Table of contents
Page for this series
Hufschmid's main page

The Kastron Constitution
1d) Leaders

26 June 2024

Government officials must be scientists
Democratic officials are deceptive clowns

As pointed out in other documents, the candidates who are most likely to be elected in a democracy are those who are deceptive and dishonest, and who join political parties. They titillate the audience with praise, jokes, insults of the other candidates, and by making unrealistic promises to solve whatever problems the voters are complaining about. The audience reacts with applause, laughter, cheers, chants, and flag-waving.


Governments should provide leadership, not pornography.
There is nothing wrong with entertaining people, but the political speeches are not "entertainment".

Rather, they are attempts to manipulate the voters.

The audience believes that they are enjoying themselves, but they are actually being deceived.

This constitution regards those types of speeches as deception, or as pornography, because the intention of the speech is to manipulate people rather than educate or entertain them.

In order to improve this situation, this constitution regards government officials as city employees who are hired to provide us with intelligent analyses and guidance. The candidates must apply for the job in the same manner that everybody else applies for a job, and they cannot arrange to give speeches.

We must differentiate between entertainment and education

We get together with friends during our leisure time, we often say and do things for entertainment, rather than to educate one another. It is acceptable and harmless for us to make meaningless, entertaining remarks when we are relaxing and socializing.

Government officials can also be entertaining during their leisure time, but when they are working, they are city employees who must meet the same high standards as other people in management positions. They must speak to us in the same serious manner that a teacher speaks to his students, or the way scientists speak to one another. They cannot arrange for meetings or speeches simply to become the center of attention, or to manipulate us.



Every culture allows government officials to arrange for meetings simply to become the center of attention, or to manipulate us.
If a factory worker, or somebody else low in the social hierarchy, were to arrange a meeting at his business in which it gives a speech to the other employees, and if the only purpose of the speech was to allow him to be the center of attention, or to deceive the employees about something, the other employees would be annoyed or disgusted with him. However, when somebody high in the hierarchy gives a worthless or deceptive speech, people either tolerate it or enjoy it.

As pointed out in other documents, we must resist our emotional craving to become submissive to people above us in the social hierarchy, and demand that they earn their position by providing leadership.

The American officials frequently arrange for meetings in front of fireplaces. Campfires have been a part of human life for so many thousands of years that we have evolved to enjoy them. Therefore, by arranging a meeting with a fireplace, they stimulate pleasant emotions in the audience.

This Constitution requires government officials to be leaders, so they must impress us with intelligent analyses and guidance, not with emotional titillation. Their meetings and speeches must educate the audience about something. They must provide valuable information rather than stimulate emotions.

Government officials must also consider how they are indirectly influencing culture. For example, when they arrange for meetings in front of fireplaces, they are encouraging fireplaces. This constitution prohibits fireplaces in homes, and if the ministers choose to authorize fireplaces, the fireplaces are restricted to public facilities and the burning of a clean fuel, such as ethyl alcohol or methane.

They also indirectly influence culture by the way they greet and interact with one another, their reaction to criticism and questions, and their clothing and facemasks. The people at the top of the hierarchy are more influential than everybody else, and we must judge them by their effect on our lives, not on whether we "like" them.

When government officials want to explain something to us, they must do so in the most clear and efficient manner. They are not allowed to titillate us with emotional remarks, or with fireplaces.

Some of the most worthless of their remarks are made during their dinners. It is acceptable for government officials to make silly remarks during dinner, but only if the dinner is a private dinner. However, government officials are frequently arranging for expensive dinners that are public, political events, in which case they should meet high standards. Instead, they make the same idiotic remarks during their dinners as they do during their political speeches.

For example, at a dinner on 10 April 2024 with the prime minister of Japan, President Biden made such worthless remarks as:

•
 Jill and I are honored to have you all here.
•
 We'd like to extend a particular welcome to President Clinton and Secretary Clinton, who've joined us this evening.
•
 Mr. Prime Minister, Mrs. Kishida, thank you for looking forward to this visit for a while. We've been anxious for you to come. I'm delighted you're here.

All of us have silly conversations at dinner, but that particular dinner was not a casual, private dinner of friends or family members. Rather, it was an expensive, public dinner in which journalists were invited to take photos and broadcast video of the dinner. There were also some famous and wealthy people invited to the dinner.

Furthermore, it was just one of many of Biden's speeches that were recorded for historical purposes. The Biden administration has 229 pages of links to transcripts of "speeches and remarks" made by Biden from when he became president in January 2020 to 18 June 2024. And that is only a small amount of the information that has been recorded about President Biden and other government officials.

This constitution requires government officials to be like scientists. The speeches and documents from the government officials should be intelligent analyses and suggestions. They should be as valuable as all of the scientific reports that scientists have created during the past few centuries.

The Database Ministry maintains several databases for the government officials to post their explanations of laws, social activities, city design, recreational activities, city festivals, and other issues. Those databases should be valuable resources. The documents in those databases should provide us with valuable information about culture and human behavior. They should not be emotional titillation or idiotic remarks.

The US government puts a lot of labor and resources into arranging dinners and meetings, and recording the conversations, but there is nothing of value in what the government officials say. There will soon be millions of documents and videos of the dinners , speeches, and meetings of government officials, but it is unlikely that people in the future will want them. It is more likely that they will discard most of them, and save a few to serve as examples to students of how crude the "ancient" governments were.

Examples of unacceptable remarks

Government officials must provide leadership, not emotional titillation. They must impress us with their analyses and guidance, rather than titillate us with praise and promises. Some examples of remarks that are considered pornographic because they are intended to titillate people but don't provide any useful information:

•
 I'm honored to be here, and to speak with all you wonderful people who have had many great accomplishments.
•
 I'd like to thank my mentor and dear friend, and my mother, who gave me an incredibly valuable advice, and who are in the audience. Please give them a standing ovation!
•
 I appreciate the great work all of you have accomplished.
• I'm proud to be able to express my opinions to my dear, esteemed colleagues!
• I am humbled to speak to my distinguished colleagues!
• I just like to say a massive thank you for picking me to speak to you!
• Thank you for inviting me!

If a teacher or a military drill sergeant were to give such worthless speeches to their students, we would regard him as wasting the time of the students. We should have that same attitude with our government officials.

We need a new attitude towards leaders

Our natural tendency is to become submissive to our leaders, and to tolerate their idiotic and abusive behavior.

We must be aware of our animal characteristics, and push ourselves into demanding our leaders provide us with guidance.

We must change our attitudes towards government officials. They do not deserve special treatment or pampering. We must treat government officials in the same manner that we treat waitresses, gardeners, technicians, factory workers, and teachers.

We must regard government officials as employees who are doing a management job, and we must demand that they provide us with intelligent analyses and guidance, rather than praise or promises. We must fire them for incompetence just like we fire incompetent factory workers, technicians, plumbers, and other employees. And we must arrest them for crimes, just like we would arrest a factory worker for crimes.

A person is capable of firing a leader who he disapproves of, but he has a difficult time being critical of, firing, or arresting the leaders that he approves of.

For example, the people who support Joe Biden can criticize, fire, and even arrest Donald Trump, but they cannot see the evidence that Joe Biden has serious mental disorders. Likewise, the supporters of Donald Trump are capable of criticizing and firing Joe Biden, but they cannot see that Donald Trump is just as incompetent.

The Biden supporters worship Biden, and the Trump supporters worship Trump, just like religious people worship the Pope, Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammed.

In order for us to be critical of our leaders, we must fight with our emotional desires. It will be emotionally unpleasant for us, but we must push ourselves into doing it.

The Voters Ministry is required to restrict the voters to people who have shown an excellent ability to be critical of everybody in a leadership position, and who can also be critical of their friends, family members, and themselves.

Officials cannot memorize speeches

Everybody expects teachers to occasionally look in books and read from paper notes when explaining complicated issues to their students. During the past few decades, they have also been able to use laptop computers to assist them in their lectures.

Nobody would care if a teacher were to install a teleprompter in his classroom so that he doesn't have to read from paper documents or laptop computers. However, if the teacher was hiding the teleprompter and pretending to have memorized everything he says, we would consider him to be deceptive, and possibly suffering from low self-esteem or some type of mental disorder.

However, every culture expects government officials to give speeches without looking at notes. This puts pressure on them to either memorize speeches, as if they are actors, or to set up one or two teleprompters and pretend that they are not reading from teleprompters.

If a government official is truly a talented leader, then he would be wasting time to memorize a speech. He should do something beneficial while working at his job, such as analyzing problems or doing research.

