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

Concepts of a New Culture

12) Humans need higher-quality minds

26 April 2024


Our culture is limited by our mind

Each of us has a limit on our math and science abilities

Our arrogance causes us to believe that we have unlimited intelligence, but each of us has an "intellectual limit" on what we are capable of understanding. If aliens from another solar system were to come to the earth and teach us their math and science, it is possible that no human would be able to understand some of their most advanced concepts.



Their scientific information would be useful only to the people who have:


1)
The intelligence to understand the information.

The human mind may not have evolved to the point at which it is capable of understanding the most advanced math and science. The adults in 4000 BC could understand all of the scientific knowledge that they had accumulated at that time, but today the majority of people cannot understand our most advanced knowledge of chemistry, physics, and math. If an alien were to provide us with their scientific knowledge, we might discover that no human can fully understand all of it.

For example, it is possible that the human mind does not yet have the ability to understand why radioactive items have half-lives instead of decaying in a more "sensible" manner, such as the way a hot object loses heat. Or perhaps none of us are capable of understanding the physics involved with the movement of solar systems in the galaxy.





2)

The emotional desire to learn and do something with the information.

A person who has the intelligence necessary to understand chemistry, microprocessors, or lasers will not do anything useful with the information if he has no interest in learning the information, or doing something with it. If he is more interested in reading comic books, playing soccer, having sex, getting drunk, or gambling, we will never realize that he has the talent to be a productive scientist, engineer, or technician.

If aliens from another solar system were to put documents and videos on the Internet to explain their technology, that information would be useless to the people who don't want to learn about it, or who don't want to do anything with it. There is already a lot of valuable information on the Internet and in school books, but most people refuse to look at it.

This concept applies to all animals, not just humans. It is possible that some apes, dolphins, and octopuses have enough intelligence to use a simple language or do arithmetic, but they lack a desire to learn it and/or a desire to use it.

Humans have such a resistance to learning and thinking that most people will learn and think only when they are in school and pressured to do so, and when they get out of school, they don't learn much of anything or put much effort into thinking. We inherited that resistance from the animals, so we can be certain that none of the animals are reaching their intellectual potential.

Some people have used food to entice animals into learning and thinking, but if animals had a desire to learn and think, we would certainly discover that they can do a lot more intellectual tasks than they are doing right now.

Animals prefer to entertain themselves, and they exert effort only when they are under pressure to do so, such as when they are hungry or frightened. For example, this raccoon figured out how to use a piece of wood to get out of a garbage container because it was frightened, but if raccoons had a desire to think and experiment with new ideas, we would discover that they can solve problems that are more complex than that.

It is unlikely that any human or other animal is achieving the maximum intellectual potential that his mind is capable of because we have a resistance to learning, thinking, looking critically at ourselves, and experimenting with new ideas. Animals think and work only when they have to, and they stop thinking and working as soon as possible. When animals have leisure time, they tend to take a nap rather than do something useful.



Each of our minds is at a different level of evolution, with most people at perhaps 5000 BC.
As apes evolved into humans, we developed more curiosity and a greater desire to do something useful with our leisure time, but each of us has a mind that could be described as being at a different level of evolution.

All of us are a haphazard mixture of primitive and advanced mental characteristics, and the people with the most primitive characteristics will behave in a manner that is more similar to that of an ape.

The primitive characteristics can cause a person to have less of a desire and ability to learn, think, look critically at himself, or explore new ideas. They can also cause high levels of arrogance, a greater fear of the unknown, low levels of self-control, or a greater interest in competing for status, following traditions, reproducing, and eating.

Each of us has a limit on our cultural abilities

These concepts apply to culture, also. Culture is "information", just like our knowledge about chemistry and electronics is information. If an alien were to teach us about human behavior, animal behavior, and culture, the majority of people would not be able to understand the information, or they would refuse to believe it.

The majority of people cannot understand, or refuse to believe, that humans are a species of ape, and that our genetic characteristics determine our behavior, so they would insult an alien who provided us with an intelligent analysis of our behavior and culture. The religious people would tell the alien that he needs to read the Bible, Koran, or other religious document, and the social scientists would tell the alien that humans are different from the animals because that our mind is like a piece of clay that molds itself to the environment.

As with math, chemistry, and other sciences, culture is useful only to the people who have:


1)
The intelligence to understand the information.

Each of us has a different intellectual limit on how advanced our culture can be. For example, two-year-old children, mentally retarded humans, and senile elderly people are incapable of arranging for such simple cultural activities as having a birthday party, a music concert, and a dinner with friends.

The majority of adults are capable of arranging and participating in those simple activities, but they cannot handle the more complex culture, such as voting, which is why all of the governments of the world are so incompetent and corrupt.

Expecting the majority of people to use a voting system properly is as idiotic as expecting a two-year-old child to arrange a birthday party for himself. A young child cannot understand the concept of a "birthday" or a "party", and most adults have trouble understanding the concepts of voting. For example, most adults
cannot understand that the concept of "voting for the lesser of the evils" is an idiotic policy that voters should never follow.

The free enterprise system was so simplistic up to about a thousand years ago that the majority of adults had no trouble understanding how it worked, and they could use it effectively, but today our economy is so large and complex that none of us is capable of using it properly. We have trouble understanding such concepts as inflation, and our economy is too large and complicated for us to do what we are supposed to do, which is drive out the incompetent, dishonest, and worthless businesses and products. Many people cannot even understand the concept that the credit card companies are abusing us by taking a percentage of our transactions rather than a fee that is based on the amount of work they do.

If an alien from another planet were to provide us with an advanced economic system, school system, government system, and other culture, that culture would be useless to the people who could not understand it. We might discover that there are some aspects of that culture that none of us have the ability to fully understand.

All human languages are chaotic jumbles of monkey noises, and we often use adjectives incorrectly simply to express emotions, like a dog that is barking. If we were to encounter aliens that are millions of years more advanced than us, we might discover that we have trouble understanding how to use their language properly.

A young child cannot understand how to use our language properly, so how can we be certain that every adult develops the intelligence necessary to understand the advanced language of an alien?

Furthermore, advanced aliens may have aspects to their language that we cannot imagine. One possibility that we can imagine is that they might have a variation of the concept of a language that has formal and informal versions of a word.

They may have a set of words that are short and simple to pronounce to make it easy and quick to discuss complex concepts, and they may have another set of "playful" words that are for socializing, and are more difficult to pronounce and contain more syllables. When the boys and girls are flirting with each other, they would use the more playful words, simillar to a person who speaks English using some of the more entertaining words of the French language.





2)

The emotional desire to learn and do something with the information.

Most adults can understand some of our culture, but many people do not have the emotional desire to use it properly. For example, most men can understand our cultural rules about how to treat women and children, but some of them don't have the emotional desire to obey the rules, resulting in them grabbing at women on crowded trains, or raping women or children, or purchasing children as sex slaves.

This concept is extremely significant. We cannot expect an organization to be pleasant when a lot of the members have no desire to learn and follow their culture.

An organization can function properly if the majority of its members have no interest in learning about or using chemistry, math, or physics because only a small number of its members need to understand physical technology in order for the entire group to benefit from it. For example, only one member of a organization needs to learn about and install electric wiring in a building for everybody in the building to benefit from electricity.

However, culture is "social" technology, and that requires the majority of people to learn, understand, and use it. For example, every society has created laws to prohibit certain types of behavior, but there are lots of citizens, police officers, government officials, journalists, doctors, professors, and other people who have no interest in learning about or following the laws. They become criminals or corrupt officials as a result of their decisions to ignore the laws.

In order for culture to be useful, everybody must learn about it and use it properly. If even a small minority of the members ignore it, the entire organization will suffer.

Every nation, and many other organizations, are suffering from crime, inefficiency, and arguments among their members because there are so many people who disregard their culture and do what they want to do, just like an animal. There are business executives, FBI officials, lawyers, church officials, college professors, and journalists ignoring our culture and exploiting, abusing, deceiving, raping, and cheating us. All of those people have the intelligence to understand our culture, but they don't have the emotional desire to follow it.

We don't need everybody to understand chemistry, calculus, or microprocessors, but in order for an organization to function properly, every member must understand its culture, and be willing to use it properly.

