This dictionary defines "overpopulation" as:

With that definition, the prehistoric humans were not overpopulated because if we could go back in time and observe them, we would notice:

	1)	There was no environmental deterioration or depletion of natural resources. The Earth was beautiful, and the air and water was free of pesticides, trash, and toxic chemicals.
	2)	There was no overcrowding. The people lived in small groups that were surrounded by enormous amounts of beautiful, clean, uninhabited land.

However, it is more useful to define overpopulation to include the children who do not have an adequate amount of food:

With that expanded definition, all prehistoric humans were always suffering from overpopulation. It is even more useful to modify the definition so that all of the other animals and plants are overpopulated, also. For example:

That definition makes it easier to understand evolution and human history.

Every living creature always produces an excessive amount of babies, and that puts their babies a deadly competition for life. All living creatures are always at their maximum population level, except for brief moments in time, such as when a tornado kills a lot of animals, thereby allowing the remaining animals to momentarily have plenty of land, food, and water.

The concern that the world is "becoming" overpopulated is inaccurate. It is more accurate to say that all groups of humans have always been overpopulated.

Many people get the concept of "overpopulation" mixed up with the concept of "overcrowding". For example, we do not consider our prehistoric ancestors to be overpopulated because they had enormous amounts of land for themselves. However, that meant that they were not overcrowded, but they were overpopulated because they were producing more babies and they could support, resulting in some of their children regularly dying and suffering health problems from a lack of resources.

To complicate the issue, the enormous amounts of land that our prehistoric ancestors had was actually the minimum they needed for their survival. Every species needs a certain amount of territory in order to find enough food. Most animals need so much territory that if we were to wander around in their territory, we would rarely encounter them. This makes it appear as if they have plenty of land for themselves, but in reality, they have the minimum necessary for their survival. Or to rephrase that, they are at the maximum population level that their territory can support.

The competition for food results in animals setting territorial boundaries that are the minimum amount they need to survive. They do not set their boundaries to include land for recreation, or to include land for a future expansion of the group.

Many people consider some cities to be overcrowded, but not many of the influential people consider the earth to be overpopulated. Many people insist that the earth can hold a lot more people. For example, the WEF posted this document that was concerned about overpopulation, and in January 2023 Elon Musk responded to it with:


Months later, in October 2023, Elon musk said that the Earth can handle a population level that is 10 times what it is today.

Many Japanese are worried about a decline in their population.

Elon musk is only one of many people who worry about a population collapse. In March 2023, the Japanese government presented a proposal to encourage marriage and children to counteract a decline in their population.

The Chinese government is the only government that imposed restrictions on reproduction in an attempt to reduce their population.

By comparison, the US and European governments believe that our nations can hold millions more people, which is why they have not put limits on immigrants.

The Earth certainly can handle a lot more people than it has today. For example, many cities could be as densely populated as Hong Kong. We can also expand into Lake Erie and the oceans by creating giant rafts for people to live on, and the USA has lots of national parks that could be used for cities and farms. However, just because something is possible doesn't mean that we should allow it to happen, or that we will enjoy it.

The people who dominate our societies are giving us an idiotic view of overpopulation. Every species reproduces excessively, and that puts all living creatures into a deadly battle for resources, which causes a tremendous amount of suffering and death. Every species is always at its maximum population level.

With the definition for overpopulation that this Constitution uses, our prehistoric, nomadic ancestors were always suffering from overpopulation. They did not suffer from overcrowding, but they were always producing more children than they could provide with adequate supplies of food, so most of the children suffered or died before they became adults.

Although many people today have limited themselves to only a few children, thereby making it easy for them to keep all of their children alive and healthy, there are a lot of people in the world who are having more children than they can take care of, and the result is that there are still children dying from a lack of food. Therefore, the human race continues to be overpopulated.

Furthermore, the definition of overpopulation includes overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, and environmental deterioration. Our nomadic ancestors did not have any of those problems. They lived in an environment that was clean, quiet, and beautiful, and there was no environmental deterioration or overcrowding.

By comparison, most of the modern cities are filthy, noisy, and overcrowded. We have also caused so much environmental destruction that we must routinely apply fertilizers to farms and gardens, and we have destroyed enormous amounts of land with garbage dumps, toxic chemicals, radioactive waste, the testing of nuclear bombs, and nuclear power plants that failed (or were sabotaged). We have also ruined a lot of rivers and beaches with trash, insecticides, and industrial waste, and we ruined the quality of the air we breathe.

Furthermore, when we consider overpopulation to be a population level at which we cannot maintain our physical and mental health, then almost everybody today is suffering from overpopulation because, as described in the utopia document, most of us are living in such a miserable environment that we are frequently suffering from mental anguish, just like the mice in the utopia experiment.

For example, we want to live among nature, but most of us are living among asphalt, concrete, and ugly buildings. The lack of nature causes emotional suffering, and we try to compensate for it with houseplants, bouquets of flowers, and gardens, but that is not giving us what we need to truly enjoy life.

We are suffering from extreme overpopulation, and the people who cannot understand and/or acknowledge this concept must be considered to be intellectually and/or emotionally inferior to the rest of us. They must be prohibited from influential positions.

