or romance pornography?




There is no significant difference between those activities. Both the boy and the girl are masturbating, and both of them are wasting their time on a worthless activity, and both of them are picking up idiotic goals, attitudes, and expectations.

We should suppress public masturbation

Although some animals are capable of sexual masturbation, only the human mind is capable of masturbating with all of our emotions. This is one of the reasons that wealthy people appear to be having a better life than the rest of us, and the reason so many people believe that they are suffering from various problems, such as sexism, discrimination, miscarriages, and divorces.

For example, the pleasure that we receive from owning diamonds and gold is due to our ability to titillate ourselves. We do not receive any pleasure from the diamonds or the gold. Rather, a person who owns gold or diamonds receives pleasure by titillating himself with fantasies that he is a special, important person. He imagines that he is high in the hierarchy, and that other people admire him.

A person who titillates himself over his material wealth is masturbating. We are disgusted by people who stimulate their sexual emotions in public, and the police will arrest them, but we are impressed by a person who shows off his material wealth. We admire those people rather than call the police.

One of the problems with allowing people to masturbate in public is that it can cause other people to react with envy, sadness, or anger. For example, when a person flaunts his wealth, some "poor" people react by imagining that they are suffering from poverty. Those poor people are masturbating also, but instead of stimulating their pleasurable emotions, they stimulate anger, envy, or sadness. However, we do not call the police to arrest them, either.




The people who show off their wealth, and the "poor" people who respond by pouting or hating, are stimulating themselves, but not in a productive manner. Both groups are analogous to dirt in the transmission. They are behaving in a stupid manner, and they are encouraging other people to believe that we need lots of material wealth in order to be happy. This can cause trouble because some people might become so convinced that they need more material wealth that they commit crimes to get more of it, or they might become so angry about their "poverty" that they vandalize or attack the wealthy people, or get involved with a communist or socialist organization.

A woman might react by assuming that her poverty is due to glass ceilings and sexism, and a black American might assume that his poverty is due to discrimination, white supremacy, white privilege, or racism.

We could summarize this as: the wealthy people masturbate in public to make themselves feel special, and the poor people respond by masturbating in public to make themselves feel miserable. This is an absurd situation. Ideally, we would have leaders who encourage people to exert some self-control and stop such idiotic behavior.

Our ability to stimulate both unpleasant and pleasant emotions is causing a lot of trouble today because we have so many issues to stimulate ourselves with. Some people make themselves miserable in response to a miscarriage, divorce, or the death of a family member. There are other people making themselves miserable over poverty, racism, sexism, or bullying. There are other people who waste a lot of time masturbating with fantasies of being loved by Jesus, and other people masturbate with the fantasy that their pet dog loves them.

What is the difference between a man who titillates himself:
1) with sexual pornography.
2) by telling himself that Jesus loves him.
3) by showing us his expensive boat.

The differences are:
1) The men are stimulating different emotions.
2) We prohibit only sexual masturbation in public.

Why do we prohibit sexual masturbation in public, but not other types of masturbation? I suppose it is for the same reason we don't want people having sex in public, or picking their nose in public, or pooping in public. Specifically, those particular acts stimulate uncomfortable emotional feelings. In order to create a more relaxing social environment, our ancestors told people to do those acts in private locations. By comparison, we do not feel any embarrassment or awkwardness in regards to material wealth, so we are not bothered by people who show off their wealth.

The people who boast about their material wealth are masturbating in public, and they are stimulating other people's emotions, but rather than prohibit that type of public masturbation, we encourage it. We regard the people who show off their wealth to be "successful" rather than "masturbating".

Unfortunately, when we allow people to show off their wealth, they can encourage people to get involved with worthless and detrimental competitions. For example, when the people who live along an ocean or cliff boast about their "beautiful" and "spectacular" views, that can cause other people to become convinced that their life is miserable because they have homes with "ordinary" views. That in turn causes many people to get involved with a competition to have the most spectacular views. This has resulted in people ruining many beaches and cliffs, such as the beach in Malibu in the photo below.



 Do the people who live in these expensive homes along the Malibu beach really have a better life than you or me?
If people would control their emotional craving to show off, and if other people would stop assuming that they must compete with the people who show off, a lot of people would come to the conclusion that the "poor" people who live on flat land and have a view of a garden actually have a better situation than those who live on cliffs and along the ocean because they don't have to deal with storms, saltwater sprays, high winds, or cliff erosion.

Humans have a strong craving to feel special, and this results in wealthy people acquiring expensive items simply so that they can boast about themselves.

This Constitution advocates experimenting with a social environment in which all types of public masturbation are discouraged. We should restrict leadership positions to people who have much more self-control. Our leaders should encourage beneficial behavior, self control, teamwork, cooperation, and productive attitudes.