The same concept applies to other employees. For example, a person who is truly talented as a carpenter, doctor, or computer programmer should do something useful at his job, not waste his time memorizing speeches.

One reason that government officials are under pressure to memorize speeches or use hidden teleprompters is because most people have so little interest in thinking that they are more impressed by the way people deliver information than they are by the content of the message. This causes salesmen to be more concerned with their visual appearance and the manner in which they speak to us than with the value of the information. They tend to titillate and manipulate potential customers with praise and promises, just like Democratic government officials and candidates.

This Constitution prohibits businesses from promoting their products, so nobody will have a job in which they try to manipulate other people. This economy prohibits salesmen and advertisers.

When somebody has an idea for a new product, social affair, holiday celebration, recreational activity, or research program, he must post a document in the Suggestions category that describes it. That document has to follow the same guidelines that the government officials must follow; specifically, it must be a serious description rather than emotional titillation.

Government officials are city employees who must spend their time providing us with intelligent guidance and analyses. They are not permitted to waste their time memorizing speeches.

When they need to give a speech, they can read from notes on paper, a computer, or a teleprompter, and they are not permitted to pretend that they do not have notes. It is acceptable for them to read from teleprompters, but it is not acceptable for them to pretend that they are not reading from a Teleprompter. That is regarded as deception without a benefit.
Our top leaders must be explorers
Our top leaders must enjoy exploring culture
The purpose of the presidents, ministers, and directors is to observe and analyze the city, and experiment with businesses, social clubs, recreational activities, holiday celebrations, and other culture, in order to improve the lives of the people.

They are explorers who analyze our options and choose the path for our future. They spend their time thinking, doing research, having discussions, and experimenting.

Most people do not have the courage to explore culture

The top leadership positions are restricted to people with an above-average desire and ability to explore our options and experiment with our culture, but there is no way of determining who is best at that.

We are very arrogant, and we don't have a good understanding of ourselves, so most men believe that they are courageous explorers. In reality, the majority of men are almost as cowardly as sheep, and most women and children are much more cowardly than men. Most people want to follow their peer group rather than think for themselves or explore their options.

Many men believe that they are courageous because they can get into fistfights, but violence is not courage. This constitution considers courage to be able to deal with emotionally unpleasant issues. With that definition, most men are not courageous. For example, most men cannot look at the evidence that we have been lied to about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, or "Pizzagate".

Most people also lack the courage to look at the evidence that their opinions are incorrect, stupid, ignorant, or the propaganda from businesses, religions, or Zionists. Most people also do not have the courage to experiment with a new recreational activity, and some people do not even have the courage to try a different type of food than what they are accustomed to.

There is no such thing as “Planck's Principle”

Max Planck noticed that scientists have a resistance to new ideas, and his conclusion was that scientific progress comes about as older scientists die and the young scientists learn about the new ideas. This has been referred to by some people as "Planck's Principle".

It is true that adults resist new ideas, and that resistance inhibits the rate of social and technical progress, but a more accurate description of that concept is that humans have the mind of an animal. Once we become an adult, we have a tendency to follow whatever culture we picked up during our childhood, just like a herd of wildebeest on a migration path.

Our tendency to resist making changes to our life has nothing to do with intelligence or education. It is due to our animal emotions.

It would be inaccurate if a zoologist described a group of migrating animals as following "Plank's Principle". It would be more sensible to describe the social animals as having a desire to follow one another, be afraid of anything that is unfamiliar to what they learned during their childhood, to be frightened of being alone, and to have almost no interest in thinking for themselves.

Likewise, the resistance that scientists have to new ideas is not because of Plank's Principle. It is because we are a species of ape.

The same concept applies to food. For example, the fear that some American adults have to eat Mochi ice cream is not because of Plank's Principle. All of us have a resistance to new foods because we are animals that are frightened of anything we are unfamiliar with. Our crude emotions will cause us to dislike something simply because it is unfamiliar to us. This emotion is intended to make us cautious with new foods, but many people misinterpret the emotion by assuming that the new foods truly have a bad flavor, appearance, or texture.

This article claims that the engineers at Intel were putting integrated circuits into 16 pin packages because 16 pins was "a religion at Intel", and that "only with great reluctance did they move to 18 pins", which was still a problem because other manufacturers were using 40 and 48 pins.

However, the insistence on using 16 pin packages was not because it was a "religion", or because of "Plank's Principle". Rather, it was because humans are animals, and we have a strong desire to follow what we are familiar with. When we are forced to do something different, we prefer to be very cautious and make the minimum amount of changes possible, which is why the Intel engineers switched from 16 pins to only 18 pins, rather than to 40 or 48 pins.

If the Intel engineers had a better understanding of human behavior and our animal emotions, they might have been able to suppress their fear of the unknown so well they could have switched from 16 pins to 48, 64, or even 128 pins.

We must acknowledge that we are animals

It is important for modern humans to understand their animal characteristics so that we can exert enough control over our fears and cravings to make intelligent decisions about what to do with our life, how to treat other people, and how to react to new scientific theories, holiday celebrations, foods, city designs, and other culture. Otherwise we will allow stupid emotions to influence our decisions, which will result in a lot of irrational and detrimental theories and behavior.

For example, the people who oppose abortion do not have any intelligent supporting reasons for their policy. They are simply following their emotional cravings and fears. That is why their only explanation for opposing abortion is that abortion is "murder". They have nothing intelligent to say about abortion because they did not "think" about abortion. Rather, they reacted emotionally to the issue, just like a mouse reacting to the sight of a cat.

Our leaders should help the public deal with experiments

We resist looking critically at at our culture and beliefs, and we resist making changes to our attitudes, activities, and goals. We need leaders to help the public deal with experiments in culture.

An example of how difficult it is to convince adults to try something new is the extensive ad campaign that was needed to convince men to try a low calorie beer. The beer companies could not describe it as a "diet beer" because most American men decoded the word "diet" with images of overweight women who were trying to lose weight. Those images caused most men to avoid "diet" food products.



If people had a better understanding of how our mind decodes a word with the memories we associate with the word, then the men would have realized that "diet beer" is decoding into images of women simply because we are most familiar with women trying to lose weight, and that as soon as men start drinking "diet beer", we will associate men with diet beer.

Since the men did not understand why "diet" food products were decoding into images of women, they reacted by avoiding diet products. Therefore, the beer companies had to find a description for the beer that would decode into images that men would be emotionally attracted to.

Their solution was to describe the beer as "lite" beer, and to spend enormous amounts of time and resources into creating advertisements that showed masculine men drinking the beer. After many years, those advertisements caused men to decode "lite beer" into images of men who were athletes, cowboys, carpenters, sailors, and construction workers.

If men had a better understanding of language and their animal characteristics, and if they had more self-control, then they would not have put up a resistance to "diet" beer, or any other "diet" food product. All of the labor and resources that was wasted on the advertising of "lite" beer could have been put into more useful projects.

Furthermore, the beer companies probably wasted a small amount compared to what would be necessary to convince the American people to switch to the metric system, or to stop wearing pointed shoes, or to look at the evidence that Building 7 was demolished with explosives, or to look at the evidence that Jews are lying about the Holocaust.

This constitution improves the situation by not letting the public make decisions about what our culture should be. Instead, the top government officials have the authority to control culture and experiment with it. As with parents, they tell the public what to do, rather than pander to the public.

For example, if this Constitution was in effect in 1975, and if the Meals Ministry authorized the production of a low-calorie beer, instead of referring to it as "lite" beer, and wasting resources on giving it a masculine image, they would order the restaurants to restrict the overweight men to the "diet" beer.

The overweight men who wanted beer would have no choice but to drink the diet beer. The Meals Ministry would not care if some of those men complained that their feelings were hurt by being classified as "overweight" and being restricted to "diet" food products.

Since the Meals Ministry has complete control of food, they also have the option of getting people accustomed to a new food product temporarily or permanently eliminating the alternatives. For example, they could have temporarily shut down the production of regular beer and ordered the production only of diet beer. Then, after a few months, everybody would be accustomed to "diet" beer, and they could restore production of regular beer.

The same concept applies to beer and wine with low levels of alcohol. Specifically, the Meals Ministry can terminate the production of beverages with high levels of alcohol, thereby forcing people to become accustomed to low levels of alcohol.

They can also terminate or restrict the production of food products with high levels of sugar or salt. They could also get the public accustomed to an alternative to milk by temporarily or permanently stopping the production of milk and forcing them to use the alternative.

Allowing the government to make those type of changes to our culture is allowing the government to treat the public in the same manner that we treat animals and children.

However, the government officials are required to justify everything they do. The officials must post a document in the Explanations category to explain their policies so that we can pass judgment on whether they are making changes that are beneficial to society.