Most people are emotionally too primitive for our era

Our world has become dominated by an international network of Khazars, or whatever they are, but not because the majority of people lack the intelligence to stop this network. Rather, it is because most people are so emotionally similar to a monkey that they refuse to deal with crime and corruption.

All of the modern nations provide their citizens with the cultural tools necessary to stop corruption, such as a voting system that allows them to replace the incompetent and corrupt leaders, and a legal system that allows them to arrest criminals, but most people do not have the emotional desire to use their cultural tools to stop it.

Most people are choosing to ignore the problems of the world and spend their time like an animal; specifically, titillating themselves with food, sex, babies, status, and material items.

For example, most people have heard the accusations that we were lied to about the 9/11 attack, but they are refusing to look at the evidence. Some people have looked at the evidence, realized that it is accurate, but then chose to ignore it. By not doing anything to stop crime and corruption, the apathetic people are allowing the crime networks to grow largers and get more control over our world and our future. They are allowing themselves to be abused simply because they don't have the emotional desire to deal with such problems.

Most people would be wonderful members of society in 5000 BC, but they cannot handle our complex, modern era. Most people have such a primitive mind that they cannot understand, or refuse to believe, that humans are a species of ape. As a result, they prefer unrealistic, fantasy culture, such as praying when they have a problem, or rehabilitating criminals with punishments or therapy.

The “4th-placers” must be suppressed

The differences between the most talented people is trivial.
The differences in our mental and physical characteristics is so small that it is difficult for us to say who is better at certain tasks.

This is most noticeable in certain athletic events, such as running, in which the difference between the athletes is so small that an athlete can sometimes win a race by diving over the finish line, as Shaunae Miller did in the photo to the right.

If we could measure our mental and physical characteristics, we would create a bell graph in which a tiny percentage of people are at the "most talented" section, and a larger percentage is in the "extremely talented" section. The people in the "extremely talented" section will be referred to as the "4th-placers" because they tend to be ignored in both athletic and intellectual events. We tend to recognize only the top three winners of a contest.

The 4th-placers are very talented,
but they are not the best.

The 4th-placers are talented people who should enjoy their talent, do something beneficial with it, and inspire other people. Unfortunately, animals have intense cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy, and that can cause those 4th-placers to be bitter, angry, or envious that they are not at the top.

No matter how much struggling we do, most of us will never get to the top of any mental or physical activity. Most people will be "ordinary" in most characteristics. A person is lucky if he can be the best at just one physical or mental activity. Therefore, a person who is the best at one activity must be able to accept the fact that there are lots of people who are more talented in other activities, and he must be able to accept a lower position in the hierarchy for all of those other activities.

A person who cannot calmly accept a lower position in the hierarchy, and who reacts with anger, pouting, crying, or envy, is a bad influence on our social environment. Even worse are the people who react by sabotaging, blackmailing, or murdering their competitors, or by joining crime networks, or by cheating in some other manner.

People today must be able to determine their particular talents and limitations, acknowledge the people who have superior talents, accept their position in the hierarchy, and maintain a good attitude. Unfortunately, it is impossible for us to determine who has the most talent in analyzing human behavior and cultural issues.

It is easy for a person to realize that he is not the the fastest in a 400 meter foot race because even stupid people can determine the winner with their eyes, but it is impossible for us to determine who is producing the most intelligent policies for abortion, religion, marijuana, crime, marriage, raising children, and other social issues.

As a result, virtually everybody who is above-average intelligence, and a lot of the ordinary people, are 100% certain that they have the most intelligent opinions about who should be elected president, whether we should bomb Iran, and whether men and women are unisex creatures. They are certain that they are super geniuses.

To make the situation worse, many people are so convinced of their superiority that they try to force us to accept their brilliant opinions, such as by participating in angry protests; by insulting us for having opinions that are sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, or hateful; and by censoring, suppressing, or firing us for having a different opinion.

Even worse are the people who join crime networks to force their policies on the nation or the world through bribery, false flag operations, deception, lies, blackmail, and murder.

It is unusual for an athlete to react to losing a competition by sabotaging or murdering his competitors, but that type of behavior is common among people who are competing to control our future. All throughout history we find people fighting, blackmailing, bribing, insulting, intimidating, and murdering one another over who has the correct beliefs about religon, abortion, marijuana, crime, raising children, and other social issues.

It is easy for an athlete to realize that he lost a contest because other athletes were more talented, but it is difficult for a person to understand why other people are ignoring his brilliant opinions.

When an animal is irritated by an animal that is lower in the hierarchy, he tends to react with anger, and humans inherited that behavior. The people who believe that they are superior to the rest of us can react with anger when we ignore what they say or disagree with them.

The arrogance and fighting became more serious when universities developed and gave diplomas to people in religion, philosophy, psychology, and other cultural issues. The graduates of those courses became convinced that they were educated geniuses who know more about human behavior and culture than everybody else.

If colleges were providing students with useful information about humans and culture, and if the colleges were giving diplomas only to the students who truly excelled at providing us with intelligent analyses of those issues, then the graduates of social science could justify their arrogance. However, all of the social sciences are a farce. They are as worthless as the courses in religion, voodoo, Ouija boards, palm reading, and astrology.

The people who graduate from those courses are above-average in intelligence, but their analyses of human life and culture are almost always worthless because there are millions of people who are better at science than they are.


Schools should make the 4th-placers learn a useful skill rather than fool them into believing they are world leaders on social issues.
The people who graduate from the social science courses are above-average in intelligence, and they could be doing some useful work with their intelligence, but they waste their life trying to be experts on social issues.

Their analyses of humans and culture are above-average in intelligence, but they are worthless compared to the millions of people who are more intelligent than they are.

They don't even have enough intelligence to realize that "social science" should be a branch of zoology because it is the study of a species of ape.

They are the 4th-placers in the science competitions. They will never be among the winners. Unfortunately, the colleges are encouraging them to believe that they are highly educated, super geniuses. The colleges are encouraging their arrogance, rather than encouraging them to get a useful skill and do something productive for society.

They are wasting their life and causing trouble for us by trying to be world leaders because their theories about human behavior and culture are constantly failing. They don't even have enough intelligence to realize that they don't have valid supporting evidence for their theory that men and women are unisex creatures.

Now that the AI software is becoming useful, many of them are promoting fear of that software. Some of them worry about "invasions of privacy", and others are upset that it is providing support to the theory that our sexual preferences and personality are based on genetic characteristics rather than the environment.

Those 4th-placers are dirt in the transmission. They are not providing us with intelligent analyses of AI software, privacy, or other issues. Rather, they are providing us with fear, hysteria, and stupid opinions.

We must not let them intimidate or frighten us, and we must be especially concerned about them conspiring with one another to manipulate us through deception, blackmail, murder, censorship, and other crimes. They need to be forced to get a job that they can do properly.

Example: Michal Kosinski and Alexander Todorov

In 2017, the social scientists Michal Kosinski and Yilun Wang discovered that AI software could usually determine whether a person was homosexual or heterosexual based on an analysis of their face. This implied that there was something genetically different between homosexuals and heterosexuals.


Instead of being excited to discover new information about humans, some people became frightened of the AI software.
Instead of being excited to discover this information, many social scientists, homosexuals, religious fanatics, and other anti-genetic people, became frightened of AI software, including the two men who discovered this.

Kosinski said that he performed these experiments in order to convince us that AI software is dangerous.

He did not do it to help us understand human genetics or behavior. Rather, he said that he deliberately used "the lamest algorithm" possible, and a "small sample" of low resolution data in order to show us how easy it is for the software to provide an accurate guess of our sexual preferences.

Three other social scientists criticized Kosinski's claim that the AI software was determining sexual preferences by facial features alone because they insisted that the AI software was also analyzing "differences in culture", and they suggested six of those cultural differences are:
  1. Makeup
  2. Eyeshadow
  3. Facial hair
  4. Glasses
  5. Selfie angle
  6. Amount of sun exposure
They suggested that the software was "exposing stereotypes", not determining sexual preferences. However, if the AI software is analyzing makeup, eyeshadow, facial hair, and other aspects of a person, then it is analyzing their genetic characteristics also.

Although each of us picks up clothing styles, hairstyles, and other culture from our environment, the concept that the social scientists have trouble understanding is that we are not picking up culture at random. We pick up culture according to our genetic characteristics.

