Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

 
Creating a better society
 
A Constitution for Kastron

Part 1: Culture needs a realistic foundation

19 March 2019

C
O
N
T
E
N
T
S

Introduction to the Kastron Constitution
Culture needs a realistic foundation
Why Kastron consists of clusters of tall buildings
How much self-control do you have?
We must be more finicky with immigrants
We must set higher standards for leaders
Democracies are unstable and ineffective
People are not equal
Culture needs protection
Diversity
It is easy to create new cities

I have been hoping for years that the US military would destroy the crime network that is dominating our world, thereby allowing us to have public discussions about experimenting with better cities and culture. Although a lot of people are obviously suppressing that crime network, rather than wait any longer, which risks becoming unable to discuss the issue as a result of a stroke, Alzheimer's, or death, this series of documents will provide details for a new city that I have been fantasizing about.

In Parts 1 and 2, I explain the concepts behind the new city so that you can understand why I designed it the way I did.

Note: I used speech recognition software for most of the text, and that can result in words that are spelled correctly, but the wrong word. For example, a common problem is "in" instead of "and".

Introduction to the Kastron Constitution
I call the city “Kastron”
I refer to the city as "Kastron". When I typed "city of castles" into Google translate and asked for Greek, that was one of the words that appeared. Another possible name would be Kastropolis, or that could be the name of a second city.

The Kastron Constitution is for an experimental city, not an existing nation
Four reasons as to why this Constitution is not appropriate for existing nations:
    1) It is an experiment.
Kastron will experiment with a new government system, economic system, school system, and other culture, so it would be best to regard its Constitution as "experimental" rather than as "proven technology". Therefore, Kastron should be physically and economically isolated from the rest of the nation.
    2) It requires a specific city layout.
The Kastron government and economic system has been specifically designed for a city design that I have described in other documents as a "City of Castles". For example, it provides free homes to everybody, but that concept is not suitable for a city in which there are extreme differences in housing. It also provides free food at restaurants, but that is practical only in a city in which people are in very close proximity to a wide variety of restaurants.

The image below is not accurate, but its purpose is to give you an indication of what you would see when you look out of the window of your apartment or office.

No matter which building in the city you were in, when you looked out the window you would see a gigantic park that is full of grass fields, patches of trees, walkways, bicycle paths, creeks, canals, ponds, recreational facilities, and plazas. Scattered throughout the park would be clusters of tall office buildings, apartments, and factories.

The clusters would be connected by underground tubes that have trains, electric lines, water pipes, and other utilities. Every cluster would also have lots of restaurants, and many would also have schools, daycare, healthcare, and leisure activities.

It might help you to understand and visualize the design of Kastron if you realize that each cluster of buildings would be similar to a business park or a research park.
However, our current business parks are designed for automobiles and inexpensive buildings, so most of the land is wasted on roads, parking lots, and buildings that are very low to the ground, such as the photo to the right of Research Triangle Park in North Carolina.

Each cluster of buildings in Kastron will resemble a business park, except that the buildings will be much taller, and there will be no surface roads or parking lots. The entire city will consist of clusters of businesses and clusters of apartments, and all clusters would be surrounded by parks, creeks, and recreational facilities.
    3) It requires volunteers.
Kastron doesn't support the philosophy that we can force people to adapt to a culture by using punishments, therapy, or rehabilitation programs. There will not be any jails in the city. People who do not like the city will be evicted rather than allowed to whine about the city, or violate the rules they dislike.
    4) It requires "pioneers".
The Kastron government will experiment with its culture, but this would terrify most people. Kastron needs to be restricted to people who are considerably more adventurous than the ordinary person. They must also expect and cope with mistakes, confusion, and awkwardness, rather than panic.


Culture needs a realistic foundation
Our view of life determines our culture
I mentioned this concept in this document, and now I will provide more details and examples of how we will create inappropriate culture if we have an unrealistic view of life.

The expression "view of life" is vague, so other expressions that might mean more to you are: our culture is determined by our perspective on life; our understanding of humans; our beliefs about what is best for us; our attitudes towards life; and our knowledge about ourselves.

Example: Why are some people left-handed?
The answer to that question depends upon our view of life, and that view determines our customs regarding left-handed people. Many years ago some people believed that children became left-handed simply because they coincidentally used their left hand the most often. That view of life brought them to the conclusion that they could convert those children into right-handed children by forcing them to use their right hand.

That cultural practice was based on an unrealistic foundation, and the result was that the left-handed children were tormented, and the people who struggled to convert the children became frustrated or angry.

Today everybody realizes that left-handed children are the result of genetic characteristics. With that view of life, we realize that there is nothing we can do to convert them into right-handed children. Therefore, our culture now accepts left-handed people rather than try to convert them, and some businesses create products for left-handed people.

Example: Why are some people obese?
The answer to that question depends upon our view of life, and that view determines our customs regarding obese people. For example, Dr. Katz, of the Yale University Prevention Research Center and president of American College of Lifestyle Medicine, regards obesity as the result of something environmental. He describes it as an "epidemic" that we are propagating:
"We are not doing nearly enough to control and reverse the obesity epidemic and doing far too much to propagate it."
"There are many active efforts to combat obesity, but our culture at large is in the business of propagating it for profit, from big food to big media to big pharma. It's that simple. "
From his point of view, obesity is "simple" because he believes that obesity is the result of businesses trying to make profit from food, drugs, and media. From his point of view, we can eliminate obesity simply by changing our economic system so that businesses are not promoting obesity.

I agree with him that our businesses are encouraging excessive food consumption, and that if we were living in a society with a more sensible economy, some people would be slightly less overweight. However, I think that blaming the economy for excessive food consumption is as invalid as blaming businesses for alcohol consumption and cigarette smoking.

If you have the view of life that humans are just a species of monkey, then you are more likely to come to the conclusion that some people are obese because they are genetically different from the rest of us. With that point of view, there is no simple solution to obesity. That point of view leads us to the conclusion that some of the obese people may have lower levels of self-control, or hunger emotions that are too powerful, or hunger emotions that don't turn off when they should. Some obese people may also have such efficient digestive systems that more of what they eat is converted into fat.

Our view of life determines how we explain and treat obese people, and how we deal with similar issues, such as alcohol, cigarettes, anorexia, marijuana, heroin, and other drugs. We must have a realistic perspective in order to produce culture that is beneficial.

Example: Why do we repeat policies that fail?
In other documents I pointed out that every generation is implementing the crime policies of the previous generation, even though those policies fail 100% of the time. Why do we so often repeat a policy over and over even when it fails every time? Why don't we learn from our mistakes? The answer to that question depends upon our view of life.

Years ago, before the Internet, I read a book written by a Roman military leader. I no longer remember anything about the book except for his description of a particular battle that the Romans had with a group of "Gauls". He said that there was a particular location that the Gauls would send a man to, and I think he said the man would throw spears at the Romans. The Romans would shoot him with an arrow, which would either wound or kill him, and in either case, he would be removed, and another man would take his place, and then the Romans would shoot him with an arrow, and then another man would replace him, and then the Romans would shoot him. The Roman general wrote that he was surprised that they continuously replaced this man. He was surprised that they didn't learn from their mistakes; specifically, that the location was an easy target for the Romans.

Why do we have so much trouble learning from our mistakes? Why do we repeat policies that fail 100% of the time?

If you believe the religious or clay theories, you may blame this behavior on stupidity, ignorance, the devil, or your superego. However, if you believe that humans are just a species of monkey, then you will realize that we inherited this behavior from the animals. Therefore, we will get a better understanding of ourselves
by analyzing animal behavior.

The desire to repeat the same procedure over and over is typical animal behavior. For example, when an animal is hungry, it looks for food in the same manner that it has looked in the past. A hawk, for example, will continue chasing after birds and mice in the same manner over and over, day after day, no matter how many times it fails. Animals never try something different.

Animals don't have the intelligence to experiment with new procedures. The animals that were successful were those that ignored failures and continued to do the same things over and over. Animals are not bothered by failure. When an animal fails at something, it does not cry, pout, or become angry. All animals simply try again.

Humans inherited this attitude of ignoring failures and repeating the same process over and over. We express this concept in different ways, such as, "Quitters never win, and winners never quit." and "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again."

This attitude was appropriate for our prehistoric ancestors. For example, when they were hungry, it made sense for them to ignore their failures to find food, continue looking in the same manner, and assume that they will eventually be successful.
Unfortunately, this attitude is detrimental in our modern era because there are lots of activities today in which we can never be successful no matter how much we try. Gambling is a good example. People are foolish to ignore their gambling failures and assume that they will eventually be successful if they continue doing it.

We need to exert some self control over our emotional cravings and think more often. When we fail at something, we should analyze the failure. Then we need to pass judgment on whether we should continue to repeat the same process, or make changes, or alter our goals, or quit and try something else.

Example: Why does poop have a horrible smell?
The answer to that question depends upon our view of life, and that view determines our customs regarding waste products. To most people, poop smells horrible because it is a "disgusting" material, and this results in cultures in which people avoid the issue. For example, schools are not permitted to teach children about it, television cannot provide us with serious documentaries about it, and it is considered inappropriate to talk about it in public.

We are not providing an intelligent answer to the question of why poop has a horrible smell when we say that "it stinks because it is disgusting". Rather, that is providing a description of our emotional reaction to it.

In order to provide an intelligent answer, we need to change our view of life. If you agree with me that humans evolved from monkeys, and that our brain has been designed with a variety of emotions, some of which give us pleasurable feelings, and others create unpleasant feelings, then you will realize that poop has a terrible odor because certain chemicals in poop trigger certain sensory organs in our nose, which in turn trigger unpleasant emotional reactions.

This leads us to the question of why we have sensory organs in our nose that trigger unpleasant emotional reactions to those particular chemicals, rather than being neutral or creating pleasant feelings. The answer to that question also depends upon our view of life. If you believe in evolution, then the answer is that our prehistoric ancestors who had a more unpleasant reaction to poop had a survival advantage. This leads to the question of why prehistoric people who were disgusted by poop had a survival advantage. I explained my guess in previous documents, such as here. To summarize it, I think it is to keep us away from waste products.
Human emotions are analogous to the gauges and warning lights of an automobile. When our nose senses certain chemicals that are in poop, it triggers an unpleasant emotional reaction. We can visualize this event as a warning light that turns on inside our brain.

What difference does it make whether we regard poop as a "disgusting" material, or whether we regard it as triggering an unpleasant emotion inside our brain? The answer is that our view of this issue determines our culture on the issue. If we regard poop as disgusting, then schools will not be allowed to teach children about the issue, and scientists and doctors will not be allowed to produce serious documentaries about this issue.

If, instead, we regard the unpleasant odor of poop as being analogous to a warning light, then we are likely to realize that modern humans do not need this emotional protection, and that we should ignore this emotion. This will create a culture in which poop is regarded as being analogous to engine exhaust. This would make it acceptable for scientists, schools, and doctors to study and discuss digestion without other people reacting with insults, sarcasm, jokes, or giggling.

Scientists would be able to produce documentaries that would help us to understand food, digestion, and waste products. We would have a culture in which children are taught that poop is a valuable material that can help us understand our digestive system and health.

In a previous document, I mentioned that I was pooping 3 to 5 times a week, but I was guessing when I wrote that. In April 2017, I decided to keep track of how often I poop, and it turned out to be only between 7 and 10 times a month.

Why don't I poop more often? One obvious reason is that I am scrawny and not as physically active as a normal man, so I don't eat as much food as a normal man. However, I think there is more to it than that. I noticed I was pooping less often after switching to four or more smaller meals a day rather than one or two large meals.

Based on my casual observations of myself, excessively large meals do not digest well, and excessive amounts of oils and fat can result in stinky and oily poop. Furthermore, excessive physical activity after a meal can interfere with digestion, and mixing certain foods and drinks can interfere with digestion.

What is an "excessively" large meal? What is "excessive" physical activity after a meal? Which mixture of foods causes digestive troubles? How much oil is too much to digest in one meal? The answer to those questions is slightly different for each of us because we all have a digestive system with slightly different genetic characteristics. Furthermore, our digestive system changes as we grow old, so we should adjust our meals as we grow from a baby to an old person.

If we lived in a society in which poop was treated like engine exhaust, then scientists and medical doctors would be able to study and discuss digestion, and schools and television programs would be able to educate people about the issue. Everybody would feel more comfortable about analyzing their poop, and discussing the issue with doctors and friends.

Through the decades, the research programs would help each person determine what size meal is most appropriate to him; how long we should wait after eating before getting involved with strenuous physical activities; and how to reduce farts, constipation, and diarrhea. We would also get a better understanding of how our digestive system deteriorates as we get older. We might even discover that analyzing our poop can help us understand our health problems, such as cancer, diabetes, or food allergies.

Imagine living in a society in which we could discuss our digestive system in the same calm and serious manner that we can discuss our fingernails, lungs, and heart. What is preventing our cultures from treating digestion in such a serious manner? It is our attitudes towards life.
Almost everybody today is basing their view of life on their emotional feelings. They are "reacting" to things in life, rather than "thinking" about them. They believe and do whatever stimulates pleasurable feelings, and they avoid whatever stimulates unpleasant feelings. They are behaving like Marquis de Sade and the animals.

In order to create better culture, we need to exert some self-control and design our culture according to our intellect, not according to our emotional pleasures and fears.

If people would change their attitudes towards emotions, we would be able to study and discuss health issues that stimulate unpleasant emotional feelings, such as mucus, ear wax, and bad breath. We would be able to learn about our body, and we would be able to determine which of our characteristics are "normal" and which are a sign of problems. For example, sometimes one of my nostrils is shut, and then, for no apparent reason, it opens and the other nostril shuts. Is this normal? Or is it a sign of an allergic reaction to something?

In a previous document, I mentioned that I think that there is a scent gland in my colon. I also seem to have scent glands inside my nose and ears, and on different areas of my skin. As of today, however, no culture is capable of discussing these issues. How can we describe our culture as sensible when people cannot acknowledge certain characteristics of their body?

Every animal produces a unique scent, but humans will not be able to discuss this issue, or get a good understanding of health issues, until we change our view of life. We should regard ourselves as animals, and stop thinking of our body as having "disgusting" aspects.
Example: Is it wrong to deny a person what he wants?
Should we try to avoid upsetting other people? Are we hurting other people when we refuse to give them what they want? Should we try to please other people? For some examples:
• When a child wants a candy bar, toy, or video game, will we hurt that child if we refuse to give him what he wants?
• When a student is struggling to get a good grade in a class, but is failing, should the teacher give the student a good grade in order to please the student? Will the teacher hurt the student by giving him a failing grade?
• If a man has a strong craving to have sex with somebody, is it wrong for the person to refuse to let the man have sex? Is that person going to hurt the man by denying him sex?
• If a woman wants a baby, is it wrong for us to tell her that she is too genetically defective to have a child? Will we hurt that woman by denying her a child?
The answer to those type of questions depends upon our view of life, and that view determines our culture regarding these issues. If you have the attitude of Marquis de Sade, then you will come to the conclusion that we should not deny a person what he wants. You will want everybody to have the freedom to do as they please, and to avoid whatever they dislike. You will regard a person as hurting you if he interferes with your pursuit of what you want.

However, if you agree with me that humans are just monkeys, and that our emotions are analogous to the lights and gauges in the cockpit of an airplane, then you will realize that we should not necessarily give a person what he wants. Instead, we should analyze the situation and make an intelligent decision about the advantages and disadvantages to giving the person what he wants. Is the person truly going to benefit from what he wants? What will the effect be on society? What are the disadvantages to giving him what he wants?
I'm starving to death!
Give me food!
For example, consider a child who is demanding food. If we have the attitude of Marquis de Sade, then we will assume that the child is suffering, and that we are hurting the child by denying him food.

However, if we regard his hunger emotion as being analogous to the fuel meter of an airplane, then we will realize that he doesn't actually need food yet. We will realize that he can and should disregard his desire for food until dinner is ready. We will realize that we are not hurting a child when we tell him to wait for dinner. Rather, we are helping him learn how to exert self-control.

Our view of life determines our culture. If we have the attitude of Marquis de Sade, we will try to appease people who whine about hunger, poverty, racism, sexism, bullying, anti-Semitism, and being unappreciated. However, appeasing whiny people can make life worse for both them and us.

A good example are the people who have become so obese that they cannot get out of their bed. They do not need more food, but they regularly whine about being hungry, and other people bring them food under the assumption that the obese people are suffering from hunger. In reality, the people who feed the obese people are wasting food, and causing the obese people to become even more obese. They are also putting a burden on our health care system.

We will create a more pleasant, sensible culture when we change our attitudes towards our life. When we consider it to be acceptable to ignore a person's emotional cravings and fears, then we will not feel any obligation to satisfy a person's demands. Instead of appeasing whiny people, we will pass judgment on which of them truly is suffering, and which of them needs to be told to shut up.

To rephrase this concept, if we have a view of life like Marquis de Sade, we will assume that we are hurting a person by denying him what he wants. However, by switching to the view of life that I suggest, we will regard ourselves as helping the person exert self-control over his unnecessary or detrimental craving.

Example: What is “food”?
Are cats, dogs, rats, cows, horses, pigs, crickets, scorpions, or tarantulas acceptable as food for humans? Should we be vegetarians? What is and is not "food"? Is it acceptable for us to eat the milk, eggs, testicles, blood, or brains of animals, and if so, from which animals? Is it acceptable for us to eat the milk or body parts of humans?

Should we have three meals a day? Or should we have four or five small meals? Should we have some type of fasting routine for health reasons, such as the "Intermittent Fasting" routine? Should we have a fasting routine for religious reasons, such as Fast Sunday (the Mormon religion), or the Nineteen-Day Fast (the Bah' Faith)? Should we forbid the mixing of dairy products and meat in the same meal (Judaism)?

Should we eat foods with forks, chopsticks, or our fingers? Should we eat at a table while sitting on chairs, or should we eat while we are sitting on the floor, or should we eat while we are standing up?
Imagine everybody behaving like these vegetarians, such as people who eat meat going into a vegetarian restaurant and protesting vegetarianism, and people who use chopsticks protesting inside a restaurant that uses forks and spoons!
A lot of people believe that they know the correct food customs, and they insult people who have incorrect food customs. Some people are so arrogant, ignorant, and/or intolerant of "incorrect" food customs that they demand that we follow their diet, such as the vegetarians in the photo to the right who protested the eating of meat inside a restaurant where customers were eating meat.

There are other people who approve of eating certain animals, but who demand that we prohibit the eating of certain other animals, such as cows, horses, dogs, cats, pigs, rats, or rabbits.

Some food customs are based on scientific facts. For example, scientists can prove that humans should thoroughly cook kidney beans, and that eating excessive amounts of oxalic acid can cause kidney failure. However, we do not know enough about human health to design a diet that is truly based on scientific facts.

Most of our food customs are arbitrary, personal opinions that are dependent upon our particular view of life.

Nobody has food customs that are "correct". There is no way to prove that it is acceptable for us to eat cows or pigs but not dogs or horses. Rather, every society has arbitrary food customs that are based on their particular view of life. It is our arrogance that causes us to believe that our particular culture is correct, and that the other cultures are incorrect.

We benefit by discussing our food customs, and by trying other people's food customs, because exposing ourselves to different views of life can help us decide which perspective we prefer, and it can give us ideas for new customs. However, the people who insult us for having incorrect food customs, or who demand that we follow their particular food customs, are detrimental because they are stifling differences of opinion and experimentation. Those people are behaving like communist dictators and Google executives.

Example: Should we be allowed to have pets?
Should we be allowed to keep dogs, cats, alligators, tigers, fish, birds, chimpanzees, or elephants as pets? If so, which of those pets are we allowed to take into city parks, restaurants, and airports? Is it acceptable for some neighborhoods or areas of the city to prohibit pets? If we are allowed to take pets into public areas, are we required to clean up the waste products of our pets? If so, how high should the cleanliness standards be? Do we merely pick up the large pieces of poop, and ignore the puddles of pee and diarrhea?

The answers to these type of questions depend upon our view of life. A nation's culture towards animals is based on what the people regard animals to be; what they regard the relationship between humans and animals to be; and what they regard as the needs and desires of humans and animals.

Should pit bulls be allowed as pets? Before I continue, in case you did not know, pit bulls attack more people than any other type of dog. Furthermore, they attack us in a very different manner than other dogs. Here is the highest quality video that I am aware of that shows how a pit bull attacks. Notice that the dog is not trying to kill the man, or eat him. Rather, he is merely grabbing onto the man. This is not natural behavior for a dog. Also, notice that people injure the dog as they hit and kick it, but the dog does not care about its injuries, or its life. It refuses to let go of the man. This is also unnatural behavior for an animal.

Why are pit bulls so violent? Why do they attack in that abnormal manner? Should we be allowed to have pit bulls as pets? The answers to those type of questions also depends upon our view of life.

The people who resist genetics believe that pit bulls are acceptable as pets. Those people claim that pit bulls become violent only when they are raised in an improper environment. They claim that in a loving environment, the pit bulls become wonderful, peaceful pets.

However, to those of us who believe that behavior is genetic, the violent and bizarre behavior of pit bulls is the result of people who have been breeding those dogs for decades to make them more appropriate for the sport of dog fighting. We regard pit bulls as unnatural monsters, and as I've suggested here, we ought to consider exterminating them.

Should we restrict who among us is allowed to breed pet animals? If so, what should the restrictions be? Should we also restrict or prohibit the breeding of animals for fighting? The answer to questions depends upon our view of life.

The people who do not believe in genetics are likely to let everybody breed animals, as long as they provide a pleasant environment for the animals. This policy will allow people who know nothing about genetics to breed pets, and the result will be genetically defective pets.

By comparison, those of us who believe in genetics will want to restrict the breeding of animals to people who understand genetics, and who breed animals according to scientific principles.

Example: What causes homosexuality?
Our beliefs about sex issues affect our culture, also. It affects how we treat other people, and how we design our schools and sports activities. It also affects our laws about sex, masturbation, homosexuality, nudity, pornography, and pedophilia.

For example, the people who resist genetics believe that homosexuality is caused by something in the environment, such as bad parenting, traumatic childhoods, mysterious psychological problems, or the devil. These people are likely to believe that there is a way to cure homosexuality, such as through punishments, rehabilitation programs, Bible studies, or lobotomies.

In the 1940s, Walter Friedman gave lobotomies to homosexuals in an attempt to convert them into heterosexuals. In the USA, about 40,000 people were given lobotomies, although most of them were for problems other than homosexuality.

In our culture today, the people with unusual sexual characteristics are tormented and insulted, and this results in most of them hiding their characteristics, or becoming angry at society. The men who are involved with pedophilia have apparently gone even further and created a worldwide, secret network in which they help one another get jobs in the government, media, religions, charities, and other organizations, and they help to prevent one another from being arrested.

We do not benefit from this type of culture. Instead, we are allowing children to be abused by pedophiles, and we are allowing our nations to be dominated by criminals, homosexuals, and pedophiles.

If you agree with me that our sexual desires are due to emotions that we inherited from animals, and that there is only one blueprint for men and women, then as I've described in other documents, every child will have a unique jumble of male and female characteristics.

Although most people will be "typical", there will be a minority of people who are so different from the others that they will be regarded as sexually perverted or sexually defective. However, since our sexual characteristics are genetic, there is nothing we can do to fix such problems. This leads us to the conclusion that we must design our culture to accept the fact that some people will be abnormally feminine or abnormally masculine, and there will also be some people with a bizarre mixture of male and female desires and sex organs.

If people can accept the evidence that our sexual cravings and characteristics are genetic, then the people with unusual sexual characteristics could admit to whatever their cravings are rather than hide their characteristics and deceive us about them. This would allow society to deal with the sexually unusual people in a more appropriate manner than sarcasm, punishments, and Bible studies.

When homosexuality is regarded as just a statistical occurrence rather than the work of the devil, then we could treat homosexuals as "people" instead of as monsters. We already separate boys and girls in some recreational and social activities, and we could go further and separate the homosexuals, also, so that we don't bother them, and they don't bother us.

The men who have sexual attractions to children would be able to admit to having such cravings without the fear of being harassed, and we could restrict those men to neighborhoods that do not have any children, and restrict their jobs and activities to prevent them from having access to children. That would be much better than causing them to hide their characteristics and forming secret networks that abuse children.

If people are willing to allow schools to teach children about sex, and that different people have different desires, then schools could encourage children to expose sexual abuse. That would be much better than the culture we have today in which children are ashamed or terrified to admit that they have been abused.

Furthermore, if you regard our sexual cravings as being due to genetic emotional characteristics, then you will be more likely to agree with me that we should prohibit the use of sexual titillation by businesses and other organizations. Instead of regarding that titillation as "harmless advertising", we will regard it as being analogous to allowing businesses to insert electrodes into our brain and stimulating us excessively. The excessive sexual stimulation can result in excessive masturbation, sexual fantasies, and inappropriate sexual behavior.

I think our modern culture is allowing excessive sexual stimulation, and that we would have a more pleasant social environment if we reduced the stimulation. Of course, unless we are willing to experiment with our culture, we will never know for certain what will provide us with the most pleasant environment, so try to find the courage to support experiments with culture.

Furthermore, businesses are also stimulating our cravings for wealth and status by providing us with photos, catalogs, television shows, and movies that glorify wealthy and famous people. Some businesses are stimulating women's cravings for babies and weddings, and other businesses are stimulating our cravings for awards and trophies.

I suggest that we be more concerned about who we allow to stimulate us, and why they are stimulating us. I think it is detrimental to allow businesses, or other organizations, to titillate our emotional cravings. You and I do not benefit when businesses titillate our emotions, and society does not benefit, either. It is especially idiotic to allow businesses to titillate the emotional cravings of children. It would be more beneficial if we encouraged productive behavior, such as self-control, critical analyses, and intelligent discussions.

Example: What is the lifespan for a human?
A more significant example of how our culture is affected by our view of life is that our attitude about a human lifespan determines how we raise children, start families, and deal with old age.

Most people regard humans as having an average life of about 70 years. However, I think that we will create a more beneficial and pleasant culture when we regard human life as having different stages. For example, I suggest at least 10 stages:
Baby, up to 1 year.
Toddler, up to 1.5 years.
Young child, up to 4 years.
Child, up to 12 years.
Teenager, up to 18 years.
Young adult, up to 25 years.
Adult, up to 45 years.
Old adult, up to 60 years.
Elderly adult, up to 80 years.
Geriatric adult.
As I discussed in other documents, modern technology is allowing us to live longer, but we are not extending our childhood, our teenage years, or our adult years. All we are doing is extending the number of years that we spend in the final three phases of life; namely, the old adult, elderly, and geriatric stages. We are "delaying our death", or "prolonging old age", rather than truly "living longer".

What difference does it make if we consider the human lifespan to be 70 years, or whether we consider a human to pass through the ten stages that I listed? The answer is that our view of life has a significant effect on our culture.

Our existing culture developed for the attitude that the typical human lifespan is about 70 years. When we have that attitude, a person who is 20 years old will assume he still has 50 years remaining. With so many years in his future, there is no rush for him to get through school or buy a house. When he is 30 years old, he will assume he still has an average of another 40 years, which is more time than he has already lived. Why should he be in a rush to start a family?

The attitude that people are living to an average age of 70 is resulting in a culture in which there is no rush for children to get through school or start families. Nobody even cares whether college graduates have a tremendous amount of debt. The end result is that by the time at person has finished school, paid off his school debts, collected enough money to purchase a house, and is ready to start a family, he might be in his 30s or 40s.

By comparison, if we believe that humans are living in the stages that I listed, then we will regard human life as being only about 45 years. With that attitude, we will not want children to waste their first 30 or 40 years in school, struggling to save enough money for a home, and paying educational debts. Also, we will not teach children that their "golden years" will be when they are over 65.

Instead, we will teach children that people over 65 deteriorate at a rapid pace, and that most of the people who are over 85 could be described as "existing" or "suffering" rather than "living". Only a small minority of people over 85 can truly be described as "enjoying life".

