The different emotional characteristics between men, women, and children resulted in two primary political philosophies, which we refer to as "conservative" and "liberal".

In prehistoric times, we would not have noticed any liberal attitudes because the prehistoric tribes were dominated by the men who were the most successful in the competition for life.

The prehistoric men at the top of the hierarchy promoted the attitude that everybody should compete for what they want, and earn it. They did not have pity for the losers, so they did not support any type of welfare programs.

Both male and female animals admire and follow the winners, not the losers, and female animals are also sexually attracted to the males who are the winners. Those emotional characteristics cause the inferior animals to suffer, but it is the only way animals can prevent genetic degradation.

All of the animals that survive childhood and become adults are in excellent physical and mental health. There is not much of a difference between the animal at the top of the hierarchy and the animal at the bottom. The difference between them is so subtle that they could treat one another as friends, rather than compete with each other for food and females. However, if any species of animal shared food and females with one another, they would have degraded genetically, and eventually gone extinct.

This concept also applies to humans. If we could go back in time to observe the prehistoric, nomadic tribes, we would notice that every child who survived to adulthood was in excellent physical and mental shape. All of the adults were capable of taking care of themselves. None of them needed welfare, inheritances, or pity. There was not much of a difference between the adults in regards to their abilities.

Even though everybody in a particular tribe would have been very similar to one another, they did not treat one another equally, or share their resources. They competed for food, tools, furs, and women, and the women had a preference for the men who were at the top of the hierarchy, and who had the most food and wealth.

This concept can also be seen among animals and plants. All of the birds, wolves, coyotes, and squirrels that survive to adulthood are similar in their physical and mental abilities and health. The difference between the most successful adults and the least successful is so small that it's difficult for us to figure out what the difference is. We must observe a group of animals for a long time before we notice that one of them is more successful at finding food, running, healing from wounds, or digesting food. However, the subtle differences between the animals is significant, and that is why they compete for resources and reproduction.

When people settled into cities, the differences between the successful and unsuccessful adults began to widen to an incredible extent. As technology advanced, an increasingly large percentage of people who would have died in a prehistoric tribe were capable of surviving. This resulted in an increasingly wide difference in the physical and mental abilities of the people at the top of the social hierarchy, and those at the bottom.

During the Middle Ages, the differences between people was so extreme that some people had large homes and excessive amounts of food, clothing, tools, and furniture, while other people were suffering from hunger, malnutrition, diseases, and overcrowded homes. Some of the people were surviving by begging, crime, and prostitution.

To further widen the difference between the successful and unsuccessful people, a city provides us with a lot of options to hurt ourselves that were not available to prehistoric people. For example, we can hurt ourselves with alcohol, drugs, gambling, business ventures, crime networks, and debt.

Animals react to the losers by ignoring them, pushing them aside, plucking their feathers out, or tormenting them in some other manner, but when people are living in a city, we cannot ignore the losers, or push them away from us. They are our neighbors, and sometimes one of our relatives. This results in us frequently having contact with them, and that resulted in many people wondering what to do about them.

During prehistoric times, a man would be insulted if he blamed his problems on his parents, bad luck, poverty, or a lack of opportunities, but as life became more complex, many people became so confused that they believed those excuses, and that resulted in them feeling sorry for the losers.

Even today there are millions of people who believe the excuses of the losers who insist that their drug problems, gambling problems, unemployment problems, violent behavior, criminal behavior, and alcoholism is because they are victims of something, such as inappropriate parents, discrimination, anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, the military-industrial complex, poverty, or bad luck.

The people who react to their problems by crying, pouting, and begging for handouts are promoting the "liberal" philosophy. They want us to share our material wealth with them, take care of them when they have problems, forgive them when they behave badly, give them a second chance when they behave badly again, and give them a third chance when they repeat the bad behavior.

The liberal philosophy became increasingly popular during the past thousand years because it appeals to a lot of the men who are losers, and it is the natural attitude of women and children. Both women and children expect men to give them what they want, and to take care of them when they have troubles, so the liberal philosophy is more appealing to women and children than a philosophy that demands that everybody earn what they want and take care of themselves.

