Businesses are cautious about accepting people into their team. In addition to putting potential employees through interviews and background checks, many businesses put the new employees on a probation period for 30 to 90 days, and all businesses evict members who are troublesome or parasitic.

The militaries are even more cautious. Instead of putting new members on probation, they put them through an intense and difficult training program. Even more significant, instead of trying to ensure that everybody graduates from the training program, the military expects a certain percentage to quit the program or be evicted from the program. The military also evicts the people who cannot fit in, and centuries ago they would kill the deserters and traitors.

The military designs training programs to provide the graduates with useful skills. The people who fail the course don't have the skills that the military wants, so the military doesn't want those people.

The public and private schools have a different attitude because schools are in competition with one another to attract students, so they want to please parents and students. Unfortunately, parents and students want the schools to provide diplomas and good grades, not useful skills, or prepare the students for life as an adult.

As a result, the schools want every student to graduate, so they have created lots of useless courses to allow students to get good grades and diplomas. There is also no concern for whether the information that the students are learning is accurate or useful, so a lot of what the students are taught, especially about history, is nonsense or propaganda.

Schools have some of the lowest standards for their members and students. For example, the students who are failures in school are repeatedly tormented with bad grades, rather than evicted from the school and sent to school that fits their particular mental characteristics. The students who don't go to school are regarded as truants, and they are forced to go to school. The students who fail to graduate are often allowed to stay in the school another year or more and try again. Schools also allow students to have such serious physical and mental disorders that they are routinely bullied by the other children. Students have to be extremely troublesome in order to be evicted from a school.

A family is a team of people, so it is essentially a tiny business, or a tiny military. The concepts that apply to businesses and militaries apply to families, also. For example, a family will become a more productive and pleasant team if they restrict their members to those who fit into the team. However, no culture encourages parents to pass judgment on their children and evict those that they don't want in their team.

All states in the USA have a Safe Haven law that allows parents to give their unwanted baby to the government, but each state limits parents to doing this within 3 to 30 days of the child's birth.

Nebraska had initially allowed parents to do that with children up to the age of 18, but after some parents gave the Nebraska government some older children, the Nebraska government decided that they didn't want to deal with unwanted, older children, so they quickly altered the law to restrict parents to babies less than 30 days old.

Obviously, there are parents who want to get rid of older children, but no culture is providing them with that option. None of the governments want to deal with unwanted, older children, and so government officials around the world are doing what they typically do with unpleasant problems; they ignore the problem.

As a result, parents are under pressure to keep their unwanted children, no matter how irritating those children are. This results in some parents suffering constant abuse from one or more of their children, and some parents become so frustrated and angry with a child that they attack or kill him.

Not many parents use the Safe Haven option, perhaps because most people don't know about it since the school system doesn't provide any education about marriage or raising children. Most people are aware of adoption agencies, so there are about 150,000 adoptions each year in the USA. That is enough unwanted children to fill a large city every year. The entire population of London was less than that until 1560.

Our prehistoric ancestors had the freedom to kill and abandon their unwanted children, but they probably did not do either very often because most of their children were dying as a result of nature.

Today we use modern technology to prevent nature from killing children, so we must pass judgment on which of our children should live, and which should be euthanized. However, we would create a miserable social environment if parents had to make such decisions and do the killings, so we need to create a government agency to pass judgment on the children, and perform the killings.

No culture cares whether a child is suffering from mental or physical disorders, or whether a child will be able to get a job, follow the rules of society, or form stable relationships.

There is so little concern about the quality of a child's mind or body that every culture encourages the adoption of the unwanted and defective children of drug addicts, alcoholics, idiots, lunatics, and criminals.

We are using our technology to interfere with nature, and that requires that us to take care of our gene pool, but most adults are either too stupid or ignorant to understand that concept, or they are emotionally unable to accept it.

In order to improve this situation, this Constitution promotes the attitude that children belong to the world, and that they are not the personal possessions of parents.

As described in other documents, modern technology allows a child to influence everybody in the world, and the future generations, so we must restrict the children to those who will be beneficial influences on the world.

Parents do not have the right to raise children who are criminals or parasites, or who ruin our social environment with hatred, pouting, whining, envy, vandalism, or revenge. Instead, everybody has the right to live among people that they can trust and who will contribute to the team.

Parents regard their children as wonderful creatures, but half of them are below-average in their mental and physical characteristics, and a smaller percentage of them are significantly inferior to the rest of the children.

The Reproduction document pointed out that the Australian government created the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to prohibit the Australian people from breeding animals with genetic defects. Most adults consider a person to be cruel if they breed defective dogs, cats, birds, or other animals. However, nobody cares if genetically defective humans give birth to defective children. We have such intense cravings to protect and take care of children that we regard all children as "precious, bundles of joy".