For example, if both you and I had grown up in ancient Rome, both of us would have picked up the clothing styles of the ancient Romans, and their hairstyles, food recipes, recreational activities, and other aspects of their culture. However, each of us would have picked up slightly different Roman culture.

You would have picked up a particular hairstyle that some of the Romans had, but I might have picked up a slightly different hairstyle. Likewise, you would have chosen to get involved with a particular Roman recreational activity, but I might have chosen a slightly different activity.

Every society has a particular set of customs, but the children do not pick up customs at random. We pick up customs according to our particular genetic desires and fears.

Since our personality is genetic, we cannot make somebody want a particular custom. Many parents have tried and failed to make their children choose a certain hairstyle, clothing style, recreational activity, or job.

When a child grows up, he is presented with a smorgasbord of possible friends and culture. Each society has a different smorgasbord. Within each society each child chooses certain friends and customs. The choices we make depend upon our genetic characteristics.

There are times when we choose what somebody else does simply because we don't have a preference for any of the option. For example, our emotions may not care whether our home has carpet, wood, tile, linoleum, or something else on the floor. Therefore, we might make decisions about the flooring based on what our friends are doing, or what happens to be on sale at the local retail store. And we might change our mind years later.

Our emotions don't care whether we are living among bluebirds, sparrows, owls, or hawks. Therefore, we do not find people moving from one neighborhood to another in order to be around certain types of birds.

However, we do find people moving from one neighborhood to another according to the people in the neighborhood. We are comfortable around some people, but irritated or frightened by other people.

All of us want to be a member of a group, but we are not choosing friends at random. Each of us is attracted to a slightly different group of people. Therefore, if you and I had grown up in ancient Rome, you would have chosen certain Romans to be your friends, and I would have chosen certain Romans to be my friends, but we may not have chosen the same friends even if we had grown up in the same house and knew the same people.

To make the issue more complex, the three social scientists who claim that the AI software was exposing "stereotypes" were presenting a theory that makes no sense. As I pointed out in this previous document, stereotype is just a pattern that we have noticed.

When we look at a person, we analyze and pass judgment on everything we see. We pass judgment on their makeup, eyeshadow, facial hair, hairstyle, the angle at which they hold their head, their eyeglasses or sunglasses, whether they wear their sunglasses inside buildings, the way they move their arms and hands when they speak, the volume and tone of their voice, the spray of saliva from their mouth, the blinking of their eyes, their yawning, coughing, and sneezing, the mucus in their nose, their jewelry, facial piercings, tongue piercings, and tattoos, and all sorts of other aspects of their posture and movements.

By analyzing people like this, we develop stereotypes, such as criminals tend to have certain types of tattoos, and that shy people tend to have certain mannerisms, and that idiots tend to speak in certain manners and use certain expressions. These patterns are referred to as "stereotypes", and there is nothing wrong with us noticing such patterns, or using them to make a guess about a person that we have just met.

Since each of us has different intellectual abilities and mental disorders, we notice different patterns, and some people do a better job of identifying patterns. However, nobody is perfect, so all of us will occasionally make mistakes in our assumption of what another person is like.

The people who don't fit one of our patterns might whine that we are "judging a book by its cover," or that we are being cruel for "having stereotypes", but there is nothing wrong with us in noticing patterns in people, and assuming a person is going to be similar to other people who behave or look like him.

For example, a black doctor in London complained that people were afraid of him when they saw him wearing a hoodie in public. However, people are not cruel when they are afraid of black men who wear hoodies in public. Rather, those people are intelligent enough and observant enough to notice the pattern that many of the black men who wear hoodies in public are dangerous.

Many people have also noticed that certain tattoos are popular among crime gangs, and that has resulted in the expression "gang tattoo". If a person were to put one of those gang tattoos on his body, many of the people who were familiar with that tattoo would assume that he is one of the gang members. We should not allow such a person to intimidate us with accusations that we are cruel for judging a book by its cover.

We have no obligation to disregard the patterns that we have noticed. By noticing patterns, we can make better decisions about what to do and who to trust. We will sometimes make mistakes, but it is better than not noticing patterns.

Some of the people who work at jails have noticed that there are certain tattoos that prisoners are putting on themselves, and this document warns employees of prisons to watch for those tattoos.

Furthermore, certain symbols supposedly represent pedophiles, and the people who display those symbols are likely to be regarded as pedophiles. We would be fools to be intimidated by their accusations that we are mistaken, such as this document from Reuters Fact Check that claims that the symbols on the Huggies diapers are not pedophile symbols.

Stereotypes are valuable information

The authors who complained that the AI software was exposing stereotypes don't understand what a stereotype is. Knowledge is the understanding of what is similar and what is different, and how things interact. It is a collection of patterns, or stereotypes. Therefore, the AI software is doing what is supposed to do when it recognizes patterns in our hairstyles, facial expressions, body posture, and suntan levels.

All of the aspects of our visual appearance and behavior are an indication of our genetic characteristics. Therefore, in order for a computer to truly understand humans, it must look at all of those aspects, not just the shape of our face.

In 2024 Kosinski, Wang, and Poruz Khambatta showed that AI software was also able to accurately guess whether a person is liberal or conservative by analyzing their face. This created more panic among the authors and other people who oppose genetics.

The social scientists are trying to create fear of AI software, and trying to justify secrecy and deception, but they have no evidence that AI software is dangerous. Their explanation for why we should be afraid of the software is idiotic. One of the stupidest remarks in their 2017 research document is:
Just as humans can, facial recognition algorithms can also predict individuals’ emotions, age, gender, and ethnicity.

They admit that people can make accurate guesses about a person's age, ethnicity, and emotions, and we are not suffering from people doing it, so how will we suffer when computers do it?

The social scientists are the 4th-placers who are above-average in intelligence, and could be doing something useful with their intelligence, but they won't accept the evidence that they are incompetent as scientists.

They are wasting their time and causing trouble for all of us by promoting stupid theories, and by creating fear of beneficial technology. They inhibit progress, and they cause trouble by encouraging secrecy, paranoia, and deception.

Furthermore, they are expensive parasites because they don't contribute anything of value but they demand large amounts of material wealth.

Reading their documents as a waste of our time, and responding to their arguments is a waste of our time. No matter what we say to them, they will have a response that is stupid. Discussing culture and human behavior with them is as much of a waste of our time as discussing evolution with the Pope. We could waste our entire lives arguing with them.

Many social scientists promote the unisex theory, and they don't realize that some of them are hypocrites when they promote the theory that we will have better leadership when we elect women to the government. If men and women are identical, then what difference does it make whether our government officials are men or women?

The existing school systems encourage the arrogance of the students who do the best in school, and torment the students who are the worst. This encourages bad attitudes and behavior among both the excellent students and the worst students.

This constitution requires Schools Ministry to have a significantly different attitude towards education. The schools must experiment with methods of providing children with a useful education without encouraging the arrogance of the students who are the most intelligent, and without ruining the self-esteem of the worst students.

The details are in other documents, such as the children, education, and Teentown documents.

The free enterprise systems and the democracies allow the 4th-placers to do whatever they want with their life, rather than pressure them to do something beneficial to society. As a result, many of them choose to get involved with an activity that makes them feel as if they are important super-geniuses who deserve to determine the future of the human race.

Some of them create charities or think tanks, and others become government officials, or consultants to the government. Some become psychologists who claim to be experts on women's rights, homosexuality, or mental illness. All of them are parasites because they demand a large amount of resources but giving us nothing of value in return.

This constitution changes the situation dramatically by putting the ministers in control of all businesses and social organizations. Everybody must get a job in one of the organizations that the ministers have authorized, and all of the organizations must be doing something beneficial to society.

The 4th-placers will have to take one of the jobs that have been authorized. This ensures that they do something useful with their talent rather than cause trouble for us by produce idiotic documents.

Humans must become more compatible

We cannot prove whose emotions or intelligence is superior

We are so arrogant that almost every adult believes that he is the most intelligent and educated person, and that everybody else is ignorant or stupid. This causes endless arguments over which religion is correct, whether abortion should be legal, whether we should be vegans, whether Donald Trump should be president, and whether men and women are unisex creatures.

How do we determine who among us has the superior intellectual and emotional characteristics? Unfortunately, we do not have the knowledge or ability to determine what our mental characteristics are, or how one person's mind compares to another.

In order for us to create better culture, we have to resolve our differences on what is "better" culture. For two examples:

1) How should we design a city?

