A
tool is useful only to
people who use it properly
 Knives, hammers,
and
wrenches are tools that can
do something useful only if a
person has the intelligence
necessary to understand how to use them, and has the emotional desire to use them in a
productive manner.
Our culture is also set of tools, except that cultural tools are intangible, and we use them to
manipulate human behavior,
whereas knives and screwdrivers are tangible tools that we use to
manipulate non-human items.
For example, a government system is a
tool that can be used to organize a
group of people into a hierarchy, and coordinate their activities for
the benefit of the organization. Likewise, voting is a
tool that allows people to choose government officials.
However, voting and government systems are useful only to the
people who understand how to
use
those tools properly, and are willing
to use
them properly.
Most people realize that it is dangerous to give knives to
people who don't know how to use them properly, or who don't want to
use them properly, but most people do not realize,
and probably lack the intellectual ability to understand, that it is
also dangerous to give cultural tools
to people who cannot or will not use them properly.
Voting is a “cultural tool”
All of the world's
governments are incompetent and corrupt
because every society gives almost every adult the right to vote, but
most people do not know how to use that tool properly. There is also a
large minority of people who have no
desire to use their voting system properly
because they prefer to cheat
during the elections.
A voting system is analogous to the metal grating that children play
with to sift sand, except that we use a voting system to sift political
candidates. In a democracy, the people are supposed to use their voting
system to analyze candidates
and choose a submissive representative.
Giving
most people the right
to vote is as idiotic as
giving a knife to a monkey.
|
However, most people are not using their voting system properly. For
example, in the 2016 election, some women were advocating that Hillary
Clinton be elected simply because she was a woman.
There are other
people who vote for whoever their political party endorses, which is
behaving like a child who lets his mother make decisions for him. That
would be acceptable if the political parties had respectable leaders
who behaved like a mother, but not when the parties are controlled by
crime networks, idiots, or religious fanatics.
Even worse, most people will vote for " the
lesser of the evils" when
they don't like any of the candidates. That is not using a
voting system properly.
The end result of giving the majority of people the right to vote is
that they are consistently fooled into voting for criminals,
blackmailed puppets of crime networks, and incompetent people.
Voting
is secretive because most
minds are low-quality
Voting systems are tools,
but every nation has a flaw with their voting system. Specifically, the
voting is conducted in secret, which
makes it impossible for anybody to determine whether the elections are
conducted in an honest manner.
The reason the voting systems are secretive is because that is what
most people want.
It is not
because somebody has analyzed voting systems and found evidence that
secretive voting is more beneficial.
Our culture has evolved to fit our
emotions, not to be intellectually sensible. Most people want
voting to be secretive because most people have so little control
over their arrogance, pouting, and anger that if everybody knew who
other people were voting for, there would be a tremendous number of
arguments.
This problem became obvious when Trump was running for president in the
2016 elections. There were so many Americans arguing with each other
over who should be elected president that journalists provided
advice
on how to reduce the arguments during Thanksgiving dinner.
The reason that there were so many people arguing over who to elect
president was because most people cannot control their emotions. Most
people have a mind that is so similar to apes that they cannot have a calm discussion
about political candidates. They do not listen to
one another, and they have no desire to find supporting evidence for
their beliefs. Instead, they behave like arrogant apes that are
fighting for
dominance.
A do-not-discuss
policy is as
insulting as wearing muzzles.
|
Most people react to the fighting and pouting by telling everybody at
the dinner table to avoid discussing politics.
However, imposing a " do
not discuss" policy on a group of people should be considered as
an insult
to those people. It is analogous to putting muzzles
on dogs to prevent them from biting one another.
However, most people are so arrogant or stupid that they do not
consider a "do
not discuss" policy to be an insult. Rather, each person believes that
he is the only person who can behave properly and create intelligent
opinions, and that everybody else
is an arrogant, uninformed, badly behaved jerk with stupid opinions.
Our
leaders should not need a do-not-discuss
policy
We
should be
disgusted
with people who cannot discuss issues in a calm manner.
|
We would be disgusted, and frightened,
if we were on a surgical table, and the doctors began
arguing about how to do the surgery in the same angry, insulting manner
that people argue about who to elect as president.
We would also be shocked and disgusted if we saw Jesus, Buddha, God,
and Mohammed get into an argument that was as crude and angry as the
arguments of the ordinary people.
We should be just as
disgusted when voters
get into arguments over who to elect.
All of us have a modified ape brain, so we all have trouble discussing
issues in a sensible and calm manner. When we encounter
criticism or
differences of opinion, certain emotions are stimulated that want us
to defend
ourselves, as if we have been attacked.
Our brains were designed for our survival,
not to discuss issues and compromise on solutions.
Our crude minds make it difficult for us to resolve our problems,
compromise on issues, and learn from other people. Our emotions want us
to ignore, attack, or ridicule the people
who provide us with information that contradicts what we believe.