We should prohibit masturbating to stimulate hatred

The African-Americans who are constantly reminding themselves that their ancestors were slaves, or who are convincing themselves that they need reparations, are masturbating, but not to make themselves feel good. Rather, they do it to stimulate their anger, hatred, pouting, and whining.

Likewise, the African-Americans who describe themselves as "we black Americans" are stimulating themselves into believing that they are the leader of all black Americans, and that all black Americans agree with their angry remarks.



 Our leaders should encourage productive behavior, not encourage us to stimulate our hatred and anger.
Many people in China are stimulating their hatred of Taiwan by repeatedly reminding themselves that the Taiwanese separated from China. That behavior is similar to a man who beats or kills his wife when she wants a divorce. There are also some people in China stimulating hatred of Hong Kong, Tibet, or Japan.

The people who stimulate their hatred are involved with a very destructive type of masturbation, and we should not tolerate those people.

To understand how destructive it is, imagine if everybody in the world was doing it. For example, everybody of European ancestry could convince themselves that they need reparations because of what the Vikings, Romans, Greeks, Napoleon, Muslims, and other people did to their ancestors.

In the USA, the Hatfields and the McCoys became famous for repeatedly stimulating hatred of one another, but their fights lasted for only about 27 years. Many African-Americans and Chinese people have been behaving in this manner for more than 27 years. We consider the Hatfields and the McCoys to be disgusting for holding grudges for so long, so why not consider the African-Americans and the Chinese who hold grudges for decades or centuries to be disgusting?

Why is no one complaining about black or brown supremacy?

There are constant accusations in the USA that the white Europeans were genocidal, violent, selfish maniacs who lied to, abused, and nearly exterminated the Native Americans. However, we could make this accusation about every group of people, and we could accuse some groups, such as Genghis Khan, as being even more violent and selfish than the white Europeans. The hordes of Muslims that attacked Central and Western Europe could also be described as murderers and genocidal.

Recently the president of Haiti was assassinated, but how many of the people who whine about white supremacy noticed that he was African? Why not complain that Africans are dominating Haiti? Why not accuse them of "black supremacy"? Why not accuse them of being genocidal maniacs who exterminated the native people?

Likewise, why not accuse the Spanish and Portuguese people in Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and other nations for exterminating, raping, and torturing the natives of those areas? Why not accuse them of brown supremacy, Portuguese supremacy, or Spanish supremacy? Why is it that only "white people" are condemned for getting to fights and owning slaves?

It is because the white people are the most peaceful and generous. Instead of exterminating the Native Americans, they felt sorry for them and gave them some land to live on. By comparison, Genghis Khan didn't set up any reservations, and neither did the Spanish or Portuguese who conquered the native Americans.

This shows one of the unfortunate aspects of life. Nature puts animals and plants into a battle for life and death, and there is no pity for the loser. When a group of wolves encounters another group, they will fight over the territory, and winners do not care if the losers end up dead. The winners don't set up a reservation for the lower quality wolves.

The Europeans who first settled into America, Canada, and Australia were low-quality people, and most of them had a very strong "feel sorry for me" attitude. They felt sorry for the natives, so they gave them some land and let them live. If they had behaved like all other groups of people, they would have expanded throughout North America and Australia without caring what happened to the natives. This would have slowly driven the natives to extinction.

By being kind, and allowing them to live, they created the ridiculous situation in which the USA, Canada, and Australia have thousands of patches of land that are "wild game preserves for primitive humans". This situation allows those natives, and other races, to accuse the white people of being cruel, when in reality it is proof that they are generous and kind.

The white Americans and Europeans are actually more peaceful and generous than the other races, which is why those other races want to live with us, and it is why those races can get away with making idiotic accusations about us without fear that we will react with violence.

What are the motives of the people who whine about white people?

Earlier in this document I pointed out that we should be concerned about the motives of a person. This applies to the people who are whining about racism. Why are so many black Americans demanding reparations? Why are Aruna Khilanani and some other immigrants from India, Mexico, and Brazil accusing the white Americans of racism? Did any of these people actually put time and effort into analyzing life in the USA and find evidence that there really is a problem with racism? If so, where is their research and analysis?

Where is the list of names of white people who have hurt Aruna Khilanani? Where is the list of the crimes they committed against her? Did they rape her? Did they hit her with a stick? What exactly did white people do to her to justify her hatred of us? And if she is truly suffering from abuse, why is she remaining in the USA instead of going back to her own people in India? Why does she prefer to suffer the abuse of cruel, selfish, genocidal, racist white people rather than enjoy life in India among peaceful, loving, generous, and honest brown people?

Allowing people to make an accusation of racism without demanding supporting evidence for their theory is as idiotic as allowing a person to make an accusation of burglary, murder, rape, or extortion without providing any evidence.