If the people living in Kastron have that view of life, we will not want people to waste their first 45 years of life, or to look forward to their "golden years". Instead, we will design our school system to speed up the education so that by the time a student is 18 years old, he is ready to join the adult community. Everybody over the age of 18 will be regarded as adults, and expected to behave like adults. The 18-year-olds who want complex jobs, such as engineering or medical care, will need to continue their education, but they will be regarded as adults, not children.

Rather than expect the 18-year-olds to spend the next 10 or 20 years paying educational debts and saving money for a home, we would want society to provide every 18-year-old person with a home so that they can start their adult life immediately, including having a family. Many 18-year-olds will choose to delay having a family, of course, and some will choose not to have a family, but when a person becomes 18, he should have a home, and he should be capable of starting a family as soon as he wants to.

Even if you disagree with my stages of human life, if you can understand those stages, then you may understand the proposals I've made in previous documents, such as sending teenagers to Teentown. The purpose of Teentown is to prepare the teenagers to live on their own and behave in a responsible manner. The teenagers will be given useful skills and provided with lots of social and courtship activities to help them form friendships. Some of them will find a spouse during this time.

By the time they are 18, all of them will move out of Teentown and into their own homes. They will start their life as an independent adult who is responsible for himself and held accountable for his behavior. None of them will have any education debts to pay, and they will not have any housing payments, and they will not have to pay for furniture for their home. Everything will be provided for free. If they choose to get married, they will not need wedding presents because the city will provide whatever material items people need for themselves and their children. Weddings will be social events, not fundraising events.

Children will not be taught that they will have a "second life" at age 50. Instead, they will be taught that as they get older than 45 years, they will start noticing a deterioration in their physical and mental abilities, and there will be a point at which they need to switch to an easier job. They may also need to change some of their physical and social activities. By the time they are in their 70s, they may need to change their jobs again, or switch to one or more part-time jobs.

Instead of ignoring the deterioration from age, the culture of Kastron will teach children to expect deterioration from age, and the city will make it easy for people to switch jobs and activities to compensate for aging.

To summarize this concept, when we regard human life as being 70 years, we will not be upset to see a child spending the first 30 years of his life paying debts, gathering money for a home, and spending years in school to memorize information of no importance. Furthermore, we will not care if a person has a miserable childhood because we will regard him as wasting only a few of his 70 years.

However, when we regard a human lifespan as only 45 years, we will realize that those first 30 years are the best years of our life. We will not want to waste them.

Furthermore, our childhood and teenage years provide us with our best memories of life. Talk to anybody who is over 70 years of age about their life, and notice that their most intense memories are from their first 20 years. They have forgotten a lot of their adult life.

With the view of life that I propose, our childhood and teenage years are the most exciting stages of our lives, so we will want to design our culture so that we do not waste our youth. We will want everybody to accumulate a lot of wonderful memories during their first 20 years.

Of course, how we provide children with wonderful memories also depends upon our view of life. As with Marquis de Sade, most people believe that happiness comes from doing whatever pleases us, and avoiding whatever we dislike. As a result of that attitude towards life, most parents assume that they will provide their children with a wonderful life by pampering their children, as if the children are medieval princes and princesses.

However, I believe that pampering children will create "spoiled brats" who have trouble fitting into society, and who have trouble forming stable friendships and marriages. The children of animals and humans were designed to be prepared for adulthood, not to be pampered.

To summarize this section, our view of life has a significant effect on how we treat people, the goals we set for ourselves, and how we raise children. It also affects how we design our cities, schools, job environments, social activities, and holidays. It is important to ensure that we are basing our culture on a realistic view of humans.

Example: Can Public Service Announcements improve human behavior?
The answer to that question depends upon our view of life. Most people believe that human behavior is determined by the environment, so most people believe that Public Service Announcements (PSAs) can indeed improve human behavior. As a result, the US government and other organizations are spending tens of millions of dollars a year on various types of PSAs.
Are the PSAs improving our behavior?
For example, the Ad Council is consuming more than $40 million a year to provide us with PSAs, and a Sheriff's office in Oregon created the "Faces of Meth" program to stop the use of methamphetamines. The Shaken Baby Prevention of Idaho organization creates PSAs to stop us from shaking babies, and the billboard in the photo to the right is intended to stop men from beating women.

However, those of us who believe that human behavior is genetic are likely to come to the conclusion that the PSAs are useless, irritating, and a waste of resources, and the PSAs in the form of billboards are ruining the visual appearance of our planet.

I think the reason that people believe the PSAs are effective is because the PSAs stimulate our emotions, and most people assume that something that is emotionally stimulating is having an effect on us. Unfortunately, we cannot improve a person's behavior simply by stimulating his emotions.
Did these PSAs stop the use of marijuana? Can PSAs stop human trafficking?
The American people have been exposed to PSAs longer than I have been alive, but has the USA been improving during each of those years as a result? Has Smokey the Bear reduced forest fires? Have the PSAs to stop people from texting while driving had any success? Have the PSAs about venereal disease reduced the number of people with those diseases?

Our government does not have a quality control agency to verify that the PSAs are successful. The people who produce the PSAs are not held accountable for what they do, so they have no incentive to look critically at their PSAs. Instead, they boast about winning meaningless awards, such as for this PSA.

The PSAs should be regarded as failures. If the PSAs were effective, then we could eliminate obesity, pedophilia, organized crime, and all of our other problems, simply by creating PSAs about those issues.

Our behavior is due to our genetic intellectual and emotional characteristics, and the information that we accumulate during our life. Since we cannot improve a person's genetic qualities, the only way we can improve a person's behavior is to educate him.

With an appropriate education, a person can make better decisions, but PSAs are an ineffective form of education. Furthermore, some of the PSAs are spreading propaganda and lies, not useful information. For example, this PSA promotes global warming.

If a PSA is providing us with useful information, it would be more effective to put it into the school curriculum. Scattering bits of information around the city on billboards is a stupid method of educating people.

It would be more efficient, and create a much more pleasant city, for the schools to create a special class called "Preparation for Society" in which students are taught about obesity, venereal diseases, drug abuse, shaking babies, or whatever we thought they should know about.

However, even though an education can help us make better decisions, it cannot improve the genetic design of our brain. Therefore, putting children through a Preparation for Society school course will provide them with a lot of useful information, but it will not guarantee that they use that information to make wise decisions. The only way to truly improve human behavior is to restrict reproduction.

Culture needs an accurate foundation
Our view of life is the foundation of our culture. A bad foundation for a tower is amusing to tourists, but if we have a bad foundation for our culture, we will design our culture to fit a fantasy creature rather than the real humans. We will torment ourselves and waste our short, precious life in a social environment that is unpleasant and unnatural.

The more accurate and extensive our knowledge about humans is, the better we will do at designing culture to fit our true mental and physical characteristics. We will design a more appropriate work environment, school system, and economic system. We will also treat one another in a more appropriate manner. We will create a much more pleasant social environment for ourselves. Consider a few more examples.

Example: What causes our mental problems?
In 2018 Olivia Palermo's finger began to twitch, and eventually other fingers were twitching, and then muscles began to cramp. When she started having problems speaking, she went to a doctor for help. She was told that she was suffering from anxiety, so she was sent to a therapist, but the psychological treatment was worthless.

Her problems got worse, and eventually she began having trouble sleeping. A psychiatrist gave her medication to stop anxiety and depression, and to help her sleep, but that was worthless, also.

Soon she was hallucinating. When she told a psychiatrist that she had considered suicide, she was put into a psychiatric facility, but her parents had the sense to get her released after a few days. She was then sent to the John Hopkins Hospital where a psychiatrist said she was possibly a schizophrenic.

Eventually she found a doctor who considered the possibility that her problems were something physical rather than Freudian or environmental, and that doctor discovered that she was having an autoimmune reaction that caused her immune system to attack a part of her brain.

That article points out that the CEO of the Encephalitis Society said that a lot of people who have that type of autoimmune problem go to a psychiatrist rather than a doctor who understands autoimmune problems, and the end result is that about half of the people are told that they have a psychiatric problem.

Our distant ancestors had a variety of idiotic explanations for diseases, arthritis, tooth decay, and other health problems. Today we think of ourselves as "educated", but Olivia Palermo is just one of thousands of people that prove that a lot of doctors continue to follow idiotic beliefs about human health, and that in turn is resulting in inappropriate medical treatment.

If all
doctors would face the evidence that humans follow the same rules as animals, doctors would first check to see if a person's body is functioning correctly before assuming that he has a defective brain.
Is her brain defective? Or is it her liver, thyroid, immune system, or other organ?
In other documents I pointed out that I have a problem with my thyroid hormones, and that it caused me to spend hours at a time in a dreamlike state. The hair and facial expression of Pearl Moen, to the right, reminds me of myself as a teenager when I was in one of those dreamlike states.

Pearl Moen is described as having "psychological problems", but is her brain defective? Or is her behavior being altered by something else, such as an autoimmune problem? Or does she have a defective thyroid, liver, or digestive system that is creating improper blood chemistry? Or does she have a combination of mental and physical problems?

We are never going to understand or reduce crime or weird behavior as long as we continue to insist that bad behavior is due to the devil, poverty, bullying, or bad parents. We need to face the evidence that the human brain is a variation of a monkey brain, and that it depends upon our body for nutrients. Understanding human behavior requires understanding animal behavior, and it requires understanding how our body affects our mind.

Pearl Moen's bizarre crime reminds me of some of the fantasies that were passing through my mind when I was a teenager. A television show, fiction book, news report, or other event would trigger some senseless fantasy that I would obsess with for hours or days. Some of my fantasies were as horrible as hers because Hollywood would often stimulate violent, dangerous, or criminal fantasies as a result of their movies and television programs that glorified Bonnie and Clyde, the Birdman of Alcatraz, and pirates.

Although I never actually did any of those fantasies, I can see how a slightly different environment, or slightly lower intelligence, would have resulted in me trying some of them. This makes me wonder, how many people doing weird things or weird crimes have a problem similar to mine?

I suspect that a lot of people who are being regarded as suffering from mental problems are actually suffering from physical disorders, and that doctors are making their situation worse by telling them that they are mentally ill, and giving them drugs that alter their mind.

Our view of life affects how we react to strange behavior. If we believe that
strange behavior is due to poverty, bullying, the devil, or something Freudian, then we will tell people to go to a psychiatrist, take mental health drugs, or get involved with religion.

If, instead, we believe that humans are a species of monkey, then we will check people for physical and dietary disorders before assuming they have mental problems. We will also realize that we cannot fix genetic problems. Hormones and drugs can compensate for some of our genetic problems, and an education about diet, sleep, drugs, genetics, and other issues can help us make better decisions about how to live, but we cannot cure genetic defects.
Why Kastron consists of clusters of tall buildings
Why do we want private yards?
Most of us want to live in a house that is sitting on a plot of land that we own, and the land would be covered with trees, grass, bushes, and flowers. If we have enough money to purchase a lot of land, we might put in creeks, ponds, or swimming areas.

We also prefer that our plots of land provide us with what we refer to as "a view". That is either a plot of land in a valley that allows us to see mountains and hills from our home, or it is a plot of land that is higher up in elevation than the surrounding area, giving us a view of the lower lying areas.

Why do we want a home on its own plot of land? And why do we want views of the surrounding areas? The answers to these types of questions depends upon our view of life.

If you believe that human behavior is set by the environment, you will assume that we want homes on plots of land simply because we grew up with that culture, and we have become accustomed to it.
However, if you believe that humans evolved from monkeys, and that human behavior is genetic, then you will realize that we can produce more sensible answers by understanding animal behavior.

Different animals create different types of homes for themselves. For example, the drawing to the right shows that prairie dogs live in a communal network of underground chambers and tunnels.

Some birds build nests in trees, and gorillas make a new home on the ground every night by using vegetation to make a comfortable "bed" to sleep on.

Animals also differ in whether each male and female couple put their home in an isolated area away from other animals, or whether each couple puts their home near the homes of other couples, or whether they share a large, communal home.




A male and female eagle want to be isolated from other animals.
These pelicans put nests near those of other pelicans, creating a city.
The monk parakeets live in large, communal nests.
If it were possible for us to increase the intelligence of prairie dogs, would there be a point at which they have become so intelligent that they want to switch from living underground in a communal home to living above the ground in houses that have separate, independent plots of land, similar to what you and I live in? Would they also want lots of glass windows in their houses? Would they want to live on a hill so that they can have a view of the city?

If we could increase the intelligence of the birds that build nests in trees or on cliffs, would there be a point at which they decide that they would rather live in houses that are on the ground?

The answer is no! Prairie dogs, for example, do not live underground because of stupidity. Therefore, increasing their intelligence will not cause them to want to live in a penthouse apartment, sailboat, or a house that is above the ground.

Likewise, reducing the intelligence of a human to that of a prairie dog will not cause him to want to live underground in a communal network of tunnels with other stupid humans.

Furthermore, the environment is not the reason animals behave the way they do. For example, prairie dogs do not live underground because of the way their mothers raised them, or because of poverty, bullying, or other environmental factors. Raising baby prairie dogs in nests in trees will not cause them to switch to living in trees. Likewise, raising baby falcons in underground burrows will not cause them to switch to underground burrows.

The type of home that an animal is attracted to is determined by its genetic emotional cravings and fears, not its intelligence or the environment. Rabbits, prairie dogs, and certain other animals want to live underground because they evolved emotions that cause them to be frightened of sleeping and raising babies above the ground. They developed an emotional attraction to dark, cramped, quiet tunnels, and to the lack of wind, temperature fluctuations, hail, and rainstorms.

If prairie dogs were as intelligent as humans, they would build higher quality tunnels and underground homes. They would want electricity, but they would want low level lighting in their tunnels, not bright lights.

Why do humans prefer low level lights at night, such as when we eat dinner? It has nothing to do with our intelligence, the way our mothers raised us, or some Freudian psychological issue. It is because we evolved for a world that becomes dark at the end of the day. We want bright lights for breakfast and lunch, but we prefer dim lights at night, or when we want to relax. Our brain evolved to fit the environment of the Earth.

Humans and gorillas have similar housing desires
Every night a gorilla will make a "bed" for itself by making a small patch of land more comfortable to sleep on. They do not want to dig a hole and sleep underground, or climb a tree and sleep in the branches, or sleep on sharp rocks, wet leaves, or mud. Also, gorillas developed an emotional craving to be near other gorillas, so they want to put their beds next to one another, thereby creating a "housing community".

Humans inherited those same emotional characteristics. We want to sleep on a soft, dry, comfortable bed that is on the ground. We also want to sleep close to other people, and among trees, bushes, flowers, and grass.

When humans settled in the permanent cities, they built walls around their beds to protect them from the weather, and they made beds that were more durable and comfortable. The very first cities would have resembled permanent campsites rather than what you and I would regard as a city.

The reason we want to live in houses that are surrounded by trees and flowers is because that is how our ancestors lived for millions of years. We evolved to enjoy that environment. Our emotions give us a pleasant feeling when we are in that environment. By comparison, some unpleasant emotions would be triggered if we tried to sleep in a dark, cramped, underground burrow, or in tree branches, or in mud, or on wet leaves.

Humans evolved to live and sleep on dry land, and among trees, bushes, creeks, birds, grass, butterflies, and flowers. Those aspects of nature make us feel safe and comfortable. As a result of those particular emotional cravings, when we build homes, offices, and factories, we design them to simulate the environment that we evolved for. We accomplish this by putting real and artificial plants in our cubicles, houses, and factories. We also put large posters on the wall that show creeks, butterflies, birds, mountains, and forests. An example is the office (below) in Singapore.

When we decorate our homes, offices, restaurants, and factories, we do not pick items at random. Rather, we select the items that titillate pleasant emotions, and we avoid the items that stimulate unpleasant or frightening emotions. For example, most of us do not want posters of spiders, maggots, mosquitoes, fleas, garbage dumps, dead bodies, asphalt parking lots, chain link fences, or toilets.

Europeans prefer forests over deserts
This home in Arizona is an example of how most humans do not enjoy the desert. We want to surround our home with trees, bushes, grass, and water.
The Europeans who live in Arizona do not like the natural landscape of the area, so most of them re-create a small portion of Europe with trees, grass, swimming pools, and bushes. In the cities that have a shortage of water, some people put artificial grass in their yard, such as the home in the photo to the right.

Some people will respond that the Europeans who put grass in their yards in Arizona do so because they were raised with that type of vegetation, or because of peer pressure.

Some people might respond that we enjoy artificial green grass because it feels better than concrete or dirt, but that is nonsense. If all we want is a comfortable material to walk on, it doesn't have to simulate green grass. It could simulate dead, brown grass, or sickly,
yellowish grass.

Furthermore, the material we walk on doesn't have to resemble grass merely to be comfortable. We could create a material that resembles sand, dirt, snow, ice, or pebbles. Or it could have geometric patterns, abstract patterns, or photos of people or airplanes. It could also be purple, iridescent blue, or have a red and white checkerboard pattern.

The black, rubber sheets that we put on the floor for factory workers, cashiers, and other people who have to stand up as they work, are much more comfortable and durable than artificial grass, so why don't we decorate our yards with sheets of black rubber?

The people of European descent want to surround their home with green grass because we have emotions that are titillated by that particular color and pattern. We are also titillated by trees, creeks, bushes, and flowers, which is why we decorate our homes and offices with artificial plants and posters of creeks, rather than with artificial earthworms and posters of trash dumps.

If gophers had enough intelligence to create artificial decorations for their home, they would want artificial roots hanging from the ceiling, and their preferred flooring material would be artificial dirt.

How do our genetic differences affect our attraction to nature?
Since our attraction to nature is genetic rather than environmental, and since each of us is a unique jumble of genetic characteristics, that means that there will be subtle differences between us in regards to which aspects of nature we are most attracted to. Furthermore, since there is an even greater genetic difference between the races of humans, and between men and women, there will be even greater differences in what the different races and sexes enjoy about nature.

For example, men seem to have a greater attraction to posters that provide a view of large areas, such as mountain ranges, valleys, beaches, and grasslands, whereas women have a greater desire to display photos of people, and photos that show individual flowers, puppies, or birds.

The races that evolved in the desert will have a greater desire for the colors and nature of the desert, whereas the Alaskan Eskimos will be emotionally pleased with the nature of Alaska.

Our cities are not emotionally satisfying
Our modern cities allow us to satisfy our cravings for food, water, and protection from storms and wild animals, but they do not satisfy our cravings for nature. Instead, the noise, traffic congestion, pollution, and ugly cities are stimulating unpleasant emotional feelings.

Our craving for nature is causing us to want to get away from the city and put our home on a plot of land that has grass, bushes, trees, and creeks. This in turn results in cities that are spread out over very large areas. This increases the problems with asphalt, concrete, and automobiles. It also puts larger distances between us and our friends, jobs, schools, leisure activities, and other destinations, thereby wasting a lot of our life on traveling and traffic congestion.

We are putting a tremendous amount of technical talent, labor, and other resources into the production, maintenance, and disposal of automobiles and roads. There are lots of more useful research and engineering projects that we could be putting our talent and resources into. Furthermore, a significant number of people have been seriously injured or killed by automobiles.

Our modern cities are an example of how we hurt ourselves when we selfishly try to satisfy our emotional cravings rather than exert some self-control and think about what is best for all of us as a group. When everybody wants their own plot of land, we create cities that are miserable for everybody.

Our modern cities are ugly, unpleasant, inefficient, and wasteful. We should exert some self-control over our selfish cravings and push ourselves into designing a city that is best for us as a group. However, in order to create better cities, we first need to provide our nation with better leadership.

The people who have risen to the top of government and businesses have intense cravings for status, wealth, pampering, and servants. They believe that they are special people, and that they and their children deserve special treatment. Their preference for a city is to provide themselves with gigantic mansions on gigantic plots of land, and provide their children with special schools, and to treat the rest of us as peasants.

A city should be designed for the human race, not for Kings and Queens. This requires that we provide ourselves with leaders who regard themselves as team members, and who regard you and me as their friends.

Kastron will provide everybody with nature
The reason I designed Kastron to be clusters of tall apartment and office buildings surrounded by parks is to allow us to always be surrounded by nature. Kastron will also be very quiet because the transportation will be underground. When we walk out of our office building or apartment building, we will be in a peaceful, natural setting. It will not be a "wild" setting, but I think it will satisfy our cravings for nature much better than the cities of today.

In a previous file I suggested that the tops of buildings be community property rather than penthouses for wealthy people. In Kastron, the tops of buildings, including those in the business and industrial sections of the city, would be set aside for social areas and restaurants that are available to everybody. The image below is an example of a restaurant at the top of one of the office buildings.

That restaurant provides a view of office buildings and factories, all of which are surrounded by grass, trees, bicycle paths, recreational facilities, and ponds for swimming and rowboats. Tables for one and two people would be placed along the windows for the individuals, friends, and couples who want to watch the people outside, or the storms, sunrises, sunsets, clouds, and stars.


Restaurants and social areas would also be at the tops of the apartment buildings. Of course, there would also be restaurants and social areas on the ground level. The basements of the buildings would be used for storage of bicycles so that the land is not cluttered with parking lots for bicycles.

Instead of living in houses that have tiny patches of land, separated by fences and walls, we would live in tall apartment buildings that are in a gigantic park that doesn't have any fences or walls to block our view, or interfere with our walking or riding of bicycles (the image to the right).

All of the land will belong to everybody. There will no private patches of land, creeks, or beaches. We will be able to walk and ride bicycles everywhere in the city, and we will be able to swim everywhere we please. All of the restaurants, social clubs, and recreational areas will also belong to everybody. There will be special facilities for mothers with babies, children, and teenagers, and many of the social areas, restaurants, and swimming areas will be restricted to adults, but there will be no "elite" class of people, or any "peasant" class.

In Kastron, everybody will also have virtually the same home and material wealth. Nobody will be given special treatment. I explain the reasoning behind this concept farther down in this document in the section about "People Are Not Equal".

Kastron will reduce transportation time
Another reason that Kastron consists of clusters of tall buildings is to dramatically reduce transportation time and burdens.

Our prehistoric ancestors lived in a small campsite, so everybody was within auditory range of one another. Nobody had to travel any significant distance to get to their friends. In our modern cities, however, we are wasting a lot of our time traveling to and from our jobs, stores, social events, recreational areas, and schools. We waste even more time, and suffer from more injuries and deaths, when traveling during rain and snow storms.

Furthermore, the crime is increasing in America, which is causing many parents to be afraid to let their children walk or ride bicycles to school, so many parents are driving their children to and from school. Our transportation systems, especially automobiles, are also a significant economic burden on us.

By designing Kastron as clusters of tall buildings that are connected by underground trains, people will waste less time on transportation compared to cities that have tens of thousands of buildings scattered over an enormous area. The tubes that have the trains will also carry utility lines, so we will not have to worry about storms knocking down power lines.

In addition, we will be able to travel to any of the clusters while remaining underground, so during rain and snowstorms, we will not have to carry umbrellas, raincoats, and other items. We will be able to enjoy the rain and snowstorms rather than be irritated and delayed by them.





Automobiles are a nuisance, a burden, and a danger, even with futuristic, self-driving technology.
Utilities will be underground to reduce damage and to make the city more attractive.

All of the apartment clusters in Kastron will have schools for young children, so all of the children will be able to get to school by walking and riding elevators. Parents will not have to waste their time transporting their children to school, or to recreational areas.

We also waste time on the purchase, sale, maintenance, and refueling of automobiles. Furthermore, we allow people to be so secretive and deceptive that buying and selling used cars, and other items, through services like Craigslist, is annoying and wasteful because it makes it easy for people to deceive and cheat us.

Furthermore, it is much more efficient to provide transportation and utilities between clusters of tall buildings, which means that Kastron will be much less of an economic burden on the people. The tall buildings have a higher initial cost than small, wooden buildings, but so what? If we can afford to give Israel billions of dollars a year, we can afford to provide ourselves with high quality cities.

You might find it interesting to consider that lots of people fantasize about a fountain of youth so that they can live longer. Although we cannot extend our life, there is a better alternative; namely, reducing the time we waste, such as walking through wet parking lots in the rain, and driving through traffic.

By reducing the time we waste on irritating activities, we are essentially extending our life, except that it is better than prolonging our old age because it provides us with more time all throughout our lives. By reducing wasted time, everybody, including children, have more time for activities we enjoy.

Are there differences between men and women?
Our beliefs about the differences between men and women has a significant effect on how we design our culture, including our cities. Consider how the following four views of men and women will result in four different types of culture:










1) We have Genetic Differences

If we believe that there are genetic differences in the intellectual and emotional characteristics of men and women, then we will design our work environment, social affairs, schools, recreational activities, and other culture to treat men and women differently.










2) We are Creations of a Supreme Being

If we believe that a supreme being created men and women with different characteristics, then we will treat men and women differently, but according to an irrational religion rather than genetics.










3) We have Minds like Clay

If we believe that the human mind adapts to its environment, then we will design culture in whatever manner we please, and we will assume that men and women will adapt to it. The people who have trouble adapting will be given therapy, punishments, or "rehabilitation".










4) We are Unisex Creatures

If we believe that men and women have virtually identical mental characteristics, then we will design culture to treat men and women in the same manner.









Why do men dominate science and engineering?
The answer to that question depends upon our view of life. If you believe that men and women have similar mental characteristics, then you might come to the conclusion that men dominate science because of our culture, such as our school curriculum, or sexism.

However, if you believe that men and women evolved for different roles in life, then you are likely to assume that it is because women's minds evolved to give them a greater attraction to, and talent in, raising families and socializing, and men have a greater attraction to, and talent in, science, engineering, exploration, and leadership.

How do we get more girls to become engineers? The answer to that question also depends upon your view of life. If you believe that men and women are similar in their mental abilities, then you might support the educational programs that encourage girls to get involved with those fields.

Or you might accuse men of being sexists who have create "glass ceilings", in which case your solution might be to fire or arrest the men who are sexist; create educational programs to teach boys to eliminate their "toxic masculinity"; or create laws that put quotas on businesses to increase the number of women in their engineering and science jobs.

However, if you believe that men and women evolved for different roles in life, and that our mental characteristics are genetic and unalterable, you will assume that there is nothing we can do to create more female engineers or scientists, so you will support a culture that allows children to pursue the jobs that they are interested in, and you will not want schools or society to waste time or resources on attempts to make more girls become scientists, engineers, or technicians.

Furthermore, you will not support the educational programs that accuse boys of having "toxic masculinity", or of being sexist, or of creating "glass ceilings". You will regard those accusations as insulting, slanderous, and idiotic.

Should boys be forced to play with dolls?
The people who believe either the unisex or clay theory will want to treat boys and girls in the same manner. They will force the Boy Scouts to accept girls, and they will support the recent lawsuit from some women to force fraternities at Yale to accept women. By comparison, the people who believe in genetics or religion will allow boys and girls to have separate activities, bathrooms, and organizations.

What is the correct way to raise boys and girls? That depends upon your view of what a human is. The reason people cannot agree on these and other issues is because we have contradictory views on what a human is. This results in us building our theories on incompatible foundations.

If we follow an unrealistic fantasy of what humans are, we will torment ourselves and one another with an unrealistic culture. For example, consider the parents who refuse to believe that men and women are genetically different. When their daughter is playing with a doll, or their son is playing with a toy truck, they may force the boy to play with a doll, and force the girl to play with a truck. Those parents may also force their daughters to learn science and engineering, and force their sons to learn about taking care of babies.

If it were true that humans were unisex creatures, or pieces of clay, then putting pressure on the boys and girls to behave like unisex creatures would be successful. However, if boys and girls are genetically different, we will torment the children because we would be forcing them to become something they cannot be and don't want to be, and we will torment ourselves because all of our attempts to alter their behavior will fail.

We will further torment ourselves and the children if we believe that punishments or rehabilitation programs will force the children to become unisex creatures.

By comparison, if we believe that boys and girls have genetically different mental and physical characteristics, then we will allow every boy and girl to behave in whatever manner is natural to them. We will realize that due to genetic variations, some girls will be more masculine, and some boys will be more feminine, and we will not try to force those unusual boys and girls to become "normal". We will also realize that genetic variations will cause homosexuality and bisexuality. Therefore, instead of punishing or rehabilitating the unusual children, we will accept them for what they are.