None of us as a good understanding of ourselves, so we cannot assume that a person's description of himself is accurate. We must judge people by what they actually do in their life. For example, my mother describes herself as a Republican and a conservative, but she supports abortions just like the liberals.

Although many women in the US are registered as Republicans, and many men are registered as Democrats, the majority of men tend to have a more conservative attitude, and the majority of women tend to have a more liberal attitude.

The liberal philosophy of giving assistance, second chances, and handouts to people who are having trouble with life was necessary for prehistoric mothers because their role was to take care of children. However, that philosophy is detrimental for adults in our modern era. For example:

•	Hunger When a mother gives "handouts" of food to her hungry child, she is taking care of him. Also, the handouts are temporary because the child will eventually grow up and be able to feed himself. However, if an adult is hungry, it is not likely to be a temporary problem. It is more likely to be due to his inability to take care of himself, or because of overpopulation. Therefore, giving handouts of food to hungry adults will not stop hunger. Rather, it encourages begging, and it allows the hungry people to live longer and produce more children, thereby increasing the number of hungry people, which makes the problem worse.
•	Homelessness Mothers must provide their children with a "handout" of a free home because children cannot take care of themselves. That type of handout is temporary because the child will eventually grow up in take care of himself. If an adult becomes homeless because of a temporary problem, such as an earthquake, then we can solve the problem by giving him a "handout" of free home while he finds another place to live. However, most of the homeless adults are homeless because they cannot take care of themselves, in which case handouts cannot solve the problem. Modern governments are providing generous welfare programs for the adults who cannot take care of themselves, but instead of reducing the problem, it is causing an increasingly large percentage of the population to be dependent upon welfare programs.
•	Criminals When a mother tries to improve her child's behavior with glares, angry tones of voice, or other types of punishment, she can help her child learn how to behave properly. She also helps him learn how to behave better by giving him a second chance, and then a third chance, and then fourth chance. However, punishing adults does not help them learn how to behave properly. An adult should already know how to behave properly. Punishing an adult will torment them, which can cause them to develop an even more unpleasant attitude, and giving them second chances and third chances allows them to continue tormenting other people.
	Counseling services When a mother provides advice to her child on how to deal with a problem, she is providing him with advice and teaching him about life, but adults are so independent, resistant to change, and arrogant that we tend to listen only to the people who tell us what we want to hear, which is as worthless as a person who spends his time listening to a recording of compliments. Counseling programs are not very effective at helping adults deal with their drug, gambling, alcohol, debt, or marital problems. During the past two centuries, governments, hospitals, businesses, and other organizations have been creating counseling services to help adults Although those programs have helped a few people control their abuse of alcohol, or refrain from fighting with their spouse, these problems are getting worse with every generation. The adults who have the greatest need for counseling and advice are those with the most inferior minds, which makes them even less likely to understand or benefit from advice.

All of the liberal programs that are intended to improve the lives of alcoholics, criminals, homeless people, and other "underdogs" are failures. Furthermore, as our technology improves, all of these problems become worse. For example, people today have a wider variety of alcoholic beverages, medical drugs, and other drugs to abuse, and when people get into fights, we can create a lot more suffering and destruction with our modern knives, guns, explosives, poisons, and other weapons. We can even fight with automobiles.

Modern technology also allows people to eat excessive amounts of nutritionally inappropriate foods, resulting in many people becoming obese, diabetic, or malnourished. The liberal attitude of feeling sorry for them, referring to the fat people as "plus sized" people, and by providing them with weight-loss programs, is failing to solve their problem.

The liberal philosophy is a failure with adults, but the liberals will not acknowledge that, or experiment with a better philosophy.

Both liberals and conservatives are capable of looking critically at one another, and noticing that the other group is failing to solve problems, but neither group can see that their own philosophy is also a failure.

The liberal attitude of feeling sorry for criminals and trying to fix them with punishments and rehabilitation programs creates a social environment in which everybody lives in fear of crime, and in which the criminals are tortured.