The police look for evidence of accusations before they arrest a person, but no nation cares whether citizens, journalists, professors, the ADL, the FBI, or anybody else makes accusations of racism, sexism, climate change denial, Holocaust denial, or homophobia. Those and some other accusations are analogous to the wildcards in a poker game. Specifically, we can use them against anybody we dislike, and without supporting evidence.

If we had total surveillance of the human population, and if we were to review the video of Aruna Khilanani's life, I suspect that we would come to the conclusion that she has not been abused by white people. We might instead come to the conclusion that she should be classified as mentally ill, and we might agree with Yale University that she should not have been given any publicity.

It is also possible that Aruna Khilanani has been manipulated into hating white people. This article is an attempt to explain the "Critical Race Theory", and the author points out that some of the theory "was developed by Jewish academics in Germany during the rise of Nazism in the 1930s." This is more evidence that Jews are involved with promoting accusations of racism and the hatred of white people. Therefore, an analysis of Aruna Khilanani's life might show us that she is being blackmailed, bribed, deceived, or intimidated by Jews into making the accusations.

Likewise, if we were to analyze all of the lives of the black people who are whining about racism, we might find that they have not been abused by white people, either. We might find that a lot of them are mentally defective, and that some of them are being manipulated by Jews.

This Constitution considers accusations such as "climate change denial" and "sexism" to be the same as accusing somebody of being a pedophile or a burglar. This Constitution requires everybody to have supporting evidence for their accusations, or else they are guilty of making a false accusation. This policy will make it easier for us to determine who is making valid accusations, who is being manipulated by other people, and who should be classified as mentally defective.

Although we cannot truly determine which of us has a higher quality mind, we must pass judgment on one another and prohibit the people with lower quality minds from getting into influential positions. For example, the people who are promoting the "Critical Race Theory" are promoting a theory that is so vague and confusing that it appears to have been created by the SCIgen software. In this explanation of the theory, the author writes:
Critical race theory suggests that racism and other prejudices are social constructs embedded in legal systems and laws, not the product of individual biases, according to Education Week.

What does that mean? I suspect that he added the remark "according to Education Week" because he did not understand what he wrote, and he wanted to deflect questions away from himself and over to the people at Education Week. Unfortunately, the article at Education Week doesn't explain the concept, either. We should come to the conclusion that all of those authors are mentally defective, and/or trying to instigate racial fights.

Pity is destructive

The Americans love to feel sorry for the loser, but pity is destructive. It is causing ungrateful races to exploit our nation and whine about us, and it is allowing the mentally ill and defective people to reproduce, thereby causing every generation to be more defective than the previous.

The USA, Canada, and Australia are slowly being destroyed by the accumulation of ungrateful and mentally disturbed immigrants. To develop better nations, we have to stop feeling sorry for the losers and raise standards of behavior.

We don't have food to eat because of losers. We have food to eat because of people who are willing to do some useful work. We don't have electricity because of underdogs. We have electricity because some people were willing to learn some useful skills.

The USA needs to switch from feeling sorry for losers to respecting the people who behave properly, contribute to society, and can be trusted.

Why are we embarrassed only by sexual pornography?

We consider sexual pornography to be an embarrassment, but we enjoy titillating ourselves in public with other forms of pornography, such as travel brochures, romantic fiction books, and religious fantasies.

For example, Mark Cuban said that when he was young, he would drive around the wealthy neighborhoods to stimulate himself with the mansions. He doesn't mind admitting to that type of stimulation, but who would want to admit that they spent a lot of their youth driving around beaches and swimming pools to titillate themselves by looking at young girls in bathing suits?

We have inhibitions about sex, and this causes us to feel uncomfortable with sexual pornography, but we don't have inhibitions about material wealth, traveling, weddings, and other things, so we don't feel uncomfortable to titillate ourselves in public with those things.

Because we are embarrassed by sexual pornography, we consider it to be dangerous to children, but since we do not have any inhibitions about the other types of pornography, we consider them to be acceptable for the entire family.

This creates a social environment in which parents would be horrified if their children were spending hours a day with sexual pornography, but they are happy to see their children spend hours a day titillating themselves with wedding pornography, material wealth pornography, religious pornography, travel pornography, and other types of pornography.

The free enterprise system promotes pornography

The free enterprise system causes businesses to compete to attract the attention of consumers, but most consumers do not respond to intelligent information. Therefore, the businesses compete to titillate us with emotionally stimulating material. Their primary method is to create advertisements that show people having a wonderful life as a result of using their products.


These type of advertisements
should be regarded as "pornography".

The advertisements should be described as "pornography" because they are intended to titillate us rather than educate us.

The consumers in a free enterprise system should be described as "victims" who are regularly deceived, stimulated, and manipulated by businesses.

The free enterprise system has caused all of us to waste some of our life masturbating with travel pornography, wedding pornography, material wealth pornography, or other forms of pornography.

In addition, we allow organized religions to titillate people with fantasies that Jesus loves us, and that we will have a wonderful life in heaven, and that God will answer our prayers. This results in millions of people routinely masturbating with religious fantasies.