Why do we expect women to smile?
The gymnast, Simone Biles, made the news for not smiling enough when she was a contestant in the television program Dancing with the Stars. Her response was "Smiling doesn't win you gold medals".

Men are never criticized for not smiling enough, but women are expected to smile, even during intense athletic events. Why do we expect women to smile so much more than men? Why doesn't Simone Biles smile as much as other women? The answer to those questions depends upon your view of men and women.

If you believe in either the unisex or clay theory, you will assume that we expect women to smile more often simply because that is our culture, and if our culture had expected men to smile more than women, then we would expect that.

However, if you believe that men and women evolved for different roles in life, then the reason women smile more often is because they evolved to be mothers rather than leaders, explorers, or team members. Women are genetically designed to be more submissive and less aggressive, and smiling is one of the techniques humans use to show submission and nonaggression.

In addition to evolving for different roles in life, we also evolved the expectation that the other sex will be in that particular role. In other words, we are genetically designed to expect men and women to behave in a certain manner. Our brains are designed to expect women to display expressions of submission more than men, and to be less aggressive. We become upset when men and women do not behave in the manner that we have been designed to expect, resulting in our scolding them for not behaving in the "proper" manner.

Why doesn't Simone Biles smile as often as other women? The answer depends upon your view of humans. If you believe in the clay or unisex theory, you will assume it is because of her childhood, or some interaction between her Ego and Id, but if you believe in genetics, then you will assume it is because of subtle differences in the genetic design of her brain and/or body. For example, she has ADHD, which many athletes suffer from. It is also possible that she is more masculine in certain traits.

Why do adults often disregard a girl’s complaint of pain?
Some social scientists observed the reaction of adults to children who complained about pain, and they noticed that adults were more likely to disregard the complaints from girls. Why would we be more likely to believe a boy who complains about pain? Furthermore, the scientists pointed out that women were more likely than men to disregard a girl's complaints. Why would this be?
The answers to those questions depend upon our view of humans. The social scientists who did that research don't believe in genetics, so Brian Earp, the primary scientist, said that it is a "big mystery" and “We’re spitballing to come up with a reason.

Incidentally, the word "spitballing" gives me images of people who are spitting, which I consider unpleasant since his document has nothing to do with spitting. The words you choose determines whether people enjoy listening to you, or are repelled by your remarks. The word "spitballing" is not in a "normal" dictionary. Do not pick words from the SCIgen Dictionary.

Anyway, if we believe in genetics, then one possible explanation for why women are more likely than men to disregard the complaints from girls is because women inherently know that a lot of their complaints are merely to manipulate people.

Since women are naturally more submissive, they are less likely to grab at what they want and more likely to beg or manipulate for it. Men are more likely to grab at or steal what they want, and even kill people for it.

Why is there so much emphasis on a woman’s appearance?
Some feminists complain that men put too much emphasis on a woman's visual appearance. The author of this article describes it as: "a woman’s worth is tied largely to her physical appearance." Is this true? If so, why would we care so much about a woman's appearance but not a man's appearance?

The people who base their theories on the clay or unisex viewpoint will likely produce an explanation that is as confusing and vague as those from the psychologists, such as this one. Evolution and genetics provide a more sensible reason. Specifically, the prehistoric tribes that dominated the others were those in which the men preferred visually attractive women. This leads to the question of how that particular sexual characteristic provided a tribe of prehistoric people with an advantage over the other tribes.

I discussed this issue in other documents, such as here. To summarize it, during prehistoric times, the women who were the cleanest and most attractive were in the best genetic health. The sloppy, dirty, filthy women were genetically inferior.

Therefore, the prehistoric men who did not care much about a woman's appearance would have been just as happy with a filthy woman, and the end result would have been inferior children, and his wife would have been an inferior mother. The men who were most successful in passing on their genetic characteristics were those who developed a sexual attraction to the clean, attractive women.

Why don't women care much about the physical appearance of a man? The reason is because if prehistoric women picked men according to their visual appearance, they would often end up with a man who could not properly feed or protect his family. The women who were most successful in raising families were those who were titillated by the men who were capable of providing her with lots of gifts of food and tools.

Most people are misinterpreting their emotions. For example, men assume that they enjoy pretty women because the women are "pretty". However, women are pretty only to the creatures who have a certain genetic emotional attraction to a certain type of visual appearance. To a monkey, or an alien in another solar system, human women are not necessarily pretty.

Women also misinterpret their emotions. For example, they assume they like to spend hours a day grooming themselves because they "enjoy" being clean and attractive, but the reason they enjoy being clean and attractive is to appease men, not because it is fun to spend hours a day on grooming chores.

Many of our emotional feelings are misunderstood. An example that I mentioned in previous documents is that we are disgusted by the smell of our poop, and this causes people to assume that poop is horrible. However, our poop is a valuable indication of our digestive system, health, and diet. There is nothing disgusting about it. Rather, we developed an emotion that causes us to be disgusted by it in order to keep us away from it.

Likewise, men misunderstand their craving for sex. They assume they want sex because sex is fun, but in reality, this craving is simply nature's way of "tricking" us into getting involved with a female, getting her pregnant, and remaining with her while she raises lots of children.

Getting back to the issue of women who complain that men put too much emphasis on a woman's visual appearance, it is idiotic for women to complain about this because it is not something men choose to do. Rather, men have this characteristic because we evolved from monkeys. The competition for life caused men to be attracted to clean, well groomed women, but that characteristic is not "sexist". It is simply the way the male animals evolved.

Women put more emphasis on man's status and material wealth than his physical appearance, but women are not better than men simply because they care more about a man's material wealth than his visual appearance. Rather, women are merely different because they evolved for a different role in life.

Some women boast that they are less promiscuous than men, but that is not because they are "better" than men. That is simply another characteristic that developed from the competitive battle for life.

Some men complain that women put too much emphasis on a man's wealth and status, and they insult some women as golddiggers, or as arrogant bitches who believe that they are too special to accept a man who has an "ordinary" income. However, this is simply the way women evolved. It is idiotic to complain about it.

Men and women are tormenting one another when we complain about one another's characteristics.
Neither of us chose to have our particular desires. We inherited these emotional characteristics from the monkeys. Both men and women could be described as victims of the chaotic battle for life. The only way to improve upon this situation is for us to restrict reproduction so that we can give men and women better emotional characteristics.

We will also torment ourselves if we use the sour grapes trick to convince ourselves that we don't want a spouse. We will not improve our lives by hiding from our problems. We will have a better life when we face reality and admit that we have lots of genetic cravings, such as a craving for a spouse. We need to deal with our cravings rather than pretend we don't have them.

We must also suppress our urge to whine, hate, pout, and have temper tantrums. It is important to understand that our desires to pout, hate, whine, and ignore problems is because we inherited those reactions from animals. Since animals cannot think, they react to problems by running away, or by becoming angry. We should face the evidence that humans react to problems just like the stupid animals.

We need use our self-control to push us into discussing our problems, and experimenting with solutions. We should put some effort into understanding the differences between men and women, and experimenting with more appropriate marriages, work environments, and other culture. For example, as I have suggested in other documents, we should prohibit businesses from titillating the sexual cravings of men, and from titillating women with romance novels, babies, and wedding fantasies. I think businesses are encouraging boys and girls to develop unrealistic goals and expectations.

However, we are not going to get an understanding of our characteristics, or experiment with better culture, with the type of people we are allowing to dominate our world today. The Google executives, for example, have already fired an employee for expressing the opinion that there are differences between men and women. We cannot improve life when we allow ourselves to be dominated by people who suppress differences of opinion.

Unless we put better quality people into leadership positions, nothing is going to improve. Can you motivate yourself into helping to provide the world with better leaders?

Why do male humans play in mud and climb mountains?
A lot of young boys enjoy playing in the mud, creeks, and water puddles, and some adult men enjoy risking their health and life by going on "adventure trips," such as climbing a mountain, hiking in an isolated wilderness, or riding a kayak in a turbulent river.
In a free enterprise system, businesses exploit these desires. For example, businesses offer a variety of Mud Festivals. Although the photographers give more attention to the women, men have much more of an attraction to the mud.

Why do boys like to play in the mud more than girls? Why do men enjoy "adventure trips" more than women?

The answer to these questions depends upon your view of humans. If you are religious, you will assume it is because God decided to give us those qualities. If you believe in the clay theory, then you might assume that it is because of the manner in which parents are raising their children. However, if you believe that humans are a species of monkey, then you will realize that we can understand this behavior by observing the animals.

In this and this document, I described some of the characteristics of falcons in this PBS documentary. To summarize, a male falcon spends his life catching small animals and giving them to his female partner, who spends her life sitting on a nest and taking care of her babies.

Why do the male and female falcons spend every day in that "sexist" manner? Why don't they behave in a unisex manner by sharing the chores equally? Why don't the females hunt half of the time, and let the males spend half of their time on the nest?

If you believe in genetics, then they behave in that manner because they want to behave like that. And the reason they have chosen that sexist life is because the DNA of a falcon causes the male and female brains to develop slightly different circuitry, which gives them slightly different emotional feelings.

Every animal has the freedom to do whatever he wants to do. Therefore, when an animal does something, it is because he has chosen to do it. Since the animals do not think very well, most of their decisions are the result of their emotional fears and cravings rather than their intellect.

We cannot force an animal to do something that he does not want to do
Some people may respond that people are regularly controlling animal behavior, such as when we force a dog, horse, or other animal to perform tricks in a circus, or when we force an ox to pull a plow on a farm. However, those animals are not truly forced to behave in a certain manner. Rather, the humans are simply exploiting the emotional cravings of the animals to manipulate their desires.

For example, by offering food to certain animals, such as seals, and by offering food and attention to the social animals, such as dogs, the animals learn that they can receive emotional titillation by doing something. They choose to do what we want them to do because they want the reward, not because we have altered their mental circuitry, or because we have forced them into doing it.

We cannot alter the behavior or mental circuitry of an animal. All we can do is learn about their emotions, and then exploit their cravings and fears in order to manipulate them.

For example, the social animals respond to intimidation techniques because they have emotions that cause them to react to glares, facial expressions, and being bit and kicked. Therefore, humans can manipulate the social animals by yelling at them, glaring at them, and kicking them. However, the animals respond to that intimidation because they want to.

The social animals are easy for us to manipulate because they are designed to accept a submissive role. Although they have a craving to be the leader, they also have emotions that cause them to become submissive when they are intimidated to a certain extent, or kicked hard enough.

We are not altering the brain circuitry of dogs when we train them to be pets. We are simply exploiting their emotional characteristics.

Some people might respond that pet dogs are much less violent than wild dogs, and they may claim that it is because humans are raising them in a loving, peaceful environment, but that is not true. Pet dogs are less violent because people have been killing the violent pet dogs for thousands of years, thereby allowing only the peaceful dogs to reproduce.

Humans have been deliberately and inadvertently restricting the reproduction of pet dogs, and this has resulted in a wide variety of new races of dogs, and it has resulted in dogs evolving to become more peaceful and more interested in forming close relationships with humans.

Since the social animals can be manipulated with intimidation techniques, will they work with humans? Yes! Actually, we are already using these techniques all the time. For example, businesses offer us a salary, retirement benefits, and medical benefits in order to entice us into becoming one of their employees, which is the same as offering fish to a circus seal.

Crime networks use this technique also, but we refer to it as "bribery" if they want us to do something that is illegal.

Governments also use these techniques. Specifically, they try to intimidate us into following the laws by threatening us with jail, fines, and other punishments.

However, as with animals, we cannot force people to do something they don't want to do. Everybody is free to do as he pleases. If a person does not want to work, businesses cannot force him to take a job. If a person does not want to follow a law, the government cannot force him to do so. If a person does not want to accept a bribe, a crime network cannot force him to take it.

Some people might respond that a crime network can indeed force us to take bribes and commit other crimes if the crime network is so large and powerful that they can convince us that we have no other option. However, that is not exactly true. A person will submit to becoming a blackmailed puppet, or a slave, only if he chooses to do so. History has examples of people who preferred to fight the crime networks and slave owners rather than submit to them. Some of those people ended up being killed by the crime network, but that was because they were willing to risk their life in order to avoid becoming a victim of the crime network.

When people submit to crime networks, it is because they have chosen to submit. They are behaving like an animal that has been kicked so hard that his emotional craving to submit to his leader is triggered, and he gives up the fight. However, if a person intensely despises the idea of becoming a blackmailed puppet, or if he is abnormally arrogant and demanding, then he will continue fighting.

We cannot force people to do what they do not want to do. The reason crime networks can easily intimidate people is because humans and other social animals are designed to give up a fight before they are badly hurt, and become submissive.

The social animals do not fight to the death for status or females. They usually become submissive after just a few harmless kicks and glares. They do not have a desire to fight to the death because if they were to kill one another, they would destroy their group. The fights between animals are attempts to intimidate one another, not kill one another. That is why their fights are so noisy, and why they show their teeth. Their fights seem dangerous, but they are usually harmless, and the animals give up easily.

The crime networks try to manipulate us with the same techniques that animals use. Specifically, they try to make themselves appear powerful in order to intimidate us into becoming submissive to them. If people could find the courage to stand up to the crime networks, the crime networks would leave us alone. Crime networks have much more to lose from a fight than the people they are trying to bribe and blackmail. Crime networks require secrecy, and they depend upon people who are easily intimidated. Therefore, if more people would expose and resist the crime networks, we could destroy them.

The entire nation of Germany is frightened to talk about the world wars, the Holocaust, Anne Frank's diary, the 9/11 attack, and the Apollo moon landing. If the German public would find the courage to expose these crimes, what would the Jews do? The Jews could not possibly arrest everybody in Germany for Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, or "fake news".

Male and female falcons have different emotional circuitry
Getting back to the issue of falcons, they have "sexist" roles because the males and females have slightly different emotional characteristics. Since those characteristics are genetic, there is nothing we can do to change their behavior. There is no way to raise baby falcons that will cause the males to want to stay home with the babies, and cause the females to hunt for animals. Changing their behavior is as impossible as changing a dog into a cat.

The brain of a male falcon has been designed with an emotional craving to find a female and pamper her with food. He also has an emotional craving to fly around for hours and search for small animals to capture. He does not have a desire to walk around while looking for animals, or swim in water to catch fish, or fly around to find fruit or insects.
The male Falcons are titillated by giving food to the females, and the females are titillated by feeding her babies.
The brain of a female falcon, by comparison, has been designed with a craving to sit in a nest, and a craving to find a male who will pamper her with food. She also has emotions that are titillated by eggs and baby falcons.

When
a female falcon sees the open mouth of a baby falcon and hears certain types of crying noises from the baby, some circuits in her brain are triggered to give her an unpleasant feeling. This causes her to react by trying to stop those images and sounds by putting food into that mouth.

This causes the baby to close his mouth and become quiet, which titillates her in a pleasant manner. She enjoys quiet babies, and is upset by crying babies.

How can falcons help us understand humans?
It is fairly easy to realize that the "sexist" behavior of male and female falcons is the result of their genetic emotional cravings, but how do we apply that knowledge to human behavior? One technique is to imagine what would happen to falcon behavior if their brains had a dial that allowed us to turn up their intelligence to the level at which they can speak a human language, and can build cities for themselves. What type of city would falcons create? What type of recreational activities would they enjoy? What would their social environment be like?

In order to live in a city, the falcons would have to create farms that produce and distribute meat throughout the city. However, the males would continue to have a craving to fly around for hours and hunt for animals, and to give food to the females, and the females would continue to have cravings to sit on a nest with their babies and be given food by their male partner.

Their emotional cravings would cause them to create a "sexist" society, rather than a unisex society. The male falcons would leave their home every day to work, and bring meat home every evening to their females, who would stay home with the children.

However, the craving that the males have to hunt animals would not be satisfied by purchasing meat from a retail store. Therefore, they might decide to set up an area outside the city for hunting. Since they would not need to hunt, they would design the hunting area to titillate their emotional cravings, rather than create a "real" hunting area. For example, if there were not enough wild animals in the area to allow hunting, then they would breed animals and release them into the hunting area.
Their hunting activities would be for emotional stimulation, not for necessity, so it would be much easier, more relaxed, and more entertaining.

The wealthy falcons might arrange for hunting activities that are similar to the foxhunting activities of the wealthy British, in which they pay servants to wander around in the forest to provide expensive drinks in expensive glasses, and while everybody is wearing expensive clothing and jewelry that is inappropriate for a forest.

Since males are competitive, there would eventually be a point at which the male falcons start competing with one another to hunt. Their competitive activities would slowly develop into a variety of different sports.

For example, instead of hunting a real animal, they may place some simulated animals in bushes, and then compete to see who can find the most in the shortest period of time. They might also develop a variety of sports contests in which they show off their flying abilities, such as flying through narrow gaps, or flying through obstacle courses.

Once a sport develops, the competitive nature of the males will cause some of the falcons to practice for the sport. Eventually they would develop exercises to help their wings become stronger. When they discover hormones and steroids, some of the Falcons will use those drugs to develop muscles that are absurdly large.

Businesses would exploit the situation by providing gyms so that the males can exercise and train. Some falcons would hire coaches to help them train. Businesses would also build stadiums for sporting events so that they could charge spectators a fee to watch the sports, and to sell snacks, such as mice, to the spectators.

Businesses would also exploit the children by providing them with sports activities and equipment. For example, they might provide the young male falcons with small, stuffed animals to hunt, and they might sell them inexpensive, plastic pylons so that they can set up an obstacle course to fly around.

The businesses and schools would also arrange for competitive sports events for the children. The mother falcons would become "hunting moms", which would be analogous to the "soccer moms" who take their children to sports events every week.

Sports would not completely satisfy the falcons
Although the sporting events would titillate their craving to hunt, it would not be exactly what their emotions want because the sporting events would be crowded and noisy, and the business activity would be annoying. Some of the falcons would want to get away from the crowds, the noise, and the concession stands, and hunt in a more "natural" manner by flying around for hours in quiet, uncharted, isolated areas and looking for wild animals.

Businesses would exploit those falcons by offering them "adventure trips". For a fee, they would take the falcons to isolated areas where they can spend the day, or several days, struggling to survive by searching for and capturing wild animals.

The adventure trips would give their emotions the type of stimulation that they had evolved for, thereby providing them with an intense emotional pleasure that they could never experience from the city, or from the sports events.

Through the decades, the adventure trips would evolve into increasingly difficult adventures, such as flying around the tops of mountains, where the weather conditions are dangerous and food is scarce. Those adventure trips would be so brutal that some of the falcons would die, and others would suffer serious injuries. This would cause some of the falcons, especially the females, to ask them why they do it.

Why would a falcon want to take the risk of dying on an adventure trip? Those falcons would assume that the reason they want to do it is because it is "exciting" to put themselves through a difficult and challenging test of their abilities. In reality, the reason they would want to go on those adventure trips is because their city does not satisfy their emotional cravings.

Their city would provide them with food and other comforts, but it would also irritate them with noise, overcrowding, crime, pollution, and the ugliness of concrete and asphalt. Their city would satisfy some of their emotions, such as hunger, but other emotions would be unfulfilled, such as their cravings to fly above trees and bushes in a quiet, secluded area. This would result in many of the male falcons leaving the city on the weekends so that they can fly over trees and bushes, and search for animals.

By comparison, the female falcons would prefer remaining in their home with their children. They would not have strong cravings to leave the city and fly around for hours.

Humans are similar to falcons
Earlier I mentioned that humans are similar to gorillas, and now I am saying we are similar to falcons. Which is it? It is both.

Humans evolved from some type of ape, which evolved from some other creature, and so on. We are not unique. We
share a lot of the characteristics that we see in other animals because we inherited our qualities from animals. The way humans make beds and cities is similar to the way gorillas sleep at night. We also have characteristics that are similar to those in falcons, cats, dogs, and elephants.

If you can understand why a male falcon would be unsatisfied with a city, then it should help you to understand why male and female humans are behaving as we do, and why I designed Kastron as I did.

The prehistoric men who were the most successful in raising children were those who had an emotional craving to get out of the campsite every day and search for food and make tools. Those men did not have a strong attraction to babies or chatting with women. Their emotions gave them a preference to get away from the campsite and walk around in nature. They enjoyed the trees, bushes, creeks, mud puddles, rain, clouds, and sunshine. They enjoyed walking around the forests, grasslands, and mountains. They enjoyed the quiet, isolated conditions. They
enjoyed looking out onto grass plains, mountains, ponds, and clouds.

Many people realize that animals evolved to "fit" their particular environment, but it is more useful to describe animals as evolving to "enjoy" their particular environment. The male falcons, for example, evolved to enjoy flying around and looking for animals. They do not suffer when they hunt.

Likewise, reindeer enjoy snow and cold temperatures, and they enjoy searching for and eating lichen. They do not shiver from the cold, or fantasize about eating bananas or mangoes. They enjoy their climate and foods.
Humans would suffer tremendously if our feet were wet and cold for hours every day, but ducks do not suffer from it. Ducks are not merely tolerating wet, cold feet, either. Rather, they enjoy it.

The prehistoric people who were living in cold, wet environments evolved to enjoy that climate. They prehistoric
people who were living in hot, dry, deserts, evolved to enjoy those conditions. The people in Scotland evolved to enjoy weather that is more brutal than most of Europe, and the people in the northern parts of Scandinavia and Russia evolved to enjoy a very cold, dark winter.

The prehistoric men who were the most successful at raising children were those who enjoyed leaving their campsite every day to wander around in nature and search for food. They wanted to get out of the campsite, get away from the women and children, and look for food. They were not suffering when they were hunting, not even when the area was covered with snow, and all they had for clothing was a few strips of fur and leather. Rather, they enjoyed nature and one another. They were capable of sleeping in the snow, and they enjoyed it.

Some people might respond that there are lots of people in northern Europe and Russia who dislike the cold weather, and that virtually everybody would die if they had to sleep in the snow. However, the reason people today do not enjoy cold weather is because, for the past few thousand generations, people have been degrading genetically.

For example, by providing children with fur coats, campfires, and warm structures to live in, the children who would have died during the cold winters ended up surviving and reproducing, thereby creating more children who could not handle the cold weather.

Every generation is more physically and mentally defective than the previous generation. If this continues, everybody will eventually be so defective that everybody needs constant medical help and special diets, and
everybody will have such a weird personality that nobody will be able to form a stable friendship.

Getting back to the similarity between humans and falcons, the men who evolved in an environment that was wet, muddy, and cold evolved to enjoy those conditions. Those men enjoyed the mud, trees, mushrooms, rain, fog, hail, creeks, frogs, clouds, birds, lightning, and crusts of ice on puddles. They regarded nature as beautiful, not miserable, ugly, frightening, or disgusting. They developed activities for their environment, such as swimming, making snowmen, and making mud pies. They enjoyed wandering around for hours in cold and damp forests and grasslands in order to find food and water.

By comparison, the prehistoric women evolved to enjoy spending each day in a campsite with other women and children. Every woman enjoyed being her own boss, but they wanted to be near one another. Women do not enjoy being isolated and alone. This is why many women, when they are home alone, will turn on a television, or have long telephone conversations of nothing of importance. They will even enjoy a phone conversation when it goes silent for long periods of time because the image in their mind of the person they are talking to will satisfy their craving to be near other people.

Women did not develop a desire to wander around in nature and search for animals. As a result, they consider hunting to be a chore, not a recreational activity. Women are much happier than men to spend their life inside their home because they did not develop a strong attraction to nature, or to spend hours wandering around in nature.

Most women have noticed that sunsets can be attractive, but most women do not consider "ordinary" clouds to be beautiful decorations in the sky, and even fewer women enjoy rain, hail, and snowstorms. Men enjoy nature more than women do because we evolved to spend most of our life in nature. Women evolved to be mothers, and so they have strong attractions to children and people, and men evolved to be leaders and hunters, so we have a strong attraction to nature, and a strong desire to compete for status.

Why do men climb mountains?
When George Mallory was asked that question in 1923, he said, "Because it's there." George Mallory did not understand his emotions, so he did not know why he wanted to climb mountains. Asking a man why he wants to climb a mountain, take a walk in a forest, play in the mud, or go snorkeling in a coral reef is like asking a woman why she wants to sit at home and spend hours with cosmetics, jewelry, and babies.

When a woman is asked why she enjoys cosmetics, she will respond that she "enjoys" looking pretty. A more accurate explanation is that she is trying to satisfy an emotional craving. We evolved to enjoy our environment, and that includes our social environment. Women have a craving to look pretty, but why? The reason is to attract and hold onto a man, not because it is enjoyable to spend hours a day on grooming activities.

When a man is asked why he wants to spend time in nature, he will respond that it is because he "enjoys" nature, but a
more accurate explanation is that he is trying to satisfy an emotional craving. Why would a man have a craving for nature? It is because men evolved to enjoy their environment. For millions of years, prehistoric men wandered away from the campsite every morning to look for food, water, and tools. They spent the entire day in nature. The men who were the best adapted to that lifestyle were those who developed an enjoyment of nature.

Men evolved an attraction to the mountains, forests, creeks, clouds, rainstorms, hail, snow, bushes, flowers, frogs, lizards, mushrooms, and birds. Unfortunately, our modern cities do not allow us to satisfy our craving for nature. This causes men to want to get out of the city, and get away from the concrete, noise, overcrowding, and pollution. We want to be among trees, grass, ponds, birds, sunshine, and clouds.

By designing a city as I've suggested for Kastron, I think we can satisfy a man's craving for nature. However, simply surrounding ourselves with nature will not be enough to truly satisfy our emotional desires. We also need to alter our economic system so that we can prevent businesses from manipulating and exploiting us. Businesses are currently causing us to desire activities and products that we don't actually need
or benefit from. Businesses are also exploiting our competitive nature and causing men to compete for senseless goals, such as climbing the tallest mountain. Until we stop this exploitation, we are not going to provide ourselves with a pleasant environment.

If you have trouble understanding this concept, consider how it applies to children. Businesses in a free enterprise system are competing to sell products to children, and this is causing the businesses to manipulate children into desiring certain sports items, candy bars, sodas, clothing items, and toys. Businesses are not improving life for children. Rather, they are causing the children to develop desires for things they don't need. We ought to regard the free enterprise system as making life worse for us, not better.

How can we provide children with a pleasant life when businesses are constantly competing with one another to give children irrational cravings? Furthermore, some businesses are stimulating the sexual cravings of boys. Who benefits from that?

We must stop the abuse by the free enterprise system in order to provide children with a pleasant life. Businesses should not be allowed to manipulate or exploit
children.

Many adults can understand that businesses are causing children to develop idiotic cravings, but they cannot see that adults are also victims. Most adults do not want to look critically at themselves, or consider the possibility that they are being manipulated and exploited, just like the children.

Businesses are routinely manipulating adults, and our culture. They are causing adults to develop irrational cravings for material items, wedding ceremonies, recreational activities, adventure trips, vacations, and funerals.
Furthermore, religions, charities, and other groups are also trying to manipulate our desires and attitudes. We cannot create a truly pleasant environment for ourselves when we have thousands of organizations competing to titillate, stimulate, exploit, and manipulate us.

Some of the problems that businesses are causing are:

    1) Businesses are causing us to develop idiotic goals
The businesses that offer vacations, adventure trips, and cruises are competing to grab our attention, and one of their methods is to make it appear as if their particular destinations will provide us with the most excitement. They boast that they will take us to the most spectacular nature, and the most exciting cities.

In reality, nature is beautiful everywhere on the Earth, except where humans have destroyed it. To claim that one part of the Earth has better nature than another is as idiotic as claiming apples are better than oranges, or that steel is better than aluminum. The businesses are promoting a stupid, detrimental view of the Earth.

In regard to cities, all of them are disgusting. Paris, for example, is not the "city of romance".
It is just another chaotic, overcrowded, filthy, crime-ridden, corrupt, noisy city, and it is becoming worse every year as a result of uncontrolled immigration and reproduction.

Businesses are causing some people to set a goal of visiting certain areas of the Earth, or certain cities
, but it is idiotic for a person to spend years of his life fantasizing about traveling to some "special" area. Contrary to what the businesses tell us, we do not have to travel long distances or spend lots of money on a vacation. It is actually possible to enjoy a vacation while remaining home! That type of vacation allows us to avoid the problems and stress of airports, hotels, and rental cars.