Elon Musk has the intelligence to understand these concepts, so his problem is probably emotional. He claims to have Asperger's syndrome, so perhaps that is interfering with his ability to understand overpopulation.

Prehistoric humans were overpopulated, but not overcrowded or suffering from environmental destruction. When they settled into cities, they began suffering from overcrowding and environmental destruction, in addition to overpopulation.

Agriculture and other technology allowed our ancestors to produce more food, tools, and material items, but the increase in food did not stop the hunger, malnutrition, starvation, or the death of their children. The reason was because the increase in food allowed more of their children to survive, thereby increasing their population so that it always remained at its maximum level.

To make their situation worse, as they improved their farming technology, they could produce more food with less land, so the amount of land that a city needed to produce food continuously decreased through the centuries. This allowed the cities to become larger and closer together. That reduced the territory that they needed, which resulted in them becoming even more overcrowded. It also resulted in so many people using the rivers and lakes that they began ruining their supplies of water and fish.

Animals produce more babies than they can support, and that guarantees that many of the babies are going to die. However, most deaths are not random. The reason is because there are subtle differences in the genetic characteristics of every creature, and that causes some animals to be better adapted to their particular environment.

By producing an excessive number of babies, the animals are put into a deadly competition for life, and that results in the genetically inferior babies having a much greater chance of dying. That allows the species to evolve to fit the environment and improve its genetic characteristics.

Every species is at its maximum population level, so "bad luck" causes an increase in deaths until the population drops to the level that can be supported during that bad luck period.

For example, when an area has a below-average amount of rain, there will be an increase in the suffering and deaths of the animals and plants in that area until the population has dropped to the point at which there is enough food and water for the remaining creatures. However, the suffering is not random. Instead, the creatures that had the most trouble surviving before the drought are most likely to suffer the most during the drought.

There is evidence that Krakatoa had such a massive explosion in the year 536 that it caused the temperature of the planet to drop, resulting in a tremendous increase in the deaths of animals, plants, and humans almost everywhere on the planet. However, the deaths were not random. Instead, the creatures that had the most trouble surviving before the eruption had the most trouble surviving after the eruption.

A person who doesn't understand these concepts is likely to misinterpret the deaths that occur during "bad luck" events. For example, when there is a drought, he will notice that the children of the "poor" people suffer and die much more than the children of the wealthy people, and that can lead him to the false conclusion that the poor people are innocent victims of droughts, and that the wealthy people should share their wealth rather than be selfish.

However, making the wealthy people share their wealth cannot solve the problem of poor people suffering from a shortage of food. If we make the wealthy people share their food, we will allow a few of the hungry poor people to survive, but soon their population will rise to the maximum possible for the handouts of food, and then the deaths of the poor children will start to increase.

The only way to stop people from dying of hunger is to reduce the population to a level at which there is enough food for all of the children. Hunger and malnutrition is the result of overpopulation, not droughts or selfish wealthy people.

For another example, before the potato blight affected Ireland, people were regularly dying and suffering from a shortage of food, and the children of the poor people suffered the most. When the potato blight began to decrease the supply of potatoes, the poor people who depended upon potatoes suffered the most.

Feeling sorry for the people who suffered during the potato blight is as useless and idiotic as feeling sorry for mice that die during a drought. The only way to prevent ourselves from suffering from droughts, potato blights, and other bad luck events is to reduce the population to a level at which we can easily provide ourselves with enough food and other resources when bad luck events occur.

However, the only way we can reduce our population to a sensible level is if we change our attitudes towards life and humans. We need leaders who realize that we must restrict reproduction to keep our population at a level at which we can maintain everybody's mental and physical health.

To complicate the concept of "bad luck", whether luck is good or bad depends upon how we want to interpret the situation. For example, when there is a drought, a lot of creatures will die, but that could be described as "good luck" for the creatures that survive because it results in the inferior members dying in larger numbers, thereby improving the gene pool of the remaining creatures.

If the drought becomes permanent, such as when a mountain range starts to rise, thereby causing a forest to become a desert, then the deaths causes the creatures to evolve to fit the new environment.

We could say that the plagues that killed enormous numbers of medieval Europeans were "good luck" because each plague reduced the human population by a significant amount. Every culture is ignoring genetics, so most people believe that the deaths were random, but diseases cannot kill living creatures at random. The creatures with certain genetic characteristics are more likely to die.

For example, there has recently been evidence that some of the people who survived the Black Death had a particular gene that gave their immune system an excellent chance to resist the pathogen.

Furthermore, if the plague was carried by fleas, then the people who were the least attractive to fleas, or who had a lifestyle that reduced their contact with fleas, would have had a higher survival rate.

From about 800 to 1400, much of Europe was living with "feudalism". Each feudal society was essentially a large tribe, except that unlike a prehistoric tribe, in which the leader earned his position continuously, the leaders of feudal societies were usually men who became leaders as a result of inheritances, violence, intimidation, secrecy, deception, or religious propaganda.

Historians give us an inaccurate view of feudalism. They create the impression that violent men got control of Europe and selfishly abused the ordinary people, but many of their "abusive" policies were not the result of selfishness. Rather, it was their reaction to overpopulation.