Pornography is detrimental because it causes people to waste their time and develop unrealistic attitudes and goals. For example, it can cause a person to develop the goal of owning a private jet, or traveling to an "exotic" destination. Those people will waste their time pursuing a goal that has no value. If they achieve their goal, nothing in their life will improve. This can result in them becoming disappointed, frustrated, confused, or angry, which in turn can cause them to believe that they need a bigger private jet, or that they have to do more traveling. They are chasing after a rainbow. They will waste their life, and possibly cause financial problems to themselves or their family.

This Constitution believes that we will have a more satisfying life if we have more realistic goals and expectations. Pornography is to be prohibited, and the city should provide a variety of social and recreational activities so that people have plenty of more beneficial things to do.

Sexual masturbation is the only necessary type

An ironic aspect of our attitudes towards masturbation is that the type of masturbation that we are ashamed of, namely, sexual masturbation, is the only type of masturbation that we seem to truly need to do once in a while.

Our sexual cravings increase over time, and if we don't have sex or masturbate after perhaps 3 or 4 weeks, our mind will force us to have an orgasm during our sleep, which can be irritating for men since it makes a mess. Therefore, a society should regard sexual masturbation as a part of life rather than something to be ashamed of.

However, we don't need sexual pornography in order to masturbate. A person who has gone weeks without sex or masturbation will be able to masturbate without pornography. A person who needs pornography in order to masturbate is either suffering from a serious genetic disorder, or he is masturbating too often.

Earlier in this document I mentioned that homosexual men may be using poppers because they are having such an excessive amount of sex that they cannot enjoy it without using chemicals to artificially stimulate themselves. The people who need pornography or drugs in order to enjoy sex or masturbation should consider the possibility that they are having too much sex or masturbating too often.

Some of those people might respond that they are getting more enjoyment from life by having a lot of sex, but that is similar to a person who uses lots of sugar and artificial flavors to allow himself to eat excessive amounts of food, and then claims that he is enjoying his life more than a person who has smaller meals.

This Constitution wants the government to experiment with a variety of social and recreational activities to encourage people to get out of the house and do something. This should reduce the number of people who get so bored and lonely that their only pleasure is eating and masturbating.

The people who masturbate about being heroes can be dangerous

An especially detrimental type of masturbation is when a person titillates himself with praise for being a hero, but who is actually causing trouble. For some examples:
• The people who are protesting the eating of meat are titillating themselves with fantasies of how they are heroes who are protecting animals.
• Some people are titillating themselves with fantasies of being a hero for protecting the earth's climate from global warming.
• There are even more people who titillate themselves with fantasies of protecting women from sexism and toxic masculinity.
• There are people who believe they are heroes who are protecting Jews from anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial.
• There are people titillating themselves into believing that they are heroes for protecting black people and Hispanic people from racism, white supremacy, white privilege, and police brutality.

This type of masturbation is dangerous because it encourages people to be arrogant jerks who try to force their beliefs on other people. They become so convinced that they are heroes, and that the rest of us are misguided and ignorant jerks, that they have no desire to discuss any issue, do any research, or look critically at any of their beliefs.

Many of these heroes also boast about supporting freedom, including freedom of speech, but they do not consider people who disagree with them as expressing a difference of opinion. Rather, they regard alternative opinions as hate speech, racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, climate change denial, Holocaust denial, and delusional conspiracy theories.

Some of them titillate themselves to such an extent that they become angry at us for disagreeing with "the facts", and that can cause them to become violent.

Thousands of groups around the world are titillating themselves with fantasies that they are heroes, but they are hating and fighting, not improving our lives.

The heroes believe that they are making the world a better place, but there is no evidence that any of them have done anything to improve life.

There has been a lot of technical progress during the past few thousand years, but none of the heroes have done anything to reduce our social problems, improve our marriages, reduce the problems with drugs, improve the relationships between workers and business executives, reduce the income disparity between the wealthy and the poor, or reduce the tension and fighting between different races and nations. And as I pointed out earlier, they are not stopping us from eating meat, either.

The heroes would probably respond that the reason they are failing to improve the world is because the world is dominated by ignorant idiots.

In reality, they are failures because we cannot solve a problem by protesting, yelling, or hitting each other.

We solve problems when we do research, have discussions, and experiment with solutions.

Modern humans must exert some self-control over our arrogance, and our desire to use violence to control other people's behavior.

We must push ourselves into remaining calm, discussing issues, looking critically at ourselves, and experimenting with our culture.

Masturbation was beneficial for prehistoric people

If it is detrimental for us to titillate ourselves about being a hero, why do we have such a strong desire to do it?

