The "World Government" described in these documents is intended only for the cities that choose to be part of the concept of Micro Nations. Since nobody is publicly admitting to support this concept, it is possible that there are not even enough people for one city.

However, if there are enough people to create more than one city, then the World Government will provide leadership only to those cities, not to the other, independent nations.

When the United Nations was first created, it was a meeting place for a few nations to get together to discuss issues. During the following decades it did what governments typically do; namely, increase in size by bringing more nations into it; demand more money; and create more agencies to give them more influence over the world. However, the United Nations never became a world government.

Israel has deceived most people into believing that the United Nations created Israel, but the United Nations has never had the authority to create nations.

The United Nations has always been a meeting place for the representatives of a few governments to discuss issues. It has since been expanded to include more nations, and to get involved with more activities, but is still just a meeting place, not the dictator of the world.

Furthermore, as with all governments, the United Nations is not held accountable for anything they do, which allows them to repeat the same failed policies over and over without being fired. They can also provide us with lies, nonsense, and propaganda. For example:

•		The UN created The Holocaust and the United Nations Outreach Programme to promote Israeli lies.
•		The UN created three organizations to promote feminist and anti-genetic propaganda: UN Women, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality, and the Empowerment of Women.
•		The UN created The World Food Programme to promote the nonsensical concept that hunger can be eliminated with handouts of food.

The United Nations claims to be helping all people on the planet, but they do not give all nations equal status. Instead, Israel has the most influence.

All organizations and people are biased, but the bias in the United Nations is so extreme that it would be more accurate to describe it as a Jewish deception rather than an organization to help the world.

Israel has so much control of the United Nations that Netanyahu has given speeches at the United Nations to promote hatred, bombing, and fear of Iran. That is not providing the world with leadership, or discussing a problem with other nations. Rather, that is an attempt to manipulate people into starting another war. His speech should be regarded as "hate speech", or "anti-Persianism".

If Netanyahu had given poisoned food to the officials at the United Nations, he would have been arrested, but they applauded when he gave them poisoned information. We must raise our standards for people in leadership positions and arrest those who give us poisoned information.

Imagine if Germany had sent an ambassador to the United Nations who accused Israel of being the Axis of Evil, pointed out that they have nuclear weapons, and advocated bombing Israel and destroying their weapons. That would make more sense than Israel advocating the bombing of Iran. Or imagine if Senator John McCain had promoted a song about bombing Israel. That also makes more sense than him promoting the song about bombing Iran.

The United Nations has a Ministry of Peace Operations that maintains a "peacekeeping" force that consists of personnel from various nations, but those peacekeepers have never been used to stop wars, corruption, crime, or other problems.

In order to maintain peace in the world, we need a group of men who are analogous to gardeners, but instead of removing weeds from a garden, they remove the badly behaved government officials, businessmen, charity officials, ADL officials, journalists, and other influential people who are instigating fights, hatred, and wars.

Gardeners are not “peaceful” people. Rather, they are destructive people who kill a lot of creatures. However, they kill only the plants, rodents, insects, and other creatures that we don't want in a garden. They do not kill creatures at random.

However, the United Nations peacekeepers are not analogous to gardeners because do not remove incompetent or abusive leaders. Actually, there have been so many accusations that the United Nations peacekeepers are involved with crimes, including the sexual abuse of children, that they are more accurately described as a crime network rather than peacekeepers or a security force.

Whether a group of gardeners creates a beautiful garden or an ugly garden depends upon our emotional preferences. Gardeners must kill creatures, and they must put restrictions on the growth of plants and trees, such as trimming trees when they become a certain size. However, there is no right or wrong decision about which creature to kill, and which restriction should be put on which plant.

This concept applies to everything. There is no right or wrong way to design clothing, holiday celebrations, or a work environment for a business. There is no way to determine who should reproduce, who should be executed, and who should qualify as a doctor or government official.

The value of a group of gardeners depends mainly on who the gardeners are and what rules they follow. The hierarchy of their organization has an effect on their efficiency and value, but not as much as the people and the rules.

Likewise, the value of a world government depends mainly on the people we choose for it, and the laws that they are required to follow. The structure of a government has an effect on its efficiency, but we cannot expect a world government to be useful when we allow it to consist of the type of people who dominate the world today, or when we allow them to be secretive or suppress their critics and competitors.

During the past thousand or so years, an enormous amount of labor and resources has been going into the development and production of military weapons, the fighting of wars, and the rebuilding of damaged cities. If that labor and resources had been put into beneficial activities, the world today would be much more advanced.