What type of city would we enjoy the most? Should we create cities like Neom, Belmont, or Innovation Park? Should we put the transportation system underground, or should it be trains that are elevated above the land? Or should we provide people with flying automobiles? Or should we create cities that float in the ocean, such as Dogen City?

I think that we are designing cities that are inappropriate and unpleasant for human emotions because I think humans are a species of ape that evolved to live on the land, and in close contact with nature.

This is why I suggest that we design a city that consists of clusters of tall buildings that are surrounded by nature, and with the transportation system underground, as in the image below, and as described here.

I also think that we would have a much more satisfying life if we created every neighborhood with different architecture, different vegetation, and different plazas, foot paths, bicycle paths, rolling hills, rocks, creeks, and swimming areas.


2) Should we be afraid of crime?

There would not have been any significant crime in the small, prehistoric, nomadic tribes, but when people settled into cities, it became easier to get away with crimes, and the people had more possible types of crimes to commit.

Today we have a wide variety of different crimes to choose from, and many people are taking advantage of them. This has caused virtually every person and organization to be fearful of becoming a victim of crime, and most parents worry about their children becoming victims of kidnappers or pedophiles.

There are so many children, women, and elderly people being raped that some schools and businesses are providing training courses to help children and adults learn how to defend themselves from rapists. Our social environment has become so dangerous for children that many parents try to keep their children inside their home rather than let them play outside with other children.

Adults are supposed to protect children, and men are supposed to protect women, but the human race has been degrading during the past few thousand years. Today the children cannot trust adults, the women cannot trust men, and nobody can trust our government officials, police officers, judges, lawyers, professors, teachers, military leaders, or neighbors.

Instead of protecting children from criminals, the American culture has such a strong "Feel Sorry for The Underdog" attitude that everybody is required to tolerate the badly behaved teenagers and children. This allows those children to torment teachers, police officers, their neighbors, and everybody else. An example I mentioned years ago here is that the adults were afraid to deal with Luke Gatti.

Our modern culture requires us to wait until somebody is attacking us before we can defend ourselves from them. We cannot defend ourselves if all they are doing is threatening us or yelling at us.

Furthermore, nobody is permitted to kill a man who rapes them unless they kill him during the act of being raped. An example is Stacy Lannert, who was put in jail for killing her father when he was not raping her.

Every culture also gives pity to the criminals who are failures. For example, a person who tries to murder somebody but fails will get better treatment than if he had succeeded in murdering the person. How does that policy benefit society? What difference is there to society between a person who fails at murder and a person who is successful? In both cases the person is behaving in an unacceptable manner. How do we benefit by giving special treatment to the incompetent criminals?

In the USA, there is such a strong "Feel Sorry for the Loser" attitude that a person who murders somebody can get special treatment if he is regarded as mentally ill, but all of us have mental problems. There is no "perfect" person, so everybody could claim that they committed a crime because of a mental disorder. We could even say that the only people who commit crimes are those who have such serious mental disorders that they cannot follow the rules.

The attitude in the USA, and probably every other nation, is that it is better to tolerate a certain amount of crime than to allow the government to demand extremely high standards of behavior. Every culture has a resistance to allowing the government to install security cameras throughout the city, create a DNA database of every citizen, use facial recognition and tracking software to keep track of our movements, and euthanize or evict the badly behaved people.


Do we want guns and dogs to
protect ourselves from criminals?
There is no right or wrong culture, so we simply have to decide what level of crime we are willing to tolerate.

Do we want the citizens to be so frightened of crime that they install security systems in their homes? Do we want children to be taught how to fight rapists and pedophiles? Do we want women to be afraid of being killed by their husband when they want a divorce? Do we want people to carry guns or containers of pepper spray, or have aggressive dogs?

This constitution supports low crime rates

Since I am the only one designing this constitution, this Constitution requires the government to set high standards of behavior, and to evict those who cannot behave properly. The goal of the government is to reduce crime to such a low level that nobody is afraid of crime. There is no pity for the people who do not follow the rules.

Crime should be so low that parents have no fear of letting their children walk to school, or play in the park, or walk around at night by themselves.

The high standards apply to immigrants, also. They must join the culture rather than whine about maintaining their "cultural identity and heritage". The immigrants must be willing and able to become our friends and team members.

Humans must become more compatible

There is nothing wrong with a city like Neom, Hong Kong, or Chicago, and there is nothing wrong with a culture in which everybody is so afraid of one another that they have dogs and guns for protection. There is also nothing wrong with a culture that promotes slavery, the buyer-beware attitude, cannibalism, pedophilia, jails, religion, alcohol, marijuana, or murder rituals. Our culture is whatever we want it to be.

Unfortunately, we cannot expect people to agree on what our culture should be because our preferences depend upon our particular emotional and intellectual characteristics, and each of us is a unique jumble of characteristics.

We can allow every city to have different culture, but that will not satisfy everybody. The only way we can resolve this problem is to reduce the diversity between our minds so that we are more compatible.
We must raise standards for people

A tool is useful only to people who use it properly

Knives, hammers, and wrenches are tools that can do something useful only if a person has the intelligence necessary to understand how to use them, and has the emotional desire to use them in a productive manner.

Our culture is also set of tools, except that cultural tools are intangible, and we use them to manipulate human behavior, whereas knives and screwdrivers are tangible tools that we use to manipulate non-human items.

For example, a government system is a tool that can be used to organize a group of people into a hierarchy, and coordinate their activities for the benefit of the organization. Likewise, voting is a tool that allows people to choose government officials.

However, voting and government systems are useful only to the people who understand how to use those tools properly, and are willing to use them properly.

Most people realize that it is dangerous to give knives to people who don't know how to use them properly, or who don't want to use them properly, but most people do not realize, and probably lack the intellectual ability to understand, that it is also dangerous to give cultural tools to people who cannot or will not use them properly.

Voting is a “cultural tool”

All of the world's governments are incompetent and corrupt because every society gives almost every adult the right to vote, but most people do not know how to use that tool properly. There is also a large minority of people who have no desire to use their voting system properly because they prefer to cheat during the elections.

A voting system is analogous to the metal grating that children play with to sift sand, except that we use a voting system to sift political candidates. In a democracy, the people are supposed to use their voting system to analyze candidates and choose a submissive representative.


Giving most people the right to vote is as idiotic as giving a knife to a monkey.
However, most people are not using their voting system properly. For example, in the 2016 election, some women were advocating that Hillary Clinton be elected simply because she was a woman.

There are other people who vote for whoever their political party endorses, which is behaving like a child who lets his mother make decisions for him. That would be acceptable if the political parties had respectable leaders who behaved like a mother, but not when the parties are controlled by crime networks, idiots, or religious fanatics.

Even worse, most people will vote for "the lesser of the evils" when they don't like any of the candidates. That is not using a voting system properly.

The end result of giving the majority of people the right to vote is that they are consistently fooled into voting for criminals, blackmailed puppets of crime networks, and incompetent people.

Voting is secretive because most minds are low-quality

Voting systems are tools, but every nation has a flaw with their voting system. Specifically, the voting is conducted in secret, which makes it impossible for anybody to determine whether the elections are conducted in an honest manner.

The reason the voting systems are secretive is because that is what most people want. It is not because somebody has analyzed voting systems and found evidence that secretive voting is more beneficial.

Our culture has evolved to fit our emotions, not to be intellectually sensible. Most people want voting to be secretive because most people have so little control over their arrogance, pouting, and anger that if everybody knew who other people were voting for, there would be a tremendous number of arguments.

This problem became obvious when Trump was running for president in the 2016 elections. There were so many Americans arguing with each other over who should be elected president that journalists provided advice on how to reduce the arguments during Thanksgiving dinner.

The reason that there were so many people arguing over who to elect president was because most people cannot control their emotions. Most people have a mind that is so similar to apes that they cannot have a calm discussion about political candidates. They do not listen to one another, and they have no desire to find supporting evidence for their beliefs. Instead, they behave like arrogant apes that are fighting for dominance.


A do-not-discuss policy is as insulting as wearing muzzles.
Most people react to the fighting and pouting by telling everybody at the dinner table to avoid discussing politics.

However, imposing a "do not discuss" policy on a group of people should be considered as an insult to those people. It is analogous to putting muzzles on dogs to prevent them from biting one another.

