Hufschmid's main page
Page for this series
Philosophy page

Creating a better society

A Constitution for a New City

Part 7:  We should remove our safety net

22 February 2022
Updated here 27 February 2022


Which proposals for new cities are sensible?
Our primary problem is bad leadership
Knowledge is more valuable than freedom
We need more realistic attitudes towards life
We should remove our safety net
We benefit from pressure, not pampering
Animals are more selfish than they appear

This document was so long that I put the second half in Part 8

Which proposals for new cities are sensible?

Kastron has competition!

Kastron is just a fantasy, but some billionaires have started the development of new cities, and some businesses and governments are creating new communities within existing cities. Five of those projects are:

1) Bill Gates purchased 24,000 acres of land in Arizona to build Belmont.
2) Jeffrey Berns purchased 67,000 acres in Nevada to build Innovation Park.
3) Marc Lore recently began the City Of Telosa.
4) Prince Mohammed Ben Salmane of Saudi Arabia is creating Neom. However, Neom is described as "prosperous living to those who can afford it", so I suppose it will be a luxury resort for wealthy people to be pampered by hordes of peasants, and that it will depend on businesses in the US, Japan, and Europe to provide it with technology. If so, it would not be a "new city".
5) Google created Sidewalk Labs to improve our cities, although they recently terminated their involvement with Quayside

Innovation Park
City Of Telosa

The new cities are trivial variations of existing cities

Most of the proposed cities are described as "smart", and many of them boast about using "blockchain", and Sidewalk Labs boasts that they push themselves "beyond conventional thinking". However, I would describe all of their projects as insignificant variations of the cities we already have. For example, consider these four issues:

1) Automobiles

We will suffer the same transportation problems even when all vehicles are electric and self-driving.
The new cities plan on restricting vehicles to electric and self driving vehicles, but otherwise it is the same transportation system that every city is using today.

This will give the new cities the same transportation problems that we already suffer from, such as cars that slip on icy streets or become trapped in snow; the ugliness of roads and interchanges; and the noise and dust from tires and brake linings.

What is the benefit of creating a new city and giving it the same undesirable transportation system that we already have? Why not experiment with something better?

The answer to that question is that experimenting with something better requires leaders with a different personality than what we have in the world today. We need leaders who have the courage to experiment with "radical" changes.

Furthermore, we need leaders who can produce truly intelligent analyses. For example, almost everybody who is trying to influence the future transportation systems are proposing battery powered vehicles, but none of those people has provided us with evidence that switching to batteries provides us with more benefits than disadvantages.

There are a lot of disadvantages to batteries. For example, it requires that we increase our production of electricity. How many more electric plants will we need to construct, and what will their energy source be?

Also, a lot of electricity will be wasted because batteries self-discharge. If everybody had electric vehicles, how much energy would be wasted every day as a result of the self-discharge?

Batteries are composed of complex and dangerous chemicals, and they have very short lifetimes compared to a steel tank that holds gasoline, so how many complex, expensive, and dangerous manufacturing and recycling facilities will we need to provide everybody with battery-operated vehicles?

Do the advantages of batteries outweigh the disadvantages? Unfortunately, the people who promote battery-operated vehicles have not provided us with an intelligent analysis of this issue. Instead, they focus on the benefits and ignore the disadvantages, similar to the author of this article who tells us that we can produce distilled water for "free". That author is ignoring the disadvantage that we must pay for the heat and the production of ice cubes. Furthermore, creating distilled water requires somebody perform some work, and that is another cost.

Some people claim that battery powered vehicles can be powered by "renewable" and "free" energy sources, such as wind and solar power, but that concept is as stupid as the author who believes that we can produce distilled water for free.

It is true that wind and solar energy is "free", but fossil fuels are just as free. Gold and platinum are also free, and so are all of the fish in all of the oceans. Furthermore, a woman can give birth to a baby for free, so why are the hospitals in the USA charging such a high fee?

We need to raise standards for people in influential positions. We need leaders who understand that something is not free if we have to do work to produce it, or if it requires energy, chemicals, or other materials. For example, our eyes can see reflected sunlight for free, but we cannot convert sunlight into electricity for free. Likewise, uranium is free, but we cannot get free electricity from it. How many people in leadership positions can understand these simple concepts?

We need leaders who realize that there is no "solution" to our transportation problems, or any of our other problems. Instead, we have lots of options, and each one has a different set of advantages and disadvantages.

Our leaders should have an above-average understanding of the concept that fossil fuels are in a competitive battle with other sources of energy, similar to the battle between hard disk drives and solid-state drives, and between digital cameras and film cameras.

As of 2022, it is more sensible to power most vehicles with liquid fuels, such as hydrocarbons or alcohol. Solar cells and batteries will become more practical in the future, but so will hydrocarbons and alcohol. For example, we will eventually have robotic machines that mine coal, thereby eliminating the expense and problems of sending people into the Earth. Furthermore, those machines will eventually be able to remove nearly all of the coal because they will not need to leave large blocks of coal to support the roof. Instead, they could either let the roof collapse behind them, or replace the coal with ashes and dirt.

The technology to use coal and hydrocarbon fuels without polluting the air will also improve, so eventually fossil fuels will become "clean" sources of energy.

We are already producing alcohol by fermenting sugar, so alcohol could be described as a "free", "renewable", "biodegradable", and "green" energy source. If scientists figure out how to modify a yeast or bacteria to produce alcohol from cellulose or sunlight, then alcohol might become so inexpensive that it becomes much more desirable than solar and wind energy.

These concepts also apply to fusion reactors. Although fusion is supposed to provide us with virtually unlimited amounts of low cost and clean energy, the people who promote it are disregarding the problems of creating and maintaining the equipment. For example, the fusion reactors that use lasers need extremely expensive and gigantic lasers.

People who promote battery powered vehicles, fusion reactors, or any other concept, without investigating the disadvantages, and who cannot provide evidence that their "solution" is superior to the alternatives, should be considered unfit for a leadership position, and should be told to shut up. We need leaders who excel in providing us with intelligent analyses.

2) Free enterprise

All of the new cities will have the same free enterprise system that we already have, so the new cities will have all of the same problems of this system, such as different classes of people, the manipulation of consumers, telemarketing, labor unions, worthless products, unnecessary variations of products, and the resentment, envy, anger, labor strikes, and pouting that results when people fight for material wealth.

3) Democracy

All of the new cities will have the same type of government system that we already have, so they will have the same problems with incompetent and corrupt governments that we suffer from right now.

4) Diversity and inclusiveness

There is not much detail on the culture of the new cities, but Mark Lore has a few brief remarks about Telosa supporting diversity, inclusive zoning, economically and racially diverse neighborhoods, and mixed-income housing. This news article says that the people who want to live in Telosa will probably have to fill out an application, and that a top priority will be the "inclusion of varying races, genders, sexual orientations and religions".

The cities in the USA and Europe already support diversity, mixed-income housing, and economically and racially diverse neighborhoods, so the new cities will give us the same environment that we already have.

Diversity is a failure in existing cities, so why should we assume it will be successful in a new city?
If history provided us with evidence that diversity has caused modern cities to become more desirable than they were centuries ago, then it would make sense for us to provide the new cities with the same, or more, diversity.

However, none of the people who are promoting diversity have provided any evidence that it is improving our lives. Instead, there is lots of evidence that diversity is a failure.

The people who promote diversity titillate themselves with fantasies that they are heroes who help the "oppressed" people, but they ignore all of the problems with diversity, such as the immigrants who end up unemployed, homeless, lonely, or committing crimes.

The people who support diversity have the same arrogant and idiotic attitude as the anti-abortion fanatics who believe they are heroes for saving the life of a child, but do not care if the unwanted and retarded children end up homeless, unemployed, involved with crime, or victims of a pedophile network.

What about the new cities is an improvement?

Why would any of us want to move to Innovation Park, Telosa, or one of the other new cities? How would our lives improve by moving to one of those new cities?

There are not many details on what life will be like in one of the new cities, but Mark Lore said that the city government will own all of the land in Telosa. However, the millions of people who live in apartments, condominiums, or trailer parks are already living in a home in which they do not own the land, so that is not an improvement over the existing cities.

Mark Lore also claims that "taxes paid will go back to the city", but every government is already claiming that the taxes they collect are going back to the people.

The only benefit of the new cities is that they will have new plumbing fixtures, asphalt streets, lighting fixtures, Internet connections, and other items. However, as the years pass by, the steel objects will rust, potholes will develop in the streets, the technology will become outdated, and the gangs will spray the city with graffiti. After a few decades, the new cities will be indistinguishable from other cities.

Will blockchain give us a better democracy?

Although the new cities will have the same type of democracy that we already have, Mark Lore claims that the city of Telosa will have an "improved" democracy. By clicking the icon for Governance, we find:
Secure and Verifiable Elections
E-voting and in-person voting will utilize blockchain and other technologies to execute secure, verifiable and citizen-friendly elections and will increase participation and improve democracy.

He has not provided an explanation for how "blockchain and other technologies" will:
1) Prevent cheating in the election.
2) Inspire the apathetic people to vote.
3) Improve a democracy.

Unfortunately, he never will provide an explanation because those promises are idiotic fantasies, not solutions to incompetent and corrupt governments. The reasons are as follows.

1) Blockchain cannot prevent cheating in the election.

His theory that blockchain will stop cheating in the elections is as idiotic as the theory that security locks, cameras, guns, barbed wire, RFID chips, and other security devices will stop crime. The theory that we can stop crime with technology has a 100% failure rate. Crime continues to occur even though our security devices are becoming increasingly advanced and numerous.

Although crime statistics are measured differently by different nations, there is a tremendous difference between the crime rates of different nations, and there is no evidence that crime is related to security devices.

The people who promote the theory that we can stop crime with blockchain, guns, RFID chips, or security guards should be regarded as intellectual nitwits who are inappropriate as leaders. They might be capable of making a lot of money and acquiring college diplomas, but they are not capable of providing us with intelligent analyses of our problems, or sensible advice on how to improve our lives.

2) Honest elections cannot inspire the apathetic people to vote.

Mark Lore claims that making the elections more honest will "increase participation", but that theory is based on the assumption that some of the apathetic people are choosing not to vote because they are upset by the cheating during the elections.

People have been choosing not to vote ever since voting systems were created, but I don't think it is because they are upset that there is cheating in the elections. I suspect that the two primary reasons that people are choosing not to vote are:
1) They dislike all of the candidates, thereby causing them to regard the elections as a waste of their time.
2) They don't have enough of an interest in choosing government officials to want to bother with it.

I pointed out in another document that we can create a much more honest election system simply by eliminating anonymous voting. However, even if we were to create a voting system that was guaranteed to be 100% honest, most - or all - of the people who have no interest in voting would continue to have no interest.

3) Inspiring apathetic people to vote cannot improve a democracy.

Mark Lore promotes the very popular theory that increasing the percentage of people who vote will "improve democracy". Some people are so certain of its validity that they want to make voting a requirement rather than an option. I find it amusing that North Korea is one of the few nations that requires every adult to vote, but the communist officials have no fear that it's going to give North Korea an improved democracy.

There is no evidence that a government or a democracy improves as more people vote. In the USA, for example, black men were allowed to vote after the Civil War, but did that improve our democracy? A few decades later women were allowed to vote, but there is no evidence that anything in the USA improved as a result of doubling the number of people who vote.

A few decades later the USA lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, but there is no evidence that our democracy improved as a result. Brazil and Austria are two of the nations that lowered the voting age to 16, but there is no evidence that their governments improved from that increase in voters.

History provides us with a lot of evidence that the corrupt and incompetent officials are the only people who benefit by increasing the percentage of people who vote, and by lowering the age of the voters. The people who ignore that evidence should be described as intellectual nitwits, and they should be prohibited from influential positions.

Will blockchain improve healthcare?

Mark Lore is only one of many people who believe that blockchain will solve a lot of our problems. Jeffrey Berns also believes that blockchain can improve our lives. For example, in the section about healthcare for Innovation Park, he claims that blockchain will make healthcare data more secure. That sounds wonderful, but he does not bother to explain how we are suffering right now as a result of health data that is not secure enough, or how increasing its security will improve our lives.

There is no evidence that we will improve our lives by making healthcare data more secretive. Our prehistoric ancestors could not hide their health problems from one another. Everybody in a tribe knew if somebody was sick, had trouble sleeping, snored, had allergies, or had bladder problems. Did they suffer as a result of knowing one another's health details? No!

Giving people the freedom to hide their health problems is giving them the freedom to deceive us, and to inhibit medical research. It also encourages paranoia and secrecy, rather than honesty.

If we were collecting medical data on every person throughout his life, and providing everybody with free access to that data, all of us would benefit in a lot of ways, such as providing scientists with more information about the human race, and making it easier for each of us to use software to compare ourselves to other people and identify similarities and differences, which would help us identify our particular health problems, and those of our children. The database would also make it easier for doctors to figure out what a particular person's health problems are.

If such a database existed decades ago, I could have used it to find out who has to wear socks while sleeping, or long underwear during warm weather, and some of the other unusual characteristics that I noticed about myself, and I might have discovered that those people tend to have a problem with their thyroid hormones.

Blockchain is another Linux-type scam

Blockchain is being treated as if it is some type of magic fairy dust that is going to give us a better life. For example:

• Thousands of people are suggesting that we switch from our current monetary system to "crypto currency", which uses blockchain. The president of El Salvador is planning to build a "Bitcoin City". Jack Dorsey, of Twitter, hopes that bitcoin will create world peace!

• The Colnago bicycle company is using blockchain on some of its bicycles to " combat theft and counterfeiting".

This document lists some of the other amazing benefits of blockchain, such as making it more efficient for us to pay taxes:

Blockchain tech could make the cumbersome process of filing taxes, which is prone to human error, much more efficient...

There might be some sensible applications for blockchain, but most of the people who are promoting it are giving us worthless fantasies.

The exaggerations about blockchain reminds me of the people around the year 2000 who were promoting Linux as a free and superior replacement to Microsoft Windows and other alternatives. A lot of us trusted them, switched to Linux, and soon discovered that Linux was not yet capable of replacing the existing operating systems, except for certain people, mainly students.

As with Linux, many people promote crypto currency as being free, but it is not free because it requires electricity and computers. Actually, the consumption of energy is phenomenal. The people who believe that crypto currencies are "free" are intellectual nitwits.

The promoters of crypto currency boast that it is decentralized, safe, and has other wonderful advantages, but in January 2022, Jack Dorsey announced that he was going to improve five of the problems with crypto currency, which implies that crypto currency needs further development. He also announced a Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund to deal with such problems as fraud and cheating, which is proof that crypto currencies cannot stop crime.

In January 2022, suspended withdrawals for a day while they investigated reports of "suspicious activity". Although they didn't discover any cheating, this article about the incident has some interesting remarks, such as:
Criminals managed to steal an estimated 7.7 billion dollars worth of cryptocurrency in 2021.
Not all exchanges have invested in adequate security measures.
Stolen cryptocurrency is very hard to trace and retrieve, but easy to launder.

The author also provided advice on how to "stay safe", such as:
Use complex, unique passwords.
Be aware of current crypto scams.
Periodically check your balance and immediately report any suspicious transactions.

How often is "periodically"? Furthermore, that attitude is another example of the "buyer beware" attitude rather than "eliminate criminals" attitude. It is as stupid as a journalist responding to complaints of children being raped at a daycare facility by advising:
"Be aware of potential pedophiles. Periodically check your child's body for signs of sexual abuse, and immediately report any suspicious symptoms."

Parents would be fools to send their children to a daycare facility that requires them to periodically check their children for sex abuse. Likewise, we would be fools to switch to a "safe and secure" crypto currency that requires us to periodically inspect our balance of a type of money that is so easy to steal and launder.

A few weeks after the "suspicious activity", $324 million in cryptocurrency was stolen, and this article about that crime lists some of the previous thefts, and that article links to this article which mentions that criminals made billions of dollars through scams, and that article links to this article that says criminalslaundered $33 billion in crypto currency during the 5 years from 2017 through 2021.

A week later Ilya Lichtenstein and his wife, Heather Morgan, were arrested for trying to launder $3.6 billion of stolen crypto currency. Even more significant, Heather Morgan had published this article in Forbes about how to protect a business from cybercriminals. She is an example of what I wrote about in one of my first documents; specifically, a criminal pretending to be a crime fighter. How many of the people who are promoting crypto currency are criminals who are trying to deceive us into using crypto currencies so that they can cheat us?

A week later Microsoft warned the world to watch out for criminals trying to steal their cyber currency through "ice phishing". If blockchain is so effective at preventing crime, why should we have to learn what "ice phishing" is, and watch out for it?

Who among us excels at handling reality?

Only a small number of people are using crypto currency, but criminals are cheating those people out of billions of dollars. However, the people who purchase or promote crypto currency are ignoring all of the disadvantages to it.

We must be aware that humans have a tendency to believe what we find pleasurable, and ignore whatever bothers us. Our emotions do not care about reality; they want pleasure. Unfortunately, it is not easy to figure out who among us is the most realistic, and who is believing in fantasies.

For example, during the 2020 presidential election, I heard some supporters of Donald Trump and Joe Biden accuse one another of ignoring reality and believing what they want to believe. I also occasionally hear religious and non-religious people accuse one another of ignoring reality.

All around the world we find people regularly accusing one another of ignoring reality. How do we determine who among us truly has the most realistic view of life?

The people who have done above-average in school are likely to assume that they are the most realistic people, but our ability to handle reality depends on our emotions, not on our education or intelligence.

An example of how we prefer fantasies is that all of us believe that we have the best opinions about abortion, crime, euthanasia, presidential elections, diets, cholesterol, raising children, marriage, and virtually every other issue. We believe that we have the best opinions on those issues because we want to believe it, not because scientists around the world have conducted an analysis of everybody's opinions, and have verified that we have the truly superior opinions.

Another characteristic of our mind that we must be aware of and watch out for is our fear of the unknown, and our craving to mimic other people. Those emotions can cause us to believe something that we suspect is false, or do something that we suspect is idiotic, simply because everybody else is believing it or doing it.

In order for us to produce truly intelligent thoughts, we must be aware of our animal characteristics, and we need to exert self-control over our emotions. For example:

• Are the scientists who believe in the Big Bang basing that theory on reality? Or is that just a variation of the biblical creation fantasy in which they remove God and increase the time that the universe has existed?

• Are scientists facing reality when they claim that a meteor caused the dinosaurs to go extinct? Or do they have such a strong craving to mimic other people that they are afraid to look critically at that theory?

• Are the scientists facing reality when they claim that neutrinos are a particle? Or are they too afraid of the unknown to explore other "radical and reckless" possibilities, such as a neutrino is a photon that is slowly disintegrating, or reverting back into "space"?

My opinion is that the people who are promoting blockchain and crypto currency are ignoring reality and believing in fantasies. They are not providing us with intelligent analyses of our culture, or proposing sensible experiments to improve our culture. They are as unsuitable for leadership positions as the Pope.

What is the difference between a proposal and a promise?

In order for a voter to make a wise decision about political candidates, he must be able to differentiate between a candidate who is providing a theory that has supporting evidence, and a candidate who is providing a fantasy.

Likewise, in order for us to make a wise decision about which of the new cities to support, we need to differentiate between cities that are based on a sensible foundation, and those that are based on fantasies.

Another way to describe this concept is that we must be able to differentiate between "proposals" and "promises".

Consider a house in which water drips into the bedroom during rainstorms. What is the difference between a company that "promises" to fix the problem and a company that provides a "proposal" to fix the problem?

1) A proposal to fix a leaky roof

A company that is competent will begin by analyzing the problem to determine why the roof is leaking, and after they have identified the source of the leak, they will develop a solution. They will be able to provide an accurate estimate of the time, materials, and labor that they need to fix the problem. They will create a proposal that has intelligent details about what the problem is and how they intend to solve it, such as:

The roof is leaking because several of the roof tiles have cracked, and the tar paper underneath has developed holes. We propose replacing 13 of the roof tiles, and the tar paper in that area. There has been some water damage in the ceiling of the bedroom, so we propose to replace 6 square meters of the ceiling. This will require an additional...