The introverted people who remain silent when
they encounter criticism or differences of opinion are not better
than the people who react with insults and lectures. Rather they remain
quiet because they suffer from a mental disorder that
makes them too cowardly or submissive to participate in a discussion
with somebody who has a difference of opinion.
We all have trouble listening to constructive criticism, and
controlling our arrogance, temper, pouting, and
anger, but some people have more trouble than others. Therefore, we
should
pass judgment on who among us is showing the most advanced mental
characteristics, and restrict the influential positions to those people.
The people chosen for top government positions should be among the best
at listening to and learning from constructive criticism
and conflicting opinions. They should also be among the best at explaining their opinions and compromising on policies. They must
also be willing to post documents to explain their opinions, rather
than be secretive or deceptive. This includes the voters, who
are required to explain
why they elect certain candidates and replace certain officials.
We
should not need restraining orders
Modern humans need to be
able to resolve issues by research,
discussions, and analyses, not by fighting and intimidation. The people
who are the worst at discussing issues calmly should be prohibited from
reproducing. We must stop feeling sorry for the
people who are the most similar to animals.
Animals resolve their problems with intimidation, biting, kicking, and
yelling, but we must restrict reproduction to stop that type of
behavior. This concept applies to husbands and wives, also. Married
couples will frequently encounter issues that they need to resolve, and
we should pass judgment on which of them has the most trouble resolving
their differences. The men and women at the extreme edge of the bell
graph, such as the men who become violent when their wife wants a
divorce, should be prohibited from reproducing so that every generation
is better able to resolve problems in a peaceful manner.
Unfortunately, there are so many people who cannot control their anger
that our culture has allowed people to request " restraining
orders". A restraining order is analogous to putting a muzzle and a
choke chain on a violent dog.
This constitution does not support
restraining orders. A person who needs to be restrained is considered
to be too dangerous and irritating to live among us, so he must be evicted.
The potentially violent people can
be evicted
In order to create a
peaceful social environment, this Constitution allows the courts
to evict the potentially violent people.
For example, a woman does not have to wait for a man to attack her in
order for the man to be considered too violent to live with us. He only
has to display violent tendencies.
When we wait for a man to become violent, we create an environment in
which we, especially women and children, are in fear of being attacked.
That policy also allows the violent men to attack at least one person.
Waiting for a man to attack us before we evict him is as foolish as
allowing rats to live in our home and evicting them only if they bite
us. Most rats will never bite us, but we have no obligation to let them
live with us.
Likewise, the men who have tantrums might not become murderers, but we
are under no obligation to tolerate their tantrums, or take the chance
that they have enough self-control to refrain from more destructive
behavior.
It is a personal opinion on when a man has displayed behavior that is
so crude that he should be evicted, but it is better for our courts
to make that judgment and evict the men who display violent tendencies
than to wait for them to become violent.
For an example of who would be evicted, in April 2024, a government
official, Aleko Elisashvili, became so angry that he hit another
government official in the face. The BBC described
it as a " scuffle".
Elisashvili might not have caused any serious injuries, but why should
we tolerate that type of behavior? Why should we regard it as a
"scuffle"?
Every culture is tolerant of violence, fights, yelling, and tantrums
because we are apes, and apes settle disputes with intimidation,
violence, and fights. Apes do not settle
disputes with research, discussions, experiements, and compromises.
When we become upset by something, our emotions push us into reacting
with anger, pouting, crying, tantrums, or violence. However, modern
humans must resist those craving, and we must resist being intimidated
by the tantrums of other people.
The USA is so tolerant of crude behavior that protests are considered
to be a sensible method to deal with the nation's problems. Instead of
being ashamed of behaving like an animal, the protestors boast about
their protests. For example, the Climate Defiance
organization posted this
video of their violent behavior, but they boasted about it, and their last
sentence is: Respect
us or expect us.
Their demand that we respect them, and their threat to attack us if we
don't, is the attitude of animals.
Animals get respect by intimidation and violence.
This
fight
should be regarded as an unacceptable
tantrum, not a "scuffle".
|
Rather than describe that protest of Climate Defiance as disgusting,
violent, animal behavior, this television
news business described it as a " scuffle".
We do not
have to continue tolerating tantrums or violence. We have the option of
setting higher standards for people, and evicting the misfits. We are not obligated
to tolerate or pity the badly behaved people.
It is foolish for us to feel guilty for demanding better behavior and
evicting violent people. We are not cruel to
evict them. It is more sensible for us to regard ourselves as cruel if
we allow them to torment us, and if we allow them to increase the
number of violent people in the next generation by reproducing.
We are not obligated to tolerate the people who yell, spit, throw
objects, scream, disrupt meetings, grab us by our arms, poke us, or
punch us. We
don't owe them any pity, either. We should design our culture according
to what will provide us with a nice life, not according to what the
worst behaved members want.