By comparison, none of the existing cultures require government officials, business executives, charities, religions, or other organizations to justify what they do. This allows them to be very abusive. For example, Procter & Gamble convinced a lot of people in the 1900s to switch from eating lard to eating Crisco, but they had no evidence that Crisco was better for our health. They did it simply for profit.

By giving the government officials total control of culture, and by requiring them to explain their decisions, we can pass judgment on their leadership abilities, and we know who to hold accountable.
Our top leaders must be scientists
Leaders must hold everybody responsible for their behavior

Every culture has evolved to give us what we want, and we want to avoid taking responsibility for our problems, so every culture allows us to blame our problems on:

 1) Nonsensical concepts, such as poverty, sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, white privilege, and lack of opportunities.

2)
 Other people, such as drug dealers, foreign nations, rival political parties, and our parents.



Slums are miserable because
of the people who live there.
The people who refuse to accept responsibility for their behavior create idiotic theories to explain the problems in their personal life, and the problems of society. As a result their solutions to problems fail continuously.

For example, they believe that slums are miserable places to live because of poverty, white privilege, ignorance, lack of opportunities, bad parenting, divorced parents, bad luck, racism, or discrimination.

Their solution is to provide the people in the slums with money, educational materials, college scholarships, jobs, welfare, or some other type of handout, but none of those methods improve the slums. The reason is because the people in the slums are behaving badly because of their mind's decisions.

The people in the slums of the USA and Europe are actually extremely wealthy compared to our ancestors. They have wealth that is beyond what anybody a few centuries ago had imagined, such as electricity, refrigerators, bicycles, antibiotics, bathrooms, and cell phones. They also have access to libraries and the Internet, which provides them with educational opportunities that none of our ancestors had. They have access to food markets that provide them with food from around the world, and every day of the year.

Modern leaders must understand genetics

Slums are not miserable because of poverty, ignorance, or discrimination. They are miserable because the people who live in the slums are genetically inferior to the people in other neighborhoods. The genetic characteristics of people determine whether a neighborhood is a slum or a wonderful place to live.

If we were to replace all of the people in a slum neighborhood with people who have genetically superior minds, the neighborhood would remain just as densely populated, but it would slowly be transformed into a wonderful neighborhood.

The reason is because those higher-quality people would spend more of their time on useful activities, and less time on alcohol, drugs, television, fights, and gambling.

Those higher-quality people would do a better job of taking care of their home, clothing, yard, and other possessions. They would also treat one another in a better manner. Their children would do better in school, have fewer fights, and do more chores at their home.

There would be noticeably less crime, litter, graffiti, alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling, fist fights, unwanted pregnancies, and venereal disease. Their grooming would also be superior.

Many anti-genetic people are hypocrites

Many, possibly most, of the people who insist that genetics do not determine our intelligence, personality, honesty, or other characteristics are hypocrites because if they truly believed that genetics was irrelevant, then they would not care about the mental qualities, race, physical characteristics, or health of the parents that they were adopting children from, or the people who were providing them with sperm and eggs.

They would be willing to let the patients in mental hospitals provide sperm and egg for infertile couples, and provide children for adoption. Criminals have a difficult time making a living after they get released from jail, so they would be willing to let criminals provide sperm, eggs, and children. Homeless people and other unemployed people would also be allowed to make some money by providing sperm, eggs, and children.

Although there might be some people who are so convinced that genetics is nonsense that they will accept sperm, eggs, and children from lunatics, retards, and criminals, many people are so concerned about the issue that there are documents on the Internet that provide advice on choosing a sperm donor. For example, the WebMD "editorial contributors" wrote this document to advise us to consider such questions as:
"Do you want a donor who was a certain IQ or artistic aptitude?"

That question implies that genetics determines a person's intelligence and artistic abilities, which is a concept that every culture is officially denying.

The hypocrisy with genetics is similar to the hypocrisy of the religious people who believe in heaven only while they are healthy, but when they or their children are sick or injured, they lose their faith in heaven and want scientists, doctors, nurses, and other people to put a tremendous amount of time and effort into preventing them from going to heaven.

Some religious people are now using the AI software to create videos to show us what heaven might look like, such as the image below from this video.



Another religious man created this video to provide us with a:
Biblically Accurate Description of Heaven and What We'll Do There



The religious people promote heaven only when they are healthy, and when they become concerned about dying, they become terrified at the thought of going to that wonderful paradise. However, their minds are so crude that they cannot notice and/or acknowledge that they are hypocrites for believing in heaven while being frightened of death.

Animals are hypocritical for a reason.

Our mind is hypocritical because that was a necessary quality for animals. An animal brain evolved to win the battles for life and reproduction. An animal brain was designed to do anything it can think of in order to win. An animal will deceive, intimidate, kill, and steal in order to win. An animal mind it does not care if what it is doing today is contradictory to what it did yesterday.

The human brain is just a modification of an ape brain. We are just another species of animal with a brain that was designed for survival and reproduction. Our brain was not designed to explore or understand the universe. Our brain is not a scientific instrument. It doesn't care about reality or hypocrisy. It cares only about achieving its goals.

One of the reasons that humans became the dominant animal is because we developed a certain ability to control our cravings and work together in a team for the benefit of the team, but we have not fully evolved for our modern era. We are still fighting one another for status, material items, land, food, and a spouse.

Although we are no longer as selfish and dishonest as the animals, a significant percentage of the human population is involved with cheating of some type, such as stealing from their employers, lying for insurance benefits, and shoplifting.

Even though most people are committing crimes that are "trivial", it causes citizens and organizations to waste a tremendous amount of labor and resources on security devices, security software, court cases, security guards, passwords, and crime investigations. Our lives would be significantly more relaxed and pleasant if we didn't have any crime. Our cities would also become more attractive because we would not need crime prevention devices anywhere, or security guards.

We are selfish, violent, and hypocritical because our mind has been designed to find a way to achieve our goals, and our mind has no concern for how we achieve our goals. Our mind does not care if what we do "makes sense", or if we hurt somebody, or if our behavior conflicts with some of our previous beliefs or actions.

An animal becomes angry when another animal takes his food, but he will not hesitate to take food away from other animals. Animals routinely treat one another in a manner that they do not want to be treated, but no animal cares about that selfishness and hypocrisy.

Since each of us is genetically unique, and has slightly different information in our minds, some of us are more selfish and hypocritical than others. Some people are so similar to animals that they will do almost "whatever it takes" to achieve their goals.

Our ignorance and our emotions causes us to believe in a concept when we benefit by believing in it, and to deny that concept when it is more beneficial to deny it. This results in us frequently doing and saying things that are hypocritical, selfish, irrational, or cruel.

An example of our hypocrisy that was mentioned earlier is that the religious people believe in heaven only when they they are healthy, and they feel superior to the heathens, but when they are dying, they abandon those beliefs and want the heathens to help them avoid going to heaven.

They have no awareness or embarrassment of their hypocrisy.

Likewise, the Jews believe in genetics when they want to boast that they are the superior race, but when they want to claim that all people are equal, they promote the belief that we are like a piece of clay that molds itself to the environment. They then explain that their superiority is due to their superior culture that encourages education, honesty, and generosity.

In order to provide ourselves with better leadership, we must pass judgment on which of us are the least hypocritical and selfish.

This could be described as passing judgment on the "evolutionary state" of a person's mind.

We need to determine who among us has a mind that is more similar to a prehistoric savage, and who has a more advanced mind.

This is difficult to do because each of us is a mixture of primitive and advanced characteristics, but by eliminating secrecy and maintaining a social credit system that judges us by a variety of criteria, we will be able to make sensible decisions about who qualifies for an influential position.

Leaders must understand that humans are apes

In order for us to be responsible for our behavior, we must understand that our behavior is the result of our brain's decisions. The environment is an influence over us, but it cannot control us.

We will never get sensible leadership from people who believe that the human mind is like a piece of clay that molds itself to the environment because those people blame our problems on environmental concepts, such as poverty, drug dealers, or white privilege. Likewise, religious people blame bad behavior on nonsensical concepts, such as the false religions or evilness.

None of those people can provide us with sensible guidance. Three more examples of their idiotic theories are:


 1) The claim that wealthy people have better health because they can afford better healthcare. That theory is as stupid as claiming that the dominant apes are stronger and healthier than the apes at the bottom of the hierarchy because they have better healthcare.

2)
 They believe that hunger is the result of a shortage of food, so they try to solve the problem by giving handouts of food to the hungry people.

