Everybody is free to discuss medical and financial issues, but our government requires us to qualify to give advice about those issues. The restrictions on giving medical and financial advice is a restriction on our freedom of speech, but most people realize that we benefit from those restrictions, and by holding people accountable for their medical and financial advice.

When we discuss an issue, we are educating ourselves and other people, but when we give advice or lectures, we are putting ourselves in a leadership position and trying to change other people's thoughts and future. Therefore, the people who try to change our thoughts about medical and financial issues have to meet higher standards than people who are merely discussing the issue.

However, we do not apply that concept to culture. Everybody is free to give advice and lectures on almost every cultural issue. Nobody has to qualify to promote or alter our culture. We do not have to provide evidence that our cultural information is beneficial or sensible, and we are not held accountable for our cultural information. Nobody's reputation is hurt even if they create stupid, worthless, or destructive culture. Some examples mentioned in other documents are:

•	We are free to pressure other people into changing their language, such as telling them to refer to "mothers" as "gestational parent", "egg producer", or "carriers". These "scientists" want to replace "alcoholic" with "person with an alcohol use disorder".
•	Businesses are allowed to use deceptive and false information and photographs to manipulate us into desiring their material items, leisure activities, travel trips, and candy bars.
•	Religions are allowed to manipulate our holiday celebrations, and they can send missionaries throughout our neighborhoods to promote their beliefs.
•	Everybody, including children, is free to create sports and competitions, including those that are dangerous.

Furthermore, we are allowed to push our cultural changes on other people in abusive and deceptive manners, such as protests in public streets, and by intimidating people with senseless accusations, such as sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and white privilege.

Giving people the right to change culture in any manner they please, and with any technique they can think of, is as idiotic as giving people the right to promote whatever medical advice they please, and allowing them to push their medical advice on other people with protests in the streets, and by accusing their critics of white supremacy or bigotry.

During the second half of the 1960s, there was a noticeable change in American culture. Many people refer to that era as the "sexual revolution", or the "hippie movement". The older adults were resistant to the cultural changes simply because adults have a resistance to changing their behavior, but the younger adults, and especially the children, were influenced by those changes.

Some of the hippie clothing styles from the 1960s.

During that era, the media and other businesses were promoting the tie-dying clothing as a family activity, long hair on boys, Ouija boards, clairvoyance, astrology, and doing whatever feels good.

A smaller number of people were promoting casual sex, marijuana, LSD (which was legal until 1968), communes, vegetarianism, and traveling around in a van rather than getting a job.

Sometime around 1968 or 1969, I cannot remember, there were groups of adults traveling around the schools, at least in Santa Barbara, to promote feminism, and to encourage us to "do what feels good" rather than be concerned about what other people think, which is the Marquis de Sade philosophy.

The people in the entertainment business were probably the most significant influences on the attitudes, clothing styles, and hairstyles of the children and young adults.

They also modified the concept of a "music concert". Instead of people sitting quietly for an hour or two to listen to music, they arranged for gigantic concerts that went on for many hours or days, and which had music at audio levels that could cause hearing loss, and which encouraged alcohol and drugs. Examples are the Summer of Love and Woodstock.

Historians are not providing us with a sensible analysis of the cultural changes that occurred during the 1960s and 1970s. For example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica says that the hippie movement was:

That encyclopedia, and the Wikipedia, claim that Allen Ginsberg and his friends, such as Jack Kerouac and William Burroughs, were the primary influence for these cultural changes.

Who decided to give Ginsberg publicity?

However, the historians do not explain how Ginsberg and his friends had so much influence.

Most of the American adults at that time would have criticized Ginsberg and his friends as unskilled freaks, weirdos, or losers.

For example, Ginsberg was a homosexual author and poet, Kerouac was an alcoholic author and poet, and Burroughs was a homosexual author with alcohol and drug problems.

A man that Ginsberg was "deeply in love with", Lucien Carr, who might not have been homosexual, was arrested for killing one of their homosexual friends, David Kammerer, who Carr claimed became violent when Carr rebuffed his sexual advances.

How could a group of alcoholic poets and homosexuals have so much influence over American culture when most American adults at that time would have despised them?

Time's Person of the Year are available as art.

It was for the same reason that Lady Gaga, George Floyd, Mark Zuckerberg, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, David Duke, Greta Thunberg, Taylor Swift, David Hogg, and other people are, or were, getting publicity, and for the same reason that some of us are ignored, arrested, murdered, blackmailed, or insulted.

Specifically, our media has been taken over by a network of Israelis, Jews, homosexuals, pedophiles, and other criminals, and they are promoting their crime members and blackmailed puppets, and suppressing their critics and competitors.

The Jews had acquired a lot of influence over the American media, entertainment businesses, universities, art museums, and Christian churches at the time Kennedy was elected, but killing Kennedy gave them tremendous control of the American government, which allowed them to get away with even more abuse, such as the attack on the USS Liberty, and increasing the the number of soldiers in the Vietnam War by a tremendous amount.

I think that most the cultural changes that occurred after the assassination of President Kennedy were detrimental because it resulted in a lot of people, especially children, developing idiotic attitudes towards sex, happiness, jobs, drugs, feminism, and marriage. It caused a lot of us to get involved with stupid or destructive activities.

The statistics on divorce show a tremendous increase after the assassination of Kennedy. The increase might be due to the state governments that began to create no-fault divorce laws at that time, or because the Vietnam War was disrupting relationships, but it could also be because of the detrimental effect the Jews, homosexuals, alcoholics, feminists, and drug users were having on American culture.

Chemists would not allow Ginsberg to modify the information in their reference books, and jet engine technicians would not allow Ginsberg to modify the information in their maintenance manuals, but nobody cares when Ginsberg or other people modify their culture.