All of the members of Climate Defiance should be evicted rather than tolerated, And
that includes the woman who provides a lot of their financial support, Margaret
Klein Salamon. Those people believe that they are improving the world
with their tantrums, but they are causing trouble by encouraging anger
and hatred among their members, and by irritating and sometimes hurting
other people, and sometimes destroying property.
Intelligent
people will impress us,
not threaten us
Truly
intelligent people will impress us, not
have to threaten us.
|
If a person is truly among the most intelligent people in the world,
then he will be able to create opinions and analyses that impress a
significant number of intelligent people.
He will not
have to demand that we listen to his opinions, and he will not have to
use false flag operations, deception, blackmail, bribery, or other
methods to make us obey him.
Many people with ordinary and substandard minds will not understand his
opinions, so they might assume that he is an idiot, but the more
intelligent people will recognize him as having something of value to
say.
He must be regarded as a crude creature who is behaving like criminals
or animals. The courts ministry must evict those people, or put them on
restrictions. They cannot tolerate or encourage that type of behavior.
Suppressing
tantrums is not good enough
A person who has enough
self-control to refrain from yelling, sarcastic
noises, and insults does not have a truly, high-quality mind. He
is certainly superior to a person who has a violent tantrum, but
ideally a person could participate a discussion without
struggling to
control his rage.
All of us have
to control our anger when we are criticized, but some of us have more
trouble than others.
|
As discussed in this
previous document, all of us could be described as " virtuous monkeys" because all of us
have to occasionally control our emotional cravings.
None of us enjoy criticism or differences of opinion, so we all have to
control ourselves when we hear it, but we differ in how angry we become
when we hear it, and how difficult it is for us to control our anger.
Ideally, everybody would be truly relaxed during discussions, and
capable of calmly listening to differences of opinion, constructive
criticism, and new ideas. None of us should have to clench our fists or
grind
our teeth in an attempt to hold back our anger or sarcastic noises.
Likewise, none of us should have to struggle to control our craving for
sex, food, material items, or status.
The human race must adapt to our new era. We must become better than
apes. We need to be able to calmly deal with differences
of opinion and criticism. However, the only way the human race will
evolve better characteristics is
to restrict reproduction to
the people who are better adapted to our
modern era. That requires passing
judgment on who among us has a better mind. That
requires we collect data on
everybody, create a People
database, and use that data for a "social credit system".
Apathetic
people are unacceptable today
Our prehistoric, nomadic
ancestors only had to deal with simple problems, such as finding food,
water, and a place to sleep. Today our societies expose us to a
tremendous number of complex problems. We must deal with such issues as
unemployment, inflation, shoddy products, deceptive insurance policies,
the 9/11 attack, the world wars, the Holocaust, toxic chemicals,
the ADL, accusations of white privilege, traffic congestion,
overcrowding, the accusations that Brigitte Macron
is a transgender, the mental health of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, and
crime networks.
However, most people want to behave like prehistoric savages who spend
their time eating, having sex, playing with their children, competing
for status, and gathering material items. They do not want to
deal with the complex problems of a modern society. Unfortunately, by
ignoring these problems, they allow the problems to become worse.
Most people seem to justify ignoring problems by claiming that they are
"ordinary citizens" who have no authority to do anything, but ordinary
people have the ability to do something useful. An example ( discussed
here)
is that the parents of a woman who was murdered pressured their state
government into passing a law that requires a DNA sample of a convicted
felon.
The "ordinary" people are helpless because they choose to be
helpless. They choose to entertain themselves rather than deal with the
problems of a modern society. Another example, mentioned here,
is that millions
of people quickly passed around the pornographic images of Taylor
Swift, and some government officials and other influential people quickly
reacted by suggesting laws to prevent AI software from creating
pornography.
However, when I and other people showed people some evidence
that we were lied to about the 9/11 attack, very few people passed the
information around, and none of the government officials, policemen,
FBI agents, or military personnel showed any interest in investigating
or stopping the corruption.
If the majority of people had as much of an interest in reducing
corruption as they have in titillating themselves with sexual images,
then tens of millions of people would have quickly passed around the
evidence that we were lied to about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the
Apollo moon landing, and other issues, and we would have eliminated the
crime network many years ago.
The public is helpless to stop the corruption and abuse of our
government, media, churches, charities, pedophile networks, teenage
gangs, and businesses because they are choosing to
ignore the problems that they should be dealing with. The reason is
simply because their mind is more similar to that of a primitive savage
than a modern human.
 People today
who do not want to get involved with maintaining society
are analogous to sailors on a submarine who ignore sea water leaking
into the submarine.
We cannot create a pleasant society when
the majority of its members are ignoring crime, corruption,
overcrowding, and other problems.
The people
who purchase a gun or a security system are not dealing
with crime or
corruption. They are hiding from the problem like a frightened animal. The people who pray
to reduce crime and corruption are behaving in an even more idiotic
manner.
This Constitution sets higher standards for people. The people who
ignore bad behavior, litter, crime, and other problems are regarded as
having a mind that is more like an animal than a
modern human, and we must ensure that they are a small percentage of
the
population by restricting their reproduction.
