should share the material
wealth and land
My suggestions for Kastron
are based on the assumption that we will
have a more pleasant life if we share
the material wealth and
significant advantages to this policy are:
1) It reduces
the chores we have to do.
I explained this concept here
out that we can take care of large
public land areas with much less labor and resources compared to
taking care of an enormous number of tiny
yards. Likewise, our food related chores will diminish significantly
we eat at restaurants.
2) We get access to much higher quality items.
When each person wants to own material items, we have to produce
cameras, drones, 3D printers, microscopes, and
scuba equipment for each person, so they have to be low-quality, and
must be small
enough for us to keep in our homes. Most of the time the items are
sitting unused in our homes,
and the batteries are slowly draining. By comparison, when
we share items,
we don't need to produce as many of them, so they can be higher in
Furthermore, they can be designed with features to
make them much more convenient. For an example, consider how
differently we could design drones for
Kastron. Instead of making small drones for each person to carry around
and maintain, the city would produce larger, higher quality drones, and
place them at various locations around the city where they are stored
want to use a drone to observe some animals in the
surrounding forest, or record video of ourselves with our friends as we
ride bicycles or go swimming at a pond, we would go to one of the
stores that provides a controlling
device for a drone. We would pick up the controller, not the drone. We then request the type of
drone we want, such as a helicopter version or an airplane version. We
would also specify the type of camera we want, such as for visible
light, infrared, or slow motion.
Finally, we would specify where we want to use the drone, such as at a
city park, or at some location in the surrounding forest. By allowing
the city's computer to track our location, the computer would know when
we arrived at our destination, and it would have the drone arrive at
the same time. We would then use the controller to operate the drone.
When the drone's battery reached a low level, the drone could
send a message to the city's computer, and the computer could send
to replace it. When the replacement arrived, the original drone
would fly to a nearby recharging station without our involvement. If we
requested the drone to store video on a memory card, it would
connect to the city's computer and upload the video to our account.
When we are finished using the drone, it would fly to a
recharging station, upload its video to our account, and wait for the
next person who wanted to use it. We would give the controlling device
the store for somebody else to use. We would never have to transport
the drone, or deal with low batteries, maintenance, memory cards, or
should put more emphasis on public
structures and less on homes
Every culture today is
encouraging large homes and private businesses, rather than public
facilities. There are only a few public facilities in our cities, and
they tend to be crude and ugly. I
opposite policy for Kastron.
In Kastron, the government has total control of the economy. All of the
businesses are essentially departments of the city. Therefore, the
restaurants, social clubs, offices, recreational areas, gardens,
ponds, video rooms, music theaters, children's facilities, arts
and crafts facilities, and other structures in the city are "public"
facilities rather than "private"
facilities, so everybody will have access to them, as if they are part
of our gigantic mansion.
Businesses do not own the factories or offices. Rather, they use
public facilities that the city provides them. Likewise, the people who
supervise recreational areas do not own the land, ponds, bicycles,
snowmobiles, scuba gear, rowboats, or other recreational items or
structures. Rather, they manage
the items and land that the city
provides for the people.
By letting the city own everything, we can ensure that every aspect of
the city is beautiful, safe, and spacious. We will not have to suffer
from private businesses that create ugly, noisy, filthy, smelly,
inefficient, overcrowded, or dangerous structures.
I suggest the homes in Kastron be small
and we put most of our resources, labor, and land into making beautiful
and spacious public
facilities. For example, the lobby of an apartment building should not
with mailboxes. Instead, it should be full of attractive facilities
for recreation, socializing, meals, music, and children's activities,
to the lobby
of a luxury cruise ship (the photo
When an adult wants to use
some exercise equipment, get something to
eat, visit a friend, or engage in a hobby,
he would go to one of the public
in his neighborhood, or in the city. That will give
him access to better equipment, more beautiful facilities, and a wider
variety of architecture and decorations than he could have in his own
When children want
to play with each other, or with toys, or go swimming, they would ride
an elevator to one of the
children's facilities, and that would provide the children with
recreational options that parents could never provide, similar to the
Neobio Family Park in China (below
do not need large storage
The apartments in Kastron
do not need as much storage
space as homes do today because we would not use our home for
storage of toys, recreational equipment, hobby items, or clothing that
we rarely use.
All of the toys and recreational items would be in the public
facilities, and we would share the rarely used clothing,
such as clothing for weddings and parties. That
type of clothing would be available for free at
the clothing stores that are scattered around the city.
We would pick
up that type of clothing when we want to use it, and drop it off when
we are finished. We would usually keep that type of clothing at our
home for only a day or two.
One advantage to reducing the storage space in apartments is that it
reduces the labor and resources involved with the construction and
maintenance of apartment buildings, but without reducing the living
Another advantage is to prevent people from hoarding
items. Nobody needs hundreds
of pairs of shoes, for example. Instead, everybody
needs pressure to suppress their craving to hoard items.
In a free enterprise system, there are hundreds of businesses
encouraging us to collect objects.
For example, women are encouraged to save their wedding gown, and
according to this
site, the most popular items to collect are stamps, coins, baseball
pins, vinyl records, comic books, wine, trading cards, and toys.
Some businesses are creating items specifically for people to collect
simply so that they can make money, such as these medallions
produced by Walt Disney World, and the Beanie Baby
dolls. Those businesses should be described as manipulating
people into developing
desires for things that nobody needs or benefits from, and they are
causing people's homes to become cluttered with worthless collections.
Our culture has been degraded
businesses, religions, crime networks, and neurotic people. We need to
put all of our customs through a critical analysis.
Kastron will dampen our tendency to hoard and collect items by making
the homes small, and not providing them with much storage space. Our
homes should contain items that we
not items that we hoard.
As I described
earlier document, the people who enjoy collecting
items should do so for museums, parks, schools, restaurants, and other
in the city, not for themselves. That would provide the public
facilities with a wide
variety of decorative displays, and since everything in the city is
the facilities would be able to change the displays as often as they
please in order to prevent monotony.
We should share
collections, not hoard them.
For example, if the
supervisor of a restaurant enjoyed displays of butterflies
he could place a different display in the restaurant every few days.
Likewise, if the
supervisor of a social club liked the artistic
creations at this
page or this
he could put a different display in the club every few days.
Furthermore, the displays would be available for citizens to share. For
example, a person could put a display of minerals in his
home, and when he got tired of it, he would give it back to the city
and replace it with some other decoration.
This custom of creating artistic displays for the city would allow
everybody to see and appreciate the displays. It would also reduce the
number of butterflies and other animals that have to be killed in order
to create displays of creatures.
Likewise, when we share the displays
items, such as geodes and opals, we don't need to find so many
as compared to when people hoard the items in their home.
If the restaurants in a free enterprise system were to have such
displays, most people would not notice or appreciate them. The reason
is because in a free enterprise system, the restaurants are businesses,
and the customers are profit opportunities that are "processed" by the
In the USA, for example, most restaurants expect the customers to wait
by the door, and then they are seated by an employee, then they are
provided with food, and then they have to leave the restaurant. They
are treated like cattle at a feeding station.
In Kastron, by comparison, the city government owns all of the
businesses. The restaurant managers are city employees who operate the
city's restaurants, not owners of private restaurants.
Exactly how we will set up the restaurants will be determined by trial
and error after we get the city established, but as I have suggested in
other documents, we should reduce the need for unskilled labor by
reducing or eliminating the pampering by servants. For example, we
should seat ourselves, and we could also set our own table. The
employees of the restaurant might only provide food and cleaning
Nobody will be in a rush to sit down, eat, or leave. The restaurants
will be as
relaxing as if we were walking into a large dining room of our gigantic
mansion. Furthermore, they will not be cramped, so it will be easy to
walk around the tables.
The people eating in the restaurant will be our neighbors and friends,
than strangers who speak a foreign language, or immigrants who accuse
us of white supremacy and racism. Therefore, we could stop to visit
with some of them before we eat.
Furthermore, the people working
in the restaurants will be our friends and neighbors, rather than
The restaurants in Kastron will be very relaxing, so it will be
easy for us to wander around to look at the displays that the
restaurant manager has provided. It will be as relaxing as when our
parents invite us over to their home for Christmas dinner, and we take
some time to look at their artwork, photos, or furnishings.
Of course, as I have mentioned many times, this type of city will be
practical only if we set high standards for people. The
restaurants will be miserable if people behave like this
are best for large items
Museums are already
providing us with large displays of butterflies, birds, minerals, oil
paintings, and other items, but there are three advantages to breaking
large displays into lots of small displays for the restaurants, social
clubs, and lounge rooms:
By making lots
displays for the walls and tables of our restaurants, homes, and
lounges, we are much more likely to appreciate them, and read the
information about them.
• When the displays are
only in museums, we have to travel to a museum
to see them, but when the display is broken up into hundreds of small
displays, the displays can be scattered around the restaurants, social
clubs, and other facilities. We will see them every time we have a
meal, relax at a lounge, and go to a music concert.
• I think the biggest advantage to making small displays is that we
will be much more likely to enjoy
them and learn from them. The
reason is because our minds were not designed
to learn a lot of
information at one time, so when we are provided with a
gigantic museum display that consists of thousands of butterflies,
minerals, or bird nests, we quickly become overwhelmed with all of the
looking at a few dozen or hundred items, we start skipping through them
By comparison, when we create small displays of less than a few
we can easily look at and learn about the
items without feeling overwhelmed.
• By making very small displays, we allow people to carry them home and
display them on their wall or desk. When they get tired of it, they
give it back to the city so that some other person or facility can
I think that museums are best suited to the display of items that are
too large or heavy to be practical to display in the public facilities,
such as a display of dinosaurs.
children can wear used
Many parents save the
clothing items that one of their children
has outgrown for one of their younger children, but that would not be
necessary in Kastron
when a child outgrows a clothing item, the parents would give it back
to the clothing store. When their younger child needs a larger clothing
item, the parents would pick up something from the store. This will
reduce the clutter in people's homes, and the need for storage space.
Likewise, parents do not have to save baby carriages, or other items
for babies. They can give them back to the city so that somebody else
can use them. If they have another baby in the future, they can pick up
whatever they need when they
This policy requires the businesses to produce items that are such high
quality that they can be cleaned and reused. This will increase the
initial expense of the items, but that will be compensated for by their
longer lifetime. Furthermore, everybody will benefit by having higher
I also suggest that the stores do not
distinguish between the new and
the used clothing or baby carriages in order to reduce the tendency of
parents to pick the new items. The new and used items should be
randomly mixed together.