This constitution changes the situation dramatically by prohibiting citizens and organizations from modifying our culture. The government has total control of culture, so a citizen who wants to make a change to our culture has to post a document in the Suggestions category to explain how his modification will be beneficial to us. That will allow everybody to pass judgment on it.

All existing cultures allow their members to change the culture of other societies, and they also provide that freedom to the people of other societies. For example, the U.S. Constitution gives Americans the freedom to:

•	Send missionaries into foreign nations to pressure them into changing their religion.
•	Pressure foreign nations into stopping the custom of eating cats, dogs, horses, or other foods.

Rather than tell the Americans to leave them alone, the foreign nations allow the Americans to do this. No nation has any concern about who is modifying their culture, or why, or whether the modifications have any benefit to the people.

This constitution reverses that situation by prohibiting everybody from trying to change the culture of other societies. This constitution demands that people learn from other societies, rather than try to change them or insult them.

The people who want to become doctors must get a lot of training, and they must prove that they are capable of providing us with sensible medical services, but no society cares that journalists or historians are lying to us, giving us distorted views of news events and historical events, or providing us with idiotic analyses.

This constitution changes that situation by regarding journalists and historians as zoologists who specialize in studying humans. They must meet high standards because they have a tremendous influence over our thoughts, behavior, and culture. Journalism and history are regarded as a science.

The Journalism Ministry is responsible for ensuring that journalists and historians are providing beneficial reports. Of course, this brings up the unsolvable dilemma mentioned many times in this constitution. Specifically, different people have a different idea on what is a "beneficial" report. Some people would say that journalists are doing an excellent job when they provide reports that describe George Floyd as a victim of white supremacists and police brutality.

This Constitution resolves that dilemma by requiring the Journalism Ministry to consider what is best for the City Elders. This is not necessarily what the Elders want, however. Since the Elders are human, they will have a preference for praise and entertainment, and a desire to avoid unpleasant issues, but the journalists must ignore what the Elders want and dislike and consider what type of news and analyses will provide them with a view of the world that will be most beneficial to them, and provide them with the most satisfying life. The journalists and historians must educate the Elders, not entertain or deceive them.

A journalist is more important to us than a medical doctor because we need to see a doctor once in a while during our life, but journalists are regularly providing us with information that has a significant effect over our attitudes, behavior, and goals.

A journalist who produces inaccurate or deceptive information is more destructive to society than an incompetent or criminal doctor who hurts the health of his patients. The reason is because a journalist can hurt everybody in society; the people in other societies; and the future generations. By comparison, a doctor can hurt only the few people who become his patients.

The Journalism Ministry is required to routinely give job performance reviews to the journalists, and routinely replace the journalist who provides the most worthless reports. The Courts Ministry is required to evict or euthanize the journalists that are determined to deliberately provide deceptive information.

This constitution regards culture as valuable information that nobody has a right to alter. We should experiment with improvements to culture, just as we should improve our knowledge of chemistry and physics, but we cannot let citizens or organizations modify culture for their selfish benefits.

The main reason that people today behave and live differently than our ancestors is because we have different culture. For example:

•

If we could replace the information in our mind with the information from a person in ancient Greece, we would speak the ancient Greek language, believe the ancient Greek religion, and behave in a similar manner as that ancient Greek person. We would not behave in an identical manner to that person because we have different genetic intellectual and emotional characteristics, but we would fit into the ancient Greek society without any problem.

•

If we could extract the information that will be in the minds of a person a million years in the future, and put it into our minds, we would have a superior understanding of everything, and that would be more beneficial than having a lot of material wealth, fame, and sex.

A person who alters our culture is essentially opening our skull, inserting electrodes into our brain, and altering our memory.

That allows him to change our attitudes towards our clothing styles, our goals, our recreational activities, the we treat our friends and spouse, the way we raise our children, and our beliefs about religion and dinosaurs.

The document about intellectual trials points out that it is foolish to allow people and organizations to alter our culture to fit their selfish, ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or neurotic desires.

We must regard culture as valuable knowledge, and it needs to be developed in the same serious manner that scientists develop knowledge about bacteria and plastics.

During the Middle Ages, the people created scientific knowledge according to what "made sense" to them, and their emotions had a significant influence over their thoughts. For example, they did not want to die, so they created cures for diseases, and some of them figured out where they could find a fountain of youth. They also wanted to become wealthy, so they figured out how to turn iron into gold.

After repeatedly failing to achieve their goals, they began to realize that they cannot trust their thoughts, and that they must conduct experiments, verify their conclusions, and have other people verify the experiments and conclusions.

However, social scientists have not realized that these concepts apply to culture, also. We are still allowing everybody to "figure out" the best policy for abortion, the best way to celebrate Christmas, the proper way to raise children, the best recreational activities, the best policy for alcohol and marijuana, the best way to reduce crime, who to elect as president of the nation, who is a sexist or an anti-Semite, the proper clothing styles, and the correct religion.

We regard the medieval alchemists as being ignorant for believing that they knew how to turn iron into gold, but a person in 2024 who believes that he knows the best way to raise children or the best policy for crime is just as ignorant.

We must raise standards for people in leadership positions to those who can give sensible answers to such questions as:

What is the difference between:

A) A medieval man who believed he knew how to turn iron into gold.		B) A modern man who believes he knows how to raise children.

The medieval alchemists tried many times to turn iron into gold, and their failures showed them that their brilliant theories were false. However, it is impossible for us to experiment with our cultural ideas, and that prevents us from discovering that our opinions are stupid.

For example, parents cannot make copies of their children and experiment with different ways of raising them. They have only one set of children, and they can raise them only one time. Therefore, they have no idea how their children would have turned out if they had been raised differently.