For example, the feudal leaders forbid the ordinary people from hunting certain animals in the forest, and from fishing in the rivers. Historians interpret those restrictions as proof that feudal leaders were selfish and cruel, but those restrictions were created because the leaders were aware that there were not enough animals or fish for everybody.

If the feudal leaders had allowed everybody to hunt as many animals and fish as they pleased, then the Europeans would have exterminated all of their pigs, deer, and other large animals, and they would have exterminated a lot of the fish in their rivers and lakes.

Historians criticize the restrictions that feudal leaders imposed on the people, but modern governments have more restrictions on taking animals, fish, wood, sand, and other resources from the forests and oceans.

For example, the image below shows a few of the restrictions that American citizens have on hunting and fishing. We have restrictions on where we are allowed to hunt, which days of the year we can hunt, and sometimes which times of the day we can hunt. We also have restrictions on the techniques and technology that we can use for hunting and fishing; which animals we can hunt; the quantity of each animal we can take; and the size the animal must be.

We have more restrictions, and more complex restrictions, than the medieval peasants. However, those restrictions are not the result of cruel or selfish government officials. Rather, they are intended to prevent us from destroying the Earth's resources.

We also have a lot of restrictions on how we dispose of garbage, human waste, dead animals, and certain chemicals. We also have restrictions on where we can build a home, and how the home is constructed. The people in the Middle Ages had more freedom than we do.

During the past few thousand years, our leaders have been increasing the restrictions on what we can do, but one of the areas that no society has yet put restrictions on is the production of information.

We are as free to produce deceptive and false information as the people were thousands of years ago. There is no culture that cares about the quality or value of the information that we provide to other people. No culture even cares whether schools are teaching lies about the world wars, the Apollo moon landing, or Anne Frank's diary, and no culture cares whether journalists, charities, the FBI, the ADL, or government officials are lying to us.

Instead of putting restrictions on false information, every society is allowing the exact opposite policy. Specifically, we allow Jews to suppress and censor honest information, and we allow them to harass the people who expose the truth with accusations of anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, and hate speech.

The villages of the Middle Ages were so overpopulated that a significant percentage of the population was always hungry, and children were regularly dying. The villages were also so overcrowded that a lot of them wanted more land for their farm, larger homes, and less crowded neighborhoods. The unpleasant living conditions caused a lot of people to be irritable and miserable, just like the mice in the utopia experiment.

Unlike the mice, the people in Europe could leave their village, and many of them did so in order to take land away from their neighbors, or to find a less crowded area to live. However, no matter where they went to, there were already people living in the area, so they had to fight for the land.

Some historians assume that the Vikings terrorized Europe because they were cruel and violent people, but they terrorized Europe because they were overpopulated. By 800 A.D. they had the technology to create boats that could reliably take them long distances, so some of them began migrating to other areas in an attempt to find a less crowded area to live. Unfortunately, every area that they encountered was already overpopulated with other people, and so they had to fight for the land, just as the animals do.

This situation happens with animals on a routine basis. For example, every group of wolves is overpopulated, and that occasionally causes some of the members to migrate to another area, but every area they migrate to will always be overpopulated with other wolves, and that results in them fighting incessantly for territory.

When primitive people get into fights, the results are the same as when animals get into fights. Specifically, the lower quality people tend to die more often than the high-quality people. Therefore, from the point of view of nature, the nearly constant fights that were occurring between the different groups of people were beneficial to the human race. The fights caused a lot of people to suffer, but they are one of the reasons that we have such good eyesight, intelligence, coordination, and other advanced characteristics.

An example is when an English army in 1418 surrounded Rouen, a French city with 20,000 residents. The English army prevented food from getting into the city, and after about 5 months, the city residents began eating the animals in their city, and soon afterwards they evicted 12,000 of their poorest people, who had to live in a ditch between the English army and the wall around the city. Apparently almost all of them died in that ditch, either  from lack of food, or by being killed by the English army. That attack is depicted in the drawing below.

Although the English soldiers were cruel to the people in that city, from the point of view of nature, the English did the French a favor by forcing them to get rid of their inferior citizens.
Incidentally, it would be nice if the AI software could read the old written languages, such as in the image above, and translate it into modern English.

Animals benefit when they fight each other for food and resources because the fights favor the higher-quality animals, but the fights that modern humans get into are no longer beneficial. Two reasons are:

	1)	We no longer sacrifice the inferior people during fights, or force them to join the fight. There are so many people who believe that we should take care of the "underdogs" that we let the inferior people remain home, while the young and healthy men kill one another.
	2)	When militaries attack cities with large bombs, they kill people at random, rather than kill the inferior people.

Although the medieval wars caused a lot of deaths and suffering, if the people had not had any wars, they would not have reduced the deaths. Rather, they would have caused an increase in the number of people who died from other causes, such as inadequate food supplies.

The medieval Europeans were producing more children than they could support, which meant that a certain percentage people had to die every year.

If the adult men were so peaceful that they had not been killing one another in wars, then there would have been more men who were reproducing, which would have resulted in more children dying from a shortage of food.

Conversely, if the medieval men had gotten into more wars, or if their wars had been more violent, then they would have increased the number of men who died from war, which would have reduced the number of men who were reproducing, which would have decreased the number of children dying from a shortage of food.