The liberals frequently complain about the conservatives who want guns and other security devices, but it is the liberals who create an environment in which there are high levels of crime.

Since there is no right or wrong culture, there is nothing wrong with living in fear of crime, but I am not interested in it, so this constitution advocates a culture that is so intolerant of crime that we can trust one another.

We should not need locks on our homes, or passwords on our telephones. Children should be able to trust strangers, and women should be able to trust men.

In order to accomplish this, the purpose of the Courts Ministry is to analyze and reduce crimes, rather than punish criminals, and they are required to evict the people who are troublesome, and put the mildly troublesome people on restrictions.

We should not fear one another, or want guns or dogs for protection.		We should trust one another, and the women and children should trust the men.

We do not have to be victims of criminals and corrupt leaders, or live in fear of other people. We have the intelligence and knowledge to reduce crime and corruption. All we have to do is set higher standards for people, stop feeling sorry for the misfits, and evicting those who cannot fit in. This policy has been successful for businesses and militaries, and it can just as successful for an entire society, and the entire world.

The prehistoric tribes were dominated by the most successful men, and the women and children were in a submissive role. It is unlikely that any of our prehistoric ancestors believed that men and women were unisex creatures.

The writings of the people during the Middle Ages imply that everybody in that era realized that men and women were different. For example, sometime around the year 1190, Raymond Fitzgerald died, and Gerald De Barry wrote in his description of him that he was "not effeminate in either his food or his dress."

All men wore dresses until recently.

De Barry did not provide any details on what he meant by "not effeminate", which implies that the people of his era knew what he meant by it, which in turn implies that they all had noticed that there was something different about the food and clothing of men and women.

Historians are giving us a distorted view of history in order to pander to feminists, so we don't know much about the differences between men and women in regards to their food, clothing, or activities, but we can get an idea of the differences between men and women by looking at the paintings that were made during the Middle Ages.

A drawing (to the right) of Fitzgerald in a manuscript from the 1200's shows him wearing a long dress and having long hair, and his hair is tied in what some people today describe as a "man bun".

As I pointed out in other documents, such as here, until the past few centuries, men wore dresses and skirts, and many had long hair.

Although historians don't know what was different about the food and clothing of men and women during the Middle Ages, it was undoubtedly the same differences that we see today:

Foods

Clothing

Grooming

All of our ancestors knew that there were mental and physical differences between men and women. The concept that men and women are unisex creatures is very recent. I suspect that the unisex concept is the result of two problems:

1)

Zionism The Zionists promote feminism in order to instigate fights between men and women.

2)

The unusual people The men who are unusually feminine want to behave like women, and the women who are unusually masculine want to behave like men. However, if those unusual men and women do not realize that they are unusual, they will assume that what they want from life is what other people want. That ignorance will result in a masculine woman assuming that every woman is forced by sexist men to wear pretty clothing, become mothers, and spend a lot of time grooming their hair and fingernails. She will not realize that most women are behaving in that manner because they want to. Although there are some husbands who put pressure on their wives to wear lots of cosmetics and jewelry when they go out in public, most women are doing those things because they want to, not because sexist men are making them do it. Some men have even tried to discourage their wives and daughters from spending so much time and money on their hair, lipstick, fingernails, and cosmetics, but they failed.

The development of agricultural technology continuously reduced the number of people that were needed to produce food. By the 1400's, there were lots of people doing something else, such as baking bread, mining iron ore, and building homes. There were lots of job opportunities for women, and women could start their own businesses. Some women could make enough money to take care of themselves and their children without a husband.

As women became less dependent upon men, they became more independent and more influential. An example is Christine de Pizan, who took a job as a writer for the French monarchy after her husband died in 1389, and she needed to support herself and her children.

She became famous because she wrote books and other documents that appealed to a large number of people. In the painting below, she is reading to a group of men.

The women in a prehistoric nomadic tribe could entertain both adults and children with stories, speculations, and songs, but they could not produce written documents, so their influence was limited to a small number of people. However, by the 1400's, the women who knew how to read and write could produce documents that could influence people around the world. This allowed women to become very influential.