The lack of evidence that we are ignorant allows us to believe that we are educated, which is the option we perfer because we are arrogant creatures.

Every culture evolved to give us what we want, and that is why we promote the attitude that everybody can figure out everything about life, and that whoever disagrees with us is ignorant or stupid.

We believe that everybody is capable of making excellent decisions about voting, clothing, spending money, raising children, food, alcohol, weddings, and every other cultural issue.

No culture promotes the attitude that developing or improving holiday celebrations, recreational activities, government systems, abortion policies, school curriculum, or other culture is just as difficult as developing knowledge about chemistry and electrical engineering.

For example, every culture believes that selecting government officials is so simple that every adult can do it during a few minutes of their leisure time, and without any education or training, but selecting government officials requires analyzing human minds, and that is as difficult as analyzing grasshoppers, aluminum alloys, and catalysts.

Everybody is capable of analyzing humans, but being capable of doing something does not guarantee that the result will be useful. For example, all of us, including idiots and young children, are capable of analyzing a grasshopper, but most adults will produce an ordinary analysis rather than an intelligent analysis, and a child will produce a stupid analysis.

Likewise, everybody is capable of analyzing such issues as crime, abortion, religion, city planning, and feminism, and they can create government policies for all of those issues, but most people create analyses and policies that are simplistic, worthless, or stupid.

This Constitution requires people to make a radical change to their view of culture. Specifically, selecting a president, developing a policy for abortion, creating a recreational activity, and all other cultural issues, are just as difficult as analyzing and developing knowledge about earthquakes, cancer, and perovskite solar cells.

Actually, analyzing culture is more difficult than developing knowledge about chemistry because our emotions are stimulated when we study humans. Therefore, in addition to needing enough intelligence to produce useful analyses of cultural issues, we also need an awareness of our emotions, and enough control over them, to prevent them from distorting our analyses.

Furthermore, developing culture is difficult because we cannot test our ideas in a laboratory. We must experiment with our lives.

We don't allow children, idiots, businesses, churches, Zionist organizations, or lunatics to alter our information about math or chemistry, and we should be just as resistant to allowing people to change our cultural information.

Example #1: Torches of Freedom

In 1929, Edward Bernays arranged for women to have a protest in which they smoked cigarettes, which he referred to as "Torches of Freedom."

His protest was intended to change American culture to make women believe that they were oppressed by sexist men, and that they must be able to smoke cigarettes in order to enjoy life.

He essentially removed the skulls of many men and women, and altered their attitudes towards freedom, sexism, men, women, and smoking.

None of the people who got involved with altering attitudes towards sexism and cigarettes had to provide evidence that those cultural changes would improve the lives of women. None of them were held accountable for the effects they had on women's health, their children, or their marriages. None of them had to show evidence that increasing the production of cigarettes would be a beneficial use of our farmland, factories, and labor.

This constitution changes the situation by requiring people who want to alter our culture to explain what they want to change in a document and post it in the Suggestions category for everybody to analyze and verify. Nobody has the right to change our culture simply because they want to.

Example #2: The Mandela Effect

The Mandela Effect refers to people who have no contact with one another making the same mistake in their memory of something. For example, I am one of many people who mistakenly remember the "monopoly man" as having a monocle.

Fiona Broome created the concept of the Mandela Effect. She has no explanation for it, but she wrote:

The journalist who wrote this news article prefers the phrase "parallel universes".

The FDA would not allow a business to produce a medicine that they described as: "We don't know what this medicine does, but curing cancer is a fun idea for speculation."

However, every society allows everybody to create and distribute information about human behavior and culture without any concern for whether it is accurate or beneficial, or whether it has any supporting evidence.

This freedom allows businesses, religions, nonprofit groups, government officials, philosophers, psychologists, paranormal consultants, astrologists, palm readers, and everybody else to create any theories they please about human behavior, culture, and history. We are not required to provide supporting evidence for anything we say, and we do not have to take responsibility for information that turns out to be idiotic, wasteful, or dangerous.

The people involved with social science have not yet developed a useful peer review process, and none of us will ruin our reputation for creating idiotic or dangerous cultural information. We are even free to create deceptive information in order to manipulate people, such as fabricating information about the Holocaust, and accusing people of having "white privilege".

As pointed out in other documents, we are very finicky about our foods and medicines, but the Mandela Effect is just one example of how we have no concern for whether the information about human behavior and culture has any supporting evidence or benefit.

It is even more important to realize that Fiona Broome is just one example of a person who has created information about human behavior that has no supporting evidence. All of us do it occasionally because we all have a brain that fills in missing details. For example:

•	None of us knows how to raise children, so we create answers to any questions we have about it, and then we believe that we are educated about the issue. Many people are so convinced that they know how to raise children that they give advice to other parents.
•	When we are listening to a person that we cannot see, or reading a document from a person that we do not know, we often create the details of what he looks like. Our mind does not care that it is impossible for us to figure out what a person looks like based on what he says or the sound of his voice.
•	We fill in the missing details on why people are committing crimes, and how we can stop crime. This causes us to believe that we are knowledgeable about crime.

All of us routinely fill in missing details because it is a natural activity of the human mind. We cannot be divided into two groups of people; specifically, those who create information and those who do not. Rather, we merely differ in how much information we create, how much effort we put into verifying the information, and how accurate our information is.

We must be aware of our tendency to fill in the details, and then assume that we are educated.

We are essentially filling in one of life's coloring books, and then naively assuming that we are educated about the issue.

If we are ignorant about this characteristic, we will not realize that we created a lot of the information in our minds.

We will not realize that we educated ourselves by guessing at the missing details. Instead, we will assume that we have a lot of information about life because we truly are knowledgeable experts.

