Since this constitution gives the government total control over all aspects of the city and its culture, some people are likely to complain that it is more oppressive than the Nazi and communist governments.

The Nazis are frequently used as an example of why we should not allow a government to have much authority. For example, the Nazis censored art.

The Nazi government created two art exhibits to show the citizens what was acceptable and unacceptable. They created one exhibit of art that they approved of, and a "Degenerate Art" exhibit that they considered unacceptable.

The organization Teach Democracy describes those exhibits as: "part of an incredible Nazi campaign to put art under control of the state."

The Teach Democracy organization boasts that they are "educating" children, but they are giving children a distorted view of life by implying that the Nazis were the only group of people who want to censor art. They are not teaching children to analyze other cultures, try to learn from them, look critically at ourselves, and notice that there is not much of a difference between the different groups of people.

Instead, they encourage children to hate the Nazis, which encourages the crude, animal behavior of feeling superior to other groups of people.

A more honest description of the Nazis would point out that every person, business, school, and government wants to censor art. The difference between us is that each person wants to censor different art. For example, many people want to censor what they refer to as "child pornography", but we differ on what classifies as child pornography.

Actually, most people want to do more than censor the child pornography. They want the people who have it to be tormented in jail or killed.

If the people who enjoy child pornography were the majority of the population, then it would be considered as "beautiful art" rather than "child pornography". Those people would complain about the censorship of such art.

It is possible that every society is censoring art. However, people are so ignorant about these issues that no society considers itself to be censoring art. Instead, we consider our society to be protecting the citizens, especially the children, and we insult other societies for censorship.

The concept of "censorship" is one of the aspects of the concept of "freedom". Many people boast about how they support freedom, but most people are so ignorant about this issue that they don't realize that they actually want to suppress a lot of freedoms. Nobody wants to give people complete freedom to do whatever they please. Rather, we want to give people the freedom to do what we approve of, and we want to prohibit whatever whatever we dislike.

Dr. Nausikaä El-Mecky, who "specialises in attacks on art", wrote that the Nazi Degenerate Art exhibit "cleverly manipulated visitors to loathe and ridicule the art"
that "had been displayed at the nation’s greatest museums".

However, somebody who approves of the Nazi censorship would respond that El-Mecky is trying to "cleverly manipulate readers into loathing and ridiculing the Nazis". For example, her remark that the art had been displayed in the "greatest" museums is an attempt to stimulate our emotional desire to become submissive to our leaders by implying that those museums are a high level in our hierarchy. Whether a museum is "great" or "disgusting" is a personal opinion. We could respond that the Degenerate Art exhibit had art from "the nation's most disgusting museums".

The Nazis were not a different species of creature. An alien from another solar system would have a difficult time finding a difference in the behavior of Nazis and other people. Unfortunately, we are so arrogant, and most people have such low levels of self-control, that they cannot see how similar they are to Nazis because they cannot look seriously at Nazis or critically at themselves. Most people prefer to titillate themselves with the fantasy that they are wonderful people who are superior to the Nazis.

The Nazis were humans, and all humans have the same mental and physical characteristics. We all have similar behavior, goals, desires, and fears. There are only subtle differences between individual humans, and between the races.

Historians have given us such a distorted view of history that we must re-examine everything about the Nazis. For example, the Nazi philosophy was created by a Jew named Alfred Rosenberg so we should assume that the Jews created the Nazi party, and that they were secretly influencing it all throughout the war.

This video shows a television news report from a few decades ago that describe how the Nazis were helping the Jews to create a homeland for themselves, and it is followed by a video by a man who looks like Eustace Mullins explaining how the Zionist Jews were working with the Nazis and Hitler. Historians, and Jews, have given us such a distorted view of history that we don't know how much of what Mullins is saying is the truth.

The words Ashkenaz and Ashkenazi originally referred to the Jews living in the Scythian region of Asia, but sometime around the 11th century the Jews began referring to the Jews living in Germany as "Ashkenazi Jews".

The small group that Hitler was a member of changed its name the "Nazi" in 1920, and it is possible that some Ashkenazi Jew convinced the members to use that name because Ashkenazi Jews were infiltrating and influencing it. Or perhaps Eustace Mullins is correct that the word Nazi was created from the first two letters of the two groups of people involved with it: National Socialists and Zionists.

The Nazi party supposedly vanished at the end of World War II, but the war in the Ukraine has resulted in news reports about Nazis in the Azov Brigade in the Ukraine. The Ukraine also has lots of Jews, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a Jew. Did the Nazi organization really disappear at the end of World War II? Or were Jews in the Ukraine, and other areas of the world, continuing to support it?

There have been accusations that Hitler had Jewish ancestors since at least 1933, and a recent DNA analysis suggests that the accusation is true. If historians could give us accurate analyses of history, we might discover that the Nazi party is just another Jewish deception.