The plants and animals that live in areas that provide them with lots of food have higher population densities than those that live in deserts or cold areas. The creatures that are in high densities will encounter one another more often, which will affect their evolution and culture.

Or ancestors who lived in areas where there was a lot of food, such as France, were frequently encountering their neighbors, which resulted in them frequently fighting over territory. Their frequent fights helped to keep their population under control. The fights also caused their culture to encourage fights and weapons.

By comparison, the humans that were living in the sparsely populated areas, such as deserts and tundra, rarely encountered their neighbors, so they had fewer fights over territory. Their population level was kept down primarily by the lack of food and water. Their culture would have had less emphasis on fighting and weapons.

The humans that were frequently fighting with their neighbors would have evolved, both mentally and physically, to fit that environment. Fighting and weapons would become a part of their culture. By comparison, the humans that rarely fought with their neighbors would appear to be more peaceful, and less interested in weapons and fighting.

We don't know much about the Gauls or Celts, so the this section is intended only to inspire some research into those people. I suspect that the Gauls and Celts were one group of closely related people, rather than two, genetically different groups. They seem to be examples of humans that were in a densely populated environment. They fought with their neighbor so often that fighting became a part of their culture, rather than attempts to kill or conquer their neighbors. Fighting was almost a recreational activity to them, and a method of achieving status. By comparison, the Romans fought in organized teams, and for the purpose of conquering people. This made it very easy for them to defeat the Celts. We might be able to get a better understanding of the Celts by analyzing the people in the southern states of the USA, where many of their descendants seem to be. I doubt if it is a coincidence that the behavior of many of the Southern people is similar to that described by the Romans, such as their country-western music, their extreme friendliness, and their tendency to get into fights with one another over status issues. Many of the men in the southern states even have a physical resemblance to the Greek statue of the Dying Gaul. Specifically, a very athletic body, broad shoulders, a preference for hair brushed upward to make them look taller. The Celtic people have faces and bodies that make attractive statues. A lot of the southern men also have thick mustaches, just like the statue. The Romans also described the Celtic women as independent and aggressive, and many of the women in the southern states seem to fit that description, also. The natives of North America who were in densely populated areas, such as the Iroquois and Apache, would have also evolved a more warlike culture than the natives living in the deserts, such as the Hopi.

Our ancestors would have had a very pleasant life if they had limited their population to a level that they could easily support. For example, if every medieval city had maintained a population level that was only 20% of what it actually was, every city would have had plenty of land, wood, water, food, and other resources for everybody. All of the children would have been well fed, and nobody would have experienced hunger. People would have continued to die from accidents, disease, and other problems, but not from war or a lack of food.

That lower population level would have allowed them to have a buffer of wild land between their cities, which would provide them with a source of food when their food production was reduced by bad luck events.

Furthermore, and even more important, if they had reduced their population by restricting reproduction to the higher-quality people, rather than with a stupid policy, such as the One Child policy of China, then each generation would have been in better mental and physical health, thereby continuously reducing problems with crime, trash, retardation, stupidity, gambling, alcohol, pedophilia, organized religions, and prostitution.

The animals and plants maintain their population level and genetic health through a deadly battle for life. Until the development of birth control methods, humans were also keeping their population level under control through a battle for life. However, fighting one another is a cruel and inefficient method of dealing with overpopulation and genetic disorders.

We now have the knowledge to control the human population and evolution in a sensible manner, but how many humans have enough self-control to discuss the issue, compromise on policies, and implement those policies? If we cannot find enough of those humans, our population will continue to rise, and the human gene pool will continue to degrade, and we will continue to suffer from overpopulation and overcrowding, just like the mice in the utopia experiment.

All animals are overpopulated, but they rarely become so overpopulated that they deplete their food source and have to evolve to eat foods that are unnatural to them. The exception are humans. Our ancestors became so overpopulated several thousand years ago that they had to change their diets and eat the food of other animals. For example, the population of Western Asia became so high that there were not enough pigs and deer for the people, so they started eating insects, rice, rats, tarantulas, cats, and dogs.

Likewise, the population in medieval Europe became so high that most people had to depend on barley, oats, and rye. The people in Scandinavia had to depend upon the ocean for food. When potatoes were introduced to Europe, a lot of the poor people became dependent on potatoes.

If our ancestors had kept their population under control, they would have had plenty of meat, fruit, and vegetables. Other foods, such as rice, wheat, and oats would have been for variety, rather than a primary food. It is even possible that none of our ancestors would have been interested in drinking animal milk.

Some people today are promoting the concept that we switch from eating cows, pigs, chickens to eating insects, but a more sensible solution is to reduce the human population.

Humans are so overpopulated that our products, social activities, recreational activities, houses, and other aspects of our culture have degraded. An example mentioned in the dystopia document is that many cultures have reduced the volume of their voice to an abnormally low level. For three more examples:

	•	Some Californian cities have too many people for the amount of water in their area, so the California government requires us to use low-flow toilets that don't function as well as normal toilets, and which cause trouble for the sewage treatment facilities.
	•	Some of the Asians are living in homes that are so small and overcrowded that there are prisoners in the USA with more space.
	•	The Dutch had to build dikes and windmills to convert some of the ocean into dry land. Today about 26% of their land is below sea level, and about 4 million people are living on it.