In order to improve our lives and the world, we must make some dramatic changes to our attitudes. Modern humans must acknowledge that the human brain is a modified ape brain, and that we cannot assume that our brilliant ideas are accurate.

We must remind ourselves that we are analogous to blind men feeling an elephant. We must refrain from believing that we are experts about life. Instead of giving people lectures, we need to get together with other people and become explorers of life. We need to study ourselves, experiment with our culture, be critical of our brilliant opinions, and learn from other people.

None of us can even understand ourselves, or figure out what would provide us with the best life and health. None of us are experts on abortion, recreational activities, raising children, or city design. We need to experiment with our lives and culture, and look critically at our experiments.

The Mandela Effect is just one example of why we need to raise standards for the information that we provide to one another. We should not tolerate nonsensical information, such as "parallel realities". The Mandela effect is due to a characteristic of our mind, and we should try to understand our mind's characteristics.

However, understanding our mind requires that we acknowledge that it is an ape brain, not the magical creation of a supreme being, or a piece of clay that molds itself to the environment. This requires that we understand and acknowledge that we evolved from animals, and that our brain is a biological computer that has been designed by our DNA.

Unlike our electronic computers, our mind does not memorize all of the data that comes from our eyes, ears, and other senses. We don't know much about how our memory works, but it seems to be doing the equivalent of what JPG does to images; specifically, discard a lot of the information in order to reduce the memory requirements. This results in memories that are missing a lot of detail.

When we recall a memory, and we want those missing details, our mind creates them as it assumes they should be. For example, I have never seen the cartoon "The Berenstain Bears", but there are supposedly some people who mistakenly remember their name as "Berenstein". That mistake might be because their minds did not bother to memorize the exact spelling. Instead, their mind might have noticed that it is "similar enough" to such names as Goldstein, Einstein, and Finkelstein to associate it with those names.

Or mind is concerned only with our survival and reproduction, not accuracy in regards to memorizing information. Therefore, our mind might have a tendency to make a judgment on when something is similar enough to something else to be considered a variation of it.

If there were lots of people whose names ended in "stain" in addition to "stein", then our mind might have kept two, separate categories of names. However, when there is only one name with "stain", and lots of names with "stein", our mind might assume that the "stain" name is close enough to be associated with "stein".

I and some other people remember the Fruit of the Loom logo had a drawing of a cornucopia, but those memories are apparently false. I was so certain that the Fruit of the Loom logo had a cornucopia that I spent some time searching for it on the Internet, but I could not find it. That made me wonder if some artist had combined a cornucopia with a Fruit of the Loom logo for a magazine article, and I had seen that article.

How is it possible that I and other people remember that cornucopia in the logo if it was never there? This news article has a video of television advertisement for Fruit of the Loom underwear, and it shows people dressed up as fruit, so perhaps I had seen those type of advertisements, and my mind associated the images of those fruits with the images of a cornucopia of fruit.

Whatever the reason that I made that mistake, it was not due to parallel realities. Instead, it has something to do with the way our mind associates memories that are similar, discards information that it considers irrelevant, forgets information over time, and creates information when it is missing details.

I associate "rich man" with images similar to this drawing.

Likewise, the reason I assumed the monopoly man had a monocle is due to how my mind remembers and associates images.

The phrase "rich man" causes me to recall drawings of men who are overweight, have a monocle, tall hat, vest, and decorative pocket watch in the vest, similar to the man in the drawing to the right.

I don't know where I got those images, but I suppose I saw them in political cartoons, comic books, or television cartoons.

I probably saw only a few of those drawings, but I was fascinated by the monocles, vests, and pocket watches, so I remembered those three aspects of "rich man".

The rabbit in the story of Alice in Wonderland also had a pocket watch in his vest, and that was one of the few images my mind remembered about that story. The grinning, striped cat is another image that my mind remembered, but not because I liked that image. Rather, it was because his abnormal mouth made him look like a freak, which I found unpleasant. We dislike and fear things that look abnormal. That is why we prefer people, furniture, foods, and other things to be "attractive".

When I hear the phrase "rich man" or "monopoly man", I recall those memories of overweight men with monocles, tall hats, vests, and pocket watches. Perhaps those memories caused me to fill in the details of "monopoly man" by giving him a vest, pocket watch, and monocle.

Why would so many people make the same mistake of assuming the monopoly man had a monocle, and that the Fruit of the Loom logo had a cornucopia?

The reason is because we have similar brains. Our brains are not identical, but they are similar, so we have similar thoughts when we experience similar situations. Likewise, all members of a group of wolves have similar behavior because they have similar minds.

For some more examples of this concept, we have similar reactions to sugar, loud noises, and sharp objects that poke our skin.

We are more likely to remember details about something that we enjoy or are frightened by. For example, I was fascinated by pocket watches and monocles when I was a child, so that would explain why I remember them. However, I have never had an emotional attraction to company logos, so perhaps my mind did not bother to remember much of anything about the Fruit of the Loom logo, which resulted in me having to fill in almost all of the details, which increases the chances that I create a logo that is significantly different from the actual logo.

We don't understand the human mind very well, but everything that our mind does has a sensible explanation. There is nothing magical about how our brain functions. It functions just like the brain of an ape, dog, and tiger. All animals, including humans, could be described as different models of biological robots.

Our mind makes decisions by processing information, so when two different people are exposed to similar information, they will process the information into similar thoughts. The more similar their information is, and the more similar their genetic characteristics are, the more similar their thoughts will be.

However, the people who resist, or cannot understand, the concept that humans are apes, and that our DNA determines how our mind thinks, will have trouble understanding why different people can have the similar thoughts. They will come up with some idiotic explanation for why this happens, such as the people are in parallel realities.