My guess is that it became beneficial when humans developed enough intelligence to recognize when they were in a dangerous situation. There are a lot of scenarios in which a prehistoric man would have an advantage by titillating himself with fantasies that he is a hero. For example:

1) When the people had gone days without food, and the children are complaining of hunger, a man could keep his morale high by titillating himself with praise that he is so talented that he will soon find food. He would titillate himself with fantasies of being a hero who provides food for his wife and children.

2) When a man encountered a wolf, he could reduce the chances that he became frightened by titillating himself with praise that he is an incredibly talented and strong man who can beat a wolf in a fight. That type of titillation would increase his confidence.

Some people might respond that a human cannot beat a wolf in a fight, so it does not matter whether a person is confident that he can beat a wolf. However, animals do not always put all of their effort into a fight. If a wolf is not very hungry, or if the wolf is so hungry that it is physically weak, it is possible for a human to win the fight simply because the wolf will eventually give up and walk away. Therefore, it is best for a prehistoric man – and all animals – to fight rather than give up and cry.

An animal is too stupid to know that it is on the verge of starvation, but humans eventually became intelligent enough to realize such situations, and that would frighten them. There are lots of scenarios for how they would benefit by stimulating their confidence and arrogance.

The prehistoric people would also make themselves feel better about the death of their child, or the possibility of their own death, by titillating themselves with fantasies that the dead people are going to heaven and having a wonderful life.

However, in our modern era, the people who titillate themselves with fantasies that they are heroes can cause a lot of problems for us and themselves. They can also result in a person wasting a lot of resources and effort on an idiotic activity. An example are the people who believe that they are heroes for adopting abandoned pet animals, and then providing the animals with expensive medical treatment and care. There are other people who believe that they are heroes for capturing of mice, skunks, and other animals, and then releasing them somewhere else rather than killing them.




The people who save unwanted animals are heroes only in their fantasies.

All of the heroes who are saving unwanted animals from death are fools who are wasting their time and resources on a senseless activity. Animals reproduce in excessive quantities, and that means that most of the animals that are born must die.

We should adjust culture to fit our characteristics
 
Women should be able to deal with aggressive men

Some of the women who complained about sexual harassment by Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, or other men have said that they were shocked to discover that the man was sexually attracted to her. Some of those women reacted by becoming quiet, and allowed the man to do what he wanted, just as children and young animals often react when they are frightened.


This baby deer became frightened by the cars, so it decided to hide in the middle of the street. This is how some women reacted to Weinstein and Epstein.
Every nation today considers a woman to behaving in a "normal" manner when she becomes silent or terrified by lewd or aggressive men, but I think that reaction is more evidence that our social environment is inappropriate, and that both boys and girls are becoming dysfunctional adults. Those women are behaving like the baby deer in the photo to the right.

Does a female monkey become terrified when a male monkey shows a sexual interest in her? No! Does a female peacock become hysterical when a male peacock exposes his feathers to her? No! Would a prehistoric woman have become horrified to discover that a man is sexually attracted to her?

Male and female animals have a crude relationship. The males are aggressive, and the females are passive observers who put up resistance. All of the female animals are designed to be pursued, and they have a natural ability to deal with aggressive males they are not interested in. Specifically, they let him know that they are not interested by using physical force, such as by slapping, kicking, or snarling at him.



This is a woman's natural reaction to crude men.

Humans are similar in behavior to the monkeys. Specifically, boys have inhibitions about hitting girls, but girls do not have inhibitions about hitting boys because that is a girls's natural response to boys who are overly aggressive. This behavior can be seen in old comic strips, such as the drawing to the right.

When young boys and girls are allowed to grow up in close contact with one another, some of the boys will occasionally get slapped by a girl that they got too close to, or touched, and that should teach the boys that girls do not like being touched.

A girl does not slap a boy in order to hurt him. Rather, she is simply letting the boy know that she doesn't like his aggressive behavior.

By the time the boys are teenagers, they should have learned how to treat women. Very few adult men should be getting slapped.

Unfortunately, our modern societies are preventing a lot of boys and girls from learning the lessons that they would have learned if they had grown up in a prehistoric tribe. The boys are not learning how to treat women, and the women are not learning how to deal with the overly aggressive men.

Our problem is not "men", it is "low quality" men

Some feminists have complained that the problems of the world are because men are dominating businesses, schools, governments, and other organizations, and that the world would be more peaceful and pleasant if women were in control.

However, our nations are not suffering because "men" are in control. Rather, it is because many of the men in leadership positions are psychotic, dishonest, and abusive. Many of them got into their positions by cheating. Therefore, rather than describe our organizations and nations as being "male-dominated", it would be more accurate to say that most organizations are a Kakistocracy.

Old men must exert self-control

During prehistoric times, there were not many men older than 45, so there was no problem with old men being attracted to young women. Today, however, there are lots of men over 45. As I described in here, a man's attraction to women doesn't change as he grows older. An 80-year-old man will continue to be attracted to the older teenage girls and young adults.