2) A promise to fix a leaky roof

A company that is incompetent or dishonest will not bother to analyze the problem. Instead they will promise to fix the problem. They will write something that is emotionally appealing, such as this:

Thank you for considering The Superduper Roofer! Our team of dedicated and highly trained professionals will fix your leaky roof quickly, and without any disturbance to your family or your loving pets! We use blockchain to give you the most advanced roof possible. Sophisticated homeowners choose us for all their roofing projects!

It is possible that The Superduper Roofer would do an excellent job of fixing the roof, but a person would be foolish to make that assumption. It is best to choose a company that has demonstrated the desire and ability to identify the source of the problem, and has put effort into thinking about how to solve the problem. It is risky to depend on a company that has no idea about what to do.

This concept applies to political candidates, also. Specifically, it is risky to choose a candidate who promises to solve a problem if he has not provided:
1) An analysis of the source of the problem.
2) An explanation of how his solution will reduce the problem.
3) An explanation of how his solution has more advantages than the alternative solutions.

Without that analysis, all he has is a promise, not a intelligent proposal. Voting should be restricted to people who realize that promises are worthless. Even a child can promise to reduce unemployment, cure cancer, and develop a time travel machine.

Are the billionaires providing us with sensible proposals?

None of the people who are proposing new cities are providing us with intelligent analyses of the problems of our existing cities, or explaining how their new cities will provide us with a better life. Instead, they are giving us worthless promises of a better city while proposing the same type of city that we already have.

For another example of their worthless promises, in the description of Innovation Park, Jeffrey Berns wrote:
...blockchain technology could be used in times of crisis management to ensure that aid relief programs are able to allocate resources efficiently, securely, and with transparency...

His description is so vague that even if you read the entire paragraph you cannot understand what blockchain will do to improve the lives of the people in the city, or how it will improve their lives, or how it is better than whatever cities are doing right now for "crisis management".

What is the difference between:
a) A medieval doctor's claim that wearing a bird mask will prevent disease.
b) Mark Lore's claim that blockchain will improve a democracy.
c) Jeffrey Berns' claim that blockchain will improve healthcare and crisis management.
d) The claim that blockchain money will give us a free and better monetary system.

Do the billionaires really want to create a better city?

What are the motives of the billionaires who are making proposals for new cities? Are they really interested in experimenting with a better city? Or are they proposing a new city because that want to create their own kingdom?

The author of this article says that Mark Lore will be in control of Telosa, but that "Lore has plans to step aside more if and when Telosa is off the ground". Notice that Lore will step aside "more" rather than step aside "completely". That implies that he will retain control of the city, which puts him into the role of a king.

There is a large community in Florida called The Villages for people who are over 55. An Australian film crew discovered that the management was constantly trying to prevent them from interviewing the people who live there. The management suppresses free speech and criticism, but if the people in that village are truly having a better life, and if the management is truly respectable, the management should be proud of themselves and their achievements.

There is a statue of Harold Schwartz, the man who started the community, and he became wealthy from it, so perhaps it was his attempt to create a kingdom for himself, rather than to create a truly better city.

Perhaps the City of Telosa, Innovation Park, and the others are also attempts to become kingdoms, rather than better cities, and perhaps Bill Gates, Mark Lore, and the others are fantasizing about statues of themselves in their cities.

Another possible reason that the billionaires are proposing new cities is to lure people away from Kastron and other alternative cities that they are trying to suppress.

In other words, the billionaires may be taking the role of a Pied Piper who is trying to lead people away from the concepts that they are afraid of, such as eliminating inheritances, or setting high standards for our leaders.

The world is dominated by neurotic people

A free enterprise system puts us into competition to make profit, but that does not necessarily give us good leadership because we can be successful in that type of competition through exploitation, crimes, deception, inheritances, alimony, and other types of cheating.

A democracy puts us into a competition to appeal to the ordinary people, but that favors the people who are deceptive, dishonest, and willing to join crime networks.

Furthermore, certain mental disorders can help a person become successful today. A lot of evidence has been presented during the past few decades to show that many of the people getting into leadership positions today have such an intense craving for wealth and status that they are willing to "do whatever it takes", which includes getting involved with crime networks.

Their behavior is evidence that they are so selfish, and have so little concern for other people, that they are willing to hurt, torture, deceive, kill, rape, and exploit us in order to titillate themselves. That is not the personality of a leader. That is the behavior we see in animals.

There are accusations that Donald Trump cheats during casual games of golf with his friends, and that he justifies it by claiming that the other people cheat. If Trump is telling the truth, that would be evidence that he and the other wealthy, successful people play golf to win and feel important, not to socialize, enjoy nature, enjoy other people, or get exercise.

Do the people who cheat in a casual game with their friends even regard the people they play with as "friends"? Or do they regard them as opportunities to feel important? I would not be surprised if many of the wealthy, successful people get together with their "friends" only to show off, become the center of attention, and feel important. They might choose friends according to how they can benefit from the person, not according to who they truly enjoy spending their time with.

Some of the influential people, especially in the Royal families, seem to choose a spouse for political purposes, or to deceive us into thinking they are heterosexual, which is evidence that they don't even want a "normal" marriage. To them, a spouse is just a tool to achieve their selfish goals. Some of them might want to have a son merely to provide them with the opportunity to pass on their name and wealth, thereby making them feel as if they are important people who will be remembered by future generations.

The people getting to the top positions of society seem to regard you and me as opportunities, or as stepping stones, to achieving their goals. They do not regard us as friends or team members. They want to exploit us, not provide us with leadership. They want to satisfy their psychotic cravings for material wealth, sex, and status. They are not interested in improving our cities, school curriculum, marriages, recreational activities, or holiday celebrations.

The people who are currently in influential positions should be investigated, not admired or envied.

Voting should be restricted to people who understand that they should look for candidates who have shown an interest in people, rather than wealth and status. Our leaders should show an interest in researching our problems, experimenting with improvements, and making life better for all of us. We need leaders who regard us as their friends and team members, and who want to help us improve our lives.

Our primary problem is bad leadership

Why do I criticize so many influential people?

I frequently criticize people who are famous, successful, or wealthy, and that could be interpreted as an attempt to make myself look better, or because I am envious of them, but the reason I criticize the influential people is because I believe that the primary problem that humans have been suffering from for the past few thousand years is bad leadership. And I don't believe anything will improve until we put pressure on one another to do a better job of selecting leaders.

We must treat our leaders as if they are our employees who are doing a management job. We must set high standards for them, routinely give them job performance reviews, and replace the worst performing leaders on a routine basis so that we can give other people the chance to test their abilities.

Why are we so tolerant of bad leadership?

Why does nobody want to get rid of the monarchies, or replace the incompetent, corrupt, abusive, and dishonest leaders in business, journalism, schools, or governments? Why do we provide them with so much wealth and pampering?

It is because we are animals, and we inherited their desire to follow whichever animal gets to the top of the hierarchy, with no concern for how he got there, or how he behaves.

It is unnatural for us to be critical of our leaders, or to treat them as our employees, or to replace the worst performing leaders, so it's going to require us to exert some self-control and push one another into doing it. It will be emotionally uncomfortable for us to be critical of our leaders, so we should help each other deal with the trauma.

The submissive positions humans display towards their Kings and Queens should be considered as more evidence that humans are animals. This behavior is equivalent to a wolf laying on his back to show submission to the dominant wolf.

We should reprimand a person who bows before Queen Elizabeth or the Pope.

The people who bow before religious leaders, "royalty", or Hollywood celebrities are not showing respect, or being polite. Rather, they are behaving like stupid animals.

The photo to the right of the Thailand government is an example of what we should consider to be animal behavior, and it should be considered unacceptable for modern humans. We should not tolerate leaders who want that type of submissive behavior.

We need to push ourselves and one another into treating our leaders as employees in a management position, not as Kings, Queens, or dictators. We should help one another resist the emotional craving to roll over on our back.

It is especially destructive for us to become submissive to people who get into leadership positions through blackmail, inheritances, and other types of cheating. We must demand that our leaders earn their position by impressing us with their leadership abilities.

These concepts also apply to “billionaire failures

Our leaders cannot improve our world unless they are interested in spending their time analyzing transportation system, schools, working conditions, recreational activities, crime, loneliness, holiday celebrations, and similar issues, and experimenting with improvements. However, I think that the people in influential positions today have become wealthy and famous because they have almost no concern for society, and devote their lives to pleasing themselves.

I think the people in leadership positions today need to be replaced, but we cannot assume that simply because a person has a typical amount of wealth and status that he is going to be a better leader. It is important to realize that the people who become wealthy and famous are only a small portion of the people who have tried to become wealthy and famous. There are always more failures than successes. Therefore, there are lots of people with "typical" wealth and status who are just as, or more, selfish, aggressive, and dishonest as the wealthy and famous people, but they failed to achieve their goal of becoming wealthy and famous.

Voters should not judge a political candidate by his money or status. They need to analyze his personality and his goals. They need to look at how he has spent his life, and how he has treated other people. They need to determine what his true interests are, and look for somebody who wants to improve society, rather than titillate his cravings for wealth, status, sex, or pampering by servants.

How many people were fooled by the Georgia Guidestones?

The ten goals on the Georgia Guidestones are so vague that each of us interprets them differently, but they could be described as promoting noble causes, such as "Avoid petty laws and useless officials". A "petty law" and a "useless official" is whatever we want it to be, but everybody agrees that it is a wonderful goal. It is analogous to somebody saying "Avoid unpleasant food." Those vague remarks could be described as "emotional candy that makes us feel good, but doesn't provide any intellectual nutrition".

How many people were told about the Georgia Guidestones, deceived into believing that their particular interpretation was correct, and then asked if they would like to join a secret society of elite government officials, business executives, Hollywood celebrities, journalists, professors, and other important people, to bring about a New World Order that followed those ten goals? Even more important, how many of the people who joined that secret society knew the truth about who was in control of it, and what their true goals were?

The Georgia Guidestones are another example of why we must stop secrecy and raise standards for leaders. When we follow a group of people who are secretive, we allow ourselves to be deceived, exploited, and murdered.

Secrecy is hurting us in many ways

Our desire to be secretive and to create false images was acceptable in prehistoric times because it was impossible for prehistoric people to get carried away with secrecy or deception. Today, however, it is possible for us to create tremendous problems for ourselves and other people with secrecy and deception. I mentioned some of the disadvantages of secrecy in other documents, so I will briefly mention only one more.

Secrecy allows men to abuse their wives and children

Women and children are very submissive and trusting of adult men because they evolved for a social environment in which the men protected the women and children, rather than exploit them for profit or sex.

There was no secrecy in a prehistoric tribe, so it was impossible for a man to secretly beat, rape, or abuse his wife or children, and it was impossible for a woman to secretly torment her husband or children. It was also impossible for children to secretly abuse their siblings or parents.

Furthermore, everybody in a prehistoric tribe was closely related to one another, so if a man were to beat his wife, he would be beating somebody's sister, daughter, or cousin. The fathers and brothers of the beaten woman would have reacted to the beating rather than expect the police to deal with the issue. Those prehistoric men would have passed judgment on why that man was attacking his wife. If they came to the conclusion that he had a problem with his temper, they would have protected the woman, and/or attacked the man.

Today, however, a man can beat his wife or children for decades without anybody noticing. Joseph Fritzl went even further and treated his children as sex slaves. There are also accusations of people conducting murder rituals, and selling and purchasing kidnapped children, and adopting children to use as prostitutes or sex slaves.

Another problem with modern society is that we are living among people we don't know, and we don't have much concern for people we don't know. Therefore, even if we realize that one of our neighbors is being abused by their spouse or children, we are not likely to care. To further encourage our apathy, our laws prohibit us from dealing with badly behaved people and require us to call the police.

To make the situation worse, we allow our leaders to have more secrecy than the ordinary people, and it is more difficult to have them arrested. For example, if the actresses in Hollywood were sexually abusing Harvey Weinstein, he would have been able to easily fire them or have them arrested but, until recently, nobody could stop him from abusing people because he was protected by law enforcement agencies, lawyers, judges, and who knows how many other people in leadership positions.

When our leaders are arrested, they usually get special treatment, such as limiting the investigation of Harvey Weinstein to his abuse of adult women and ignoring the accusations that he raped children.

Another example of how leaders get special treatment is that many organizations put employees through drug tests or background investigations, but we allow our leaders to have so much secrecy that we cannot verify or disprove the accusations that President Biden is senile, or that the FBI officials are involved with a pedophile network.

Eliminating secrecy will make it much easier for us to identify and eliminate criminals and corruption. It will also cause each of us to occasionally experience some emotional discomfort because it will allow people to know the truth about us, but rather than worry about that, we should remain calm by reminding ourselves that it will simply give us the same intimate social environment that our prehistoric ancestors had, and which people have today when they go camping, or live on a submarine, small boat, or space station.

Our ancestors worked, relaxed, and ate in front of one another, but did they suffer as a result?

People who go camping do not have much secrecy, but do they suffer as a result?

The only people who can justify secrecy and deception are people in the security forces who are trying to fight crime. However, they use secrecy to identify and destroy crime networks, not to eliminate their competitors or exploit us.

A person who is not involved with stopping crime but who promotes secrecy should be regarded as:
a) A potential criminal who is trying to hide his criminal activities.
b) A person who is ashamed of himself and wants to hide his disgusting characteristics.
c) A person who is "paranoid" or "mentally ill".

We would create a very pleasant social environment if we evicted the people who want secrecy and were living only among people who were not ashamed of themselves, not deceiving us about themselves, not involved with crime, and not mentally ill. That would allow us to know the truth about the people we live with, and it would allow women and children to trust the men. It would also make it much easier for us to find compatible friends and a spouse.

Our competitions are giving us mentally defective leaders

We need to change the manner in which people compete for leadership for our economy, schools, recreational activities, and government agencies. The current competitions are giving us leaders who have extreme selfishness and serious mental disorders.

Some of the wealthy and influential people have admitted to having significant mental or physical disorders, such as Elon Musk, who admitted to having Asperger's syndrome, but none of them seem to consider that their genetic defects are the reason that they became so influential. Instead, they believe that mental disorders are as insignificant as freckles and birthmarks.

However, I think their mental disorders are the reason they become so influential. Their mental disorders did something to prevent them from having a "normal" life, such as give them abnormally intense cravings for material wealth or status, or make it impossible for them to relax, or give them such an unusual or anti-social personality that they had trouble forming relationships and ended up spending most of their time alone.

The wealthy people believe that they are enjoying life more than the rest of us as a result of their wealth, but if they were truly getting the most satisfaction from life, wouldn't they be the least frightened about death from old age? Although that question is not likely to have a simple answer, who do you think is more likely to be afraid of old age:
a) People who have had a wonderful life.
b) People who have been miserable.

I suspect that the people who are the most afraid of death are the people who have had a miserable life. The main reason I suspect this is because when we are unhappy, we look for a way to make ourselves feel better. Unfortunately, if a person is miserable because of a genetic disorder of his mind or body, he will never find a way to stop the misery. As a result, he is likely to waste his entire life on the pursuit of happiness, such as convincing himself that he will become happy if he can acquire an expensive home or automobile.

If he accomplishes one of his goals, he receives only momentary pleasure, so he is soon miserable again. Since we are arrogant creatures, he is not likely to look critically at himself, so he is likely to assume something idiotic, such as his house is not large enough, or that he needs a private jet, or that he needs to have sex with a child, or that he needs to become a famous Hollywood celebrity. He will then repeat the cycle of pursuing his goal in the hope of finding happiness.

When he becomes old, he will still be in the process of pursuing happiness. Instead of having a lot of wonderful memories to reminisce about, he will have a lot of miserable memories of disappointment, awkwardness, mental anguish, depression, or loneliness. He will have an especially miserable collection of memories if he got involved with crime networks, pedophilia, or blackmail. He will feel that death is cheating him of his opportunity to enjoy life, so he will desperately crave a longer life.

Excessive behavior is a symptom of a problem

We assume that the people who are extremely wealthy or famous are better people, but I think that the people who are doing things to an extreme, such as the people with extreme cravings for wealth, the Hollywood celebrities who want extreme amounts of fame, and the people who want extreme amounts of sex, are suffering from some type of internal misery, and that they do things to an extreme in an attempt to find relief from their misery. Rather than assume that they are better people than us, and having a better life, we should consider that they are mentally inferior, and suffering.

I suspect that if we were to remove secrecy and maintain a database of everybody's life, we would discover that the people who are involved with any type of excessive behavior are suffering from some type of internal misery or genetic disorder. For a few examples of this concept:

• The obese people do not enjoy food more than the rest of us. Rather, they are suffering from some type of mental or physical disorder.

• We assume that the people who are "the life of the party" are "fun-loving people" who are "outgoing" and "cheerful", but we should consider that they are actually suffering from some disorder, and they are trying to make themselves feel better by becoming the center of attention.

• The people who masturbate or have sex to an extreme, such as Hugh Hefner, are not people who enjoy sex more than the rest of us. They are more likely to be suffering from some disorder, and using sex to bring them some pleasure. However, the pleasure will be momentary, so they will have to do it over and over. If they want more sex than their body is capable of, they might use pornography, Viagra, or amyl nitrite to stimulate themselves, but that is analogous to an obese person who pours sugar onto his food after he has eaten so much that he has lost his appetite.

• The people who frequently boast about themselves, or insult other people, are likely to be suffering from something, such as low self-esteem, internal pains, or loneliness, and they are struggling to feel better about themselves.

• The people who travel the most often are not necessarily the people who enjoy learning about the world. Some of them are traveling to find excitement, or to have the opportunity to boast about their trips and become the center of attention. Traveling also attracts the retired and wealthy people who are bored or lonely.

If we had a database with details of everybody's life, and analyzed the people who do the most traveling, we would find that they have a higher percentage of mental disorders, and that's why so many of the people who travel are obnoxious, irresponsible, excessively cheerful, or excessively whiny.

The people who travel are not a random sample of the population. They seem to have a higher percentage of mental disorders. This has resulted in lots of documents and photos of "obnoxious tourists", and "worst tourists".

Every culture promotes the attitude that happiness is something that increases as we acquire more material wealth, status, sex, and food. In reality, people who feel a need to search for happiness have a problem with their attitude towards life, or they are suffering from some type of genetic disorder with their brain and/or body. Searching for happiness is as futile as chasing a rainbow.

In a free enterprise system, businesses exploit unhappy people by titillating them with travel opportunities, sex robots, pet dogs, contests that offer trophies, and a wide variety of worthless status products. And in a democracy, the government officials have such serious mental disorders that they encourage tourism, and they waste our tax money in a battle for tourists, as I pointed out in this sarcastic joke.

Exploiting the unhappy people by encouraging them to travel does not help anybody. Rather, it creates jobs that nobody wants, such as hotel maids and restaurant employees, and it results in mentally defective tourists making a mess at our national parks, beaches, and cities. We should deal with the mentally ill and unhappy people in a more sensible manner.

We are currently ignoring, or admiring, some of the people who pursue wealth and status to an excess, and I suppose there are some men who admire Hugh Hefner, but we should consider all types of excessive behavior to be a symptom of a mental or physical disorder. We should prohibit those people from leadership positions, and we should study them so that we can get a better understanding of human behavior and happiness.

“Hi! How are you?”

In the USA, people often greet one another with questions, such as, "How are you?", "How are you doing?" Many people have noticed that nobody wants an answer to those questions. Even more interesting, many people have noticed that if they answer the question by discussing their problems, the other person is likely to become irritated.

Why did we develop a custom to ask a question that we do not want answered? And why do we become annoyed when the person responds by telling us about his problems?

We also frequently greet one another, and say goodbye to one another, with statements that have no particular meaning, such as "Good Morning" and "See you later". Why do we make those meaningless remarks?