We cannot memorize all of the information that we are exposed to, so our mind must discard most of the information and remember only the details we assume are significant. Since we have genetically similar minds, we have a tendency to discard similar information and remember similar information.

Since there are subtle differences in the minds of men and women, women will discard and remember slightly different information compared to men. For example, women are more likely to notice, be affected by, and remember details about children and people's relationships, and men are more likely to remember more details about nature, mechanical items, and other men's status.

There are also subtle differences between individual men and women. For example, when I was a child I noticed that some of the boys could remember a lot of details about cars that they saw, such as the make and model, style of wheels, and sometimes the year that the car was manufactured. People such as myself, who don't have much of an interest in automobiles, are likely to remember only the color and approximate shape of the automobiles that we see.

Our tendency to fill in missing details causes trouble for police investigations because our mind doesn't identify which information is a true memory of the event, and which information was created by our mind. People need to be aware of this characteristic so that they are more critical of what their memories.

Aristotle is assumed to have created the expression, "nature abhors a vacuum", and that expression applies to our mind. Our mind abhors ignorance. We want to know everything, so our mind creates the missing information according to what we assume it should be. That characteristic was beneficial to prehistoric humans who had to spend most of their time guessing where they could find food, water, and shelter, but it causes trouble for people today who are trying to be scientists, or who are trying to understand human behavior, crimes, or culture.

To make the situation worse, our emotions can influence our creation of information to give us what we want to believe. For example, we have no idea how or when the universe was created, and our emotions will cause us to prefer the details that are the most pleasant. Since the social animals have a strong craving to follow a strong, older, adult male, our emotions prefer filling in the details by assuming that there is such a man in control of the universe.

Christianity spread quickly in Europe among our pagan ancestors, and I suspect the reason is because our emotions want to follow one man, not a group of men. Therefore, when the pagans were told of the concept of a old, wise, strong man watching over us and protecting us, they preferred that fantasy to a group of gods.

A few people have asked me how I can live without religion, the Big Bang, or some other belief about the universe. They cannot understand how I can respond with "I don't know" when asked how the universe was created, but I don't understand why they cannot respond with "I don't know".

I want to know how the universe was created, but I'm not going to create an answer simply to satisfy that desire. I can leave that desire unfulfilled. Why do most people need an explanation? Why do I not need one? And why do they not care that their explanation is lacking supporting evidence? I don't know the answer to those questions, either.

We must resist the temptation to believe that we are educated when we fabricate information.

It is important for modern humans to be aware of our desire to fill in the details so that we don't fool ourselves into believing that we are educated.

When we fill in the details and then believe that we are educated, we are essentially giving ourselves a PhD for creating what is almost always a worthless thesis.

For example, nobody knows anything about ghosts, but Fiona Broome believes that she is an expert on ghosts:

Most people would probably insult her as an idiot for believing that she is an expert on ghosts, but all of the billions of people who believe that they know the correct policy for abortion, the correct religion, the proper way to raise children, the best policy for crime, and how the universe was created, are behaving in the same manner.

Fiona Broome is not a different species with different behavior. Rather, she is just an example of what all of us regularly do. Specifically, fill in the details to issues we know nothing about, and then arrogantly believe that we are knowledgeable experts.

In a previous document I advocated that we develop robots to answer questions for children. If we suppress their questions, we encourage them to fill in the answers by themselves, which is detrimental. We should encourage children to ask questions and investigate issues that they don't understand.

Businesses are now providing us with ChatGPT and similar software that can answer questions, but there is no authority to ensure that the software is providing honest answers. This is allowing every company to modify their software to produce the results they want, and nobody is held accountable for the effect they have on our lives or the future.

Furthermore, the businesses that provide software for searching the Internet, such as Google, are also free to secretly make the software give biased and inaccurate results in order to manipulate us. They are not held accountable for their effect on us, either.

The Journalism Ministry is responsible for ensuring that all of the software is providing us with information that is honest and accurate. The software developers are held accountable for the effect they have on people's lives and society, and the people who are determined to deliberately produce deceptive software must be evicted or euthanized. This constitution does not have any pity for people who chose to be destructive.

The Torches of Freedom and the Mandela Effect are just two examples of why we must raise standards for the information that people are providing to us. Any person who wants to "educate" us, or alter our culture in any manner, must present their proposal to us so that we can think about it.

Nobody has the right to change our culture. A person who wants to change our culture must make a proposal to do so, just as if he were a scientist who is suggesting changes to our knowledge about antibiotics or transistors.

People who want to change our culture must post a document in the Suggestions category to explain how we will benefit from the changes. This allows everybody to analyze their proposal and decide if we want to experiment with it.

Furthermore, nobody is allowed to make proposals anonymously or secretly. A person must identify himself as the author because the people who want to change our lives are held accountable for their changes.

Example: The Mandela Effect

This constitution gives everybody an Internet site for their personal use. It would allow people to post photos and documents, and communicate with each other, similar to Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Instagram, and other message boards and social media sites. Since the government controls all businesses, there are no competing social media sites. There is only one social media site that the government controls. The only competition would be among the software programmers to make the system easier to use and more useful.

Fiona Broome would be allowed to post her concept of the Mandela Effect and parallel realities on her personal Internet site, but journalists would be prohibited from promoting that concept until it had some type of supporting evidence.

If somebody wanted to claim that it was a valid scientific theory, they would have to create a document to explain it, and post it in the Suggestions category. Since the concept of parallel realities is nonsensical, the person who posted it would be regarded as uneducated, mentally defective, or stupid. It would hurt his social credit score.

Although the citizens would be allowed to use their personal Internet sites to discuss the Mandela effect and parallel realities, the Behavior and Journalism Ministries have the authority to pass judgment on when citizens are going "too far" in the spreading of idiotic concepts. For example, if only a few citizens were promoting the concept that the Mandela effect is due to parallel realities, the ministers would ignore them.