The clothing for children should be designed to be comfortable and
practical, not sexual.
Furthermore, cosmetics, jewelry, body piercings, hair dyes, and
similar items should be prohibited
for children. I think we will cause the girls to develop more
appropriate attitudes when we discourage their interest in cosmetics,
hair curlers, and plucking their eyebrows.
for work and recreation should be practical
Giving people the freedom
to choose their clothing is:
|Causing men in
leadership positions to dress like penguins.
trauma for many children.
|Causing a lot of
wear shoes that hurt and damage their feet, and make it awkward for
them to walk.
to force female
employees to wear sexually titillating and uncomfortable clothing.
|Allowing people to
cover their sexual organs all the time, thereby
causing most of the boys to develop idiotic obsessions with women's
None of us actually want
"clothing freedom". We prefer to mimic
that other people in our peer group are wearing. This is especially
true of children. Therefore, instead of promoting the false belief that
we need or enjoy clothing
freedom, the Kastron government will have total control of all of the
This policy will allow the Kastron government to ensure that clothing
that is designed for work
comfortable, safe, and durable. It will allow the government to
prohibit sexually titillating clothing, jewelry, and cosmetics. It will
also allow the government to alter the work clothing to fit the weather.
Furthermore, this will allow the government to experiment with men's
clothing to reduce the time we waste adjusting
clothing. In case you were unaware of this problem, a lot of us men
have to frequently adjust our pants, tie, collar, or
underwear, or tuck our shirt back into our pants, or button and
unbutton our coat, or roll and unroll our sleeves, or put our coat
on and off. We certainly have the creativity and intelligence to design
clothing that fits our body better than the current styles.
I mentioned here
"pouch style" of underwear is very comfortable for me when walking and
sitting. However, if I do a lot of bending
or twisting, such as gardening work, my penis can get pulled out of the
pouch, especially when the weather is cold because my penis becomes
very short when cold. This made me wonder if it would be better if my
penis was in a tube
than a pouch
, so I decided to
look on the
Internet to see if there were any newer versions of the underwear with
a tube. I was surprised to discover that China and Brazil have been
making versions with tubes for at least five years
and there might be other variations that I don't yet know about.
should have the freedom to
experiment with material items
This brings up a problem
that the Kastron economic system is intended
to avoid. Specifically, in a free enterprise system, businesses have no
incentive to give us honest descriptions of their products, or let us
know about the alternatives. This can result in us purchasing a product
without realizing that there are alternatives that are more appropriate
our particular needs.
Furthermore, we cannot experiment with
Businesses require us to purchase
their products. This results in a lot of people discovering that what
they purchased is inappropriate, especially when they purchase items
from the Internet. Some people discard their inappropriate items in the
trash, and others return them for a refund, and they are then often
discarded in the trash. This problem is causing an incredible
waste of resources
In Kastron, the government decides which products are put into
production, and the government has no desire to suppress or promote any
particular product. The businesses work for the government, so they
will not advertise or promote their products. Instead, they will
provide a serious description for each of their products, and explain
how it differs from the alternatives, and what it was designed for.
Everybody will have access to honest information about the products,
and free access to all of them. This economic system will give us
options that are impossible in
a free enterprise system, such as the freedom
to experiment with items.
Specifically, the city could arrange for some of the retail stores to
be "Testing Stores" that contain products and prototypes that we
can try for a while and then return in order to figure out which of
them we like the best. For example, a person who wants a
mattress for his home would go to a "Mattress Testing
Store" and take one of the mattresses home. He would sleep on it for
days or weeks, and then give it back and try another mattress, and he
would repeat this process until he figures out which mattress he likes
the best. He would then get a new
version of that mattress.
By providing everybody with the freedom
with mattresses, clothing, water flossing
devices, chairs for our home, and other items, we will find the items
that are best suited
to our particular body.
think we can make clothing more
I have not experimented
with the tube style of underwear,
I have been experimenting with other things. For example, folding the
top elastic band down 2 to 4 times to move the band down to my pelvic
bone. The elastic band for men's underwear is normally around our
stomach, but that puts it on skin that moves, stretches, and twists,
which can cause the underwear to move and twist. The underwear seems to
be a bit more stable when the band is on my pelvic bone since the skin
in that area doesn't move as much. Therefore, I wonder if making the
elastic band a bit wider, and moving it lower down, would make the
underwear more stable. Has anybody experimented with that idea?
Also, I get cold
easily, so I
wear long underwear about half of the year, and I cut the crotch out of it
in order to reduce the amount
of material that gets folded up and pressed against my crotch when I
sit down. That makes sitting more comfortable.
I also noticed that sitting is even more comfortable if I leave my zipper open because that
also reduces the amount of material pressing against my crotch.
Although my experiments are
crude, they make me believe that men would
be more comfortable when sitting if we altered our underwear and pants
to have something similar to the codpieces
centuries ago, as in the drawing to the right. With our
modern technology, we should be able to create more useful,
comfortable, decorative, and colorful codpieces
than our medieval ancestors.
We could also design codpieces to hold a folded piece of toilet paper
to absorb the dribble of pee so that it doesn't run down our legs or
pants. That would provide men with the equivalent of a "sanitary
Unfortunately, we cannot wear a codpiece until everybody can control
their sexual inhibitions well enough to
remain calm around such clothing, rather than
become hysterical, embarrassed, or make "Dick Jokes". And to provide a
codpiece with a "sanitary napkin" requires
men to acknowledge that we dribble more
than a woman.
I recommend that boys be exposed to other boys who are peeing so that
they are less likely to become adults who are embarrassed by their
penis and the act of peeing. In the world today, many men are so
awkward about peeing in public that they struggle to hide their penis
and rush the process, which can cause them to dribble pee on
themselves and the floor. Adult men should be relaxed
when they pee, not
An even more significant problem that we must deal with is the men who
cannot accept their small or
deformed penises, and who react to codpieces like Elliott Rodger
or Chris Morgan
by becoming angry
or who pout.
We must change our legal system and
attitudes so that we can evict
the people who are unable to accept their particular defects, and who
waste their life and irritate us with hatred, pouting, envy, violence,
We must also deal with the men who like to torment the men with small
or deformed penises. We must expect children to do the equivalent of
plucking out one another's feathers, but we should set higher standards
for the adults.
orthopedic cushions, this
has a longer slot that removes pressure on
I also suggest that we
experiment with the cushions
on our chairs. Most of the orthopedic cushions were designed for people
with hemorrhoids or back problems, but there are a few styles that have
a large slot that removes the pressure on testicles.
I have discovered that this style (photo to the right),
comfortable than a flat cushion.
Therefore, I suspect that if we were
to design a cushion specifically for removing the pressure from our
testicles, we would create an even more comfortable cushion. Those
cushions might also be more comfortable
However, it is absurd to expect people to carry those cushions around
with them and put them on top of the cushions of chairs in offices,
restaurants, lounges, dentist's offices, and music concerts. If most
people prefer those types of cushions, then it would be better to
design the chairs with those cushions.
Another option is to design the chairs at restaurants, lounges,
offices, and some other facilities to have seat cushions that are
modular. The cushions would snap in and out of the chair without any
tools or effort, similar to how Lego toys join together. The empty
space underneath the chairs could hold one or more cushions, such as a
flat cushion, or a thick cushion, and that would allow a person to use
whichever cushion fits him the best. The thick cushions would be useful
for short people.
for work and recreation should be practical
I suggest that we have two,
distinct types of clothing;
specifically, "work clothing" and
"social clothing". The clothing for exercising and recreation would be
in the "work" category.
We should design the work
be functional, safe, and comfortable, and not be concerned with trying to make
it sexually attractive or artistic. The work clothing should not have
features that can easily get caught in machinery or tools, such as
tassels or long, loose-fitting sleeves. The goggles, safety helmets,
and steel-toed shoes should also be designed for function and safety, not visual appearance.
When we design our work clothing with that
items will not be very attractive, but rather than become upset about
ugly work clothing, we
should remind ourselves that it will make the decorative
clothing more enjoyable, as I will describe in the next section.
clothing would be for social
The clothing for social
events doesn't need to be as durable as the work clothing because we do
not wear it as often, and it does not go through as much abuse. It can
be decorative and delicate.
There are two advantages to having a different set of clothing for
1) To reduce labor and resources
In Kastron, there will be
no peasant class, so we need to reduce unnecessary work. By requiring work clothing to be durable, and
restricting the delicate clothing to the social activities, our work
clothing will last longer, thereby reducing the number of people who
have to be involved with the production of clothing.
2) We will get more enjoyment
the decorative clothing
In Part 6 of this series, I
pointed out that in order for us to enjoy pools of cool or warm water,
we need variety in the weather so that we sometimes become hot, and
sometimes we become cold. In order for us to enjoy
need variety, and we need to "suffer".
This concept applies to clothing, also. Specifically, if we were to
have only one style of
clothing, it would be as boring as living on a planet that has only one
season, and the weather is the same every day of the year. By
comparison, when we wear practical
clothing for work, we will enjoy changing into the decorative
clothing for social affairs.
the decorative clothing for men
The paintings that were
made centuries ago show the influential men wearing colorful
and decorative clothing, such as the men in the painting for January
in the Très Riches Heures. Today the influential men resemble penguins
Why were men centuries ago willing to wear colorful and
It is possible that the men who became influential centuries ago were
intelligent, creative, independent, and adventurous since they were
more likely to have earned their
than get it through inheritances, crime networks, and other
types of cheating, which seems to be how men get to the top positions
of society today. However, it's also possible that their
colorful clothing was due to women
When I was a child, a lot of women made clothing items, including some
of the teenage girls. This makes me wonder if women have been
production of clothing during the past few thousand years. They might
have even dominated the production of clothing in prehistoric times. (Ideally,
historians would provide us with honest information about the
development of our clothing and other culture, rather than propaganda
about racism, the Holocaust, and terrorism.
I suggest that Kastron experiment with this issue by restricting the
designing of our social clothing
The men would be
restricted to designing work
I suspect that this will result in social clothing for
more attractive and comfortable, and which changes with the season.
Of course, we cannot let the women do whatever they please. We would
have to routinely give them job performance reviews and pass judgment
on whether they are
doing a beneficial job, or whether they are creating outfits for men
that are as impractical and
uncomfortable as some of those at the Met
By replacing the incompetent women, we will eventually identify the
women who can create men's
social clothing that is
attractive, comfortable, and changes according to the seasons, such as
those in the photos below.