If a business were breeding dogs that were as defective as a human children, the government would shut them down for "animal cruelty". Furthermore, if any business were to try to fix the violent dogs with jail and other types of punishments, they would be considered insane and cruel.

Humans are just another species of animal, but most people are either too stupid to understand that, or emotionally unable to acknowledge it. As a result, every culture refuses to believe that breeding defective humans is just as cruel as breeding defective animals. Furthermore, every culture refuses to believe that trying to fix the violent and defective humans with punishments is just as insane, worthless, and cruel as it is with animals.

Almost every adult realizes that if we allow genetically defective cows, dogs, or chickens to reproduce, they are likely to produce babies that have inferior characteristics, but every culture is refusing to believe that this concept applies to humans. As a result, the children of criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts, idiots, and retards are considered just as precious as those of the healthy people.

Almost everybody who decides to get a pet animal looks for an animal that is healthy, and some people go even further and want to know the genetic history of the animal. However, no culture applies this concept to people. Very few people care about the genetic history of their family or the family of their spouse.

Likewise, not many people who decide to adopt children care about the genetic history of the children. Most people believe that the child of a criminal, alcoholic, drug addict, idiot, and retard is just as precious as every other child. However, most of the adopted children are coming from the genetically inferior adults, and this is resulting in people adopting the genetic trash of the human race.

By not caring about the genetic quality of children, we allow defective children to become defective adults, and this increases the problems with crime, alcoholism, gambling, loneliness, divorce, obnoxious adults, pedophilia, religion, and obesity. It also increases the number of people who have such abnormal cravings for wealth and fame that they are willing to join crime networks.

This constitution promotes the attitude that humans follow exactly the same rules as animals, and that we need a “Prevention of Cruelty of Humans Act”. The Reproduction Ministry is responsible for passing judgment on which humans show the genetic characteristics that we want in the next generation, and the other adults are prohibited from reproducing, or have limits on how many children they can have.

Furthermore, the only children that are offered for adoption are those who have parents with good genetic characteristics. If a couple that has limits on reproduction were to accidentally get pregnant with an unauthorized child, the child must be euthanized. They cannot give it up for adoption.

By restricting reproduction to the people with better genetic characteristics, we will reduce crime, alcoholism, loneliness, divorce, pedophilia, temper tantrums, pouting, migraine headaches, diabetes, and all other problems. We will increase the number of people who enjoy themselves and life.

People have been successfully breeding animals and plants for thousands of years, and we can be just as successful at improving the human race. The reproduction document has more information.

Many of the people who oppose euthanasia and restrictions on reproduction are hypocrites. For example, Ed Henkler wrote this document to justify raising children who are blind. One of his remarks is:


That remark creates the impression that he would enjoy raising a blind child because he would be "more rewarding" than normal children. However, when his wife gave birth to a daughter, he was very upset when he discovered she had a problem. He wrote:


If it was true that raising defective children was more rewarding than raising healthy children, then he would not have cared whether his daughter was healthy or defective. He is a hypocrite. He promotes the raising of defective children, but he does not want to raise a defective child. That is why he wrote "happily for us", and why his "initial feeling" was of horror and sadness rather than pleasure.

People who refuse to care for the unwanted, criminal, and retarded people are dumping trash into their neighbor's yard.

Ed Henkler is one of many people who promote the raising defective children, but who are terrified of the thought that they might have a defective child. They want other people to raise the defective children.

The people who oppose abortions have the same attitude. They want to be heroes who save the babies from death, but they don't want to be responsible for what happens to the unwanted or retarded babies that they save. They want somebody else to deal with that problem. They are dumping the unwanted children into their neighbor's yard.

The people who want to punish criminals have this same attitude. Specifically, they want to punish criminals in jail, but they don't want to be responsible for what happens to those criminals after they are released from jail. They don't want to help the criminals find friends, a job, or a place to live. They don't want the criminals to live in their neighborhood or marry their children. They want to dump the criminals into somebody else's neighborhood.

It was sensible for prehistoric people to let everybody reproduce and help every child to survive because it gave everybody an opportunity to compete in the battle for life. Today, however, we prevent nature from eliminating the inferior people, so we must decide who lives and reproduces.

There is a very important reason that male and female animals are finicky about who they reproduce with, and why the male animals fight with one another for females. The reason is because even subtle differences in genetic characteristics can determine which group of animals survives their competition for life.

Every male animal that survives to adulthood is an excellent physical and mental health, but they are not equal to one another. If they were genetically equal, it would not matter which of them reproduced.

People today must understand why male animals fight for females.