However, most people are so arrogant or stupid that they do not consider a "do not discuss" policy to be an insult. Rather, each person believes that he is the only person who can behave properly and create intelligent opinions, and that everybody else is an arrogant, uninformed, badly behaved jerk with stupid opinions.

Our leaders should not need a do-not-discuss policy


We should be disgusted with people who cannot discuss issues in a calm manner.
We would be disgusted, and frightened, if we were on a surgical table, and the doctors began arguing about how to do the surgery in the same angry, insulting manner that people argue about who to elect as president.

We would also be shocked and disgusted if we saw Jesus, Buddha, God, and Mohammed get into an argument that was as crude and angry as the arguments of the ordinary people.

We should be just as disgusted when voters get into arguments over who to elect.

All of us have a modified ape brain, so we all have trouble discussing issues in a sensible and calm manner. When we encounter criticism or differences of opinion, certain emotions are stimulated that want us to defend ourselves, as if we have been attacked. Our brains were designed for our survival, not to discuss issues and compromise on solutions.

Our crude minds make it difficult for us to resolve our problems, compromise on issues, and learn from other people. Our emotions want us to ignore, attack, or ridicule the people who provide us with information that contradicts what we believe.

The introverted people who remain silent when they encounter criticism or differences of opinion are not better than the people who react with insults and lectures. Rather they remain quiet because they suffer from a mental disorder that makes them too cowardly or submissive to participate in a discussion with somebody who has a difference of opinion.

We all have trouble listening to constructive criticism, and controlling our arrogance, temper, pouting, and anger, but some people have more trouble than others. Therefore, we should pass judgment on who among us is showing the most advanced mental characteristics, and restrict the influential positions to those people.

The people chosen for top government positions should be among the best at listening to and learning from constructive criticism and conflicting opinions. They should also be among the best at explaining their opinions and compromising on policies. They must also be willing to post documents to explain their opinions, rather than be secretive or deceptive. This includes the voters, who are required to explain why they elect certain candidates and replace certain officials.

We should not need restraining orders

Modern humans need to be able to resolve issues by research, discussions, and analyses, not by fighting and intimidation. The people who are the worst at discussing issues calmly should be prohibited from reproducing. We must stop feeling sorry for the people who are the most similar to animals.

Animals resolve their problems with intimidation, biting, kicking, and yelling, but we must restrict reproduction to stop that type of behavior. This concept applies to husbands and wives, also. Married couples will frequently encounter issues that they need to resolve, and we should pass judgment on which of them has the most trouble resolving their differences. The men and women at the extreme edge of the bell graph, such as the men who become violent when their wife wants a divorce, should be prohibited from reproducing so that every generation is better able to resolve problems in a peaceful manner.

Unfortunately, there are so many people who cannot control their anger that our culture has allowed people to request "restraining orders". A restraining order is analogous to putting a muzzle and a choke chain on a violent dog.

This constitution does not support restraining orders. A person who needs to be restrained is considered to be too dangerous and irritating to live among us, so he must be evicted.

The potentially violent people can be evicted

In order to create a peaceful social environment, this Constitution allows the courts to evict the potentially violent people. For example, a woman does not have to wait for a man to attack her in order for the man to be considered too violent to live with us. He only has to display violent tendencies.

When we wait for a man to become violent, we create an environment in which we, especially women and children, are in fear of being attacked. That policy also allows the violent men to attack at least one person.

Waiting for a man to attack us before we evict him is as foolish as allowing rats to live in our home and evicting them only if they bite us. Most rats will never bite us, but we have no obligation to let them live with us.

Likewise, the men who have tantrums might not become murderers, but we are under no obligation to tolerate their tantrums, or take the chance that they have enough self-control to refrain from more destructive behavior.

It is a personal opinion on when a man has displayed behavior that is so crude that he should be evicted, but it is better for our courts to make that judgment and evict the men who display violent tendencies than to wait for them to become violent.

For an example of who would be evicted, in April 2024, a government official, Aleko Elisashvili, became so angry that he hit another government official in the face. The BBC described it as a "scuffle".

Elisashvili might not have caused any serious injuries, but why should we tolerate that type of behavior? Why should we regard it as a "scuffle"?

Every culture is tolerant of violence, fights, yelling, and tantrums because we are apes, and apes settle disputes with intimidation, violence, and fights. Apes do not settle disputes with research, discussions, experiements, and compromises.

When we become upset by something, our emotions push us into reacting with anger, pouting, crying, tantrums, or violence. However, modern humans must resist those craving, and we must resist being intimidated by the tantrums of other people.

The USA is so tolerant of crude behavior that protests are considered to be a sensible method to deal with the nation's problems. Instead of being ashamed of behaving like an animal, the protestors boast about their protests. For example, the Climate Defiance organization posted this video of their violent behavior, but they boasted about it, and their last sentence is: Respect us or expect us.

Their demand that we respect them, and their threat to attack us if we don't, is the attitude of animals. Animals get respect by intimidation and violence.


This fight should be regarded as an unacceptable tantrum, not a "scuffle".
Rather than describe that protest of Climate Defiance as disgusting, violent, animal behavior, this television news business described it as a "scuffle".

We do not have to continue tolerating tantrums or violence. We have the option of setting higher standards for people, and evicting the misfits. We are not obligated to tolerate or pity the badly behaved people.

It is foolish for us to feel guilty for demanding better behavior and evicting violent people. We are not cruel to evict them. It is more sensible for us to regard ourselves as cruel if we allow them to torment us, and if we allow them to increase the number of violent people in the next generation by reproducing.

We are not obligated to tolerate the people who yell, spit, throw objects, scream, disrupt meetings, grab us by our arms, poke us, or punch us. We don't owe them any pity, either. We should design our culture according to what will provide us with a nice life, not according to what the worst behaved members want.

All of the members of Climate Defiance should be evicted rather than tolerated, And that includes the woman who provides a lot of their financial support, Margaret Klein Salamon. Those people believe that they are improving the world with their tantrums, but they are causing trouble by encouraging anger and hatred among their members, and by irritating and sometimes hurting other people, and sometimes destroying property.

Intelligent people will impress us, not threaten us


Truly intelligent people will impress us, not have to threaten us.
If a person is truly among the most intelligent people in the world, then he will be able to create opinions and analyses that impress a significant number of intelligent people.

He will not have to demand that we listen to his opinions, and he will not have to use false flag operations, deception, blackmail, bribery, or other methods to make us obey him.

Many people with ordinary and substandard minds will not understand his opinions, so they might assume that he is an idiot, but the more intelligent people will recognize him as having something of value to say.

He must be regarded as a crude creature who is behaving like criminals or animals. The courts ministry must evict those people, or put them on restrictions. They cannot tolerate or encourage that type of behavior.

Suppressing tantrums is not good enough

A person who has enough self-control to refrain from yelling, sarcastic noises, and insults does not have a truly, high-quality mind. He is certainly superior to a person who has a violent tantrum, but ideally a person could participate a discussion without struggling to control his rage.


All of us have to control our anger when we are criticized, but some of us have more trouble than others.
As discussed in this previous document, all of us could be described as "virtuous monkeys" because all of us have to occasionally control our emotional cravings.

None of us enjoy criticism or differences of opinion, so we all have to control ourselves when we hear it, but we differ in how angry we become when we hear it, and how difficult it is for us to control our anger.

Ideally, everybody would be truly relaxed during discussions, and capable of calmly listening to differences of opinion, constructive criticism, and new ideas. None of us should have to clench our fists or grind our teeth in an attempt to hold back our anger or sarcastic noises. Likewise, none of us should have to struggle to control our craving for sex, food, material items, or status.

The human race must adapt to our new era. We must become better than apes. We need to be able to calmly deal with differences of opinion and criticism. However, the only way the human race will evolve better characteristics is to restrict reproduction to the people who are better adapted to our modern era. That requires passing judgment on who among us has a better mind. That requires we collect data on everybody, create a People database, and use that data for a "social credit system".

Apathetic people are unacceptable today

Our prehistoric, nomadic ancestors only had to deal with simple problems, such as finding food, water, and a place to sleep. Today our societies expose us to a tremendous number of complex problems. We must deal with such issues as unemployment, inflation, shoddy products, deceptive insurance policies, the 9/11 attack, the world wars, the Holocaust, toxic chemicals, the ADL, accusations of white privilege, traffic congestion, overcrowding, the accusations that Brigitte Macron is a transgender, the mental health of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, and crime networks.