In addition to censoring art, every citizen, organization, and society wants to censor a lot of other culture. For example, everybody wants to censor clothing:

•	Each of us tries to control the clothing styles of our family members and friends, such as by making insulting remarks, glares, or noises if we disapprove of their clothing, or their lack of clothing.
•	Most businesses, orchestras, sports groups, and other organizations, restrict the clothing freedom of their members, and some restaurants and social clubs restrict the clothing freedom of their customers.
•	The US government prohibits nudity in public areas, and requires women to hide the breast-feeding of babies.

Every person is also trying to censor the foods we eat. For example, almost every person opposes the eating of human meat, and many Americans are trying to stop people from eating cats, dogs, and horses. Some fanatical vegans are trying to stop us from eating all types of meat.

The most extreme censorship is in regards to sexual and health issues, such as digestion, sex, childbirth, masturbation, autopsies, and breast-feeding. The censorship is so extreme that schools cannot provide children with a proper education about these issues.

However, the abnormal sexual behavior on television programs, fiction books, and Hollywood movies are acceptable for children. There is also no demand that YouTube and other businesses censor the obnoxious sexual jokes that men frequently make, such as "camel toes" and "that's what she said".

Until the past century or so, breast-feeding was regarded as such a normal and natural part of life that nobody complained that many of the paintings of Jesus were of his mother breast-feeding him. Our ancestors also had no problem with statues of naked people.

Today, however, there is so much censorship of sexual issues that it is possible that only a tiny fraction of the human population today knows whether male birds have a penis. The television documentaries occasionally show birds mating, but they don't explain how they do it with all those feathers covering themselves.

Although we don't need to know how birds mate, the point is that every culture today has such extreme sexual inhibitions that we are denying ourselves knowledge about the world we live in.

The censorship of sexual issues in our modern era is not an advancement in human culture. It is not improving our lives or our relationships. Rather, it is creating ignorance about sexual issues; causing many men to develop obnoxious obsessions with women's breasts and vaginas; and results in a lot of men making lewd sexual remarks and jokes.

The same idiotic situation occurs with violence. Specifically, YouTube and television companies are censoring autopsies, many medical surgeries, and photos and videos of injured and dead bodies in accidents, wars, and murders. However, there is no censorship of the bizarre and abnormal violence in television programs, fiction books, video games, Hollywood movies, or Halloween displays.

Everybody is promoting censorship, but everybody promotes irrational and idiotic censorship because they are creating policies according to their emotional desires and fears, and according to what they have become accustomed to, and according to their peer group. In order to provide ourselves with better censorship, this Constitution puts the government in control of censorship, and the officials must explain their policies so that we can pass judgment on whether their policies are beneficial or idiotic.

A lot of people want to censor the images created by the AI text-to-image software. As with the censorship of child pornography, the people who want to censor the AI software boast that they want to protect us from "undesirable" images. They do not realize that they are behaving like Nazis when they censor art.

The people who are promoting censorship of AI images are more examples of the hypocrisy of people who boast about support freedom. They are also examples of people who refuse to make humans responsible for their behavior, and who shift the responsibility to something else, such as computer software.

This constitution prohibits the text-to-image software from censoring images. Instead, every person is responsible for his images, regardless of whether a person creates an image with a pencil, a paintbrush, his penis, a 3d printer, a CNC laser, Adobe Photoshop, Corel PhotoPaint, or Dall-E.

Every existing culture allows us to avoid responsibility for what we do by allowing us to blame an inanimate object, a concept, or somebody else. However, this Constitution requires each person to be responsible for what he does.

Designing the AI software to censor images is as stupid as designing the software that controls the 3D printers to censor the items that people make with them. It would also be stupid to design cell phone software to censor our conversations in order to prevent us from spreading Holocaust Denial, hate speech, sexism, or conspiracy theories.

It is idiotic to expect computer software to control or improve human behavior. It is better to raise the standards for people and restrict reproduction to the better behaved people.

Every person and organization wants to censor whatever they dislike. The people who boast that they support freedom and oppose censorship are either ignorant about this concept, or they don't have the intellectual and/or emotional ability to understand and/or acknowledge it.

Instead of insulting the people who advocate censorship, we should discuss what type of censorship is most beneficial. For example, do children benefit by the censorship of information about human health, childbirth, and sex? Or is it more beneficial to censor information about ghosts, the flat earth theory, astrology, or clairvoyance?

If we could get honest historical information about the Nazis, we might conclude that they were doing less censorship than Google, Facebook, the Wikipedia, ABC, CNN, and many other organizations. We might even wonder if we would have a more pleasant world today if they had won the war.

For example, would the Nazis have fired James Damore for promoting the concept that that men and women have different mental characteristics? Would their text-to-image software censor as many images as it is doing today? Would the Nazis censor or arrest people for Holocaust Denial or Climate Change denial?