Women also became influential by becoming successful in their business ventures, and by having wealthy husbands or fathers.

The monarchies of the Middle Ages allowed women to get to the very top of the social hierarchy by allowing women to be Queens. As with the Kings, the Queens did not have to earn their position, or defend it from competitors. They were given the position for their entire life, with no regard to their leadership abilities.

Queen Isabeau is an example. She was Queen of France from 1385 to 1422 simply because the royal families of Europe were selfishly arranging marriages to allow their children to keep control of Europe. She was born and raised in Germany, but the French people did not care that she was not French.

Isabeau never would have become the leader of a prehistoric tribe, but by the Middle Ages it was possible for a woman to become a Queen, and to exert incredible influence over the world. Furthermore, nobody cared about the age, selfishness, violent tendencies, stupidity, mental disorders, or ignorance of the kings and queens.

When a woman became influential, she could promote other women. For example, Queen Isabeau asked Christine de Pizan to create a book for her, and that gave Christine even more publicity and status. The painting below shows Christine providing her with that book.

People have a natural desire to become submissive to the people higher in the hierarchy. Therefore, as Christine became increasingly famous, the public became less critical of her and more submissive, thereby having less concern about whether she was providing them with intelligent guidance or feminist nonsense.

The people who are the most influential are not providing the most honest, intelligent, and useful information or analyses. Rather, they entertain us with music, religion, sports, games, movies, and gossip about Hollywood celebrities and Royal families. The most popular Internet sites, books, and television programs are those that entertain us, rather than provide us with valuable information.

Likewise, the women who became influential during the Middle Ages with their documents and books were titillating people's emotions, not contributing intellectually valuable material. They were entertainers, not scientists.

Although there are conflicting statistics for the popularity of books, the two most popular books of all time seem to be the Bible and the Quran, followed by fiction books. A book of Chairman Mao's quotation was popular in China, but that might have been because the Chinese public was forced to have a copy, not because they wanted it.

The reason entertainers are so influential is because animals want to titillate themselves, not work, learn, or think. Our desire for entertainment affects our behavior and culture. For example, when we choose foods, we prefer foods that titillate our emotions, and when we choose a television news program to watch, we prefer the news that gives us whatever we find emotionally pleasing. During every election, we prefer to vote for the candidate who makes us feel good.

Most humans do whatever is most emotionally pleasurable, just like the animals, rather than use our intelligence to think about what we should do. In order for us to improve our lives, we must stop seeking emotional titillation, and push ourselves into thinking about what is truly beneficial to us.

Living in a city made life so easy that the men who would have died in a prehistoric tribe as a result of their mental or physical disorders were capable of surviving, and were often successful at raising children.

In addition to becoming "subsistence farmers", the misfit men could survive from inheritances, begging for handouts, becoming an entertainer, getting involved with churches, selling deceptive products, theft, forming parasitic relationships with successful people, and other forms of cheating. Some of them even became wealthy or influential as a result of crimes, entertainment, religion, inheritances, and parasitic marriages. An example is Charles Dickens.

Charles Dickens became very popular, but not because he had anything intelligent to say. Rather, he entertained people with feel-sorry-for-me fiction books. He promoted a lot of liberal attitudes. I suspect that he developed those attitudes because he was suffering from mental problems, and so was his father, and possibly his mother.

His father could hold a job, but did not have the ability to control his spending, and he ended up in a debtor's prison. That resulted in Charles quiting school at the age of 12 and working 10 hours a day in a factory. His reaction was to feel sorry for factory workers, children without fathers, and people in debt.

His grandmother died a few months later, and that resulted in his father inheriting enough money to pay his debts and get out of prison, but his mother wanted him to continue working in the factory. We don't know why, but my guess is that his mother wanted him to continue making money until his father was making enough to support the family. However, instead of discussing the issue with his mother, and trying to understand her reasons, he reacted with anger towards all women, and he promoted the attitude that a father should dominate the family. That was one of his non-liberal attitudes.