Another reason that the animals are so finicky about which of them reproduces is because they have a smaller pool of genetic characteristics. The animals that live in small groups have incestuous relationships, so they do a lot of "inbreeding".

Many people believe that incest causes retardation, but that is false. Incest limits the genetic variations of the children, which limits their ability to adapt to changes in the environment, which reduces the rate at which they evolve. However, if a group of incestuous people or other animals is put into a deadly battle for life, and if the males and females must battle for a mate, incest will not cause retardation.

Retardation is the result of unrestricted reproduction, not incest. An example is the Habsburg jaw. Their ugly jaw was not the result of inbreeding. Rather, it was because they were not restricting their reproduction. If they had restricted reproduction to the members who had the least ugly jaw, then they would have eliminated that genetic characteristic.

Some people believe that if one parent carries a bad gene, they can dilute it with a spouse who has good genes. Although it's true that an undesirable gene will vanish if it is not passed along in the particular sperm or egg that creates a child, the concept of diluting bad genes is as idiotic as somebody who believes that by adding some clean water into a bucket of sewage, he can provide himself with safe drinking water.

It is better for us to drink sewage that has been diluted with clean water than to drink undiluted sewage, but it is more sensible to drink clean water.

The American people are diluting bad genes more than any other nation because we are a mixture of almost every race, and we have an enormous variety of mental and physical defects. Therefore, if diluting bad genes got rid of them, then the American people should be eliminating bad genes faster than other nations, and we should be evolving into more advanced, healthy, and intelligent people at a faster rate than everybody else, but there is more evidence that the Americans are degrading into retards faster than everybody else.

Every characteristic that we see in living creatures developed for an important reason. The only exception are the characteristics that developed for sexual selection, such as the large nose of a proboscis monkey.

Every male and female animal that survives to adulthood has excellent genetic characteristics, but male and female animals are finicky about who they reproduce with, and there is a very important reason for it: diluting bad genes is not an effective method of eliminating them.

The animals had the least concern about who they reproduced with became more defective than the other animals, and they were the least likely to survive the battle for life. The animals that dominated were those that were very finicky about who they reproduced with.

Likewise, the farmers who were the successful with the breeding of animals and plants were finicky about which creatures they selected for the next generation. They did not follow a policy of diluting bad genes.

The people who believe that it's sensible to dilute bad genes must be regarded as intellectually and/or emotionally unfit for this modern world. They are either too stupid to understand these concepts, or they are emotionally unable to acknowledge them.

My mother's mother developed joint problems and arthritis as she grew older, but none of my other three grandparents had any noticeable joint problems. All four of my grandparents came from different areas of Europe, but diluting their genes did not eliminate the bad genes. Instead, my mother and two of her sisters developed arthritis and joint problems as they grew older. My mother has had both hips and both knees replaced, and her sisters have had some of their hips and knees replaced, also. One of my mother's sisters had spinal fusion in both the cervical and lumbar areas when she was in her late 70s.

My father's family doesn't have any problems with joints, but rather than dilute and eliminate the bad joint genes that my mother has, my sister and one brother recently had a artificial hip, and in January 2024, after moving some heavy logs in my yard, I was feeling some discomfort and in my left hip. An x-ray of my left hip showed that I have plenty of cartilage, but that arthritis is starting to develop. I used a cell phone to take pictures of the x-ray monitor, so they are not high quality, but here are four images:
I cannot see the arthritis. We need some AI software to analyze x-ray photos for us.

I suppose I inherited arthritis from my grandmother. It is also possible that I caused some problems for my hip by trying to keep my feet parallel.

If my relatives had been inbreeding with one another, people would claim that our joint problems were the result of inbreeding, but they were not inbreeding, and all four of my grandparents were from different nations in Europe.

The theory that we can eliminate defective genes by diluting them with good genes is nonsensical. Even if a particular defective gene does not get passed down to a child, there are thousands of defective genes in the human gene pool, so avoiding one defective gene will not stop a child from picking up some other defective genes.

The only sensible policy to follow is the policy followed by nature and farmers. Specifically, to restrict reproduction to the people who have the fewest mental and physical disorders.

For another example of how diluting bad genes is worthless, my mother's father had one baby tooth that was never replaced with an adult tooth and his wife had all of her adult teeth. However, my mother inherited the problem of a baby tooth that was never replaced, so diluting his genes did not solve the problem. Likewise, my father had all of his adult teeth, but my sister had a baby tooth that was never replaced, so that was another example of how diluting bad genes did not solve the problem.

Only one of my four grandparents' families had a problem with baldness, but diluting those baldness genes did not prevent me from becoming bald, and at an early age (in my 20s). Likewise, a lot of other bald men had fathers or grandfathers with hair, but that didn't stop them from becoming bald.