The majority of people did not want any of the wars. Humans and all other animals are inherently non-violent, so we prefer to avoid fights. Historians are not providing us with an accurate analysis of wars, but it seems that most, or all, of the wars of the past thousand years have been instigated by a small number of people.

The Kings and Queens instigated wars during the Middle Ages, and Jews seem to have been instigating wars during the past two centuries. The Jews have also been instigating fights within nations, such as encouraging fights between different races, men and women, and different political parties.

We can prevent wars and domestic fights simply by preventing small groups of people from instigating wars. This requires educating people about these concepts so that they are not so easily fooled into hating people, and evicting or euthanizing the people who try to instigate fights.

We can further reduce the desire for war by requiring every society to be equal in material wealth, land area, resources, and population. Animals have an intense craving to compete for dominance, so when there are wide differences in the wealth and size of nations, the larger nations will feel as if they are at the top of the hierarchy, and that can cause them to develop the attitude of an arrogant dictator.

The most obvious example are the Americans who believe that they are the world's police force. However, instead of behaving like policemen, who try to stop fights, and who investigate crimes and arrest criminals, the Americans provide weapons to people around the world; refuse to investigate crimes, such as the 9/11 attack and the Holocaust; impose economic embargoes on nations without any sensible explanation; and accuse other nations of causing our drug and economic problems.

If the United States was broken into lots of independent nations that were as small as Denmark, none of the Americans would boast that they are the world's police force, or advocate the bombing of Iran, or accuse other nations of causing American children to become addicted to cocaine.

Another example are the people in mainland China who blame other nations for their economic and social problems, and who fantasize about getting control of Taiwan. If China was broken into a lot of independent nations that were the size of Taiwan, they would stop fantasizing about starting a war with Taiwan.

All of us have a strong craving for dominance, and when we do not control it, we can cause problems between nations, and within our families, friendships, and neighborhoods. This craving causes us to routinely insult or criticize other people for their clothing styles, household decorations, meals, recreational activities, and the television programs they enjoy. Most of us keep our insults to ourselves, but if we could read other people's minds, we would find that everybody is constantly judging other people, and looking for opportunities to criticize them and feel superior to them.

For more examples, the students and faculty members of Harvard believe that are better people than those at Yale; religious people believe that they are superior to the "ignorant" or "evil" people of other religions; the liberals believe they are superior to the conservatives, and vice versa; and some of the vegans believe that they are better people than those who eat animals.

It is important for us to pass judgment on one another's physical and mental characteristics, but we need to control our arrogance in order to ensure that we are making sensible analyses of other people, rather than just boasting about ourselves and insulting them.

We need to be aware of our craving for dominance, and help one another control it. Even more important, we need to experiment with our culture to suppress this and other undesirable characteristics, and encourage beneficial behavior. One method that might be successful at dampening our arrogance is to create Micro Nations.

The concept of "Micro Nations" is to restrict each society to one large city, and prohibit the cities from having militaries. Furthermore, every city is required to let the other cities experiment with their culture. No city is allowed to send religious missionaries to another city, or try to stop another city from eating horses, dogs, or cows.

In order to make all of the nations equal in resources, none of the cities have control of their resources. Instead, the World Government has a Resources Division that controls the Earth resources. All of the oil, coal, iron ore, fish, and other resources belong to the world, not to any particular city. The resources are divided up among the cities equally.

By making all nations equal in size, and sharing all of the resources of the world, everybody will feel more equal to one another.

A World Government is needed because we cannot expect a group of independent nations to deal with the complexities of the modern world, such as international trade, and how to share and protect the Earths' resources. A World Government is also needed to ensure that all of the cities are contributing equally to the wealth so that none of the cities become angry that some cities are parasitic. We cannot expect a pleasant world when some of the cities are "Third World" cities.

The world consists of more than 100 nations, all of which are independent, and this results in anarchy. As described in other documents, such as here, anarchy will always result in the largest and most diabolical crime network getting control. That is why Israel has so much control over the world. They are not dominating the world because they earned their position. Rather, they dominate us because of deception, murder, blackmail, censorship, inheritances, and other types of cheating.

We cannot expect a group of individuals, businesses, nations, or other organizations to function well when there is no leadership to coordinate them and resolve conflicts between them. Without leadership, crime networks will dominate.