Incidentally, this brings up an important issue that I've mentioned before. Specifically, the reason most people do not want to take a vacation in their own city is because our cities are disgusting. We want to get away from our city, but the grass is not greener in another city. All of our cities are disgusting, and all of them are getting worse.

This brings up another aspect of Kastron. Specifically, my recommendation is to put more of our resources into our cities. We should make the buildings, footpaths, parks, swimming areas, and bridges more beautiful, and we should make the transportation systems more quiet, attractive, and dependable, and we should provide the city with so many recreational and social activities that we can always find something to do. Our city should be so enjoyable that we want to spend our leisure time in our own city with our friends, rather than fantasize about getting out of the city.

    2) Businesses encourage us to focus on winning.
We are wasting our life when we focus on winning and trophies.
Men have strong cravings to compete with one another. In a free enterprise system, businesses exploit this characteristic, and one of the resulting problems is that they are inadvertently encouraging people to focus on winning competitive events, rather than enjoying it, or getting involved for some other reason, such as exercise or socializing.

For example, by boasting that their particular footballs, golf clubs, cleats, or shoes will help us to win our competitive events, they are emphasizing the winning of the event. Likewise, when they boast about their "new and improved" items that will give us a "competitive edge", they are encouraging us to focus on winning. The businesses that produce trophies are also encouraging the winning of events by making it appear as if the people who collect the most trophies are having the most exciting life, and admired by the most people.

The businesses that arrange for competitive events in which there are spectators are encouraging the spectators to also focus on the winner of the event. There is so much emphasis on winning that some spectators become angry or get into fights over decisions by the referees, and many spectators become upset when their team loses.

The athletes who make a living from competitive sports have a strong incentive to win the events, but it is ridiculous for spectators to get emotionally involved. From the point of view of society, the spectators who become upset over sports events are fools who are tormenting themselves, and the spectators who get into fights are destructive. They should try to enjoy the event and the people, rather than become angry and miserable over who wins.

It is especially idiotic to encourage people who are having casual recreational events to be concerned about winning. If they focus on winning, the winner will get some momentary titillation, but the people who lose might become frustrated, angry, envious, or sad. The losers, or their parents, are especially likely to become upset if they spent a lot of time and money on equipment, clothing, and training.
If we are living in a city in which we regard the other people as our friends, rather than as strangers or enemies, then our recreational events will be with friends. What is the benefit to a group of friends when we regard one friend as a winner and the others as losers?

From the point of view of a group of friends, it would be better if they exerted some self-control to reduce the emphasis on winning.

We should focus on enjoying life, nature, and each other, not on winning a meaningless event. We enjoy competing, but we should design competitions to be beneficial.

For example, we should design competitive recreational activities to inspire people to get out of their house and get some exercise, meet some people, and enjoy nature. We should focus on enjoying
life and other people, rather than focus on winning and collecting trophies.

O
ur view of life has a significant effect on our culture. I suggest we think of ourselves as living among friends, rather than living among enemies that we must defeat. We should think of ourselves as a member of a team, not as monkeys who are in a battle for dominance.
Years ago I suggested that we should stop giving out trophies, or switch to giving out something more beneficial, such as a carved watermelon for everybody to share. I think that will help us focus on enjoying life rather than on winning meaningless events. Of course, we will never know what provides us with the best life until we find the courage to start experimenting with our culture.

    3) Businesses encourage senseless competitions.
Businesses are constantly devising new competitions in an attempt to figure out how to get our money. Some of those contests fail to attract our attention, but some become popular, such as the food eating contests, beauty pageants, Rubik's Cube competitions, and the ugly dog contest (photo, left). The Guinness Book of World Records is encouraging people to participate in thousands of contests, such as the most live rattlesnakes held in mouth.




This is the world's record for the
most live snails on a person's face.




What are the benefits to these competitions? The people who get involved with these competitive activities assume that they are having fun and enjoying the trophies, but we could describe these people as "victims of free enterprise", or as "exploited by businesses".

A person who practices with his dog to win a dog contest is not helping his dog, himself, or society. Likewise, a person who practices to win a food eating contest, a spelling contest, a golf contest, or a contest to memorize the most digits in the square root of two is also developing a skill that is worthless.

In a free enterprise system, businesses are not interested in designing activities or products that provide us with benefit, or improve our lives. They are designing products to provide themselves with profit. This is an idiotic way for us to live. Businesses should be working for a more useful goal, such as improving life for the human race. We should not be looking for ways to exploit and manipulate one another.
    4) Businesses encourage dangerous competitions.
Some businesses, such as Red Bull and Mobil Oil, advertise their products by sponsoring risky competitive events, such as auto racing. However, those businesses are inadvertently encouraging people to get involved with those dangerous competitions because they are giving favorable publicity to the activities, and because they are providing money for equipment and medical services. Without that publicity and funding, some of those competitions would vanish, and others would attract only a few people, and all of the competitions would become considerably less dangerous.

There are also businesses that offer vacations and adventure trips that encourage people to get involved with senseless competitions to climb the tallest mountain, take the most dangerous white-water trip, and ski down the most dangerous slope. In reality, it does not matter how tall a mountain is, or how dangerous a recreational activity is.

The enjoyment from climbing a mountain does not increase with the height of the mountain, and the enjoyment of a recreational activity does not increase as it becomes more risky. It is our stupid emotions that cause us to assume that riskier activities will bring us more excitement.

If risky activities were truly more exciting, then Russian roulette would be more exciting than other sports events. Furthermore, the maximum excitement would come from a game with only one missing bullet.

Some people might respond that auto racing, mountain climbing, and other risky sports activities are not the same as Russian roulette because those sports require skill, whereas Russian roulette is a game of chance. However, all of those dangerous sports require both skill and luck. They are a combination of the two.

Take a look at this list of 297 people who died while climbing Mount Everest, as of February 2019, and here is a list of the deaths on some of the other Himalayan mountains. Notice how many of them died from avalanches.

An earthquake in 2015 caused an avalanche that killed 19 people on Mount Everest. Although skill is needed to climb those Himalayan mountains, everybody who climbs them is also playing a game of Russian roulette because of the unpredictable earthquakes, avalanches, and storms.

You might respond that every activity that we do is a mixture of skill and chance. This is true! For example, driving an automobile requires skill, but it is also playing a game of Russian roulette because there are some factors that we have no control over. For example, on the same day that this 16-year-old girl had finished seven months of physical rehabilitation and was finally able to walk again, she was paralyzed again
in an automobile accident. No amount of skill could have prevented that accident because it was caused when the woman driving the other car reached down to pick up some popcorn from the floor of her car.

All of our activities could be described as a mixture of skill and luck, but most activities are much less risky than climbing the Himalayan mountains, so most are like a game of Russian roulette in which there is only one bullet in a gun with thousands of chambers.

Earlier I pointed out that our view of life has a significant effect on our culture. This concept applies to our sports and recreational activities. If you regard recreational activities as tests of skill, you will regard them as safe for the entire family. However, if you regard luck as being a part of every activity, then you will realize that every activity is analogous to a game of Russian roulette, but with a different number of bullets and chambers, and that can cause you to make different decisions about which activity to participate in.

For example, the Annapurna Massif
mountain has a death rate of 34% to 41%, depending upon who did the statistics, and over what span of time. About one out of three people who have tried to climb that mountain have died. If you regard mountain climbing as a test of skill, you will dismiss those deaths as being due to unskilled climbers, but if you regard that particular mountain as being equivalent to a game of Russian roulette with a revolver that has six chambers and two bullets, would you be willing to play the game? Do you think that surviving that game would be exciting?
If there was a mountain road in which one out of three automobiles slipped off the edge, would you be willing to drive on that road? Do you think that surviving that road would be exciting?

Businesses are deceiving people into believing that climbing the Himalayan mountains is a test of skill, but in reality, it is a dangerous activity.

Furthermore, businesses are deceiving people into believing that there is a tremendous benefit to getting to the top of a dangerous mountain. Specifically, that we will achieve a satisfaction of life that almost nothing else can provide, and that people will admire us for the rest of our lives.

One reason that it is so easy to fool people into thinking that a dangerous activity is exciting is because when we do something that other people cannot do, or are afraid to do, it makes us feel that we are at the top of the hierarchy. That momentary titillation makes us feel good, but it does not truly improve our life. We are still the same people. We can remind ourselves day after day that we are special, and that allows us to repeatedly stimulate our emotions, but it is not improving our life. It is just a form of masturbation.

If a person is climbing a mountain only to put himself through a physically challenging event, there are lots of safer and less expensive events, such as these obstacle courses. To increase the challenge, wear a weighted vest on the course.

Is anybody climbing a mountain for a "sensible" reason? Or are people climbing mountains because they have been deceived by businesses into believing that reaching the top of a dangerous mountain will make our life worthwhile, and cause us to become admired and respected?

What would our goals and recreational activities have been if we had grown up in a world in which there was no free enterprise, and in which all of the government officials were intelligent, honest, and responsible? Would anybody be obsessed with climbing the Himalayan mountains? Would anybody be struggling to break the world record for the most snails on their face? Would there be any beauty contests for babies?

In our world today, people are competing for a lot of worthless goals, such as the largest house, the most expensive jewelry, and the most awards and trophies. In the city of Kastron, the businesses will not be allowed to manipulate culture or pander to the public. Instead, people will be encouraged to experiment with activities in order to make them more entertaining, safe, and beneficial, and I think that eventually this will result in completely new social and recreational activities that none of us can imagine.
5) Businesses encourage us to show off.
All of us, especially men, have a powerful craving to be at the top of the social hierarchy, and this causes us to want to show everybody how important we are. Businesses exploit this craving by encouraging us to purchase "status products". This is encouraging an idiotic view of material items, and it encourages the crude behavior of showing off.

Raising children in this type of environment causes them to develop absurd goals in life. For example, I pointed out in other documents that when I was a child, I picked up the idiotic attitude that lobster, caviar, truffles, and other expensive foods are "delicacies", and I hoped to be able to afford them.
Click for the full size photo. I did not fluff it up for the photo. It is a 1987 Acura Legend with 146k miles. Photo in March 2019.
For another example, businesses are fooling people into believing that their automobile will be more "luxurious" if it has leather upholstery rather than fabric or vinyl. I have fabric in my car, and I think it looks better, feels better, and lasts longer, and it can be produced in a variety of interesting colors and patterns. Leather gets wrinkled, cracked, and dirty, and it has no patterns. On hot days, our skin will stick to leather and vinyl.

How many people who have leather furniture in their home, leather seats in their car, or leather seats in their private jet, are titillating themselves with thoughts of how important they are because they have leather? This type of titillation is not the way to improve our lives. This is just a form of mental masturbation. Businesses are wasting our resources, and encouraging crude behavior.

Businesses should design products to improve our lives, not to promote monkey behavior. Furthermore, I think we will have more pleasant relationships and a more pleasant social environment when we are encouraged to think of one another as friends, rather than encouraged to show off.

It is also interesting to consider that the people who protest the production of leather and furs never complain about the manipulation by businesses that are causing people to desire leather. Rather, they make the stupid accusation that we are cruel to animals. It would make more sense for them to protest the manipulation by businesses, or to protest that schools should educate students about the manipulation by businesses.

Business executives are victims, also
Earlier I mentioned that the people who get involved with worthless competitions could be described as victims of the free enterprise system. The same concept applies to the business executives.

Business executives are in a competitive battle for profit, but there is no concern for how they make profit. This type of competition favors the people who care more about money than human life. This
competition can give us business executives who are extremely selfish and greedy, and who regard us as sources of profit rather than as friends or team members.

However, it is possible that some of our current business executives would be impressive, inspirational, and beneficial members of society if we had a more sensible economic system. For example, if they were living in Kastron, the government would control the economy, so the
business executives would be developing and producing products and services under the supervision of the government, and the purpose would be to improve life in the city for everybody, rather than to make money. The business executives would be trying to please the government, not the public.

The businesses in
Kastron would not be allowed to advertise their products, or sponsor sports, social, or recreational activities. They would not be allowed to advertise to, communicate with, or manipulate children, or influence children's activities, books, or television shows. They would have no way, or any need, to exploit, manipulate, or abuse the public.

Furthermore, everybody in Kastron would have the same material wealth, so the business executives could not increase their wealth unless they increased it for everybody. For example, if the executives wanted higher quality clothing, computers, or bicycles, they would have to increase the quality of those products for everybody because they would not be allowed to design or produce special, high-quality versions for themselves, or lower quality versions for peasants.

That type of economic and government system would result in business executives who live among us like "ordinary" people, and who are trying to improve life in the city for everybody. Some of the people who are successful in a free enterprise system will be failures as business executives in Kastron, but whoever is successful in the Kastron economy will be appreciated and admired. We will regard them as useful members of society, rather than as selfish, greedy, manipulative, and abusive animals who are exploiting us, treating us like peasants, and destroying the environment.

Furthermore, the business executives in Kastron will have more job satisfaction because they will be doing something that is truly beneficial. They will be recorded in history books as bringing improvements to human life, rather than as exploiting people and gathering absurd amounts of material items for their absurdly large mansions.

The point of this section is that the business executives in a free enterprise system could be described as "victims" because they are wasting their life on a competition for money. What do they gain by winning that competition? Only a larger house and a bigger pile of material items. Some people complain that the employees of a business are analogous to rats on a treadmill, but we could say the same is true of the executives.

How many wealthy executives truly enjoy life?
As with the public, the business executives need intelligent advice and guidance, not lower taxes, more investors, or higher salaries. Actually, I suspect that one reason the executives have such intense craving for money is because they are not getting much satisfaction from their life, and they are hoping that more money will bring them relief.

Furthermore, I would not be surprised if the wealthy business executives who have been getting involved with politics during the past few decades are doing so because they are hoping that they will find satisfaction by becoming an important, world leader.

The billionaires claim that they are getting involved with politics in order to help the nation, but they do not have any intelligent plans for the nation. They only have a few vague remarks.
If they were truly interested in dealing with the nation's problems, they would have already spent a lot of their leisure time thinking about our nation's problems.
I don't see any evidence that the billionaires who want to become government officials are truly interested in spending their lives trying to find ways to improve society. I think they want to spend their time walking on red carpets while hordes of photographers are taking their picture. I think they want to be government officials simply to titillate their intense (or psychotic?) craving for status.

Another reason some of them want to be government officials is so that they can help their crime network get control of the nation. They want to retain their absurd wealth and influence, not improve our nation or our lives, or experiment with new culture.

Governments exploit us also
Our government supports the leisure activity of collecting items, mainly postage stamps and coins. They also sell lots of gifts. Scroll down this page to see how many different types of collectible items and gifts the US government is offering.

The collecting of coins and postage stamps may be entertaining to a lot of people, but we shouldn't judge an activity according to whether people like doing it. We should judge it according to its advantages and disadvantages to society. What is the benefit to people who are collecting these items? What is the benefit to society? Do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages?

It might help you to understand this concept if you imagine it on a more extreme scale. For example, imagine the government selling old equipment and furniture from government offices for people to collect, rather than for people to use.

Imagine millions of people around the USA collecting the old office equipment and furniture from the government, but instead of using it for something beneficial, they just collect it. What would the effect be on society?

Most Americans already have so many more items than they need that their house and garage is cluttered with junk, so if they began collecting old office equipment and old furniture from the government, their houses would become even more cluttered. Some people would add sheds to their backyards to hold some of their collections, and some people would expand the size of their house.

What would be the benefit to collecting the items? I cannot think of any. A nation in which the people are collecting old office equipment and furniture from the government is a group of fools who are storing government trash in their homes. The people may enjoy collecting the trash, and they may enjoy comparing their collection to that of their friends, and they may enjoy buying and selling the trash, but it does not improve their lives, and it causes the cities to feel even more crowded and cluttered.

We should not get involved with an activity simply because other people are doing it and enjoying it. We should exert some self-control and compare the advantages and disadvantages to all of our activities. As I mentioned here, it makes sense for people to create collections for museums and schools, but it does not make sense for people to create collections for their home.

We should design activities to be beneficial
As of 2019, all of our recreational, social, and sports activities have been created by, or manipulated by, businesses, religions, charities, or other groups, and to serve their selfish interests rather than to improve human life. I would bet that when a nation decides to take control of its culture and experiment with improved activities, they will eventually eliminate all of our current activities and replace them with activities that are much more beneficial.

I think that the human race has the talent to develop activities that have greater benefits and fewer disadvantages than our current activities. I think the future generations will look at our current activities as crude, wasteful, boring, dangerous, and burdensome. For example, consider the benefits and disadvantages of climbing tall mountains:

Disadvantages:
It is not an activity for the entire family. It is an activity for only a tiny percentage of the population, and it requires those people to put a lot of time, effort, and resources into training for it. It requires us to produce expensive equipment, and to maintain expensive search and rescue teams, unless we are willing to let people die on the mountains. The people who are injured become a burden on our healthcare system, and those who are permanently disabled become a burden on society, and people dying on the mountain can cause disruptions with families, businesses, and friendships.
Benefits:
A few people get some momentary titillation when they reach the top of the mountain.
Furthermore, we should not ignore the evidence that some tall mountains, such as the Himalayans, are so difficult to climb that almost nobody, other than the Sherpas, are capable of climbing them.

We could say that most of the people who are climbing the
Himalayan mountains are behaving like George Bush when he went on a parachute ride at age 90. He was so weak that he could not do it by himself, so he was strapped to a younger man. Even with assistance, it looks like he barely survived.

The people who are climbing t
he Himalayan mountains are in a similar situation. They are not truly climbing those mountains. We could describe them as "being taken up the mountain by Sherpas".

Edmund Hillary is said to have climbed Mount Everest, and perhaps he did, but if we knew more about what really happened on that mountain, we might come to the conclusion that it would be more accurate to say "Tenzing Norgay helped Edmund Hillary reach the top of Mount Everest".

If Mozart were alive today, and if I could hire him to help me write music, then I would be able to write some impressive music, even though I don't know how to read or write music notes, or play a musical instrument. But would I really have written that music?

To make the climbing of Mount Everest even more absurd, people are leaving ropes (photo to the right) and ladders on the mountains to make it easier for people to climb. At some point this might evolve into somebody carving a few staircases into the rocks. That could lead to somebody opening up a small shop on the route to sell food, oxygen bottles, and climbing supplies, and that could lead to businesses opening up hotels, hamburger stands, and coffee shops.

The climbing of Mount Everest is just one example of how our free enterprise system and our lack of proper leadership is causing people to get involved with senseless, dangerous, and wasteful activities. How many search and rescue teams does the USA have in order to deal with all of the men who are getting themselves killed, injured, and lost on their risky adventure trips?

How much of our resources are being wasted as people throw away good golf clubs, soccer balls, and athletic shoes in order to buy "new and improved" equipment to help them win a game of no importance? How many people are doing what George Bush did, which is to take a risk simply to show off, or feel important, or deny the deterioration from old age?

The public needs guidance. They don't need businesses to pander to them, or exploit them. To make the situation worse, our governments also pander to us and exploit us. For example, instead of the governments of Nepal and China telling people to stop climbing the Himalayan mountains, they charge high fees so they can profit from those people.

Incidentally, there are so many people climbing Mount Everest that it is becoming covered in trash. Dead bodies are also accumulating because it is too difficult to carry them down. The photo below is of a man at the top of Mount Everest, with trash and flags in the background. What will that mountain look like after another thousand years? After a million years, the Himalayan mountains will resemble the mounds of garbage in the movie Idiocracy, except that there will be dead bodies scattered among the trash. The
mountain will be taller because of the trash, also.


If we had control of our economic system, and if we had higher-quality government officials, we could make intelligent decisions about how much of our resources we want going into the production of supplies for climbing mountains, golf, and automobile races. We would even be able to discuss the issue of whether we should produce cleats for the shoes of people who are playing recreational events, as I mentioned here years ago.

The Sherpas are evidence of genetics
Incidentally, the Sherpas are more evidence that the physical and mental characteristics of humans are genetic rather than environmental. The religious fanatics and psychologists have no sensible explanation for how the Sherpas can handle high altitudes so much better than other races.

We do not have satisfying activities
We should face the evidence that we have created a miserable social environment for ourselves. Our cities are noisy, filthy, overcrowded, and ugly. They are also dangerous because of crime and traffic accidents. We want peaceful, quiet living conditions, and we love nature. However, in our modern cities, in order to enjoy nature, we have to travel long distances.

We cannot expect a free enterprise system to provide us with sensible cities, activities, or guidance. Businesses are in competition to pander to us, not provide leadership. An example that I've mentioned in other documents, such as this, is that businesses are offering us trips to Stonehenge and the Petrified Forest, but almost all of the tourists who go there quickly become bored, and some of them vandalize the area, leave trash, become intoxicated, or eat excessive amounts of food. It is idiotic for businesses to encourage those trips. Most people are wasting their time and money on those trips, and they are destroying the areas with vandalism, graffiti, and trash.


Most of the videos and photos that people create during their vacations are so worthless that almost nobody looks at them. Compare a BBC documentary to the videos that ordinary people, including yourself, are making during their vacations. Which would you rather watch during your leisure time?
It is more comfortable to see the world
in a small theater with a high resolution screen.
In Kastron, small theaters will be scattered throughout the apartment buildings and the city center so that everybody is within a short walk of several of them. The theaters would hold between 2 and perhaps 20 people. The theater in the photo to the right holds 18 people.

Instead of traveling to Stonehenge or the Petrified Forest, we could watch documentaries about them while sitting in a comfortable
theater.

The people producing those videos would have much more experience with cameras than ordinary tourists, including infrared cameras, cameras on drones, and high-speed and slow motion cameras.

The
Kastron government would also provide them with access to scientists and whoever else they needed in order to get information about the subject they are filming, thereby allowing them to provide intelligent commentary. They would also be able to gather video for a documentary over many years, thereby allowing us to see things that we never would have noticed on a brief vacation.

Those documentaries would allow us to learn more about the world, and see more of it, than we could on a brief vacation, and without the nuisance of traveling, insects, diseases, and bad weather. Even more important, if we get bored with a documentary, we could switch to another documentary, or we could go outside and get involved with some recreational activity, or go to a music concert, or go to an arts and crafts club.

We should produce documentaries for humans, not profit
Businesses have convinced us that we need to travel around the world in order to enjoy life, but I suspect that if we were living in a city that gave us access to lots of high-quality video documentaries, and lots of small, comfortable theaters, most of us would prefer to watch a documentary rather than travel.

However, we cannot expect useful documentaries from a free enterprise system. One reason is because businesses tend to dramatize events to grab our attention. I mentioned this here, and I included a couple of audio clips as examples. Another reason is because businesses sometimes put sexual titillation in their documentaries in order to attract men. Businesses also simplify all topics so that they can appeal to a large audience, including children.

Furthermore, we cannot expect useful documentaries when we allow journalists to lie to us about historical events and science. For example, we are allowing National Geographic, PBS, and the BBC to lie about climate change, the 9/11 attack, the world wars, the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon landings.

In order to produce truly useful documentaries, we must raise standards for journalism, become intolerant of people who lie to us, and change our economic system so that people produce documentaries for according to government standards rather than to compete for the attention of the public and make lots of profit.

In Kastron, the government will be in control of the economy, so the people who want to produce a documentary will send their proposal to the government. One advantage to this system is that it allows a group of people to get together to propose a documentary even if they do not have any experience with producing documentaries or using video cameras, and even if they want to produce only one documentary during their lives. For example, a group of scientists could propose a documentary about the work they are doing, or a group of people at a factory or farm could propose a documentary about their work.

With the Kastron economic system, the goal is to improve human life, not sell products, so the government will authorize the proposals that seem to provide benefit to us. Since many, possibly most, of the documentaries will be proposed by people who don't know much about cameras or video editing, the government will provide them with the people and equipment that they need.

If you are having trouble understanding this concept, keep in mind that living in Kastron will feel as if you are a sailor in a submarine. If a sailor thought that it would be beneficial to the other sailors to have a video about the maintenance of some equipment on the submarine, he could make the proposal to the officers, and if they approved of it, they would put together the necessary equipment and people to produce the documentary. The sailor who made the proposal may not know anything about video equipment, but that would not matter.

Likewise, in Kastron, the people who make documentaries would not have to be full-time documentary makers. They could supervise the creation of just one documentary. This method of creating documentaries has the advantage of allowing more people to get involved, providing us with more variety of documentaries, and a lot more information. And since the people creating the documentaries would have to meet government standards rather than titillate the public, they would create documentaries that are noticeably more intelligent.

To summarize this section, we should consider the advantages and disadvantages to our activities
, and design them to be more beneficial. Businesses have caused a lot of people to get involved with worthless competitions, such as food eating contests and breaking idiotic world records, and they have fooled a lot of people into wasting resources on new and improved golf clubs and other equipment, and they have fooled a lot of people into wasting their time and resources on traveling around the world.

We become obsessed with our goals
I discussed this characteristic in other documents, such as this and this. When we design recreational activities, social clubs, holiday celebrations, weddings, economic systems, and other social technology, we should be aware of this characteristic and try to prevent people from becoming obsessed with idiotic, wasteful, or dangerous goals.

During prehistoric times,
it was sensible for people to become obsessed with their goals because all of their goals were useful. For example, a man might become obsessed with finding food, making a flint knife, or making a fur coat. He would focus on that goal, and he would not want to give it up until he achieved success.

A prehistoric man who did not become as obsessed with goals would be more easily distracted with other goals, which could result in him switching to another goal before he completed his first goal. He would then have two goals to achieve. If he switches to a third goal, he will have three unfinished goals.

Switching goals before completing the first goal can cause trouble because he may not be able to complete his first task if he waits too long.

We evolved a craving to become obsessed with achieving our goals, but in our modern world, there are lots of goals that are worthless or dangerous, such as becoming a billionaire, climbing a Himalayan mountain, traveling around the world,
owning a gigantic mansion, and breaking a world record of no importance.

It is no longer sensible for us to follow our emotional cravings. We need to exert self-control, think about our goals, and ensure that our goals are truly beneficial. Unfortunately, a lot of people are following the philosophy of Marquis de Sade to "do whatever feels good". That philosophy will allow us to titillate our emotions, but emotional titillation will not necessarily provide us with a pleasant life.

For example, consider the people who become obsessed with becoming wealthy. They put a tremendous amount of their life into that activity, and some of them achieve success, but do any of them have a better life than if they had been an "ordinary" person? No. Actually, their life might be worse because an obsession with wealth can result in a lot of stress, anger, envy, and frustration. If a person also gets involved with crime in order to become more wealthy, he will create even more stress for himself.

The people who succeed in becoming wealthy assume that they are benefiting, but all they get from their efforts is a bigger house and a bigger pile of material items. That does not provide them with a better life because we cannot improve human life simply by expanding the size of our house or getting a larger pile of material items.

I've already described this concept in other documents. To summarize, if material wealth truly provided us with happiness, then even the "poor" people of today would be experiencing ecstasy because they have material wealth that is beyond anything imaginable just a few centuries ago. However, most poor people are whining about poverty rather than enjoying their electricity, houses, computers, bicycles, refrigerators, medical technology, and other wealth. M
any of the wealthy people are also whining, pouting, or angry because they do not have as much money as they want, and some are involved with crimes to get more money.

Furthermore, if a person spends most of his life on the pursuit of wealth, he will not have much time for anything else. He might spend so much time working for material items that he could be described as "a slave who lives in a luxurious, solitary confinement cell".

Our tendency to become obsessed with idiotic goals is another reason why we need better leadership. We need leaders who encourage people to think about what they are doing, exert some self-control, and make wise decisions. We are not going to get that type of guidance from a free enterprise system, or from a democracy, or from billionaires, pedophiles, or crime network members.

How much self-control do you have?
What causes crime?
The answer to that question depends upon our view of life. The people who refuse to believe that human behavior is genetic will blame crime and other bad behavior on something outside of the human mind, such as poverty, the devil, ignorance, discrimination, or "power".
For example, when some very wealthy and famous Hollywood celebrities, such as Harvey Weinstein and Bryan Singer were accused of sexual abuse, many people assumed that those men had been corrupted by "power".