In 1836 he got married and began having a lot of children. In 1840, when he was 28 years old, he took his family on a holiday, and he asked another family to join them. That family had a 19-year-old adopted daughter named Eleanor Picken. One evening when the two families were at the beach, Charles took Eleanor to the end of a jetty, and told her that he intended to hold her there until "the sad sea waves should submerge us". She did not have the physical strength to get away from Charles, so she yelled for his wife to help her, and his wife and the other people eventually convinced Charles to stop his suicide-murder attempt.

If an ordinary man had treated Eleanor in that manner, he would have been considered neurotic and dangerous, and I suspect that most women would be appalled if their husband behaved in such a manner. However, since Charles was a famous author at the time, and since animals have a strong tendency to become submissive to the animals above them in the hierarchy, everybody ignored or made excuses for his psychotic behavior.

When Dickens visited America, he spent a lot of time visiting prisons and mental asylums. I think it was because he felt a stronger bond to the people in those institutions than to the normal people, and he had a strong desire to feel sorry for them.

Dickens never provided any intelligent analyses of the prisons or asylums. His only interest in them seemed to be promoting the theory that wealthy people should share their wealth, and that we should feel sorry for criminals, orphans, lunatics, retards, and other misfits.

There is also an accusation that when he went to the USA to go on a lecture tour, he returned to Britain without paying the taxes that he owed to the US government. If that accusation is accurate, and if he knew what he was doing, then he could be described as a "hypocritical criminal" who committed one of the same crimes as the wealthy people that he complained about.

Dickens became very popular, but he was a detrimental influence on culture. One of his most popular stories, A Christmas Carol, is "liberal pornography" because it titillates the losers with a fantasy in which wealthy people are psychotic, greedy, and cruel, and they abuse the poor people who are well behaved, honest, generous, and kind.

Rather than help us to understand life, improve culture, and reduce our social problems, his stories promote the fantasy that we can stop poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and unwanted children simply by making the wealthy people share their wealth.

Although many of the employees in the 1800s were working in unsafe and unpleasant conditions, it was not due to the selfishness of wealthy people. The overpopulation and other documents point out that humans have been and still are suffering from overpopulation, overcrowding, uncontrolled immigration, uncontrolled reproduction, incompetent voters, crime networks, and lots of other problems. The reason we suffer from those problems is because we follow our emotional cravings like stupid animals.

When we do not control reproduction, a small percentage of the population will suffer from hunger, disease, mental illness, stupidity, and physical deformities, and those problems cannot be solved simply by sharing the wealth of the wealthy people. These problems can be solved only by restricting reproduction and raising the standards of people.

Charles Dickens is an example of how our modern societies allow people to become influential and wealthy even when they are a bad influence. If one of the losers in a prehistoric tribe had told stories about how the "poor" people in the tribe were abused by the selfish men at the top of the hierarchy, most of the people would have told him to shut up. If he did not stop whining about being abused, they might have evicted him from the tribe.

Charlie Chaplin is another example of a loser who became influential and wealthy even though he never provided any intelligent analyses or opinions, and never did anything that helped us to understand or reduce our social problems.

Chaplin's parents were losers, also. They were so unable to cope with life's problems that Charlie spent about two years in a workhouse when he was about 7 years old. When he became an adult, he moved to Hollywood and became one of the most wealthy men in the world as a result of entertaining people, usually by imitating a drunk, an idiot, or a tramp.

(Most people admire Chaplin, but Peter Ackroyd provides a different view.)

Charlie Chaplin became famous by imitating drunks, tramps, and idiots. He made those people seem adorable but in reality they have miserable lives, and their behavior is so unpleasant that we try to avoid contact with them.

Allowing a man to become wealthy and influential simply for imitating drunks and idiots is as absurd as allowing a man to become wealthy and influential for imitating the drug users who stumble around Kensington Avenue.

We have a strong attraction to children, and that causes us to enjoy, tolerate, and giggle at their childish behavior. Unfortunately, our emotions are so stupid that they can be titillated by adults who behave in a childish manner, which can result in us giggling at adults who are obnoxious, drunk, stupid, and mentally ill.