Everybody boasts that they support "freedom", but all of us support only the freedoms that we approve of, and we want to deny other freedoms. Everybody has hypocritical and selfish policies about freedom. Some examples are:

•		One purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to provide us with freedom of religion, and to prevent the government from promoting a religion, but many religious people continuously try to force their religion on other people through such techniques as putting "In God We Trust" on currency and buildings, and having people swear an oath to their particular god while putting their hand on a Bible. Some religious people go even further and send missionaries through our neighborhoods, and to other nations, to convince us to follow their religion. However, those religious people do not consider themselves to be hypocrites when they boast about supporting freedom while pushing their religion on other people, their children, or other nations. Rather, they consider themselves to be helpful, kind, generous, and loving. They regard themselves as educating the ignorant people.
•		A lot of people want the freedom to use alcohol, marijuana, oxycodone, steroids, or some other drug, but many of those people want to prohibit the freedom to use the drugs that they disapprove of. However, they do not consider themselves to be hypocrites. Rather, they regard themselves as protecting people from the "bad" drugs.
•		Everybody wants the freedom to choose the foods that they eat, but some of those people want to deny us the freedom to eat meat, or certain types of meat. However, they do not consider themselves to be hypocrites. Rather, they regard themselves as heroes who are protecting animals, or improving our health, or helping the Earth's climate, or following the correct religious beliefs.

The situation could be summarized as:

Nobody supports the concept of providing everybody with the freedom to do whatever they please. Everybody wants a lot of restrictions on our freedoms.

The people who boast about supporting freedom are either too ignorant to realize that they support only certain freedoms, or too stupid to understand this concept, or emotionally unable to admit to being hypocritical.

We all want restrictions on our freedoms, but we disagree on what the restrictions should be. Rather than discuss the issue of freedom and compromise on which restrictions to impose on us, most people are so ignorant about the concept of freedom that they believe that their particular desires are the only sensible desires. They don't realize that there is no right or wrong for which freedoms we should have, and that we need to make arbitrary decisions about this issue.

Unfortunately, we cannot expect a unorganized group of people to agree on arbitrary decisions. We need leaders to make those decisions, and we need everybody to be willing to follow their arbitrary decisions. However, we cannot expect people to agree on arbitrary decisions when there are wide differences in our intellectual and emotional characteristics.

The only way people will be able to live in peace is if we reduce the mental diversity among us to the extent that we become more compatible. We cannot create a peaceful world when there are such wide variations between our minds that some people support murder rituals and pedophilia, and other people consider those activities to be intolerable.

We must reduce the diversity in our mental characteristics. All of us must be compatible enough so that we can resist hating and fighting with one another. This requires restricting our freedom to reproduce so that we become more compatible, which requires a world government to ensure that all societies are doing a good job of restricting reproduction.

We have some conflicting emotions that are intended to provide checks and balances on us. For example, we want the freedom to do as we please and to be the leader of our group, but we also have a desire to mimic the people in our group and be submissive to whoever our leader is.

When our conflicting emotions are not balanced properly, it can create problems. For example, a man who has an abnormally intense craving to be leader will struggle to be a leader, and if he cannot be a leader, he will whine about being "a cog in the machine", or "stuck in a rat race". He will whine about having to follow orders, and he will demand the freedom to be his own boss.

At the other extreme, a man who has an abnormally low desire to be a leader, and an abnormally high desire to mimic other people, will be abnormally submissive. He will be described with such words as introverted, shy, mindless, low self-esteem, neurotic, indecisive, or wishy-washy.

We also have conflicting emotional cravings with our spouse. For example, men want a wife for emotional and sexual pleasure, but that selfishness is counteracted by a desire to pamper and please our wife. Likewise, women want men for support and pampering, but they also want to please their husband.

The prehistoric men and women who are abnormally selfish or unsociable were less successful at maintaining a marriage and raising children. Today, however, our divorce laws put pressure on us to remain in miserable marriages, and divorced women can successfully raise children by themselves by getting a job, or because of alimony and child support.

The prehistoric people who had inappropriate emotional cravings were less successful at survival and reproduction, but today we provide pity and assistance to them, which increases the number of abnormal people in every generation.

One of the purposes of the World Government is to ensure that every city is making sensible decisions about which of their citizens should reproduce.

Only the social animals can experience "loneliness". The independent animals, such as some of the cats and insects, cannot experience loneliness. Instead, they are annoyed by other creatures. Humans can experience loneliness because we are social animals.

There is nothing wrong with allowing the human race to evolve into creatures that want to live alone, but this constitution advocates we ensure that humans are sociable.

This requires passing judgment on the emotional characteristics of people, and restricting reproduction to the people who regard human relationships as more important than material items, status, food, sex, pet dogs, religion, trophies, and drugs. We must pass judgment on who among us wants to be our friends and team members, and who wants to be a pampered king or queen, a hermit, a serial killer, or a parasite.

The social animals have a strong craving to be a member of the team, and that causes us to mimic the people in our social group that we regard as our leaders.