As I pointed out in several documents, the less we know, the more we think we know. When people first started discovering the concept of genes, they assumed that genes followed a very orderly set of rules, similar to a game of checkers, in which one gene dominates the other, but life is never as simple as our mind assumes. Everything is more complex.

Genes are just molecules, and they have no intelligence. They follow the laws of chemistry and physics, not the concepts that the human mind considers to be sensible.

For example, a brown eyed man in the blue-eyed woman will not necessarily produce a child who has eyes that are a blend of those two colors. Our genes do not mix together like colored paints, and they are not like militaries in which one conquers the other.

The truth is that nobody truly understands what happens when a sperm and egg come together. We have no idea which genes will be expressed and which will be ignored. The people who claim to know such details are simply too arrogant and/or ignorant to realize that they don't understand much about the issue.

We do not even know for certain if genes are dominant or recessive. For example, the reason some people have freckles could be because they have a mixture of genes, and that neither of them becomes dominant. They might have genes from their mother to promote dark skin, and genes from their father that promote light skin, but instead of mixing together like colored paints and giving them skin of a light brown color, some of the dark pigment genes create patches of dark skin, and other genes create patches of light skin.

Likewise, the people who have teeth that are so overcrowded that they are pushing one another into abnormal positions may have some genes for a large jaw, and other genes for a small jaw, but instead of having their teeth and jaw become a sensible compromise, they end up with a jaw and teeth that don't match well, resulting in gaps between the teeth or teeth that are overcrowded.

Another interesting aspect of animals is that we are not perfectly symmetrical between left and right. This is most noticeable when we take a photograph of somebody's face and mirror the right or left side.

In my case, I'm developing arthritis on my left side. For example, my little pinky finger has a knuckle that has swollen a bit, and my thumb has a lump developing in it. Neither of those joints cause any pain, unless I push on them in a certain manner, but I don't have such problems on my right hand.

Why are we not symmetrical? It is possible that our genes design us to be perfectly symmetrical, but that as we develop, the genes don't always do what they're supposed to do since they are mindless molecules, and we have genes that conflict with one another.

To complicate the issue of bad genetics, some of the physical and mental problems that we are suffering from are not truly "genetic defects". For example, after the age of about 50, most people need reading glasses because their eyes lose their ability to focus on close objects. That would be a "genetic defect" if it happened to a teenager, but it is not a defect when it happens to people over 50. The reason is because humans did not evolve to live beyond the age of 50. Therefore, everything that happens to us after the age of 50 is simply due to the result of living beyond what we were designed for.

This concept also applies to material items. For example, if a refrigerator is designed to survive for 20 years, and if the motor fails when it is 25 years old, that is not because the motor is "defective". It is because the refrigerator was used beyond the age that it was designed for.

Likewise, it is not a genetic defect that women over a certain age cannot get pregnant, or that we develop gray hair when we are beyond age 50, or that we develop heart problems in our old age.

Now that we are using technology to survive for several decades beyond what we were designed for, everybody over age 50 is going to suffer from problems that our prehistoric ancestors rarely experienced, such as cataracts, bad joints, and a brain that deteriorates.

Hip and knee replacements are estimated to increase from 2020 to 2040.

Furthermore, these old age problems are going to increase in every generation because we are doing nothing to stop the genetic defects from accumulating. These old age problems will also occur at an increasingly earlier age.

The graph to the right is one of the estimates of how hip and knee replacement surgeries will increase in the USA, but there is no concern about this. Rather, businesses regard this as a profit opportunity.

We cannot reduce these problems by diluting our low-quality genetic characteristics. We need to restrict reproduction, and we must consider the genetics of our grandparents and great-grandparents. This will be emotionally traumatic because many teenagers will appear to be in perfect health, and they will not want to be told that they cannot have babies because their grandparents developed Parkinson's or dementia at an unusually early age.

In order to improve the future generations, we must stop worrying about hurting people's feelings. We must be concerned about the quality of everybody's life, rather than concerned with helping people to satisfy their craving for babies. The people who are prohibited from reproducing can adopt children from people with higher-quality genetics.

Once we start restricting reproduction, the people hundreds of generations later will become elderly without needing reading glasses, and without waking up in the middle of the night to pee, and without suffering from arthritis. Even more important, their brains will not have deteriorated as much, giving them a much higher quality life. If we could be born into that era, we would be thankful that our ancestors had been restricting reproduction all those centuries.

The elderly people need a lot of medical treatment, and they will become an increasingly large burden on us as more people live beyond the age of 70, so we should put more effort into developing robots to assist with and perform the medical treatments that they need, and assist them in their homes.