If every society had controlled their population, then nobody would need a low-flow toilet, live in a cramped home, or need land that is below sea level.

Since we never experienced any other environment, we assume that our cities are providing us with an acceptable environment, but we did not evolve for this type of environment. Our modern cities are disgusting, inappropriate, and miserable.

We evolved to live with clean air and water, and to be surrounded by trees, flowers, and creeks. We evolved to listen to human voices and chirping birds, not automobiles, lawnmowers, or barking dogs. We also evolved to live among people we know, enjoy, and trust, not people who speak different languages, regard us as goyim, or who want to empty a revolver into our white heads. We evolved to live among people who are healthy and who enjoy life, not miserable, angry, psychotic, anti-social, and retarded people.

We would consider a zoo to be cruel and barbaric if they provided animals with an environment that was as filthy, noisy, polluted, overcrowded, and devoid of vegetation as some of our cities. We would also be disgusted if a zoo allowed the animals to become mentally and physically retarded.

We are tormenting ourselves with our miserable cities and culture, so we should experiment with better living conditions, but that requires a different group of people in leadership positions. We need leaders who realize that humans are apes, and who have the desire and courage to experiment with cities and culture. They also need the emotional ability to impose restrictions on reproduction. Most important of all, they need to be concerned about society and want to become our team member, rather than be a pampered King or Queen.

The history of the human race must be reevaluated and rewritten because it has been severely distorted. The primary reasons for this distortion are:

	1)	People in leadership positions have distorted history to glorify themselves and/or ignore or criticize their competitors and critics.
	2)	The Jews have distorted history in order to manipulate and exploit us.
	3)	The people who are ignorant about, cannot understand, or refuse to acknowledge, that humans are a species of ape have interpreted history from a false perspective of what a human is, resulting in nonsensical analyses.

Most people can understand reasons 1 and 2, but not many people understand the third reason. I discussed that concept in previous documents, such as this. To summarize it, in order for us to develop an accurate understanding of animals, plants, or humans, we must have a realistic view of what we are analyzing. For example, the people who refuse to acknowledge that humans are apes will assume:

	•	That "poor" people are the result of selfishness of the wealthy people, or because of poverty, bad luck, discrimination, racism, or a lack of opportunities, rather than realize that the poor people are caused by inferior genetic characteristics.
	•	That European immigrants to North America were cruel to the natives of America, rather than realize that all living creatures compete for resources and territory, and the European immigrants were merely the winners of the competition. However, unlike every other group of animals, the Europeans felt sorry for the natives, so they created "wildlife sanctuaries" for the natives rather than let them go extinct.
	•	That the Vikings attacked other people because they were cruel, rather than realize that the Vikings were emigrating because of overpopulation, and that they fought with their neighbors for land just like all other groups of people.
	•	That women have odors that must be scrubbed off with soap and shampoo, and replaced with artificial perfumes, rather than realize that their body odors should be attractive to men.

The History Hit company has produced hundreds of historical documentaries, but they have a lot of invalid information as a result of their inability and/or refusal to understand evolution. For example, they have this video that has the title "The Stark Inequality That Made Victorian Life Possible". The description of the video claims that:


In reality, the "huge leaps forward" that were made during the Victorian period were due to a small number of individuals who were developing technology, not because of "staggering inequality". We do not need a difference between the wealthy and the poor people in order to have social or technical progress. Progress does not require anybody to suffer. Rather, progress occurs when some individuals have the courage to experiment with new ideas.

The narrator of that documentary criticized a woman of the Victorian area, Esther Copley, for writing the book Cottage Comforts for the "labouring classes" that "managed not only to denigrate the misery of the rural lower classes but to patronize them".

However, her advice was typical of the advice that the successful people have been giving to the poor people for thousands of years, such as advising the poor people to stop wasting their money on unnecessary things, such as gambling, pets, candy, alcohol, and jewelry. That should be described as "providing sensible advice", not "patronizing" the poor people.

The narrator also discusses the workhouses of the Victorian era, and how they inspired Charles Dickens to write the book Oliver Twist. Every historian promotes the theory that Dickens exposed the cruelty of the workhouses, and they imply that the people who created and worked at the workhouses were selfish or abusive people.

In reality, Dickens gave a "feel sorry for me" view of the workhouses, not an accurate, intellectual analysis of them. The workhouses were not created to torment people. They were created to help the people who had trouble taking care of themselves.

There would be no poor, sickly, retarded, mentally ill, or stupid people if we still had predators.

The people in the workhouses were not ordinary people who were victims of wealthy people.

Rather, they were genetically inferior people who would have died if they had been born thousands of years earlier.

The wealthy people were not the reason that England had workhouses, beggars, prostitutes, slums, homeless people, or drug addicts.

Rather, England had those problems because they had the technology to make life so easy that a large number of genetically inferior people were capable of surviving.

History must become a branch of zoology, and the only people who should be allowed to call themselves "historians" are those who can show an above-average understanding that humans are a species of animal, and that we follow the same concepts of genetics as all other living creatures.