This behavior is typical for all social animals. All species have some method of acknowledging one another. With humans, it is with verbal and facial expressions.

In the song, What a Wonderful World, Louis Armstrong wrote:
I see friends shaking hands,
Saying how do you do.
They’re really saying,
I love you.

Instead of making noises to acknowledge
one another, we make verbal remarks.

He realized that when we ask, "How Are You", we are not expecting an answer. Rather, we are expressing our enjoyment of life and the other person. This concept would have been more obvious if he had written:
I see friends greet each other
with "How do you do?"
Which is one of the ways
we say "I love you!"

When we say "Good Morning" or "How Are You", we are doing the equivalent of birds that are chirping at one another. We do not want or expect people to respond to those questions by telling us about their problems because animals do not expect other animals to respond by complaining about their problems.

The competition for life ensures that all of the wild animals are in good mental and physical health, and this causes all of them to participate appropriately in their acknowledgment routines. However, there are lots of defective pet animals. A pet dog that is suffering from mental disorders or physical pains might not greet other dogs appropriately.

The same concept applies to humans. Prehistoric people were in better mental and physical health than people today, so they would have greeted one another appropriately. Today the human race is accumulating physical and mental defects, and a lot of people are suffering from environmental damage, such as concussions, strokes, and drug abuse. This is resulting in a lot of people who are miserable rather than cheerful, so they don't want to greet us, and some people are so miserable that they are irritated when we greet them.

Furthermore, if one of the unhappy people were to answer our "How are you" remark by telling us about his problems in the hope that we give him some pity, he is likely to become annoyed when he realizes that we do not want to listen to his answer, and that we regard his answer as "whining".

If we had a database that had details of everybody's life, we would discover that the people who are most likely to greet other people with "How Are You" are the people who are enjoying life more than the people who are quiet, or who are irritated by such greetings.

To complicate this issue, I previously mentioned that excessive behavior is a sign of problems, and this concept applies to how we greet one another. Specifically, the people who are excessive with their "How Are You" remarks, such as asking it too often, or who are excessively cheerful, are likely to be suffering from some type of problem.

How many of the people in influential positions truly enjoy greeting people with "How Are You", and how many of them make that remark only because they are mimicking other people, or only to impress us by appearing to be polite or friendly? How many of them have had such a pleasant life that, when they become old, they want to sing a variation of Armstrong's song:
I've enjoyed skies full of shades of blue, red, and white;
the warmth of the sunshine, and the cold stars at night.
I love the colors of the rainbow that decorate the sky;
and the giggles of children who are playing nearby.
I can spend hours reminiscing, about my wonderful life.

How will the new cities protect themselves from crime networks?

None of the people who promote new cities have an explanation for how they will provide the city with better leadership than the existing cities. It seems that they want to be the leaders, or the dictators. We should be even more concerned that none of them even acknowledge the evidence that governments, media companies, schools, and businesses are under the control of a gigantic crime network of pedophiles, Zionists, and lunatics.

One of the latest accusations is from Sandy Glaze, who claims that Justin Trudeau is also involved with a pedophilia network.

Why are they ignoring the evidence of murder rituals, pedophile networks, and blackmail? Are they truly ignorant about the accusations by John DeCamp, David Shurter, and Ally Carter? Or are they pretending to be ignorant of these crimes because they are involved with those crimes, or because they are blackmail victims of the criminals?

The media companies are frequently producing movies, newspaper articles, and other documents that ridicule the accusations of murder rituals and pedophilia. One of my brothers is an example of the hundreds of millions of people who trust the media. He insisted to me that the accusations of rape by the children at the McMartin preschool were false. Therefore, if any of the influential people are as trusting of the media as my brother, they will also be fooled into ridiculing the accusations of murder rituals and pedophilia.

For an example of the propaganda, in 2015 Harvey Weinstein's company released a movie called Regression in which a policeman in Minnesota in 1990 investigates the accusations of a woman who claims that her family is involved with murder rituals and pedophilia. However, by the end of the movie, the policeman discovers that the woman fabricated the accusations, and the movie ends by trying to convince us that the accusations of pedophilia and murder rituals from the 1980's and 1990's were fictional.

That movie is an attempt to make us dismiss the accusations that were made during the 1980's of murder rituals and pedophilia from such people as Paul Bonacci, Vicki Polin, and the children at the McMartin preschool.

The Wikipedia entry for that film contributes to that propaganda by claiming that the accusations of murder rituals and pedophilia were hallucinations that were caused by the "satanic abuse hysteria" of the 1980's and 1990's:
The film ends with a statement that many cases like this were reported before the satanic abuse hysteria faded.

That Wikipedia entry provides a link to this article to further convince us that the accusations are false and the hysteria is true.

Our leaders should know more than we do

We cannot expect ordinary people, including business executives, to have the time or desire to investigate accusations of crimes and corruption, but our police and FBI officials should have a more thorough and accurate understanding of the accusations by Katy Groves, Vicki Polin, Ally Carter, and Jenny Guskin than an ordinary citizen because their full-time job is to investigate such accusations.

Likewise, the people who get to the top positions of government ought to know more about the world than the ordinary people.

If you do not know much about surgical procedures, you would be horrified if the surgeon who is about to remove your appendix asked you where in your body your appendix is located, or if the anesthesiologist asked you what he should do to put you to sleep for the surgery.

However, we have the opposite attitude with leaders. People are not appalled to discover that the FBI officials know less about human trafficking than an ordinary person who browses the Internet a few hours each month during his leisure time. Likewise, people are not disgusted when their government officials show ignorance about the collapse of Building 7, or when history professors know nothing about the lies of the Holocaust.

Are we truly “free”? Or are we “prisoners”?

The crime and corruption in the USA is at such a high level that many organizations have enclosed their property in electric fences, barbed wire, or razor wire. This makes those facilities resemble prisons.

After the employees pass through the outer security fences and are allowed inside the building, many employees must wear badges at all times, and some have to regularly pass through security doors and security guards in order to get from one room to another. Some employees have to work inside of security cages. Some data centers boast that they have six levels of security.

Going to work at some organizations
is like going into a prison.

Some employees work inside cages,
as if they are dangerous animals.

The security procedures are treating us as prisoners, not as friends. We would have a much more pleasant environment if we did not need security systems. The city would also be more visually attractive without razor wire and security guard towers. Furthermore, all of the technical talent, labor, and resources that are wasted on security systems could be put into projects that are more beneficial.

However, eliminating security systems requires a dramatic change in our culture because it requires reducing crime rather than preparing for crime. It requires raising standards of behavior, rather than feeling sorry for the underdogs, disadvantaged, downtrodden, mentally ill, and criminals. It requires evicting or euthanizing criminals, rather than living in fear of them.

It requires raising standards for our leaders, and treating them as employees, rather than as Kings and Queens. It requires that we give job performance reviews to our leaders, and continuously replace the worst performing leaders.

Finally, we cannot reduce crime until the people stop whining for freedom and put some time and effort into studying and discussing the issue of freedom. For example, are we truly "free" when we have to wear badges?

It makes sense for some employees to wear a badge that displays their name, and sometimes their job title, because their badge informs us of their name and job, but those type of badges are for information purposes, not security purposes. We should not have to wear badges because we distrust one another.

We reduce awkwardness and confusion when certain employees wear badges to identify their name and/or job.

However, wearing a badge for security purposes is treating us like a prisoner.

Are we truly "free" when we are so afraid of our team members that we wear security badges, or work in buildings that are enclosed with barbed wire, or work inside of cages? Or would we be more free if our leaders reduced crime to such low levels that we did not have to fear the people we live with?

Are children free when they are told to be afraid of strangers? Or are they more free when they can trust the adults they live with?

What effect do the wealthy people have on our lives?

We should judge a person by the effect he has on other people, not by his level of wealth. For example, the development of reusable rockets by Elon Musk is beneficial, but I think his project to put people on Mars, and the Tesla cars, are a waste of technical talent and resources. I think that there are thousands of other projects that would have been much more beneficial.

For example, the amount of technical talent and resources that have gone into the Tesla cars might have been enough to create a machine that can travel along the rows of crops at a farm to remove weeds so that farmers can avoid herbicides.

We should not be impressed by somebody simply because he has a lot of wealth. We should instead the pass judgment on his value to society. For example:

• A person who inherits wealth but does nothing of value with it should be regarded as a glorified parasite because he takes an enormous amount of resources, such as mansions and private jets, but gives us nothing.

• A person who becomes wealthy by selling shoddy products, or by manipulating consumers into purchasing products that they don't need, should be regarded as destructive and dishonest because he takes a lot of resources but makes our lives worse.

The parasitic and dishonest wealthy people are another example of why we need to take control of our economy. We should not let people become our economic leaders simply because they are capable of making lots of money. We need to change the competitive battle of our economic system so that business executives are competing to find improvements to society. That type of competition will give us business executives that are worth our admiration.

The Kastron government will control the economy

If we can provide ourselves with truly talented and honest government officials, then we could let them have control of the economy, and that would provide us with a dramatically more efficient and pleasant economy compared to free enterprise or communism. For two examples:

• Research projects

We will be able to have intelligent discussions about which research programs to support. For example, how much technical talent, labor, and resources should we put into the development of pet products, video games, Mars colonies, Hollywood movies, state lotteries, gambling casinos, and joke gifts?

• Work environments

In a free enterprise economy, businesses design work environments to maximize profit, and this results in complaints from employees of unsafe or unpleasant working conditions, mistreatment of pregnant women, dreary cubicles, tolerance of sexual abuse by management, and idiotic clothing rules.

The abuse of employees has been so bad that hundreds of unions have formed, and the government has created hundreds of laws in an attempt to force businesses to treat their employees better. The economy is also frequently disrupted by labor strikes.

However, trying to make business executives behave properly through unions or laws is as idiotic as trying to stop crime through laws and punishments. Although the unions and laws can reduce the abuse by businesses, they do not give us better quality leadership.

In Kastron, the business executives will compete to find improvements to society, and that includes developing the best work environments. This will allow us to replace the executives that are the least beneficial to society. However, the competition is judged by the government, not the employees or public. That will prevent businesses from pandering to the employees and public.

Rather than expect one work environment to be best for everybody, I suggest that we experiment with different environments for different age groups, pregnant women, and mothers with young children.

I also suggest that we experiment with allowing people to have several part-time jobs rather than expect everybody to have a full-time job. That will reduce the monotony and physical injuries with certain jobs.

After centuries of experimenting with work environments, the people in the future might figure out how to design their jobs to be so pleasant that they enjoy to going to work.

Knowledge is more valuable than freedom
Animals evolved a desire to follow because freedom is dangerous

Although the social animals have a strong craving to fight for the top of the hierarchy, if they cannot become the leader, they willingly follow whichever animal becomes the leader. When animals lose the battle for leadership, they accept their loss rather than have temper tantrums, become rebellious, or try to sabotage the winner.

Animals accept a low position in the hierarchy and willingly follow a leader because they have a low desire for freedom and rebellion. The reason is simply because the animals with those characteristics were the most successful. The animals that wanted freedom or who were rebellious had a tendency to get lost, be captured by predators, eat foods that were dangerous, and do other things that were risky.

Since humans have more intelligence than the animals, we can handle more freedom, and this has resulted in humans developing a greater desire to explore the world, but being more intelligent than an animal is nothing to boast about. We are nowhere near intelligent enough to handle total freedom.

None of us has the time, intelligence, or knowledge to ignore all of the established procedures and make wise decisions about all of the complex issues we must deal with. We should acknowledge that freedom is dangerous, and that we need to follow the established procedures most of the time. Our culture should encourage us to be cautious when we explore. We should not be taught that more freedom will provide us with more happiness.

Freedom is detrimental if we cannot use it properly

A democracy and a free enterprise system give us tremendous freedom to choose our education, jobs, social activities, recreational activities, spouse, meals, cosmetic surgeries, and method of raising children. We also have the freedom to give our children idiotic names, and the freedom to determine what happens to our body when we die. Unfortunately, giving a person a freedom that he cannot use properly is giving him the freedom to waste resources, become a burden on our healthcare system, and hurt himself, his children, and other people. For two examples:

1) "Food freedom"
Everybody today has food freedom, and this results in a significant percentage of the population being overweight, anorexic, or unhealthy. It also results in parents providing improper meals for their children. Finally, it allows food processing businesses and restaurants to create food products and meals that are designed for profit, rather than for health.

2) "Recreational activity freedom"
Everybody today has recreational freedom, and this results in lots of people getting involved with wasteful or idiotic sports, and dangerous activities, such as the table slamming at the Buffalo Bills football games, and the milk crate challenge. In the USA, guns are considered to be toys for adults, so adults have the freedom to use guns for recreation.

We do not give everybody the freedom to drive automobiles, practice dentistry, or fly airplanes. Instead, we restrict those activities to people who can show us evidence that they can do those activities without causing trouble, but no society puts restrictions on other activities that are dangerous or irritating.

Knowledge about health is more useful than food freedom

It is more important for us to have knowledge than freedom. Knowledge allows us to solve problems and improve our lives, but freedom only gives us the opportunity to hurt ourselves. As I described years ago, the difference between us and our ancestors 10,000 years ago is the knowledge in our mind.

Our world is full of crime, pedophilia, divorce, alimony, pouting, loneliness, pollution, overcrowding, mental illness, fear, suicide, and pouting, but those problems are not because we lack freedom. Our distant prehistoric ancestors had much more freedom than we do, but they did not suffer from such problems.

We are suffering from lots of problems because we developed technology before we figured out how to use it properly. We need to increase our knowledge about human behavior, animal behavior, cities, genetics, crime, schools, economic systems, government systems, election systems, and lots of other issues.

In regards to food, we don't need more freedom with food. Rather, we need more knowledge about food and human health. The free enterprise system is giving us the food products we want, but all of us would be in better health, and therefore enjoy life more, if our leaders knew enough about food and health to provide us with intelligent restrictions on our food freedom.

Our arrogance causes us to assume that we are in excellent health and making excellent decisions about foods, but it is more likely that each of us would benefit if we could acquire more knowledge about foods and our particular digestive system, immune system, liver, kidneys, pancreas, and other organs.

If we had a better understanding of foods and our particular body, we would be able to design a diet that is better suited to it. We would reduce problems with digestion, blood chemistry, allergic reactions, fatigue, headaches, nose picking, farting, burping, and sleep disorders, and that would cause our body and mind to feel better and function better.

Everybody, even the stupid people, realize that we need to make shoes and clothing items in different sizes, but there are thousands of people who insist that all of us should follow the exact same diet.

In order to provide ourselves with a proper diet, we must acknowledge the evidence that each of us is a unique jumble of animal genes, and that all of us have defects. Creating one diet for everybody is as idiotic as creating one shoe size for everybody.

It is possible to select a shoe size that is adequate for most people, and it is possible to design a diet that is adequate for most people, but we should not settle for what is adequate. Our goal should be to understand ourselves better and produce clothing, shoes, and meals that are designed for our particular body.

All parents believe that they are providing their children with an appropriate diet, but no parent truly knows whether any of their children have problems with certain foods. The end result is that there are certain to be millions of parents in the world today who are inadvertently hurting their children by giving them foods that are causing them some subtle problems.

Is there such a thing as a “sugar high”?

An example of the complexity of human health is the dispute about whether sugar has an effect on children's behavior. Some people claim that giving children lots of sugar causes them to suffer from a "sugar high", but this author claims that "sugar does not affect children’s behavior or cognitive function."

My opinion is that both groups of people are misinterpreting the situation. The parents who believe that there is such a thing as a "sugar high" have noticed that their children become more restless, disobedient, or troublesome after eating a lot of sugar, and this brings those parents to the false assumption that the sugar is affecting their mind like a drug, or that the sugar is increasing their energy levels, similar to stepping on the accelerator pedal of an automobile.

However, when doctors analyze those children, they do not find any evidence that sugar has the effect of a mind-altering drug, or that sugar increases their energy levels. That causes the doctors to come to the conclusion that the "sugar high" theory is nonsense.

The arguments over whether there is such a thing as a "sugar high" is another example of a concept that I've mentioned many times. Specifically, we should not ridicule or ignore people who say or do something that we don't understand or agree with. Instead, we should try to understand why they believe what they believe, or do what they do.

There is always a reason behind a person's opinions and behavior, and we should try to understand what that reason is. Two examples that I mentioned in previous documents are:
• We should not assume that the stories about unicorns were deliberate fabrications. We should instead look for the reason that our ancestors believed in unicorns, such as that the belief developed from people who misinterpreted a dead Narwhale.

• Instead of insulting or ignoring the people who believe in a god, we should wonder why they believe in a god. I think that an analysis will show us that their belief in a god is to satisfy an emotional craving that all social animals have; specifically, to follow and display submissive behavior to an older, stronger, more talented male.

I think the "sugar high" theory is an example of people misinterpreting a confusing situation. Specifically, I suspect that most or all of the children who seem to be having a "sugar high" actually have a problem maintaining their blood sugar levels, and that that is causing them to feel miserable. If I am correct, it would be more accurate to describe what is happening as a "sugar misery". The children become restless or irrational because they are suffering, not because they have more energy, or because the sugar has given them a "high".

The reason I suspect that sugar is making them miserable is because of what sugar does to me. I don't have any problem with small amounts of sugar, such as the levels that are in ordinary amounts of fruit, so I don't have what the doctors refer to as "diabetes", but I noticed that eating a lot of sugar causes me to feel miserable about an hour after eating it.

I occasionally went to the library (this was before the Internet) in an attempt to figure out what my problem was. I discovered that the way I feel after eating a lot of sugar is what the diabetics described feeling when their blood sugar levels were too high, and the way I felt about two hours later was how the diabetics described feeling when their blood sugar levels were too low.

I noticed that this problem also occurs if I eat a lot of white flour, such as pasta or white bread. Apparently, I digest the white flour so quickly that it is almost similar to eating sugar.

I also noticed that a few doctors claimed that some of their patients had a problem with their blood sugar going too high after a meal, and then too low, before eventually stabilizing, but other doctors were claiming that nobody had such a problem.

There was a time when I decided to test my blood sugar levels after a meal to see if they were going into the diabetic range, but my blood sugar never seemed to get into the diabetic range. Therefore, the doctors would tell me that my blood sugar levels are not going too high after a meal. However, that does not prove that I am imagining the misery, or that I am "normal". It simply means that I have a problem that our current medical technology cannot understand.

I don't know what is wrong with me, but I am not imagining the problem. We should not dismiss or insult people who claim to have a medical problem, or the children whose behavior is bizarre. We should get into the habit of investigating situations rather than ridiculing or ignoring them.

Update 27 February 2022

Perhaps the reason that doctors do not consider people like me to have problems with blood sugar or hormones is because they are basing "healthy" on the majority of people as a result of the widespread belief that humans are the creation of a loving God.

The majority of people are "typical", "ordinary", and "average", not intelligent, talented, athletic, musical, artistic, or healthy. We should not assume that the majority of any species is healthy for that species. The majority of a population will always be of "ordinary" or "average" health. I explained a similar concept in 2011 with such graphs as the one below.

If we regard the majority of people as having "good" health, then as the majority become increasingly overweight, we would continuously increase the weight of a "healthy" human.

If we assume that the majority of people have healthy minds, then we will assume that a human is in good mental health if he is religious, spends hours every evening lounging in front of a television, has a dog as a best friend, and is unable to accept reality.

Likewise, the majority have an attraction to alcohol, marijuana, tobacco, or some other drug, so if we consider them to be in good health, then we will assume that a person with an attraction to drugs is in good health, rather than investigate why they want those drugs.

If doctors are considering a "normal" blood sugar range to be what they see in the majority of people, then they are making a mistake. The proper way to measure the "healthy" range of blood sugar, hormones, and other chemicals, is to look at the people who are in exceptionally good physical condition, such as the best "natural" athletes (as opposed to the "artificial" athletes who are taking steroids or other drugs to improve their performance).

The people with exceptional physical abilities have a body that is closer to what a human is supposed to have, so we should compare ourselves to them, not the ordinary people, or the below-average people.