Those people assume that if you or I had the authority to hire actors for a Hollywood movie, we would become just as abusive as Weinstein and Singer. Some people describe this theory as: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

When a man without power behaves as badly as Weinstein and Singer, then some people say that his bad behavior is because of poverty, an improper childhood, discrimination, the devil, a lack of opportunities, bullying, or ignorance. The stupidity of these explanations for crime would be more apparent if we expressed them like this:
Poverty corrupts, and absolute poverty corrupts absolutely.
Ignorance corrupts, and absolute ignorance corrupts absolutely.
Discrimination corrupts, and absolute discrimination corrupts absolutely.
People who don't believe that human behavior is genetic will assume that we can prevent crime with security devices, and that we can cure bad behavior with rewards, punishments, exorcisms, prayers, therapy, Bible studies, or educational programs.
For example, in December 2018, a man who was routinely violating US hunting laws was sent to jail for a year and required to watch a Bambi movie once a month.

If he had been raping children, I suppose he would have been told to watch a Shirley Temple movie each month, and if he had burglarized museums, he would have been told to watch the Pink Panther movies.

The crime policies of every nation have been failing continuously, but every nation is refusing to consider the possibility that it is because their view of crime and human behavior is inaccurate. Instead, every nation insists that by continuing to repeat the same policies over and over, they will eventually be successful.

Why do so many people resist genetics?

Why do most people resist the evidence that humans evolved from monkeys, and that our behavior is due to our genetic characteristics? It is not stupidity. There are stupid people who can understand evolution, and there are intelligent people with college educations who prefer religion or the clay theory.

The reason is because animals are designed to titillate their pleasurable emotions and avoid stimulating their unpleasant emotions. Therefore, when we are presented with a variety of theories, our natural tendency is to believe the theory that brings us the most pleasure, and disregard the theories that are the most annoying.

It might help you to understand this concept if you first consider how it works with food. Animals are designed to eat whatever creates pleasurable emotional feelings, and to spit out
whatever creates an unpleasant feeling. Animals do not need any education or intelligence in order to eat a proper diet. All they need are the appropriate emotional reactions to certain chemicals and textures. By eating whatever brings them pleasure, and avoiding whatever bothers them, they eat a proper diet.

Likewise, primitive humans ate a proper diet simply by following their emotional feelings. However, this method does not work with scientific theories. We cannot believe a theory simply because it makes us feel good, and we cannot dismiss a theory simply because it creates an unpleasant emotional feeling.

The reason people choose religion or the clay theory over evolution is because those views of life provide us with pleasant emotional feelings, whereas evolution creates a lot of unpleasant feelings. Most people are doing whatever brings them pleasure, rather than doing what makes intellectual sense.

Why does religion provide us with so much more pleasure than science? To understand why we have such a strong attraction to religion, imagine what life was like 50,000 years ago. The human population was very low, so the tribes were separated by large amounts of land. Surrounding every tribe were lots of predators, such as wolves. Three concepts to understand are:

1)
Social animals evolved a fear of being alone.
It was risky for our prehistoric ancestors to wander away from the group, especially at night. It was especially risky for women and children. The people who wandered away to explore the area also took the risk of getting lost.

The people who were frightened to be alone had a greater survival rate than those who were more independent and adventurous. This caused people to evolve the desire to be near other people rather than by themselves, especially at night.
2) Social animals evolved a desire to follow a male leader.
Animals evolved the desire to have a male as the leader of their group because the animals who were willing to follow females did not have much success in life. Animals also evolved a desire for their leaders to be adult male because the animals who were willing to follow children did not have much success.
3) Social animals evolved a desire to follow a strong, aggressive male.
Animals also evolved a desire for their leaders to be strong and aggressive because the animals who were willing to follow sickly, weak, dying, or timid males were less successful in life.
Humans inherited those animal cravings to remain together in a crowd, and follow an adult man who is strong and talented. We also inherited an emotion that is triggered when we are alone in a potentially dangerous environment. That emotion causes us to be frightened when we are alone. The emotion subsides when we are around other people, but it doesn't subside if the only people around us are children, women, or frail, sickly, or dying men. That emotion will not cease unless there are some strong, adult men in the area.

Religion is a form of “pornography”
When we are presented with the concept that there is a strong, talented, intelligent adult man floating around in the clouds, and that he is watching over us and protecting us, our emotional cravings for a strong leader are titillated by the fantasy we create in our mind. We could describe religion as a form of pornography because people use religion to satisfy their emotional craving for a strong, adult male leader who protects them from harm and provides them with guidance.

Religion can satisfy our craving for a leader better than a real man because each of us can alter our image of God to fit what our emotions want, thereby providing ourselves with the maximum stimulation possible. If we want God to have a white beard, for example, we will visualize him with a white beard. If we want him to forgive us for a crime we committed, then we can imagine him doing so. If we want God to laugh at our jokes, he will find our jokes amusing. If we want to believe that God will take us to heaven when we die, then we can imagine ourselves going to heaven.
Women and children are less adventurous and independent than men, so they have a strong attraction to the concept that Jesus and God love us and will take care of us.

For example, this woman writes that if she could go back in time to when she was in college, she would tell "the happy-on-the-outside but panicking-on-the-inside sorority girl" that Jesus will bring "peace into your life".

To summarize this concept, we are attracted to religion because it makes us feel good, not because it makes intellectual sense. In order for us to believe in evolution, we have to exert enough self-control to turn away from the emotional pleasure that religion offers.

Some people can ignore the pleasures of religion, but they do not want to accept the dreary theory that we are just a species of monkey. Those people are likely to be attracted to one of the emotionally pleasant theories that are coming from psychologists.

Different psychologists have created slightly different theories, but all of their
theories are more emotionally pleasurable than evolution. The two primary reasons are:
1) The psychologists provide us with a solution to our problems. Specifically, their theories tell us that since our mind is like a piece of clay, we can solve our mental problems with diets, therapy, education, drugs, and other environmental factors. This gives the people who are suffering from problems the hope that they can eventually find a solution to their misery.

By comparison, evolutionary theories tell us that our mental characteristics are genetic, and that there is no way for us to fix our problems, or improve our emotional or intellectual abilities. Evolution also tells us that we cannot improve or fix any of our physical problems, either. This concept is emotionally unpleasant.

2) The psychologists regard humans as special creatures that are superior to the animals. We are titillated by the thought that we are special creatures because we have strong cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy. We love the concept that we are superior to other people and other animals. By comparison, evolution tells us that we are just a species of monkey, and that no animal is better than another.

Every creature has different characteristics, but to claim that one creature is "better" or "superior" is as idiotic as claiming that igneous rock is superior to metamorphic rock, or that Neptune is superior to Saturn, or that hydrogen is superior to helium.
The psychologists could be described as creating a variety of "alternative religions". It requires both intelligence and self-control for us to ignore the religions and accept the evidence that humans are just a species of monkey that is of no importance to anybody but ourselves.

We need more than intelligence to be intelligent
About 70% of the adults in the USA are overweight, and about 40% are considered obese. Almost all of the overweight people have the intelligence and education necessary to realize that they are hurting themselves with their excessive consumption of food, but they don't have the ability to control their emotional cravings for food. Some of the obese people are so aware that they are hurting themselves that they regularly become upset with themselves.

We cannot help the overweight people with education or PSAs because they already know that their diet is inappropriate. Furthermore, punishments, rewards, and psychological treatments cannot increase their self-control, or reduce the intensity of their hunger emotion.
If a person's hunger emotion is excessive, or if he has low self-control, he is going to spend his life eating excessively no matter what we do.

We could summarize this concept in different ways, such as:
• Most Americans have too little self-control with food to eat as they know they should eat.
• Most Americans
realize that they are eating excessively, but they cannot stop themselves.
• Most Americans cannot stop themselves from doing something they realize is detrimental.

Since most American adults cannot control their craving for food, we ought to wonder, do people also have trouble controlling any of their other emotions? What percentage of the population has trouble controlling their cravings for sex, children, status, pouting, and temper tantrums? And of those people, how many of them realize that they are doing something that they should not do, but cannot stop themselves from doing it?

Furthermore, since some obese people are regularly becoming upset with themselves for eating excessively, are there some people who are regularly becoming upset with themselves for other behavior?

How many of the people who are consuming excessive amounts of alcohol, or gambling excessively, realize that they are hurting themselves, but don't have the ability to
control themselves? How many of the men who are having excessive sex with their wife, children, neighbors, or coworkers wish they would stop doing it, but cannot control themselves?

I also wonder if there are some religious people who realize that evolution makes more sense, but do not have the self-control to turn away from religion. Are there some religious people who, like an obese man who wishes he could stop stuffing food into his mouth, want to believe in evolution but cannot resist the emotional pleasure of the fantasy that God loves them, or that a God is going to cure them of cancer, or that they will have a wonderful life in heaven when they die?

Most people are disgusted by obese people, but every culture admires the people who become extremely wealthy. However, I suggest we consider the possibility that at least some of the people who are pursuing extreme amounts of money are analogous to obese people, rather than people we should admire and mimic. In other words, they are people who have so little self-control, and/or such intense cravings for material wealth and status, that they cannot stop struggling for money even if they realize that they are wasting their time, hurting themselves, or hurting other people.

The human brain was not designed by an intelligent god, or put through any type of quality control checks. Every animal and human brain is just a jumble of genetic characteristics that have been accumulating for millions of years from hundreds of different species of monkeys, fish, and other creatures.

Every one of us has a brain that has limitations and defects. Each of us also have subtle differences in our emotional cravings and fears, resulting in everybody having slightly different biases.

Producing intelligent thoughts requires more than "intelligence". It requires the ability to prevent our emotions from altering our thoughts. It requires the ability to figure out if a particular thought seems sensible because it is titillating our emotions, or if it seems sensible because it truly is intelligent. It also requires that we be able to figure out if a particular thought seems ridiculous because it truly is ridiculous, or if it triggers an unpleasant emotion, such as our fear of the unknown, or our fear of being ridiculed by our peers.
Are humans a creation of a God, or are we a species of monkey? Most adults probably have the intelligence necessary to understand evolution and realize that we are a species of monkey, but a significant percentage of the population does not seem to have the ability to keep their emotions out of their decisions. As a result, they choose to believe the theory that makes them feel good rather than the theory that makes intellectual sense.

From my casual observations of people, most of them have trouble controlling their cravings for food, their spending of money, their craving for fame, their fear of the unknown, and/or their craving for status. I suspect that most also have trouble controlling their other emotions, such as their arrogance, anger, and sexual cravings.

There are a lot of intelligent people in the world, but how many of them have the self-control necessary to achieve their full intellectual potential? Instead of producing intelligent thoughts, a significant percentage of the human population does and believes whatever makes them feel good.

How can we resolve our differences of opinion?
Since each of us has different intellectual and emotional characteristics, we develop different and incompatible views of life, and that causes us to want incompatible culture. An obvious example are the religious people who want schools to teach about Adam and Eve rather than evolution. How can we agree on school curriculum when we have such incompatible foundations for our culture?

Furthermore, can we expect people to resolve their differences of opinion when some people have so little self-control that they do things that they know they should not do, such as eating excessive amounts of food, or spending more money than they make? Can we expect those people to make intelligent decisions for our nation, our future, and our culture when they make stupid decisions about their own meals and finances? If a person cannot make wise decisions for his own life, why should we expect him to take care of you and me, or our nation?

If you can look seriously at your behavior, you are certain to find that you have occasionally found it difficult to control your emotions. This is most noticeable when something causes an imbalance in our blood chemistry, such as a disease, or extreme tiredness, or extreme hunger. I would bet that everybody has occasionally done something that they realized that they should not do, but they could not stop themselves, and after they did it, they either regretted it, or they made some excuse as to why it was okay to do it. For example, you may have eaten some food that you knew you should not have eaten, and then felt bloated or sick afterwards, or you may have lost your temper when you knew you should have remained calm.

Everybody occasionally does something stupid, but there are some people who are doing something stupid on a regular basis. Can we expect humans to resolve differences of opinion in a peaceful, intelligent manner when we have such crude mental characteristics? I don't think so.

All throughout history, humans have been selecting leaders and resolving differences of opinion by fighting with each other for dominance. This method was adequate for prehistoric people because they didn't have complex issues to resolve, but today we need a better method.

During the past few centuries, nations have been switching to allowing virtually all adults to vote for their leaders and government policies, but that method has given us a government that is dominated by crime networks, con artists, liars, and mentally disturbed people.

My suggestion is that we select leaders in the same manner that we select pilots, doctors, dentists, and other skilled people. Specifically, we need to design educational courses for people who want to be leaders, and then we need to pass judgment on which of those people is truly demonstrating superior leadership abilities.

It will be difficult to implement this concept because everybody has a different idea on what that educational course should be, and how we should judge the students. For example, the religious fanatics would design a significantly different type of educational course compared to people who believe in evolution. And they would judge a person to be inappropriate for leadership if he believes in evolution.

Although people will disagree on how to determine who has the best leadership abilities, we should not be afraid of the arguments and difficulty of this task. We are already passing judgment on who qualifies be a pilot, medical doctor, and a carpenter, even though people disagree on how to do that. Certainly we have the ability to go even further and pass judgment on who
qualifies for a leadership position.

Don't let the difficulty of this task frighten you into doing nothing. Don't be afraid of work or disagreements. You will get more satisfaction from life when you accomplish a useful goal.
I will give my suggestions on how to judge government candidates in Part 2 of this series. If you see potential problems with my suggestions, then look for improvements rather than find excuses to do nothing.

Instead of setting a goal that has no value, such as climbing a mountain, or buying a big house, give yourself the goal of helping to improve the human world.

Our crime policies are somewhat valid for children
Every society, without exception, has been failing to reduce crime and corruption. We should regard the endless failures to reduce crime as evidence that we have an unrealistic view of crime, and that we need to reevaluate our view of life, and we need to experiment with different policies.

All throughout history, every society has been promoting the theory that crime is due to environmental factors, such as poverty, the devil, bad parenting, discrimination, bullying, racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, or bad luck. That view of life leads us to the conclusion that crime can be reduced with security devices, jails, punishments, fines, rehabilitation programs, educational programs, Bible studies, exorcisms, and death penalties.

However, that attitude is valid only for children. A child's mind is designed to mimic other people, and as a result, raising children in an environment in which they are encouraged or pressured to commit crimes can cause them to become criminals. However, once we become an adult, we become significantly more independent, and we cannot blame the environment if we continue to commit crimes. Adults who commit crimes realize what they are doing, and are choosing to do it.

Children and adults must be treated differently. A child's mind is not a small, adult mind. It is significantly different.
Children can be manipulated quite easily with facial expressions, tones of voice, and trivial rewards and punishments, but we cannot control adults with the methods we use to control children.

The adults who are involved with crime networks, burglarizing homes, or purchasing sex slaves are not victims of peer pressure or
bad parenting. They are choosing to commit those crimes. They need to be held accountable for what they do.

Ignore the crimes against criminals
The issue of crime is more complex than I make it appear. For example, the environment does indeed have an effect on whether adults commit crimes. For example, there may be millions of American citizens who are cheating on their taxes, but not because they want to be criminals. Rather, they are so disgusted with the US state, city, and federal governments that they do not want to give financial assistance to a group of criminals.

The point of this particular document is that our view of life determines our culture. The issue of cheating on taxes is another example of this concept. The people who cheat on their taxes are doing so for different reasons. Some are doing so simply because they want more money. We could describe them as "criminals". However, the people who are cheating because they don't want to give their money to dishonest government officials could be described as patriotic citizens who are fighting a crime network within their government.

If you have trouble understanding this concept, imagine an extreme example. Imagine that you are living in a small town in which the city government and police are so obviously involved with the purchasing and selling of children for sex slaves that every adult in the city is aware of it, and every parent has warned their children to stay away from government officials and police officers.

Imagine that Joe, who is an ordinary citizen, is paying his city taxes and encouraging other citizens to be law-abiding people who pay their taxes, whereas George is cheating on his taxes and encouraging everybody else to cheat in an attempt to cause the city government to lay off as many of their criminal employees as possible. Who is the "criminal"? The answer depends on how you want to look at life. We could say Joe is the criminal for giving financial support to a government that he realizes is involved with disgusting crimes.

The point of this section is that when we are living in a corrupt nation, adults may commit crimes in order to fight the corruption, but that issue can be ignored in this document because I am referring only to crimes committed by adults for the purpose of satisfying their personal, selfish interests.

Are you willing to experiment with different policies for crime?
My suggestion is to consider crime as being due to people who are having trouble controlling their emotional cravings and/or making intelligent decisions. Crime is the result of the decisions a person makes. Crime is due to the genetic design of a person's emotional and intellectual circuitry.

According to my theory, crime is due to people who we should regard as "genetically inferior". Therefore, to reduce crime, we must restrict reproduction to the people who have better behavior, and we need to put the people who commit crimes on restrictions, or evict them, so that they cannot commit additional crimes.

How can we determine whether my proposal will truly reduce crime? Unfortunately, there is no laboratory experiment to determine whether my theory is valid. Instead, we must implement that policy and then watch for a few generations to determine if it is truly reducing crime.

However, that theory has proven successful with animals. Farmers, horse breeders, and pet breeders have been implementing that policy for centuries, and they have had a 100% success rate in improving the qualities of animals. There has never been a failure in the breeding of animals. There are no bizarre or unexpected results when farmers breed animals.

The same is true of fruits, roses, vegetables, and other plants. People have been controlling the reproduction of plants for centuries, and they always have a 100% long term success rate. The end result is that you and I have larger, better tasting, more productive fruit trees, roses, and vegetables. People have even succeeded in breeding plants for entertainment purposes, such as changing the color of carrots, cauliflower, and roses.

The restriction of reproduction has been successful for animals and plants, so why not apply that policy to humans? The reason is because there are millions of people who refuse to believe that humans follow the same rules as animals and plants. The only way a nation would be able to experiment with this policy is if we can convince enough people to give it a try.

What about you? Are you willing to give it a try? If so, can you also try to convince other people to try it?

Do you want to pout? Or improve the future?
If our ancestors several thousand years ago had begun restricting reproduction to the more honest people, then the people who are alive today might be so honest that we didn't have any crime.

If our ancestors had also been restricting reproduction to the people who were in the best physical and mental health, then instead of millions of people suffering from bipolar disorder, allergies, diabetes, arthritis, nearsightedness, and tooth decay, everybody would be in wonderful health.

Why would a perso
n oppose restrictions on reproduction when it has such incredible benefits? Why would anybody want the next generation to have a larger number of retarded, defective, sickly, and miserable people?

One reason is because those people are creating policies based on their emotional feelings rather than intelligent analyses of
what would be best for the human race. This is most obvious with the people who oppose abortion. Some of them have posted remarks on the Internet which are similar to:
"I don't believe in abortion because if abortion was legal when my mother was pregnant, she would have aborted me."
I have genetic problems, such as with my thyroid, and I'm also bald and scrawny. Compared to the problems that some people have, mine are trivial, but I would not want anybody to have these problems. I have chosen not to get married or have children, but it would not have bothered me if I had been prohibited from having children, or if I had been restricted to just one or two children.

I can face the fact that future generations should not have my genetic problems, but there are millions of other people with genetic problems, some of which are much worse than mine, who don't care whether they produce children with those same problems. Why don't they care? Why don't they want to produce healthy children?

The reason is because most people want children simply to satisfy their craving for children. They are behaving just like animals. They want children for entertainment purposes. They don't care whether the children are happy or healthy.

We have cravings to produce and raise children, but we do not have to satisfy our cravings. Furthermore, a society could encourage people in good genetic health to produce babies for adoption. This would make adoption a respectable activity, rather than a shameful and secretive activity of misfits, criminals, and drug addicts.

Animals have intense cravings to produce children, and this causes people to assume that we must have children in order to enjoy life, but in reality, children have advantages and disadvantages. The people who raise children will titillate their craving for children, but they put a burden on themselves. The people without children do not stimulate their cravings for children, but they have a lot more leisure time for other activities, thereby allowing them to stimulate other emotions. They also avoid the noise, frustration, chaos, and irritation of children.

We must stop promoting the attitude that we have an obligation to feed the people who are so obese that they cannot move out of their chair, or that we have an obligation to let every person reproduce simply because they have a craving for children. We do not have any obligation to satisfy any person's emotional cravings.

A more beneficial view of life is that everybody has a responsibility to be a respectable member of society, to contribute to society, and to leave the world in a pleasant condition for the future generations. People who give birth to miserable, suicidal, depressed, dishonest, retarded, sickly, mentally ill children should be regarded as behaving in a similar manner as people who leave behind a pile of trash. We are sharing this planet, and so we should be considerate of one another. We should not let people have children simply to titillate themselves.

Another way of looking at this issue is to imagine a society in which children are allowed to file lawsuits against their parents for making them suffer from genetic disorders. In such a society, a child who is obese would be able to file a lawsuit against his obese parents for being so inconsiderate as to have children when they were aware that their children would likely inherit their inability to control their food consumption.

We must be more finicky with immigrants
Businesses do not have “open borders”
A Gallup poll conducted in February 2019 of people in Latin America and the Caribbean showed that 27% of the people would like to emigrate to some other nation. Of those people, 5 million are planning to move to the USA during the next year, and another 42 million are waiting for a good time to move to the USA.

There are supposedly 10 to 20 million people already living in the USA illegally, and recently caravans of migrants have been trying to force the USA and the European nations to accept them as citizens. The Gallup poll shows that there will soon be millions more people trying to get into the USA.

By comparison, businesses, militaries, orchestras, and other organizations do not have these problems. The reason is because the leaders of organizations do not tolerate illegal members. If somebody were to sneak into an office building or military base and try to become a member of the organization, or if a caravan of people tried to force themselves into the organization, the security personnel would evict them, and they might be arrested.

There is no rule in the universe that requires nations or cities to tolerate illegal immigrants or caravans of migrants. It is simply a decision that we have to make.

The disgusting nations of the world, such as what we see in Latin America, India, China, and Africa, are analogous to garbage dumps that are breeding cockroaches and rats that are constantly moving out of the dump and getting into our homes. Some of the immigrants become productive citizens, but many of them behave like savages that grab at our material wealth, rape our women, join crime networks and lie to us, and demand that we adapt to their particular languages, religions, foods, and other culture. Some of the immigrants from China are bringing Chinese women into the USA to use as slaves in their prostitution businesses.

Why is it that nations have a different policy towards immigration compared to businesses, militaries, and other organizations? It is because those organizations are in a competitive battle for their survival, and the organizations that were finicky about their members had a higher success rate.

Our governments, however, are not in competition. Instead, the voters are supposed to ensure that the government officials are doing a good job. If the voters demanded that the government implement an immigration policy that is similar to that of a business, then our government would do so, but the voters cannot agree on an immigration policy. Although millions of voters want more restrictions on immigration, millions of other voters want to allow people to freely emigrate wherever they please. The inability of people to agree on what to do creates a nation in which the problem is left unresolved.

Our immigration policies are the same as prehistoric tribes
As I have mentioned many times already, our view of life determines our culture. I think humans evolved from monkeys, so my explanation for why our nations are suffering from so much corruption, suffering, abuse, and crime is because humans have not yet figured out how to adapt to the changes in our lives that have been caused by technology. Humans have transformed from small, nomadic tribes to large cities, but we still follow a lot of the same culture of the nomadic tribes.

An example of how we are still following prehistoric culture can be seen with the migrants who are trying to get into Europe and the USA, such as the photo below, which shows migrants walking towards the USA. Those migrants are behaving just as our ancestors did 100,000 years ago. Specifically, they have the attitude that they own this planet, and they will live wherever they please. They will fight with anybody who interferes with their attempt to find a new home.


It is important to note that after the migrants arrive in the USA or Europe, some of them refuse to learn our language, or adapt to our culture. They want to follow the culture they grew up with. They regard you and me as foreigners on their land. They tell us to learn their language and adapt to their burqas, Kosher foods, and prayer customs. They also demand that airlines and schools provide them with "special" meals.
The photo to the right shows Muslims praying in London.

Why are so many people in Europe and the USA allowing migrants to force themselves into our nations? Why are we allowing them to follow their culture? Why are we allowing them to force us to adapt to their language, foods, clothing styles, and other customs?

The reason we are so tolerant of selfish, dishonest, and abusive immigrants is because the majority of people in every nation are still behaving similar to our prehistoric ancestors. Specifically, each person is focusing on himself, his family, and friends, as if he is a member of a small, prehistoric tribe, and each person is ignoring the tribes around him.

It was sensible for the prehistoric, nomadic tribes to ignore their neighbors, and let the neighbors do whatever they pleased, but we are now living in overcrowded cities. We can no longer ignore the neighbors. We need to ensure that our cities are a team of people, not a gathering of tribes that dislike and ignore one another.

Does the USA need more immigrants?
Do we really need more immigrants?
According to many business executives and government officials, there are so many jobs available in the USA that we need more immigrants in order for our economy to function properly.

For example, in February 2019, President Trump said:
"Speaking of jobs, we have to have more people coming into our country .... We need people. So we want to have people come into our country, but we want to have them come in through a merit system, and we want to have them come in legally."
He repeated those remarks on many days, so it was not a mistake.

Also in February 2019, the US Congress proposed a Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act to allow businesses to increase the number of people they can bring into the USA for jobs.

Does the USA really need more immigrants in order for businesses to fill the available jobs? A couple of years ago I mentioned this issue here. I pointed out that businesses are having trouble finding employees because:

1) Some jobs don't pay enough for a man to support his family.
The solution to this problem is for businesses to reduce the salaries and bonuses of the management and increase the wages of the workers. Does Mark Zuckerberg really deserve hundreds of millions of dollars for a plot of land in Hawaii for a mansion? How is the income difference between workers and leaders in the USA an improvement over what it was between the peasants and the royal families of the Middle Ages?
2) Not many Americans have useful skills.
Not many Americans are graduating from school with the skills to do the jobs that are available today. The solution to this problem is to improve our school and economic system. Furthermore, we must also restrict reproduction so that each generation has fewer people who whine about "nigger work" and "hard work". We need more people who are willing to learn a skill and contribute something useful to society.

The USA does not need more immigrants
The USA, and other nations, have thousands of problems, such as corruption, overcrowding, pollution, divorce, unwanted children, bribery, suicide, obesity, drug abuse, burglary, rape, and venereal disease. However, we are not going to solve any of our problems simply by using foreigners as cheap labor. Actually, I would say that using foreigners is causing our social environment to degrade.

When the first people from England settled in North America, everybody in the colonies was following the same culture, but after two centuries of uncontrolled immigration and slavery, the USA has degraded into a "gathering place" for people with different and incompatible cultures.

Like droplets of oil in water, there are small groups of people scattered around the USA who are following different languages, foods, clothing styles, religions, and other customs. Some are even following different calendars. As with prehistoric tribes, the different groups of people in the USA are often getting annoyed with one another, and accusing one another of racism, discrimination, or abuse.

Our problems are internal, not external
Most people refuse to believe that a nation's problems are due to its own citizens. They are instead hoping to solve the problems by looking outside of their nation. For example, many Americans believe that we are going to improve our lives by moving factories to Mexico or Pakistan, and by bringing foreigners into our nation to work at lower wages. Those type of policies will provide us with lower-priced items, but it does nothing to reduce corruption, overcrowding, divorce, loneliness, burglaries, or obesity. Actually, it is ruining our social environment, and putting Americans out of work.

Likewise, there are people in China who believe that they can improve their lives if they can get control of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea, but even if they did so, it wouldn't improve life for the Chinese people. For example, if they got control of Taiwan, they could steal Taiwanese technology and wealth, which would give the Chinese a slight boost in material wealth, but as soon as they finished ransacking Taiwan, they would return to being an overcrowded, filthy, polluted nation with lots of corruption. Likewise, getting control of the South China Sea might allow them to catch some more fish, but that would not improve life for the Chinese people or reduce the government corruption or incompetence.

Some people in Japan believe that they can solve their problems by encouraging the Japanese people to have more babies, but they already have too many people. They don't need more people. Rather, they need higher-quality people. And this is the point I want to make in this section: every nation needs higher-quality people.

Every nation's primary problem is their own citizens. Our main enemy is ourselves, our family members, our friends, and our neighbors. Every problem that a nation is suffering from is the result of the behavior of the people in the nation.