The anti-genetic people must be classified as mentally unfit for influential positions. They must be prohibited from becoming "historians", government officials, and "scientists". They must also have restrictions on their reproduction so that the future generations have higher quality minds.

Producing intelligent analyses requires more than intelligence and education. It requires the ability to control our arrogance and look critically at ourselves. The people who have the most trouble controlling their arrogance will have the most trouble understanding our ancestors and modern humans. For example, they are likely to assume that our prehistoric ancestors were stupid, ugly, filthy, stinky, and made grunting noises.

Although our ancestors 500,000 years ago were less intelligent than us, the people in 2000 BC would have been genetically superior to us in most characteristics. As a group, they would have been more intelligent than us, and in much better physical health. They would also have been better looking, had better eyesight, and more pleasant body odors. They would have had less mental problems, allergies, and tooth decay. It was their ignorance that caused them to live in a primitive manner, not their mind.

The proof that they were superior to us is that all of the wonderful genetic characteristics that we have today came from them. We inherited our intelligence, eyesight, coordination, immune system, and other characteristics from our ancestors. Those characteristics did not suddenly appear in the human gene pool a few centuries ago as a result of cosmic rays colliding with some eggs or sperm.

Although there has been some evolutionary changes during the past few thousand years, such as an improved ability to digest grains and milk, the human gene pool has been degrading significantly during the past few centuries.

Our ancestors a couple thousand years ago were very intelligent, which is why they could figure out how to convert rocks into bronze and iron. They were so intelligent that they could figure out that some of the dots in the sky were planets, and they could calculate the diameter of the earth, and predict the eclipse of the sun.

How many of the people who are alive today are able to predict an eclipse? How many people could create the Antikythera mechanism without looking at the one that has been found? The Romans developed concrete that some MIT researchers have recently analyzed, and are now trying to make a modern version of it because they regard it as superior to modern concrete. How many people today would be able to develop concrete that was as durable as the Roman concrete?

Considering that people today are much more educated in science and math, if we are of equal intelligence to our ancestors, it would be easier for us to do what they did because of our greater education. And if we were more intelligent than them, then it would be even easier for us to do what they did.

The Salisbury cathedral was completed in 1258.

A few centuries ago the people in Europe were building beautiful churches, schools, libraries, and castles, and without computers, steel, or electricity. They were also producing a lot of decorative clothing.

Although many of their buildings have needed some renovation, they were constructed so well that some of their buildings are still in use today, such as the Divinity school of Oxford University.

No nation today even considers creating buildings with the complex architectural features that were common during the Middle Ages, such as the lierne vault and other Gothic architecture. Modern architects have computers to make it easy for them to design such structures, and construction companies have tools that make it easy to build them, but we don't want to attempt such complex structures.

The competition for life caused our prehistoric ancestors to evolve, but during the past few thousand years, and especially the past few centuries, we have been using technology to prevent deaths, and this has resulted in an increasingly rapid degradation of the human gene pool. The percentage of sickly, stupid, mentally ill, dishonest, irresponsible, stinky, and ugly people has been increasing in every generation.

During the past few thousand years, people have also been passing wealth, businesses, and land onto their children, thereby allowing people to get into influential positions without earning it, which increases the degradation of culture in addition to the human gene pool.

Furthermore, primitive people have been emigrating into the more advanced societies for thousands of years, thereby increasing the degradation of our gene pool and culture. The immigrants were probably the primary reason for the destruction of the advanced societies in ancient Iraq, China, Greece, India, Rome, and Egypt, just as the immigrants are now rapidly destroying Western Europe and the USA.

If we could bring some of the tribes of Europe from 2000 BC to our era, they would be noticeably superior to us in their physical and mental characteristics. They would be among the best athletes, and they would have the fewest health problems. They would have fewer problems with runny noses, stinky bodies, nearsightedness, headaches, and tinnitus.

They would also be better looking, and have fewer problems with crooked teeth. They would not have any trouble sleeping at night, and they would not need caffeine or nicotine. They would not need much heat during the winter to keep them warm.

We would be superior to them in only a few characteristics, such as eating large amounts of grains, dairy products, and sugar;  being able to sit for hours in front of a computer; and going to school.

If our ancestors had been restricting reproduction during the past few thousand years, the human race today would be superior to our prehistoric ancestors in every characteristic. We would be very intelligent, healthy, sociable, nice-looking, well behaved, and responsible. We would be living among people we respect and trust.

Even more important, instead of 8 billion people in 2024, there would be only a few hundred million. That would allow us to surround every city with a buffer of wild land. It would also allow every city to have so much land that every neighborhood could be surrounded by grass, trees, creeks, and flowers.

By putting the transportation system underground, the cities would be beautiful and quiet. We would be able to do things that are impossible today, such as take a walk in the evening through a beautiful park without any concern for automobiles, air pollution, or criminals.



By allowing every city to restrict immigration, nobody would be irritated by immigrants who whine about white privilege, or who regard us as goyim, or who speak a different language, or who insist on following different clothing, holiday, or food customs.

Museums that have displays of prehistoric humans tend to show them with sloppy hair living in filthy conditions. Our prehistoric ancestors did not have the technology to be as clean as we are today, but they were not filthy or sloppy. Everybody in 2024 has a craving to groom themselves every morning, and occasionally during the day, and we inherited the desire to groom ourselves from our ancestors.