However, if the ministers believe that there are "too many" citizens promoting the concept, they have the authority to tell the people to stop it. Although this gives the government a lot of control over freedom of speech, it is similar to what occurs in families, businesses, and other organizations. For example, the executives of a business do not care if some employees discuss idiotic concepts, but they will stop the situation if they believe the idiotic information is disrupting the team.

This Constitution gives people freedom of speech, but not the freedom to promote stupid or destructive concepts. The information that we provide to other people can have a significant effect on their lives, so we should ensure that we are providing people with sensible information. We should not allow people to encourage stupid and destructive attitudes and behavior. It is especially important to protect children from idiotic information because they pick up information without questioning it.

Everybody wants the government to ensure that we are provided with safe and effective medicines, and we should also want the government to ensure that we are being provided with honest and accurate information.

This concept also applies to recreational activities. For example, every culture today allows people to promote activities that are worthless, dangerous, and destructive, such as some of the tik-tok challenges. The Behavior Ministry has the authority to pass judgment on when an activity is unacceptable.

Everybody is held accountable for the effect they have on other people's lives. People who play dangerous pranks or encourage bad behavior are considered just as detrimental as businesses that provide dangerous foods and medicines.

The Mandela effect is just one example

Most people are probably unaware of the Mandel Effect, but it is just one example of how this Constitution will prevent people and organizations from promoting idiotic and deceptive concepts and cultural activity. Some other examples are that this constitution will prohibit people from changing our language, and from claiming that some people are sexist, anti-Semitic, or have white privilege.

Everybody who wants to change our culture must behave like a scientist who describes his ideas in a document, and lets everybody analyze it, verify it, and pass judgment on its value and accuracy.

Everybody has "freedom of speech", which allows everybody to discuss issues, but a person is not "discussing an issue" when he takes the role of an leader by giving lectures to other people, or when he arranges for people to have a protest in the streets.

There is no dividing line between when somebody is "discussing an issue" and when they are giving us a lecture, or trying to manipulate our opinions, but we must make that judgment.

Our attitude towards social issues must become like our attitude towards physical science. Specifically, that creating culture is just as difficult as creating physical knowledge.

Chemists benefit when they discuss which catalyst is best for a factory, but they do not benefit when one of them has the arrogant attitude that he knows what is best, and he lectures or tries to intimidate the other people into following his unverified, unsupported theory.

Historians must become scientists

All existing schools treat history as if it a type of entertainment, but this constitution regards it as a extremely valuable scientific field that is a branch of zoology. Historians must meet the same high standards as chemists, mathematicians, and zoologists.

Specifically, they must present their theories to the world, and let other people verify them. They cannot be allowed to suppress analyses of their theories by accusing their critics of being Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, terrorists, radicals, white supremacists, conspiracy theorists, sexists, or anti-Semites.

The ministers are required to regard a person as a criminal if he tries to interfere with the verification or analysis of historical events. That person is more destructive to society than a person who tries to prevent somebody from verifying that our medicines are safe because information has more of an effect on us than medicines.

The physical scientists have paper publications and Internet sites where they present their documents for peer review, but social science has not reached that level of advancement.

Instead, historians and other social scientists are publishing whatever documents, news reports, and television documentaries they please about human behavior and history, and nobody makes any attempt to verify that their information is accurate or beneficial. They resist critical reviews of their theories, and don't want to be held accountable for anything they say.

This constitution changes the situation by requiring the historians and other social scientists to verify one another's information, just like the physical scientists. The Knowledge Division of the World Government maintains an internet site for historians to publish their theories. All of the historical information for the world will be posted on that site to make it easy to find.

Historians must analyze their one another's theories about the Vikings, the ancient Greeks, the world wars, and Holocaust with the same serious attitude that zoologists analyze their theories about wolves and gophers.

If any of the "ordinary" citizens want to get involved with cultural issues, they must post documents in the Suggestions category. That will be their method of letting the world see their opinions and verify their information.

This constitution requires history to be a branch of zoology that studies humans. This requires historians to have the emotional ability to be as honest about humans as other zoologists are with salamanders. This makes it much more difficult for a person to be a historian. The reason is because humans are the only creature that will complain about what the historians are saying.

Salamanders don't care if zoologists study them and discuss details about their life, but humans put up resistance to being observed, and we become sad or angry when people say something about us that we do not want to hear.

In other documents I pointed out that one reason social science is worthless is because it requires more than intelligence to be a social scientist. It requires the ability to look critically at humans, but our emotions make that extremely difficult. We want to praise ourselves, not look critically at ourselves. We also resist being observed. We want secrecy so that we can hide our embarrassing characteristics. We don't want other people to know the truth about us. We want to create a false image of ourselves to impress them.

The only people who will be able to provide useful analyses of history are those who have the ability to control their emotions well enough to look critically at themselves, their children, their relatives, and all other people. They must also have the ability to look favorably at the people they dislike. They must be able to look at humans in the same unbiased manner that a scientist observes a grasshopper.

Historians must also be able to look at both men and women in an equally unbiased manner. For example, male historians must be able to control their sexual cravings enough to realize that women are female apes, not goddesses. The male historians need the ability to produce historical analyses based on the evidence, rather than to appease or glorify women.

Likewise, the female historians must be able to regard men as male apes, rather than as sexist monsters who enjoy tormenting women. The female historians must be able to investigate history without competing with men, or trying to prove something to men.

For example, Carly Cassella wrote this and this document to prove that female Vikings were just just as famous and successful as warriors as the men. She has the typical bitter attitude of feminists that women are oppressed and insulted by sexist men. She does not create documents to educate us. Rather, she is trying to prove something to men.