Surgical robots are more beneficial than entertainment projects.

There are some people developing robots with snake-like arms, some for medical purposes, but in a free enterprise system, and in a democracy, there is not much support for those type of projects.

This constitution also recommends putting less into the entertainment products and more resources into developing robots for medical purposes, such as surgery.

Surgical robots would also benefit from software that converts CT or MRI scans into a 3d mesh of our body and skeleton, and software to create CNC programs for the robots.

Robots can use tools that are much smaller than what is practical for people, and they can work more precisely, and without fatigue. They will eventually be able to repair joints, and other types of surgical operations, with much less damage to muscles, ligaments, nerves, and blood vessels.

The snake-like robot arms might eventually be able to do appendectomies by traveling through our colon and large intestine. The snakelike robots should also be able to perform much safer abortions, and they might eventually even be able to travel through arteries to clean the arteries or perform maintenance on our heart.

As people live longer, there will be more people needing surgery to deal with arthritis, cartilage problems, appendicitis, cataracts, and other medical issues, but surgical operations are difficult for people to learn, and they are risky, so we should put more effort into developing machines to assist us.

The surgical robots will require a lot of engineering and computer programming talent, but we could find that talent by taking it away from activities that are less important to us, such as video games, Hollywood special effects, pet products, gambling machines, cosmetics, and the development of private jets. The surgical robots also need practice, and criminals would be useful for that.

Of course, we have different ideas on which projects are "less important". To some people, pet products are more important than surgical robots. With this Constitution, the ministers will determine what is the most important to us, and the ministers will ignore what the public wants and do what they think is most beneficial for the City Elders.

Another reason some people justify allowing people with genetic disorders to reproduce is that there are lots of parents with a genetic disorder, but their children do not have the disorder. This is a variation of the fantasy that we can eliminate bad genes by diluting them with good genes.

Children are never identical copies of their parents. Sometimes a child will have a greater visual resemblance to a grandparent, or inherit a bad gene from one of his great-grandparents.

By not having any concern about the quality of a human life, and allowing everybody to reproduce regardless of their genetic characteristics, every generation has a larger percentage of people who have a miserable life.

I have been able to improve my life tremendously by adjusting my diet, and especially by taking thyroid hormones, but it is only an improvement. It doesn't fix whatever my problems are.

I consider my genetic disorders to be so serious that people like me should not reproduce, but my problems seem insignificant compared to what most of the population is suffering from. Although most people have bodies that are better than mine, I would not want to have their minds.

Most of us don't notice how many people are suffering because many of the miserable people spend a lot of their life inside their home, a mental hospital, or a jail.

Furthermore, many people with serious mental disorders look like ordinary people, so we are oblivious to their suffering until we watch a documentary about their lives. For example, this documentary shows four people with OCD who look like normal people but are suffering every day, and cannot fit into society. I think their problems are much worse than mine.

People who oppose abortion, euthanasia, and restrictions on reproduction boast that they are wonderful people, but they are the primary reason that every generation has more alcoholism, obesity, suicide, OCD, bipolar disorders, crime, corruption, drug addiction,  loneliness,  allergies, unemployment, and other problems. They are causing the human race to degrade into miserable freaks. They are behaving like animals that reproduce simply to titillate their cravings for sex and babies.

This constitution recommends a probation period of four years, but with our current technology and knowledge, that is not enough time to identify some serious genetic problems. For example, the people in the OCD documentary were not diagnosed with the problem until they were much older than four years. Muscular dystrophy and Parkinson's also usually develops much later in life.

In order to reduce those type of problems, the people who develop them must be prohibited from reproducing, and if they have already reproduced, then their children must be prohibited from reproducing.

The Death Ministry provides assisted suicide services, but not many people are likely to choose that option because we have such a strong desire to live. Furthermore, as a person's brain deteriorates from concussions, cancer, old age, or disease, he will have less concern for the quality of his life, so he will be even less likely to request assisted suicide.

Since no culture cares about the quality of anybody's life, an increasingly large percentage of the population, including children, is being kept alive in hospitals and nursing homes. They suffer every day, and are exploited by businesses, religions, and criminals.

The Euthanasia document pointed out that the Death Ministry has the authority to determine when an elderly person should be euthanized, but they can euthanize a person at any age.

The Death Ministry is responsible for making a decision about when a person, including a child, should be considered so hopeless and miserable that he should be euthanized.

This policy will prevent the situation that is occurring in all nations today; namley, children and adults who are merely existing from one day to the next in hospitals and nursing homes.

Children belong to the human race, not to the parents, so the Death Ministry determines which of the children are permitted to live and which are to die. They must post a document in the Explanations category to explain their euthanasia decisions.