No nation is suffering from a shortage of land, oceans, or people. Rather, every nation is suffering because every nation has lots of people who cheat, lie, steal, murder, deceive, rape, and join crime networks. And every nation is full of people who are trying to avoid "work".

Every nation also has lots of people who are so apathetic or selfish that they refuse to help expose or stop the crime networks, pedophiles, teenage gangs, and corrupt government officials. Every nation has people who won't even tell their friends and relatives that we have been lied to about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon landing.

No nation is going to improve itself simply by getting control of more nations, or finding a new source of oil. The only way a nation is going to improve itself is if they can improve the behavior of its people, especially the people in leadership positions. Every nation needs more of their citizens to become more responsible, more honest, and more considerate. Every nation also needs more people who are willing to learn a useful skill and contribute something of value, rather than be a parasite or a criminal.

No nation needs more oil, food, electricity, or iron ore. Every nation already has plenty of material wealth. Compared to our ancestors a few centuries ago, even the poor nations are unbelievably wealthy. No nation is suffering from "poverty". Rather, every nation is suffering because of the low quality behavior of the people.

The bribery in India, for example, is due to the low-quality Indian people, not a shortage of material wealth. The corruption in China is due to the low-quality Chinese people, not because Taiwan wants to be independent from China. The corruption in the USA is due to the low-quality American people, not because of poverty or immigrants. The corruption in South America is due to the low-quality people in those nations. The Germans are refusing to expose the Holocaust hoax because there are so many low-quality Germans who don't care enough to spread information about the issue. The pedophilia in England is due to the low-quality English people who participate in it, help cover it up, or hide from it.

The only way a nation is going to improve itself is if it improves the behavior of its people, especially the people in influential positions. Every nation needs higher quality government officials, business executives, sheriffs, military leaders, judges, school officials, and journalists.
Do you have the intellectual and emotional ability to see how similar your body and mind is to that of the monkeys?
The people who refuse to accept genetics and evolution will assume that starvation is due to a lack of food, and that overcrowding is due to a lack of housing, and that crime is due to poverty or discrimination. However, that is an invalid foundation for culture.

If you agree with me that humans are just a species of monkey, then the starvation that we see in India, Africa, and other places can be understood by observing the animals.

A study of animals will show us that starvation is mainly due to people who reproduce excessively, and partly because some people are too genetically defective to take care of themselves. The solution to starvation is to restrict reproduction, not switch to eating crickets.

Our nations are suffering because humans are nothing but a species of monkey. Every problem that we experience can be traced to the behavior of these monkeys.

The people involved with crime networks, pedophilia, and human trafficking realize that what they are doing is cruel and illegal, which is why they are so secretive about it. However, they don't care about our laws, or about other people. They want to titillate their emotions, just like a dog that is trying to have sex with your leg.

There are millions of people in the world who are regularly cheating, lying, raping, torturing, hating, vandalizing, and deceiving us. There are also millions of people who have very little control over their temper, envy, pouting, or arrogance. There are also millions of people who are so apathetic and selfish that they ignore the crime and corruption, thereby allowing it to continue.

The problems in the world are the result of the selfish, idiotic, cruel, destructive, and violent behavior of people, and the only way to improve this world is to improve the behavior of the people. How do we do that? One method is to improve our culture so that it encourages productive behavior. Our free enterprise system, for example, encourages us to look at one another as profit opportunities instead of as friends, and it encourages resentment, anger, envy, and hatred by allowing some people to become billionaires while their employees can barely cover the cost of their basic necessities.

However, cultural changes will not be enough to improve our world. We must also face the evidence that some people are never going to behave properly due to the differences in their mental characteristics. Those misfits need to either be put under restrictions, like children and animals, or evicted from society.


We must set higher standards for leaders
Technology allows us to be very destructive
In this document I pointed out that prehistoric people did not have direct influence over the world, and that modern technology, especially the Internet, has changed that situation dramatically. Today an individual citizen can have a rapid and significant influence over the lives of billions of people around the world. Organized groups can have even more influence.
However, whether our influence on the world is beneficial or detrimental depends upon what we choose to do, and, unfortunately, a lot of groups are choosing to manipulate, cheat, or exploit us. For a few examples of how groups of people are trying to manipulate us:
The Christian churches have convinced millions of Africans, Europeans, South Americans, and Asians that we can solve our problems by praying to God or Jesus, both of whom resemble European men, and that they will also give us gifts, and help us win wars.

Many businesses are manipulating children into desiring particular candy bars, toys, clothing items, sodas, cereals, and other items.

• The Zionist organizations stage false flag operations to manipulate public opinion.

• Various crime networks are abusing us as a result of their involvement with murder, blackmail, human trafficking, extortion, bribery, and theft.
People today need to be concerned about who is getting into influential positions, and what their influence is. We cannot ignore what other people are doing. We cannot follow the prehistoric, animal philosophy of live and let live. We must be concerned about what other people are doing because many people are a very destructive influence on the world.

Should we allow carbon taxes
?

An example of how technology allows organizations to have tremendous influence over us is the issue of carbon taxes. During prehistoric times, a person who wanted to implement carbon taxes might have been able to do so in his particular tribe, but most people in the world would not know of him or his climate change theory.

Today, however, technology allows a small group of people to spread this theory all over the world immediately through television, the Internet, and email messages. Today a small group of people can rapidly alter the business activity and lives of people all around the planet.

Since our submissive governments will do whatever the majority of people want, the carbon tax promoters are trying to convince the public to support carbon taxes. However, the public doesn't know enough about science to make a wise decision about this issue, and they don't understand much about deception and manipulation, either.

Expecting the public to make wise decisions about the Earth's climate is as idiotic as expecting them to make wise decisions about the safety of GMO crops, vaccines, fluoride in our drinking water, and ultrasound imaging.

Al Gore, and the other people who want carbon taxes, should be discussing the issue with the scientists who have the knowledge and ability to understand the issue, so why are they instead trying to convince the public to support an issue that most people cannot possibly understand?

The fact that the carbon tax promoters are talking to the public rather than the scientists is evidence that they don't have any intelligent supporting evidence for their theory. They are trying to bypass the scientists and get support from people who know nothing about the issue.

Furthermore, they are not having "discussions" about global warming. Rather, they are telling us that the debate is finished, and they are trying to frighten us with scenarios of flooded cities and inhospitable temperatures. They are trying to stimulate our emotion of fear in order to convince us to put pressure on the government to allow carbon taxes.

Why not allow hydrogen taxes?

The burning of hydrocarbons is adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but hydrocarbons also have hydrogen, which produces water, so should we be concerned that burning hydrocarbons is going to cause global flooding? If a carbon tax can stop global warming, will a hydrogen tax stop global flooding?

Why do none of the people who promote global warming worry about the water that we are adding to the Earth? If they are unaware of this issue, that would prove that they have not put much thought into this issue. Furthermore, what about all the oxygen that is consumed by burning hydrocarbons? Should we be worried about global oxygen deprivation? Should we have an oxygen tax, also?

We must be more concerned with who is influencing us
Our prehistoric ancestors did not have to be concerned about people in some other area of the planet imposing carbon taxes on them, or manipulating their children into desiring candy bars. Today, however, technology is allowing individuals and organizations all around the world to alter our lives and our future. Therefore, we should be concerned about who is influencing our life, and what their influence is.

We should be especially concerned with who gets into leadership positions of government because those people have more of an influence over us than a farmer or factory worker.

Unfortunately, the governments of every nation are terrible. We should face the evidence that letting the majority of people vote will never provide us with a sensible government. We should find the courage to experiment with a better method of providing ourselves with government officials.

Can we expect billionaires to be appropriate leaders?
NBC executives fired Bob Costas from his job as a commentator for the Super Bowl game because he expressed his concern that many football players are suffering brain damage from concussions.

The NBC executives did not complain that his remarks were inaccurate or exaggerations, so they did not ask him to correct his mistakes. Rather, they wanted to suppress and censor him because they were concerned that their profits would diminish if more people realize that football players are experiencing brain damage.

How would you feel if you suffered brain damage, or had to have your legs amputated, as a result of television executives conspiring to censor information that would have caused you to avoid the problem? And what would you think if the only reason they censored the information was because they were worried that an educated public would somehow cause their immense profits to be reduced by some insignificant amount?

And what would you think if they had no sensible reason to believe that profits would be reduced. Rather, they were so frightened at the thought of reduced profits that they did not want to take any chances? Would those executives fit your concept of a leader?

I would say those executives should be described as behaving like selfish animals who don't care about anybody else's life, and have such psychotic cravings for wealth and status that they do not care how many people suffer brain damage or other problems as a result of their actions.
The people who are censoring information about concussions should be considered guilty of murder.
I would go further and accuse these executives of committing a crime; specifically, of increasing the cases of brain damage by conspiring to censor important health information.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in another document, I think we should consider people who cause brain damage to be guilty of murder since they are permanently killing a portion of a person's brain. Therefore, I would consider those NBC executives as guilty of murder, also.

Our governments, businesses, charities, sports groups, religions, and many other organizations are dominated by people with such intense cravings for material wealth, status, and pampering that I suggest we consider them as psychotic, or mentally ill, or mentally retarded, or genetically defective, or freaks of nature. I think it is foolish to expect billionaires to provide us with proper leadership.

And consider the people who voluntarily join crime networks in order to become wealthy. Can we expect those people to have a concern for society, or for our lives?

The conservatives justify allowing people to become billionaires by claiming that it helps the economy, such as through "trickle-down economics". That economic theory is actually true! When a nation allows people to be billionaires, those billionaires directly and indirectly create a lot of jobs and businesses.

For example, the billionaires in the USA are providing thousands of jobs for maids, butlers, chauffeurs, gardeners, and nannies, and they are supporting lots of businesses indirectly, such as the businesses that produce yachts, private jets, and expensive jewelry. Each of those businesses in turn provides other businesses with an income. For example, the jewelry businesses in Beverly Hills are indirectly providing jobs to thousands of people who mine diamonds and rubies, and who cut the gems into pieces for jewelry.

It is true that billionaires provide jobs and support businesses when they spend money, but we have to judge an economic policy according to its effect on society, not on whether it is true or false. The reason is because there are an infinite number of economic policies that are true. We have to pick an option according to its benefits and disadvantages, not according to whether it is true or false.

For example, an equally truthful policy is that if instead of allowing people to become billionaires, we give the money to scientific research and engineering projects, then we would create lots of jobs for scientists, engineers, medical researchers, computer programmers, technicians, machinists, and mechanics.

From the point of view of society, we would benefit much more by giving the billions of dollars to people who are doing research into human health, robots, recycling, manufacturing, and greenhouses because that type of economic policy does more than merely provide us with jobs. It also provides us with a greater understanding of health issues, and it provides more advanced robots, greenhouses, sewage treatment plants, and other products and services.

By comparison, when we let a small number of billionaires spend the billions of dollars, society puts its technical talent and resources into developing better yachts, better private jets, and better jewelry. Which policy would you rather have?

For another example, if we give more money to city development projects, then we create more jobs for architects, construction workers, stone cutters, stained-glass artists, and carpenters who provide us with higher quality and more decorative office buildings, foot paths, bicycle paths, bridges, factories, and apartment buildings.

Liberals are worse than conservatives
Since I have criticized the conservatives, I should point out that liberals are not better. Actually, I think the liberals, as a group, are more psychotic, and much more hypocritical. For example, the liberals frequently whine about wealthy conservatives, but all of the liberal leaders are extremely wealthy, also. For just a few examples, Michael Moore, the Hollywood celebrities, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, and Tim Cook have absurd levels of wealth. Notice how many liberals are in this list of the 50 wealthiest Congress officials.

Furthermore, notice how secretive and deceptive some of the liberal leaders are. For example, Michael Moore claims to be an ordinary, working class man, but during his divorce we discovered that he owned nine homes. In addition to deceiving us about his wealth, he and his wife created Fahrenheit 9/11 to help the Jews deceive us about their involvement in the 9/11 attack by focusing people's attention on George Bush.

The hypocrisy of the liberals, their participation in crimes, their attempts to deceive us about their wealth, and their idiotic policies, ought to make you wonder about the mental health of the people who join the liberal political parties, and who vote for the liberal political candidates.

Liberals are less tolerant of differences of opinion
Liberals boast that they believe in freedom of speech, and they insult conservatives for being intolerant of different opinions, but from my casual observations, it is the liberals who are most likely to demand censorship.

The liberals support free speech if we say what they like to hear, but if we say something they don't want to hear, then they accuse us of spewing hate speech, sexism, racism, fake news, conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, or climate change denial. They want to censor our incorrect opinions. The liberals fired James Damore simply for expressing a different opinion, and some liberals wanted to blacklist Damore so that he couldn't get another job.

Those liberals are not supporters of free speech, or tolerant of differences of opinion. Rather, they are oppressive, dictatorial, hypocritical, selfish animals who want to dominate us and treat us like slaves.

Liberals will not provide us with a peaceful world
Liberals are constantly boasting about how they oppose violence, love everybody equally, treat people fairly, and have every other wonderful trait that is possible to have. They don't have any bad qualities. Their boasting can reach incredible levels. For example, on the "core values" page of DirectActionEverywhere.com, they boast that "We Are Fiercely Nonviolent", and they use a bold font for the words "Fiercely Nonviolent" to further emphasize how peaceful they are.

In reality, many liberals are hypocritical, intolerant, obnoxious, childlike, and destructive. Their protests, for example, are analogous to a child's temper tantrum.

The liberals are also the most likely group of people to go into public streets and parks to have angry protests, and the most likely people to advocate the punching, firing, or arresting of Nazis, racists, sexists, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, and fascists. They preach love and freedom of speech, but they practice and encourage violence, pouting, tantrums, and hatred.


The liberals insist that their protests are "freedom of speech", but imagine if people were protesting over technical issues, such as the low power levels of batteries. Would you regard that type of protest to be freedom of speech? Would you consider that type of protest to be useful?

How is a protest by vegetarians who complain about the eating of meat any more sensible than a protest to complain about battery power?

Protests do not help us understand or solve our problems. They are essentially a child's temper tantrum.



If we allow our nation to be dominated by people who like to protest, accuse us of being hateful, or who believe that they have a right to punch Nazis, we will end up with a government that resembles those of the communist nations, and the government in Orwell's 1984.

Specifically, a government that causes people to live in fear of expressing their opinions, and a government that arrests, tortures, punishes, and rehabilitates people for nonsensical concepts, such as fascism, Holocaust denial, climate denial, anti-Semitism, racism, and homophobia.




Democracies are unstable and ineffective
Why do some businesses survive for centuries?
Here is a list of businesses that were established before 1700, and are still in existence today. For example, Merck got started in 1668, and it has since grown into a gigantic pharmaceutical company.

Why are those businesses surviving for so many centuries? There are lots of different reasons, of course, but one reason is because they had leaders who adapted to changes in technology and culture. Their leaders were adventurous enough to experiment with new products and manufacturing processes. They modernized their businesses rather than insist on following their ancestors.

By comparison, most government officials and citizens have no ability to adapt to changes in technology and society. Instead of adapting to changes, most people proudly boast that their culture is the greatest possible, and they resist changes. However, by refusing to modernize their culture, they allow the problems to fester, and eventually fights break out among the people. This results in civil wars, riots, lynchings, murders, or revolutions.

None of the successful businesses, militaries, orchestras, sports teams, or other organizations have a democracy. None of them puts submissive representatives in the top leadership positions. Rather, all of the successful organizations give their leaders the authority to dominate the organization.

A democracy is not much better than anarchy
Many people claim that the USA is a "republic" rather than a "democracy" because we have a Bill of Rights and a Constitution. They imply that there is a clear dividing line between republics and democracies, but a republic is a trivial variation of a democracy. We could describe a Republic as a "democracy that provides the citizens with certain rights that the majority are not allowed to take away." Or as: "a democracy that has some limitations on what the majority can do."

If we define a democracy as a nation in which the majority of people dominate the government, then the USA is just one of many variations of a democracy. Consider these two issues:
1) The US government consist of submissive representatives who pander to the voters, which means that the voters dominate the nation.

2) The US election system is a "winner-takes-all" system, which means that the majority of voters always dominate every election.
When a government consists of submissive representatives who pander to the majority of people, the nation does not have leadership. Rather, the nation is under the control of the majority of voters. Furthermore, since the USA has a winner-takes-all system, the US government is more of a democracy than the European nations. The US government is not much better than anarchy.

For example, the reason there are endless arguments in the USA over the meaning of the Second Amendment is because our government wants to pander to the majority of people, but the nation is almost equally divided over this issue, and that causes the submissive officials to be almost equally divided. The end result is that the government might give each group of people some of what they are asking for, but they cannot truly resolve the issue because they are not leaders with the authority to resolve issues. Instead, the government representatives wait for the people to reach a conclusion, and if the people argue forever, then the government cannot resolve the issue.

Furthermore, if the majority of people are not interested in a particular issue, then their submissive representatives may pander to whichever group of people are interested. When that happens, many people whine that the government is under the control of "special interests", but in reality, this is merely one of the characteristics of an organization that has submissive representatives rather than leaders.

The European method of electing some of the minority candidates does not solve the problems of a submissive government, however. That system merely creates a government in which the submissive representatives have an even wider view of opinions, making it even more difficult for them to resolve issues.

Submissive governments are impractical
We should face the evidence that organizations do not function well when we let the majority of people dominate the organization. If democracies were a sensible method of providing leadership, then businesses, militaries, orchestras, and other groups would have discovered this long ago, and they would have switched to that method of leadership. However, history shows us that every time a business or other organization has provided the members with more influence over their leadership, the organization suffers.

The organizations that have survived their competitive battles are those that have leaders who have authority and provide guidance, not leaders who pander to the majority of their members. We will never improve our nations, or the world, as long as we continue to insist on letting the majority of people dominate the government.

Why are democracies hopeless?
A democracy is based on two assumptions that have proven to be false:
1) The majority of people will get involved with their society.
The history of the human race shows that the majority of people resist taking an active role in dealing with their nation's problems. Those of you who have tried to explain to other people that we have been lied to about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, or other crimes have certainly noticed that most people don't want to know, and/or don't care. Most humans are too selfish, apathetic, and/or arrogant for a democracy to work properly.
2) The majority of people will make intelligent decisions.
You don't need to know much about probability to realize that this assumption is false. The majority of people cannot make intelligent decisions simply because the majority of people will always make "ordinary" decisions. The only way to get intelligent decisions from voters is to restrict voting to the small minority of people who truly have excellent intellectual abilities.

A democracy is a battleground
A nation without leaders will become a battleground as individuals and organizations fight with each other for control. The culture of a democracy is unpredictable because nobody knows who is going to get involved with the battle, what they will fight for, or who will win. For some examples of the fighting that is going on in the USA as of January 2019:
• There are various organizations, government agencies, and UN agencies, pushing America into accepting more immigrants and refugees. President Trump is also pushing for this.

• The ADL, SPLC, JDL, and other Jewish groups are trying to change our laws and attitudes so that they can have their critics arrested for Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, fake news, and hate crimes.

• Many immigrants do not want to learn the English language, so they push us into accepting multiple languages.
Haga clic aqu para espaol
, bấm vo đy cho tiếng việt, ....

• Religions and businesses try to manipulate our holidays, especially Christmas, in order to promote their particular religious beliefs, or to sell their particular products.

• Some unions resist technical advances, and all unions push for wage increases without any concern for where the additional money comes from, and this unsupervised battle over money results in inflation, as I explained here.

• Businesses create, promote, and manipulate our recreational, leisure, and sports activities, such as football, competitive eating, "collectible" items, and larping. They do this for profit, not to improve our lives.
What will the culture of the USA become? Will our official language switch from English to Spanish? Will the American courts allow "Holocaust denial" to be a crime? Will we switch to the metric system? Or will the Zionist groups get control of the USA? Or will President Trump drain the swamp, as he promised?

Actually, Trump never really promised to "drain the swamp". In this video he tells the audience that he made that remark simply to appease some voters. So, which of his remarks should we believe? Does he want to drain the swamp? Or did he make that remark merely to appease voters?

Trump is another example of why democracies cannot work very well. Trump has made many different and conflicting promises to different people, (ie, he has lied many times), which is typical of government candidates. Unfortunately, the voters are so incompetent that they never hold the candidates accountable for what they say, or what they have done in the past.
The voters are so incompetent that when they hear a candidate make conflicting remarks, they pick out the remarks that they like, and they ignore the others. They do not complain that the candidate is making conflicting promises, or that the candidate is making vague, meaningless promises. Instead, they behave like children who fill in a coloring book the way they want the colors to be.

Do you want to live the rest of your life in a world in which incompetent voters — probably including yourself — are selecting government officials? Do you want to continue living in a world that is dominated by crime networks, blackmailed pedophiles, and psychos?

A democracy is a battleground where different groups of criminals, weirdos, and freaks fight for control of the horde of apathetic sheeple. However, the fighting is so secretive and deceptive that the sheeple do not notice it, and the people involved with the fighting are confused about what is going on and who they can trust.

I think that the killing of 50 Muslims by Brenton Tarrant is another example of the confusing battles in the fight for control of the world. The journalists are telling us that he was a "white supremacist", but why should we believe journalists who regularly lie to us, and who are regularly accusing us of having "white privilege", "toxic masculinity", and "racist attitudes"?

Even though the reports and video of Tarrant's attack are more believable than the other attacks, such as at Sandy Hook elementary school, the Pulse nightclub, and the Columbine High School, there are suspicious aspects to it, and suspicious witnesses, so I am going to assume it was another Israeli false flag operation until I see evidence otherwise.

One suspicious aspect of that attack is that New Zealand has already arrested a man for distributing copies of Tarrant's video, and he was denied bail. This is analogous to arresting and denying bail to people who distribute copies of the video of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, or video of the train bombing in Spain, or video of the 7-7-7 train bombing in England.

Why would a government want to stop people from distributing such videos? I wonder if that man was arrested for the same reason James Damore was fired. Specifically, to intimidate and frighten us. I wonder if the Jews are tired of us analyzing videos of their false flag operations, which allows us to find evidence that we have been lied to.

It will be interesting to see if the man who was arrested truly tries to defend himself, or if he allows himself to be abused, as did James Damore and the people who have been arrested for Holocaust denial.

Another suspicious aspect of Brenton Tarrant is that he is described as being another lonely, unemployed man who spent most of his time on the Internet. He posted a "manifesto" to explain why he wanted to attack Muslims. His manifesto is so idiotic that I could not read it. Skimming through it shows me that it contains information from the television news reports, not the Internet. For example:
• He supports the theory that 19 Arabs attacked the USA on 9/11.
• He provides a list of rapes committed by foreigners, but he doesn't show any knowledge about the pedophilia that is going on within our governments, media, or Hollywood.
• He is aware of crimes committed by Muslims, but he doesn't know anything about Zionism.
• He mentions people that he admires or has learned from, but he doesn't know anything about me, Christopher Bollyn, the Hampstead children, David Shurter, Jenny Guskin, or thousands of other people who are exposing horrendous crimes.
• He shows no concern that we might have been lied to about the Apollo moon landing, the world wars, the Holocaust, or the attack on the USS Liberty, or the murder of Paul McCartney.
How can anybody who spends his life on the Internet have such a "television view" of the world? His distorted view of life is evidence that he is a mentally defective person who has been manipulated by Jews, and that his attack and manifesto was planned and supervised by Jews. His manifesto is intended for the sheeple, not those of us who look on the Internet for information. It matches the sheeple's view of the world, not our view.

One of the most suspicious aspects of the attacks by "white supremacists" is that the Jews are constantly whining that the "white supremacists" are anti-Semitic, but the white supremacists rarely kill Jews. There have been only a few exceptions, but those are so suspicious that I suspect that they were Israeli false flag operations, also. For example, the white supremacist who attacked the synagogue in Pittsburgh killed 11 Jews, most of whom were quite elderly. Hopefully you are aware of the coincidence that the number 11 appears in a lot of suspicious events, such as in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which Adam Lanza shot 11 bullets into Noah Pozner, who was the son of a rabbi.

You might find it interesting to reenact Adam Lanza's attack. Pick up a object to represent a gun, and then walk around your house shooting at imaginary children, but shoot one imaginary boy 11 times. Notice how long it takes, and if you have to reload your gun in the process, it will take even longer. Why would Adam Lanza spend so much time and so many bullets on one child? Does that make sense to you?

Furthermore, the white supremacists never kill immigrants from India, such as Sundar Pichai. Why is it that the Jews and Indians who whine about white supremacists and white conservatives are never hurt by the people they whine about? If you know a Jew or an immigrant from India, you might enjoy asking him that question.

I suspect that the killings by Brenton Tarrant, and a lot of the plane crashes, school shootings, nuclear power reactor accidents, mysterious fires, and many other destructive events, are operations conducted by the Zionist groups. If I am correct, that means people around the world are routinely allowing their nation to be cheated, abused, and sent off into senseless wars. How would you explain how a small group of Jews can get away with such an extreme level of abuse?

The Jews would undoubtedly boast that they are successful because they are the superior race, and that the Goyim are stupid animals. Although that might be part of the reason, there are lots of Goyim who are capable of stopping the crime and corruption. However, those of us who can deal with these problems are not in leadership positions. And we never will get into leadership positions as long as we have democracies.

I would say that the primary problem with America, Japan, and other nations is that we are democracies. A democracy requires the ordinary people to get involved with their nation's problems and make wise decisions. A democracy requires the people to discuss the problems, compromise on solutions, and give sensible orders to their submissive, government servants.
Since we let adults with nonfunctional brains vote, why not allow children to vote, also?
Unfortunately, most people are too selfish, apathetic, or stupid to deal with the world's problems. Many people, especially women, want to hide from our problems. The end result is that a democracy cannot take care of itself. A democracy will eventually be taken over by some group of people.

Nancy Pelosi is promoting the concept of lowering the voting age to 16. This is not going to help America. This is going to help the crime networks by providing them with even more apathetic, stupid, uneducated, and easily manipulated voters.

Incidentally, considering that we allow blind, illiterate, retarded, and senile people to vote, some of whom have a mental age of only four years, and which makes cheating easy, why not allow everybody over the age of four to vote?

We should determine our future, not wonder what it will be
Nobody knows what the USA will become because nobody can predict the outcome of the fighting between the citizens, businesses, Zionist organizations, political groups, religions, feminists, and crime networks. We have no control over our future. We have to wait and watch. This is a stupid way for us to spend our short lives.
Without real leadership, we have no control over our future. We are like a group of fish that are drifting about aimlessly. By comparison, when we provide ourselves with a government that has the authority to control our culture, we can determine what our culture becomes, and we can experiment with it.

Don’t be fooled by deceptive, emotional examples
When people make proposals to give the government more authority, many people respond that this is dangerous, and they point out examples from history, such as Joseph Stalin or Hitler. However, those examples are deceptive. Those people are not trying to be fair or honest. Rather, they are trying to frighten us; they are trying to stimulate our emotions.

The reason this technique works is because our natural tendency is to react with our emotions rather than think. Therefore, if we can stimulate somebody's emotions, and if he doesn't think about the issue, we may be able to manipulate him.

People are easily manipulated with praise. This is why salesmen, political candidates, and con artists provide us with lots of praise. We are also easily manipulated by fear. The people who are promoting carbon taxes, for example, are trying to frighten us, not discuss the issue with us. People are also frequently trying to frighten us by telling us that some thing or some person is similar to Stalin or Hitler.

Feminists frequently justify their policies by trying to stimulate fear or pity. For example, they will find a woman who has been beaten by her husband, and then they try to frighten other women into believing that her husband is a typical man, and that every woman is in danger of being beaten.

Some wives have been arrested for killing their husband to get his life insurance. What would you think if a group of homosexuals were telling young boys that they risk being murdered for their life insurance if they marry a woman, so they should try to enjoy homosexuality because men will treat them better? Certainly you would accuse those homosexuals of deceiving the boys.

Likewise, Stalin is not proof that we will suffer if we give our government officials more authority.