If that experiment shows
that women create even more absurd clothing
than the men are creating, then we terminate the experiment and let men
design clothing. We cannot hurt
ourselves if the experiment fails, so there is nothing to fear. No
matter what happens, we will learn
something about the differences between men and
women, so we should not be afraid of
I also suggest we
experiment with letting the
the outfits for men, rather than let the men pick
the outfits. In other words, when men and women are going to a social
custom in Kastron would be for the women
to pick an outfit for their
husband, boyfriend, and other men, rather than let the men pick their
outfit. This will prevent the men from doing what we want to do, which
is mimic one another.
Men don't have much of an interest in clothing, so by giving women
control of the design of men's clothing, and by letting women pick
outfits for men, the women might make the men wear more decorative
clothing at the
None of us will be embarrassed to wear
the decorative clothing because we will be able to use an excellent
"I didn't pick
this outfit. I wanted to dress like a penguin,
but no! The women wouldn't let
I think this custom would be especially beneficial for the teenagers in
Teentown. When they have a social affair, the teenage girls would pick
the outfits for the boys, and this would cause the boys to become
accustomed to wearing decorative clothing at social affairs, and
with clothing that changes with the weather conditions. Then, when they
become adults, they will be less fearful of such clothing.
It might also be useful for
Teentown to arrange for some social affairs in which both boys
and girls have to wear some extremely
clothing, as well as clothing from previous societies,
the ancient Greeks, or the rococo style in the photo
the right. Two reasons that these affairs might be beneficial
to the teenagers are:
1) By forcing the boys to wear extremely unusual styles of clothing,
they will essentially be put through a process that is similar to
"breaking in a horse". Specifically, they will become less likely to be
embarrassed by different clothing styles, and less likely to insult the
clothing of other cultures and eras.
2) Making the teenagers wear clothing from centuries ago could help
them develop an interest in history and culture. For
example, when they
wear the ancient Roman and Greek clothing, they will discover that
there were no zippers, buttons, Velcro, or other modern
conveniences. They might start wondering, when did people start putting
clothing? When did people start adding loops
A child assumes that his environment is the same for everybody,
including his parents and grandparents, and that it will remain the
same in the future. As we get older, all of us have
been surprised to
discover that some of the things that we assumed were an inherent part
of human life are actually quite recent additions.
Although it is entertaining
learn how technology and culture has changed
through the generations, it is also very useful
The reason is that in order for us to improve a product, or a cultural
activity, we need to know its history so that we don't make the same
mistakes that were made in the past. Understanding history allows us to
add to the successes of previous generations. Therefore, it is
beneficial for us to inspire
an interest in history, rather than to suppress
with threats to arrest people for Holocaust denial, or
with accusations of being unpatriotic for looking critically at our
Why do airlines give free alcohol to first-class travelers?
An example of how historians could help us understand how to improve
our culture is that they could provide us with an understanding of why
some airlines are providing free alcoholic beverages to the people in
first class. This custom implies that we are pampering a person by
providing him with alcoholic beverages, but I consider that offer to be
as worthless as being offered free heroin, or a free hammer to hit
myself in the head with.
If I were to travel first class, I would prefer that they pamper me by
offering free alcohol in the main cabin, and restricting first-class to
people who have no interest in alcohol.
Why did airlines decide to offer free alcohol to the first-class
passengers? Is it because the people who want to travel first class
have a stronger desire for alcohol? Or is it because only the
first-class passengers have enough self-control to drink responsibly?
If historians were providing us with a history of our culture, we would
have a better understanding of how this custom developed, and that
would help us to decide whether we want to keep this custom, or whether
we should stop promoting alcohol.
we stop promoting "stereotypes"?
Some people would complain
that I am "promoting a stereotype
by suggesting that women would do a better job of designing men's
clothing, and when I claim
that men and women have different
emotional characteristics, and that women, as a group, are less intelligent
people, such as the author of this
article, complain that those type of stereotypes are discouraging young
girls from getting involved with certain jobs.
How does a stereotype stop a young girl from becoming an engineer or
technician? What is a "stereotype
the dictionary definitions are:
|A set of inaccurate,
simplistic generalizations about a group that
allows others to categorize them and treat them accordingly.
|A widely held but
fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a
particular type of person or thing.
|To believe unfairly
that all people or things with a particular
characteristic are the same.
The dictionary essentially
defines a "stereotype" as a "false
Although that is a valid definition, each person has a
different opinion about which remarks are "false"
and which are "accurate
descriptions of the characteristics of the majority of items of a group
of similar items".
For example, is a person
promoting a false belief
says: "Young girls like to
play with dolls"
? Or is
remark an "accurate
the emotional characteristics of the typical young girl
A more useful definition for "stereotype" is:
Stereotype: A person's opinion about a
group of similar things.
With that definition, a person who complains that somebody is
stereotype" is essentially complaining that the person is expressing
opinion about a group of similar things. Since we should
freedom to express our opinions, we should also have the freedom to promote stereotypes.
A "stereotype" is just an "opinion", but many people are using the word
"stereotype" as a way to intimidate
us, similar to how
insult us with such words as sexist, anti-Semitic, racist, conspiracy
theorist, Holocaust denier, and jerk.
A stereotype is just a person's opinion
about a group of similar things
with a person's stereotype, the only sensible reaction is to discuss
the issue. For example, when
a man says "women are less intelligent than men", he is stating his
about a group of similar items. If the women do not
agree with his
"stereotype", the only sensible thing for those women to do is explain why
they believe that his opinion of women is inaccurate.
If, instead, the women whine that he is "promoting stereotypes", they
are essentially kicking and biting him, like a monkey who is upset with
another monkey. That reaction will not
reputation of women, or do anything to improve life for women. Rather,
it is more likely to reinforce a
opinion that women are more emotional and less intelligent than men.
“reputation” is similar to
A "stereotype" could also
be described as the "reputation of
a group of
people". To understand this concept, consider that a person's
is our opinion of the person's
behavior. If a person has a good
reputation, it is because we were impressed
by his behavior, and if he
has a bad reputation, it is
because we were upset, frightened,
disgusted, or horrified by his behavior.
A person with a bad reputation is likely to whine that somebody "gave
him" a bad reputation, but most of
the people who have a bad reputation
earned it by behaving in a manner
that most of us regarded as unacceptable, frightening, disgusting, or
To complicate the issue of reputations and stereotypes, there are
deliberately lie about somebody in order to influence our
reputation of him, and they lie about a group of people in order to
influence our stereotypes of that group. For example:
|Robert Kennedy, Jr.
that the CIA is responsible for giving Joe Kennedy the reputation of
bootlegging liquor during the prohibition.
executives tried to give James Damore a bad reputation by
accusing him of disrupting the company with sexist opinions.
|While Donald Trump
was President, the journalists were frequently
exaggerating or lying about him in an attempt to give him a bad
|Journalists spent a
lot of time trying to give James Alefantis, the
owner of the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlor, a good reputation by
"Pizzagate" and the people who accused him of involvement with a
|Jews lie about
Albert Einstein's achievements in order to give him
reputation of a genius.
|Jews lie about Jews
in order to give Jews the stereotype of being the
most honest, intelligent, kind, loving, peaceful, educated, talented,
and wonderful people, and that Jews are constantly being abused by
|Jews lie about the
Germans and "white people" in order to create the
stereotype that those groups are anti-Semitic, cruel, selfish, racist,
white supremacists with white privilege.
These concepts apply to
inanimate objects as well as people. For
example, I and many other people have made a remark similar to: "Toyota
and Honda automobiles are better quality than the American cars".
We could say that we are "promoting a stereotype about
those brands of automobiles". We could also say
that Toyota and Honda have "good
reputations" with us, and that Ford, Chrysler, and General
Motors have a bad reputation.
It would be idiotic
General Motors executives to whine that we are "promoting stereotypes",
or that we are "giving General
Motors a bad reputation". We are simply expressing our opinion about
groups of automobiles. General Motors earned their
stereotypes of dwarfs?
The previous document of
this series mentioned that Disney is making a new version of Snow White
with a Latina woman as Snow White. Disney is now planning to alter the
story again in order to appease an angry
dwarf, Peter Dinklage. Disney said
that they would "avoid
", and that they "have been consulting with members of
the dwarfism community
". This brings up two interesting issues:
| What stereotype does the
story of Snow White promote? Who
is harmed by that stereotype? Who will benefit
changing the story, and how do
| What is a "dwarfism
community"? Are dwarfs so different from the rest of us that
they have their own community? What other types of communities are
there? I am bald, and I have some problem with thyroid hormones, so am
I a member of the "baldism community",
and/or the "thyroidism
Peter Dinklage is one of
the actors in the Game Of Thrones series. I
have never seen any of those episodes, but the photos that I've seen
show men who are strong and athletic. Even the dwarf in the show looks
strong and athletic.
If I had the personality of the people who are whining about
stereotypes, I would whine that the fiction books, movies, and
television programs should be inclusive and diverse by portraying
scrawny, weak men with thyroid problems as people who are just as good
as the larger, healthier, athletic men. I could complain that the
media is creating stereotypes that are hurting the feelings of those of
us in the "Scrawny
Dwarfs are genetic
defects, not a “community”
It is destructive
to regard dwarfs as a community
. It is better to think of
them as humans with a particular
Furthermore, they are not
to one another, and they are not better than other people.
If we were to put all of the dwarfs on their own
planet, we would discover that they separate into groups because of
their mental and physical differences. We would also find that some of
them are accusing the others of abuse or discrimination. We would also
find some of their children complaining about being bullied by the
other dwarf children. And we would find that some of them are
genetic problems. Therefore, all of us could form "communities" based
upon our particular genetic disorders, and all of us could whine that
are being abused and suffering from stereotypes.
If the Grimm brothers had written "Snow
White and the Seven Scrawny, Bald Men with Thyroid Problems
suffer as a result? Or if they had written "Snow White and the Seven Ordinary Men
would that satisfy everybody? Or would some "ordinary men"
complain that it is making them feel bad about themselves?
When we allow a group of people to claim to be a
"community" of people, and when we allow them to whine about
encourage people to use their genetic disorders like
cards in a game of poker. The dwarfs are behaving as if their genetic
disorders are "higher" than those of the midgets, idiots, and other
people. Some people refer to this type behavior as the Oppression
We should not encourage people to get into a competition over whose
genetic disorders are more important. It would be more sensible to
acknowledge that everybody is defective, and to insist that everybody
regard themselves as a human and a team member, not as a "community" of
abused people who deserve pity and pampering. Our goal should be to reduce defects in every generation,
not pander to people who want to exploit their defects.