3)
 They believe that discrimination, glass ceilings, misogyny, and sexism is preventing women from becoming scientists, engineers, soldiers, construction workers, technicians, and scuba divers.

Leaders should investigate alternative opinions

Our natural tendency is to dismiss any idea that is contrary to what we are accustomed to, but the top leadership positions should be restricted to people who have an above-average desire to investigate differences of opinion.

An example of how we have a tendency to dismiss information as idiotic, a myth, or crazy simply because it conflicts with what we know, and how this can interfere with our understanding our world, is our ridicule of our ancestors who believed in unicorns. As I mentioned here, that belief might have been the result of some of our ancestors who found a dead Narwhale on the beach, and assumed that it was a horse that had one long, spiral horn on its head.

Instead of ridiculing the "crazy" beliefs of our ancestors, we should try to understand why they developed. That can help us to understand how the human mind interprets the world, how our culture became what it is, and how our ancestors lived..

For a new example, when microwave ovens became available for household use, around 1970, a lot of people claimed that they cooked from the inside out. That is false, but instead of assuming that those people are idiots, we should try to understand why they believe it.

Their opinion was the result of their brain processing information about the oven, so perhaps their mind is interpreting information differently than ours, or they have different information.

There have been some cold evenings when I put an apple in my microwave, set the oven on the lowest defrost cycle, and then let the apple cook for five or so minutes. The core of the apple would get so hot that some juice would bubble out at the stem, but the outside of the apple was only very warm. When I cut the apple in half, the core was cooked much more thoroughly than the outside, and it had a different visual appearance. I can think of two possible reasons that for why the interior was bubbling but the outside was not:

1) The interior of the apple has more water, causing it to absorb more of the microwaves.
2)
 My microwave oven does not spread the microwaves evenly. Instead, it produces a beam, and as the apple is spinning in the center of the microwave oven, the interior gets cooked more than the outer sections for the same reason that a rotating beam of x-rays is used to kill cancer in radiation therapy.

Incidentally, using a beam of microwaves in that manner might be useful for cooking certain food items, or for some industrial purposes.

If we were to investigate the people who said that microwave ovens are cooking from the inside out, we might discover that there are some food items, or some ovens, that actually do heat the interior of certain items to a higher temperature under certain circumstances.

Leaders should investigate complaints

This concept of investigating the beliefs that seem idiotic also applies to the complaints that people make about some machine, software, or procedure.

Some people have made vague complaints about my software, such as "it isn't working". I have also heard people make vague complaints about cell phones, microwave ovens, and other devices, such as complaining that some of the knobs, dials, switches, or features are confusing, stupid, or worthless. There are also people who complain that the procedures to set up a CNC machine or set the options on the cell phone are confusing or time-consuming.

The engineers and computer programmers who create those items are often annoyed by the complaints because the complaints seem idiotic or trivial. However, if we investigate the "idiotic" complaint, we will often discover that there is something that we can improve, and that the person is not stupid. Rather, the complaint seemed idiotic only because the person did not understand the product well enough to explain the problem very well.

By pushing ourselves into analyzing the "idiotic" complaints about products and software, the engineers and computer programmers will find ways to make them easier to use, which everybody will benefit from.

We need pressure to do things

Our natural tendency is to do the minimum amount possible. When an engineer is finished with a product, he wants to climb onto a pedestal and be rewarded. He does not want to listen to complaints about his creation, or go back to work to fix problems.

Animals do things only when they are pressured, and they look for the easiest way to accomplish their goal. Now that nature is no longer putting pressure on us to do things, we need leaders who understand that we are animals, and that we need to be under pressure. Furthermore, they must be able to design the pressure to be safe and beneficial, rather than dangerous, or which encourages fighting, cheating, envy, or pouting.

We also need to change our culture to encourage us to do things. One method that this Constitution uses is to encourage everybody to post complaints in the Suggestions category about any aspect of the city that annoys them, such as the products, software, recreational activities, holiday celebrations, government officials, and foot paths.

The people who post valid complaints will get credit for it, and the government officials who identify the useful complaints will get credit for that. Those people will be considered more valuable, and have higher priority for influential jobs. Their achievements will also increase their chances of being put into the City Elders classification.

Leaders cannot promote Marquis de Sade

Another reason that our leaders must realize that we are apes is so that they don't make the mistake of assuming that their emotional feelings are sensible.

If a person believes that he is a creation of a God, or a piece of clay, he is likely to assume that the more of his cravings he satisfies, the better his life will be. He is also likely to assume that he is suffering when he cannot satisfy his cravings, and he might get angry at the people who are interfering with his pursuit of happiness.

This is the Marquis de Sade attitude that we should do whatever we desire, and avoid whatever we dislike.

The people who follow that philosophy will assume that their life will improve by having more sex, food, material wealth, trophies, pampering, and status symbols. They will also try to avoid work, criticism, responsibility, and failures. They are also likely to cheat to get what they want.

Those type of people cannot provide guidance. They must be prohibited from influential positions. They should also be prohibited from reproducing.

We must restrict leadership positions to the people who understand that the human brain is just a modified ape brain, and that our emotions are modified ape emotions. Our leaders must understand that we actually get more satisfaction from life when we must routinely "suffer".

Leaders cannot encourage submission

Since our culture has evolved to give us what we want, and we want to be submissive to our leaders, every culture is encouraging this behavior, and many people in leadership positions exploit this craving.

One of the most obvious examples are the organized religions. They pressure us into becoming a slave of an imaginary leader. The nations that have monarchies also encourage this behavior. The leaders of communist nations in crime gangs also demand a high level of submissiveness.

We must not tolerate leaders who encourage submission. We must treat leaders with respect, but refuse to become their slave. We must change our attitudes towards leadership and regard leaders as "employees" who have a management job. Instead of being submissive to them, we must be critical of them, and routinely replace the worst performing leaders.

It is especially detrimental for a person to become submissive to an imaginary god because he is submissive to his own fantasy. Therefore, if he wants his god to authorize him to kill somebody, then his god will request him to kill somebody.

The people who killed witches during the Middle Ages believed that their god wanted them to do it, and the people in 2024 who want to kill doctors who perform abortions believe that their god wants them to kill those doctors.

The people who are unable to differentiate between a human leader and a fantasy leader are dangerous. Those people were valuable in prehistoric times because their fantasy leader motivated them to defend their tribe from the neighbors, but that characteristic is dangerous today.

Since every culture is dominated by religious people, no culture considers a person to be unacceptable for imagining that some type of god is talking to him. No culture even has a concern about the people who hear voices in their head. Instead, a lot of Christians have put documents on the Internet to explain how we can hear what God is saying to us, and how we can talk to God.

This constitution changes the situation dramatically by regarding the people who hear voices, or who believe that a god talks to them, as having unacceptable and potentially dangerous mental characteristics.

The Behavior Ministry  is required to investigate human behavior and set standards for people; the Reproductive Ministry is required to restrict reproduction to the people in better mental health; and the Courts Ministry is required to pass judgment on which people are so dangerous that they should be put on restrictions or evicted.

Our behavior is the result of our brain's decisions

We must also restrict leadership positions to the people who understand that an animal's behavior is the result of its brain processing information. The environment cannot control an animal. Rather, animals react to the environment, and that reaction depends upon its brain's genetic characteristics.

Although children are easily manipulated, every adult must be held accountable for his behavior because every adult behaves in the manner that his brain has decided to behave. However, a person must be able to do more than repeat the words: "everybody is responsible for his behavior." His life must show that he has followed that concept by taking responsibility for his decisions, and by expecting other people to be responsible for their decisions.

The people who currently dominate every nation are refusing to believe that humans are responsible for their life. As a result, none of them are providing us with sensible guidance.

For example, if a person becomes addicted to an opioid, it is because his brain made the decision to use the drug to the extent that he became addicted to it. However, the US government refuses to make Americans be responsible for their addiction to opioids. They claim that the USA has a "National Opioids Crisis", but one of their explanations for why some people are addicted to opioids is:
Increased prescription of opioid medications like oxycodone and hydrocodone led to widespread misuse of both prescription and non-prescription opioids.

During the past century, many drugs have had "increased prescriptions", but that has not led to "widespread misuse" of those drugs. Only some drugs are abused, and only by some people.

By refusing to believe that people are responsible for their behavior, our leaders cannot provide us with sensible analyses or solutions to drug addiction, alcoholism, gambling problems, credit card debt, rape, or other bad behavior.

We must replace most, or all, of the people who are currently dominating our societies.

Leaders cannot be interested in symbolism or numerology

Many of the people who dominate the world today have strong interests in religion, symbolism, numerology, the occult, or mysticism. This results in them designing buildings and producing art that fit their particular fascinations, such as the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation in Astana, Kazakhstan (photo below, left).