The men that studied the Liar birds noticed that the males have incredible singing abilities, but they didn't notice the females do much singing. Eventually it was discovered that the females do have amazing singing talents. Carly Cassella wrote this article to imply that the reason nobody had noticed the talent of the female Liar birds was because the men who studied them were sexist, not because the female Liar birds are "shy".

Carly Cassella is an example of a woman who is encouraging anger, bitterness, accusations, and other bad attitudes. The journalism ministry is required and authorized to fire those women, and edit their documents to prevent them from ruining our culture with their bad attitudes.

The female historians also need to control their attraction to children so that they can give sensible analyses of children in history. For example, when archaeologists discover the graves of babies or children who appear to have been killed, the female and archaeologists and historians become emotionally upset, and most of the men have such a strong desire to pander to women that they join the women in wasting time to discuss the "tragedy" of the deaths.

Whether the killing of a child is more tragic than the killing of an adult depends upon a person's mental characteristics and education. It is more sensible to consider the killing of a desirable adult to be more tragic for the same reason that farmers are much more upset when gophers kill a healthy, productive fruit tree rather than a baby or a sickly tree.

Historians must also be capable of hurting people's feelings. They cannot modify history to appease people. They must be able to resist the intimidation by the people who become upset with their analysis of history.

The historians and journalists should help one another deal with the emotional trauma of upsetting people. We cannot expect them to deal with the emotional trauma on their own. The reason is because humans are social animals, so we want other people to accept us, not become angry with us. We need to give them emotional support so that they do not feel as if they are alone in a fight with a lot of other people.

We resist criticizing people, which makes it difficult for us to give people our honest opinions of them. Men tend to remain silent rather than criticize somebody, and women tend to find something nice to say about a person rather than criticize them. Our desire to be nice to people is useful for creating a society, but historians and journalists must give us honest analyses of humans.

In order for history to become a useful science, we must do more than restrict historians to people who excel at research and analyses. We must also restrict historians to people who have demonstrated an excellent ability to control their emotions so that they can look critically at humans. For example, historians should be able to provide an intelligent response to such questions as:

1) What is the difference between: a) Men using dogs and plastic women to satisfy their cravings for sex. b) Women using dogs and dolls to satisfy their craving for babies. 2) Who should be arrested: a) Men who use dogs to satisfy their cravings for sex. b) Women who use dogs to satisfy their craving for babies.

Those type of questions don't have "correct" answers, but we can and should pass judgment on whether a person's answer is showing evidence that he has an excellent ability to control his emotions and provide an intelligent analysis. We have standards for people to meet to become a doctor or pilot, and we need to set standards for historians.

Example: The crime documentaries

The Cold Case Files is just one example of documentaries about murders that look favorably at the victims rather than seriously, and which treats the criminals as monsters rather than as humans.

The American culture provides us with tremendous secrecy, and we are allowed to file lawsuits against people that we believe are hurting our reputation. This culture results in journalists avoiding criticism of murder victims and their families. They tend to regard the victims as "ordinary" people, and sometimes the victims are treated as if they are unusually friendly, kind, generous, and polite.

This biased view of the victims creates a distorted view of murder. It causes people to assume that criminals are murdering people at random, which leads them to the conclusion that everybody is a potential victim, which causes a lot of people to become fearful.

If historians and journalists could provide us with a more accurate analysis of crimes, and if we had a database with details of everybody's life,we would discover that most murders are not random. Rather, the lower-quality people tend to be murdered more often.

One reason is because they tend to associate with other low-quality people, such as people with drug problems, mental disorders, alcoholism, gambling problems, financial problems, and violent personalities.

Another reason that some people are more likely to be murdered is because they are suffering from a mental or physical disorder that causes them to be miserable, and they react by searching for excitement. This results in them becoming "the life of the party", very friendly, and "lots of fun to be with," but in reality they are trying to titillate themselves. This can result in them doing things, getting involved with people, and taking risks that "normal" people would avoid.

We cannot understand history, improve our culture, or solve crimes when we distort our analysis of crime in order to appease the victims and their families. We must analyze crimes in a serious manner in order to understand why they are occurring. Journalists and historians must have the ability to hurt the feelings of the victims and their families.

Secrecy and deception encourage crime

The American culture allows the victims of crime to be secretive about themselves and the crime, so the journalists who want to provide news reports or documentaries about the crimes have to request the victims and their families to voluntarily provide information. The people who are willing to talk about the crimes will always give a biased view of it, and the journalists rarely try to counteract the bias because they don't want to upset anybody.

The American culture also allows people to be secretive with the police investigations, such as refusing to answer questions, and refusing to provide DNA samples. This secrecy interferes with the understanding of and solving of crimes. People can also get away with lying to the police by claiming that they made a mistake rather than lie.

Children need honest information about crime. When they are taught that most of the victims are wonderful people who have been chosen at random by criminals, then they will be in fear of becoming a victim.

However, when children are told the truth about crimes, then they will realize that they have a significant influence over whether they become a victim. They will realize that most of the victims of crime are the misfits who have low quality minds, and the two primary methods to reduce their chances of becoming a victim are:

	1)	Avoid getting involved with other misfits, such as people who have problems with drugs, gambling, or mental illness.
	2)	Learn to calmly accept unhappiness and disappointment rather than react with anger, drugs, envy, violence, risky activities, or searching for excitement.

It is also detrimental to teach the children that criminals are ordinary people who became criminals because of some environmental issue, such as bad parenting, bullying at school, racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism. That false theory can cause a child to worry that he might become a criminal if he become a victim of racism, bad parenting, bullying, or sexism.

It is especially detrimental to teach children that the victim of a pedophile is likely to become a pedophile, or that the victim of theft is likely to become a thief. Children must be taught that every adult has control of his life.