Likewise, don't assume that you are in good mental health or intelligent by comparing yourself to the ordinary people. Compare yourself to the people who show truly exceptional mental health and intelligence. They have a mind that is closer to being what a human is supposed to have.

It is possible that if we knew more about the human body, we would lower the level at which we consider somebody to have a problem with blood sugar. The doctors say that a blood sugar level between the "normal" level and the "diabetes" level is the "prediabetes" level, but that prediabetes level might be more dangerous than they realize. It might be better to lower the level for "prediabetes", and to consider the prediabetes level to be dangerous.

Some people dismiss a person's complaints about health problems by saying that his problems are psychosomatic, but that does not explain anything. That simply shifts the issue from "what is the problem with his body" to "what is the problem with his mind?"

Furthermore, I can verify that whatever my problem is, it does affect my thinking, behavior, attitudes, and activities. A person with the type of problem I have will go through a cycle of changes in his mood and his energy levels. The cycle could be described like this:

1) About an hour after eating a lot of sugar, I feel slightly miserable for an hour or two, and that misery affects my attitudes, desires, and behavior.
2) Then my blood sugar level seems to go low, and my body and mind feel wonderful, but I don't have much energy, which also interferes with my thinking, and it makes me want to lounge.
3) An hour or so later I feel "normal", but by then it is time to have another meal, and if I eat too much sugar or white flour in that meal, I will repeat this cycle.

Whatever my problem is, it resulted in me spending more time in a slightly miserable state than in a pleasant state. This in turn can have a very detrimental effect on our thinking abilities, attitudes, goals, activities, hobbies, and life. The people whose blood sugar levels rise to higher levels and/or fall to lower levels will be even more miserable, so it will have an even more detrimental effect on them.

I was undoubtedly suffering from this problem all throughout my childhood. That would explain why I would sometimes make mistakes on simple arithmetic problems in school, and why I sometimes behaved in a manner that I would later wonder, why did I do/say that?

I began to sense that something was wrong with my body during my early teenage years, and when I was an adult I had enough sense to react to my misery by going to the library to try to figure out what my problem was. However, many people who are suffering from health problems are reacting by looking for a way to titillate themselves, such as eating more sugar, shopping, or having sex, and some people react by trying to mask the pain, such as through drugs, and other people try to distract themselves from their misery with risky activities.

A common belief is that the people who are in jail, addicted to drugs, homeless, unemployable, or poor are either stupid or mentally disturbed, but some of those "losers" have an above-average education and intelligence. How could such people be losers? It is because they are suffering from some physical disorder that is interfering with their ability to function properly.

If I did not react to my problems by investigating the issue and controlling my diet, I truly believe that I would have ended up homeless, a drug addict, a criminal, a beggar, or dead from suicide.

We will never reduce crime, homelessness, drug abuse, reckless behavior, obesity, weird behavior, or any of our other problems, by ignoring, insulting, or punishing the people who have different opinions or behavior. Our reaction should be to study people and try to understand why they do what they do.

Each person should also realize that this concept applies to everybody. Nobody is "perfect". A person who cannot see his defects is ignorant, stupid, unable to look critically at himself, or suffering from defects that are too subtle or confusing for our current medical knowledge and technology.

It is very unlikely that I am the only person in the world who has a difficulty with sugar. I suspect that blood sugar problems are common because the human digestive system did not evolve for high levels of sugar or pasta.

Diabetes is an extremely common problem, but most people make the mistake of assuming that a person either has diabetes, or he is normal. Most people think that everything in life is either one category or another. In reality, everything is a spectrum.

If we could determine everybody's reaction to sugar, we would discover that it is impossible to divide the population into those who have diabetes, and those who do not. We would discover that there is a range of reactions to sugar.

I also think we would also discover that the production of energy is more complex than we realize, and that there are lots of factors that can interfere with energy production. Our thyroid hormones are only one of many chemicals involved with energy production.

We would discover that a lot of people who assume that they have perfect health actually have some minor problems with sugar or energy production, and those health problems are adversely affecting how they feel and think, but the effect is too subtle for them to notice.

To add complexity to this issue, sugar is only one of the chemicals that we have unique reactions to. If we could analyze everybody's body, we would discover a spectrum of reactions to dairy products, peanuts, strawberries, mold, pollen, grains, pesticides, and other items. We would discover that lots of people are suffering from some of the foods they eat, or the allergens in their environment, but their suffering is too subtle for them to notice. However, if each of us was more knowledgeable about our particular body, we would be able to improve our diet, which would make us feel better and help us get closer to achieving our maximum intellectual and physical potential.

Our foods are made of molecules, and many of them are still a mystery. For example, some secretive people wrote this article to show how ignorant we are about lectins. We know almost nothing about lectins, and we do not yet have the technology to allow each person to figure out how his particular body reacts to lectins.

As a result of our ignorance, none of us knows which foods have lectins that cause trouble for our particular body, which in turn means that none of us knows for certain which foods we should avoid. We are also ignorant about which foods we should cook to destroy the lectins, or the temperature we should cook them at, or the amount of time we should hold them at that temperature.

How can you be sure that your mind or body is operating in its optimum condition? For all you know, a different diet would enable you to think better, or reduce problems with fatigue, diseases, nose picking, farting, throat clearing, or sleeping.

These concepts also apply to farm animals. Specifically, none of us knows the best diet for an animal. For example, should we make chickens eat a vegetarian diet, a vegan diet, Keto diet, or an omnivore diet? Should soybeans and corn be the primary food for cows, pigs, chickens, or other animals? Is grass-fed beef better for our health than grain-fed beef?

We should investigate health issues, not boast about knowing the proper diet for ourselves and the animals. We should admit that we are very ignorant about health issues. All of us would benefit tremendously if we put more of our technical talent and resources into the study of food and health. We do not benefit from a colony on Mars, or from a luxury automobile. We will benefit by acquiring more knowledge about ourselves.

We should collect health data from everybody, rather than keep medical information a secret. We should try to understand ourselves, not encourage people to be secretive and paranoid.

There are lots of advantages to maintaining a health database, but I don't know of any disadvantages.
The database would even simplify our lives, and give us a few more minutes of life, by sparing medical personnel and us from asking and answering the same questions over and over, such as:
• Are you allergic to anything?
• Are you taking any medical drugs?

The Kastron government will have the authority to determine which software programs are developed, and that will allow the government to have computer programmers work on useful projects, such as a health database that is easy for us to access and analyze.

Imagine being able to ask a robot to do an analysis of how we compare to other people.
For an example of how we could improve our lives with a medical database, we could create software for medical robots that allow doctors and dentists to use their voice to ask for information about patients, and the robots respond with an artificial voice, thereby sparing the medical personnel from typing questions and reading a computer monitor.

The patients could use the robots to look at their x-ray images or other health data, and they could ask the robot to explain what they are looking at if they are not familiar with it.

We could also ask the robot to compare our medical data to that of other people so that we can determine our differences and similarities.

Eventually the robots would become so advanced that they can perform simple medical tests on people, sparing the doctors from the monotonous medical checks, such as taking a person's temperature, blood pressure, or heart rate information.

Who among us is truly "successful"?

Our cultures put so much emphasis on material wealth and status that we consider a person to be "successful" if he acquires an above-average level of wealth or status. I think it is much more useful to consider a person to be successful if he figures out how to:
1) Enjoy his life.
The people who are still searching for happiness as they are dying of old age are failures, even if they are extremely wealthy and famous.

2) Become a respected member of society.
The people who end up despised, hated, and feared are also failures, even if they are extremely wealthy and famous.

I suspect that most people will not understand my remark about being a "respected member of society", so I will explain it.

Why would someone volunteer to be blackmailed?

People have been making accusations for decades that the people in the top positions of the government, media, Hollywood, and other organizations have been joining crime networks, either voluntarily, or because they were threatened, intimidated, or deceived.

There are also accusations that all of them had to participate in crimes, such as pedophilia or murder, so that they can be blackmailed by the crime network.

The people who join the crime network voluntarily are significant to this issue of who among us is a success in life. Although most people's reaction to those people is probably anger, disgust, or hatred, as I have repeatedly mentioned, we should control our emotions and analyze situations. We should try to understand the people who are different, not react with temper tantrums or whining.

We should try to understand why a person would voluntarily choose to commit murder or pedophilia so that he can become a blackmailed puppet of a crime network. Why would anybody believe that the benefits from such a life outweigh the disadvantages? Why would somebody want to give up their freedom, follow orders from a crime network, and spend the rest of his life living in fear of being exposed and arrested? What could he possibly gain that would be worth such a sacrifice?

The people who blame crime on poverty, ignorance, stupidity, mental illness, bad parenting, or the devil cannot explain those type of criminals. Likewise, the people who believe that punishments, or the death penalty, will stop crime cannot explain why those people are willing to commit crimes that have the most severe punishments of all crimes, including death.

The only way to understand those particular criminals is to understand animal behavior and acknowledge the evidence that humans are monkeys.

Many people believe that our most powerful emotional craving is sex, and the people in Hollywood are constantly promoting sex, but observations of animals show that sex is a very brief aspect of their life. The most powerful emotion of the social animals, especially the male animals, is to be a member of a group, and to be at the top of the hierarchy.

The reason a dog can control a large number of sheep is because the sheep have such a strong craving to be member of a group that they become terrified when they are alone and isolated from other sheep. The social animals do not want independence or freedom. They do not want to be explorers, either. They want to be a member of a group. Their craving for sex is triggered only occasionally, but their craving to be a member of a group never turns off. Furthermore, they are constantly fighting with each other for dominance because they have powerful cravings to be at the top of their hierarchy, and those cravings are constant.

Men are just like the male animals. We have a constant craving to be a member of a group, and to be as high in the hierarchy as possible. We want to be respected.We want to watch other people display submission to us.

Loneliness and rejection is much more emotionally painful to us than a lack of sex. We are so concerned about being accepted by other people that we will tolerate abuse from them in order to avoid being rejected and alone. We will do things we don't want to do simply to get their approval, such as mimicking their clothing styles, attitudes, and customs.

In this document I gave 5 reasons why I believe people are willing to commit crimes. Reason number 2 is that we want more than we have. An example are the people who shoplift the material items that they want but cannot acquire legally. Those criminals will not accept the fact that they can only afford certain items. They are willing to cheat to get what they want.

The people who voluntarily choose to become the blackmailed puppets of a crime network are also cheating to get what they want, but in their case they are not trying to get a new television. Rather, they are trying to get high up in the social hierarchy. Their goal is status.

Unlike most of us, who are willing to accept our low position in the hierarchy, they are choosing to cheat in order to satisfy their cravings to be important. They are the people who have the attitude of doing whatever it takes to achieve their goals. They do not want to accept failure. If they cannot achieve their goal legally and honestly, they will cheat to get it.

The criminals who get into the top positions of society are getting a lot of respect and admiration from the public only because most people don't realize that they are committing crimes in order to achieve their position. This brings up a very important issue. Specifically, if a person cheats to get respect, is he really getting respect? Is he truly satisfying his craving and enjoying his life? Can he truly enjoy his life, or be proud of his "success"?

Many criminals boast about their crimes to other people, and how clever they are for outsmarting security systems and people. Some criminals boasted about their crimes while they were at a public facility, such as a restaurant, and the people that they boasted to, or who overheard their boasting, contacted the police, resulting in their arrest. Why would a criminal risk exposing himself by boasting about his crime in a public location? And why would a criminal boast to somebody who is not a member of his crime network?

Who does the most boasting or insulting? And why?

All of us frequently praise ourselves and insult other people, but most of us keep the remarks within our mind. If computers were listening to what we say, and reading the messages that we post on the Internet or send through phones, we could keep track of the remarks that each of us makes to somebody else.

We would create the typical bell graph in which the majority of people make an average number of boastful and insulting remarks. Who makes an above-average number of such remarks, and why do they spend more time boasting and insulting?

Boasting and insulting are very similar activities. They are a form of masturbation, and a way of manipulating people. When we boast about ourselves, or when we insult other people, we titillate our emotional craving to be high in the social hierarchy, and our remarks can also deceive people into admiring us instead of the people we insult.

An example of boastful behavior can be seen in the videos that were created by Elliott Rodger. He frequently boasted that he was "magnificent" and "awesome" in order to titillate his craving to be an important member of society.

There are even more people insulting one another since most people don't have anything to boast about. Examples of insults are at all of the Internet message boards, many (or most?) videos that people have published, and comment sections of news articles.

All of us become upset when we fail at something, but we react differently to our failures. Some of us quietly accept our failures and try to learn from our mistakes, but Elliott Rodger reacted to failure by boasting about himself, insulting other people, and throwing a cup of coffee on a couple that he was envious of. Other people like him react in a similar manner, and millions of other people are regularly reacting to their failures by posting insulting remarks on the Internet.

Elliott Rodger's wealthy parents provided him with lots of material wealth, but material wealth cannot bring us happiness. A man's most powerful desire is status. We want to be respected members of our group, but Rodger was very low in the hierarchy. He was rejected by both men and women. He could not accept his low position, so he would frequently titillate himself by boasting about himself.

I think criminals like to boast about their crimes for the same reason that Elliott Rodger boasted about himself. Specifically, they are unhappy with their life, suffering because of their low status, and they are trying to make themselves feel better by titillating themselves with praise of how clever they are for getting away with their crimes. They have nothing else to be proud of. Committing a crime is their only achievement. However, it is not an achievement that brings us real satisfaction. The boasting only brings some momentary titillation, and when it disappears, they return to being miserable. This can cause them to boast again, or commit another crime and then boast about that one.

We have a strong emotional craving to be respected, but we cannot satisfy that craving from crime. The criminals who are members of a gang can get respect from the other gang members, which is better than none, but getting respect from other criminals is not very satisfying because all of them are aware that almost everybody in the world regards them as the worst members of society. Furthermore, they are suffering because they are in constant fear of being exposed and arrested.

The criminals who are cheating to get into the top positions of society are achieving their goal for status, and they are getting the respect and admiration of millions of people, but the respect they receive from the public is the result of deception. They cannot truly enjoy the respect because they are in constant fear that people will learn the truth about them. They also worry about their criminal friends stabbing them in the back because criminals have the lowest morality of any group of people. Instead of enjoying their wealth and fame, they live in fear of everybody, including their own friends and spouse.

Tim Cook had an income of $100 million in 2021. If the leaders of society were truly enjoying their lives, why do they want such absurd amounts of wealth? I think it is because they are actually miserable.

Nobody wants to be a criminal. We have a powerful craving to be respected and admired, but we cannot achieve that when we cheat for it.

When a hungry person steals food, it will taste just as good as when he earns it, and it will be just as nourishing, but when we deceive people into giving us respect, we cannot truly enjoy it because it causes us to be constantly afraid of the truth.

For a social animal, the most painful thing is rejection, and the people who get the most intense rejection are those who commit murder and pedophilia. This creates the bizarre situation in which our leaders are admired and respected by billions of people, but they are living in constant and intense fear that the truth will come out about their crimes. Our leaders are risking the most intense levels of rejection possible. This is why our leaders promote secrecy, censorship, and the arrest of people who criticize them.

The people who cheated to get into the top positions of society believe that they are successful and talented people who are enjoying their life, but can a person truly enjoy life when he is constantly worried that people will learn the truth about him? Can a person truly be a "success" when his entire life is trying to maintain a false image of himself, and avoid being arrested, rejected, or executed?

I don't think any of the criminals can be described as "enjoying" their life because we do not want to be despised, hated, or feared. In order for us to truly enjoy our life, we need to earn other people's respect.

I think our leaders have miserable lives, and that that is why so many of them are struggling to live longer, such as through the injections of children's blood. I think it is also the reason they look for things to do that nobody else can afford, such as swimming in an infinity pool that is 650 feet in the air. They are not looking for activities that they enjoy or benefit from. Rather, they are searching for activities that allow them to feel important, which is evidence that they are not enjoying life, and are struggling to find enjoyment.

Their marriages and friendships seem to be miserable, also. They seem to attract people who are similar to themselves; specifically, people who will exploit, abuse, deceive, cheat, and lie to get what they want.

I think that most, possibly all, of the extremely wealthy and famous people are suffering, but instead of looking critically at themselves, admitting they made mistakes, learning from their mistakes, and improving their lives, they foolishly assume that they can end their suffering with more status or wealth. Their futile attempts to find happiness bring them more frustration and disappointment.

We must watch for excessive behavior

A mistake that the human mind often makes is to assume that getting a larger quantity of something that is pleasurable will increase our pleasure. We regularly make this mistake with food, material wealth, and status. For example, when we discover a food that we enjoy eating, we tend to assume that if we eat more of it, we will get more pleasure.

This false conclusion that getting more of a pleasurable item will increase the pleasure of our life is the reason people are constantly trying to get a larger house, more material items, more status, more sex, more pet animals, and more land. However, it doesn't matter how much material wealth we have, or how many people we are famous to. A person who lives in an ordinary home, has ordinary amounts of material wealth, and is "famous" only to a small number of his family members and friends can enjoy life just as much as a Hollywood celebrity who lives in a gigantic mansion and is famous to billions of people.

Our emotions want to earn the respect of other people, and it can be the respect of a small, prehistoric tribe. We don't need to be famous to a billion people. Our emotions evolved for a life in a prehistoric tribe, so we are satisfied when a small group of friends, coworkers, neighbors, and relatives respects us.

Life is not a videogame in which we get "bonus pleasure" by increasing the number of people who respect us.

Why are some people more successful in life?

The universe doesn't give anybody any special favors. Every child, even those from wealthy parents, will regularly experience problems. In order for a person to have a life that he enjoys reminiscing about, he must find a way to deal with his problems.

The people who became respected and enjoy their life did not become successful because of luck, or because their parents were wealthy, or because they had "white privilege". Rather, they became successful because they found a way to deal with the problems they encountered.

The people who become criminals are the people who could not figure out how to deal with life's problems in a respectable manner, so they cheated to get what they want. They are failures in life even if they acquire a lot of wealth and fame. They cannot truly be proud of themselves or their life. They cannot even relax because they are constantly in fear that we will learn the truth about them.

Many of the people who are failures blame their trouble on mysterious concepts, such as poverty, racism, or sexism, or they blame it on other people, such as their parents, corporations, the military-industrial complex, or the "wealthy elite", but each person's life is a reflection of his particular mind. In this section I want to emphasize that our personality has a significant effect on whether we are a success in life.

Our personality is significant because it determines how we react to problems. The previous section mentioned an example; specifically, many of the people in top positions of society reacted to their low level of status by voluntarily choosing to become the blackmailed puppets of a violent and destructive crime network. It was their personality that caused them to make that decision, not poverty, the devil, or racism. By comparison, most of us have a "better" personality because we react to our low level of status, our low incomes, and our other problems, in a more sensible manner. For some examples of how I reacted to some of the problems I suffered from:
• In second or third grade I realized that cheating in school would end up hurting me, so I decided to stop doing it and earn whatever I want.
• When I noticed that sugar has an effect on me I reacted by researching health issues and experimenting with my diet.
• After noticing people on the Internet complaining that we were lied to about the 9/11 attack, I initially reacted by thinking that they were making mistakes, but eventually I decided to investigate the issue to find out why they were continuing to make those accusations.
• When an old man told me that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, I assumed he was senile, but I looked at the evidence that he gave me.
• I can still remember the day in high school when one of the boys insulted me, and I reacted by thinking, "That is an interesting observation of myself!" I did not react with anger or by pouting. Rather, it made me realize that other people can give us a valuable perspective of ourselves that we never would have noticed.

When I compare myself to other men, I seem to be much less arrogant, and much more interested in looking critically at myself, learning from my mistakes, and learning from other people. Also, I am not afraid that other people know the truth about me, but not because I am proud of myself. Actually, my scrawny body is embarrassing, and I've said and done some embarrassing things in my life. However, I can accept what I am, and I realize that if I were to deceive people about myself, I would torment myself because it requires me to keep track of my lies and deception.