Religious fanatics design buildings, jewelry, and art to fit their particular religious beliefs, such as creating statues of Jesus, and decorating buildings with crosses.

There are also some people who have a fascination with the "Eye of Providence", so they put that symbol on the back of our dollar bill and other objects.



There is no right or wrong way to design buildings or decorate a city, so some people enjoy these decorations, and others are disgusted by them.

We cannot please everybody, so we must make decisions on what type of art we consider to be acceptable. This Constitution uses the City Elders as the standard for determining what is acceptable. Since I am the only one designing this constitution, this constitution recommends prohibiting all types of symbolism, numerology, witchcraft, religion, occult, and mysticism.

For some more examples of the type of symbolism and mysticism that this Constitution prohibits:

•
 Some religious people promote the concept that communion wafers represent the body of Jesus, and the communion wine represents the blood of Jesus, and that eating a wafer and drinking some wine is doing something useful.
•
 Many Jews have a fascination with numerology, especially the number 11. This results in them trying to arrange for events to occur at particular times and dates. They were undoubtedly the people who arranged for the end of World War I to be at 11 in the morning on the 11th day of the 11th month.
•
 There are people creating logos, images, and other artwork that have pentagrams, the Eye of Horus, Baphomet, sexual symbols, 666, and other occult symbols. The murals at the Denver airport are examples of their bizarre fascination with symbolism.
•
A business is promoting a building for Oklahoma that is 1907 feet tall, and they chose that height because Oklahoma was admitted to the USA in the year 1907. In New York City, the World Trade Center was chosen to be 1776 feet tall because the USA declared its independence in 1776. Our leaders should design buildings to a height that is sensible, not according to some numerology concept.

Although it might seem harmless to design a building according to a particular year, it is encouraging idiotic behavior. Furthermore, the height would have no meaning if the future generations decide to switch to the metric system. The World Trade Center would become 541.3248 meters tall, and the Oklahoma building would become 581.2536 meters tall.

Allowing nonsensical behavior encourages more of it. Children who grow up around nonsensical behavior will consider such behavior to be normal.

When only a few people do idiotic, childish, and obnoxious things, we tend to ignore them, but if the majority of people did it, it would be irritating.

Even worse, we have a natural desire to compete with one another, and that craving can encourage us to get into idiotic competitions to become the center of attention, such as architects competing to have the most clever height for a building.
•
 Many people use an image of a dove, or a dove with an olive branch, to represent peace, but expecting images of birds and branches to improve our lives is as idiotic as believing that eating a communion wafer will improve our lives.

We will create peace in the world when we raise standards for human behavior, control reproduction, provide ourselves with better leadership, and exert some self-control over our animal emotions. We cannot bring peace to the world simply by drawing some of the thousands of peace symbols.
•
 When certain people die or are murdered, some people will get together to have candlelight vigils. This custom has become so common that some nations repeat them every year. They have become a part of their culture, but they are as idiotic as eating communion wafers.

This constitution considers the fascination with symbols, numerology, the occult, and magic to be idiotic, crude, obnoxious, childish, irrational, wasteful, and detrimental. Leadership positions must be restricted to people who encourage intelligent behavior. Our leaders must design cities to be beautiful, pleasant, quiet, efficient, comfortable, and easy to maintain, rather than to promote religious or occult nonsense.

Our leaders are required to authorize murals, water fountains, and other decorations for the city that evoke pleasant feelings, rather than decorate the city with occult symbols. They must arrange for social activities that are beneficial rather than symbolic. They must arrange for events to occur when they are most appropriate for us, not according to the numbers 9 or 11.

Encouraging people to do things that are symbolic is encouraging them to waste their time on worthless and irrational activities.

We should use symbols for intelligent purposes, not for promoting nonsensical concepts. For example, the skull and crossbones is useful for identifying poisons, and the symbol for radioactive materials is useful for identifying those materials. We could also use symbols on the doors of our buildings to identify what is inside, as recommended here.

We prefer pleasant fantasies

We cannot depend upon our mind to produce intelligent thoughts. Science became productive during the past few centuries only when people realized that they need to verify their theories, and let other people verify their theories. We cannot even depend upon our mind to give us a accurate view of what we are looking at.

As with animals, we want stimulate pleasant feelings and avoid whatever irritates us. This results in us preferring to create thoughts that are emotionally pleasant. This is the reason that most people have a strong desire to believe in a supreme being.

We have an emotional desire to follow an older, strong, and wise male who will protect us from harm and help us when we have trouble. The best way to titillate that emotion is by imagining that we are following a man who is stronger, more wise, and more talented than all other men.

At some point in the development of humans, our ancestors develop the ability to create an imaginary leader, and that allowed them to stimulate themselves much more than a real human leader.

Since we want that leader to protect us every day, all throughout the day and night, we imagine that he is floating in the sky, never sleeps, has no desire to take a vacation, does not have friends, family members, or activities, never has to to go to the bathroom or eat, and never gets bored watching over us. Our mind does not care whether there is supporting evidence for that fantasy.

Since religion is a fantasy, each person can alter his fantasy to be most titillating to himself.

The fantasy of a god is similar to the fantasy that we create for ourselves when we masturbate. Our mind does not care whether the fantasy is accurate.

Since every religion is a fantasy, none of them can explain human behavior, or the universe, so every religious person has to fill in the details. This allows people to fill in the details as they please. The religious people are essentially filling in a coloring book in the manner that they are most attracted to. This causes them to be even more attracted to their religion.

Many atheists ridicule the religious people for believing in nonsense, but everybody some nonsensical beliefs. For example, many physicists could be described as filling in a coloring book with fantasies, such as string theory, dark energy, dark photons, multiple universes.

Religious people titillate themselves with a religion coloring book.
Some physicists titillate themselves with a Big Bang coloring book.

Another example are the scientists who believe that women menstruate and have trouble giving birth because humans are superior to animals. They prefer that pleasant fantasy rather than the more sensible theory that those particular genetic characteristics have been degrading for hundreds of thousands of years.

We also like to titillate ourselves with the pleasant fantasy that humans are superior to animals, but it makes no sense to say one animal is superior to another. Every animal has impressive characteristics, and some animals have characteristics that are superior to that of humans, such as their vision, reflexes, hearing, and sense of smell. Some animals also have better regenerative abilities.

The more ignorant we are about a subject, the more likely we are to fill in the details according to our emotional cravings rather than intellectual analyses. A simple example is that we have no idea what happens to us when we die, and our desire to titillate ourselves causes us to create a theory that is the most emotionally pleasant, which is to believe that we will have another life when we die, and a better life.

Our tendency to believe whatever is most emotionally pleasing can cause a lot of trouble for us, such as when we believe that we are going to win our gambling bets, and when government officials believe that they can stop crime by punishing criminals. We must ensure that our leaders show an above-average ability to design theories according to intellectual analyses rather than emotionally pleasing fantasies.

We must test people's acceptance of reality

Every culture requires a person to pass certain intellectual and health tests to become a doctor, pilot, or dentist, but no culture has any tests for people in leadership positions of governments, businesses, charities, think tanks, religions, or sports groups. This allows people to become leaders of those organizations even if they have obvious mental problems, criminal backgrounds, or drug problems, and even if they believe in witches, clairvoyance, Sigmund Freud's theories, Noah's Ark, or Scientology.

This constitution requires the people in leadership positions to meet higher standards than everybody else. The top positions are restricted to people who excel at accepting unpleasant aspects of reality, and who are less likely to believe in fantasies. Unfortunately, determining who is best able to accept reality creates two unsolvable problems:

 1) We have different ideas on what reality is.

2)
 We do not know how to measure a person's ability to accept reality.

Whoever gets control of society will have to make decisions on what "reality" is, and then they have to create tests to determine who is best able to accept that reality. By experimenting with those tests, we will slowly improve them. This is how we determine who qualifies to be a pilot, dentist, or doctor. For example, a test could have questions similar to:

Why do humans have a strong attraction to the taste of muscle meat, but a low attraction to the taste of liver? There are some people who speculate that prehistoric people had a tendency to eat liver because it was easy to remove from a dead animal and cut into pieces, and it was easy to chew. Liver also has a lot of nutrients. So why do we prefer to eat the muscles?

Nobody knows the answer to that question, so we cannot say whether a person has answered the question correctly, but we can pass judgment on whether the person's answer shows an above-average ability to think and understand evolution. For example, imagine that four candidates for president responded with these answers:

#1) Liver contains extremely high levels of certain minerals and vitamins, such as iron, vitamin D, and vitamin A, and high levels of purine, and very low levels of certain other vitamins and minerals. Muscle meat also has low levels of certain vitamins and minerals, but it does not have excessive amounts of anything.