However, most people want to behave like prehistoric savages who spend their time eating, having sex, playing with their children, competing for status, and gathering material items. They do not want to deal with the complex problems of a modern society. Unfortunately, by ignoring these problems, they allow the problems to become worse.

Most people seem to justify ignoring problems by claiming that they are "ordinary citizens" who have no authority to do anything, but ordinary people have the ability to do something useful. An example (discussed here) is that the parents of a woman who was murdered pressured their state government into passing a law that requires a DNA sample of a convicted felon.

The "ordinary" people are helpless because they choose to be helpless. They choose to entertain themselves rather than deal with the problems of a modern society. Another example, mentioned here, is that millions of people quickly passed around the pornographic images of Taylor Swift, and some government officials and other influential people quickly reacted by suggesting laws to prevent AI software from creating pornography.

However, when I and other people showed people some evidence that we were lied to about the 9/11 attack, very few people passed the information around, and none of the government officials, policemen, FBI agents, or military personnel showed any interest in investigating or stopping the corruption.

If the majority of people had as much of an interest in reducing corruption as they have in titillating themselves with sexual images, then tens of millions of people would have quickly passed around the evidence that we were lied to about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, and other issues, and we would have eliminated the crime network many years ago.

The public is helpless to stop the corruption and abuse of our government, media, churches, charities, pedophile networks, teenage gangs, and businesses because they are choosing to ignore the problems that they should be dealing with. The reason is simply because their mind is more similar to that of a primitive savage than a modern human.

People today who do not want to get involved with maintaining society are analogous to sailors on a submarine who ignore sea water leaking into the submarine.

We cannot create a pleasant society when the majority of its members are ignoring crime, corruption, overcrowding, and other problems.

The people who purchase a gun or a security system are not dealing with crime or corruption. They are hiding from the problem like a frightened animal. The people who pray to reduce crime and corruption are behaving in an even more idiotic manner.

This Constitution sets higher standards for people. The people who ignore bad behavior, litter, crime, and other problems are regarded as having a mind that is more like an animal than a modern human, and we must ensure that they are a small percentage of the population by restricting their reproduction.

People must have a certain level of manners

There are thousands of photos, videos, and complaints on the Internet of people behaving in a manner that the majority of us regard as irresponsible, annoying, irritating, disgusting, crude, obnoxious, childlike, or rude. An example are these photos of people on passenger planes.

A business will fire an employee who is as rude as some of those people in those photos, and some restaurants and retail stores will evict a person who is extremely rude. However, governments do not care whether the citizens are obnoxious or rude.

By not restricting the reproduction of the badly behaved people, every generation is becoming more obnoxious, childlike, and rude than the one before it. Eventually the majority of people will be rude and obnoxious.

In order to improve upon the situation, this constitution authorizes the People database to collect data about everybody's life, and bad behavior will affect a person's "social credit score". The Courts Ministry is authorized to pass judgment on people, and if they consider a person to be "too obnoxious," they can put him on restrictions, such as being restricted to a certain neighborhood and activities. If the Courts Ministry decides that a person is too obnoxious to tolerate, they can evict him.

Although the rude people will consider this to be a cruel policy, we are not obligated to tolerate rude behavior. Businesses and other organizations set standards for behavior, and they evict or put restrictions on the people who cannot meet the standards, and every society should do the same.

An economic system is a “cultural tool”

Economic systems are cultural tools that we used to organize and coordinate ourselves so that we can create and distribute products and services. However, the free enterprise system is no longer an appropriate tool.

A thousand years ago the products were so simplistic, and there were so few products and businesses, that most adults could use the free enterprise system properly, but during the past few centuries there have too many products, they are too technically complex, and there are too many businesses for anybody to deal with.

It has not been possible for us to use a free enterprise system properly since perhaps 1800. During the 1800s the businesses became much larger and more numerous, and consumers could not make wise decisions about which businesses to drive to bankruptcy. This resulted in a tremendous amount of corruption, child labor, abuse of employees, shoddy products, deception, monopolies, and cheating.

The large businesses also degraded our social environment by allowing some people to become extremely wealthy. We evolved to live among a group of people that we are very similar to. We evolved to be team members, not peasants who serve billionaires.

Furthermore, the extremely wealthy people could use their money to influence other businesses, government officials, schools, charities, and police departments, which would have been wonderful if they had been doing the manipulation for the benefit of the human race, but they were manipulating society for their own selfish purposes.

The large businesses also allowed the wealthy people to give enormous inheritances to their children, and enormous divorce settlements to their ex-spouse, thereby creating economic monarchies, which allowed incompetent, neurotic, and abusive people to get into influential positions without earning it.

The abuse has decreased during the past century as a result of government regulations and unions, but there is still a lot of abuse, cheating, deception, and inefficiency. Furthermore, no culture has yet made any attempt to prevent economic monarchies.

The free enterprise system is a cultural tool that is as outdated as a chamber pot. Modern humans need to develop a more appropriate economic system. However, a cultural tool should be designed to fit the genetic characteristics of humans, not designed for a religious or Freudian fantasy.

We must design an economic system for a species of ape. This requires restricting the people who design and manage the economy to those who can understand and acknowledge that humans are species of animal, and we have certain characteristics that we need to deal with. We must also ensure that the vast majority of people know how to use the economic system, and are willing to use it properly. (The Jobs document has more details.)

In order to ensure that people are using the economic system properly, we must raise standards for the adults, and either evict those who cannot use it properly, or put them on restrictions. We must stop expecting punishments to make people use a cultural tool in a proper manner.

A school system is a “cultural tool”

A school system is also a cultural tool that must also be designed for the genetic characteristics of humans, rather than according to some fantasy creature. An example mentioned here is that this constitution advocates restricting the school employees for young children to women in order to reduce the problem of pedophilia.

Instead of regarding men and women as unisex creatures, and instead of ignoring our sexual cravings, the schools are designed according to the theory that men have strong sexual cravings, and some men have cravings for children, and the school system must be designed to prevent the sexual abuse of children.

However, a school system will be useful only if the people know how to use it properly, and are willing to use it properly. For example, most parents and students want a school to provide good grades and diplomas. Most people don't understand that a school is wasting some of the best years of a child's life when it provides them with nonsensical courses, even if the child is given a diploma for it. Furthermore, most students and parents don't care if the schools are teaching false information, such as lies about the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, or the Apollo moon landing.

A school is useless unless it provides children with useful skills and prepares them for life as an adult. A school should not be an entertainment center, or provide children with false or worthless information.

In order to improve our school systems, we must raise standards for the people who design and manage it. They must have a more accurate understanding of humans, and the purpose of a school. They must also have a desire to occasionally give a job performance review to the schools so that they can ensure that the students who graduate are learning useful skills and can function properly as an adult.

They must also understand that children are young apes who enjoy and benefit from competitions, but the competitions must be designed to encourage learning useful information rather than to collect trophies. The competition must also inspire better behavior from the students, not encourage their arrogance, envy, insults, or cheating. (More about these issues in the education and competition documents.)

All of our social affairs are “cultural tools”

A birthday party, holiday celebration, recreational activity, and wedding are also cultural tools that allow us to organize and coordinate a group of people. However, in order to truly benefit from them, they must be designed for the ape-like characteristics of humans, rather than according to what our emotions want, or according to some religious or Freudian fantasy.

For example, women have been altering weddings to give them what they want, and businesses have been altering weddings to make more profit, and religions have been altering weddings to promote their particular religion. Weddings have evolved during the past few thousand years, but not in a beneficial manner. Rather, our modern weddings are extremely complex and expensive; encourage the arrogance and selfishness of the bride; and puts the audience into the role of peasants who are worshiping their queen.

In order to benefit from weddings, we need to design them according to our apelike characteristics, and we need to ensure that they are providing advantages that outweigh the disadvantages. We should not design a wedding, or any other cultural tool, according to our emotional desires or fears. We must design our cultural tools in the same manner that a farmer designs policies for his animals. A farmer judges a policy according to how it affects the animals, not according to what the animals like.

Our weddings, birthday parties, holidays, and other events are tools that we can design in any manner we please, so we should design them to be the most beneficial to us. This requires an understanding of human behavior, and what brings us satisfaction. If we don't design our cultural activities properly, we will end up with activities that are idiotic, wasteful, detrimental, or dangerous.