If we could remove secrecy and observe everybody's reaction to the problems they encounter, we would see that there is a spectrum of reactions. At one extreme are the people who investigate their problems and experiment with solutions. Those people find ways to improve their life as they get older. Those are the people who tend to become successful, by my definition, even if they don't become wealthy or famous.

At the other extreme are the people who ignore their problems, or react with anger, pouting, or whining, or react by turning to drugs, religion, gambling, or crime. Their lives do not improve much as they get older. They suffer throughout their lives. They are failures.

The majority of people resist research, critical analyses of themselves, alternative opinions, and experiments. When they get into debt, they learn nothing from it, and so they get into debt again in the future, or they turn to crime, which makes the situation worse. When they get drunk and suffer a hangover, they learn nothing, and so they do it again in the future. When we tell them that we were lied to about the 9/11 attack, they react with insults rather than look at the evidence we offer to them. When they feel miserable after eating a lot of sugar, they ignore the problem, or they try to mask the pain.

As a result of their inappropriate reactions to problems, most people don't learn much about themselves, and don't do much to improve their lives.

Some people have a shocking inability to learn from their mistakes and improve their lives, such as the people who gamble to such an extent that they cause themselves financial troubles, but who continue to gamble excessively anyway, resulting in constant financial problems.

We tend to assume that people who don't learn from their mistakes are "stupid", but many of them are above-average in intelligence and education. It is not "stupidity" that prevents people from learning from their mistakes. Rather, it is their personality; their emotional characteristics. A person cannot learn from his mistakes if he cannot look critically at himself.

There are lots of examples of stupid people who learned from their mistakes. Furthermore, children are both stupid and uneducated, but some of them learn from their mistakes and improve their lives. There have also been some animals that have shown a certain ability to learn from their mistakes.

Intelligence is only one of the characteristics that determines whether we are successful in life. Our emotional characteristics have a more significant effect. The people who have a resistance to reality, learning, thinking, criticism, and alternative opinions will have more trouble dealing with life's problems, learning from their mistakes, and even noticing that they make mistakes. However, in a free enterprise system, and in a democracy, and in nations that have high tolerances for crime, those people might become wealthy or famous, and that can fool us into assuming that they have more talent than we do, and are having a better life.

Our prehistoric ancestors had to deal with problems every day, also, but their problems were significantly different. They had to deal with storms, aggressive neighbors, wolves, and other "natural" problems. Those type of problems are intellectually simple. Today, however, we have to deal with a lot of complex "unnatural" problems, such as gambling, laws, drugs, jobs, marriage, divorce, alimony, sugar, religion, diversity, burglary, pedophile networks, voting, and excessive amounts of food and material wealth.

In order for us to enjoy our complex world, we need a different personality compared to our prehistoric ancestors. People today should have the adventurous desires of an explorer, the courage of a soldier, and the desire to analyze problems like a scientist.

We should experience pleasure when we reminisce

I suggest that we consider a person to be a "success" when he has figured out how to enjoy his life. The Kastron culture will not encourage or support the gathering of material wealth or status. Instead, it will encourage people to live in a manner that we enjoy reminiscing about when we become old.

As I pointed out in this document, if we install video cameras around the city, and if computers were tracking all of us, we should enjoy getting together in one of the video rooms with our friends and telling the computer to show us some of the events of our life, such as when we were playing volleyball at the beach.

We should enjoy looking back at our lives, and the lives of our friends and family. We should not be sad, horrified, ashamed, embarrassed, or frightened to look at our life, or to let other people look at it.

The freedom to choose leaders can cause us to become slaves

Most government officials in the world today seem to be getting into their positions through joining crime networks. This corruption is another example of how we hurt ourselves with the freedom that we cannot handle.

When we give people the freedom to choose their leaders, most voters behave like children who are attracted to whoever offers them candy. The end result is that most voters are likely to elect criminals because the criminals are the most willing to do and say whatever is necessary to appeal to the voters.

This will create a nation in which the voters foolishly believe that they are free, but in reality they have been tricked into electing criminals who exploit, manipulate, deceive, censor, and abuse them.

Giving a person the right to vote for his leaders is useful only if he is capable of making a wise decision about which candidate will provide him with intelligent guidance. Otherwise it is as foolish as giving a child the freedom to play with razor blades.

It is difficult to recognize a person with greater intelligence

There are several reasons as to why we often make terrible decisions about who to trust, who to look to for guidance, and who is a friend. One reason is that we are very arrogant, and that causes us to dislike people who criticize us, and to like whoever gives us praise. Another reason is because we are extremely selfish, and that causes us to like the people who let us do what we want, and become angry at the people who try to stop us from doing what we want.

Schools regularly put students through tests to determine their intelligence and education, but the tests are not accurate, and we don't have any useful tests to determine a person's emotional characteristics. This makes it very difficult for us to compare ourselves to other people and determine who has more knowledge, intelligence, self control, leadership abilities, honesty, or responsibility.

Our method of determining who has the most intelligent opinions and leadership abilities is to assume that a person who says something that we agree with is intelligent and knowledgeable, and that a person who says something we disagree with is stupid, ignorant, disregarding reality, living in a fantasy world, or mentally disturbed.

In reality, some of the people we disagree with are so much more intelligent or educated that we cannot understand what they are saying. An obvious example of this concept are children. They will sometimes be so unable to understand what their parents are saying or doing that they assume their parents are making mistakes. Another example of this concept are the religious fanatics who consider the people who promote evolution to be ignorant, stupid, or avoiding reality.

People with the most self-control are often regarded as weird

To complicate the issue of determining who we can trust and look to for leadership, the people with unusually high levels of self-control will often be interpreted as weird, cruel, mentally disturbed, unemotional, or lacking empathy.

For example, if a baby is born with a serious defect, and if his father reacts by calmly suggesting that the baby be euthanized, many people will interpret his calm reaction as a sign that he is cruel, sadistic, lacking in empathy, mentally ill, or crazy. In reality, he might be trying to be kind by sparing his child a life of suffering, and sparing himself, his family, and society from an irritation and a burden.

Likewise, a man is likely to be regarded as lacking compassion if he remains calm and continues working at his job when he gets a phone call that informs him that his wife has a miscarriage, or one of his elderly parents died. He would be considered especially cruel if he advocated recycling his dead child or parents into fertilizer, rather than have an elaborate funeral and spend a few days crying and pouting.

We need to limit the mental differences between us

Math issues have definite right or wrong answers, but not cultural issues, so it is impossible for us to determine whether a person who has a different opinion about culture is more intelligent or knowledgeable than we are, or whether they are mentally ill, cruel, ignorant, lacking in empathy, or making a mistake.

For example, there is no laboratory experiment that will tell us whether we should embalm a dead person in formaldehyde and bury him in a casket in a graveyard, or whether we should grind his body into fertilizer for our farms.

This problem will become worse if we don't control reproduction because every generation will have a wider variety of intellectual and emotional characteristics and defects. This will result in each generation having a wider variety of opinions and behavior, which in turn will result in an increase in the number of arguments about what our culture should be.

The only solution to this problem is for the entire world to set standards for the human mind, and keep the intellectual and emotional variations within the range necessary to allow everybody to live in peace.

We must restrict physical differences, also

This concept also applies to our physical characteristics. If we don't restrict reproduction, every generation will have a wider variety of nutritional needs, reactions to medicines, and environmental needs. Everybody will want a different temperature and humidity in the offices, restaurants, and houses. Everybody will need different foods, and different sizes and shapes of furniture, shoes, clothing, vehicles, doorways, and airplane seats.

We must set standards for physical characteristics, and limit reproduction to the people who meet those standards.

Why does a man want to be our leader?

Animals are impressed by the males that fight for the top position of the hierarchy, not the males that are passive, give up easily, or cry. A female animal is also impressed by the males that persist in pursuing her, not the males that give up easily.

Humans inherited that characteristic. As a result, some people have been hired for a job simply because they impressed their employer with their above-average persistence in applying for it. Likewise, some women decided to get involved with a man that they didn't care for after being impressed by his persistence.

A man with a lot of persistence is a man who is willing to put a lot of his time and effort into achieving his goal, but that doesn't guarantee that he will be useful as a leader, or as a husband or father. In our modern era, we need to control our tendency to be impressed by men with persistence.

If the only reason a man wants to be our leader is to satisfy his craving for status, he should be disqualified, even if he is very persistent, and even if he is willing to do "whatever it takes" to please us. That type of man would have been acceptable as a leader in a prehistoric tribe, but modern societies need leaders who have demonstrated the desire and ability to research our problems, discuss our options, look critically at themselves, look favorably at other people's opinions, allow their competitors to have freedom of speech, and have the courage to experiment with our options.

This concept also applies to athletic competitions. We differ in our desire to win athletic contests. The men with the most intense cravings to win will put a lot of effort into winning. They will continue competing even when they are injured, in pain, cold, hot, or extremely tired. Sometime they push themselves so hard that they tear their muscles or break their bones. Those men will impress us with their persistence, but their persistence doesn't make them better than the men who have so little interest in winning that they quit when they become even slightly injured or tired.

The characteristic that we refer to as persistence was valuable in prehistoric times, which is why it evolved in all animals. Our desire to put a tremendous effort into achieving our goals was sensible in prehistoric times because our prehistoric ancestors had sensible goals, such as finding food and water, and protecting the tribe from wolves and neighboring tribes. Today, however, people are often setting idiotic or worthless goals for themselves.

The professional athletes are making a living by winning contests, so it makes sense for them to put a lot of effort into winning their competitions, but it is senseless for ordinary people to care about winning an athletic contest, and it is idiotic for ordinary people to risk hurting themselves in order to win an athletic contest. Ordinary people should have enough sense to get involved with recreational events for something beneficial, such as exercise, socializing, and enjoying nature.

In our modern era, we need leaders who have persistence in doing research, conducting experiments, and trying to improve life for us. We must avoid the men who are pursuing leadership simply to satisfy their cravings for status, wealth, or sex. We must be concerned about why a man wants to be our leader.

We need more realistic attitudes towards life
We are haphazard jumbles of animal genes

Years ago I explained that we need a realistic foundation for our theories, and now I'll give a new example.

When I was in elementary school, all of us children were given a hearing test by the school nurse to ensure that we had appropriate hearing abilities. We sat in a quiet room with headphones while the nurse would occasionally press a button that played a faint tone into our headphones, and we were told to raise our hand when we heard the tone. The tones were at different frequencies and volume levels.

Since we were young children, the nurse didn't bother to tell us the results of the tests. Instead, she told our parents. I assumed that my hearing was perfect, so I was surprised when my mother told me that the nurse recommended taking me to an ear doctor to get a more thorough hearing test. I told my mother that my hearing was fine, but she follows authority. Fortunately, after putting me through more intensive testing, the ear doctor decided that my hearing is normal.

I think the reason I failed the hearing test is because it was designed by people who have the attitude that humans are a creation of a loving God. Those people don't want to believe that humans are monkeys with genetic defects and idiotic features, and that we cannot trust our thoughts, eyes, ears, or other senses.

That hearing test produced faint but nearly pure tones at different frequencies that lasted for a second or so. The reason I can fail that type of test is that when I am in a very quiet room, I sometimes occasionally hear a brief but faint tone. My assumption is that one of the sensors in my ear is accidentally triggered, resulting in a very faint tone that fades away after a second or two.

Perhaps what was happening to me is what happens to people with tinnitus, except that in my case the tones only occur once in a while, last for a second or two, and are so faint that I don't notice them unless I'm in an extremely quiet room.

I have not noticed those tones for so many years that I wonder if taking thyroid hormones has reduced them, or is it because I have improved my diet? Or does that problem slowly disappear with age?

When I was a teenager, I noticed a similar problem with my eyes. Specifically, when I was extremely relaxed in the chair, and suddenly got up and began to quickly walk, I would sometimes see tiny white dots moving around in my field of vision. They would fade away after a couple of seconds. I assumed that it was the result of my heart not pumping blood fast enough into my head when I quickly got out of a chair, thereby causing a brief, low level of oxygen in my eyes or brain.

The point of this section is that when we design tests to determine whether a person has a problem with his hearing, eyesight, sense of smell, or sense of taste, we have to design the tests for crude, monkey sensors, not precise scientific instruments.

Our ability to taste and smell is so crude that we cannot believe anything that our mind tells us about which foods we like or dislike. For example, this experiment showed that people were liking and disliking cookies according to the description of the cookie. Another example is that we love the foods that we refer to as "delicacies" only because they are expensive, which allows us to fantasize that we are special people for being able to afford them. To complicate the issue of foods, a lot of the foods we like are simply the foods we are accustomed to.

If a doctor believes that the human mind is a creation of a loving God, and that our eyes, ears, and other senses are precise scientific instruments, he would create worthless tests in order to determine who among us has a problem with our senses. An extreme example would be a doctor who considered himself and other people to be suffering from a mysterious brain disorder if they see movement in this image.

The people who don't understand that humans have crude and defective brains would assume that people who hear tones, or see lights moving around in their field of vision, are suffering from mental disorders, hearing problems, or eyesight problems.

By comparison, when we realize that each person is a unique jumble of imperfect animal characteristics, we would design tests for our vision, hearing, and intelligence in a very different manner. For example, we would realize that a hearing test that produces pure but faint tones for a second or two would be useful for determining who among us experiences those occasional tones. A better way of testing a person's hearing might be to play low levels of people who are talking to each other. Of course, that test might be useless for the people who claim to hear voices in their head. Perhaps a better hearing test would use the sound of growling wolves, or the voice of a child.

It is also important for us to realize that humans are not machines that behave in the exact same manner day after day. The reaction of the human mind and body can change slightly from one moment to the next according to how much food we have eaten, when we ate, how much exercise we have had, how tired we are, and the environmental conditions, such as the temperature, altitude, humidity, odors and allergens in the air, and the comfort of the chair we sit on. Therefore, to truly test a person's hearing, vision, intelligence, physical strength, stamina, and other characteristics, we would have to conduct the tests more than one time, and when the person is in different physical conditions and environments.

In a previous document, I wondered whether we need to observe a person's blood as he does some type of mental or physical work in order to determine whether he truly has a problem with thyroid hormones. We might discover that some people show adequate levels of certain hormones while they are lounging, but have problems when they start doing physical or mental work. I also suspect that my thyroid levels were somewhat normal in the morning, but much lower in the evening.

Another interesting thing that I noticed about my body was that when my tonsils were infected, which used to happen to me every few years, my body temperature would increase, and although I felt miserable because of the infection, I seemed to have higher energy levels and less trouble with sugar. My assumption was that whatever my body was doing to raise its temperature was compensating somewhat for whatever problems I have with energy production and blood sugar. What exactly does our body do to raise our temperature? It made me wonder if I would feel better if I could trick my body into thinking that it was sick and needed a slight fever.

Humans are sociable, like monkeys, not cats

The social animals want to live in groups, not alone, like cats and spiders. We have very strong cravings to have friends and a spouse, to live in close contact with other people, and to interact with people on a daily basis. We want other people to admire us and be our friends. We consider solitary confinement and loneliness to be a form of torture. However, no culture yet acknowledges the evidence that humans are social animals.

What is the difference between:

a) Monkeys relaxing together, or grooming each other.

b) Humans relaxing together, or grooming each other?

Our prehistoric ancestors lived in close contact with one another, just like the monkeys. They would spend the evenings within audio distance of one another, and they would sleep near each other. The children were always surrounded by other children and adults, including while they were sleeping.

Today, however, almost everybody has the goal of living in a large home on a large plot of land, and to provide each child with his own, large bedroom. This is essentially causing each of us to live in a luxurious, solitary confinement cell. It gives us the life of a cat, not the life of a monkey.

Why do we want to own plots of land?

The social animals regard the land that they live on as belonging to their group, so they chase away the animals that trespass onto "their" land. Prehistoric humans would have had the same attitude.

The first group of people to settle into a permanent village probably considered all of the land as belonging to everybody in their group, and they probably chased away people who wandered onto "their" land. However, as the population of their village grew, it eventually had "strangers", and that might have triggered their emotional craving to chase away the "intruders". Since they would not have been able to chase away the strangers, that emotional craving would irritate them every day, and that might have been the inspiration to create the concept of a person owning a plot of land, and marking his boundary with a fence. That would enable them to satisfy their desire to chase strangers off of "their" land.

I suspect that the desire for private property and fences became even more intense when crime began to occur because that would cause the people to want protection from the criminals.

During the past few centuries, another source of pressure for private property and boundaries came from the misfits who want to be secretive about their deformed bodies and bizarre behavior. Private property allows them to hide their stolen merchandise, and to get away with pedophilia, sloppy living conditions, bizarre treatment of their family members, and murder rituals.

Although we may never know for certain why our ancestors developed the idea of owning land and putting boundaries around it, there are lots of significant benefits to stopping this practice. For example:
• The city will be much more beautiful compared to a city that has tens of thousands of private properties that are surrounded by fences and walls.
• Each of us will feel as if all of the land in the city is a gigantic recreational area since we can use all of the land.
• We can maintain the vegetation in the city with significantly less labor and resources.

The billionaires are not good role models

The people who become billionaires tend to own large plots of land, and sometimes entire islands. They create the impression that human life improves as we expand our territory and become more isolated from other people, but that is how cats and spiders live, not "normal" humans. Rather than mimic them, or admire them, we ought to consider the possibility that the billionaires are suffering from some significant emotional or intellectual disorders.

Humans are social monkeys. We should design our culture for people who want friends, not people who want servants and isolation.
Decades ago I posted this document in which I suggested that Bill Gates is retarded, and I got a response that he is "autistic", not "retarded".

Regardless of whether we describe Bill Gates and other billionaires as being on the autism spectrum, manic depressive, ADHD, bipolar, retarded, or mentally ill, I do not think that any of them should be our role models or leaders.

The extremely wealthy people are pushing us towards a culture that is similar to those in the dystopian Hollywood movies in which a small group of selfish, aggressive, anti-social families rule over a group of slaves, and since they are in constant fear of the slaves rebelling, they live behind large barriers that are protected by armed and violent guards.

Years ago I assumed that Hollywood was creating those dystopian movies because the public wanted them, but after I realized the 9/11 attack was a false flag operation, I began noticing that a lot of the movies and TV shows that I regarded as idiotic seem to be based on actual events and fantasies of the people responsible for the 9/11 attack.

An example is the TV show The Invaders, which seems idiotic until we consider that the aliens represent the Zionist Jews from Russia. Another example is the TV episode The Lone Gunmen, which Christopher Bollyn wrote about here and here.

Today I think that a lot of the Hollywood dystopian governments are based on the fantasies and behavior of the Zionist Jews, pedophiles, and other criminals that dominate Hollywood, our media, and our governments. However, they alter the plots so that they don't incriminate themselves. For example, in the movie The Matrix, they have machines creating an artificial world for people, rather than an international network of Jews and pedophiles.

Our leaders should earn their position by impressing us

One of the realistic aspects of the Hollywood dystopian movies is that none of the leaders in the movies can compete fairly. They get into leadership positions, and maintain their positions, through secrecy, deception, censorship, bribery, murder, inheritances, blackmail, marriages, divorce settlements, and other types of cheating.

I don't want the future to be a group of wealthy criminals and their slaves, do you?
That cheating is happening in all nations. For example, the executives of Facebook, Google, the ADL, and CNN react to critics and competitors with censorship, firings, propaganda, and demands that the police arrest them for hate crimes.

The dystopian movies, and our nations, are dominated by people who cannot allow us to have free speech because that would allow us to expose their incompetence and lies. Their success comes from cheating, not talent, so they are terrified of honesty and demand secrecy.

Since there is no right or wrong way to live, we could choose to create a world that is similar to the dystopian movies, but I don't want to live in that type of a world.