Our attraction to obnoxious behavior is another example of why we need to understand the purpose of our emotions. That emotion is intended to help us deal with children. Instead of becoming annoyed by their obnoxious behavior, we giggle at it.

However, that emotion is so stupid that we often giggle at obnoxious adults. Businesses take advantage of this by having adults behave in childish and obnoxious manners in advertisements and television programs.

This constitution requires the ministers to dampen the attitude that drunks, drug addicts, and idiots are amusing. We should suppress our tendency to giggle at childish behavior because giggling at the children can encourage them to repeat the idiotic behavior. It is especially detrimental to encourage childish behavior with adults. We should instead admire the children and adults who behave in an intelligent and impressive manner.

I suspect that some of the obnoxious and childish behavior that we see among children and adults is because our culture is encouraging it, in which case we will notice an improvement in the behavior of the people when we suppress our tendency to giggle at childish behavior.

The organization Absolute History provides some interesting and informative videos about history, such as this series in which they re-create life in England during the Tudor period. That type of video makes it easier for us to understand (compared to reading words), how technology has dramatically changed the lives of people during the past few centuries.

However, they have other videos, such as Charlie Chaplin's Tragic Childhood in the Victorian Workhouse, that promote the liberal pornography that the people in the workhouses and orphanages were wonderful people who were victims of wealthy people or bad luck. Those videos promote the "Feel Sorry For The Underdog" attitude.

The liberal philosophy of giving pity and handouts the people who have trouble in life is a very effective technique for mothers who were taking care of young children, but it is a detrimental philosophy when applied to adults.

Most, or all, historians cannot understand, or refuse to accept, the evidence that humans are a species of ape. Their distorted view of humans results in them giving us unrealistic analyses of history, and idiotic explanations of why so many of our ancestors had a miserable life.

If we can regard humans as a species of ape, then we will realize that one of the reasons so many people have been, and still are, suffering is because all living creatures reproduce in excessive quantities. Overpopulation will always result in some members dying, and others barely surviving.

If we could go back in time 100,000 years and observe our ancestors, we would find that most of their children suffered and died, but the adults were healthy and enjoyed their life. This is also true of all of the wild animals and plants.

Many people today assume that our prehistoric ancestors were suffering because of their primitive conditions, but they were just as well adapted to their era as the wild animals. They could do their physical chores just as easily as the birds could fly, the fish could swim, and the gophers could dig tunnels. They were as unaffected by the cold weather as the other animals in their particular environment. They were as unaffected by the lack of sleep caused by a rainstorm waking them up at night as the other animals that woke up from the rainstorm.

Most of the suffering during prehistoric times was with the children, not the adults, and most of the suffering was for short periods of time, not years or decades. The reason the suffering was short was because diseases and predators killed the sickly and retarded children quickly. Prehistoric humans did not have hospitals, medicines, or welfare programs to delay the death of defective children.

During prehistoric times, the children who were not well adapted to their environment tended to die at a young age. The end result was that most of the adults had excellent health, and could easily deal with their climate, foods, terrain, weather, and predators.

However, this situation changed dramatically when people settled into cities because a lot of the children who would have died in a nomadic tribe could survive in a city. For example, houses protected the children from the weather, thereby allowing children to survive and reproduce even if their bodies were incapable of handling cold weather. The houses also made it easier for children to sleep at night, thereby making it easier for children with sleeping problems to survive.

The medical technology that has been developed during the past two centuries has brought even more dramatic changes by allowing people with very serious genetic disorders to survive and reproduce. Every generation is becoming more sickly, deformed, mentally ill, ugly, stupid, and dependent upon medical technology.

The liberal philosophy of solving problems with handouts and pity is making our situation worse. That philosophy must be restricted to mothers and their children.

Women are naturally submissive and perfer to let men manage society, so it will be easy for the schools to teach the girls that their liberal attitudes are useful only for their children, and that the problems of society and adults require different techniques.