In regards to the story of Snow White, the story is based on an idiotic
plot, but if we choose to edit it, I suggest we make changes to
benefit the human race, not to appease dwarfs. A dwarf will not
a children's story mentions dwarfs, just as a tall person will not
suffer if there was a story about Snow White and the Seven Tall Men.
encourages whining and selfishness
When we pander to people
who whine about stereotypes or
bad reputations, we encourage hatred, whining, pouting, and fighting.
It also encourages the whiny people to imagine themselves as a separate
community of people who are being abused.
We should not tolerate the people who whine, or be intimidated by their
we are cruel or unfair. If somebody doesn't like a children's story,
movie, or opinion, they
the issue and explain why we should change it, rather than imagine
themselves as part of a community that is being
We learn about ourselves and
our culture when we discuss
issues, but not when we accuse people of promoting stereotypes, or
that are sexist, racist, or anti-Semitic.
If women stoppedfighting with men, and allowed us to
study the differences between men and women, we would be able to slowly
figure out how to improve our culture. For
example, we might discover that women are better at designing clothing,
decorating homes, and creating art because their mind is better at
visualizing colorful images, whereas the reason men are better at
and repairing mechanical items might be because our mind is better at
and manipulating 3-D models of mechanical items.
might be better at creating
and manipulating 3D models.
might be better at creating
colorful but 2-D images.
An analysis of men and
women might also show us differences in their preferences for
background images on their computers and phones. Men might prefer
landscapes and machines, and women might prefer photos of their
children or of artwork.
We might also discover that
some of the men who excel as artists have abnormally strong female
characteristics, or abnormally weak male characteristics, or defective
intellectual or emotional characteristics. That could explain why so
many of the artistic men are sexually mixed up, anti-social, mentally
ill, unhappy, and/or attracted to drugs.
Conversely, we might discover that the women who excel in
engineering or science have stronger male
characteristics, or superior intellectual characteristics, than the
that should be restricted
Instead of promoting
"freedom", we should analyze
each freedom and put restrictions on the freedoms that are more
detrimental than beneficial. Here is a brief list of some freedoms that
I don't think have any benefit, and should be restricted:
The freedom to breed plants and animals.
This freedom allows us to
breed pit bulls and roosters for fighting; grapes that produce wines
with higher levels of alcohol; and dogs to become better substitutes
for babies and friends.
The freedom to choose our meals.
This freedom causes people
to become unhealthy, and to waste food. It also makes it
impossible for a society to plan its production of food.
The freedom to reproduce.
This freedom allows people
to produce unwanted and defective children who
hate themselves, suffer throughout their lives, and torment
other people. It also causes the human gene pool to degrade.
The freedom to create economic monarchies.
The freedom to inherit
wealth, land, and businesses gives us terrible leadership.
The freedom to own land.
This freedom results in most
of the land on the Earth to be
private property, which restricts us to tiny areas that are public
property. It also allows people
to interfere with the development of cities, such as the owner
of the property to the right.
It also allows some people to become extremely wealthy when oil or
valuable materials are discovered on their
land, or when their land becomes valuable as a result of population
growth. Their wealth gives them more influence over society, and is
another reason we have terrible leadership.
The freedom to choose cosmetics.
This freedom results in
people cluttering their home with cosmetic products, and wasting labor
and resources on attempts to impress and deceive other
The cosmetic surgeries waste a
lot of technical talent and resources,
and many people regret their surgeries, which results in wasting more
and resources in an attempt to undo their mistake.
The freedom to delay the death of hopeless
This freedom allows people
to waste medical services in attempts to delay the death of people,
who are dying from old age, incurable diseases, or genetic disorders.
We should be concerned about the quality
of a person's life, not the length of
that he is alive.
The freedom to have brain surgery.
The medical technology we
have today is effective at repairing damage to our body
, but we
cannot yet fix a person who is suffering
from injuries, tumors, or blood clots in his brain.
people the freedom to have brain surgery
is giving them the freedom to turn themselves into zombies
who become a burden on society.
The John Hopkins University admits
that brain surgery "can cause
problems with thoughts, feelings, and
", and there are videos on the Internet that allow us
to observe a
person before and after brain surgery, and we can clearly see that he
has suffered brain damage
a result of the surgery. Although therapy helps many of them regain
most of their
ability to speak or walk, they are permanently
They are described as
"patients" of the hospital, but they could be described as "victims
" of a culture that
regards brain damage as trivial.
|Update 7 June 2022:
The link to the article at John Hopkins University (in the
paragraph above) does not have the
remarks about brain surgery causing changes in a person's
behavior, so did I make a mistake? Or did John Hopkins edit the article
those remarks in order to avoid frightening people about
If they removed those remarks, then they are censoring important information in
order to deceive people into getting extremely dangerous brain surgery,
and for what reason? Money?
The interesting aspect of this issue is that virtually the exact same
remarks can be found at several
hospitals in India,
such as this
one and this
one, and at the end of the description of this YouTube
video posted by the British BioMedicine Institute, and at this site,
and at this
site. (This time I saved screen images of their remarks in case
they remove them.)
The most interesting of those sites is this
one because it mentions John Hopkins twice.
The image below is a portion of that page, and I highlighted the
remarks about the danger of brain surgery in orange, and I highlighted
the two references to John Hopkins in magenta.
Why would that site describe the brain surgery at John Hopkins unless
they copied the information
from a John Hopkins document?
This makes me wonder if John Hopkins created that information, and then
sites around the world copied it. Then, after I posted the document you
are currently reading, somebody at John Hopkins removed the information
in order to avoid frightening people about brain surgery.
If they removed those remarks, then they are censoring important
information in order to deceive
people into getting extremely dangerous brain surgery, but for what
I suppose the people involved with brain surgery are worried about
losing their job, but censoring important information for such a reason
is behaving like a criminal
who cheats or rapes us in order to satisfy his craving for money,
status, or sex.
How would you
feel if you went to a doctor, and he suggested surgery for you or your
child, but did not
tell you about the risks
because he was worried that you might refuse the procedure, and he was
planning to use that money to purchase a swimming pool for his mansion?
That attitude is analogous to a teacher who convinces some students to
remain in his PhD program even though the students do not have the
talent, simply because the teacher wants tenure and needs some
students. Or how about the people who want to have sex and/or get
pregnant, but doesn't tell their partner that they have a venereal
If we are being lied to about brain surgery simply so that some people
can keep their job, then those lies are more evidence of what I
complained about in other documents; specifically, that the free
enterprise system causes people to become so afraid of losing their
job, and it makes it difficult for us to be trained for another job,
people will suffer with a job they dislike,
or a job that is useless, dishonest, destructive, or disgusting.
Furthermore, if John Hopkins is lying to us about brain surgery, they
are another example of how people tend to react to problems like a frightened animal rather
than an explorer
who finds the courage to face and analyze problems, discuss possible
solutions, and experiment with improvements.
||“OMG! I might lose my job!
We must hide the truth from the public!”
If the people involved with brain surgery could find the courage to
analyze the situation, they would realize they were deceived into
getting involved with brain surgery because they were not provided with the truth about
it when they were young and planning their career. They are victims of
deception, but instead of improving the situation, they reacted like a
frightened animal that is fighting
for its survival in any manner it can think of, with no concern for the consequences.
I suppose that if we knew the truth about brain surgery, we would want
it to be restricted to experiments,
not promote it to the public as a safe and routine medical treatment.
The amount of lying, deception, abuse, censorship, and crime is incredible. My documents have
pointed out that we are being routinely lied to and censored by NASA,
Google, Zionists, journalists, and lot of other organizations, and now
we ought to wonder how many hospitals, doctors, surgeons, and medical
institutions are lying to us about medical
I am also shocked at how many adult men are capable of getting into
fistfights, yelling obscenities, and threatening
people and nations with violence, but who do not have the
courage to face reality, our social problems, crime networks, corrupt
officials, feminists, disgusting business executives, dishonest
journalist, or abusive Zionist organizations.
||“OMG! If I disagree with
I might not find a wife! Help me, Jesus!”
Where are the men with courage? Violence and temper
tantrums is animal behavior, not "courage". How
many men can be a leader
rather than a frightened sheeple that is holding onto Jesus, his wife,
or a gun for comfort?
Most people don't complain
about the brain damage from
brain surgery because they don't have any interest in learning or
thinking. They prefer to spend their time lounging in front of a
television, having silly conversations, eating excessively, and playing
with video games or pet dogs. They can continue those activities even
after suffering brain damage.
Even more sad, a person can remain as a government official or Supreme
Court judge while suffering from senility, strokes, and mental illness.
I suggest Kastron set high standards for people, which will mean that
a person with brain damage in Kastron will be a lonely misfit, rather than a
famous Hollywood celebrity, government official, lawyer, or judge.
We should face the
unpleasant fact that we do not yet know how to fix certain types of
brain problems. We should euthanize
those people rather than
turn them into zombies.
In a free enterprise system, all types of medical services are provided
according to who can afford them, but Kastron government will pass
judgment on who gets medical services. The officials of Health
Department should have
an attitude similar to that of a farmer.
Specifically, their priority should be to ensure that the
"normal" people are in excellent health, rather than waste labor and
resources on futile attempts to help the hopelessly defective and
sickly people, or cause people to become zombies. They will have the
euthanize the children and terminally ill people that they regard as hopeless.
We cannot expect government officials to make "perfect" decisions about who to give
medical services to, and who to euthanize, but they will not
be able to make their decisions in secret, so we will be able to
analyze their decisions, and replace the officials who make decisions
we disagree with.
The government officials in the world today are so corrupt and
incompetent that all of us would be frightened to give them the
authority to deny us medical services or euthanize us, but as I
mentioned in the previous document of this series, by removing our
safety net, we will be pressured to get involved with ensuring that our
government officials are among the most intelligent, honest, and
responsible members of the human race, rather than human trash.
Furthermore, some people have been indirectly euthanized
when they were denied medical services, but that type
of euthanasiz is happening according to our wealth
rather than according to a government official's decision.
What difference does it make whether a person is euthanized
because he doesn't have enough money to pay for medical treatment,
or if he is euthanized because a government
official decides that he is not worth the resources
to keep alive?