People
must have a certain level of manners
There are thousands of
photos, videos, and complaints on the Internet of people behaving in a
manner that the majority of us regard as irresponsible, annoying,
irritating, disgusting, crude, obnoxious, childlike, or rude. An
example are these
photos of people on passenger planes.
A business will fire an employee who is as rude as some of those people
in those photos, and some restaurants and retail stores will evict a
person who is
extremely rude. However, governments do not care whether the citizens
are obnoxious or rude.
By not restricting the reproduction of the badly behaved people, every
generation is becoming more obnoxious, childlike, and rude than the one
before it. Eventually the majority of people will be rude and obnoxious.
In order to improve upon the situation, this constitution authorizes
the People
database to collect data about everybody's life, and bad behavior will
affect a person's
"social credit score". The Courts Ministry is authorized to pass
judgment on people, and if they consider a person to be "too
obnoxious," they can put him on restrictions, such as being restricted
to a certain neighborhood and activities. If the Courts Ministry
decides that a person is too obnoxious to tolerate, they can
evict him.
Although the rude people will consider this to be a cruel policy, we
are not obligated to tolerate rude behavior. Businesses and other
organizations set standards for behavior, and they evict or put
restrictions on the people who cannot meet the standards, and every
society should do the same.
An economic system is a “cultural
tool”
Economic systems are
cultural tools that we used to organize and coordinate ourselves so
that we can create and
distribute products and services. However, the free enterprise system
is no longer an appropriate tool.
A thousand years ago the products were so simplistic,
and there were so few products and businesses, that most adults could
use the free
enterprise system properly, but during the past few centuries there
have too many products, they
are too technically complex, and there are too many businesses for
anybody to deal with.
It has not been possible for us to use a free enterprise system
properly since perhaps 1800. During the 1800s the businesses became
much larger and more numerous, and consumers could not make wise
decisions about which businesses to drive to bankruptcy. This resulted
in a tremendous amount of corruption, child labor, abuse of employees,
shoddy products, deception, monopolies, and cheating.
The large businesses also degraded our social environment by allowing
some people to become extremely wealthy. We evolved to live among a
group of people that we are very similar to. We evolved to be team
members, not peasants who serve billionaires.
Furthermore, the extremely wealthy people could use their money to
influence other businesses, government officials, schools, charities,
and police departments, which would have been wonderful if they had
been doing the manipulation for the benefit of the human race, but they
were manipulating society for their own selfish purposes.
The large businesses also allowed the wealthy people to give enormous
inheritances to their children, and enormous divorce settlements to
their ex-spouse, thereby creating economic monarchies, which allowed
incompetent, neurotic, and abusive people to get into influential
positions without earning it.
The abuse has decreased during the
past century as a result of
government regulations and unions, but there is still a lot of abuse,
cheating, deception,
and inefficiency. Furthermore, no culture has yet made any attempt to
prevent economic monarchies.
The free enterprise system is a cultural tool that is
as outdated as a chamber pot. Modern humans need to develop a more
appropriate economic system. However, a cultural tool should be
designed to fit the genetic
characteristics of humans, not designed for a religious or
Freudian fantasy.
We must design an economic system for a species of ape. This requires restricting the
people who design and manage the economy to those who can understand
and acknowledge that humans are species of animal, and we have certain
characteristics that we need to deal with. We must also ensure that the
vast majority of people
know how
to use the economic system, and are willing to use it properly. ( The Jobs document has more details.)
In order to ensure that people are using the economic system properly,
we must raise standards for the adults, and either evict those who
cannot use it properly, or put them on restrictions. We must stop
expecting punishments to make people use a cultural tool in a proper
manner.
A school system is a “cultural
tool”
A school system is also a
cultural tool that must also be designed for the genetic
characteristics of humans, rather than according to some fantasy
creature. An example mentioned here
is that this constitution advocates restricting the school employees
for young children to women in
order to reduce the problem of pedophilia.
Instead of regarding men and women as unisex creatures, and instead of
ignoring our sexual cravings, the schools are designed according to the
theory that men have strong sexual cravings, and some men have cravings
for children, and the school system must be designed to prevent the
sexual abuse of children.
However, a school system will be
useful only if the people know how
to
use it properly, and are willing
to use
it properly. For example, most parents and students want a school to
provide good grades and diplomas.
Most people don't understand that a school is wasting some of the best years of a
child's life when it provides them with nonsensical
courses, even if the child is given a diploma for it. Furthermore, most
students and parents don't care if the schools are teaching false
information, such as lies about the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, or the
Apollo moon landing.
A school is useless unless it
provides children with useful skills and prepares them for life as an
adult. A school should not be an entertainment center, or provide
children with false or worthless information.