If we can make sensible decisions about restricting reproduction, every generation will have higher quality minds and bodies, and less crime, divorce, loneliness, unemployment, mental illness, and other problems.

If our ancestors had been restricting reproduction during the past few thousand years, many of the problems that they suffered from would not have occurred. An example are witches.

During the Middle Ages, the Europeans killed hundreds or thousands of witches, but historians misinterpret those killings by encouraging pity for the people who were accused of being a witch. Although it was sad that those people were tormented and sometimes executed, encouraging pity for them is as idiotic as encouraging pity for an antelope that is caught by a lion. Historians need to keep their emotions under control and treat humans in the same manner that we treat animals.

A more sensible explanation of the witches is that they were similar to the Africans who were sold as slaves, and the children who are bullied in school. Specifically, they were defective people who were disliked or feared.

Ever since nomadic people settled into agricultural cities, every generation had an increasingly wider range of mental and physical characteristics and disorders, which in turn resulted in every generation having more people who had trouble taking care of themselves and forming stable relationships. The witches were not a random sample of the population. They were the misfits who had bizarre behavior.

If the people who had been accused of being witches had been born in a prehistoric tribe, many of them would have died at a young age, but during the Middle Ages, a lot of the misfits could survive through begging, prostitution, churches, palm reading, crime, and healing the sick with herbs and prayers.

By the Middle Ages, the low-quality and defective people had been reproducing so much that they were having a detrimental effect on society, such as giving tremendous support to religion, witchcraft, and monarchies. They had also created a large peasant class that was barely surviving.

Not many people believe in witchcraft today, but the world now has so many low-quality people that religion is dominating every society; many nations are still supporting political and economic monarchies; and a significant percentage of the population survives on handouts, begging, charities, churches, crime, think tanks, and nonsensical businesses.

We resist criticizing the mental characteristics of the anti-genetics people because we are in a minority. Ideally, we would work together as a team to counteract the mentally inferior people and get control of all nations, but that requires that we be able to work together, and select useful leaders for ourselves.

Since that has not yet happened, the world has become dominated by religious fanatics, pedophile networks, Zionist Jews, communists, Freudian psychologists, and other low-quality people.

The execution of witches was not due to "ignorance". Rather, it was the result of defective human minds. Specifically:

1)		The misfits whose behavior was so abnormal that other people disliked or feared them. Some of those misfits believed in witches, and some of them believed that they were witches, or that they had magic powers.
2)		People who believe that God needs them to kill people should be regarded as mentally defective and dangerous. The misfits who could not think very well and who believed that God needed their help to find and execute witches. An example of those fanatics is Matthew Hopkins, who gave himself the title of Witch Finder General. The Chronicle organization has videos about him and witches, such as this. The religious fanatics who believe that God needs humans to find and kill witches, heathens, infidels, heretics, evil people, or supporters of abortion, are a constant source of wars, fights, hatred, insults, torture, and abuse. We should not be afraid to tell them that they are suffering from significant mental disorders, and that they are destructive and dangerous.

If our ancestors had been restricting reproduction to the better quality people as soon as they settled into agricultural villages, then there would have been so few mentally defective people during the Middle Ages that there would not likely have been anybody claiming to be a witch, or accused of being a witch, or believing that God wants him to find and kill the witches.

There would also have been much less support for monarchies, organized religions, wars, gambling, alcohol, and crime networks.

Serial killers are mentally defective members of society, also, and they have a tendency to choose the mentally defective people to murder. There would be very few, if any, serial killers today if we had been restricting reproduction to higher-quality people. If there were some serial killers, they would have a difficult time finding victims because there would not be any prostitutes, homeless people, drug addicts, unwanted children, or other misfits.

Some serial killers may be the result of brain damage, (as I suggested on page 151 of my book about 9/11), but we would have fewer problems with brain damaged people if we had been restricting reproduction to better quality people. The reason is because if all of the people were higher-quality today, we would have better quality leadership.

We would not have leaders similar to those in the NFL who cover up brain damage. Instead, we would have leaders who have an attitude similar to what this Constitution requires, which is to be concerned about brain damage, and look for ways to reduce it.

Unfortunately, the people who dominate the world today don't care if we are living among brain-damaged people, homeless people, unwanted children, drug addicts, lunatics, criminals, or illegal aliens. They also don't care about the health effects of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemicals in our environment. We are dominated by people who are primarily interested in material wealth, status, pampering by servants, trust funds, inheritances, eliminating competitors, censorship, and sex.