Did you listen to my audio or read the transcript for Part 4 in which Jordan Dern is speaking to a group of Jews and asks, "How do we sustain a hatred and an anger towards the German people?"  Here is the audio of that Jew:
Jordan-Dern-sustain-anger.mp3  only 130 kbytes 

How is the desire of Jews to sustain hatred and anger of Germans any different from the government officials in Orwell's 1984 who were trying to sustain hatred and anger for Eurasia? What is the difference between:
• Jordan Dern encouraging hatred of Germans.
• Google executives firing James Damore.
• Jews arresting people for Holocaust Denial or anti-Semitism.
• Facebook and Twitter executives censoring truthful information.
• The government officials in the dystopian movies who kill or censor their critics and competitors.

All of those people are cheating to get what they want because they cannot earn what they want in a fair manner. They encourage hatred of their critics because they cannot respond with intelligent reasoning. Our nations have the same type of disgusting leaders that we see in the dystopian movies.

We must become intolerant of crime networks

In a prehistoric tribe, the men competed for leadership as individuals, and it was impossible for them to cheat, but today the world is a battleground in which organizations, such as the ADL, political parties, businesses, and churches, are fighting for dominance, and there are a tremendous variety of ways for the organizations to cheat.

It is impossible for an individual person to defeat an organization, so organizations will always dominate the competition. Furthermore, the criminal organizations have an advantage over honest organizations, so criminals will tend to dominate all of the unsupervised competitions.

This issue becomes increasingly significant as technology improves. The crime networks of the future will be more difficult to defeat because they will have access to increasingly advanced robots, software, drones, lasers, poisons, and equipment to modify bacteria and viruses. That future technology will make it easier for criminals to eliminate and manipulate their competitors.

For example, the future criminals won't have to risk murdering a competitor with a gun or knife. They will be able to use drones to infect a person with a disease or a cancer-causing chemical, or arrange for a robot to stage an accidental death and then alter its recording of the incident.

As technology improves, it becomes increasingly ridiculous for us to tolerate crime. It is also increasingly ridiculous for us to live in fear of criminals, and to try to protect ourselves from them. We must change the path that the human race is on and become intolerant of destructive behavior.

If a man cannot win a competition fairly, then he should quietly accept the failure, not have a tantrum, try to hurt his competitors, or cheat in the next competition. We should not ignore or tolerate the people who cheat. People who cheat are destructive, and they are becoming increasingly destructive as technology advances.

However, we cannot reduce crime with security devices or punishments. The only way to reduce crime is to restrict reproduction to the people who are willing to earn what they want, treat people with respect, and exert self-control over their cravings for status, sex, material wealth, food, babies, and land.

We should design our culture for social animals

The free enterprise system is better suited to cats and spiders than social animals because it puts us into an unsupervised battle for our lives. It encourages us to be selfish, and to regard other people as "opportunities" and enemies rather than as friends or team members. It encourages exploitation, deception, hoarding, and cheating.

The "socialist" cultures, such as Marxism, encourage us to become a team that works for the benefit of all people, but those systems are based on an unrealistic fantasy of what a human is.

The only way we will be successful in improving our world is to design our culture to fit what we truly are, rather than what we want to believe we are. For example, we need to acknowledge the evidence that:

• Humans are a species of animal.
We must design our government, economy, schools, recreational activities, and other culture for a group of animals. Furthermore, we are animals that are no longer adapted to our environment. I've given some examples of this issue in previous documents, such as that our arrogance and craving for food is too strong for our modern era. This requires us to design our culture to encourage self-control.

• Each of us is a unique jumble of genetic characteristics.
Although every human has the same mental and physical characteristics, we are not identical to one another. No matter which characteristic we look at, we form a bell graph. There is not even a dividing line between male and female. This requires us to design our culture to deal with our differences, rather than treat people as if they are identical copies of one another.

By ignoring the evidence that there are people at the ends of all bell graphs, the unusual people are often ignored, insulted, arrested, misunderstood, or mistreated, even though some of their unusual characteristics are acceptable, or even beneficial.

An extreme example of how a person with unusual genetic qualities can be misunderstood, which in turn can cause problems for themselves and/or other people, is that Patricia Stallings was put in jail for poisoning her son with anti-freeze, but eventually a professor came to the conclusion that her children had a bizarre genetic defect that caused them to die in a manner that resembles anti-freeze poisoning. When a person dies in an unusual manner, we should consider the possibility that he is genetically unusual rather than assume that he was murdered. Likewise, when we encounter people with unusual medical problems, behavior, or thinking abilities, we should consider the possibility that they are genetically unusual.

• Some people are too defective to function properly.
All cultures ignore the evidence that everybody has some mental and physical defects, and that some people's defects are so serious that it interferes with their ability to enjoy life, follow the rules, do useful work, or fit into society. Instead, every culture blames bad behavior, suicide, unemployment, crime, and abnormal sexual desires on some environmental issue that can be fixed with punishments, rehabilitation programs, or Bible studies.

• Most people are of average or below-average intelligence.
Every culture ignores the obvious fact that the majority of people will always be ordinary or below-average in every physical and mental characteristics, and that only a minority can be "above-average", and even fewer can excel in a characteristic. Most people cannot make wise decisions about voting, raising children, abortion, or any other issue. Therefore, it is foolish to design a government, economic system, school system, or recreational activities according to what the majority of people want. Our leaders should provide guidance to the people, not pander to them.

• A person needs more than intelligence to make wise decisions
Every culture assumes that people who are more intelligent will make the best decisions, but a person needs more than intelligence in order to make wise decisions.

An intelligent person who has a low level of self-control, a high level of arrogance, a strong fear of the unknown, mental illness, or an extreme envy, will not achieve what he is intellectually capable of. He might even choose to become a criminal. When selecting leaders, we must judge them by more than their schoolwork. We should judge them by their personality, what they've accomplished in life, their treatment of other people, and their influence on society.

If we were to design our culture to take into account the issues mentioned above, we would create significantly different culture. Three of the changes that I have mentioned in other documents are:

• We would restrict voting to a small group of men who have demonstrated above-average abilities to identify the men with leadership abilities.
• We would experiment with courtship activities rather than assume that our animal-like courtship activities are appropriate for our modern world.
• We would judge organizations by the effect they have on society. We would demand that organizations bring benefits to our lives, rather than titillate us with useless products or services, such as nail polish for dogs (photo below).

We must change our attitude towards happiness

Every culture promotes the belief that we will improve our life if we have more freedom to "do what we want to do", but there is no concern for whether what we want to do is beneficial. This results in people frequently choosing to do activities that are useless, dangerous, or wasteful.

This woman painted her toenails and those of her dog with different colors to celebrate "pride month".
For example, businesses are producing nail polish for both humans and dogs, but how does the woman in the photo to the right benefit from those nail polishes? How does society benefit by having businesses develop, manufacture, and distribute those nail polishes?

We are fools to put time and effort into teaching chemistry to students if this is all they're going to do with their education and technical talent.

If there was an excess of intelligent, talented people, then it would not matter if some of them wasted their time on idiotic projects, but there are not many talented chemists, machinists, engineers, technicians, or scientists. We should not waste our technical talent.

Our animal emotions want us to spend our life entertaining ourselves, not working, thinking, or being concerned about other people. These crude emotional cravings did not cause trouble for prehistoric people because they were under tremendous pressure by nature to put their time and effort into survival.

Today only a few people are needed to provide us with food, housing, and other items, so the majority of people can spend their day on something other than survival. Unfortunately, in a free enterprise system, and in a democracy, our craving to entertain ourselves is likely to result in us choosing entertainment activities, rather than beneficial activities.

Our emotions cause us to believe that the more entertainment we have, the more happy we will be, but if that were true, then the welfare recipients would be among the happiest people because they can spend all day, every day entertaining themselves. In reality, the people who have nothing useful to do become bored. Boredom is miserable, so we search for something to do. Unfortunately, we are likely to choose an activity according to our emotional cravings, and that will cause us to choose activities that are entertaining.

We would improve our lives by changing our attitudes towards happiness. Our goal should not be to have more entertainment, leisure time, freedom, or pampering. We should instead acknowledge the evidence that we get more satisfaction from life when we "suffer" by doing work that other people appreciate, and especially when we can work with our friends.

Excessive product variations are wasteful

When Russia was communist, I sometimes heard Americans boast that one of the wonderful things about the USA was that our free enterprise system provided us with a lot more options for home furnishings, clothing, electric razors, foods, and other products. However, when we provide ourselves with more options than we benefit from, we waste our labor and resources, and we torment ourselves with unnecessary decisions.

An example that I mentioned in a previous document is that we have hundreds of different laundry detergents to choose from, but we need only a couple different options.

The image to the right is just a sample of some of the laundry detergents available to American consumers.

The variations of laundry detergent are not merely "unnecessary"; rather, they are "wasteful". Engineers are wasting their technical talent on the development of the variations; businesses are wasting labor and resources by manufacturing the variations; and retail stores must be larger to display all of the variations.

The variations also cause us to waste a portion of our life by requiring us to spend some time trying to decide which detergent to purchase.

We would have a better life if we reduced the options in all products to only those that are truly useful. That would allow us to shift some of our technical talent and resources to more beneficial projects, and it would reduce the time we waste.

Options with recreational equipment is detrimental

Producing unnecessary options with recreational equipment is just as wasteful of engineering talent and resources as producing unnecessary variations of laundry detergent, but the situation is more complex with recreational equipment.

If people were getting involved with recreational activities to get exercise, socialize, or enjoy nature, and if they did not care who won or lost the competitions, then the options for recreational items would merely be "wasteful".

However, all cultures today are putting tremendous emphasis on winning the recreational events, and when we provide lots of options for the recreational equipment, then it encourages people to develop the detrimental attitude of searching for the best equipment. We could describe this effect as encouraging the "chase after a rainbow" attitude. This attitude is detrimental for various reasons, such as:

Some baseball bats that are not approved of by the ASA.
• It encourages us to become obsessed with finding the "best" equipment. This causes us to waste some of our life searching for "better" equipment, and comparing what we have to what other people have.

• It can cause us to discard equipment that is in good condition simply to get a "new and improved" version.

• The people who arrange for recreational competitions have to waste some of their time analyzing the "new and improved" recreational products in order to determine which of them are acceptable for the competitions.

In a free enterprise system, there is no concern for whether we benefit from the development of "new and improved" items, but the Kastron government has the authority to pass judgment on which items provide us with enough of a benefit to justify producing them, and of those items, whether we will benefit by having engineers continue to do research and development for them. For example:

• Can we make the game of golf more beneficial by supporting the research and development of "new and improved" golf balls, golf clubs, sand traps, or grass lawns? Or will we get more of a benefit if the engineers used their talent for other projects, such as improving robots, medical equipment, and sewage treatment plants?

• What are the benefits to producing "new and improved" cleats for the shoes used by people who play soccer, baseball, golf, or other games? Do the benefits of cleats outweigh the disadvantage of manufacturing the cleats and the burden of maintaining the grass that the cleats destroy?

Cleats do not improve our lives, and it is especially idiotic to waste technical talent on the development of new and improved cleats. Cleats developed only because people are given an option for their shoes, and because we have been fooled into believing that the purpose of playing the game is to win. This idiotic culture encourages us to develop obsessions for "better" shoes, cleats, soccer balls, golf balls, and other items.

In Kastron, the government cannot authorize the production of an item unless they can show that it provides benefits that outweigh its disadvantages. Since nobody can provide evidence that cleats improve our lives, cleats will be prohibited for recreational activities.

This racing bike is about 60k ($80k).
For another example of how options with equipment encourage absurd obsessions, consider the bicycles that are used in the Olympics. The bicycle in the photo to the right is more expensive than most automobiles, and according to this article, another of the bicycles required over 4500 hours of engineering time to develop.

There are thousands of businesses putting thousands of hours into developing slightly better bicycle chains, tires, and other components, but how do we benefit by putting all of that engineering talent into making a bicycle slightly faster?

When we give people the option of choosing the bicycle that they use in a bicycle race, then the contest becomes more than an "athletic" event. It also becomes an engineering contest in which the people compete to produce the fastest bicycle. How does that additional competition improve the lives of the people involved with racing, or those who are watching the event?

Likewise, when we give people the option of choosing their golf clubs and balls, and when the people foolishly believe that the purpose of the game is to win, then they are likely to become obsessed with their equipment. This will result in businesses wasting technical talent and resources on the development of "better" golf equipment, and the people who play golf will waste a lot of their time and money searching for and purchasing the better equipment. They are essentially chasing rainbows.

Imagine a bicycle racing track in which each lane is whatever material the athlete chooses for himself.
It might be easier to understand this concept with a more extreme example. Imagine if a bicycle race required each athlete to remain in his own lane, and each of them was free to create the path that he rides on.

This would cause each contestant to spend a lot of time and money to build the path that he rides on, and choose tires for his particular path.

The end result would be a bicycle race in which the tracks consist of different materials, such as asphalt, concrete, wood, linoleum, cotton fabric, and carbon fiber.

Giving athletes the freedom to choose the material that they ride on would cause bicycle races to become very expensive because it would require each athlete to develop and build a track. It would also result in businesses hiring engineers to do research into track materials and tires. Who would benefit from that option?

There is no benefit to giving athletes the freedom to choose their track material, or to develop their own bicycle. Those options do not improve a bicycle race, or the lives of the athletes or spectators.

We need guidance with recreation, not freedom

Our free enterprise system and democracy is giving us the recreational activities that we want, and this is resulting in people wasting their life and resources on idiotic and worthless competitions, and sometimes dangerous competitions. We don't need more freedom with recreational activities, or more pandering by businesses or government officials.

We would benefit much more by having intelligent leaders provide us with guidance and putting restrictions on our "recreational freedom". Therefore, the Kastron government will have control of the recreational activities, and the businesses in Kastron work for the city government. This allows the government to determine which recreational activities are permitted, and which recreational products are put into production.

For example, the government, not the athletes or businesses, will decide whether bicycle races are permitted, and if so, what type of races, and what type of bicycles are available for racing. My suggestion is that we do not develop bicycles for racing. If we decide that we want bicycle races, I suggest requiring the athletes to use ordinary bicycles that are produced for the public. Furthermore, since the city owns all of the material items, nobody would be allowed to modify the bicycle that they use for a race.

The end result would be a bicycle race in which everybody has the same bicycle. This would prevent the people from becoming obsessed with whose bicycle is the fastest. This in turn would force them to focus on some other aspect of the race, and hopefully they would choose something more sensible, such as enjoying the competition, the exercise, or the people.

Recreation should be beneficial, not to collect trophies

In our free enterprise system, engineers will design whatever type of recreational product will bring some profit, regardless of whether it has any value to us. In Kastron, the businesses will be in competition to improve life, so the engineers will analyze the effect their products have on our lives, and they will look for ways to make their products more beneficial to us.

In regards to bicycles, instead of trying to make them faster, they will try to find ways to make bicycles more beneficial to us, such as experimenting with ways to make them more comfortable, more attractive, and more reliable so that more people are inspired to use bicycles to get some exercise or socialize, or simply to get out of their house and enjoy nature. The engineers will also want to reduce the burden of bicycles, so they will want to make the bicycles easier to produce, maintain, and recycle.

The goal of the engineers in Kastron is to find ways to improve our lives, not help us to win competitions.

Since the city owns all of the bicycles, consumers do not have to afford, store, or maintain them, and this allows the engineers to design bicycles that are much higher quality than would be practical in a free enterprise system. This will result in bicycles that are extremely expensive, especially the more complex bicycles, such as those that are designed for families, as in the photo to the right.

Although producing high quality recreational products will require a lot of labor and resources, it is much more efficient to produce a small number of high-quality bicycles, scuba equipment, kayaks, drones, and other recreational equipment that we share, than to create a large number of low quality items for each person.

The engineers in Kastron will not be concerned with appeasing consumers or investors. Rather, they will appease the government officials who judge a product according to the effect it has on society. Although there is no dividing line between a product that is "beneficial" and one that is not, an intelligent government will make better decisions than the public.

With an intelligent government, a bicycle would be considered as a success if it improves our lives in some manner, such as providing us with some useful exercise, or inspiring us to get out of our house and enjoy nature. By comparison, a bicycle would be considered a failure if it causes injuries or pain, or if it is so ugly or uncomfortable that nobody wants to ride it, even if it is an extremely fast bicycle.

The same concept applies to the bicycle paths in the city. In order for us to want to ride a bicycle, we need access to paths that we enjoy, and so the government department that is responsible for social and recreational activities will be under pressure to provide bicycle paths that inspire us to use them.

The government officials will not care what type of bicycle paths the people want. The government officials do not pander to the public. Instead, they design bicycle paths to provide the most benefits and the fewest disadvantages. For example, some people might want a path to race on, or to perform dangerous stunts on, but the government might decide that races and stunts have more disadvantages than benefits, in which case they would not provide facilities for such activities.

How do we benefit from these risky activities?
Some people might complain that the government would be "oppressive" if they prohibited bicycle races and the type of stunts shown in the photo to the right.

Those people might complain that the government would be restricting their freedom to enjoy life, or denying them their right to spend their leisure time in whatever manner they please.

However, all governments are already prohibiting a lot of activities. For example, dueling and dog fighting is no longer permitted; base jumping is illegal; and we are prohibited from racing automobiles and snowmobiles on public streets.

The Kastron government will analyze activities according to the benefits and disadvantages to society. For example, all of the racing contests that require vehicles have the disadvantage of requiring a lot of land and resources, and they result in a lot more injuries than foot races or swimming races. Furthermore, the racetracks make the city look ugly. If the benefit of a race outweighed the disadvantages, then we could justify it, but what is the benefit of a racing contest with vehicles?

Parents do not let children do something simply because the children insist that they enjoy doing it, and want to do it. Likewise, adults in Kastron will not be able to justify an activity simply by saying they "enjoy it".

If I am correct that the racing contests are worthless or detrimental, then why are so many people and businesses involved with those activities? It is because of the combination of businesses that are looking for ways to make profit, and people who are bored and looking for something to do. This results in businesses experimenting with recreational activities.

Unfortunately, businesses are concerned with profit, not improving human life, and consumers are looking for emotional titillation. Since we have a natural desire to compete with one another, consumers have a tendency to choose the competitive activities, regardless of their value.

Red Bull, Nike, and many other businesses are arranging for a variety of different racing contests, beauty contests, food eating contests, weightlifting contests, and chili-eating contests. Millions of people get involved with the activities, or become spectators, simply because they are bored, want something to do, and enjoy competitions.

The Kastron government is responsible for experimenting with recreational and social activities, but for the purpose of making our lives better. Their goal is to provide people with a variety of activities that are safe, and which have some benefit. Many of the recreational activities will be competitive, but the emphasis will not be on winning the competition, or collecting trophies. It will be something more useful, such as exercise, enjoying nature, or meeting people.

When the government authorizes an activity, they must also set the rules and equipment. For example, if the government authorizes golf, they might decide to create only one type of golf club, rather than give people the option of selecting from a variety of drivers, irons, and putters. They might also require the golf ball to be a wiffleball or a sponge ball, and to make the golf clubs out of plastic, in order to reduce injuries, the land requirements of the game, and the number of balls that get lost.

By simplifying the game of golf to a few pieces of equipment, and not giving anybody the option to choose their equipment, none of the people who play golf will become obsessed with who has the "best" golf equipment. This in turn would encourage them to focus on something more important, such as enjoying the people that they are playing golf with, and enjoying nature. It will also prevent engineers from wasting their talent and life on worthless projects, such as "improving" a golf club.

If the adults who currently play golf, baseball, soccer, or volleyball were told that all of their equipment options are being taken away, and they must use the same equipment as everybody else, many of them would probably have a temper tantrum. They would insist that they like the game as it is right now, and that they will not like the game if it is changed.

However, the Kastron government officials will have the attitude that people put up resistance to changes simply because we are animals that have an emotional fear of changes. The Kastron government officials will not consider themselves to be tormenting people by forcing them to experiment with culture.

It is imperative that we be critical of our desires

A person who does not want to believe that he is a variation of a monkey will assume that his desires are sensible, and that whatever he dislikes is truly unpleasant. However, when we understand that we have the mental characteristics of an animal, we will realize that what we like and dislike is partly dependent upon what we have become accustomed to, and partly dependent upon our genetic emotional desires.