The difference is that if we have appropriate government officials,
they will make much more intelligent decisions about where to put our
medical resources compared to a free enterprise system. For example,
instead of wasting resources to prolong the death of a wealthy elderly
man for a year or two, they will put the resources into helping the
younger people maintain better health.
The freedom to be an irritation, burden, or
Every nation provides its
citizens with the freedom to irritate other people, and even be a
danger or a burden to society. For example, we are free to hoard items to such an extent that
we damage the home, or become a health hazard to our neighbors as a
result of the rats, mold, and other creatures that live in the home,
or become a fire hazard as
a result of hoarding flammable items.
We also have the freedom to be annoying in public areas,
such as making a mess of the items in a retail store; leaving trash at
theaters, music concerts, and Stonehenge; producing smoke from fires
and barbecues; and creating noise with television and
We also give people the freedom to play "practical jokes".
We also have the freedom to own almost any type of pet animal we
please. This results in lots of people being bit by dogs, and being
irritated by their barking and fighting. It also results in animal poop
and pee being scattered all around the cities, some of which becomes
dust that gets into our lungs, food, clothing, and homes.
We should not plead
with people to behave properly.
All societies today regard individual
as more important
than the team
. This results in
such idiotic situations as people
pandering to the irritating people, or pleading with them to behave
better. For example, the television programs about hoarders show city
officials and relatives of the hoarders pleading
with them to
away some of their junk.
Imagine business executives pleading with their employees to stop
hoarding things in their office, or the commander of a
Navy submarine pleading with the sailors to stop littering in the
submarine, or parents pleading with their children to clean their
of Russian citizens tries to improve the behavior of other Russians by
putting stickers on their windshield when they don't follow the rules
for parking and driving. Imagine if some of the forklift drivers at a
were not following the rules, and the
supervisors tried to persuade them to do so by putting
stickers on their vehicles whenever they misbehaved.
The people who have irritating behavior
are suffering from
low quality brains
as a result of genetic defects, concussions,
strokes, old age, or some other problem. We cannot improve their brain
by pleading with them to behave better.
In Kastron, the team
has priority over the individual.
are badly behaved are to be regarded as low-quality people who are
unacceptable disruptions to society, and
they should be dealt with
than pleaded with or pandered to. For example, if
somebody becomes a hoarder in Kastron, the government should not waste
with him to
his mess. Instead, he should be regarded as
a mentally defective person who is unable to function properly in a
modern society. He should
either be put on restrictions or evicted.
With that type of attitude, a "practical joke" will not be considered
as a "joke"
if it is irritating or dangerous. Although there is no dividing
line between a "harmless joke" and a "dangerous
everybody in Kastron is required to make sensible decisions about what
is truly amusing, and what is a potential annoyance or danger. The
people who cannot make wise decisions about that issue, and who annoy
other people with their attempt to be amusing, are to be regarded as
having an unacceptable mind.
They should be put on restrictions or evicted. Likewise, hazing
will not be
I think that we enjoy
pranks on one another because we evolved for a dangerous competition
for life. Young animals prepare for the battle for life by jumping on
each other, biting each other, and chasing one another around.
We misinterpret what the young animals do as "having fun" and "playing
with each other", but they are actually preparing their mind and body
for the brutal and deadly competition for life. It also starts the
process of determining their position in the social hierarchy.
Animals also have a craving to torment the misfits. When they torment
the misfits, such as plucking out their feathers, they are doing the
animal equivalent of "hazing".
Humans inherited the desire to jump on each other, bite each other, and
torment the misfits, but our modern technology allows pranks and hazing
to be very irritating and deadly. An
example is when this
man killed his friend when he accidentally used a real gun in his
prank. There have been so many deaths from hazing ceremonies that the
Wikipedia has this
list of deaths in the USA.
People today need to behave better than prehistoric savages, and
those who cannot behave better need to be dealt with in some manner,
rather than tolerated or pitied. The
people who push for dangerous pranks and hazing ceremonies should be
regarded as animals
levels of self-control. They should not
be admired for being "tough" or "brave".
In our modern world, a person
can have an effect
on everybody on the planet, including the future
generations. Therefore, we will all benefit by ensuring that everybody
is a beneficial member of the human race.
We euthanize dogs
that are dangerous, and zoo animals have been killed simply for biting
people who foolishly walked into their cage, but we give pity
to dangerous people
especially to badly behaved children
I recommend acknowledging the evidence that destructive humans are just
as disgusting as violent dogs. Actually, the greater intelligence of
humans causes the violent and irresponsible humans to be much more
destructive, especially when they form crime networks.
that we should have
The freedom to experiment with medicines.
As I described in previous
documents, such as this
requiring us to get prescriptions
for medicines prevents us from
experimenting with medicines, and making the prescriptions useful for only one year
causes those of us who need the medicines throughout our
lives to waste our time and resources getting the same prescriptions
after year, and it is a waste of a doctor's time to continuously create
the same prescriptions. Prescriptions are also less efficient for
they require people to waste
their time and resources trying to control other people's access to the
Prescriptions can reduce the chances that we get the wrong medicine, or
the wrong dosage, and it
can reduce the abuse of medicines, but it is an inefficient and
irritating way of dealing with such problems. To understand this,
consider if we were to do this with food
If all of the foods were by prescription only, we could dramatically
reduce obesity, diabetes, malnutrition, and other problems, but would
the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
Imagine having to
go to a doctor to get a "food prescription", and going back to the
doctor every year
to get the
whenever you want to get a meal, you have to show your prescription to
the employees of a pharmacy, and then wait for them to provide you with
Requiring us to get a food prescription would improve the health of
many people, but it is an inefficient and irritating way of dealing
the problem. My suggestion for improving our diets is to eliminate the
kitchens in Kastron, require everybody to
get meals at restaurants, and give the government total control of
the economy. That allows the government to supervise the meals at
Although this will not stop people from eating excessively or becoming
malnourished, we should not worry about, or try to control, the people
who don't have the
ability to make wise decisions. Instead, we should regard those
people as having low-quality minds.
When we design culture to prevent the low-quality people from hurting
themselves or other people, we torment the well-behaved people. Even
all of the laws that are intended to improve the behavior of badly
behaved people are failures
stop them from
medicines, committing crimes, or fighting with their family members.
We should provide people with access to medicines rather than torment
the well-behaved people with prescriptions. We waste our time and cause
ourselves frustration when we try to
control the badly behaved people. Furthermore, trying to control them
often results in them becoming angry and violent.
would create a more pleasant social environment by raising standards of
behavior. The people who abuse medicines should be treated in the same
manner as the people who
abuse knives, razor blades, automobiles, and alcohol, such as
putting them on restrictions, or evicting them.
freedom to choose death.
No nation provides people
with the freedom to choose how and when they die. This results in
people who want to die being forced to wait until their level of misery
is so high
that it overpowers their craving to live, and they can commit
suicide, such as this
man, who jumped off of a bridge. This custom could be described as "torturing a person to suicide
we could describe that as being worse than torturing a person
Even more sad are the people who finally reach the level of misery that
they can commit suicide, but they make a mistake and fail
at suicide, and end up becoming permanently injured and waste a lot of
society's resources on medical care, such as the people who shoot
the face with a gun and get a face transplant
recommendation is that the government have a department that arranges
for people who want to die, and gives them some freedom to choose how
option is to have a party before dying, as this
Switzerland is offering
people the opportunity to get into a tiny capsule and die from lack of
oxygen, but I think that getting into a tiny capsule is unpleasant
because it would feel like getting into a coffin.
I would rather sit somewhere where I have a nice view of something,
such as a forest, garden, or creek, and then have something to eat or
drink that puts me to sleep, and then kills me.
Some people might like the option of not knowing which
day they die. A person might
choose to die within
the next month or two, and the
government would choose the day without telling him which
The problem with giving people the freedom to choose their death is
that the freedom is useful only if their mind is functioning well
enough to make such a decision. That freedom is useless for people in a
coma, or suffering from strokes or other types of brain damage. We
often let family members decide what to do with their brain-damaged
relatives, but family members tend to
demand expensive and difficult medical treatments in order to
prolong death as long as possible.
My recommendation is to restrict the decisions about life
and death to a government department, and the people
in that department should be held accountable for their decisions. They
be able to make
in secrecy. We cannot expect them to be
"perfect", but we can require them to provide an intelligent
explanation for their
decisions. We also need the right to pass
judgment on whether we think the officials are making wise
decisions, and the voters should continuously replace the officials who
are doing the worst job.
Freedom of speech.
Every nation boasts that
people with freedom of speech, but no government enforces that freedom.
For example, every nation allows
Facebook, Google, Twitter, Zionist organizations,
businesses, religions, journalists, and government agencies to censor, fire,
intimidate, and suppress
people and opinions.
To make the situation more absurd, our governments allow people and
organizations to refer to lies
and deception as freedom of
speech. For example:
| We are free to make
accusations, such as accusing people of white privilege,
Holocaust denial, climate change denial, and sexism.
|We are free to
information, such as crop circles, and the
theory that miniature hydrogen bombs destroyed the World Trade Center
buildings. That is also deceiving and manipulating.
Some people might respond
that our "freedom of speech" should allow us
to post information about crop circles and the Flat Earth theory, and
to make accusations of Holocaust Denial and sexism, but I recommend
that we define
"speech" as "our opinions". We should not allow lies, deception, or
attempts to intimidate people to be regarded as "speech" or "opinions".
There is no dividing line between an "opinion" that somebody is sexist,
and an "attempt to intimidate" somebody by accusing them or sexism, but
we can and should
distinction rather than be intimidated by people who are trying to
manipulate us. We should judge a remark by whether a person has intelligent supporting evidence
it, and if not, we should consider that the person is trying to
All nations also provide us with the freedom to post information on the
or with a false name,
making it impossible
to hold people accountable for their attempts to deceive and manipulate
When a person provides information to the world, such as by posting
information on the Internet, he is trying to influence other people's
opinions and the future of the human race. He is self-appointing
himself to the role of world leader.
he should have to meet the same standards that other leaders meet. He
should be held accountable for what he says, and we have the right to
know where his information comes from, what it is based on, and what
supporting evidence he has.
Nobody in Kastron will have the freedom to post information
anonymously. Instead, everybody has the right
to know who
the source of information, and the right to hold them accountable
for what they
say. We should also have the right to have mistakes corrected
, and if the author does
not fix the mistakes, then other people have the right to do so. We
be forced to tolerate mistakes.