The prehistoric humans who had a preference for liver would have had a tendency to suffer from an excessive level of certain nutrients, thereby reducing their success in reproduction. The people who preferred muscle meat would be healthier.
#2)
 We don't like liver because God does not want us to eat the organs of animals.
#3)
 An animal has a lot more muscle than liver, and this results in businesses wanting to sell more muscle meat than liver, so they promote the consumption of muscle meat. This causes consumers to purchase muscle meat.
#4
 An animal has a lot more muscle than liver, and the muscle meat can be stored for longer periods of time, so if people preferred liver, they would not have enough food to eat. The people who were best adapted to a prehistoric life were those who preferred the foods that were in adequate supplies in their particular environment.

It is possible that all four of those answers are incorrect, but candidates #1 and #4 show evidence that they understand the concept of evolution and genetics, whereas candidates #2 and #3 gave such idiotic responses that they should be regarded as having inappropriate mental characteristics for a leadership position.
Government officials are held accountable for their decisions
All government decisions must be documented

The Database Ministry of the Quality Division maintains several Internet sites for the government officials to post documents. All government officials are required to use those sites to explain their decisions. The purpose is to allow the voters, government officials, and public to pass judgment on which officials are providing us with most sensible analyses and guidance, and which of them should be replaced.

Those documents allow us to hold the government officials accountable for what they do. For example, it allows us to understand why they support, propose, or deny certain laws, research projects, holiday celebrations, social activities, school courses, and other culture.

The length of the document is not important, and it could be a video or audio file. Regardless of what type of documentation they create, they must identify themselves as the author, and provide the date at which it was created or edited. They cannot post anything anonymously.
More details are here.

Secrecy cannot be justified as “National Security”

The US government keeps a lot of information a secret by claiming that the secrecy is necessary to protect "national security". Although it makes sense to keep certain information a secret from other nations, such as the technology to build weapons, no nation, (other than Israel), is protected by censoring information about the JFK assassination, the world wars, or the 9/11 attack.

This Constitution prevents cities from developing military weapons, so they have no justification for keeping anything a secret. No government official is permitted to claim that they need to censor some information or people in order to protect "city security".

The Database Ministry can request documentation

If the Database Ministry cannot understand a particular document, they can request the government official to edit it and clarify it. Or, if the Database Ministry is wondering why no official has responded to a particular suggestion or issue, they can demand one of the presidents to post an explanation.

For example, if a citizen has posted a suggestion to alter the school curriculum, but no official has responded to his suggestion, a Database official can demand that the presidents respond to it.

The reason that the Database officials can demand explanations and clarification of explanations is to prevent a problem that is common in the world today; specifically, leaders who ignore problems and proposals, and when asked about it, they either make false promises to deal with the issue, or they give an answer that is vague and confusing.

The Database officials have the authority to demand details for why a minister has authorized a particular product to be manufactured, or why a minister has allowed a particular executive to treat his employees in a certain manner, or why a minister has created a particular city festival or social activity.

This authority allows the Database Ministry to take the role of a teacher who is demanding that a student edit his the confusing document to make it more understandable.

The Database Ministry officials are accountable, also

When a Database official demands an explanation from a government official, he must put post his demand in the Requests category, and identify himself as the author. This allows us to pass judgment on which of the Database officials are helping us to understand what is going on in the government, and which of them are wasting the time of other officials by requesting them to explain issues of no importance, or which are obvious to most people.

The voters must document their decisions, also

The voters are regarded as top level government officials, and they are not allowed to be secretive or anonymous. Instead, the voters must document their decisions just like the other government officials, and for the same reasons. Specifically, to allow us to pass judgment on which voter does the best job of selecting, analyzing, and replacing leaders, and which voter should be replaced.
Government officials must meet high standards
 
Candidates must be individuals

All existing cultures allow candidates for government jobs to be members of political organizations, which results in elections that are a competition between the organizations rather than a competition between the candidates.

Since no society has much concern about the motives or behavior of the organizations, the organizations that are the most diabolical and selfish have an advantage. For example, the two dominant parties in the USA, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, require their candidates to sign an oath of loyalty to the organization, not an oath of loyalty to the nation or the human race.



We must resist the desire to
behave like stupid animals.
Those candidates are put into the role of a criminal who must swear an oath of loyalty to his crime network, or a medieval knight who must swear an oath of loyalty to his King or Queen.

To make the situation in the US even more absurd, Cynthia McKinney said that she and other candidates for the US Congress were pressured by Israel to sign a pledge to support Israel.

That is as idiotic as a medieval knight being forced to sign a pledge to support the Queen of some other society.

This constitution requires everybody, including political candidates, to apply for a job as an individual citizen, rather than as a member of an organization. Everybody is regarded as a city employee, and the city is regarded as a team of people who are working for the benefit of the team. Everybody's loyalty is to the people in the city, and to the human race, not to any particular person or organization.

People must qualify to be government leaders

A person must qualify in order to be considered for the job of president, director, minister, and voter, and the presidents, directors, and voters have to meet the highest standards. This Constitution suggests the following four requirements:
1) An excellent understanding that humans are apes
2) Success in non-government jobs
3) Success in research and analysis
4) An excellent level of self control

1) An excellent understanding that humans are apes

This was discussed at beginning of this document (here).

2) Success in non-government jobs

When businesses want to hire somebody for a high level management position, they consider only the candidates who have had success in management jobs. However, none of the existing cultures care whether the government officials have had any success in anything. In the USA, everybody is qualified to be a government official, no matter how much of a failure they have been.

This Constitution restricts the candidates for ministers and presidents to people who have demonstrated above-average success in management positions.

Furthermore, this Constitution advocates giving preference to the candidates who have had a variety of different jobs. A person is a more effective leader when he has had experience with a variety of jobs because he will have a better understanding of the work that his team and other people are doing, which in turn allows him to do a better job of supervising them, allocating tasks, and finding ways to increase the efficiency of their operation.

The military has been aware of this concept for thousands of years, which is why they promote their members only after they have experience and success with low-level jobs. They do not want to give top management positions to people who have had no experience with the lower-level tasks.

Since this Constitution advocates part-time and temporary jobs, it will be easy for people to get experience in a variety of jobs.

Everybody must earn their influential position.

Every culture is still allowing parents to pass unlimited amounts of material wealth, money, land, and businesses to their children, and a spouse is allowed to acquire enormous amounts of money, land, wealth, and businesses from a divorce. This provides us with incompetent leaders, especially when it continues for many generations, as it has been doing in Europe.

An example of these incompetent people can be seen in the British television program, Time Team, in which some archaeologists travel around Britain to excavate archaeological sites, some of which are within the yards of wealthy people who have been passing their mansions and land from one generation to the next for many centuries.

In this episode they excavate in the backyard of a mansion that is mostly grass, but the owners of the mansion are limiting the area that they can dig because they are worried about the grass being destroyed.

Near the end of the program, an archaeologist asks the owner if they can dig one more area in the backyard, and the wealthy woman responds that she worries that if she lets them dig one more area, then they're going to ask to dig another area after that, and so on, destroying her grass in the process.

She is an example of the wealthy people who are ignorant, unskilled, parasites. Grass is not a fragile, delicate, or precious resource that we must protect from archaeologists. Rather, grass benefits from "abuse". Specifically, grass benefits by the gophers, worms, and moles that dig holes in it. The best way to improve a grass lawn is to use a Rototiller to tear it up and let it regrow, or use one of the machines to punch holes in the grass.

Farmers have known for thousands of years that plants grow better when they tear up the soil, and then plant their crops. After harvesting the crop, they tear up the soil again, and repeat the cycle.

In a free enterprise system, the people with the most money have the most influence, so allowing wealthy people to provide their children and ex-spouse with large amounts of money is allowing society to be dominated by people who did not earn the position, and that results in a lot of people becoming influential who are incompetent, ignorant, dishonest, selfish, abusive, and neurotic.

Those incompetent, wealthy people are likely to resist the attempts to require people earn their leadership position. They are also more likely to push society into supporting inheritances and nepotism.

To make the situation worse, the people who become wealthy by joining crime networks are likely to have children who are more likely to get involved with crime, thereby creating crime families that have tremendous wealth and influence, and who resist attempts to reduce crime.

We must ensure that the people who become influential have earned their position by providing us with excellent leadership.