Information about crimes is public knowledge

This constitution requires history and news reports to be a branch of zoology which studies human life, but journalists and historians cannot study human life unless they have access to accurate and detailed information about people. Therefore, we must eliminate secrecy and collect information about everybody's life for the People database.

In the USA, children who commit crimes are allowed to keep their identity a secret, but that makes it difficult to understand the behavior of children. Therefore, the Database Ministry is required to include details of the crimes committed by children.
 
Nobody has the right to keep information about a crime a secret because crime affects everybody. Allowing people to be secretive or deceptive about crimes is as destructive as allowing a technician to be secretive or deceptive about the problems of a jet engine, or allowing a business to be secretive or deceptive about the side effects of a medicine.

Everybody is responsible for their behavior, held accountable for their behavior, and must be truthful about their behavior. Criminals cannot hide their face or their name, and neither can the victims. The people who are embarrassed or ashamed of their behavior must suffer quietly.

We are a team, not independent individuals. This constitution gives everybody the right to know if a team member is causing trouble so that we can understand our problems and find ways to improve our team and our lives.

Journalists, historians, and the police must be capable of analyzing crimes in the same serious manner that a technician investigates problems with the gears in a transmission. This requires that they be able to resist the intimidation by the people who are ashamed of themselves.

Animals resist thinking and working. We look for the easiest way to accomplish a task. We prefer to react quickly to situations rather than put time and effort into analyzing them. Therefore, everybody, including the people who have exceptional incentive, will do better work when they are under pressure to think about what they are doing.

When we are allowed to express an opinion verbally, rather than pressured to write a document to explain it, we are not likely to notice that our opinion is vague or confused.

However, when we are forced to produce a document to explain our brilliant opinion, we are likely to read what we have written, and that can help us realize that our document is vague, contradictory, hypocritical, or confusing. That in turn puts pressure on us to either put effort into improving our opinion, or abandon it. (I wrote about this here.)

Therefore, a person who wants to make changes to our culture is required to post a document in the Suggestions category to explain it, and he must do more than merely propose a change. He must explain how we will benefit from the change, and he must show that the benefits will outweigh the disadvantages.

That will pressure him into acknowledging that everything has disadvantages, and he will be pressured to find the disadvantages of his brilliant proposal, and think about whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. That can help him improve his idea, or come to the conclusion that is so stupid that he should abandon it.

If a person cannot find any disadvantages with his proposal, or if he can only find insignificant disadvantages, he has not put much effort into his proposal, or he is too arrogant to look critically at his brilliant ideas, or he is trying to deceive us by ignoring the serious disadvantages. A truly talented person will be able to find some disadvantages to his ideas.

Everything has benefits and disadvantages because benefits and disadvantages are whatever we want them to be. A benefit to one person is a disadvantage to another, and vice versa. A person who cannot see any disadvantages to his proposal is unable to look at his proposal from any point of view other than his own.

This concept applies to everything we create, not just culture. For example, the advantages and disadvantages with a particular design of refrigerator, toaster oven, cell phone, computer software, and robot are different to different people. A truly talented engineer will realize that the features of a product are arbitrary, and that different people will want a slightly different design.

A talented engineer will realize that there is no "correct" way to design a product, and that he must choose features according to the people that he is designing the product for.

This is another reason why this Constitution advocates selecting people to be the City Elders. The engineers and government officials are required to design apartments, software, cell phones, robots, furniture, recreational activities, holiday celebrations, clothing styles, and other products and culture for the Elders, not for themselves, the public, or a government official.

However, products and culture must be designed according to what will provide the Elders with the best life, which is not necessarily what the Elders want. For example, the Elders might want recreational activities to provide the winners with trophies, praise, or other prizes, but the ministers might decide that they will have better relationships, attitudes, and lives when there are no rewards for their recreational activities.

Another advantage to forcing people to explain their opinions in a document is that it is much easier for us to analyze an opinion when it is in a document. It is very difficult to analyze verbal opinions because we quickly forget a lot of the information, and we remember some of it incorrectly. Verbal opinions need to be transcribed into a document.

The concept of forcing people to produce a document of their "brilliant" opinions applies every conflict. For example, when a married couple has a dispute, they would benefit if each of them were pressured into writing a document to explain the problem and their solution to it, and to compare the advantages and disadvantages of their solution to their spouse's solution.

That would put pressure on both of them to analyze the problem in a more serious manner. Furthermore, if the married couple saved those documents, they would be able to look through them when they got older, and that would help them determine which of them tends to make the most intelligent suggestions, and which of them caused the most disputes.

This concept also applies to business meetings that are intended to resolve an issue. The person who wants the meeting should begin by writing a document to explain the problem and what he plans to discuss at the meeting, and then he would let the employees read it.

The employees would then have the opportunity to respond to his document with questions and suggestions, and then everybody would be able to read those responses. This would allow the person who requested the meeting to discover if some of the employees are misinterpreting his document, in which case he could edit it. He would also be able to edit his document to answer some of the questions in those responses. The employees would then repeat the cycle by reading his revised document, and responding to it.

That cycle of creating documents, reading other people's documents, and then editing the documents, could occur for many times before they had their meeting, assuming that they decide they still need to get together for a meeting. It is possible that some issues would be resolved through that process.

As with the married couples, if the business saved those documents, it would allow them to discover who has the most intelligent analyses and suggestions.

Scientists follow that type of a procedure. They produce a document to explain their latest work, and they allow other scientists to read it and think about it. The other scientists can respond, and then they look at those responses. This cycle repeats endlessly. The scientists develop a lot of knowledge without actually getting together in the same building for meetings. Furthermore, by saving the documents, they eventually notice that some scientists are contributing more information than average.