The people who boast about opposing censorship are hypocrites who want freedom for themselves, but want to restrict everybody else's freedom. It is dangerous to put people like that into leadership positions because they will impose their particular ideas of censorship while boasting that they oppose censorship.

The most extreme example of hypocrisy comes from the Jews who insult the Nazis for censorship, but who want to censor discussions and investigations of historical events such as the Holocaust and Anne Frank's diary. And the Jews who want to arrest people for such investigations are even more hypocritical.

The people who promote hypocritical concepts are dangerous because they condemn other people for what they do. They promote the attitude of "do what I tell you, not what I do". They want special treatment. They do not treat us as their equals.

Furthermore, we cannot be certain whether a person's hypocrisy is due to his ignorance, low intelligence, emotional problems, or because he is deliberately trying to exploit or abuse us.

When we allow hypocrites to get into leadership positions of our government, we create a government that violates its own laws, and will not tolerate criticism or discussions about their policies. This problem can be seen all throughout history, including today. For some examples:

•	Some religious fanatics boast about supporting freedom of speech and freedom of religion while at the same time pushing their religion on everybody, and sometimes sending missionaries through our neighborhoods, and to other nations, to push their religion. If a government were to send missionaries through neighborhoods and nations to push evolution, atheism, or a particular religion, a lot of religious fanatics would whine that the government is oppressive and trying to control us. The atheists allow people to be religious, but a lot of religious people try to stop people from becoming atheists, and from following "incorrect" religions. It is the religious people who are the most oppressive, not the atheists.
•	There are vegans who boast about supporting freedom while at the same time trying to eliminate our freedom to eat meat. If a government required everybody to eat meat, or required everybody to be a vegan, the vegans would complain that the government is oppressive and denying us our freedom to choose our meals. The people who eat meat are willing to provide people with the freedom to be vegans, but some of the vegans will not give people the freedom to choose their meals. It is the vegans who are the most oppressive, not the people who eat meat.
•	Some conservatives boast that they support freedom and oppose murder, but they refuse to provide people with the freedom to have assisted suicide and abortions. Some of them go even further and want to arrest or execute the people who provide abortions and assisted suicide. Imagine their response to a government that arrested or executed the people who opposed abortion and assisted suicide.

Is this clothing acceptable?

Instead of boasting that we oppose censorship and support freedom, we should discuss what type of information, clothing, foods, and other culture should be censored, and what sort of freedoms we should have.

Should men have the freedom to wear the type of bathing suit in the photo to the right? Should we have the freedom to be naked at public swimming areas or parks? Should we be free to discuss the theory that men and women have mental differences? Should women have the freedom to breast-feed their babies without hiding their bodies?

Should we have the freedom to eat the meat from humans, horses, dogs, or cows? Should government officials have the freedom to put a statue of balls of poop in a public area? Should we have the freedom to accuse other people of white privilege, anti-Semitism, racism, or sexism? Or should those accusations be censored from public documents on the grounds that they are variations of slander?

The ancient Egyptian pharaohs have been accused of destroying some of the information that previous pharaohs had inscribed into rocks, and the Jews are censoring information about the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, and thousands of other events.

Allowing people to censor historical information allows them to manipulate our understanding of history and human behavior. However, we cannot give people the freedom to say whatever they please about history because that will also give them the opportunity to manipulate our understanding of history.

For example, in August 1917, a magazine in New York City, The Independent, published an article about World War I that describes it as a "Great War". Journalists have been repeating that phrase ever since, causing millions of Americans to believe that the war truly was a "Great War".

This constitution regards that article as Zionist propaganda, rather than news. Describing a war as "great" is as deceptive as describing some murders, rapes, or kidnappings as "great".

The Jews promote the concept that the war was "great" so that people don't look critically at it and notice the evidence that Jews instigated and manipulated the war.

For example, that article was written more than a year before the war had ended, but it implies that some mysterious group of people were planning to use the war to "start the world off on a new tack" and "reorganize Europe" for the purpose of "the establishment of the new order". (Page 228, highlighted below. It is a large file in the Internet archive here.)



The next page (page 229, below) has remarks that imply that the war was anticipated and "carefully prepared for", which further implies that the war was a fraud that was instigated to manipulate Europe.

By fooling people into believing that World War I was a "Great War", they become proud of supporting the war, rather than wonder, who was "carefully preparing for" that war? What is the "new order" that they were planning to "reorganize Europe" into?

Most people want to censor child pornography, but they don't demand the censorship of lies about history. However, it is more important for us to censor deceptive information than it is to censor art because we are harmed more by deceptive information than we are by art.

By not censoring deceptive information, criminals, government officials, charities, Jews, and everybody else, including children, can try to manipulate our opinions with inaccurate and false information. Everybody is free to create deceptive news reports, school books, historical documents, Wikipedia articles, and other information.