3) Success in research and analysis

The only people who should qualify as ministers, directors, and presidents are those who have demonstrated an above-average ability to explore the unknown, produce intelligent analyses, and help us to understand something about life.

The top leadership positions require people to analyze problems, not use their hands to create a product. Those jobs are intellectual, not physical. Those jobs require people who have an exceptional ability to provide us with critical analyses of our culture, and to experiment with improvements to it. They must have an above-average interest and ability to do research and learn from constructive criticism.

A person who is old enough to be a government official, but has never produced any intelligent analyses of anything, should be regarded as having such a low interest in learning and thinking that he is inappropriate for a top leadership position.

The only people who should qualify for the top positions are those who have shown an above-average interest in analyzing life, and producing intelligent analyses.

As pointed out in many sections of this Constitution, each of us has a different idea on who is producing intelligent analyses and providing proper leadership. This Constitution resolves this dilemma by maintaining a "social credit system", and choosing the older adults with the highest credit score to be the City Elders, and use them as the standard for humans.

The only people who qualify for leadership are those who qualify to be among the City Elders. The people that the Elders regard as intelligent will be considered to be intelligent, even if most of the public disagrees and insists that Joe Biden, Lady Gaga, or Prince Charles is more intelligent.

A social credit system is an analysis of everybody's behavior and mental characteristics, and since each of us would design it differently, its value depends upon the people who created it. Therefore, our leadership will depend on the people who create and update the social credit system.

For example, the woman who produced the document discussed here, which claims that women work harder than men, would be considered intelligent according to some people's social credit system, but would be disqualified from a leadership position in the system that I would create.

As mentioned many documents, our future will depend upon who gets control of our world.

4) An excellent level of self control

The top leadership positions should be restricted to people who have shown above-average self-control. Although it is impossible for us to measure self-control, we can judge a person by his past behavior. For example, does he show an ability to control his eating habits, or is he overweight or anorexic? Has he shown signs of being able to control his temper, pouting, arrogance, status seeking, selfishness, envy, and sexual cravings?

The minister candidates must be 35 to 65 years old

The candidates for ministers are restricted to a certain age group for the same reasons as the presidents and directors. However, the ministers can be as young as 35 because there will be a lot more of those jobs to fill, and because the ministers do not have as much authority as the presidents and directors, so it will not cause as much trouble if they turn out to be incompetent.

Ministers must be replaced before they are 70

The presidents and directors must replace a minister before he become 70 years old, and for the same reasons that the presidents and directors are replaced before that age.

Young adults cannot provide useful leadership

It was possible for a young adult to be an effective leader in a prehistoric tribe because he didn't have to deal with complex issues. The situation today is dramatically different. Our leaders have to deal with a tremendous number of complex problems, and we cannot expect young adults to have the experience to make sensible decisions about them.

The existing cultures assume that when a person becomes 18 or 21 years old, he is capable of making intelligent decisions about voting, alcohol, marriage, raising children, spending money, and choosing which foods to eat, but this constitution has a different attitude.

Specifically, when a child becomes a teenager, he begins to think for himself, but he is very ignorant, and his brain has not finished developing, so he is not capable of making intelligent decisions on how to live his life. When a teenager becomes 18 or 21, he does not transform into an adult who can make wise decisions. Rather, he is simply slightly less ignorant and incompetent than he was the day before.

As we grow older, we learn more about life, and this allows us to make increasingly better decisions about what to do with our life. As a result, if a 60-year-old person could go back in time and become 18 years old again, but with what he knows at age 60, he would make different, and more beneficial, decisions about how to spend his life.

The existing cultures do not consider a "voter" to be a "leader", but this Constitution considers voters to be among the "top leaders" of society because they have more influence over our future than almost everybody else.

It is idiotic to let young adults become voters. Likewise, young adults do not know much about marriage, raising children, housing, meals, social activities, school curriculum, or anything else. It is be useful to find out what the young adults like and dislike because that can help us understand human minds, and how we change as we grow older, but we cannot regard their opinions as being valuable. Instead, the young adults need guidance from the older adults, but only from the older adults who have had success with life.

It is idiotic for the leaders of society to ask young adults, and especially teenagers and children, what they want the adults to do for them. For example, the University of Michigan has a dormitory that does not provide the students with windows in their bedrooms, and some adults asked the students whether they like that type of dormitory. However, the students did not provide intelligent responses. For example, a lot of the students complained about loneliness and the lack of socializing, but their loneliness has nothing to do with the number of windows in the dormitory.

I suspect that their loneliness is due primarily to the University's culture of diversity. The University mixes students of different races, religions, eating habits, clothing styles, languages, sexual preferences, and mental disorders. The University puts students into a dormitory who are incompatible, and that results in them ignoring one another. Installing more windows in their dormitory would do nothing to reduce that incompatibility and loneliness.

In order for us to form friendships, we must have a certain compatibility with one another in regards to our physical and mental characteristics. We also need to follow the same culture. Our ability to form friendships has nothing to do with whether we have windows in our home.

For example, even if everybody had lots of windows, we cannot expect people to enjoy having dinner together when some of them refuse to eat pork, others refuse to eat beef, some are speaking a different language, some are vegetarians, others are vegans, some want food with high levels of capsacin, some want to eat with chopsticks, some want to eat with their fingers, some want to eat in a quiet dining room, others want to eat while watching television or listening to loud music, some want to wear nice clothing, and others don't care what their clothing looks like,

In a previous document I pointed out that the University of California at Santa Barbara was considering to build a dormitory that does not provide the students with windows in their bedrooms. The only way to determine what type of housing is best for students and adults is to treat people in the same manner that farmers treat animals. Specifically, farmers experiment with the living conditions that they provide the animals, and they observe how those conditions affect their health and behavior.

It is idiotic to ask people what they want in housing or other culture. We must experiment with our culture, and observe the effect it has on people attitudes, health, relationships, work performance, and behavior.

I've given some examples of this concept in other documents. For example, our emotions cause us to want to live in a gigantic mansion on a large plot of land, install a tall fence around our property, and to chase away all of the neighbors, but that type of life results in us becoming lonely, especially the children.

Those large plots of land also separate us from one another and our jobs, which results us wasting a lot of our time and resources on traveling to markets, our job, or friends, our relatives, and to recreational activities. It also causes parents to waste a lot of their time transporting their children around the city. Furthermore, the large houses and yards put such a large maintenance burden on us that we need maids and gardeners, which degrades our social environment because it requires a "peasant class".

We want a large house and a large plot of land, but will that provide us with the most satisfying life?

The only way to truly determine whether we are providing ourselves with an appropriate culture is to experiment with our culture and observe the effect. For example, if we experiment with a change in our housing or work environment, and then notice that some people are spending more of their time with pets, masturbating with pornography, eating, shopping, or arguing, then that change was a failure.

Likewise, if we experiment with the foods we eat, and then we observe that more people are becoming overweight, diabetic, sickly, having trouble sleeping, or showing signs of allergies, then that change was a failure.

Our leaders should not design our houses, meals, recreational activities, clothing, or holiday celebrations, or other culture according to our emotional cravings. We must experiment with our culture, and analyze the effect it has on us.
The worst leaders must be regularly replaced
Leaders cannot have special police protection

The US government provides the president with a special security force, (the Secret Service), and some executives of businesses hire private security forces to protect them.

This constitution prohibits everybody from having special security protection. The government officials and executives must live in the same apartment buildings and use the same transportation systems, city parks, restaurants, and recreational activities as all other citizens. They are prohibited from having a special security force, and from living in their own special, isolated neighborhoods. They are city employees who are treated the same as other employees.

The only way they can protect themselves from crime is to reduce crime in the entire city.

Leaders should not fear assassinations

Two of possible reasons that leaders are afraid of assassinations are:


 1) The leaders are disgusting

Many of the leaders during the past thousand years have been selfish, abusive, violent, neurotic, or incompetent. This has resulted in a lot of citizens wishing to kill them.

2)
 The citizens are disgusting

When a society does not have any restrictions on reproduction, nor any standards for the citizens or immigrants, every generation will have more mental disorders, resulting in an increase in crime, drug abuse, violent temper tantrums, unemployment, and other problems. This can result in everybody, including the leaders, becoming afraid of the people that they live with.

Every culture has so much crime, and so many violent citizens, that it is considered "normal" for the leaders to be afraid of being assassinated, and for the citizens to be afraid of one another, but we should regard an organization, including a nation, as a failure when either the leaders or citizens are afraid of one another.

Every society has reacted to the possibility that their leaders might be assassinated by allowing their leaders to have a private security force, but that is an idiotic reaction. We should react to a problem by analyzing it, trying to determine its cause, and experimenting with methods to reduce the problem. For example:


 •
 If we conclude that the leaders who are in fear of assassination are corrupt or abusive, then we should replace or arrest them rather than give them protection.