Understanding this concept allows us to realize that some of what we like is actually idiotic, dangerous, unhealthy, and/or unpleasant, and some of the things we dislike are actually more enjoyable, healthier, and/or beneficial.

Some of what we like and dislike is simply due to what we have become accustomed to.
An example that I mentioned here is that I provided some Japanese mochi ice cream to some Americans who love ice cream, but most of them were too frightened to try the mochi, and those who tried it did not like it.

The human brain is not a scientific instrument that we can trust. It is a monkey brain that was designed to survive in a competitive battle for life. We must be critical of our decisions.

We cannot assume that what we like is good for us, or what we dislike is bad for us. We cannot assume that what makes us feel safe is truly safe, or what frightens us is truly dangerous. We cannot even believe what we see with our eyes, or hear with our ears.

Our prehistoric ancestors evolved for their environment, so they could follow their emotions, but our emotions have not evolved for our technically advanced, highly populated world. In order for us to enjoy our modern era, we need to look critically at what we like and dislike, and make intelligent decisions about what we should like and dislike.

Our brain has the ability to adapt to whatever we repeatedly do. This allows us to do it without thinking about it. We refer to this characteristic as "developing a habit" or "getting into a routine". We need to be aware of this characteristic so that we can occasionally analyze our habits to make sure they are sensible, and to remain calm as we experiment with new activities.

Wildebeest following a migration path.
Modern humans need an understanding of animal behavior. This will help us understand that we follow our culture for the same reason that wildebeest follow the same migration path year after year.

We need to realize that if we try to do something that is different from what we are accustomed to, such as when an American tries to eat Japanese food, or when a person tries to play golf with different equipment and rules, some emotion in our brain reacts by creating an unpleasant feeling, just as a wildebeest will become fearful if he steps off the migration path.

If we believe that our emotions are sensible, and if we believe that we should avoid whatever is unpleasant, we will assume that everything unfamiliar to us is miserable or dangerous.

However, if we realize that we have a monkey brain, we will realize that our fear of the Japanese food and the new variation of golf is simply due to our emotions trying to warn us to be cautious because we are about to do something that is different from what we are accustomed to. That understanding can help us remain calm as we try the Japanese food or the new type of golf.

Furthermore, we must also understand that our mind is not a computer that is capable of making instantaneous changes with our behavior or attitudes. In order for our mind to change the path that we are following, we must push ourselves into trying the new path for days, weeks, or months.

We cannot expect to determine whether we like a new activity simply by trying it once or twice. The more different it is from what we are accustomed to, the longer it takes for our mind to relax and determine whether we like it.

Our mind could be described as being "sluggish" with changes, but this characteristic is not a flaw, so it would be better to describe our mind as being resistant to changes. Animals evolved this trait because life is very dangerous. It is risky for an animal to make dramatic changes to its established foods, migration paths, and other customs. When animals make changes, they do so very slowly and cautiously.

Some of us discovered this concept when we decided to reduce sugar consumption and noticed that most foods tasted bitter or bland for perhaps six months. I was shocked at how long it took me to adapt to a low sugar level.

We assume that, because we are intelligent creatures, we can change courses quickly and easily, but we have an animal's mind that was designed to follow established paths, and intelligence cannot circumvent that genetic design. That characteristic is designed into our brain.

We must push ourselves into trying a new activity for weeks or months in order to determine whether we truly prefer it. We must repeatedly remind ourselves that we cannot trust our emotions. An example that I mentioned here is that when I decided to grind beef into burgers, the flavor was so different from regular ground beef that it was unpleasant, but I forced myself to eat them, and after a few weeks I realized that they were far superior to the ground beef in the markets.

No society is yet teaching children about these concepts, or encouraging adults to exert self-control over their fear of the unfamiliar. As a result, most people believe that whatever they like and dislike is truly what is good and bad. This causes those people to make idiotic decisions about their lives, such as refusing to eat certain foods or do certain activities because they are certain that those foods or activities are awful, when they are sometimes merely different from what they are accustomed to.

We should not assume that our culture is the best it could possibly be. Our culture has been developing haphazardly for millions of years, and it has been influenced by our idiotic emotions, and by businesses, religions, Zionist organizations, lunatics, children, crime networks, and incompetent government officials.

Our recreational activities, for example, are not the result of intelligent people who studied human behavior and experimented with activities. Instead, they are the result of people trying to titillate themselves, and businesses trying to exploit people for profit.

We should push ourselves into experimenting with our culture, and helping one another remain calm when we experience the fear of something different.

We need to push each other into experimenting

I suggest that the Kastron schools provide courses to help children understand the concept that we must push ourselves into experimenting with our culture. This should reduce the chances that they become adults who become frightened by proposed changes to their recreational activities, holiday celebrations, meals, and other culture.

However, as I mentioned in a previous document about teaching children about nudity, I don't think we can teach this lesson simply by providing children with a sequence of words. I think the children need to experience it.

Schools should put children into situations where they must break some of their habits so that the children can experience the emotional discomfort of trying something different, and the realization that what they were afraid of is actually harmless or beneficial. I think children need to experience the concept that some of what they like and dislike is simply what they have become accustomed to.

How many cosmetic options do we need?

This shows only 40 of the hundreds of lipstick colors.
In a free enterprise system, businesses compete to titillate us with lipsticks, hair gels, hair coloring dies, body piercings, perfumes, aftershave lotions, breast implants, chin implants, and earrings.

There are also businesses involved with trying to undo some of the cosmetic options, such as using lasers to remove tattoos, removing or reducing the size of a breast implant, repairing earlobes, or undoing the damage caused by lip injections.

Those products and services require thousands of skilled people to spend a lot of time and resources on the development, production, and testing of cosmetic products and surgeries, but what is the benefit? How would we suffer by taking those cosmetic options away and putting that technical talent and resources into other projects?

In a free enterprise system, there is no concern for whether we benefit from a cosmetic option, but the Kastron government is responsible for passing judgment on such issues.

For example, they will analyze the benefits and disadvantages to producing lipstick. Does producing lipstick bring improvements to our lives that outweigh the disadvantages? If so, does the improvement increase as we increase the number of shades? If so, what number of shades brings us the maximum benefit?

Finally, they must also show that putting engineers, technicians, and other people into the project is better for society than putting that talent in the projects that other people want. How many engineers, technicians, and other technically skilled people are needed to develop the lipsticks? Are the benefits of lipstick more beneficial than what those technically talented people could do if they were working on some other project? Or are the benefits of lipstick so trivial that we should ignore lipstick until the more important projects are finished?

They will apply the same type of analysis to hair dyes, perfumes, earings, and six-pack implants.

We must understand the cause of our problems

When determining which projects to support, the Kastron government needs to consider the cause of the problem the project is supposed to solve. For example, millions of women are getting breast implants, but what problem are the women expecting the implants to solve? How successful have those implants been at solving that problem? Are there any alternative solutions that would be more appropriate? Why are so many women regretting their implants and either removing them or reducing them in size?

There has not been any serious analysis of why women want breast implants, but my assumption is that the three primary reasons are:
1) To attract a husband.
Some single women believe that larger breasts will help them attract a husband.

2) To mimic role models or peers.
As mentioned earlier, we have powerful cravings to be accepted members of our group, and to follow our leaders, but Hollywood celebrities are treated as leaders, resulting in a lot of women mimicking their breast implants and other cosmetic options.

3) To get a job.
A small percentage of women seem to be getting implants because they want to be a model or a "celebrity", and they believe they need larger breasts in order to be hired for those jobs.

Even if a breast implant can help a woman solve one of those three problems, I think that there are much better solutions. Specifically, experiment with our culture. For example:

1) Attracting a husband.
My recommendation for Kastron is to arrange for courtship activities for the single people, starting with the teenagers in Teentown. I've described this in other documents so I won't do it again, but I will point out that the supervisors should educate the women about men so that the women don't develop the false belief that men are choosing wives according to the size of their breasts, their hair color, or their fingernail polish.

Although it is possible that there are some men who choose a wife according to the size of her breasts, I think that an analysis of men would show that the men that we would describe as having "good mental health" are much more concerned about a woman's mind.

If men truly preferred women with large breasts, then women would have evolved large breasts thousands of years ago. The fact that teenage girls who are in good physical health, and not overweight, have small breasts is proof that most men don't want large breasts. Men are most attracted to women who have breasts that hold themselves up. I think that large, saggy breasts are unattractive. I think that if a woman needs a bra, her breasts are too large.

The courtship activities should also educate the men. For example, many men assume that they need hair transplants, a six-pack implant, or a larger penis in order to attract a woman, but that is not true. However, if women truly wanted men with hair on their head, then men today would not be bald.

Baldness is more common among European men than Asian men, which is evidence that Asian women are more concerned about hair than European women, but there is baldness among the Asian men, so that is proof that Asian women are willing to tolerate a bald man if he has other qualities to counteract his baldness.

Men and women evolved certain physical characteristics according to what the opposite sex is attracted to. Therefore, our "natural" physical characteristics are what the opposite sex is attracted to. It is idiotic for us to assume that a "normal" human body is inappropriate for attracting a spouse. The only people who will have trouble attracting a spouse are the people who are truly abnormal.

Another example of this concept is that "normal" women have rounded stomachs, and "normal" men have flat stomachs. Some women are making the mistake of assuming that men are attracted to flat stomachs, but that is not true. Men prefer women with curves. If men were attracted to women with flat stomachs, then women would have evolved flat stomachs.

In a previous document, I suggested that the children in Kastron occasionally be exposed to nudity so that the boys don't develop idiotic obsessions with women's sexual organs. Although we will not know for sure until we find the courage to try such an experiment, I think it will significantly reduce the concern about breast size.

2) Mimicking role models.
Our nations today allow organizations to promote role models, such as the Kardashian women and Lady Gaga. These role models are encouraging breast implants, Brazilian Butt Lifts, lip injections, Botox injections, and multiple earrings. However, the Kastron Quality Control Department has the authority to pass judgment on people in influential positions, and remove those who have a detrimental effect on society.

By providing young girls with more appropriate role models, we will dramatically decrease their cravings for cosmetic surgeries.

3) Getting jobs.
In a free enterprise system, women with larger breasts have an easier time getting certain jobs because many businesses are using their female employees to attract male customers. In Kastron, the businesses work for the government, and the businesses are in competition to improve our lives. Therefore, the quality control department will be able to replace the executives who use women as sex toys, and that would be a better solution to the problem.

Are you willing to test your leadership abilities?

The Kastron government will be in control of the city's culture, economy, and school system, and the voters will be responsible for passing judgment on which of the government officials are providing us with sensible guidance, and which of them needs to be replaced. None of those jobs is easy.

Creating a new city and supervising it requires finding people for those jobs, but nobody has had experience with such jobs. Therefore, we need people to volunteer for those jobs.

Are you willing to try those jobs and test your abilities? If so, are you willing to voluntarily try another job if we don't like your decisions? Or will you put up a fight and accuse us of not recognizing your amazing talent?

Can you notice obsessions?

Even if you do not have the desire or talent to be a top government official, or to provide guidance about engineering or scientific issues, you would be useful if you are capable of identifying some of the obsessions that interfere with the design of products, software, recreational activities, and other culture.

Animals evolved the characteristic of becoming obsessed with their goals so that they don't give up easily when searching for food or taking care of their children. They will do whatever it takes to achieve their goals. They will not give up.

Humans inherited that characteristic, and it was valuable for prehistoric people because they became obsessed with sensible goals, such as finding food, taking care of their children, and defending themselves from wolves.

The situation is dramatically different in our modern era because we have lots of leisure time, and we have businesses, sports organizations, religions, nonprofit groups, and lunatics influencing our activities and desires. Since we have a strong resistance to thinking and looking critically at ourselves, the end result is that lots of men become obsessed with useless, idiotic, wasteful, and dangerous activities, such as setting a world record for pole sitting (video here), or owning the largest yacht.

Although some people develop obsessions that provide us with a few seconds of entertainment, such as the people competing to create the world's largest rotating ice donut, it would be better if our culture did not encourage idiotic obsessions.

Our obsessions can also interfere with the development of products and software. For example, years ago somebody came up with the idea of swiping a touchscreen to provide input to the software. Although the concept of swiping a touchscreen is beneficial, I think the modern smart phone is an example of people who became so obsessed with the concept that they used it excessively. I think the phones would be easier to use if some of the swiping was replaced with menus. I also suggest replacing some of the icons with words or menus, or adding words under the icons.

The swiping and icons in our "smart" phones is so extreme that it reminds me of when I was a child and I sometimes became so excited to learn a new word that I would look for an opportunity to use it.

Finding an improvement to a material item, social activity, recreational activity, or software program requires more than intelligence and talent. It also requires the ability to look critically at our brilliant ideas, and using self-control to prevent our crude, monkey emotions from interfering with our decisions.

Even if you do not have the desire or talent to be a top government official, engineer, or scientist, you might have the talent to notice confusing and awkward aspects of our material items, recreational activities, software, bicycle paths, or other culture.

When should people be allowed to do worthless activities?

The issue of whether smart phone designers are obsessed with swiping brings up an important issue that has no right or wrong. Specifically, when should the government allow people to do something that is inefficient or worthless simply because they enjoy it, rather than force the people to be efficient and sensible? For example, if people enjoy swiping their phones, should the government let them do it even if it is wasting their time and causing them some confusion?

A jigsaw puzzle might be a better way to explain this concept. A jigsaw puzzle can require a person to spend hours trying to solve it. Should the government require jigsaw puzzles to be easier to solve so that people don't waste so much of their time?

When is it acceptable for people to get involved with an activity that is wasteful and worthless, but which they find entertaining? Should the lonely or bored people be allowed to waste their time trying to solve a Rubik's cube or crossword puzzle? Or should we prohibit people from wasting their time?

Are the businesses that produce crossword puzzles, Rubiks cubes, and similar products improving life for us? Or are they causing people to waste their life on a worthless activity?

There is no correct answer to such questions. The government officials must make decisions, and the voters must pass judgment on which of the officials are making wise decisions.

All recreational activities could be described as "idiotic", but some activities have a benefit, such as providing exercise, or helping us to socialize, but what benefit do jigsaw puzzles provide? If people got together in a group to solve jigsaw puzzles, then we could describe it as a "social activity", but most people are doing jigsaw puzzles in their home and by themselves, which makes the jigsaw puzzle just a method for lonely people to distract themselves from their misery and prevent boredom, similar to playing the game of solitaire, or playing with a pet dog.

The Kastron government will have a department that manages social and recreational activities, and it will be responsible for finding improvements to our activities. The citizens of Kastron will also be encouraged to look for ways of improving social and recreational activities. Our goal should be to create a life that we enjoy reminiscing about when we get older. We should want to sing a variation of Armstrong's song, but how many elderly people want to sing this variation:

I solved jigsaw puzzles, and crosswords too,
enjoyed solitaire, and the Rubik's Cube.
Had a pet dog that was such a good friend,
that we slept together in the same bed.
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world!

The Kastron government will discourage people from doing things simply to distract themselves from their loneliness and/or boredom, and encourage people to look for activities that are at least somewhat beneficial. With that attitude, somebody might be inspired to think about how to make jigsaw puzzles more beneficial, and he might propose that instead of making them from paper, the city should arrange for the arts and crafts clubs to make the pieces from ceramics, wood, and colored and iridescent glass.

Instead of tearing the jigsaw puzzles apart when finished, they would become "jigsaw mosaics" for the city. They would be used to decorate the foot paths, plazas, restaurants, offices, bicycle paths, factories, and train stations.

Instead of making jigsaw puzzles out of paper, and then breaking them apart when finished, why not make them from rocks, tiles, and glass?
The "jigsaw mosaics" could be used for decorations in our homes, plazas, foot paths,  restaurants, social clubs, and schools.

That modification to jigsaw puzzles causes them to become beautiful works of art for the city, rather than a waste of life. As the years passed, the city would become increasingly beautiful as a result of the accumulation of those jigsaw mosaics. Furthermore, the people who produce those jigsaw mosaics would get more satisfaction from creating them because other people would appreciate their work, including the future generations.

The adults who are alive today are accustomed to making jigsaw puzzles using pieces of paperboard, so they might have a tantrum if their government announced that paper jigsaw puzzles are discontinued, and that they must either produce "mosaic jigsaws" for the city, or find some other hobby.

However, if children grow up in a social environment in which the adults are creating mosaic jigsaws for the city, they would become adults who regard that as a sensible and useful hobby, and they would likely consider the paper jigsaw puzzles to be one of many examples of the thousands of worthless activities of a free enterprise system and a democracy.

We should put historical information into a database

In previous files, such as this, I suggested that the Kastron government maintain a database about people's lives, warning signs, and the animals and plants in the city. I also suggest that the database contained information about the city's culture. This would provide historical information about the city for future generations.

For example, after a group of people build a footbridge for the city, the footbridge could have an entry in the city's database to show who built it, when, and/or why. When somebody develops an improved version of a baseball game, the database could explain who devised it, when, and/or why. When a group of people create a stained-glass window for a factory, the database could show who created it and when. The database could also have photos and video.

In addition to helping the future generations understand how their city and culture became what it is, it would also be entertaining. For example, it would allow a person to discover that one of his distant ancestors created some of the decorative mosaic jigsaws on one of the foot paths that he enjoys walking on, or developed the variation of baseball that he plays, or conceived of the city festival that he enjoys every summer.

A drive-in restaurant in 1957 that provided cool air to the people in the car. (Click for the full size.)
There are lots of individual citizens creating Internet sites that have historical information, such as, which collects old photos, such as the photo to the right, but it would be better if the field of history were to be treated as a real science, and historians had the same serious attitude as biologists and zoologists.

Historians should gather information about how our culture developed. In addition to being interesting, that knowledge can help us decide what aspects of our culture should be modernized.

Historians could also help us understand our language. For example, should we continue to use the word "bespoke"? How did that word become a part of the English language? Is it necessary today?

Dictionaries have some information about the history of some words, but that should be the job of historians because understanding our language is equivalent to a zoologist who is studying the chirping of birds, or the facial expressions of monkeys. The authors of dictionaries should get information about language from the historians.

We should standardize on one language

Many French people boast that their language has the most pleasant sounds, but the French language has a lot of the same irritating sounds as other languages, such as the words that resemble a person who is clearing his throat or spitting, and words with "sharp" sounds.

The pride that we feel for our language is due to our animal emotions, not because any of us are speaking a language that is truly impressive. Our emotions cause us to be defensive of our possessions, but we should not regard language as one of our possessions. We should regard language as a communication tool.

We should exert enough self-control to acknowledge the evidence that all languages are an irrational and confusing collection of monkey noises that have been accumulating and changing haphazardly for millions of years. All languages need to be overhauled, but that is a very complex job. We don't yet know enough about language to properly overhaul a language, and we have much higher priorities right now, anyway.

We do not cause trouble when we allow our neighbors and employees to have different hairstyles or recreational activities, but it is detrimental to allow people to speak different languages, especially when they are living in the same city.

Language should be regarded as a tool, similar to how we regard math and numbers. We would not benefit by giving people the freedom to use different bases. For example, we would not benefit if some people were using base 8, others were using base 10, and others were using base 9. Likewise, language should not be a freedom. It should be a tool.

The USA is already causing trouble for itself by giving Americans the freedom to choose between the imperial and metric system. We also have the freedom to mix the two systems together on the same engineering diagrams and products. We would cause ourselves even more trouble if we allowed people to have the freedom to use whatever bases they please, and to mix the bases on the same engineering diagrams.

It did not matter that the prehistoric tribes in China were speaking a different language than the prehistoric tribes in Europe or Africa because the tribes were isolated from one another. Today, however, every society is interacting with the others.

The human race has essentially become a "planetary society" because we directly and indirectly influence the lives of one another. We need to stop behaving like independent, arrogant, prehistoric tribes. We need to change our attitude and behave like a large group of people who are sharing the planet and working together for the benefit of all of us.