For example, every culture has allowed businesses to manipulate many social activities into giftgiving activities, and religions have been manipulating social affairs to promote their religion. Every nation also allows businesses and mentally ill citizens to create dangerous and idiotic sports and leisure activities. We have also allowed Jews to create International Holocaust Remembrance Day to promote Zionist propaganda.

As of 2024, the USA has several holidays every day of the year. There are so many holidays that a list of only the candy holidays shows that every month has at least two candy holidays.


Accepting social activities with no concern for their value is as stupid as a carpenter carrying around every tool he is given with no regard to its value.
Unfortunately, no society cares whether their holidays - or any of their other social or recreational activities - are useful.

Most people will accept whatever social activities the businesses, religions, Zionist organizations, and lunatics provide to them.

That is analogous to a carpenter who keeps every tool that he is given with no concern for whether the tool has any value.

In order to improve our lives, we must raise standards for people. Modern humans, especially those in leadership positions, must have a better understanding of culture and human behavior, and be more willing to follow the rules that we set.

Almost every adult can understand that it is dangerous to give a knife, gun, or automobile to somebody who doesn't know how to use it properly, or who does not want to use it properly, but it is also dangerous to give cultural tools to people who cannot use them properly, or do not want to use them properly.

We have restrictions on tangible tools

We do not allow a person to fly an airplane unless he can provide evidence that he knows how to properly use that tool. If he can do that, he is given a license to fly. However, he must use the airplane as it was designed to be used. If he uses it for some other purpose, he risks having his license revoked or suspended.

We also put restrictions on who can have access to explosives, poisons, and X-ray machines, and we require people to use those items in the manner that they were designed for.

Likewise, parents put restrictions on the tools that their children can use, and they require the children to use the tools properly. Businesses also put restrictions on the equipment that each employee can use, and each employee is required to use the equipment in a proper manner.

We need restrictions on the use of cultural tools

Although it is common for us to put restrictions on the use of "tangible tools", there is no concern yet for how people are using cultural tools.

Every culture allows every person and organization, including children and lunatics, to create and modify any cultural tools they please, and nobody needs an education or a license to do it. Everybody can create or modify recreational activities, create a school, or create new words for our language. People also have the freedom to create new religions and charities.

The results of this unrestricted freedom is that some people have created recreational activities are dangerous, wasteful, or idiotic, and some of our culture is intended to manipulate us, such as the Anne Frank museum. We cannot improve our culture when every person and organization has the freedom to do anything they please with it, and nobody is held accountable for what they do.

All adults have the intelligence to realize that when a child is chewing on a knife, the only way to improve the situation is to take the knife away from him. Every adult can also understand the need for requiring people to get an education and license to drive an automobile, perform surgery, and fly an airplane. However, no society yet has applied this concept to cultural tools.

This constitution promotes the theory that cultural tools are just as potentially dangerous as tangible tools, and that we need to restrict their development to people who know how to design them properly. It is foolish to give everybody and every organization the freedom to modify culture in any manner they please. Many of the people who are trying to modify our culture are not even interested in improving it. For example, businesses, religions, and Zionist organizations are trying to modify our culture for their own selfish benefit.

We must also restrict the use of cultural tools to people who can understand how to use them, and are willing to use them properly. For example, voting is a cultural tool that should be restricted to the people who can understand it and use it properly. A person is not using a voting system properly if he believes that he should vote for the "lesser of the evil" when he does not like any of the candidates. Furthermore, a voter who is too apathetic to care if an election is conducted honestly is as dangerous as a surgeon who doesn't care whether his tools have been sterilized.

We must restrict cultural tools to people who can show evidence that they know how to use them properly. Voting is an example of a cultural tool that people must qualify to use.

In order to prevent people and organizations from ruining our culture, this Constitution prohibits individuals and organizations from modifying culture. All cultural changes must be approved of by the government.

If a business or individual wants to make a change to our culture, such as creating a new recreational activity, they must post a document in the Suggestions category that explains its advantages and disadvantages.

Although this is a restriction on our freedom, is a common policy at businesses, orchestras, sports groups, and families. For example, an employee who wants to make a change to the business must ask his management, and they decide if it's beneficial to the organization. Likewise, parents do not give their children the freedom to create or modify their recreational activities, meals, holidays, or clothing styles. Instead, the parents pass judgment on whether the children have sensible suggestions.

The only way to improve our holiday celebrations, recreational activities, weddings, schools, birthday parties, and other social affairs is to take away the right of people, businesses, religions, and lunatics to alter our culture, and put our culture under the control of a smaller group of people who have demonstrated an above-average ability to make sensible decisions about it.

Likewise, the only way we will provide ourselves with useful government officials is to restrict voting to people who show that they have the necessary education and mental abilities to use that tool properly.

It is not easy to determine who has the best ability to make sensible decisions about culture, or determine who will be the most effective voter, but it's also difficult to figure out who qualifies as a medical doctor and pilot.

We must start the process by developing some type of testing procedure, and then through the years we look for ways to improve it.

The public must suppress themselves

This constitution gives the government total control of culture, and that requires that the people be willing to give up their freedom to vote, modify recreational activities, determine abortion policies, and create new holiday celebrations. The public must be willing to acknowledge that most people are as incompetent as voters as they are as analyzing a CT scan, and that they are as incompetent at improving our policies for crime, abortion, weddings, and birthday parties as they are at improving a laser.

The majority of people must be willing to dampen their arrogance and stop insisting that they are experts on raising children, crime, religion, abortion, and other cultural issues. They need to stop behaving like the people in the photos below.



The people in the photos above believe that they are experts on abortion, but none of them put much time or effort into analyzing the issue. Instead, they make decisions based on their emotional feelings. Their protests do not help them resolve the issue. Instead, they waste their time, irritate other people, and ruin our social environment. Those protests should be prohibited.

The reason people enjoy protests is because we are arrogant apes who want to be at the top of the hierarchy, and the manner in which apes become dominant is by biting, yelling, and hitting. We inherited the animal desire to intimidate other people into obeying us. We do not have any desire to discuss issues with them, or look critically at our opinions, or look favorably at alternative opinions.

In order for us to create a more pleasant society, we must restrict it to people who have better control over their arrogance, anger, and their cravings for status, and who are better able to have discussions, compromise on issues, and treat people as friends rather than as inferior creatures.

The public must be obedient, but not slaves

It is important for the members of an organization to follow the rules, but they cannot be so submissive that they behave like slaves. They must be willing to be critical of their leadership, and their culture.

This Constitution gives the government total control of society, and that would be a serious problem if the government becomes abusive or incompetent. The only way to prevent this possibility is for the public to continuously be critical of their leadership and their culture.

The public cannot be so apathetic that they don't care what the government does, and they cannot be so submissive that they become voluntary slaves. They must have a certain willingness to participate in the maintenance of society by watching over their government officials and demanding that the officials provide them with intelligent guidance. They must treat their leaders as employees, not as Kings or Queens.

This type of government will fail if the public is as apathetic as the public is in every nation today. In order for this constitution to be successful, we must set higher standards for the public. The public, at least the adult men, must have a certain willingness to participate in the maintenance of their society. They must be willing to occasionally pass judgment on what their government officials have been doing, and demand that the official provide intelligent guidance be replaced. They must be able to treat their leaders as city employees, not as Kings or Queens.

We can tolerate a certain number of adult man who are apathetic, but if the majority of men are as apathetic as they are in every society today, this government will be taken over by crime networks just like all of the existing governments have been taken over. Therefore, we must set higher standards for the adult men. Specifically, we must require the men to have a certain interest in participating in society. Furthermore, as mentioned in the Jobs document, we should consider that part of every man's "job" is to take care of the women and children.

This constitution has a variety of methods to help the public ensure that the government and other leaders are behaving properly. One of them is to eliminate secrecy, especially among the people in leadership positions. Another is to allow the citizens to post suggestions in the Suggestions category about what they think should be improved, or who they think should be fired, and prohibit the government from censoring or ignoring the suggestions.

Most or all governments allow citizens to send suggestions to them, but no government is required to respond to a suggestion, and if they do respond, they can respond in a deceptive manner, such as promising to investigate the issue but never doing anything about it, which is how the Santa Barbara government officials respond to complaints about airplanes.