•
 If we determine that the citizens are violent, then we should raise standards for the citizens and evict or euthanize those who cannot meet the standards, rather than try to protect our leaders from their abuse.

It is beneficial for the members of a nation, business, sports group, orchestra, or other organization, to be critical of their leaders, but we should consider a culture to be a failure when the members fantasize about, or attempt, to kill their leaders. We should react to assassination attempts by improving our culture and people, rather than giving protection to our leaders.

Leaders should improve efficiency

In a free enterprise system, people are so frightened of losing their job that they are unlikely to notify management when they have nothing to do, or when they realize that there is a way to eliminate their job.

However, this constitution regards a person who can find a way to eliminate his job, or reduce the hours that he has to work, as having superior mental abilities compared to a person who is unaware of, or unwilling to acknowledge, that he is not doing much work, or that his job could be eliminated.

The people who can find ways to reduce their work are given credit for making jobs more efficient, which will help them qualify for leadership positions. This policy will provide the city with leaders who have the talent to improve the efficiency of the businesses, government agencies, and other organizations.

Leaders cannot exploit people

The people who rise to the top leadership positions of a free enterprise system and a democracy are often the people who excel at exploiting people. For example, many of the leaders of businesses and government agencies use children as tools to stimulate and manipulate adults, such as:


 •
 Businesses use children in advertisements to stimulate and manipulate adults into purchasing their products.

•
 Children are used to promote carbon taxes and global warming.

•
 The US courts allow children to provide testimony on global warming. Rather than criticize that, some journalists promote it as a sensible method of resolving the global warming issue.

This Constitution prohibits the use of children to promote any type of opinion or product. People who use children in that manner are to be regarded as criminals who are abusing and exploiting children. They are trying to manipulate society by stimulating our emotions rather than by providing us with intelligent analyses and suggestions.

This constitution prohibits all types of emotional stimulation that is intended to manipulate people, such as businesses that enhance photographs in order to create travel pornography, and the authors that stimulate young girls with romance pornography.

It is a personal opinion as to whether or not a journalist, government official, or other person is trying to manipulate us, but we should make those decisions rather than ignore what people are doing. This constitution encourages everybody to post a complaint about potential possible manipulation in the Suggestions category, and the Courts Ministry will investigate and deal with the issue.
Government officials cannot ignore problems
Our leaders must improve our lives

Our top leaders are required to find ways to improve our lives, and that requires that they have the ability to face the problems that we encounter and conduct experiments to improve the situation, rather than ignore the problems.

This concept requires that people, especially voters, change their attitudes towards leadership because in the world today, leaders are permitted to ignore problems, claim that there is no solution to a problem, and fake stupidity and ignorance in order to justify doing nothing about a problem.


Example: the Santa Barbara airport

The Santa Barbara city and airport officials are an example of why we must make a dramatic change to our attitudes and culture in order to improve our government. As I mentioned in this document, the Santa Barbara airport has three runways; a long runway for commercial airlines, and two smaller runways for the smaller, private aircraft.

The two smaller runways allow airplanes to take off and land over the ocean, thereby not bothering anybody with the noise.

However, the people in leadership positions of the airport and city are allowing the small, private aircraft to use the long runway. This results in private aircraft flying over businesses, a park, a shopping center, and homes. If the private aircraft had quiet engines, this would not be a problem, but most of them are more of a noise nuisance than the large commercial jets because they fly at a lower altitude and slower speed, which causes them to spend more time over our homes.

The ultralights are the slowest and lowest, so they can be extremely irritating. Fortunately, there are not many of them. However, some of the private jets seem to make more noise than the large commercial jets, even though their engines are much smaller, and many of them take off and land on the large runway every day.

At a meeting in which some of the people in leadership positions responded to the complaints of noise from aircraft, one of those leaders made remarks that are typical of democratic government officials; specifically, that he was unaware of certain issues and would investigate them. One of his remarks was:

The pilot, when they file a flight plan, picks which departure procedures they want to use, and how it ties into where they're going. And so we are committed to doing some active research to find out what departure procedures those pilots are choosing, and try to find out why they are choosing the ones that are not the ones that are better for the community. And if there's valid reasons why they are not, coming back and reporting to the city staff, and ultimately to the council, if that's the desire, and having a better understanding of which paths are being chosen and why.

That response could be described as: faking ignorance and making false promises to investigate the problem. Most voters are so incompetent that they allow the government officials to routinely do that. The voters never bother to replace dishonest officials.

Our government officials can also make false claims without any repercussions. For example, the Santa Barbara official who made the remark above also claimed that the weather in Santa Barbara is often preventing the aircraft from taking a flight path to reduce noise levels:

if the wind is blowing over a certain mile-per-hour they can't take off with the tailwind, and so weather is actually the limiting factor for that

This weather station at the Goleta airport shows that the temperature, rain, and wind are very mild. It is possible that the Goleta airport has the world's best weather for airports. However, our leaders can get away with making false claims because the voters are incompetent.

Leaders cannot satisfy everybody

Many years ago the airport encouraged the pilots fly over an area of Goleta that did not have many people and was mostly vacant, wild land, but after UCSB decided to build homes in that vacant area, the airport officials stopped encouraging the pilots to take a particular path, and let the pilots choose their own path. Some of the remarks from the airport official were:

• We didn't want to actively direct aircraft over a populated area.
• But we didn't want to pick and choose which housing area gets the traffic. I can't say whether that is a good decision or a bad decision. I wasn't here when that was made.
• We don't want to be the ones who dictate where an aircraft flies and have more people upset with us.

Those remarks show that the airport officials are deliberately refusing to tell the pilots how to take off and land because they don't want to upset anybody. They are hiding from the issue rather than investigating it and making a decision about what is best for society.

The Santa Barbara airport officials are afraid of upsetting people, but no matter what our leaders do, they are going to upset somebody. They also upset people when they do nothing.

Leaders who ignore problems are not leaders. In this modern world, we must require leaders to have the emotional ability to face problems, analyze them, discuss them, and make a decision on what to do about them. They must have the emotional ability to upset people, including their family members and friends.

Furthermore, the best leaders are those who are capable of doing something that they do not want to do, but which they believe is best for society, thereby upsetting themselves.

Leadership must be restricted to people who understand that we cannot please everybody, and that we must decide who we are going to please, and who we allow to become upset. In the case of airport noise, I would suggest letting the aircraft fly over the student housing areas because the students are living there only temporarily, so the irritation will only be a temporary irritation in their lives.

Our leaders have no trouble raising taxes

Government officials never have trouble creating new taxes, or increasing the existing taxes. They have trouble only when they are requested to solve problems. The government also has no trouble dealing with certain crimes, such as people who cheat on their taxes, but they cannot figure out how to make telemarketers follow the do-not-call list. They also cannot stop human trafficking or pedophilia, either, even though they can create reports about it every year.

This news article claims that the government officials of "Santa Barbara and Goleta do not have any power to tell the airlines which flight routes to take." Our city officials want us to believe that they are subservient to the commercial airlines and private pilots, but that is just another excuse to do nothing.



Government officials are lying
about being subservient to pilots.
The private pilots are not Kings or Queens. They don't have any more authority than the people who drive trucks, automobiles, boats, bulldozers, bicycles, or drones.

Our government has no trouble creating laws, including laws that have no value. For example, the California government is forcing us to put our automobiles through smog inspections every two years, regardless of how few miles we have driven during those two years, and regardless of whether the engine shows any sign of trouble.

The only time our government has trouble creating a law is when they don't want to deal with the issue.

The voters are supposed to replace the government officials who are useless, but most voters are too incompetent.

Leaders must have sensible reactions to problems

When animals encounter problems, they tend to react by running away and hiding from the problem, or by becoming angry. The human mind is an improvement because we sometimes react to a problem by investigating it and trying to find a way to solve it, but that is not a common reaction. All of us, especially children, still have a strong desire to react to a problem with either anger or by hiding from it.

This constitution eliminates secrecy and authorizes the collecting of information about everybody's life so that we can pass judgment on how each person reacts to problems. We must pass judgment on whether a person has a tendency to react like a stupid animal, or whether he tends to react by analyzing the problem and looking for improvements, as a modern human should do.

That database will also help us understand when children start to improve their reaction to problems, and it will allow us to pass judgment on which adults are more childlike.

That database will also help us understand the differences in the way men and women react to problems, and how we react to different types of problems. For example, we might find that women react better to problems with children than they do with mechanical devices.