How could we fail to develop a better government?
As soon as we start experimenting with our culture, we will find ways to improve our government, economic system, schools, recreational affairs, and other culture. We will not be able to create a "perfect" government or school system, but we can certainly improve upon the crude systems we have right now. The US government, for example, was created by ignorant people more than 200 years ago. The governments of some nations are even more primitive, and many still have monarchies. How could we fail to improve upon such crude systems?

People around the world and all throughout history have been providing businesses, militaries, sports teams, orchestras, scientific laboratories, and other organizations with much higher quality leaders than what the voters have been selecting for our governments, so we can certainly figure out how to provide nations with better leadership.

By conducting these experiments in Kastron, people outside of that city will not be bothered no matter what happens, so nobody has to worry. We are not going to hurt ourselves.

People are not equal
The Declaration of Independence is based on religion, not science
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
The Kastron constitution promotes this attitude instead:
Everybody is genetically unique, so we have slightly different talents and flaws, but nobody is responsible for their particular genetic characteristics, so nobody should be tormented for their particular genetic problems, or given special treatment for their particular genetic talents. Instead, we should treat everybody with the same respect and opportunities.

Our emotions want special treatment, not equality
Animals and humans are extremely arrogant, hypocritical, and selfish. We promote the attitude that all people are equal, but we practice the philosophy that some people are better than others. For example, the people who are born with unusual music talent believe that they should be able to spend a few days creating music, and then collect royalties for the rest of their lives. They believe that their few hours of work is so precious and valuable, and they are such special people, that they should never again have to do any work. They believe they should be pampered by thousands of carpenters, farmers, technicians, assembly-line workers, waiters, chefs, and doctors.

Likewise, the people who have the ability to make lots of money believe that they are special people who deserve extreme pampering, and the people who are born with exceptional intellectual talents also believe that they are special.
When does nepotism become unacceptable to you? What if Trump gave his relatives all the top positions of the US military?
The children of wealthy people believe that they should get special treatment simply because their parents acquired a lot of money. One of the most extreme examples is the affluenza case of Ethan Couch.

Furthermore, President Trump allows his daughter and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to become government officials. That is not treating people equally, or giving everybody a fair opportunity to get a job in the government. That is a monarchy, or nepotism, or favoritism, or the American version of the Indian caste system.

When Jared Kushner was a teenager, his father, Charles, let Benjamin Netanyahu stay at his house. He let Netanyahu have Jared's bedroom, and Jared slept in the basement. Can we expect any of the Kushners to provide the USA with sensible, and unbiased, guidance on Mideast affairs, or anything else related to Jews or Israel? In a business, the relationship between Kushners and Netanyahu would be described a "conflict of interest".

Getting back to the issue of how we do not want equality, we are selfish, arrogant creatures who want to feel special and be at the top of the hierarchy, so we look for reasons to justify getting special treatment for ourselves and our children, but why should a person who is born into a certain family get special treatment? Why should a person who married somebody who was born into a certain family get special treatment?

Furthermore, why should a person who is born with exceptional musical talent or intelligence get special treatment? They did nothing to get that talent, and we did nothing to deny ourselves the talent, so why should we feel obligated to give them special treatment?
It might help you to understand this concept if you imagine a more extreme example. Imagine if we determined our wealth when we become 18 years old by throwing a pair of dice one time, and the higher the number on the dice, the wealthier we become. If you were to throw two 1's, you would be given the lowest level of material wealth, so you would be sent to live in the slums, and your life would be spent pampering the people who had higher numbers. Would you describe that as a sensible culture?

What is the difference between getting pampered according to how you throw dice, and getting pampered according to which family you were born into, or who you married, or whether you happened to inherit some unusually good musical ability?

Conversely, why should a person who is born with a defective leg or ordinary intelligence have to suffer insults, rejection, or substandard treatment? People who are born with problems did not ask for those problems, so why should they have to suffer? Why should we have a right to torment the people who have genetic problems?

As I mentioned in this document, humans and animals have an inherent desire to torment misfits, but in our modern era, we need to suppress that characteristic. It is no longer a useful technique for removing the genetic misfits. Rather, it degrades our social environment, and it causes some of the misfits to react with hatred, vandalism, crime, or anger.

Today a more intelligent solution to the problem of genetically defective people is to restrict reproduction. And the destructive people should be evicted, not punished, pitied, or abused.

Every child that we give birth to should be treated with decency. We are cruel when we give life to a child, and then abandon him in an orphanage or hospital, as if he is trash, or torment him with insults and sarcasm, as if he is a target at a rifle range.

We are not equal, but we should be treated as equals
We preach equality, but we practice inequality. What would happen if we actually practiced what we preached? What would happen if we stopped the hypocrisy? What would it be like to live in a society in which nobody gets special treatment? Would such a society be stable? Would we enjoy living in it?

We will never know for certain until we experiment with such a policy, but I suspect that we would prefer it, so this is the policy I recommend for Kastron. With that type of culture, everybody would be a team member who is equal to all of the other members. Each of us would have different talents and limitations, but we would be equal in regards to homes, food, clothing, and recreational activities. Everybody would be provided with a job, but since we each have different abilities and flaws, we would adjust the jobs to fit the person.

We would not deny jobs to the elderly, stupid, crippled, or sickly people. Instead, we would adjust the jobs to fit those people. The intelligent people would do the jobs that need intelligence, and the physically strong people would do the jobs that require physical strength. The young people would do jobs that don't need much experience, and the dumb people would do the jobs that don't need much intelligence, and the elderly people would do the part-time jobs that don't require much stamina or strength.

When people are treated equally, we would not deny a person a job simply because he is dumb, weak, or old, and we would not create a worthless job for him, either, as our governments often do. Instead, the Kastron government would find something useful for everybody. However, this type of society will not function properly unless the people are willing to support the two policies I have been emphasizing many times in many documents:
1) Misfits must be removed.
This type of society requires people who are willing and able to contribute to society. The people who are destructive or parasitic must be evicted.

2) Reproduction must be controlled.
If reproduction is not controlled, genetic degradation will eventually cause society to become dominated by people who are too defective to do the work that needs to be done, in which case the economy will start to fail as a result of a shortage of technicians, engineers, mechanics, carpenters, doctors, scientists, and other skilled workers. This problem is already occurring in the USA.

Some people have superior artistic abilities
Everybody is willing to acknowledge that we differ in our artistic abilities. For example, everybody realizes that each of us is capable of putting paint on a canvas, but only a few of us can produce a painting that other people want to display in their home. Everybody also realizes that each of us is capable of playing a piano, violin, and guitar, but only a few of us can play an instrument in a manner that other people want to listen to.

Most people have given up painting and making music because they came to the conclusion that they cannot produce anything of value. We all realize that we can improve our artistic abilities if we practice, but we also realize that no matter how much we practice, most of us will always be "ordinary" or below average. We can acknowledge that other people have better artistic abilities than we do.

Likewise, all of us realize that we can improve our athletic and math abilities if we practice, but we also realize that no matter how much we practice, most of us will be ordinary, and there will always be a minority with superior athletic and math abilities.

How could we have identical leadership abilities?
Since we differ in our athletic and artistic abilities, it would make sense to assume that we differ in our leadership abilities, also. However, the majority of people believe that they are the best at providing guidance to society. They believe that they have the best opinion about abortion, the minimum wage, crime, marijuana, feminism, the Second Amendment, Donald Trump, raising children, and every other cultural issue. Everybody insists that they are a super genius, and that the world's problems would vanish if we would follow their brilliant advice.

Why are so many people willing to admit that their artwork is worthless, and that their math abilities are ordinary, but they insist that they would make the greatest leader the world has ever had? Why don't more people admit that their advice on managing a society is as worthless as their artwork?




Within a fraction of a second, we can see that some people's artwork is superior.












However, our opinions are just sequences of words, so all opinions have a similar visual appearance.

This makes them appear equal, but most of them are as worthless as our artwork.


The reason we are willing to admit that our artwork and math abilities are worthless is because humans do not have an emotional craving to be the best artist or mathematician. Therefore, we don't care if we are ordinary or substandard at math or art.

However, animals, especially the males, have intense emotional cravings to be at the top of the social hierarchy. We do not want to be ordinary or below-average in the social hierarchy. We want to be the leader. We want people to follow us, admire us, and respect us.

Animals compete for leadership by kicking and biting one another, but modern humans compete for leadership by trying to impress other people with our material wealth, awards, college diplomas, and our brilliant opinions about Donald Trump, abortion, crime, drugs, climate change, alcohol, religion, euthanasia, the Second Amendment, feminism, and raising children.

Everybody is capable of putting words together into sentences, and sentences into paragraphs, but most people cannot create a sequence of words that has any value to us. Every day there are millions of people posting messages, documents, and videos on the Internet, or giving their opinions to their coworkers, family members and friends. However, very few people have created a sequence of words that is worth passing around and saving for future generations.

We want to impress people, not discuss issues
It should be noted that almost all of the people who are letting us know about their brilliant opinions about abortion, Donald Trump, climate change, and other issues, are not trying to discuss the issue with us. They are not interested in listening to our criticism of their opinions, and they do not want to listen to our opinions.

Rather, when most people "discuss" an issue, they are actually telling us what we should think about the issue. They are essentially standing on a podium and trying to convince us that we should admire and respect them, and follow their guidance. They are trying to convince us that they belong in the top positions of the social hierarchy.

This is not a trivial issue. It is very important to note that our emotions do not want discussions. We do not have any emotional craving to learn something new, or listen to criticism. Instead, we have a craving to fight to get to the top of the hierarchy. We want to impress other people, not listen to their opinions. We want to convince them that we deserve to be their leader. We want them to listen to us, follow us, and admire us, not discuss issues with us, or criticize us.

It requires a lot of self control for us to truly "discuss" issues. Our emotions want us to argue over who is right and who is wrong; to fight for dominance, like stupid animals.
Men inherited the characteristic of reacting to criticism and competition with anger.

It requires self-control for us to look critically at ourselves, discuss issues in a calm manner, and treat our competitors as friends.
The reason we behave like this is because we are monkeys. We have strong cravings to be the leader of our social group. However, we do not have cravings to be the best artist or mathematician. Therefore, we don't care if somebody else is a better artist or mathematician.

We are willing to admit that our talents in art and math are ordinary or below-average, but we don't want to believe that we are ordinary or below-average in leadership.

We are descendants of millions of monkeys who fought their way to the top of the hierarchy, and we inherited their intense cravings to be at the top. Unfortunately, this emotion is excessive for this modern world. Men today need to be able to accept the fact that most people are ordinary. Men today need the ability to listen to criticism and opposing opinions, and to participate in discussions.

Our emotions do not want to listen to other people, especially not criticism. We want to tell them what is correct. When somebody criticizes us, our emotions regard him as attacking us, and we become angry, or we pout. It requires a lot of self-control for us to have a discussion. If we follow our emotions, we will have a battle for dominance, not a "discussion".

Most people are worthless as leaders
You don't need to know much about probability to realize that most people's leadership abilities are "ordinary", and half the population has below-average abilities. Only a small number of people can provide us with useful leadership.

Most people's opinions about religion, abortion, raising children, and other issues are as worthless as their paintings, their guitar playing, and their math abilities. We need to design our culture so that people are encouraged to exert self-control, suppress their craving to boast about their brilliant opinions, and face the evidence that their opinions are worthless.

Most people should look to somebody else for leadership, but this creates an interesting dilemma. If we can convince the majority of people that they need leadership, who is going to pick their leaders? If we let them pick their leaders, they will make "ordinary" decisions about who their leaders should be. They will pick such people as the Pope, Lady Gaga, Al Gore, and Barak Obama.

We cannot let the majority of people choose their leaders or we will end up with the same group of criminals, blackmailed pedophiles, and neurotic, incompetent nitwits that we have right now.

The only solution to this problem is to do what people do when they create businesses, sports groups, orchestras, and other organizations. Specifically, the people who are involved with creating the new organization have to do the initial selection of people for leadership positions. After they select the initial leaders and get the organization running, they can make changes to their leaders, and to the method they use to select leaders.

However, it should be noted that businesses, militaries, and other organizations never switch to a democracy. The majority of people are never allowed to vote on their leadership. A small minority of people always makes the decisions of who to put in a leadership position, and which of their leaders needs to be fired.

It might seem frightening to allow a small number of voters to choose government officials, but millions of organizations are using this method on a routine basis. Only nations are following the philosophy that the majority of people should determine their leaders.

A government of “the elite” is potentially dangerous
When a small group of people are choosing leaders for a nation, we end up with a government that could be described as a government of "the elite", or a government of the "privileged". It could be described as an "oppressive" government that represents a minority and treats the majority as inferior.

It is indeed potentially dangerous to allow a small group of people to select leaders for a nation. However, it is also dangerous to let the majority of people vote. This is why the USA and other nations are dominated by criminals, pedophiles, and Zionists.

No matter what method we use for selecting leaders, we are going to have problems to deal with. Don't expect an easy or perfect solution. Don't be afraid of work. And especially do not frighten yourself with potential problems. Instead, react to problems by looking for solutions.

We cannot create "perfect" social technology. All we can do is create a system that has fewer problems than what we have right now.

If we can create a respectable government for Kastron, it will not matter that only a small number of people are allowed to vote for the government officials. The majority of people actually prefer not having to deal with the issue of selecting leaders. Analyzing candidates, and analyzing government officials, is a difficult, complex chore, not entertainment. If a small group of people can do an excellent job as voters, the majority of people will be glad that somebody else is doing the hard work.

The reason people don't consider voting to be a difficult chore is because they don't put any effort into it. The majority of voters do not put any significant time into researching or analyzing the candidates or issues. They do not put any effort into giving job performance reviews to government officials, either, and most of the voters will not even face the problems the nation has, such as the evidence that we have been lied to about the world wars, the 9/11 attack, and the Apollo moon landings. They also ignore the evidence that there is a pedophile network within our government, military, schools, and media. Most voters are irresponsible people who want the fun of voting, but none of the hard work.

Managing an organization is actually a difficult task. If a small group of voters are providing Kastron with a truly impressive government, most people will be glad that they don't have to deal with that task. We can see this in businesses. Specifically, when the management is doing a good job, the employees have no desire to get involved with managing the company.

However, if the business is chaotic, or if social environment is miserable, then the employees become upset, and that causes them to want to get involved with the management decisions of the business. In other words, when the majority of people want to get involved in the management of their organization, it is a sign that the leadership is doing a terrible job. The management should react by replacing some of their leaders, or experimenting with different policies. They should not react by pandering to the disgruntled members.

Years ago I claimed that the reason the feminist movement has been growing during the past couple centuries is because our social environment has been deteriorating, and this has resulted in women becoming so upset with their lives that they wanted to get involved with the management of the nation. The men should have reacted to the frustrated women by analyzing society and experimenting with changes to our culture. Instead, the men continued to let the social environment degrade, and they pandered to the women by letting them vote, and letting them whine about sexism.

If the men had been doing a better job of managing society, then the women and children would have been enjoying their life rather than complaining that they want to vote.

This concept also explains why teenagers wanted the right to vote at age 18. When I was a teenager, the Vietnam War was expanding, and military service was compulsory, and so I and most other boys assumed that there was a good chance we would fight in that war. However, some of us were a bit confused by the war. We were young and did not know much about the world, but it didn't seem to some of us as if the adults had a clear understanding of what was going on. Who exactly was the USA fighting in that war? If we were fighting the communist Chinese or Russians, what were we doing in Vietnam? Why didn't we attack China or Russia? And why were the American soldiers limited to certain types of weapons?

The Vietnam war seemed to me to be some type of a game with arbitrary rules. When information about the My Lai massacre came out, that added more confusion. Americans were sent to kill some Vietnamese who were enemies, while at the same time working with other Vietnamese who were friends, but there was no way for the American soldiers to distinguish between the friendly and hostile Vietnamese, and almost no American could speak their language. Would you want to be put into that situation?

The Vietnam War caused a lot of teenagers to complain that they should have the right to vote. The adults should have realized that the disgruntled and confused teenagers were a sign that something is wrong with the war. The solution was not to pander to the teenagers and lower the voting age to 18. The solution was to improve the nation's leadership and culture.

Now that the Internet exists, and now that a lot of the information has been exposed about how the Jews have been instigating and manipulating wars, the Vietnam War makes more sense to me. Specifically, it was another war instigated and manipulated by Jews. The reason the war never made any sense to me is because it was not supposed to "make sense".

The Vietnam War was not meant to help the Vietnamese people. Rather, the war was intended to ruin the USA, China, Vietnam, Laos, Russia, and other nations, just like the world wars and the Korean War. It was essentially a "meatgrinder" where the USA and other nations would send young men to be killed and maimed, and to destroy one another's cities.


Culture needs protection
Culture should be treated as valuable technology
As I described years ago, culture should be regarded as social technology. We should treat it in the same manner that we treat "physical" technology. Here are two important points about how businesses treat physical technology in case you are unaware of this concept.
    1) Businesses protect their technology
When a business has finished developing a refrigerator, airplane, software program or other product, they protect it from alterations. One method is to classify it as a "release" or "production" version, and prohibit modifications to it.
    2) Businesses verify that changes are an improvement
Everybody is aware a "release" version is not a "perfect" version. Every product has lots of mistakes, limitations, and irritating features. Therefore, as soon as a business has put a "released version" into production, the engineers begin to look for ways to improve upon it.

A business will listen to complaints and suggestions from their employees and customers, and they will conduct a lot of experiments. However, the point I want to bring to your attention is that the engineers do not merely make a few changes to the technical drawings or software, and then put that revised version into production. Rather, they put the revised version through tests to determine whether the modifications are truly an improvement.

Some people might respond that some of the "new and improved" products are actually worse than the earlier products. Yes, this is sometimes true. One reason is because businesses are in a rush to get products on the market, and that can result in releasing a product that should have been given more testing. Another reason is because businesses are not truly trying to create improved products for you or me. In a free enterprise system, the goal of a business is profit, not improving human life. They focus on titillating consumers, reducing manufacturing costs, and increasing their profits. They are not focusing on what will provide us with a better life.

For a simple example of this problem, consider a butcher shop. You might assume from their sales campaigns that their only concern is to sell us the freshest, highest-quality meat, but their only concern is making money. As a result, they do not want to sell us the freshest meat. Rather, they want to sell us the meat that did not sell the day before.

Even though businesses are more concerned with money than human life, the point I want to bring to your attention is that businesses do not put a revised version of a product into production until it has been through a lot of testing and analyses.

By comparison, most government officials do not do any analyses of their laws or agencies to verify that what they are doing is beneficial. I've mentioned some examples in other files, such as our laws that prohibit farmers from growing hemp for fiber. When is our government going to provide us with an analysis of that law and show us how we are benefiting from it? The answer is never. Our government officials don't care whether there is any benefit to that law. They are not held accountable for anything they do.

The voters are supposed to provide all of the quality control that we need, but the voters are doing nothing to determine which government officials are useful, and which need to be removed.

Organizations protect software, and we should protect culture, also
Every organization, regardless of whether it is a sports group, orchestra, or nation, is just a group of people who are held together by some intangible information inside the people's minds. That intangible information is the culture of the organization.

Their culture sets up a hierarchy for the people, determines the purpose of the organization, and provides the people with rules to follow. It determines whether they have a party at Christmas, and if so, what type of party. It tells each person what his job is, how he is supposed to dress, which days and hours he works, how much time he has for lunch, and whether he works in a cubicle or a private office. It also determines whether the organization has a cafeteria, and if so, what type of food is available, and whether that food is free.

Culture is analogous to computer software; culture is software for humans. Therefore, our attitude towards culture can be similar to our attitude towards computer software. For example, we should not regard culture as "perfect". Instead, we should regard our culture as having lots of limitations, irritating qualities, and mistakes. We should look for ways to improve it.

The two points that I made at the beginning of this section about physical technology should apply to culture also. Specifically:
1) We should protect our culture.
2) We should verify that cultural changes are an improvement.
No nation is yet doing either. As of 2019, every nation is allowing individual citizens, crime networks, unions, religions, businesses, charities, and other organizations, to influence their culture. The rest of this section gives a few examples of how we are foolishly allowing our culture to be ruined by not showing any concern for protecting our culture, or verifying that modifications are an improvement.

Example: The firing of James Damore
The executives of Google fired James Damore and accused him of sexism, of disrupting the company, and of promoting harmful gender stereotypes. Our legal system supported Google rather than Damore.

If voters would hold the government officials accountable for their actions, then the voters would observe the nation and verify that their decision to support the firing of Damore has had a beneficial effect on the USA. Has the firing improved relationships between men and women? Has it resulted in a more productive or pleasant social environment at Google, or other companies?

If the voters came to the conclusion that the firing of Damore was beneficial, the officials and Google executives who supported the firing would be given credit for improving the nation. If, however, the voters came to the conclusion that it was detrimental to the nation, then the voters would consider changing the situation, and possibly removing those officials and executives from positions of influence.

If we had voters who behaved in that manner, then through the years the voters would get rid of the business executives and government officials who were hurting the nation, and they would provide us with officials and executives that we respect, admire, and benefit from.

Unfortunately, no government is under any obligation to verify that their laws are improving the nation. Furthermore, no government officials are held responsible for anything they do. They can create any law they please, or raise taxes whenever they want, without a sensible explanation for what they are doing, and without showing evidence that their decisions are improving the nation.

I promote the concept that businesses should be able to fire employees so that they can produce teams in which the members enjoy working with one another. Therefore, I would support Google if they had fired James Damore on the grounds that the other Google employees did not want him on their team, and I would not care whether the employees disliked Damore because of his opinions, or because of his visual appearance, or because of his personality.

However, Google did not fire him for being a misfit. Instead, they lied when they accused him of disrupting Google.

Furthermore, they did not make any attempt to fire him quietly. Rather, they made a public spectacle of his firing. Their behavior is evidence that they wanted the public to know that they fired him because they wanted to intimidate Google employees and the public into becoming frightened to disagree with the unisex theory.

An organization should be able to fire an employee that they do not want on their team, but no organization should have the right to use people as pawns in dishonest, diabolical, deceptive attempts to intimidate us or manipulate our culture. Furthermore, no business should have a right to lie to us about their employees, or their products.

The American legal system supported Google, and by doing so, they are letting all organizations know that they can also make a public spectacle of firing an employee, and they can also lie about why they fired him, and they can also accuse him of a nonsensical "crime", such as sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, or climate change denial.

The courts did not demand that the Google executives provide evidence that Damore was "promoting harmful gender stereotypes", or that he was sexist, or that he disrupted the Google employees. Our courts allowed Google to convict an employee of a vague crime without giving him an opportunity to defend himself.

What effect is the firing of Damore having on the culture of the USA? I think that it encourages the people who believe in the unisex theory to become more aggressive and insulting, and it causes other people to become intimidated into remaining silent. I would say that this is causing the American culture to degrade into the type of social environment that we saw in communist Russia, and which we see today in North Korea, in which people become so afraid to disagree with the authorities that they will not use their freedom of speech.

The Damore firing is not encouraging discussions or research about men and women. Rather, it is suppressing discussions by causing people who have a difference of opinion to become fearful of expressing their opinion. How can the suppression of discussions be regarded as an improvement to American culture? The Google executives and our courts should be regarded as ruining American culture.

Example: Climate change denial
The American legal system has been allowing people to get away with accusing people of being sexist, racist, hateful, homophobic, anti-Semitic, and Holocaust deniers. By allowing people to make those nonsensical accusations, our courts encourage more people to make such accusations, and to devise new accusations. A recent insult is that some of us are "climate deniers."

In this article, Jack and Sara Gorman begin by pointing out that the climate change issue is "...not subject to legitimate debate. We can affirm without doubt that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon...".

The Gormans claim that those of us who have false views on climate change are "victims of a well-funded and sophisticated misinformation campaign".

The Gormans also claim that a lot of us are too stupid to understand the climate change issue: "studies persistently show us that simply providing people with the facts about climate does not reliably change minds. The science that proves the Earth is warming is very technical and difficult for most of us to grasp."

The Gormans also claim that some of us have the mental disorder that psychiatrists refer to as "denial": "Millions of people share the phenomenon of climate denial".
Does Bennett believe
the messages of his cartoons?
In the cartoon to the right, Bill Bennett shows the public ignoring Al Gore's movie because they prefer to believe lies.

Some people want the "climate change deniers" to be fired from their jobs, and Adam Weinstein wants them to be arrested.

The people who accuse us of being "climate change deniers" are not interested in discussing the issue, or doing any additional research. They insist they already have the answers because they already know everything that there is to know about the climate.

They will not consider the possibility that most of us would prefer a warmer planet. They will not consider the possibility that the Earth's "normal" climate is warmer than it is now, and that we are actually in a temporary and unusually cold phase.

They insist that carbon taxes will definitely stop global warming, and a group of scientists at Harvard University are promoting the theory that we can also reduce global warming by "solar geoengineering", which is spraying certain aerosols into the atmosphere.

They will not tolerate the possibility that global warming is due to variations in the sun's power output, or due to replacing vegetation with roads and cities, or due to changes in the flow of ocean water and air that is caused by continental drift (I mentioned this here).

What would happen to the USA if people like Adam Weinstein, the Gormans, Harvard scientists, and Bill Bennett got control of our nation? It should be obvious that they would accuse everybody who disagreed with their "scientifically proven" climate change policy of being stupid, of suffering from the mental disorder of "denial", and of preferring lies to "the inconvenient truth".

If those people had control of our nation, then instead of encouraging a discussion and research of the climate, those of us who refuse to accept the "truth" about climate change would risk being insulted, fired, arrested, rehabilitated, or imprisoned in a mental hospital. Furthermore, they would implement their "solutions" to global warming, and no matter what happened to the climate, they would claim that their solution was successful.

If we allow people to accuse us of climate change denial, and especially if we allow them to harass us, fire us from our jobs, or arrest us for climate change denial, we allow our culture to degrade.

Furthermore, if we let the government get away with arresting climate change deniers, they are likely to start arresting other people that they want to silence. The culture of the USA would slowly become more similar to that of the communist nations.

It is possible that the reason so many people are making accusations of "climate change denial" is because we have allowed Jews to get away with the harassment and arrest of "Holocaust Deniers", and that has encouraged people to use the "denial" accusation for other purposes. If courts around the world had prohibited the "Holocaust denial" accusation decades ago, we might not have to listen to accusations of "climate change denial" today.

If we continue to allow people to accuse us of Holocaust denial and climate change denial, we might find people devising other types of denial accusations. For example, the supporters of President Trump might be accused of "Russian influence denial" for refusing to believe the facts and the truth that some Russians are responsible for getting President Trump elected.

Example: Racism
In 2007, James Watson said that Africans are genetically less intelligent than other races. He was forced out of his job because of that.

In 2018 Watson said that he continues to believe what he said in 2007. Marilyn Simmons and Bruce Stillman of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory responded by canceling his "honorary titles" on the grounds that he made "unsubstantiated and reckless" statements that are "reprehensible" and "unsupported by science". Journalists, even those of scientific publications, such as this, insulted Watson as "racist" and "controversial".

However, none of the journalists or executives at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory have criticized people, such as Jordan Peterson, who claim that Jews are the superior race of humans. None of them accuse the Jews of being racist for claiming to be the "chosen" people, either.

What is "racism"? As amazing as it may seem, it is not a specific crime. Whether a person or remark is "racist" depends upon our view of life.

Schools should help children understand this concept. For example, students could be given the assignment in the box below, and then they could discuss their answers.


Why doesn't Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
accuse Peterson of racism?


Which of the following remarks are "racist", which are "opinions", and which are "facts":
a) There is no single "African race" or "Chinese race". Rather, there are a variety of races in Africa and China.
b) The Pygmies are genetically shorter than the other African races.
c) The Dinkas are genetically taller than other African races.
d) The different races of Africans have different levels of pigment in their skin, causing their skin color to range from a light brown to almost black.
e) The different races of humans have slightly different intellectual and emotional characteristics. This results in the different races having different abilities in math, music, language, noticing patterns, handling criticism, and other tasks.
f) During the past 50,000 years, humans have been migrating, interbreeding, and raping one another so often that most of us are a relatively recent mixture of races, so each of us has to be cautious about believing that we are a particular race.
g) Certain African races are dominating the sport of basketball because they are genetically taller, and because there is something genetically superior about their athletic abilities that gives them an advantage in that particular sport.
Many "politically correct" people avoid mentioning the word "race" when talking about Pygmies, Dinkas, Koreans, and other races. Instead, they refer to the different races as different "ethnic groups", "tribal ethnicities", or "social groups".