In order to improve our school systems, we must raise standards for the
people who design and manage it. They must have a more accurate
understanding of humans, and the purpose of a school. They must also
have a desire to occasionally give a job performance review to the
schools so that they can ensure that the students who graduate are
learning useful skills and can function properly as an adult.
They must also understand that
children are young apes who
enjoy and benefit from competitions, but the competitions
must be designed to encourage learning
useful information rather than to collect trophies. The
competition
must also inspire better
behavior from the students, not encourage their arrogance, envy,
insults, or cheating. ( More about these issues in the education and competition
documents.)
All
of our social affairs are “cultural
tools”
A birthday party, holiday
celebration, recreational
activity, and wedding are also cultural tools that allow us to
organize and coordinate a group of people. However, in order to truly
benefit from them, they must be designed for the ape-like
characteristics of humans, rather than according to what our emotions
want, or according to some religious or Freudian fantasy.
For example, women have been altering weddings to give them what they
want, and businesses have been altering weddings to make more profit,
and religions have been altering weddings to promote their particular
religion. Weddings have evolved during the past few thousand years, but
not in a beneficial manner. Rather, our modern weddings are extremely
complex and expensive; encourage the arrogance and selfishness of
the bride; and puts the audience into the role of peasants who are
worshiping their queen.
In order to benefit from weddings, we need to design them according to
our apelike characteristics, and we need to ensure that they are
providing advantages that outweigh the disadvantages. We should not
design a wedding, or any other cultural tool, according to our
emotional desires or fears. We must design our cultural tools in the
same manner that a farmer designs policies for his animals. A farmer
judges a policy according to how it affects
the animals, not according
to what the animals like.
Our weddings, birthday parties, holidays, and other events are tools
that we can design in any manner we please, so we should design them to
be the most beneficial to us. This requires an understanding of human
behavior, and what brings us satisfaction. If we don't design our
cultural activities properly, we will end up with activities that are
idiotic,
wasteful, detrimental, or dangerous.
For example, every culture has allowed businesses to manipulate many
social activities into giftgiving
activities, and religions have been manipulating social affairs to
promote their religion. Every nation also allows businesses and
mentally ill citizens to create
dangerous and idiotic sports and leisure activities. We have also
allowed Jews to create
International Holocaust Remembrance
Day to promote Zionist propaganda.
As of 2024, the USA has several holidays every day of
the year. There are so many holidays
that a list of only the candy
holidays shows that every month has at least two candy
holidays.
Accepting social
activities with no concern
for their value is as stupid
as a carpenter carrying around every tool he is given with no regard
to its value.
|
Unfortunately, no society cares whether their holidays - or any
of their other social or
recreational activities - are useful.
Most people will accept whatever social activities the businesses,
religions, Zionist organizations, and lunatics provide to them.
That is analogous to a carpenter who keeps every tool that he is given
with no concern for
whether the tool has any value.
In order to improve our lives, we must raise
standards for people. Modern humans, especially those in
leadership positions, must have a better understanding of culture and
human behavior, and be more willing to follow the rules that we set.
Almost every adult can understand that it is dangerous to give a knife,
gun, or automobile
to somebody who doesn't know how to use it properly, or who does not
want to use it properly, but it is also
dangerous to give cultural
tools to people who cannot use them properly, or do not want
to use them properly.
We
have restrictions on tangible
tools
We do not allow a person to
fly an airplane unless he can provide evidence that he knows how to
properly use that tool. If he can do that, he is given a license to
fly. However, he must use the airplane as it was designed to be used.
If he uses it for some other purpose, he risks having his license
revoked or suspended.
We also put restrictions on who can have access to explosives, poisons,
and X-ray machines, and we require people to use those items in the
manner that they were designed for.
Likewise, parents put restrictions on the tools that their children can
use, and they require the children to use the tools properly.
Businesses also put restrictions on the equipment that each employee
can use, and each employee is required to use the equipment in a proper
manner.
We
need restrictions on the use of cultural
tools
Although it is common for
us to put restrictions on the use of "tangible tools", there is
no concern yet for how people are using cultural tools.
Every culture allows every
person and organization, including children and lunatics, to create and
modify any cultural tools they please, and nobody needs an education or
a license to do it. Everybody can create or modify recreational
activities, create a school, or create new words for our language.
People also have the freedom to create new religions and charities.
The results of this unrestricted freedom is that some people have
created recreational activities are dangerous, wasteful, or
idiotic, and some of our culture is intended to manipulate us, such as
the Anne Frank museum. We cannot
improve our
culture when every person and organization has the freedom to do
anything
they please with it, and nobody is held accountable for what they do.
All adults have the intelligence to realize that when a child is
chewing on a knife, the only way to improve the situation is to take
the knife away from him. Every adult can also understand the need for
requiring people to get an education and license to drive an
automobile, perform surgery, and fly an airplane. However, no society
yet has applied this concept to cultural tools.