By requiring the government officials to respond to the suggestions, and by holding the government officials accountable for their responses, the Suggestions site will allow businesses and citizens to ensure that their government officials are behaving properly.

The Suggestions site allows a person or organization to let everybody know about their complaints, concerns, and suggestions, and in a peaceful manner compared to protests in the street, or by making angry phone calls to government officials.

Of course, this requires that at least some of the citizens have the initiative to use the Suggestions category. The only way that is going to occur is if we raise standards for the citizens. A modern society needs people with the initiative to maintain it. We cannot expect a society to function properly when most people are apathetic sheeple who ignore problems.

Freedom of speech is a tool that must be used properly

Every culture provides people with freedom of speech, but no culture cares whether a person knows how to use that tool properly, or wants to use it properly. This tool is beneficial to people who use it for intelligent discussions, but a lot of people and organizations use it to manipulate, exploit, deceive, and abuse us. There are also people with mental disorders using it to spread nonsensical ideas, fear, hatred, and paranoia.

Every society has developed training courses how to drive an automobile, do arithmetic, and become a nurse, but no culture has educational courses on how to use freedom of speech. Every culture assumes that everybody knows how to use freedom of speech without any education. However, freedom of speech is a complex cultural tool.

For example, insults, sarcasm, and intimidating noises should not be described as "speech". Rather, it should be described as an attempt to hurt or manipulate somebody. It is analogous to a monkey that is growling at another monkey. People who do that should not be described as using their "freedom of speech". Rather, they should be described as behaving like a monkey.

Likewise, calling a person racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, or a Holocaust denier is not "speech". Rather, it is an attempt to intimidate or hurt somebody.

Another example is that when we don't control our arrogance, we will give lectures about abortion, Donald Trump, crime, and other issues. Those lectures should not be described as "freedom of speech", either because we are not discussing anything, or listening to other people. Instead, we are trying to force other people to believe what we want them to believe.

Our "freedom of speech" should give us the freedom to explain our opinions and discuss issues, and we should consider insults, sarcastic noises, and lectures to be arrogant, and angry monkey behavior.

In order to use freedom of speech properly, a person also needs to have an understanding of language, such as how some words represent emotions rather than intelligent concepts, and that they are used to manipulate, deceive, confuse, and intimidate people rather than educate them or discuss issues.

Censorship does not protect our freedom of speech

Another aspect of freedom of speech that most people have trouble understanding is that we cannot protect freedom of speech with censorship, or by arresting people for hate speech, Holocaust denial, racism, sexism, or climate change denial.In order to protect freedom of speech, we must do the opposite. Specifically, we must prohibit censorship.

People today, especially our leaders, must be able to make wise decisions about when a person is protecting freedom of speech, and when he is trying to suppress it. For example, the organization FIRE boasts that they protect our freedom of speech:
FIRE defends and promotes the value of free speech for all Americans in our courtrooms, on our campuses, and in our culture.

The FIRE organization has defended the people who promote "Critical Race Theory", so that is evidence that they are trying to stop censorship and protect our freedom of speech.

However, finding evidence of beneficial behavior doesn't prove that a person or organization is truly beneficial. Every criminal often does something beneficial. No criminal spends every moment of his life lying, cheating, murdering, torturing, and raping. Furthermore, criminals sometimes do something beneficial in order to fool us into believing that they are honest and wonderful people.

The FIRE organization is another deceptive and dishonest organization. As with the ADL, the SPLC, and the news organizations, they defend our right to promote the "critical race theory", but not our right to discuss the Holocaust, Anne Frank's diary, the 9/11 attack, and other crimes that Israel and Jews are involved with.

Those organizations are deceiving us. They are analogous to policemen who protect us from burglars, but who are secretly involved with a pedophile network.

A person who cannot figure out whether somebody is protecting his freedom of speech, or promoting propaganda and censoring information, is as helpless as a child, and will easily be manipulated and exploited.

This is another example of why we must raise standards for people, at least for the adult men. It was easy for prehistoric men to take care of themselves and their tribe because they only had to deal with wolves and neighboring tribes. Today the men must deal with much more complex threats, such as government corruption, conspiracies, crime gangs, pedophile networks, Zionist organizations, religious fanatics, and selfish businessmen. Men today need the intellectual ability to notice these dangers, and they need the emotional desire to do something to expose and stop the abuse.

Unsupported accusations are not freedom of speech


People today must be able to understand that we are not protecting freedom of speech by arresting Holocaust deniers or sexists.
Most people have trouble understanding that the people who call us anti-Semites, sexists, racists, Holocaust deniers, or white supremacists are committing a crime, not using their freedom of speech to express their opinions.

They are doing the equivalent of accusing us of murder, pedophilia, and rape, but without any evidence to support their accusation.

When a society is dominated by people who cannot understand this concept, they will allow criminals to abuse, torment, intimidate, suppress, and even arrest, innocent people for nonsensical crimes.

Unsupported facts are not freedom of speech

The ADL boasts that they are "the world’s leading expert on anti-Semitism", but they don't have any evidence that they are "the world's leading expert" in anything. They cannot even provide a sensible explanation for "anti-Semitism".

A democracy provides everybody and every organization with the freedom to claim to be an expert, fact checker, MythBuster, and truth seeker. Nobody has to meet any qualifications, and none of the experts can be held accountable for what they say or do.

In a democracy, there is no leadership, so each person has to decide for himself what is a fact, opinion, propaganda, state, and lie. Each person has to determine who to should regard as an expert, and who to regard as a criminal, idiot, lunatic, fraud, or uneducated nitwit.

Most people are of ordinary or below-average intelligence and education, so most people make "ordinary" decisions about what is factual, which is why so many of them believe in religion, feminism, Freudian psychology, The Holocaust, the Apollo moon landing, ghosts, and women's intuition.

It is also why most people believe that their lives will improve if they can become wealthy or famous, or win more awards and trophies, or spend more time traveling to exotic locations, or have more sex with more people in more positions and locations.

Most people also make terrible decisions about who is an expert, which is why so many people regard the Pope as an expert on life, or Al Gore as an expert on climate change. It is also why they ridicule some of us as "conspiracy theorists", and why they insult us as idiots when we promote genetics and evolution.

If a society is dominated by people who make terrible decisions on who is an expert and what is factual, they will allow lunatics, businesses, churches, Zionist groups, idiots, and criminals to manipulate, exploit, and abuse them.

In order to improve upon this situation, the Quality Division is responsible for passing judgment on the value and accuracy of information. When somebody provides evidence that some information might be inaccurate, the Quality Division must investigate, and the inaccurate information must be corrected. The Quality Division is in a role similar to that of the FDA, except that they pass judgment on information rather than medicines and food.

We need higher standards for people

An organization can only be as advanced as its members are capable of making it. If a society is dominated by people who are apathetic, selfish, dishonest, irresponsible, or stupid, it will be a miserable society no matter what type of government system, economic system, and school system we provide the people.

It is easy to understand this concept with tangible tools. For example, it would be useless to provide a group of idiots with advanced CNC machines, MRI scanners, computers, and chemical factories. Those people would be as unable to use that equipment as a group of monkeys.

In order for us to create a better society, we need to restrict it to people who are better able to deal with the modern world than the typical person. This requires setting standards for these two, different groups of people:

1)
Immigrants
We must restrict the immigrants to people who are capable of understanding and dealing with the complexities of a modern society. They must also want to join society, rather than behave like rats that want to live in our home but have no desire to become a member of our family.



2)

Children
Every society gives citizenship to every child that is born to its citizens, but this is just as idiotic as giving citizenship to every immigrant who requests it. A person is detrimental if he does not fit into our society, regardless of whether he is an immigrant or the child of citizens.

Likewise, a flea is a pest regardless of whether it was born inside our house, or whether it was born outside.

Many people want immigrants to meet high standards, but most parents tolerate, ignore, or make excuses for the bad behavior of their own children.

During prehistoric times, nature killed most of the children, thereby eliminating the most seriously defective people. Today, however, we are allowing the defective children to survive and reproduce. Therefore, unless a society consists of people who can treat children as "the next generation of humans", rather than as "bundles of joy", a modern society will slowly degrade into retards, lunatics, misfits, criminals, and freaks.

As a result, this Constitution requires children to have a probationary period, and to be euthanized that they don't fit in.