The people who cannot understand that we must control reproduction are mentally unfit for our modern era, and they must be prohibited from influential positions. They promote policies that cause the human race to degrade into retards, and which cause parents to suffer with defective children. Those people should not be described as "intelligent", even though some of them are capable of performing above-average in math or physics.

Unfortunately, those people dominate every society, and that makes it difficult for us to describe them as mentally unfit for influential positions. We cannot improve this world until we get them out of the influential positions.

People today must meet higher standards for intellectual and emotional characteristics. We must stop tolerating people in leadership positions who ignore reality, believe in pleasant fantasies, and sweep trash into other people's yards.

This constitution requires the schools to teach children why it is important to control reproduction, and the world as of 2024 should be one of the examples of what happens when we do not control reproduction. Specifically, the world becomes dominated by people who are so physically and mentally defective that they are unable to cope with alcohol, gambling, food, drugs, money, relationships, and the evidence that a group of Jews are instigating wars, blackmailing the leaders of society, and operating pedophile networks.

One of the difficulties of being a parent is that human babies are extremely helpless for many years. Many animals can walk within hours of birth, or cling to their mothers fur, but human babies require months before they can crawl, and months more before they can walk. Human babies also frequently vomit, and they require many years before they can use a toilet or speak.

By euthanizing the babies who are the slowest to develop, we can reverse a trend that has been occurring during the past million or so years. Specifically, human babies have become increasingly helpless as a result of parents becoming increasingly intelligent.

Some people point out that Albert Einstein did not speak in complete sentences until he was nearly 5 years old. That slow development has been described as the Einstein syndrome.

If Einstein had been euthanized as a result of being slow to develop, we would have been deprived of the world's greatest plagiarist. However, that does not justify allowing babies with the Einstein syndrome to live, and if we allow those babies to live, then they should be prohibited from reproducing.

We will create a much more pleasant life for ourselves if we reverse the trend of babies becoming increasingly helpless. By euthanizing the lowest quality babies, such as those with Einstein syndrome, bad behavior, and medical problems, every generation of parents will have an easier time raising their children. Parents in the future will spend more time enjoying their children, and less time taking care of them.

Every culture has evolved to give people what they want, and what we enjoy doing, especially women, is to pout and cry when a person has died. This results in every culture wasting a lot of labor, land, and resources on funerals, and encouraging people to cry and pout for weeks or months after a death. No culture encourages people to deal with death in an intelligent manner.

The Events Minister is responsible for experimenting with more sensible funerals, but the euthanized children cannot have any type of funeral. The reason is to discourage parents from wasting their time and becoming a nuisance by crying and pouting, and to to avoid wasting labor and resources on a detrimental activity.

The children that are euthanized must be treated in the same manner as how a farmer treats a defective animal or plant. Specifically, everybody is required to accept the death as a part of the unpleasant aspect of life. The euthanized child can be used in medical research, as practice for medical students, as fertilizer for farms, or whatever other purpose that people can think of. Their bodies should not go to waste, such as filling them with formaldehyde and burying them in a coffin. We should get some use from them.

The parents who cannot react in a calm manner to the euthanasia of their child are prohibited from having more children. This will result in every generation being better able to handle euthanasia.

Every existing culture would consider a person to be disgusting if he wanted to euthanize his child, and if he remained calm when scientists used the child's body in medical experiments, but this constitution regards the people who become hysterical over such issues as having a mind that is too similar to an animal mind to belong in this modern era. Those people are prohibited from reproducing.

In this modern era, people need to acknowledge and accept the unpleasant reality that creating life is a difficult process, and that we must produce more children than we need to replace those who are dying in order to prevent genetic degradation.

I wrote about this concept years ago here, and I thought I had described it with the phrase, "We have to run to stay in the same place", but I cannot find that remark anywhere, so I will mention it here. What it means is that we we must produce more children than we need to replace ourselves in each generation in order to prevent humans from degrading into retards. And to evolve into something better requires producing even more children.

The Death Ministry has the authority and responsibility to decide whether a fetus should be aborted, not the parents. They are responsible for ensuring that the children are mentally and physically healthy, and will become productive members of the human race.