This constitution promotes the theory that cultural tools are just as
potentially dangerous as tangible tools, and that we need to restrict
their development to people
who know how to design them properly. It is foolish to give everybody
and every organization the freedom to modify culture in any manner they
please. Many of the people who are
trying to modify our culture are not even interested in improving it.
For example, businesses, religions, and Zionist organizations are
trying to modify our culture for their own selfish benefit.
We must also restrict the use
of cultural tools to people who can understand how to use them, and are
willing to use them properly. For example, voting is a cultural tool
that should be restricted to the people who can understand it and use
it properly. A person is not using a
voting system properly if he believes that he should vote for the
"lesser of the evil" when he does not like any of the candidates.
Furthermore, a voter who is too apathetic to care if an election is
conducted honestly is as dangerous as a surgeon who doesn't care
whether his tools have been sterilized.
We must restrict cultural
tools to people who can show evidence that they know how to use them
properly. Voting is an example of a cultural tool that people must
qualify to use.
In order to prevent people and organizations from ruining our culture,
this Constitution prohibits individuals and organizations from
modifying culture. All cultural changes must be approved of by the
government.
If a business or individual wants to make a change to our culture, such
as creating a new recreational activity, they must post a document in
the Suggestions
category that explains its advantages and disadvantages.
Although this is a restriction on our freedom, is a common policy at
businesses, orchestras, sports groups, and families. For example, an
employee who wants to make a change to the business must ask his
management, and they decide if it's beneficial to the organization.
Likewise, parents do not give their children the freedom to create or
modify their recreational activities, meals, holidays, or clothing
styles. Instead, the parents pass judgment on whether the children have
sensible suggestions.
The only way to improve our holiday celebrations,
recreational activities, weddings, schools, birthday parties, and other
social
affairs is to take away the right of people, businesses, religions, and
lunatics to alter our culture, and put our culture under the control of
a smaller group of people who have demonstrated an above-average
ability to make sensible decisions about it.
Likewise, the only way we will provide ourselves with useful government
officials
is to restrict voting to
people who show that they have the necessary education and mental
abilities to use that tool properly.
It is not easy to determine who has the best ability to make sensible
decisions about culture, or determine who will be the most effective
voter, but it's also difficult to figure out who qualifies as a medical
doctor and pilot.
We must start the process by developing some type of testing procedure,
and then through the years we look for ways to improve it.
The public must suppress themselves
This constitution gives the
government total control of culture, and that requires that the people
be willing to give up their freedom to vote, modify recreational
activities, determine abortion policies, and create new holiday
celebrations. The public must be willing to acknowledge that most
people are as incompetent as voters as they are as analyzing a CT scan,
and that they are as incompetent at improving our policies for crime,
abortion, weddings, and birthday parties as they are at improving a
laser.
The majority of people must be willing to dampen their
arrogance and stop insisting that they are experts on raising
children, crime, religion, abortion, and other
cultural issues. They need to stop
behaving
like the people in the photos below.
The people in the photos
above believe that they are experts on abortion, but none of them put
much time or effort into analyzing the issue. Instead, they make
decisions based on their emotional
feelings. Their protests do not
help them resolve the issue. Instead, they waste their time, irritate
other people, and ruin our social environment. Those protests should be
prohibited.
The reason people enjoy protests is because we are arrogant apes who want to be at the
top of the hierarchy, and the manner in which apes become dominant is
by biting, yelling, and hitting. We inherited the animal desire to
intimidate other people into obeying us. We do not have any desire to
discuss issues with them, or look critically at our opinions, or look
favorably at alternative opinions.
In order for us to create a more pleasant society, we must restrict it
to people who have better control over their arrogance, anger, and
their
cravings for status, and who are better able to have discussions,
compromise on issues, and treat people as friends rather than as
inferior creatures.
The
public must be obedient,
but not slaves
It is important for the
members of an organization to follow the rules, but they cannot be so
submissive that they behave like slaves. They must be willing to be
critical of their leadership, and their culture.
This Constitution gives the government total control of society, and
that would be a serious problem if the government becomes abusive or
incompetent. The only way to prevent this possibility is for the public
to continuously be critical of their leadership and their culture.
The public cannot be so apathetic that they don't care what the
government does, and they cannot be so submissive that they become
voluntary slaves. They must have a certain willingness to participate
in the maintenance of society by watching over their government
officials and demanding that the officials provide them with
intelligent guidance. They must treat their leaders as employees, not
as Kings or Queens.
This type of government will fail if the public is as apathetic as the
public is in every nation today. In order for this constitution to be
successful, we must set higher standards for the public. The public, at
least the adult men, must have a certain willingness to participate in
the maintenance of their society. They must be willing to occasionally
pass judgment on what their government officials have been doing, and
demand that the official provide intelligent guidance be replaced. They
must be able to treat their leaders as city employees, not as Kings or
Queens.
We can tolerate a certain number of adult man who are apathetic, but if
the majority of men are as apathetic as they are in every society
today, this government will be taken over by crime networks just like
all of the existing governments have been taken over. Therefore, we
must set higher standards for the adult men. Specifically, we must
require the men to have a certain interest in participating in society.