Every animal has a strong desire to groom itself, so even the most primitive humans would have had a desire to groom themselves.

Women around the world have a desire to show off their clean and nicely groomed hair, fingers, toes, and clothing. It is unlikely that every race independently developed those desires during the past few centuries. It is more likely that they developed hundreds of thousands of years ago, or millions of years ago.

Grooming is such a necessary aspect of life that even young animals keep themselves clean and well groomed.		Prehistoric women had the same desire as modern women to show off their hair, fingers, toes, and clothing.

Many monkeys can be seen biting their fingernails, and some have tried to use fingernail files or hairbrushes, but they don't have enough coordination or intelligence to do a good job. If we could increase their intelligence, they would undoubtedly use some of the same grooming devices and techniques that humans are using.

Every man also has a desire to groom himself every morning, although our desire is not as intense as it is for women. Men are more interested in showing off our status and physical strength than in showing off our pretty hair, fingernails, and toes.

The high-heeled shoe of King Louis of France, about 1701

Both men and women want clothing to be attractive, but men are more concerned with the status value of our clothing than with how pretty it is. For example, high-heeled shoes were originally created for men to make themselves seem taller.

Our desires for grooming and showing off came from the animals, so all of our male ancestors, including the prehistoric men, had the same desires as we do.

A lot of men today are sloppy, but that is not evidence that our prehistoric ancestors were sloppy. If we divided the men into two groups, the most sloppy and the least sloppy, we would find that the most sloppy men are the most genetically inferior. They would also be more likely to be "liberal" rather than "conservative".

The sloppy men are evidence of the genetic degradation that has been occurring during the past few thousand years. To add to the problem, we are tormented by our miserable social environment, just like the mice in the utopia experiment, and that is causing a lot of people to withdraw from society and not care what they look like.

The people who refuse to believe that humans are apes are giving us a distorted view of grooming and most other aspects of life. For example, they believe that the odors that our body produces are disgusting and need to be washed off and covered with perfumes, rather than realize that every animal produces odors that they should enjoy, and which identify their species.

A lot of people today have disgusting body odors, but that is not because our body odors are supposed to be disgusting. It is because humans have been degrading genetically for thousands of years. It is the same reason that so many people today are ugly, deformed, mentally ill, have crooked teeth, bad breath, or bad eyesight.

We are not supposed to need eyeglasses, braces on our teeth, or antibiotics. We are supposed to be healthy.

The theory that our prehistoric ancestors were stupid, sloppy, and made grunting noises is so irrational that this constitution requires schools to use that theory as another example of how our arrogance can interfere with our scientific analyses. Our arrogance causes so much trouble that the Teentown Ministry is required to give the teenagers some exercises to practice controlling their arrogance.

The refusal of people to believe in evolution is also interfering with their analysis of animals. For example, this documentary is about a woman, Claudine André, who set up the Friends of Bonobos organization in Africa to rescue and take care of the Bonobo apes that people were using as pets or food.

She ended up with so many Bonobos that she decided to release some of them into the forest. She looked for an area where Bonobos were already living because she assumed that those apes would be proof that the area was providing them with adequate safety and food. Her organization has released 30 Bonobos as of 2023.

However, most people don't understand that the population of wild animals is always at its maximum level. Therefore, adding 30 Bonobos to an area that already has wild Bonobos will cause the death of 30 of them, instead of increasing the population by 30.

The Friends of Bonobos are trying to increase the population of the Bonobos, but the only way to do that is to expand their territory. That requires moving the humans out of an area and reserving it for the Bonobos.

As the human population increases, certain animals suffer a decrease in population, while certain other animals, such as rats, cockroaches, and mice, benefit from the humans, so their population increases. However, all of the animals remain at the maximum population density that their particular environment can support. Therefore, it is senseless for us to move animals from one location to another.

The distorted view that people have about life is causing businesses to develop traps that capture, rather than kill, mice, rats, and other creatures so that they can be released somewhere else. The people who do that titillate themselves with the fantasy that they are being nice to the mice or rats, but they are releasing animals into an area that is already overpopulated, which increases the number of deaths until the population drops to what the area can support.

The distorted view of life is also causing some people to take care of wild animals that are dying, and then they release them when their health has improved. Those people believe that they are being nice to the animals, but they are very likely to be helping the animals that were losing the competitive battle for life because of their inferior genetic characteristics.

Therefore, after those animals released, they are likely to continue losing their competitive battles. If they manage to reproduce before they die, then they are likely to produce inferior creatures that also have trouble in the competition for life.

It is detrimental to take care of the wild animals that are dying. We have powerful craving to take care of babies and children, but we must control that craving and ignore the deaths and suffering of the wild animals and plants. It would be nicer to the dying animals if we put them out of their misery by killing them quickly.

Many of the liberal organizations promote a "feel sorry for the wild animal" attitude. For example, the WWF claims that "polar bears need our help", and one of the reasons is because of climate change. The WWF also claims to be "the leading global environmental charity", and that nature is "in freefall". They also boast that they "were the first organisation to develop a science-based strategy".