After a child is born, the Death Ministry will give all babies a probationary period of four years. During that period they will pass judgment on whether the child is likely to have a pleasant life, and become a productive member of society, and if not, they must have the baby euthanized. The probation period has been set for four years for two reasons:

1)		Children younger than four do not have the mental abilities to understand the concept that they are being observed for possible euthanasia, so it will not cause them any emotional trauma or give them miserable childhood memories. However, as we learn more about human behavior, that age limit might need to be adjusted up or down.
2)		Children younger than four do not have the mental abilities to deceive the Quality division into believing that they are high-quality babies. This is a problem that occurs with adults on a routine basis, and we need to deal with it. For two examples: – When an adult is hired by a business, he realizes that he is being judged during his probation period, and that can cause him to suppress his bad behavior during the probationary period in order to deceive the people who are observing him. That deception defeats the purpose of the probationary period. There is no value in putting an adult on probation if we allow him to know that he is on probation, or if he suspects that he is on probation. Instead of putting new employees on probation, it would be better to change our economic system so that nobody is afraid to fire an employee, and people are not terrified of being fired. By eliminating that fear, the new employees would not need probation. Instead, they would occasionally have a job performance review, and if they do not fit into the team, they would be fired. – When single men and women are looking for a spouse, they are aware that they are being judged, and that causes them to suppress their undesirable behavior in order to deceive their potential spouse into marrying them. That deception allows a lot of miserable marriages. In order to improve our marriages, we must prevent people from deceiving potential spouses. The only way to do that is to eliminate secrecy, and to experiment with courtship procedures that force people to be more honest about themselves.

Children should be euthanized according to the quality of their life, and how they will affect other people, not according to whether they will live a long life. For example, modern technology allows many people with cystic fibrosis to survive for 30 to 50 years, but that does not justify making people suffer with that problem, or making society provide health services for them.

Likewise, children who are extremely ugly will suffer in life because none of us want them as a spouse, friend, neighbor, coworker, or in-law. Therefore, the Death Ministry must euthanize the ugly babies, even though they might be healthy and live a long life.

The concept of killing a baby simply because he is ugly might seem cruel, but this constitution believes that we are more cruel when we let them live and then push them aside as if they are trash. Killing the ugly babies is preventing them from suffering from decades of low self-esteem, rejection, disappointment, and loneliness. It also spares them from looking at themselves in a mirror every day and wishing they were nice-looking.

Our natural tendency is to ignore and push aside the ugly, deformed, retarded, and defective people. In a prehistoric tribe, that would have resulted in those people dying quickly, but modern technology and welfare programs allows them to survive the isolation, and suffer for decades. We must now do what nature was doing for our prehistoric ancestors.

It is a personal opinion as to which child should be euthanized, so everybody is encouraged to post a document in the Suggestions category if they believe that the Death Ministry is making a bad decision, but everybody must acknowledge that we cannot have perfection.

The Death Ministry is responsible for making the decisions about abortion and euthanasia, but parents have a much better understanding of a child's behavior than the Death Ministry since the parents interact with the child all day and night for several years during the child's probation. Therefore, parents are encouraged to notify the Death Ministry when they are worried about or upset with the child's behavior or health. The Death Ministry must then investigate.

If the Death Ministry is unsure of what to do, and if the parents want the child euthanized, then the Death Ministry should euthanize the child.

Most people become enraged when they hear that a parent has killed one of his children, and the reason they become enraged is because they visualize an angry, violent adult who is killing a beautiful, wonderful child, and that fantasy stimulates their emotional craving to protect children. However, those people are tormenting themselves with unrealistic fantasies.

The concept that parents would kill a wonderful child is extremely unrealistic. There are only a few reasons why parents want to kill one of children:

•		The parents are mentally disturbed, in which case they should kill their children because their children are likely to inherit their mental disorders.
•		The children are defective, in which case everybody benefits by removing them from society.
•		The parents have lost their interest in raising children, in which case their children should be killed because their children are likely to inherit that same undesirable characteristic. Specifically, the characteristic that causes people to abandon a project because they don't have the whatever mental quality is necessary to finish a project.

All of the children who have been killed by their parents are likely to have been seriously defective. If those children had been allowed to become adults, it is likely that most or all of them would have become adults that none of us want as a friend or a spouse. Some of them would have become criminals, in which case some of the people who wanted to protect them as a child would demand that they be tortured in jail or given the death penalty.

Modern humans must control their craving to protect babies and acknowledge the evidence that we need to euthanize some of them.

In the USA, criminals are executed in a manner that is so elaborate that it resembles a religious ceremony. Furthermore, the execution methods are so ineffective that they frequently fail.

This constitution suggests that executions be conducted in a much simpler and faster method. Specifically, deprivation of oxygen, which is a painless method of having a person go unconscious within about 15 seconds, and then dying within a minute or two. That method is simple, and doesn't require much labor or resources.

That method is so simple and foolproof that there was a period of time in my childhood, I think around junior high school, when some of the children would entertain themselves by having their friend make them go unconscious by pressing against the arteries in their neck. There was no pain or discomfort.

There is no benefit to making executions into elaborate ceremonies. Furthermore, there is no benefit to giving the funerals or burials to criminals. Instead, criminals should be used for some useful purpose, such as medical research or fertilizer.