If a man does not understand these concepts, then as his wife grows old, he will find that he is losing his attraction to her, and is more attracted to the younger women. This can cause him to come to the false conclusion that he needs to get a divorce and marry a younger woman.

Modern men need to realize that our emotions were not intended for people who live such long lives. The older men must suppress their cravings for young women. We must not allow our emotions to fool us into believing that we are suffering with an old woman.

Why do old people feel young?

Many people who are older than 50 have made remarks that their body is becoming too weak to do what they did when they were 20, but their mind still feels as if they are 20 years old. Why don't old people feel old?

Our brain changes tremendously during the first 20 years of life. During that time, our intelligence improves dramatically, and our emotions change significantly. However, once we become an adult, our brain stops developing. We retain our particular adult intellectual and emotional characteristics for the remainder of our life. A 90-year-old man will have the same emotional feelings that he had when he was 20.

Old women must also exert self-control

A complaint I have heard from many adults is that their mothers are treating them as children even though they are adults. The reason this happens is because a woman who is 60 or 80 years old has the same emotions that she had when she was 20. She will regard her children as "children" even though her children might be 40 or 60 years old.

Women need to realize that their emotions are not changing as they get older, and they need to exert some self-control and treat their children as adults rather than as children.

Old men are not "dirty"

An old man who admits that he is sexually attracted to a young girl is described as a "dirty" old man. This is as idiotic as describing an old woman who is attracted to babies as a "dirty old woman".

It is also as idiotic for a young girl to be shocked or appalled that an 80-year-old man is sexually attracted to her, as for a baby to be shocked or appalled that an 80-year-old woman has a craving to take care of, cuddle, kiss, and feed him.

An 80-year-old woman is not embarrassed to admit that she is attracted to babies, and an 80-year-old man should not be embarrassed to admit that he is attracted to young women, and he should not be insulted for being "dirty".

This Constitution wants the schools to teach children about growing old. Children should know what to expect. Children should not become adults who are surprised to discover what growing old is doing to them. They should realize that their muscles will become weak, their skin will become dry and flabby, and their hair will lose its oils and become easily charged with static electricity. Even more important, everybody should realize that old people will have the same emotional feelings as when they were 20 years old. It is important for everyone to understand this so that they can deal with it in a sensible manner, rather than be shocked and disgusted when an old man or an old woman shows the emotional cravings of a young adult.

We also need to realize that parents have the same emotions as other adults. For example, when Donald Trump said that he considered his daughter to be attractive, many people criticized him. This is as idiotic as criticizing a woman who considers her baby to be attractive.

A father should not be embarrassed to admit that he considers his daughter to be attractive. The fathers who cause trouble are those who don't have enough self-control to leave their daughters alone.

We will not improve our lives by insulting or ridiculing people. It is much more beneficial to study ourselves, and adjust our culture to deal with our characteristics.

In the world today, a lot of men and women are complaining about the characteristics of the opposite sex. This encourages fights, hatred, pouting, and divorce. We need to study ourselves and experiment with policies to deal with our emotional characteristics.

For example, consider the issue of very old men marrying very young women. This creates a ridiculous relationship, but we should try to understand why it happens rather than insult the people.

One reason that this is happening is because the young women want the material wealth of the old men. We can eliminate this type of relationship by switching to the economic system that this Constitution proposes in which everybody is provided with a free home, food, and other necessities. Everybody will have an equal amount of material wealth. There will be no wealthy people. This economic system makes it impossible for a woman to benefit financially from a man.

Furthermore, this Constitution requires everybody earn whatever they want. No woman can gain anything from a marriage or a divorce, and her children will not be able to inherit any material wealth, jobs, businesses, or land. Therefore, it is impossible for a woman to choose a man according to what she or her children might be able to inherit.

Finally, this Constitution authorizes the government to provide courtship procedures for the single people, and that will allow the government to separate the people by age, thereby reducing the chance that young women get involved with considerably older men.

By studying ourselves, and by experimenting with our culture, we will eventually figure out how to design a social environment that is peaceful, relaxing, and sensible.

We also misinterpret our physical characteristics

In addition to misinterpreting our emotional feelings, we also misinterpret some of our physical characteristics. An example are the women who complain that childbirth is the most painful thing in life. They assume that all women are suffering, and that there is nothing that we can do to eliminate the suffering because it is an inherent aspect of childbirth.

In reality, childbirth is painful only to humans, and it is because humans have been degrading genetically for possibly millions of years.

As I mentioned years ago here, everything degrades through time, so if we want the human race to have good health, we have to counteract the deterioration by restricting reproduction. Unfortunately, all societies are resisting that concept because most people refuse to believe that humans follow the same genetic rules as the animals and plants. This is allowing our teeth to become increasingly crooked, our eyesight to deteriorate, our muscles to become weak, our brain to accumulate mental disorders, and our joints to cause problems. It is also causing childbirth to become increasingly difficult and painful.