Furthermore, the Kastron security department should pass judgment on why
person provides inaccurate information, and if they determine
that he deliberately
false information in an attempt to deceive
us, he should be considered as a criminal.
We must stop tolerating
who try to manipulate us, and we should not allow them to justify their
deceptive information by faking
stupidity or ignorance, such as the school officials who "accidentally
gave students the assignment of describing their sexual preferences
using pizza toppings. If that assignment was not intended for the
was it created
Some journalists claim that
they need the right to provide information
from anonymous people in order to expose corrupt governments, but there
evidence to support the theory that anonymous information can stop
government corruption. Rather, there is much more evidence that
virtually all of the anonymous "whistleblowers" are actually wolves in sheep's clothing
, and they
are working with
government officials to deceive and manipulate people.
A person who truly has
something intelligent to say should be proud of
himself and want to be given credit for his achievements, so he should want to
identify himself as the source of the information. The people who want
to "educate" us while they remain secretive and anonymous should
be investigated to determine
if they are criminals
are trying to manipulate us.
Another problem with allowing people to provide information anonymously
is that it encourages people to be frightened
to expose corruption or disagree with our leaders. We should do the opposite;
namely, encourage people to regard government officials, policemen,
judges, and business executives as city
employees, and set higher standards for them than we set for
factory workers and gardeners. We should encourage people to pass
judgment on people in leadership positions, and replace those
who are doing the worst jobs.
Rather than be fearful of our leaders, we should encourage people to
with maintaining our society by
exposing the corrupt and incompetent leaders. We should also encourage
everybody to become accustomed to
getting and receiving constructive criticism, and looking for
ways to improve the information in
our encyclopedias, school books, and television documentaries. We
should encourage people to look for ways to improve our lives, rather
than be afraid to criticize or disagree with other people.
Freedom to have leaders who earn their
Every nation is providing
us with the freedom to get into leadership positions through
inheritances, nepotism, divorce settlements, and other forms of
cheating. This is a freedom that should be terminated.
The USA goes even further and allows some people to get into a
leadership position for life,
with no regard to their effect on society. For example, the Supreme
Court judges are given the
job for their entire life; teachers are provided with tenure; and
business owners are "economic monarchs" who can keep their
position throughout their lives and pass their business, land, and
to their children or spouse.
We will provide ourselves with much better leadership when we have the
freedom to observe what our
leaders are doing, and the freedom to pass judgment on whether they are
their position. We should also have the freedom to replace the leaders
who are the least beneficial, and arrest
those who commit crimes. We
should have the freedom to prevent people from becoming leaders through
inheritances, divorce settlements, and other forms of cheating.
In order to have this
freedom, we must eliminate the secrecy
that we provide people in leadership positions. We need the freedom to observe our leaders. While some
people might complain that this is an "invasion of privacy", our
leaders don't provide their employees with secrecy.
Employees are observed and judged, and they are replaced if their performance is
inadequate. It is more important for us to observe and judge our leaders than it is to observe a
Freedom from crime.
The US legal system was
designed by people who
were frightened by the incompetence, mental illness, selfishness, and
violence of the European monarchies and governments. Their reaction was
to make it
difficult for the police to arrest people, and even more difficult for
the courts to convict a person of a crime. However, this policy is another example of living in fear of government
officials, rather than replacing them.
We torment ourselves when we live in fear of corrupt judges or
government officials. I think one
of the most
important freedoms that we should have is freedom
from crime. We should be free of the fear that our
government officials, neighbors, policemen, teachers, and judges will
murder, rape, or abuse us. We should
have the right
to trust the people we
Although prehistoric children were afraid to leave their campsite, they
were free to wander anywhere within
their campsite. They felt safe around the adults, not frightened. We
should give our children the same freedom. Children should be free to
wander around the city without fear of pedophiles, kidnappers, crime
gangs, or bullies. They should be able to trust and depend upon the
teachers, policemen, government officials, and other adults. The
children should be so free of crime that they can take
sleeping bags into a city park and spend the night together without
needing their parents to protect them.
We should not live in
fear of criminals!
We cannot become free of crime
when we encourage one another to live in fear of criminals, government
officials, or the police.
cannot be free of crime by purchasing guns, either, or by punishing
criminals, or by sending criminals to rehabilitation programs.
Providing ourselves with
freedom from crime requires a dramatic
change in our attitudes
towards crime and law enforcement.
My suggestion is to evict
criminals, even if
they are judges, FBI officials, government officials, or policemen.
The freedom to know the truth about our
In order to provide
the previous two freedoms, we need the freedom to know the truth about
the people in influential positions. We cannot provide ourselves with
honest, responsible, and beneficial leaders when we provide them with
so much secrecy that we cannot be sure whether they are male or female,
or whether they are suffering from Alzheimer's or strokes, or whether
they are involved with a pedophile network. We need the freedom to know
the truth about the people we put into leadership positions.
The freedom to know the truth about a
potential friend and spouse.
As I pointed out in a
previous document, the people who deceive us into becoming their friend
or spouse are wasting something that is much more precious than
material wealth; namely, they are wasting a portion
of our lives, and there is nothing we can do to get that
Every society is
people with the freedom to be secretive and deceptive. We have the
freedom to lie
about our age, marital status, criminal history, drug problems, medical
mental illness. This freedom causes many people to get into friendships
and marriages that are miserable.
The married couples who are unhappy with each other can torment one
another, and they can make life less pleasant for their children,
neighbors, parents, relatives, and friends.
We live for a very brief period of time. We will improve our lives by
living among people that we can trust,
not by acquiring more material items. We should not tolerate
people who waste a portion of our
life. One way to reduce the wasted life is to provide everybody
with the freedom and the
right to know the truth
about potential friends and spouses.
this freedom requires some significant changes to our culture. My
suggestion is, as I've mentioned in other documents, for the government
to maintain a database that has details of everybody's life, and
let everybody have free access to the database. There should be no
pity for the people who are ashamed of themselves.
The freedom to share the wealth.
Every society makes people
for food, housing, clothing, and other items. This competition creates
a lot of envy, hatred, crime, a fear of unemployment, and
a fear of divorce.
We will create a much more pleasant and efficient social
environment when we provide people with the freedom to have equal
access to the food, housing, water, land, and other wealth. This
freedom requires a dramatic change in our culture. Specifically, it
requires eliminating classes of people, and prohibiting people from
getting special privileges.
An even more emotionally difficult change that we must make is
that the people who cannot, or will not, contribute to the wealth need
to be prohibited from reproduction so that they don't create more
parasitic people in the next generation, or they need to be evicted.
The freedom to euthanize defective and
All nations today put
pressure on parents to take care of every child, no matter how
defective it is, and even if it is the result of a rape. Kastron will
provide parents with the freedom to euthanize their
defective and unwanted children. This freedom will allow parents to
raise children that are a pleasure
than a burden or irritation.
The freedom to move to a different home
within our city.
Although every culture
provides people with the
freedom to move to a different home, it is impractical for us to fully
use that freedom because the process is time-consuming and expensive in
a free enterprise system.
Government agencies, banks, real estate
agencies, and other businesses demand that we give them lots of
paperwork and money. Furthermore, cities do not maintain an
excess of homes, so we usually have to wait for somebody to sell their
home before we can move.
In Kastron, there will not be any hotels. Instead, the city will
deliberately have a large excess of apartments. Everybody will be free
to move to a different apartment as easily as a person in a hotel
can switch to another room. This culture will make it much easier for
us to find an apartment near our friends or family members, or closer
to where we work, or closer to whichever forest, city park,
recreational area, or bicycle path we want to be near.
In order for it to be practical for a city to use apartments as hotel
rooms, a city government must have the freedom to discriminate with visitors, and the freedom to evict
the visitors who are sloppy, abusive, or unwanted. Nobody should have
the right to visit in a city.
The freedom to evict unwanted people.
In a city in which we are
sharing the wealth, living in close contact with one another, and don't
have any security devices on our homes, it is especially important that
we have the freedom to evict the people that we don't want to live with.
Living in Kastron should be regarded as "joining a team", and as a
privilege and a responsibility, not as a "freedom". Nobody should have
"the right" to live in Kastron, just as nobody has a right to work at a
particular business, or become a member of an orchestra, or have a
particular person as their spouse. Everybody must earn what they want.
the pressure to try different things
If we are given the freedom
to do whatever we want to do, we will avoid
everything we consider to be unpleasant, and we will prevent our
experiencing uncomfortable situations. Unfortunately, humans and
animals were not designed to be
pampered. Rather, the intelligent animals were designed to adapt to their environment.
Therefore, if we protect a child from unpleasant experiences, and
pamper him with whatever he pleases, he will adapt to that environment.
become a dysfunctional adult.
The previous document of this series gave an example; specifically,
that our custom of
"protecting" boys from nudity, childbirth, breast-feeding, and sex is
causing them to become adult
men who have obnoxious obsessions with women's bodies, "dick jokes",
"camel toes", and sex.
Now consider that we are
also hurting children when we "protect" them from criticism, failures,
disappointments, and chores.
Insects are born knowing all of the information that they need to know
as adults, so they don't have to learn anything during their childhood.
Human children, however, must learn how to become an adult. However, we
children for adulthood by pandering to them. We must expose children to
the type of events that they will experience
as an adult, such as chores,
competition, disappointments, criticism, nudity, sex, failures,
embarrassment, responsibility, time schedules, rules of behavior, and
During prehistoric times, the children were exposed to the situations
that they had to deal with as an adult, but today we have the
technology and leisure time to pamper and protect children. This is
causing many parents to play
with children rather than prepare
them for life. For example, parents, especially mothers, are titillated by
babies that laugh and giggle, and they are upset when
babies frown, cry, or become angry. This results in mothers who titillate their children rather than
teach them something useful.
One of the reasons I suggest removing teenagers from their parents'
and putting them into Teentown is to prevent parents from pampering the
teenagers. Teentown will make it easy to ensure that all of the
teenagers are exposed to a variety of useful chores and situations.
A teenager might occasionally cry or have a tantrum when he experiences
disappointments or criticism, but he will not be
damaged by it. All of the mentally healthy teenagers will learn to deal
with it, and become better adults as a result.
Of course, due to genetic variations, some teenagers will not
learn how to deal with criticism, disappointments, or competition.
They will become adults who continue to whine, cry, hate, and pout.
However, we should not respond by lowering the educational standards to
fit those people. We should instead regard those people as mentally defective,
and separate them from the
others, or evict them for not
having the mental ability to handle our modern world.