The advantage to focusing on "ethnic groups" rather than "races" is that it allows the Jews to justify boasting about being the most intelligent people. Specifically, when somebody complains about the Jews boasting about their superiority, the Jews can respond that they are not referring to races or genetics. Rather, they are referring to their Jewish culture that encourages education.
    Accusations of racism are detrimental
The American courts are allowing people to accuse Watson of being a "racist" without providing any explanation of what that accusation means. This causes American culture to degrade because it encourages other people to make unsupported accusations.

To make the situation more ridiculous, I think the Jews are accusing Watson of racism in an attempt to instigate racial fights, not because they disagree with what Watson is saying, or because they are trying to improve life for Africans.

By allowing the Jews to accuse Watson of being a racist, we allow them to ruin our culture, and we also allow them to instigate racial fights, while at the same time allowing them to boast about being the superior race. We also allow the Jews to have a contradictory view on whether they are a race or a religion. They answer that issue differently according to the situation. Allowing this atrocious, hypocritical behavior is degrading the USA, not improving it.

Example: Sexists, bigots, anti-Semites, and Holocaust deniers
As with racism, sexism is a personal opinion, and so are all similar insults, such as bigot, anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, misogynist, homophobe, and asshole. Referring to somebody as a "sexist" or a "Holocaust denier" is as meaningless as referring to him as an "asshole". Furthermore, allowing the police to arrest somebody for "racism", "anti-Semitism", "sexism", or "Holocaust denial" is as idiotic as allowing the police to arrest somebody for being an "asshole".

If the leaders of Google, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the ADL, the SPLC, and other organizations had as much control over the USA as the communist leaders had over Russia, they would be able to do more than fire James Damore and cancel the honorary titles of James Watson. They would be able to arrest us. They would be able to lock us in a prison or a mental hospital.
This greeting is approved by Google
and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
The USA would resemble communist Russia and China, and the US prisons and mental hospitals would resemble those described by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. They would create a nation in which the people are frightened to disagree with the government, and afraid to defend Watson and Damore. We would be in fear of the police and government.

We might even be so intimidated by our Dear Leaders Marilyn Simons and Sergey Brin that we greet our friends in the government approved manner, as in the drawing to the right.

Notice the similarity to Joseph Fritzl?
Fritzl is just one of many people who have been caught abusing children. Fritzl did it to his own children, but some people abuse children that they purchased from criminals, or kidnapped. A recent example is that in January 2019, seven people were arrested for keeping a 16-year-old boy as a sex slave.

To the religious fanatics, the people who are caught with sex slaves are a mysterious type of evil creature that is possessed by the devil. However, if you can understand that they are humans, and that they have the same genetic blueprint that you and I have, then you will realize that their "horrible characteristics" are "human characteristics" that you and I also have. Furthermore, we inherited those characteristics from the animals, so that means the animals have them, also.

Humans and animals have an incredible level of arrogance and selfishness. We want to grab at whatever attracts our attention. We want to be at the top of the hierarchy, and give orders to everybody. We want everybody to be submissive to us. We want to control everything we see. We want to do whatever makes us feel good. If we do not exert any self-control, we will behave like Marquis de Sade.

There may be a few people who are missing portions of their brain, but otherwise we all have the same intellectual and emotional characteristics. The differences between Joseph Fritzl, you, me, and other people is a difference of degree. Some people have the higher levels of arrogance, lower levels of self-control, or higher levels of envy. Our intellectual units also operate slightly differently.

When women see babies, they are titillated, and they want to kiss, touch, and play with the baby. They would steal the baby if they didn't have the self-control to resist the temptation, or if they lacked the intellectual ability to realize that they should not do so.

Likewise, when a man sees an attractive woman, his emotions will be triggered, and he will want to touch and flirt with the woman. If he does not have much self-control, he might grab at the woman. If he becomes frustrated that women are ignoring him, he might become angry enough to kidnap or rape a woman.

“But I have no desire to keep children in a cage!”
You might respond that you have no desire to keep children in a cage, or rape a young boy. However, I'm not saying that there is a gene that causes a person to do such a thing, and that we all have that gene. Rather, I am saying that the behavior that we see in other humans is the result of characteristics that we all have.

If your brain had a set of potentiometers to alter your emotions, we could change your personality. Those potentiometers would allow us to adjust your level of arrogance, self control, cravings for food, cravings for status, and cravings for sex. We could also adjust the levels at which your anger is triggered, and the level at which your hunger emotion becomes active.

By changing your emotional characteristics, we would change your personality, and that would cause you to have a different life. By increasing your craving for food, for example, you would be more likely to become obese. By increasing your temper, you would be more likely to get into fights, and more likely to end up in jail. By increasing your selfishness and reducing your self-control, you would be more willing to commit crimes and manipulate people to get what you want.

Furthermore, if we could also alter the circuitry in your intellectual unit, we could create even more significant changes to your life. For example, by twisting your intellectual abilities a bit, you might regard Adam and Eve as making more sense than evolution, or you might regard astrology as a serious scientific field. Further alterations might cause you to become a Freudian psychologist, an artist, a holist, a Hollywood celebrity, or a Catholic priest.

Joseph Fritzls are everywhere
The people who are caught keeping children as sex slaves are not a different species of humans with different mental qualities. They are just like you and me, but there is a subtle difference in their brains.
Fritlz is a human,
not a monster.
If Joseph Fritzl was the only man to keep children as sex slaves, then we could say that he was some bizarre freak of nature, but there are thousands of these men. They are being produced on a regular basis by the random mixture of human genes. This is proof that these characteristics are in the human gene pool, which in turn is proof that they are also in the animal gene pool.

When you look at the photo of Joseph Fritzl, to the right, you should realize that you are looking at a male human. When you read about his behavior, you are reading about the characteristics that are in the minds of all male humans, and we are also reading about the characteristics that we inherited from the male animals.

I suggest you consider the possibility that those seven people who were arrested for keeping a 16-year-old boy as a sex slave are very similar in their intellectual and emotional qualities to the executives of Google and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, and the communist dictators. What they all have in common is a very strong desire to treat the rest of us as their slaves. They do not want to discuss issues with us. They do not regard us as their friends or team members. We must obey them, and if we do not, they will intimidate us, fire us, arrest us, torment us, lie to us, punish us, or kill us.

Years ago I mentioned here that a tribe about 1000 years ago in central Asia would routinely capture people, blind them, and then use them as slaves. Those people may have a stronger tendency to treat other people as slaves. During the past thousand years some of them have undoubtedly migrated to other areas of the world, and some of their descendants may now be executives at Google and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
If we could measure a person's desire to control other people, we might find that the chart is not as symmetrical as it is to the right, but we would discover that everybody has a desire to dominate other people. Men want to dominate society; women want to dominate their family; and children want to dominate their pets, other children, and sometimes their parents.

It didn't make any difference if the leader of a prehistoric tribe wanted to treat other people as slaves because he didn't have the authority or technology to be abusive. Today, however, people in leadership positions have phenomenal influence over our lives.

Today we need to pass judgment on who among us has appropriate intellectual and emotional qualities for leadership. We have to stop thinking that humans are a wonderful creation of a God. We are monkeys, and we should not allow a person to become influential simply because he has a craving to be at the top of the hierarchy. We should not tolerate abusive leaders, either.

Why are crime investigators so ignorant of pedophilia?
During the past few decades, thousands of people have claimed to be victims of pedophiles who are in influential positions of society. For example, David Shurter claims that Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia was one of the many men who sexually abused him, and that Scalia was killed by a 13-year-old boy that he was raping.

Recently I became aware of some more victims, such as Anneke Lucass, who claims to have been sold by her mother to a pedophile network in Belgium, and that many of the men who abused her were the leaders of Europe. Jessa Crisp also claims to have been abused by an international pedophile network.

In October 2018, another woman, Karly Franz, decided to expose the pedophilia, torture, and murder that her father's side of the family has been involved with. Her father was a Freemason, and some of the men who abused her wore Freemason aprons, so she is trying to encourage other people to help her expose the "horrendous cult called freemasonry". Her videos were removed in March 2019, but a copy of her last video is here, and I put the audio of her testimony here.


Incidentally, if you have not seen my earlier documents, some of the Freemason logos have the subliminal message that Jews are hiding in the background, such as the logo to the right, from a British Freemason group.

I mentioned these logos in Masquerade Party #3. Some of the logos have since been changed to remove the Jewish star, but don't let that fool you into thinking that Jews are no longer hiding in the Freemason groups.

The people in law enforcement and government are supposed to be watching over society, and the "investigative reporters" spend their life investigating issues, so those people ought to know more about the pedophile networks than the ordinary citizens. However, the opposite is true. We know more about the issue than the experts! How is it possible that so many investigative reporters, policemen, government officials, and FBI agents are so ignorant? The only sensible answer is that the "experts" are faking ignorance.

The voters have allowed pedophiles to get so much control over our government and media that the pedophiles can protect themselves from exposure and arrest. This is allowing our culture to be ruined.

Diversity
Should we encourage “diversity”?
Why is there so much starvation, disease, bribery, filth, and crime in Africa, India, China, South America, and other places? Why are Europe, America, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, so much more orderly, clean, and pleasant?

As I have mentioned many times in this document, the answer to such questions depends upon our view of life. If we believe in the religious or clay theories, we will assume that the nations are suffering because of the devil, false religions, bad culture, or some Freudian conflict. Our solution to the problem will be to provide the starving people with food, build schools for the uneducated people, and allow immigrants from those nations to move to our nation.

If, instead, we believe in evolution, then we will assume that the nations that have the most problems are, as a group, genetically inferior people. Therefore, we will not come to the conclusion that the starvation in Africa can be eliminated by providing the hungry people with food, and that the bribery in India cannot be eliminated by providing educational programs for the Indian people. We will instead come to the conclusion that Africa and India need to restrict reproduction to increase the quality of their people.

Furthermore, we will be very cautious about allowing people from those disgusting nations to join our nation because we will not want the genetically inferior people to contaminate our society. Take a serious look at the people who are coming into the USA from India, for example. How many of them are truly improving our nation? And how many are adding to the problems of bribery, crime networks, rape, extortion, deception, and other crimes? How many of the people that we have brought in from South America have truly contributed to this nation and joined our society, and how many are joining crime networks, vandalizing public property, spraying graffiti on our buildings, or collecting welfare?

It is even more important to notice how many of the people that we have brought into this nation are spending a lot of their time whining about "racism", "white privilege", and "discrimination". They wanted to leave their nation because they don't like living with their own people, but instead of being grateful to us, they spend their time hating us, and accusing us of treating them badly. We show them kindness, and they react with anger, hatred, sarcasm, and whining.

Are certain clothing outfits racist?
An example of how cultural diversity causes trouble is that during the past decade, an increasingly large number of Americans have been whining that some outfits that people wear on Halloween and for costume parties are racist, insulting, sexist, disrespectful, anti-Semitic, reprehensible, homophobic, or hateful.

An organization at Ohio University, S.T.A.R.S., created the images below to convince us that certain costumes are causing some people to suffer from almost unbearable anguish, and for their entire life!



In the images below, the people are whining: "You wear a costume for one night. I wear the stigma for life." That remark implies that we have ruined their entire life!
In the images below, the people are whining: "This is not who I am. This is not okay." That remark implies that they are defending themselves from some type of cruel accusation.










At their about page, they boast:
The purpose of S.T.A.R.S. is to facilitate discussion about diversity and all isms (sexism, classism, heterosexism, ethnocentrism etc.) ... We aim to ... promote racial harmony.
However, I would not describe those images as "facilitating discussions" or "promoting racial harmony." They are not encouraging intelligent analyses or discussions, either. Rather, they are trying to make it appear as if white Americans are tormenting the other races. They are trying to make white Americans feel guilty, and they are encouraging everybody else to whine, pout, and hate.

Their remarks do not even make any sense. For example, the natives of North, Central, and South America were not "a culture". Rather, until recenly, there were hundreds of different groups of people living in the Americas, each with a different culture.

Furthermore, the culture of each of those groups changed slightly through the years. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that there was such a thing as a "Native American Culture" or an "Iroquois culture". Rather, it only makes sense to say that the Iroquois had a particular culture at a particular point in their history, and the Mayans had a particular culture at a particular point of their history.

Someone who wears a "Native American costume" is not actually wearing a "Native American costume" because there is no such thing as a Native American costume. The costume might resemble a particular style of clothing that the Aztec, Chumash, or Blackfoot wore at some point in their history, but it is absurd for a person today to claim that the costume belongs to his particular ancestors.

Some people wear costumes that resemble those of the Pilgrims, Vikings, or ancient Romans, but if we could go back in time and visit those people, we would discover that each person had slightly different clothing, and their clothing styles changed slowly through the years. Therefore, if we want to be accurate, instead of saying a particular costume is a Pilgrim costume or a Viking costume, we would have to say that a particular costume merely resembles a style that was worn by certain Pilgrims or certain Vikings at a particular point in their history.

It is people who are insulting, not their clothing
Life can be interpreted in any manner you please. For example, assume an American decides to wear a Japanese outfit for Halloween or a costume party. If the Japanese people do not know why the person chose that particular outfit, they have the option of interpreting it as an insult or as a compliment.

I suspect that almost everybody who chooses Japanese costumes for Halloween and costume parties is doing so because they are attracted to the outfits, not because they hate the Japanese, or want to insult them. If my speculation is accurate, then the Japanese should be proud of themselves for developing clothing styles that many of us find attractive.

Actually, I think that some of the of men's clothing from India, Japan, and China are more attractive than the dark suits and ties that most of the men are wearing today. A few centuries ago the Europeans also had some decorative styles of clothing for men, as I pointed out here.

There are certainly some people who deliberately pick an outfit for Halloween or costume party because they are upset with some person, race, or culture and want to insult that person or group. However, the people that he is trying to insult are not required to become insulted. They have options.

Let's assume that an American man, Joe, chooses a Japanese costume that he hopes will make Japanese people look bad, and his friend George tries to make African people look bad by choosing an African costume and putting black makeup on his face. The Japanese and African people can react to Joe and George in a variety of ways. Here are four of their options:
1) They can whine that they feel insulted by Joe and George. In other words, they can complain that Joe and George are insulting, not the costumes that Joe and George are wearing.

2) They can whine that the costumes that Joe and George are wearing are racist, and that every visually similar costume is also racist. In that case, they do not complain about Joe or George. Rather, they complain about the costumes that Joe and George are wearing.

3) They can ignore Joe and George and spend their time on an activity that is more pleasant than whining.

4) They can investigate why Joe and George are angry, and look for a way to reduce their anger. For example, are Joe and George suffering from some type of mental or physical problem that is causing them to be irritable? Or did somebody do something to annoy them? Or have they made a lot of bad decisions during their life and have become upset as a result? Can changing their diet, lifestyle or medical drugs help them to relax?
If you think that it would be bizarre for somebody to choose option #4, that is the reaction that I have pointed out in other documents as being the only sensible reaction to feminism. Specifically, men should react to the angry women by trying to understand why the women are so upset, rather than ignoring, hating, fighting with, or pandering to the women.

When we encounter problems in life, the best reaction is to analyze the problem and look for solutions. We do not help ourselves when we react with anger, pouting, sarcasm, insults, whining, or tantrums. We also do not help ourselves or other people when we react by giving pity to people, or pandering to them.

Men are emotionally stimulated by women who cry and whine, and we want to rush over and do whatever is necessary to make them feel better. We want to see women smile at us, not cry. This attitude was sensible for prehistoric men because the prehistoric women would whine only for sensible reasons, such as hunger or pain.

Today, however, women are whining for all sorts of complex reasons. For example, some women are whining because they are lonely and bored as a result of living in large, isolated houses in a very unfriendly social environment, and some women are regularly becoming victims of lewd and abusive men. A man cannot solve these problems simply by pandering to the women. These problems require that we analyze our culture, and get together to experiment with changes to our social environment.

Men in our era need to exert some self-control. Instead of rushing to pander to the whiny women, the men should try to understand why the women are whining. If the men would study this issue, they would realize that life has changed dramatically for us, and we need to alter our social environment to make it more pleasant for both men and women.

Likewise, instead of pandering to the people who are whining about racist costumes for Halloween and parties, we should try to understand this issue and develop some sensible policies.

Do costumes have to be accurate?
Some of the people who whine about "racist" costumes are also complaining that the costumes are not precise imitations of "their" clothing. They imply that our inaccuracies are causing them even more emotional torment than if the costumes were more accurate.

This argument is especially absurd. For one reason, there is no precise clothing style for any culture. Rather, each person is wearing a slightly different version of their clothing. Look at a photo of the public of the USA, Iran, Japan, and other nations, and you should notice that each person has slightly different colors, patterns, and styles. Everybody within a culture has clothing that resembles the other people, but they are not wearing identical clothing.

It is especially important to note that prior to the development of machines, clothing was made by hand rather than mass-produced, so the people centuries ago had even more unique styles of clothing. Take a look at the clothing in the paintings for January and May of the Tres Riches Heures calendar. I described some of those paintings here.

Some people dress up as ancient Egyptians, but not even the Egyptian people are sure of what the ancient Egyptian clothing really looked like. Who is harmed if somebody is wearing an inaccurate version of ancient Egyptian clothing? Likewise, what difference does it make if a child is wearing a Halloween costume that is not precise in regards to its imitation of Pilgrims, Vikings, Chinese, Japanese, or Persian clothing?

Some Americans like to dress up as cowboys from the "Wild West", but most of the "knowledge" that we have about cowboys came from Hollywood movies and fiction books. Therefore, we could whine that the people who are dressing up as cowboys are disrespectful to the real cowboys.

We could take this whining to all sorts of extremes. For example, if a person dresses like an alien from another planet, or a ghost, is he racist or disrespectful to aliens or ghosts?


If butterflies and bears behaved like the people who whine about Halloween costumes, then the animals would whine that the costumes in the photos to the right are racist and disrespectful.

The animals would also whine that those costumes are not accurate.

The animals would whine:
"We are animals, not a costume!"

and:
"She wears a costume for one night. We wear the stigma for life."





This business in Prague offers medieval dinners. Some photos show people wearing medieval clothing at a table with a roasted pig.

Jews and Muslims could whine that the pig is an insult to their culture, and that they feel discriminated against, insulted, and ignored.

If liberals demanded that the business have a "culturally neutral" meal in order to be more "inclusive" with, and more "tolerant" of, other cultures, would you agree with them?




The photo to the right shows the athlete Usain Bolt and his friend at Oktoberfest in Germany, and they are wearing one of the clothing styles of the Bavarian people. Are they racists for wearing that clothing?

Furthermore, note that he is wearing modern athletic shoes, rather than the shoes that the German people would have worn. Is that disrespectful of the German people? (Click here for more and larger images.)

What would you think if the German people were crying:
"We are Bavarians, not a costume!"
and:
"They wear a costume for one night. We wear the stigma for life."




The people who are whining about racist costumes are not providing us with any understanding of clothing styles, racism, costume parties, Halloween celebrations, or other issues. They are not encouraging discussions, either. Rather, they are behaving like a bratty child who is having a temper tantrum. They are whining, pouting, hating, and accusing.

Women have strong cravings to take care of children, so when they encounter a person who is whining about Halloween costumes, their emotions are titillated, and that causes them to rush over to help the person. Men, by comparison, have strong cravings to be heroes who protect people from harm, so when a man encounters a person who is whining about a Halloween costume, he will want to put on his superhero outfit and protect the person from the dangerous racists, Nazis, white supremacists, and anti-Semites.
“You will disrespect my ancestors if you put a telescope on that volcano! You will cause me unbelievable pain and suffering! You are a bad person. You should feel guilty!”
Unfortunately, our emotional cravings are not well suited to this modern, complex world. We are not helping society when we give pity to people who whine about costumes. We are not protecting anybody from racism or white supremacy when we prohibit the costumes, either. Rather, we are encouraging people to whine.

It makes sense for us to discuss the benefits and disadvantages of our holiday celebrations, clothing styles, recreational activities, and other culture, and to experiment with changes in order to improve our culture. For example, as I mentioned here, I think Halloween, Christmas, Easter, and other holidays are becoming increasingly idiotic, and we should experiment with changes to make them more relaxing, pleasant, and beneficial.

The people of S.T.A.R.S. claim to "facilitate discussion" and "promote racial harmony", but I would say that they are encouraging pouting, whining, hatred, and racial fights. They are also trying to make "white" Americans feel guilty by trying to convince us that we are causing other groups of people to suffer from a lifetime of "stigma".

The people in influential positions of schools, businesses, governments, and other organizations, should be restricted to people who have demonstrated an ability to provide us with intelligent analyses of life, and who encourage productive behavior and beneficial attitudes.

Unfortunately, the people who rise to the top leadership positions of democracies and free enterprise systems will always be people who excel at pandering to, exploiting, and deceiving the public. We need to experiment with better methods of selecting people for leadership positions.

Chopsticks are primitive and clumsy
The Asian nations have been dominated by "conservatives" to such an extent that they are still using the primitive eating utensils of their prehistoric ancestors. The Asians who were born and raised in Europe or America, and who were raised with forks, knives, and spoons, rarely show a desire to abandon modern utensils and switch to chopsticks. The reason is the same as why the people who learn the metric system rarely want to switch to the Imperial system; namely, we want to improve our lives, not go backwards to a more primitive existence.

Chopsticks are crude, not an improvement over forks, spoons, and knives. However, as long as the Asian nations are dominated by conservatives, they are going to continue following their ancestors, just like a group of stupid sheep. The Asians need to put people in their top leadership positions who are more adventurous, and who are capable of looking critically at their culture.


In November 2018, an Italian company, Dolce & Gabbana, created a video advertisement that showed a Chinese woman trying to use chopsticks to eat pizza, cannoli, and spaghetti. Some Chinese people complained that the advertisement was racist.

If that advertisement is racist, then what about the Chinese woman who participated in making it? Is she a traitor to the Chinese people? Should she be arrested or punished?

If we discover that the advertisement was conceived by a Taiwanese or Korean person, should the Chinese people whine that they are being insulted by Taiwan or Korea?




Or what if the advertisement was conceived by a Chinese man who lives in China, but who doesn't like chopsticks and wants China to modernize? Who do the Chinese whine about in that case?

My personal suspicion is that Jews were secretly involved with either creating the advertisement, or instigating anger in China towards it. The reason I suspect this is because the Jews are regularly trying to instigate racial fights here in the USA and Europe. For example, as I described in this document, I think the Jews were involved with the "racist" Obama material, such as the Obama waffles.



The people who whine about Halloween costumes do not put any effort into thinking about the issue. They simply whine. Likewise, the Chinese people who reacted to that advertisement by whining did not bother to think about it. They didn't investigate who created it, or why it was created. They didn't spend any time discussing the issue of whether it makes sense for them to whine about racism, or whether it would make more sense for them to find something better to do with their time and regard the advertisement as just another of the thousands of silly and idiotic attempts by businesses to attract customers.

If it turns out that Jews were secretly involved with creating or using that advertisement to make the Chinese angry, then the Chinese who whined about racism were victims of that trick. In such a case, they should try to learn from their mistake. Specifically, they should learn to exert enough self-control to think about issues rather than react with hatred, whining, pouting, and anger.

We don't solve problems with whining. We solve problems when we research problems, discuss issues, and experiment with solutions.

Incidentally, I do not consider that video advertisement to be embarrassing or insulting to the people who use chopsticks. Instead, I think that some of the photos and video that the Chinese people have taken of themselves is actually more embarrassing. For example, I think the photo of the Chinese men (below, right) is embarrassing, and so are some of the photos that I put here. Of course, Mark Cuban found a way to eat with a fork (or is it a spoon?) that is even more embarrassing.


I think these type of photos are more embarrassing than the woman eating pizza with chopsticks.

And these are the natural eating habits of the Chinese people, and Mark Cuban, rather than staged photos to make them look bad.


Animals eat by sticking their face into their food, not humans. When I was a child, I did not care how a person ate his food, but as an adult, I think it is more pleasant to eat around people who are bringing the food to their mouth, rather than eating like an animal and making slurping noises.

I think chopsticks are crude and inferior eating utensils, and I think the Asian people should advance beyond it. Am I racist for describing chopsticks as "crude and inferior"? Am I insulting the people who use chopsticks? No, and the reason is because I provided an explanation for why I think they should switch to forks, knives, and spoons. I am telling them my opinion. If they want to interpret my opinion as an insult and waste the next 10 years of their life crying and hating, that is their choice, and they have to take responsibility for their choice to waste their life. I am not going to feel guilty if somebody interprets my remarks as an insult because I am not insulting anybody.

I think that the Americans who refuse to switch to the metric system are causing trouble for our nation. Does my criticism of the American people make me racist, anti-American, reprehensible, disrespectful, or insulting? No, and the reason is because I have provided some explanations in my documents as to why we should switch to the metric system, and why we are hurting ourselves by resisting it. I am expressing my opinion when I say the American people are fools for not switching. I am not insulting the American people.

I am also disgusted with the American people who try to prevent Europeans from eating horses, and who try to stop Asians from eating dogs. My opinion is that we should let people eat what they want. Does this make me anti-American, anti-vegetarian, or anti-dog? Or am I spreading hatred of animals? No, and the reason is because I have provided an explanation for why we shouldn't try to control what other people eat.

The liberals are constantly boasting about how they believe in freedom of speech and diversity, but if they practiced what they preached, then they would defend our right to criticize chopsticks, criticize Americans for trying to stop Koreans from eating dogs, and criticize the vegetarians who whine about people who eat meat.

In order to improve our culture, we must provide people with the freedom to criticize culture, and to offer suggestions for improvements. If we allow people to accuse us of being "racists" when we criticize culture, we are going to inhibit discussions of culture, which will inhibit progress.

All culture is crude and primitive
If a person provides an intelligent explanation for his criticism of culture, then he could be described as providing an analysis or a suggestion rather than a "racist insult".

The only way to improve a material item is to analyze it, look for features that could be described as flaws, limitations, and confusing aspects, and then experiment with improvements. Since no material item is "perfect", we can provide a critical analysis of every material item. If we were to closely analyze a refrigerator, airplane, computer, or telephone, we could find qualities about it that we could describe as confusing, difficult to use, difficult to maintain, unnecessary, or difficult to recycle.

If a person merely whines about a product and refers to the engineers as idiots, chinks, or niggers, then he could be described as having a tantrum, behaving in a disgusting manner, and insulting the engineers. However, if he provides a sensible explanation for his criticism, then he is providing an analysis of the item rather than insulting the engineers.

That same concept applies to social technology. It makes no sense for anybody to claim their culture is perfect. Therefore, we can provide a critical analysis of all culture. No matter how we design a school system, economic system, social affair, recreational activity, or birthday party, we can find aspects of it that we could describe as confusing, irritating, unnecessary, wasteful, or stupid.

It is not racist, anti-American, or anti-Chinese to analyze our culture and explain which aspects we regard to be crude, irritating, confusing, detrimental, or idiotic. A person who reacts to an intelligent analysis of his culture by whining, hating, or pouting should be told to shut up. If we appease those people, we encourage more whining and hating.

There is no dividing line between constructive criticism and insults, but don't let that complexity bother you. Instead, try to pass judgment on when a person is providing his opinion, and when he is behaving in an insulting manner.


It is easy to create new cities
We are not ignorant, nomadic tribesmen
The first nomadic tribe to settle into a permanent village had no idea of the problems they would encounter, such as with sewage, garbage disposal, pets, overcrowding, and flooding. However, the human race has had thousands of years of experience with cities, and militaries have had a lot of experience with people living on cramped ships and submarines, which are similar to small cities.

We have acquired a lot of information about how to design cities. We don't know everything there is to know, but we know enough to create some completely new cities, and experiment with new culture.

There is nothing to fear!
The image below is part of a plan for a new neighborhood in China. The Chinese have the courage to create some new neighborhoods. Why not go further and find the courage to create an entire city?
(I cannot get to the site of company that created the image below, so if you click the image it will search images from the company.)