The primary purpose of a female animal is to give birth and raise children. She should be able to do it easily, and without suffering. The women who believe that childbirth is inherently painful are making the mistake of assuming that their defective body is "normal".

This concept is very similar to the issue of men making a living. The primary purpose of a male animal is to provide food and protection for his family. The male animals should be able to do that easily, without physical pain or mental suffering.

However, there are a lot of human men who have trouble taking care of themselves and their family. They blame their problems on discrimination, society, poverty, lack of opportunities, or because they are underdogs, disadvantaged, or bullied, but only humans have this problem. None of the male dogs, wolves, or birds have any trouble taking care of themselves or their family.

The reason there are so many human men having trouble taking care of themselves and their family is for the same reason so many women have trouble giving birth. Specifically, humans are degrading genetically.

What is the difference between :

a) A woman who complains:


b) A man who complains:



Both of them are misinterpreting their problem. Childbirth does not have to be painful, and making a living does not have to be difficult. However, in order for childbirth to be easy, and in order for all men to be able to make a living, we must restrict reproduction to the people who have superior genetic characteristics.

Unfortunately, getting people to accept restrictions on reproduction is going to require a lot of us to promote that theory. Humans have a strong craving to follow the crowd, so if only a few of us are promoting restrictions on reproduction, then we will be regarded as deviants. We will be insulted and ridiculed, as in the cartoon below. We need to find a lot of men with the courage to lead the human race along a different path.



Virtuous people are suffering

Exerting self-control is a form of self-torture

The virtuous pedophiles, virtuous thieves, and the rest of us who exert self control over our emotional cravings, are tormenting ourselves when we struggle to control our cravings. Although it is admirable that we do this, the ideal situation is for us to restrict reproduction so that the future generations don't have to suppress their emotional feelings. Ideally, humans would evolve emotional cravings that are appropriate for our modern world.

For example, our craving for food starts turning on before we need the food, which is unnecessary for modern humans. Also, we have an excessively strong craving for sugar, and we no longer need to sense bitterness because we no longer need to be protected from potentially dangerous foods.

Our emotions should evolve for this modern world

Our prehistoric ancestors had a very pleasant life because they did not need to control their emotions. They did not need an education, either, or have to spend any time thinking about what to do. Today, however, we all regularly torment ourselves by trying to control our emotions, and trying to figure out what to do with our life. Although some of us are doing a fairly good job of controlling ourselves, a better solution is to restrict reproduction and allow our emotions to become more suited to this modern world.

If our ancestors had been restricting reproduction to the people who had more appropriate emotions towards food, we would have a much more pleasant life because we would feel hunger only when we needed food, and the hunger emotion would stop when we have had enough to eat. We would not be so sensitive to bitter chemicals, thereby allowing us to enjoy cocoa, broccoli, and other foods without the need for large amounts of sugar, sauces, or flavorings. None of us would have a tendency to overeat, so nobody would be concerned about losing weight. There would be no labor or resources wasted on the development of weight loss pills, weight loss diets, bariatric surgeries, or fat suction surgeries.

Ideally, all of us would feel relaxed and comfortable around food, alcohol, material items, children, nudity, and trophies. We should not have to control ourselves. A man should be able to ride on a train without struggling to control his craving to grab at the women, or his craving to steal somebody's wallet.

Even more important, men should be capable of working with other men for the benefit of society, rather than fighting with each other for status, material wealth, and land. Men should be friends with one another, and we should compete with one another to inspire one another, not destroy one another.

Giving people the freedom to reproduce is cruel

The people who condemn the concept of controlling reproduction boast that they are loving people, but they are actually cruel. For example, allowing pedophiles to reproduce is increasing the chances that more children in the next generation will become adults with such cravings.

Chris Morgan is just one example of a person who hates his physical and/or mental characteristics so much that he makes himself miserable, and he irritates the rest of us. There are probably tens of millions of men and women around the world who are perpetually angry, suicidal, depressed, or pouting because of their physical or mental defects. Some men are angry or depressed about their small or deformed penis, and others are whining about being short, stupid, fat, or deformed. There are women who are upset because they are ugly, infertile, or have defective sexual organs.

If humans were truly as loving and wonderful as they claim to be, then the people who hate themselves would voluntarily refrain from having children. However, most of the people who hate themselves want to have children simply because they want to titillate their emotional craving for children. They don't care about the quality of their child's life. They are so selfish and inconsiderate that they will titillate themselves with a baby that is so defective that it becomes an adult who hates himself.

By not restricting reproduction, every generation is more defective than the previous generation, and there are more people who hate themselves. Imagine what it would be like if this continues for centuries. Imagine living in a world in which the majority of the men and women hate themselves as much as Chris Morgan. Imagine that everywhere you go in public you encounter people having tantrums over some characteristic they hate, such as being short, having a deformed penis, being ugly, or being fat. Imagine a world in which the majority of people are extremely sickly, dishonest, violent, untrustworthy, incapable of holding a job, lonely, suicidal, and whining about the pain of childbirth.