We must be
critical about the design of a city
As with animals, we have a
tendency to make decisions rapidly based on whatever we happen to know
at the time, rather than put time and effort into researching the issue
looking critically at our brilliant opinions. This animal behavior
causes us to sometimes regret our decisions.
It is especially important for us to be aware of this characteristic
when we design a city because we cannot easily undo the mistakes that
The Chinese government recently came to the conclusion
that some of
their buildings were ugly, and some were attractive but too
wasteful of space, or impractical. They came to the conclusion that
they must put
restrictions on the "architectural
" of citizens and
In order for a government to set restrictions on
architectural freedom, we have to decide who among us we want to
appease, and who we want to ignore. For example, should we allow the
buildings and decorations like those
in the three photos below? Or should we prohibit
that type of
architecture and decorations?
in a shopping center in France
of the Internet images for "ugly
portion of a mural
on the side of a building.
Some artists insist that
there is no way for us to decide what is and is not "art", but we can
make decisions about what we
regard as "art". Furthermore, as I
pointed out in other documents, such as this
, we can determine if
something is "art" simply by changing its environment. For example, if
put something into a pile of trash, and nobody recognizes it as "art",
then it is not
Furthermore, even if something classifies as "art", we are not
obligation to like it.
complain that we are hurting his feelings when we criticize
artwork, but we should not
guilty for disliking somebody's
We also have to be careful that we don't do something simply because
our ancestors did it. An example is how we are still considering some
of the artists from centuries ago to be incredibly talented, such as
Most of the paintings by artists of previous centuries
would be considered worthless
their paintings were randomly mixed among other paintings in a thrift
store, city dump, or high school art room. By comparison, if paintings
by da Vinci or Michelangelo were mixed in a high school art display,
people would be shocked
of the artist. People would also be impressed
by a lot of the mosaics, statues, and paintings from the ancient
Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians.
I suspect that a lot of the worthless art is considered valuable for
three primary reasons:
|| Their primitive
technology resulted in most people never seeing the art that was
created in other cities or nations.
| Only a few people
were producing art, so those artists did not have
| Criminals use
worthless art to pass money to one another, which
inadvertently causes people to believe that the art is valuable.
If history was a real
science, then historians would be analyzing our
culture and we might today have some idea of how and why Picasso and
other artists became famous, and what effect criminals have had on our
view of art.
There are museums dedicated to worthless artists, such as Pablo Picasso
, Henri Matisse
, and Mark Chagall
We must be aware of our tendency to mimic our ancestors, and we should
ourselves into analyzing our culture, and using our intelligence to
look for a better path
Most of the art that we are putting into museums, decorating our city
with, and publishing in books about art should be removed
. The only people who should
be looking at those artists are the historians
who are trying to understand how our culture has been influenced by
crime networks, money laundering, mental illness, technology, and the
free enterprise system.
Before we decorate the city with something, we should put it
through an "art test". Specifically, randomly mix it in with other
art items and then observe people to see if many of them pick it out as
being worthy of decorating the city with. However, we should observe
only the adults that
we regard as respectable
care what teenagers, idiots, alcoholics, badly behaved people, or
children find attractive.
I also suggest that we restrict all of the public decorations to those
emotions, rather than confusion, fear, anger,
pouting, sadness, or suicide. For example, optical illusions, such as
the two below, are interesting the first time we see them, and they are
temporary decorations, such as for a city festival, but I think they
are irritating as long-term decorations.
The checkered floor (above,
) is supposed to stop people from
the hallway, but that policy is as idiotic
putting locks on our doors to stop burglars. Optical illusions will
stop a person from
running only the first time they see the illusion.
Instead of ruining the appearance
of a city in an attempt to prevent bad behavior
we should design the city for us to enjoy
, and we
the badly behaved people.
A lot of the
sculptures in the world today
interesting, or amusing when we first see them, such as the three
below (search for "public
), but they can become dreary, stupid, or
ugly after a few years. (Search for "ugly
We get tired of art, but not nature
All of us enjoy looking at
hummingbirds, and creeks. We enjoy nature so much that we decorate our
yard with paths, flowers, and trees, and we decorate our home with
paintings of nature. Many of us also enjoy wandering around in a
forest, city park, or botanical garden simply to enjoy nature. Images
of nature are also popular as background images on our computers.
reason we enjoy nature so much is because we evolved
to enjoy nature. The
humans who were the most successful in life were those who loved their environment.
Humans have not
to concrete, asphalt, automobiles, litter, or telephone wires. Also, we
enjoy optical illusions, sharp edges, modern art, or
extreme contrast in objects, such as black and white stripes.
Imagine living in a city in which you have two different footpaths to
walk on to get to your job each day. One path allows you to pass by
birds, and flowers, and the other path takes you along hundreds
of modern art sculptures, like the three in the photos above.
Initially, you might enjoy both
paths, but most people would eventually become tired of the "clever"
and "fascinating" artwork, whereas nobody would become tired
Furthermore, some man-made sculptures can become irritating
, such as the spider in
above. The reason is that we have an inherent fear or dislike of
such as snakes,
spiders, rats, and wolves. Therefore, a city that is decorated
or sculptures of those creatures will stimulate unpleasant feelings.
Spiders and rats are a part of nature, but we did not
evolve a desire to live with
Although we evolved to enjoy people
artwork of people
can be irritating if it is so realistic that it stimulates
our emotions, such as the murals below. (Here
are dozens more
We are social animals, so
our brain was designed to analyze visual images in order to find such
things as human faces. Also, our mind was designed to interact with
people, not ignore them. Therefore, when a city has realistic
paintings of people – especially people who are looking at us, shooting
an arrow at us, or
waving at us – our emotions will be triggered over and over as we walk
city. That emotional stimulation might be interesting the first time we
experience it, but it becomes annoying after a while.
Some things are tolerable only in small quantities
Another concept to keep in
mind when decorating a city is that a lot of things are acceptable or
when a small number of people are doing it. In regards to art, if a
city has only a few murals of realistic people, it might not
bother us, but if the city was decorated with thousands of realistic people, we
would find it irritating.
To understand this concept, consider two different cities that are
identical. One city has hundreds of gardens scattered around the
buildings, and each garden has different types of flowers, fountains,
trees, and rocks. The other city has sculptures and artwork scattered
around the buildings, and many of the sculptures
are of spiders, optical illusions, and abstract art. Also, some of the
murals are of people that are looking
at us, waving at us, and shooting arrows at us.
Everybody would agree that the city with the gardens is the
most beautiful. Everybody would enjoy wandering around that city to
gardens, and we would never get tired of the gardens. We would enjoy
home that looked out onto one of the gardens, and we would enjoy
relaxing in a garden, or having a meal in a garden.
By comparison, the other city would be interesting only for a brief
period of time. We would quickly get tired of wandering around the city
to look at statues of spiders, abstract art, and optical illusions. We
would also get tired of looking out of our window and seeing a painting
a person shooting an arrow at us, or seeing a statue of a rat.
There are not many people, if any, who fill their yard with
abstract art, sculptures of spiders, or optical illusions.
Virtually everybody fills their yard with
plants, flowers, trees, ponds, rocks, or grass.
We evolved to
enjoy an ever-changing natural environment
Animals evolved for an
environment that is in a slow but perpetual state of change. For
trees and plants grow and die; the tilting
of the Earth causes the weather to change throughout the year; the
birds, butterflies, and other
animals appear for certain seasons and migrate during
other seasons; and the water level in the creeks rises and falls. We
evolved to enjoy that slow but constantly changing aspect of nature. We
did not evolve for an
environment that is exactly the same year after
year, decade after decade.
However, in a free enterprise system, we have a tendency to live in one
home with one style of furniture and artwork for decades because of the
expense and difficulty of changing the decorations. I think our lives
would be more
"natural" if we could easily change the decorations in our
This is one of the reasons that I suggest we make all of the apartments
identical, and to
design them with fixtures in the walls that enable us to replace the
by ourselves, and without special tools or glues. It is also why I
suggest eliminating copyrights and
royalties. The arts and crafts clubs should be free to create copies or
modifications of all artwork. It is absurd to let people copyright art,
especially of dead artists.
These policies will allow everybody to decorate their home by picking
up furniture and decorations from the stores, and giving them
back to the city when they want to redecorate their home. The city
would clean the items, recycle those that are worn out, and put the
useful items back into a store to be used again. This will allow us to
avoid becoming bored with our home decorations.
must be more durable
In order for us to be
successful with the sharing of home
furnishings, the items must be much higher quality and more durable
than they are in a free enterprise system. All of the furniture,
picture frames, and lamps need to be strong enough to resist twisting
and breaking so that we can
easily transport them to and from the stores. The heavy objects will
need high quality wheels and bearings, rather than delicate, plastic,
Will we want to
sleep on a used mattress?
The Kastron government will
scatter furniture stores around the city to provide people with free
beds, chairs, lamps, paintings, carpets, and other furnishings.
Initially every item will be "new", but when people redecorate their
homes, they will become
We could also let people give a mattress
back to the city, but would you
want to sleep on a mattress
that has already been in possibly a dozen
other apartments, and used by a dozen other people?
Would you want to
put a chair
in your home, or
hang a painting
on your wall,
already been in lots of different apartments and used by different
Whether we enjoy sharing home furnishings depends on our attitude. The
human mind has the ability to set up a "feedback loop" in order to
stimulate itself. We can easily work ourselves into a frenzy by
repeatedly stimulating ourself with the image that we are sleeping on
a mattress that a dozen other people have already slept in, had sex on,
Likewise, we can work ourselves into a frenzy over the concept that we
are sitting in an airplane seat that thousands of other people have
already sat in, and that we are sleeping in a hotel bed that thousands
of people have slept in, and that we are sleeping on the bed sheets,
pillowcases, and pillows that possibly hundreds of people have slept
on, coughed into, and accidentally peed into.
Furthermore, we can torment ourselves over the realization
that we are sitting in a restaurant chair that thousands
of people have sat in, and
that we are drinking from glasses and using the plates, forks, and
spoons that thousands
people have already put into their filthy
We can also become upset by reminding ourselves that the
dentist is putting tools into our mouth that have been in
the mouths of hundreds of other people.
Likewise, all of the single people can torment themselves over the
their potential spouse has already been "used" by somebody else.
Whether we enjoy sharing home furnishings and other items depends upon
If we choose to set high standards for the people in Kastron, and if we
choose to make high quality items, and if we choose to clean and
maintain the items, we will benefit tremendously by sharing items.