However, their science is distorted. Nature is not, and never is, in free fall. The competition for life always ensures that all animals are healthy, well adapted to their environment, and enjoying life. None of the wild animals or plants need assistance from humans, or benefit from our assistance.

When the environment changes, such as from volcanoes, mountain ranges that alter the weather patterns, or land bridges that allow animals to migrate to new continents, the animals and plants adapt to the changes.

The population of every animal and plant is always at its maximum, and they are always reproducing in excessive amounts. Therefore, changes in the environment will cause their populations to rise or fall, and cause them to evolve to fit the environment.

If it is true that the Earth's climate is becoming warmer, then the population of polar bears will decrease until either they adapt to the warmer climate, or until their population level has dropped to a level that their environment can support. As their population drops, the population of other animals increases. If we provide food or other assistance to help a polar bear survive, some other polar bear will die because the environment can only support a certain number of polar bears.

It is senseless for us to try to save wild animals from death. We should let nature control the population of animals. The only time we should get involved with wild animal populations is when humans have ruined something, such as when we kill the predators of deer, thereby allowing the deer population to become so excessive that they begin searching for food in our cities, farms, and homes, such as this deer that jumped through a window of a restaurant, and this deer that jumped through a window of a hair salon.

Humans have been disrupting the environment for centuries, such as by creating dams, killing predators, removing trees, releasing rabbits in Australia, and allowing horses to become wild in North America. However, we cannot solve those problems by picking out certain animals to give pity to.

Many of the organizations that are trying to save wild animals, such as the WWF, seem to be dominated by women, and this is not likely to be a coincidence. It is likely to be for the same reason that women tend to be "liberals" rather than "conservatives". Specifically, women have a powerful emotional craving to take care of helpless creatures and creatures that are having trouble. That emotion was intended to make women take care of their children, but the emotion is so stupid that it is causes women to take care of animals, also, and some women take care of dolls or incompetent adults, including an incompetent husband.

It is necessary for women to take care of their children, but it is detrimental for them to become a mother for wild animals and adult men.

A similar concept is that we cannot control the wild creatures with poisons, insecticides, or pesticides. The business executives and scientists who are too ignorant, stupid, or emotionally unable to understand and accept evolution are promoting the belief that we can control wild plants and animals with chemicals. This has resulted in businesses producing an enormous variety of poisons, many of which have already been banned or put under restrictions.

Every time a business produces a new poison, the animals and plants adapt to it, but instead of noticing the obvious pattern that the animals are adapting to our poisons, most people continue to create new poisons in the hope that the next poison will solve the problem. It has been known for years that weeds are becoming resistant to Monsanto's Roundup, but people are continuing to use it. The human mind is still so similar to a monkey brain that most people repeat failed policies over and over.

The concept that we can control wild animals and plants with a chemical is absurd. Plants are already creating lots of chemicals to stop insects and animals from eating them, but the animals and insects adapt to them.

The Earth also has a variety of chemicals that are dangerous to living creatures, but the animals and plants adapt to some of them, also. For example, there are hydrothermal vents producing hydrogen sulfide, but instead of killing all of the creatures in the area, some bacteria are eating it. Iguanas in the Galapagos Islands have adapted to the deadly level of salt in the oceans by developing glands that allow them to excrete salt.

How many sealed greenhouses could we have constructed from the resources that were put into the development and production of poisons?

The human race has wasted a lot of technical talent and resources on the development of poisons to control animals and plants.

Furthermore, we don't even know for certain what effect the poisons are having on the health of humans.

We would have better health, and higher-quality foods, if we had put the talent and resources into developing sealed greenhouses.

Our poisons are more evidence that we must restrict the top leadership positions to people who have demonstrated an above-average understanding of evolution, and an above-average desire to learn from their failures rather than repeat the same failed policies over and over.

The unwanted, abandoned, and homeless children are genetically inferior to the "ordinary" children, as a group, and the children of criminals, drug addicts, idiots, and mentally ill people are even more inferior, as a group.

However, our emotions give us such a strong attraction to children that we resist the possibility that an "adorable" child could be genetically inferior. Every culture regards the children of criminals and lunatics to be just as adorable as everybody else's children. As a result, governments are helping people to adopt those inferior children.

Our intense craving to take care of children was sensible during prehistoric times because it caused parents to give every child a fair chance at life, and nature determined which of them dies. Now that we are preventing nature from killing the inferior children, we must decide who reproduces, and which of the babies are so defective that they should be euthanized.

By refusing to deal with these issues, we are allowing every generation to become increasingly defective. This increases the number of people who have a miserable life, and who degrade the lives of other people.

To make the situation more absurd, instead of restricting reproduction, we help the people with defective sexual organs to reproduce with such services as artificial insemination, surrogate pregnancies, and cesarean operations. We also provide cow's milk for the women who cannot breast-feed their babies, or who do not want to. This is increasing the number of people in every generation who cannot reproduce properly, and the number of women who cannot, or have no desire to, breast-feed their babies.

Every culture is inadvertently breeding itself into retards. In order to stop this problem, this Constitution requires the school curriculum to provide children with a more accurate and useful understanding of such concepts as overpopulation and evolution, and the government is required to restrict reproduction and euthanize defective babies.