The people who want to create that type of world should be described as disgusting, not kind or loving. They are behaving like animals that reproduce simply to satisfy their cravings.

We are not cruel to deny an emotional craving

It is not cruel to pass judgment on who among us is below-average or unacceptable in genetic qualities. We will not hurt a person by restricting him to one or two children, or making him adopt children from people with better genetic characteristics.

If a person complains that he is suffering as a result of restrictions on reproduction, then he is choosing to suffer. He is tormenting himself. He is a victim of his own low-quality mind. We should not feel guilty that he is suffering, or give him pity, or encourage his whining.

None of us would be alive if our ancestors had been restricting reproduction during the past few thousand years, but the people who were alive today would be grateful, not disgusted, that their ancestors had implemented "oppressive restrictions" on reproduction.

The inferior people who insist that they be able to reproduce are not thinking about what is best for the human race, and they don't care about the quality of their child's life. Their child is nothing more than an entertainment device to them.

What is the difference between a person who insists that he be able to reproduce, and a person who insists that he be able to steal some material item, rape a woman, or have a violent tantrum?

None of us have any obligation to satisfy anybody's emotional cravings. We should do what is best for the human race, not be intimidated by people who demand that we let them do whatever they want to do.

Why do we have such a strong craving to protect babies?

It is important for people today to understand their emotions, and another emotion we need to understand is our craving for babies. We inherited this emotion from our animal ancestors, and its purpose is to push us into raising children. However, it is not intended to make us to raise retards, babies without brains, or people who hate themselves.

During prehistoric times, the inferior people were less successful at survival, attracting a spouse, holding onto a spouse, and raising children. The battle for life ensured that the higher-quality people were more successful in reproducing.

We are now circumventing nature, so we must do what nature used to do, which is pass judgment on who should reproduce, and in what quantities. The people who cannot understand or accept this concept must be regarded as having such an inferior mind that they cannot cope with the modern world.

We have the right to know the truth about other people

During prehistoric times, a man who was short could not wear elevator shoes, and a man with a small or defective penis could not hide it from other people. Everybody knew an incredible number of intimate details of the people in their tribe.

Although there were not many people in a prehistoric tribe for the single people to select from, the lack of secrecy made it easier for them to figure out who they wanted as a spouse. The single men and women would have tried to impress one another during their courtship activities, but since they knew the intimate details of one another, neither was suspicious of the other. Their courtship activities would have been relaxing and entertaining because they were not trying to deceive one another.

Today, however, we know nothing about the people we live with. We don't know if a single person is truly single, and we know nothing about their history, medical condition, debts, drug use, or how they treat people. We are very suspicious of one another as a result.

To make it even more difficult for us to find a spouse, the people who are ashamed of themselves are likely to deceive us about their miserable qualities in order to trick us into marrying them. There have even been some transgender people who hid the fact that they switched sexes. The secrecy, lies, and deception is causing courtship today to be frustrating and time-consuming.

This Constitution wants the government to experiment with courtship activities, and to prohibit flirting in public locations. Although I've described this concept in some other documents, I will now add that I also suggest that the courtship activities at least one time force the men and women to be naked around one another so that they can see the truth about one another's bodies. This will allow them to make a decision about whether they can accept one another's particular defects.

Some people might respond that those type of courtship activities are not fair to the people with low quality or defective bodies, but life is however we want to look at it. We could say that it's not fair to let people deceive us about themselves.

An issue that I have mentioned several times in other documents is: do people have the right to deceive us? Or do we have the right to know the truth about the people we live with?

This Constitution is based on the assumption that we will create a better life when we are allowed to know the truth about every issue and every person, and that we not allow anybody to lie, deceive, or manipulate us.

It is not our fault that some people are ashamed of themselves. We cannot solve that problem by allowing those people to deceive us. Rather, the solution is to restrict reproduction to the higher-quality people so that there are fewer people in every generation who are ashamed of themselves.

Eventually that would create a world in which all of the men and women are in excellent physical and mental health, and everybody would enjoy themselves and other people. If any of us were born into that world, we would be grateful, and we would look back at our era as one of incredible suffering and misery.

What do you want to do with the rest of your life?

We have the knowledge to start experimenting with better culture. We also have the technology to create beautiful, quiet, and clean cities, and to enclose large recreational areas and plazas to provide ourselves with year-round protection from the weather and insects. We can also make a city that is so free of crime that children can wander around on their own and get their own meals, thereby providing their parents with more time for other activities, as implied in the drawing below.



All we need are enough people with the ability to experiment with their culture, raise standards of behavior, and work together as a team for the benefit of the human race.

So help find those people, and let's start experimenting with life!