Furthermore, as mentioned in the Jobs document, we
should consider that part of every man's "job" is to take care of the
women and children.
This constitution has a variety of methods to help the public ensure
that the government and other leaders are behaving properly. One of
them is to eliminate secrecy, especially among the people in leadership
positions. Another is to allow the citizens to post suggestions in the Suggestions
category about what they think should be improved, or who they think
should be fired, and prohibit the government from censoring or ignoring
the suggestions.
Most or all governments allow citizens to send suggestions to them,
but no government is required to respond
to a
suggestion, and if they do respond, they can
respond in a deceptive manner, such as promising to investigate the
issue
but never doing anything about it, which is how the Santa Barbara
government
officials respond
to complaints about airplanes.
By requiring
the government officials to respond to the suggestions,
and by holding the government officials accountable for their
responses, the Suggestions
site will allow businesses and citizens to ensure that their government
officials are behaving properly.
The Suggestions
site allows a person or organization to let everybody know about
their
complaints, concerns, and suggestions, and in a peaceful manner
compared to protests in the street, or by making angry phone calls to
government officials.
 Of course, this requires that
at least some of the citizens have the initiative
to use the Suggestions
category. The only way that is going to occur is if we raise
standards for the citizens. A modern society needs people with the
initiative to maintain it. We cannot expect a society to function
properly when most people are apathetic sheeple who ignore problems.
Freedom of speech is a tool that
must be used properly
Every culture provides
people with freedom of speech, but no culture cares whether a person knows how to use that tool properly,
or wants to use it properly.
This tool is
beneficial to people who use it for
intelligent discussions, but a lot of people and organizations use it
to manipulate, exploit, deceive, and abuse us. There are also people
with mental disorders using it to spread nonsensical ideas, fear,
hatred, and paranoia.
Every society has developed training courses how to drive an
automobile, do arithmetic, and become a nurse, but no culture has
educational courses on how to use freedom of speech. Every culture
assumes that everybody knows how to use freedom of speech without any
education. However, freedom of speech is a complex cultural
tool.
For example, insults, sarcasm, and intimidating noises should not be
described as "speech". Rather, it should be described as an attempt to hurt or manipulate
somebody. It is analogous to a monkey that is growling at another
monkey. People who do that should not be described as using their
"freedom of speech". Rather, they should be described as behaving like
a monkey.
Likewise, calling a person racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or a Holocaust
denier is not "speech". Rather, it is an attempt to intimidate or hurt
somebody.
Another example is that when we don't control our arrogance, we will
give lectures
about abortion, Donald Trump, crime, and other issues. Those lectures
should not be described as "freedom of speech", either because we are not discussing
anything, or listening to other people. Instead, we are trying to force other people to believe what
we want them to believe.
Our "freedom of speech" should give us the freedom to explain our
opinions and discuss issues,
and we should consider insults, sarcastic
noises, and lectures to be arrogant, and angry monkey behavior.
In order to use freedom of speech properly, a person also needs to have
an understanding of language,
such as how some words represent
emotions rather than intelligent concepts, and that they are used to
manipulate, deceive, confuse, and intimidate people rather than educate
them or discuss issues.
Censorship
does not protect our
freedom of speech
Another aspect of freedom
of speech that most people have trouble understanding is that we cannot protect freedom of speech
with censorship, or by
arresting people for hate speech, Holocaust denial, racism, sexism, or
climate change denial.In order to protect freedom of speech, we must do
the opposite.
Specifically, we must prohibit
censorship.
People today, especially our leaders, must be able to make wise
decisions about when a person is protecting
freedom of speech, and when he is trying to suppress it. For example, the
organization FIRE
boasts that they protect our freedom of speech:
FIRE defends and promotes the value
of free speech for all Americans in our courtrooms, on our campuses,
and in our culture.
The FIRE organization has defended
the people who promote " Critical
Race Theory", so that is evidence that they are trying to stop censorship and
protect our freedom of speech.
However, finding evidence of beneficial behavior doesn't prove that a
person or organization is truly beneficial. Every criminal
often does something beneficial. No criminal spends every moment of his
life lying, cheating, murdering, torturing, and raping. Furthermore,
criminals sometimes do something beneficial in order to fool us into
believing that they are honest and wonderful people.
The FIRE organization is another deceptive and dishonest organization.
As
with
the ADL, the SPLC, and the news organizations, they defend our right to
promote the "critical race theory", but not our right
to discuss the Holocaust, Anne Frank's diary, the 9/11 attack, and
other crimes that Israel and Jews are involved with.
Those organizations are deceiving us. They are analogous to policemen
who protect us from burglars, but who are secretly involved with a
pedophile network.
A person who cannot figure out whether somebody is protecting his
freedom of speech, or promoting propaganda and censoring information,
is as helpless as a child, and will easily be manipulated and exploited.