Freedom is a much more complicated issue than it appears. A lot of people boast about supporting freedom, but almost everybody routinely censors and suppresses people and information that they dislike, and some people advocate the arrest or execution of people who disagree with them. Most people are ignorant and hypocritical.

We cannot form a modern society if we give everybody the freedom to do whatever they please because that creates anarchy, not a united team. We must have restrictions on our freedoms. We must pass judgment on which freedoms we should have, and what sort of restrictions we should have.

We must design our freedoms according to what will provide us with the most pleasant life, not according to what our emotions want. We must consider how our freedoms affect society and the future generations.

The people who claim that it is impossible for a government to define "art" are lacking the intellectual abilities to understand that we can and should give it a definition. We can define "art" as anything that a person wants to use as a decoration, and we can determine whether an object classifies as a "art" by putting it into different environments, and noticing whether people want to use it as a decoration.

For example, if Marina Abramovic's sculpture, Balkan Baroque, were put on a city sidewalk, or into somebody's home, people would complain that a butcher dumped a pile of bones on the sidewalk or their home.

Likewise, if most of the modern art paintings were placed in a pile of trash on a sidewalk, the people walking by would not recognize the items as art. Rather, they would regard it as trash, and they would be annoyed that people are leaving trash along the sidewalk.

However, there are some paintings that people would remove from the trash and take to their home or office to use as a decoration.

How many people would take modern art home?		More people would take this image home.

Items that are indistinguishable from trash are not "art". Therefore, we could define art as anything that perhaps 20% of the "mentally healthy" people would remove from the trash and use as a decoration for their home or city.

Every culture promotes the censorship of a tremendous amount of medical and health issues, such as autopsies, surgical procedures, sexual information, childbirth, breast-feeding, and digestive systems.

Every culture censors that information because every culture has evolved to appease our emotional desires and fears, not because somebody has analyzed the effect the information has on us, and has found evidence that the information is harmful.

The television program, Dr. G: Medical Examiner, (the tubi site has these episodes for free, at least as of May 2024), is about a woman who performs autopsies, but every aspect of the autopsy is censored. Furthermore, the program repeatedly displays the message:

Who is harmed by allowing the public to watch an autopsy? How are "individuals and their families" protected by the censorship?

Many medical students are allowed to watch autopsies, and there is no evidence that those students were damaged as a result. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any of the family members of the people who were autopsied suffered.

The Philadelphia Police Department posted this video of a crime, but the video was restricted to people who have an account with YouTube and have signed in to confirm that they are "old enough" to watch the video.

This constitution agrees with all other cultures that children are different from adults, and that we must protect children from certain information, but this constitution does not believe that we are protecting children when we censor the video of real crimes while entertaining them with cartoons, movies, fiction books, Halloween costumes, and ghost stories that contain more violence, and violence that is more psychotic, cruel, and unrealistic, than the real crimes.

Every culture is censoring information according to our emotional feelings, rather than according to what makes intellectual sense. This is denying people a lot of important information about human bodies, medicine, sex, and other issues, while giving people unrealistic ideas about car crashes, guns, knives, and other devices.

For example, the unrealistic Hollywood violence creates the impression that a person will die instantly when shot with a gun or hit over the head with an object, but if people could see real crimes, they would notice that some policemen have been killed as a result of shooting somebody but not ensuring that they were dead, and the person they shot ended up killing the policeman. There have also been people who have been hit over the head, but instead of collapsing to the floor, they turned around and attacked the person who hit them.

Every culture allows information to be censored by claiming that the censorship is protecting somebody, or protecting the nation, but nobody is required to provide a sensible explanation of who is protected by the censorship, or how the censorship protects them.

This freedom is especially useful for the Zionist organizations. It allows them to routinely cover up their crimes and their disgusting behavior by boasting that they are protecting us from Nazis, anti-Semites, white supremacists, and Holocaust deniers.

The US government officials also takes advantage of this freedom by censoring information about the JFK assassination, and many other crimes, by boasting that they are protecting "national security".

This constitution prohibits the censoring of information, unless somebody can show evidence that the censorship will truly protect society. They must be able to show that providing the public with the information will degrade society in some manner, and that the censorship will improve society.

Unfortunately, the censorship issue is more complicated than it seems. Specifically, there is a lot of information that should have restrictions on it, which could be described as a "restricted censorship". For some examples:

To summarize this concept, the government is permitted to put restrictions on information, but they can do so only if they can provide evidence that the restrictions will provide more benefits to society than disadvantages. The cannot censor information to appease individual citizens, government officials, or organizations.

When a minister decides to put restrictions on certain information, he must post a document in the Explanations category to explain his reasoning so that we can pass judgment on whether they are making intelligent decisions. He is held accountable for his decisions.