Our craving to be a member of a group causes us to become upset with people who do not fit into the group. We want to live among people who are similar to us in appearance, behavior, and culture.

When we notice that one of our team members is not behaving like the rest of us, we want to either chase him away, or force him to change his behavior so that he fits into the team. We want to live among people who are following compatible customs for clothing, hairstyles, holiday celebrations, work environments, and foods.

We cannot expect the world to be peaceful when our culture promotes DEI and allows our societies to become a mixture of people of different languages, clothing styles, religions, foods, holiday celebrations, and other culture. We want to live among people who are compatible and friendly with us, so we must restrict reproduction to prevent the human race from diverging into different species.

We must allow discrimination rather than freedom. We must also allow every business, neighborhood, city, and other organization to ensure that their members are compatible. We should enjoy the people we live and work with, not ignore, fear, fight with, or tolerate them.

We cannot let every person, organization, and government official have the freedom to determine who to accept into our society, and who should reproduce. We need a world government to make those arbitrary decisions, and we need to remove secrecy so that we can see their reasoning and pass judgment on their leadership abilities.

All of social animals, especially the adult males, have such intense cravings to be the leader that we constantly compete for status. If we cannot be at the top of the hierarchy, we become submissive to whoever is above us, and we behave as a leader to the people below us.

Each of us tries to control the people below us, and we are submissive to the people above us. In order to create a more pleasant social environment, we need to keep these emotions under control. We need to be less submissive to the people above us, less dictatorial to the people below us, and more interested in becoming friends and team members with everybody.

We need to control our craving to compete for status, show off, boast about ourselves, and insult the people who we regard as below us in the hierarchy. However, we will treat other people as our friends only if we reduce the diversity in our intellectual and emotional characteristics so that we are more compatible.

None of the people who get into arguments about freedom have anything intelligent to say. They are following their emotional cravings to do what they please, rather than using their intelligence to analyze and discuss the issue. They are behaving like animals that are fighting for dominance.

They get into arguments that have no benefit. They waste their time and irritate themselves and each other with their arrogant and angry behavior.

We all have a powerful emotional craving to be at the top of the hierarchy. We want to give orders to other people, and we try to control other people with emotional and physical techniques, such as yelling, pouting, insults, and violence. We want to prohibit the freedoms that we disapprove of, and we want to hurt or kill whoever irritates us or disagrees with us.

Modern humans must be educated about animal behavior so that everybody realizes that our emotional cravings are inappropriate today. We need to make intelligent decisions about how to behave and treat other people.

All throughout history, disputes were settled in the same manner that animals settle their disputes; specifically, by fighting. During prehistoric times, there were not many disputes because their lives were so simple, but today people are fighting over hundreds of issues that never existed before, such as abortion, immigration, and religion.

Married couples, relatives, friends, and children are also fighting over issues that never existed before, such as money, toys, school, alcohol, and feminism.

The reason we resolve differences of opinion by yelling, pouting, and fighting is because we have an animal brain, and we inherited their emotional desire to deal with problems with those techniques.

Our brains are designed with emotions that, when stimulated, try to influence our opinions. We can produce intelligent thoughts about an issue if it does not stimulate any of our emotions, such as when we are designing a refrigerator, but when we have to resolve an issue about sex, babies, abortion, and other issues that stimulate our emotions, those emotions will try to distort our decisions.

The only way we can produce intelligent thoughts about emotional issues is if we have the desire and ability to prevent our emotions from manipulating our thoughts.

Unfortunately, there is no way any of us can figure out if we have successfully prevented our emotions from interfering with our thoughts, or if other people have successfully prevented their emotions from interfering with their thoughts. All we can do is analyze and discuss one another's opinions, and try to learn from one another.

To complicate the issue of making intelligent decisions, we cannot completely ignore our emotions. For example, when we design our work environments, holiday celebrations, meals, recreational activities, and other culture, we must consider how our culture will stimulate our emotions because that will determine whether we enjoy life.

For example, the most intelligent way to feed ourselves is to do so in the manner we feed farm animals, but that would make our lives miserable.

We must consider our emotional desires when we design our culture, and that requires a society in which almost everybody can agree on what is emotionally pleasurable. This requires restricting reproduction in order to ensure that the people are compatible. Otherwise, every generation will have more trouble agreeing on what their culture should be, resulting in people becoming increasingly miserable.

Furthermore, the people in each city must be intellectually, physically, and emotionally compatible to the people in other cities, or else there will be conflicts between the cities.

A World Government is needed to supervise the restrictions on reproduction to ensure that every city is compatible with the others.