This is another example of why we must
raise standards for people, at least for the adult men. It was easy for
prehistoric men to take care of themselves and their tribe because they
only had to deal with wolves and neighboring tribes. Today the men must
deal with much more complex threats, such as government corruption,
conspiracies, crime gangs, pedophile networks, Zionist organizations,
religious fanatics, and selfish businessmen. Men today need the
intellectual ability to notice these
dangers, and they need the emotional desire to do something to
expose and stop the abuse.
Unsupported accusations
are not freedom of speech
People today must be able to
understand that we are not
protecting freedom of speech by arresting Holocaust deniers or sexists.
|
Most people have trouble
understanding that the people who call us anti-Semites, sexists,
racists, Holocaust
deniers, or white supremacists are committing
a crime, not using their
freedom of speech to express their opinions.
They are doing the
equivalent of accusing us of murder, pedophilia, and rape, but without any evidence to support
their accusation.
When a society is dominated by people who cannot understand this
concept, they will allow criminals to abuse, torment, intimidate,
suppress, and even arrest,
innocent
people for nonsensical crimes.
Unsupported facts are not freedom of speech
The ADL boasts
that they are " the world’s
leading expert on anti-Semitism", but they don't have any
evidence that they are "the world's leading
expert" in anything. They cannot even provide a sensible explanation
for
"anti-Semitism".
A democracy provides everybody and every organization with the freedom
to claim to be an expert, fact checker, MythBuster, and truth seeker.
Nobody has to meet any qualifications, and none of the experts can be
held accountable for what they say or do.
In a democracy, there is no leadership, so each person has to decide
for himself what is a fact, opinion, propaganda, state, and lie. Each
person has to determine who to should regard as an expert, and who to
regard as a criminal, idiot, lunatic, fraud, or uneducated nitwit.
Most people are of ordinary or below-average intelligence and
education, so most people make "ordinary" decisions about what is factual,
which is why
so
many of them believe in religion, feminism, Freudian psychology,
The Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, ghosts, and women's intuition.
It is also why most people believe that
their lives will improve if they can become wealthy or famous, or win
more awards and trophies, or spend more time traveling to exotic
locations, or have more sex with more people in more positions and
locations.
Most people also make terrible decisions about who is an expert,
which
is why so many people regard the Pope as an expert on life, or Al Gore
as an expert on climate change. It is also why they ridicule some of us
as "conspiracy theorists", and why they insult us as idiots when we
promote genetics and evolution.
If a society is dominated by people who make terrible decisions on who
is an expert and what is factual, they will allow lunatics, businesses,
churches, Zionist groups, idiots, and criminals to manipulate,
exploit, and abuse them.
In order to improve upon this situation, the Quality Division is
responsible for passing judgment on the value and accuracy of
information. When somebody provides evidence that some information
might be
inaccurate, the Quality Division must
investigate, and the inaccurate
information must be corrected. The Quality Division is in a role
similar to that of the FDA, except that they pass judgment on information rather
than medicines and food.
We need higher standards for
people
An organization can only be
as advanced as its members are capable of making it. If a society is
dominated by people who are
apathetic, selfish, dishonest, irresponsible, or stupid, it will be a miserable society
no matter what type of government system, economic
system, and school system we provide the people.
It is easy to understand this concept with tangible tools. For example,
it would be useless
to provide a group of idiots with advanced
CNC
machines, MRI scanners, computers, and chemical factories. Those people
would be as unable to use that equipment as a group of monkeys.
In order for us to create a better society, we need to restrict it to
people who are better able to deal with the modern world than the
typical person. This requires setting standards for these two,
different
groups
of people:
| 1) |
|
Immigrants
We must restrict the immigrants to people who are capable of
understanding and dealing with the complexities of a modern society.
They must also want
to join society, rather than behave like rats that want to live in our
home but have no desire
to become a member of our family. |
|
|
|
2)
|
|
Children
Every society gives citizenship to every child that is born to its
citizens, but this is just as idiotic as giving citizenship to every
immigrant who requests it. A person is detrimental if he does not fit
into
our society, regardless of whether he is an immigrant or the child of
citizens.
Likewise, a flea is
a pest regardless of whether it was born inside our house, or whether
it was born outside.
Many people want immigrants to meet high standards, but most parents
tolerate, ignore, or
make excuses for the bad behavior of their own children.
During prehistoric times, nature killed most of the children, thereby
eliminating the most seriously defective people. Today, however, we are
allowing the defective children to survive and reproduce. Therefore,
unless a society consists of people who can treat children as "the next
generation of humans", rather than as "bundles of joy", a modern
society will slowly degrade into retards, lunatics, misfits, criminals,
and freaks.
As a result, this Constitution requires children to have a probationary
period, and to be euthanized that they don't fit in. |
|
The
social scientists are the 4th-placers who are above-average in
intelligence, and could be doing something useful with their
intelligence, but they won't accept the evidence that they are
incompetent as scientists.