Since we are capable of sharing spoons, forks, dental tools, and other
items that we put into our mouth, I suggest that we also consider
providing the bathrooms of restaurants with
water flossing devices. When we are finished using the device, instead
of placing the wand in a stand, we would put it into a
cleaner/sanitizer, and leave it there. It would then be
automatically washed and sanitized, making it just as clean and sterile
as dental tools.
This would be a convenient way to clean our teeth without having to go
home. However, this requires making public bathrooms more spacious and
pleasant. It also requires raising boys differently so that they become
men who are relaxed in a bathroom, rather than paranoid that the other
men will see their penis.
We could also design the bathrooms with different architectural styles
in order to make them more interesting, including variations that
resemble the bathrooms
at the Madonna Inn
California. Public bathrooms do not
have to be miserable.
Sharing "used" items becomes a problem only when we live among
irresponsible people, or when businesses create low quality items.
Also, whether we enjoy "used" items depends upon our attitude
. For example, many people enjoy
that are very old
, and which
have been used by many people, such as
furniture or art from a previous century.
It does not matter whether our material items are
"new" or "used". Our happiness does not
upon material items. It is our mind
determines whether we enjoy a used item, or whether we cry about it.
restrictions on “architectural
A man in Amsterdam
created some videos, such as this
, in which
apartment buildings as "living in a concrete box". He also suggests
that we do not
freedom, or discriminate against who
is living in our neighborhoods. He promotes the
typical attitude that we
should allow people to have more freedom.
Apparently, he enjoys living in a city in which the homes and
other buildings are as different from one another as those in the
photos below, but most of us do not
(Click the links below to see dozens of unusual homes and
We cannot design a city to
please everybody. We must make a decision on who among us we want to appease. At
one extreme are the people who want a city in which everybody is free
to create any type of architecture they please, and at the other
extreme are people who want a city that is extremely orderly.
Most people want things to be orderly, but only to a certain extent.
For example, we organize the items in our closet, and when we create
gardens, we organize the plants, rocks, and trees. Very few people, if
any, place things at random locations in their home or yard.
tools in an efficient manner,
but not the items in our home.
It is also important to
note that we rarely put things in the most efficient locations, except for work
tools. For example, we often put tools into wire baskets, on pegboards,
or on hooks, such as in the photo to the right, but in our homes,
offices, and restaurants, we put almost everything into cabinets and
drawers, and we cover them with decorative doors, handles, and hinges.
The doors make it more difficult for us to find and access items, but
our mind is more interested in a visually attractive environment than
an efficient environment.
Everybody wants their home and city to be visually attractive, but the
genetic and environmental differences between us cause us to disagree
on what is visually pleasant.
home that some of us consider to be neat
will be considered sloppy by
somebody else, and a city that some people consider to be beautiful will be considered monotonous or ugly by somebody else.
squeaky human wheels should not
get the grease!
It looks nice to repeat
something over and over in a pattern. For example, a floor looks nice
when we repeat tiles or pieces of wood, and a hairbrush and
comb look nice when we repeat the pattern of bristles and teeth.
Some people consider a city to look nice when we repeat a building over
and over, such as in the two photographs below, but I find a city to
be unpleasant, monotonous, and dreary when buildings are repeated like
Since we disagree on what
is visually pleasant, how do we decide who
we should please when designing a city?
In a democracy, a lot of decisions are
made according to who does the most whining.
This policy could be described as "The Squeaky Wheel Gets the Grease".
However, this policy is detrimental because it encourages "squeaky
I suggest that we design our city, products, social activities, school
curriculum, and everything
else according to the people who have the characteristics that we want
for the future generations. This will create a city that the future
generations will also enjoy. We should not pander to,
or be intimidated by,
who accuse us of hurting
their feelings, violating their rights, or denying them their freedom.
discrimination” rather than diversity
Some people want the
architecture in every city to be a
mix of styles, which we could describe as "architectural diversity
". However, I
think we will create a more pleasant city when we allow every
neighborhood to have the freedom to "discriminate" against its
architecture and decorations. There will be diversity between
the neighborhoods, but within
a neighborhood there will be
discrimination. This will allow every neighborhood to be unique, which
in turn will make the city more interesting to explore.
My suggestion is that
Kastron consist of neighborhoods that are surrounded by parks. This
isolates every neighborhood, which allows the cluster of buildings in
each neighborhood to have their own architectural style without
clashing with the style of other neighborhoods.
I think a city that promotes "architectural diversity" is ugly, even if
each of the buildings is attractive. For example, an architect in
Bolivia, Freddy Mamani, created some unique buildings (the photos
), but they are scattered around Bolivia at random.
If all of the buildings in
one neighborhood in Kastron had his style of architecture, that
neighborhood would probably be very attractive, but I don't think his
architecture looks nice when it is randomly mixed with other styles.
By giving every neighborhood in Kastron its own unique architectural
style, we would create a city in which we enjoy exploring the
neighborhoods. We would have less of an interest in traveling to
foreign cities and more of an interest in enjoying the city that we
city should practice “vegetation
The same concept applies to
the city parks.
flowers, trees, and bushes at random throughout the city, I suggest
that different areas of the city have different vegetation so that as
we wander around the city we encounter different trees, bushes,
flowers, ponds, and rock formations.
A city would be attractive even if we scattered plants at random, but
in that type of city, we would not have any
incentive to explore the parks because all of them would be identical
to one another.
One of the fascinating things about the Earth is that as we travel
around, we encounter different types of rocks, creeks, trees, flowers,
and bushes. The Earth does not
If we design a city so that the vegetation changes
throughout the city, then we will enjoy wandering around the city to
observe the variety. Likewise, the city will be more fun to explore
when we give all of the foot paths, bicycle paths, foot bridges,
plazas, and swimming areas different designs.
That type of city will also make it easier for us to notice
some of the
plants and trees. For example, we might not notice a Jacaranda tree if
it is scattered among other trees, but if a group of them are in a
particular area, like this
incredible display of purple flowers will grab our attention. The same
is true when we encounter a patch of blooming cherry trees, or a patch
of maple trees that are changing their colors in the autumn.
we explore Kastron, or when we walk or ride a bicycle to work, we
will encounter patches of
Jacaranda trees, succulents, wisteria,
lilies, and other
types of vegetation.
should make the foot paths, bicycle paths, plazas, and ponds in
different shapes and designs, and with different types
of bricks, tiles, woods, and rocks.
Another technique to
increase the beauty of the city is to create some patches in which a
variety of small plants are randomly mixed together. Although the
plants will be randomly mixed with a patch, each of the patches will be
unique. An example are the variety of plants around the foot paths in
the photos below.
I think that designing the
city in that manner will give us even more
reason to get out of our house and occasionally take a walk, ride a
bicycle, or drift through the canals in a rowboat simply to enjoy the
variety of vegetation, ponds, creeks, footpaths, and buildings.
areas should be attractive
No society yet cares
whether their city is visually attractive. This results in many
recreational areas that are ugly.
For example, a swimming pool is usually a rectangular pit that is lined
with concrete and surrounded by concrete. And a tennis court is as ugly
as a parking lot, and the
courts that are surrounded by chain link fences look like they belong
in a prison. Can you figure out which photo below is of a prison?
The Kastron government has total control of
the social and recreational activities, and in addition to
with activities that are more beneficial,
they are also required to look for ways to make the activities more visually attractive.
One technique to improve the appearance of our recreational areas is to
alter the activities so that they can be played on grass
rather than on slabs of asphalt or
concrete. This requires prohibiting cleats and other types of
shoes and equipment that destroys the grass. An additional benefit to
playing on grass is that it will reduce injuries.
Another goal of the Kastron government is to design recreational
activities that don't need much land, and don't need chain link fences
or nets to prevent balls and other items from flying out of the area.
Golf, soccer, tennis, baseball, and other sports would not need fences,
and would use
much less land, simply by making the balls softer.
That has the
of reducing injuries.
By experimenting with recreational activities, we will slowly find ways
to modify them to be more beneficial,
safer, and more fun. In addition, the city will be more beautiful without the
ugly slabs of concrete and asphalt, sand traps for golf courses, and
chain link fences.
Better cities require better guidance and less freedom
Why are our
cities so miserable?
Why are the existing cities
so unpleasant? Why do they have so much crime, overcrowding, noise,
problems, and ugly structures?
One reason is that we give people a tremendous amount of freedom, and
we almost always choose to do what our emotions want, rather than think
about what is best for society.
Another reason is that we continuously provide ourselves with
incompetent and corrupt government officials who don't provide much
guidance in the design of cities.
And the reason that cities have high crime rates and graffiti is simply
because lots of people choose to get involved with such activities.
During the past few centuries, all nations have been decreasing the
authority of their governments and giving more control of society to
the public. The men who created the U.S. Constitution took that concept
to an extreme by making everybody in a leadership position pander to
Unfortunately, the USA has proven that putting a nation in the hands of
the public is not the solution to bad
leadership. One reason is because most people are easily
tricked into supporting corrupt and incompetent governments, and
another reason is that the majority of people will always make
"ordinary" or "average" decisions about how to manage the economy,
school system, recreational affairs, city design, and everything else.
The majority of people will never provide "good" leadership, and
especially not "excellent" leadership.
Our modern world is so complex that most men cannot provide sensible
guidance to themselves, their
wife, or their children, so it is absurd
to allow them to influence our nations and our future.
We cannot improve our cities, reduce crime, or prevent overcrowding by
giving people more freedom.
We must experiment with methods to provide ourselves with better leadership, and we must restrict the freedom of the public
so that they don't have so many opportunities to cause trouble for
themselves and other people. The public needs better guidance and
We need to identify the men who are truly interested in improving
society, rather than pleasing
themselves. We need men who have the
courage to experiment with our
options, look critically at
listen to alternative
opinions, and do what is best for the
The drawing below shows a city with automobiles, and the artist used
straight lines for almost everything, but perhaps that image will
inspire you to think about what we could
do with a city. For example, we could
design foot paths, plazas, and bicycle
paths that have curves rather
than straight lines; we could create
buildings that are attractive and colorful; and we could put the
If we start discussing our options with cities, we will undoubtedly
discover that some of us have some
useful ideas. In order to discover
what our talents are, we must push ourselves into thinking different
thoughts. We cannot be afraid of
failure. So, push yourself into
thinking about cities and culture. You may discover some talents that
you were unaware of.