If a human language was so simple that we could learn one within a week, then we could tolerate different languages, but our languages are extremely difficult to learn, especially the primitive languages, such as Chinese.

Furthermore, our languages are more difficult to learn than they need to be because all of them are crude, such as having irrational verbs, or words that don't spell the way they sound, or words with multiple meanings.

Children are putting a tremendous amount of time and effort into learning a second or third language, but they are wasting their time and memory. Children would benefit much more if they put their time and effort into learning something that is truly useful, such as science, human behavior, or the history of human culture.

Furthermore, all of the technical talent that is put into developing translation software is a waste. We should put that talent into creating software that is more beneficial. The software engineers who are creating "Unicode" software are also wasting their time, and they are encouraging the use of primitive languages rather than putting pressure on people to use a more advanced language.

Likewise, all of the people who make a living by translating documents are wasting their life on a worthless activity. Those people require a lot of food, electricity, and other resources, but they give us nothing of value in return. They are as worthless as a group of people who spend their time translating between metric and imperial units.

If the computer programmers who have been wasting their talent during the past few decades on dealing with different languages and Unicode had been putting their talent to improving software for robots, we might today have a lot of very useful robots.

For example, now that we live to about 80 years of age, a large percentage of people will need artificial hips and knees, including some computer programmers, but our current technology and surgical techniques are crude. If the computer programming talent had been put into surgical robots, we might by now, or very soon, have robots that can use very small and delicate tools to replace joints or cartilage without destroying all of the tendons and ligaments, thereby providing us with much greater mobility, and preventing the problem of artificial hips popping out of their socket.

Or, if the computer programming talent had been put into creating CNC bulldozers and other earthmoving machines, we might by now, or very soon, be able to draw canals and building foundations on a computer, and have the CNC earthmoving equipment create them for us without any people, just like a 3D printer and a CNC milling machine.

Or perhaps the computer programmers could have created software that will combine the data from CT scans, MRI scans, and/or ultrasound scans in order to produce 3D models of our body with more detail, and which allows us to remove skin, bones, or organs so that we can get a better understanding of the person's body.

We are causing trouble for ourselves by giving nations the freedom to speak whatever language they please. This is a freedom that nobody needs or benefits from. Unfortunately, no society yet cares whether children are learning something useful, or whether the computer programmers or other people are doing beneficial work.

Humans do not enjoy learning, so it is absurd to push children into learning additional human languages. The only people who should learn additional languages are those who are interested in analyzing history.

We should standardize on one pronunciation

Since almost everybody of importance already speaks English, it would be easy to make English the standard language of the world. Although English is full of irrational characteristics, so are all of the other languages. Let the future generations deal with that problem.

Although English is spoken all around the world, different people have different accents. Some people consider the different accents to be entertaining, and businesses in the USA sometimes use narrators who have one of the British accents in order to appear intelligent. However, we should stop considering accents to be entertaining, and we should especially stop the practice of trying to deceive people with accents. We should use language for communication, not to entertain or exploit one another.

The people who enjoy accents, slang, and baby talk should do it at their home, not in public.
If some people want to entertain themselves with different accents, they can do so with their friends during their leisure time. They can even speak "baby talk" with one another.

When we are alone or with our friends, we can have lots of freedom, but when we are "in society" we are a member of a team, and we should lose our freedom to behave in an irrational and idiotic manner, and we should be required to behave in a manner that is beneficial for the team.

When we are "in society", we should speak the same language, and with the same accent, as everybody else so that we don't interfere with communication, or cause children to pick up inappropriate pronunciations, words, or expressions.

Adults often giggle when children mispronounce words, or use words incorrectly. Although there is nothing wrong with being entertained by the mistakes of a child, we should let the child know that he is making a mistake. If we don't counteract our giggling, the child may deliberately abuse language again and again, in order to become the center of attention.

All of us occasionally make a mistake in the words we choose, or the pronunciation of a word, but we should react to those mistakes in the same manner that we react to a person who makes a mistake about how to use a knife, bicycle, or computer. Specifically, we should counteract our giggling by pointing out to them that they made a mistake. Otherwise we encourage people to mimic the mistake.

An example of how doing nothing to correct mistakes can ruin a language are the adjectives that Americans are using to describe something that they like. Some of the adjectives that I have heard are: hot, cold, cool, groovy, dope, wicked, sick, to die for, trick, the bomb, hardcore, unreal, nasty, rad, sweet, crazy, kickass, boss, and gnarly.

Many people deliberately use words in weird manners simply to become the center of attention. However, we should tell people that if they want to become the center of attention, they should do something impressive rather than make the mistakes of a child. We should consider the people who deliberately abuse words in order to become the center of attention as cheating in order to get attention.

How do we ensure everyone speaks the same version of English?

Although millions of people around the world can speak English, some people have such strong accents that I have trouble understanding them. The children who grow up around those people pick up their accents, perpetuating this problem from one generation to the next. There are also some subtle differences in the words of British English and American English.

How can we standardize the English accent? How do we ensure that all children are using words in the same manner? How do we stop people from picking up idiotic expressions, such as starting sentences with "That being said", "If you think about it", and "If you ask me"?

One possibility is to provide young children with a rugged version of an e-reader, but develop software for it that can read books to children, listen to the children read, and teach them pronunciation, arithmetic, and other lessons.

This would allow the computers to dampen slang expressions, and to correct children when they say ki-lom-eter rather than kilo-meter.

Parents would operate the e-reader for children who are too young to do it. The parents could either read the stories to their children, or they could let the computer read the story. If the parents decided to read the story, then the computer would correct the parents if they mispronounced a word.

When the children read the story, the computer would correct their mispronunciations. This would enable children around the world to learn the exact same pronunciations, spellings, words, and definitions.

We should develop robots for teaching

Although some children might not like learning from a computer, life is becoming increasingly complex, and that makes it increasingly difficult for parents and human teachers to handle the chore of teaching children all of the information that they need today.

Parents enjoy teaching their children how to do things, such as tie their shoelaces and ride a bicycle, and parents also enjoy taking their children to a park to teach them about the plants, creeks, and animals, but parents want to take the role of a teacher only when they are in the mood to do so, which is seldom, and only for brief periods of time, such as an hour.

We inherited an emotional desire to play with children, not become full-time teachers who provide them with useful skills and help them to get a modern job. Parents want to pamper their children and listen to them giggle, not take the role of a drill sargent who pushes them into learning useful skills.

It was acceptable for prehistoric parents to play with their children because their children picked up everything they needed to know simply by observing the adults. However, as society becomes more complex, the children need more preparation for adulthood.

Furthermore, as soon as we begin restricting reproduction, the children will become increasingly intelligent, curious, and interested in learning, thereby causing them to ask more questions. The children are also likely to become more adventurous, thereby requiring more supervision.

As our world becomes more complex, parents need assistance in preparing children for our modern world. We need to develop robots and computers to assist both parents and teachers.

As of 2022, our robots are not very mobile, but eventually robots will have such functional arms and legs that they will be able to show children how to do things, such as ride a bicycle or use a smart phone.

The robots could also take children on trips around the city to show them factories, animals, ponds, and forests. The robots could also help with the supervision of children at recreational areas.

Computers could also help adults use language more accurately

We already have computer software that listens to us and responds to us, such as Alexa, but that software does not make any attempt to correct our mistakes with pronunciation, grammar, history, or logic. Businesses in a free enterprise system will not create software that criticizes or educates us because consumers want entertainment, not constructive criticism or an education.

Furthermore, the pedophiles, criminals, and Jews in the leadership positions of Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other businesses would never allow software to inform us of our historical mistakes about the Holocaust, the Franklin Coverup, the 9/11 attack, the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlor, or the Apollo moon landing. Instead, they have been designing software to promote their lies and propaganda.

If we can restrict Kastron to honest people, then we won't have to worry about criminals trying to manipulate us. This will allow the Kastron government to authorize the development of software that tells us when we are making mistakes, including "trivial" mistakes.

For example, many Americans make remarks about "adrenaline", such as "My adrenaline level was so high", or "adrenaline was pumping into my veins". The people who use that expression don't know much about adrenaline, or whether their body actually increased the production of it. Rather, they are mimicking the expression.

Since humans are social creatures, we want to be nice to other people, so we avoid criticizing them for trivial mistakes, such as when they use silly expressions, so we should compensate for our niceness by designing computer software to let us know about our mistakes, no matter how insignificant.

The software could be designed to listen to our conversations and let us know when we use an idiotic expression. For example, if we make a remark about "adrenaline pumping into our veins", the software could point out that we have no idea whether our body had increased its production of adrenaline, or by how much, or how adrenaline affects our thoughts or behavior. The software could suggest a more appropriate expression, and it could also ask us if we would like some information about adrenaline.

Since we grew up in a free enterprise system, we are accustomed to being pandered to, so most people would regard that type of software as insulting, rude, and annoying, but children who grow up with that software are likely to regard it as helping them to use language accurately, similar to how their mother helps them learn things.

Some children become rebellious, angry, or defiant when their parents point out mistakes that they are making, so those children might become angry at a computer that points out their mistakes. In a democracy and a free enterprise system, the businesses would respond by making the computers "nicer", but we should not design our culture to pacify the people with undesirable characteristics. We should design our society for the high-quality people, and the people who are rebellious, angry, violent, selfish, or destructive should be regarded as having characteristics that are inappropriate for this modern era.

Robots could also educate adults

Businesses design industrial robots to serve a useful purpose, but they design robots that interact with people to be entertaining. For example, this robotic bartender can tell jokes; the Tesla robot is described as "friendly" and "built by humans, for humans"; and a recent analysis of consumers shows that they prefer robots that resemble human women.

The concept of a "friendly robot" that is "built by humans, for humans" is as idiotic as the concept of a "friendly lightbulb that is built by humans for humans". And how will our lives improve by designing robots that tell us jokes or look like human women? I would describe these robots as more examples of the manipulation, abuse, and exploitation of a free enterprise system, and more examples of engineers who are wasting their life and talent on attempts to titillate consumers.

The engineers in Kastron will design robots to appease the government officials. This will allow the government to demand that robots be useful. Furthermore, I advocate robots that look like robots, not humans.

In a free enterprise system,
engineers design robots to be titillating.

In Kastron, engineers will
design robots to be beneficial.

By designing robots to be useful, rather than to resemble human women, the future robots might resemble transformer toys. For example:
• They could be provided with detachable hands, and they could carry several types of hands so that they could perform different functions.
• Their head could have connections to plug in various types of cameras to enable them to see different wavelengths of light and see in the dark.
• Their head could have connections for different types of microphones, including the parabolic type, so that they could assist in identifying the source of a noise, or to observe animals.
• Their body could have attachments for storage containers to carry food, tools, medical supplies, or whatever we need.

Furthermore, since the engineers will not have to appease consumers, they can design robots to provide constructive criticism and educational information. For some examples:

• Information about boiling water
A robot that is assisting the production of meals at a restaurant could watch for certain, common mistakes that people make, such as when a person is waiting for water to "boil furiously". A robot could point out to him that the temperature of boiling water is the same regardless of whether it is "boiling furiously" or only "slightly boiling".

The robot could also point out that a few degrees is irrelevant for most foods anyway. The robot could also point out that people at high elevations have no trouble cooking food even though water boils at a lower temperature for them. Furthermore, the robot could point out that he is wasting energy by making the water boil furiously, and increasing the chances that food bubbles out of the pan, and increasing the temperature and humidity in the kitchen.

The robots could also keep track of the people who make the same mistakes over and over, and send that information to the database that records information about everybody's life. That information would be useful for scientists and government officials who are trying to reduce mistakes and understand human behavior. That information would also help people figure out if their problems with learning are at certain times or days, such as after eating a meal, or at night. They can help people to figure out what their problem is.

• Reducing accidents during surgery
Robots could be put into the surgical rooms of hospitals, and provided with a tray of scalpels, forceps, bandages, sponges, and other devices that the doctors need. The robots would keep track of everything that they give to the doctor. Before the patient is stitched together, the robots would verify that they got back all of the nonconsumable tools and supplies. The purpose would be to reduce the chances that an item is accidentally forgotten inside the person's body.

This news article claims that this mistake is made about a dozen times a day in the USA. The typical reaction to this problem is to sue the doctor or hospital, and there are lawyers advertising their services to file such lawsuits. However, those lawsuits are doing nothing to reduce those mistakes.

Our culture is evolving to fit our emotional cravings, rather than being designed to be intellectually sensible. When a surgeon makes a mistake, we tend to react like an angry monkey, and this results in a culture in which people are allowed to file lawsuits. However, this type of culture does not reduce the mistakes. It is the human equivalent of a monkey that is kicking and biting a monkey that has irritated him.

It would be more sensible to acknowledge that humans are imperfect. We should expect everybody to occasionally make mistakes, and we should react to mistakes in a sensible manner. Specifically, we should analyze the mistake to figure out what caused it, and experiment with techniques to reduce the mistakes in the future. We should also keep track of the mistakes we make so that we can determine if some people should be given a different job.

We do this to a certain extent right now. For example, when an airplane crashes, the government has a department to investigate the cause of the crash and try to find a way to reduce such mistakes in the future. If a pilot tends to make a lot of mistakes, he will lose his pilot's license. We should apply this policy to all mistakes, not just airplane crashes.

• Removing oil and tar from our skin
Crude oil is constantly oozing into the sea water of the Santa Barbara Channel, which causes many of the beaches near my home to have droplets of oil on the sand. When I was a child, I would frequently get oil on my feet and body.

During the 1960's my father and most other adults were advising us that the best way to get rid of the oil was to wipe it away with a rag that had some gasoline on it. I now regard that as idiotic, and in that era, the gasoline had tetraethyl lead in it. I have since discovered that any type of oil will remove the crude oil, including vegetable oil.

Robots could be designed to watch for common mistakes that people make, such as using the wrong cleaning product. Although most people today probably realize that they should not use gasoline to remove oil from their skin, many people are using soap and scouring pads to remove coffee oil from cups and coffee pots, which is much more difficult and time-consuming than using a citrus oil cleaner, and the scouring pads can scratch the objects. The citrus oil cleaners leave a scent of oranges or lemons, but that can be washed off with soap.

• Correcting inaccurate information
People are frequently passing around information that is false as the result of honest mistakes and attempts to be funny. For example, when I was in high school, the microwave oven was becoming popular for consumers, and I frequently heard people claim that those ovens would cook food from the inside out.

We could design robots to listen to what we say and ensure that our information is accurate, and if not, let us know about the mistake. This software would be especially useful in schools because children are regularly spreading false information. (Here are dozens of other common mistakes.)

• The robots would help us improve our products and school curriculum
The robots could keep track of how we misuse a product, and send those reports to the engineers who designed it so that they can determine whether they should improve the product or its instruction manual, or whether the person has a problem. The robots could also provide reports to school officials to help them improve the school curriculum so that children are better prepared for the modern world.

Our selfishness is inadvertently hurting us

Prehistoric people were in a battle with nature that was truly deadly, so it made sense for them to be selfish. Today, however, we can produce such an excess amount of food and material wealth that we actually hurt ourselves as we selfishly try to grab as much wealth as possible. Our selfishness is much too extreme for this modern era. For example, we try to get products for the lowest possible cost, and businesses want to pay employees the least amount possible, but this results in an endless battle over prices and wages, and this creates an unpleasant social environment for a lot of reasons, such as:
• It creates a nation in which there is a significant difference between the poorest and wealthiest people, which makes it difficult for the people to regard one another as friends and team members.
• It causes inflation to constantly increase, thereby creating an endless cycle of whining for higher wages, and then complaining about the inflation.
• The cities become an ugly mixture of mansions and slums.
• It creates an endless demand for immigrants who are willing to work for low wages.
• There are frequent labor strikes, and a lot of hatred, anger, crime, resentment, envy, pouting, and demands for socialism.

The same concept applies to nations. The people in the wealthy nations do not want to pay the people in poor nations the same wages that they pay to their own people, but this results in constant anger and resentment of the wealthy nations. It also causes a lot of the people in the poor nations to want to emigrate to the wealthy nations.

Our fighting over material wealth is creating an unpleasant environment for all of us, including the wealthy people. The wealthy people believe that they are benefiting from their selfishness, but they are suffering in a lot of ways, such as living in fear of burglars, living in ugly cities that have lots of angry and miserable poor people, and worrying about which of their potential friends, spouses, and business partners are secretly trying to exploit, abuse, or blackmail them.

We would eliminate a tremendous amount of fighting, cheating, and abuse by sharing the material wealth equally, but we are so selfish that we will not tolerate that policy unless we can be certain that everybody is contributing to the wealth. So, why don't we create a society in which we require everybody to contribute equally, and then we can divide all of the wealth equally?

The reason is because many people cannot or will not contribute much of anything. Those people end up becoming parasites. Therefore, the only way we will be willing to share the wealth is if we can keep the parasitic behavior to such a low level that it doesn't bother us. Unfortunately, there is no pleasant way of doing this. The only solution that I can think of is:
1) Restrict the parasitic people to their own neighborhoods, or their own cities, and limit their access to material wealth. We would provide them with homes and food, but not computers, cell phones, drones, snowmobiles, airplanes, CT scans, and other luxuries of the modern world.
2) Prohibit the reproduction of the parasitic people.

Unfortunately, our emotions do not want to impose those two policies because we have a strong craving to be "nice" to other people. This brings up another issue that we must deal with.

Our kindness is inadvertently hurting us

It is easy to understand how we hurt ourselves by being selfish, but how is it possible that we can hurt ourselves by being kind?

To summarize it, our emotions have been designed with checks and balances. During prehistoric times, these checks and balances worked properly, but they fail today, thereby making it easy for us to do something to excess. A simple example of our checks and balances is that we have a powerful desire for food, but our prehistoric ancestors never became obese because their craving for food was counteracted by the difficulty of finding food, and because they had to be physically active all the time.

Today, however, we can be physically inactive, and that allows us to eat excessive amounts of food. Furthermore, after we have eaten so much food that our body doesn't want any more, we can stimulate our craving for food artificially by switching to sweet desserts.

Sugar could be described as "food pornography", and the breeding of fruit to make it sweeter could be described as analogous to editing the photo of a woman to make her more sexually attractive. When we eat extremely sweet things, like candy, we could be described as "jerking ourselves off with food pornography".

Modern humans need to understand the concept that everything needs to be kept within certain levels. All living creatures evolved with physical and mental characteristics that keep everything in a proper balance. However, modern humans are interfering with our genetic checks and balances.

For another example, evolution gave men a strong craving for sex, and women have strong inhibitions, and this created appropriate checks and balances during prehistoric times. Today, however, men are being sexually stimulated excessively by businesses and by women who are unnaturally beautiful because of modern clothing and grooming options.

The same concept applies to our desire to be kind. Our prehistoric ancestors were kind to one another, but nature prevented them from taking kindness to an extreme. Today, however, nothing is stopping us from excessive kindness. For example:
• We can donate thousands of tons of food and medical supplies to millions of hungry people.
We no longer allow nature to kill the excess people, so when we give food to hungry people, we allow them to live longer and reproduce, thereby increasing the number of hungry people.

• We have the technology to capture mice, rats, skunks, and raccoons, and release them somewhere else.
When we capture animals alive and release them somewhere else, we are putting those animals into an area where there is already an excess of animals that are competing with one another for food and land. The animals that we release will increase the competition, thereby increasing the starvation, fights, and malnutrition.

• We have the technology to delay the death of retarded children for years or decades.
There are millions of retarded people who are merely existing. They are lonely outcasts who are rejected by everybody. There are people who pity them, but they don't have real friends. They are a burden on their parents, and on society.

David Beasley, the director of the World Food Program, said that we could end hunger simply by convincing a few billionaires to using a small amount of their money to feed the hungry people. It is possible that Beasley is promoting that concept because he is trying to cause trouble for the world, but there are millions of people who truly believe that hunger can be eliminated with handouts of food.

Unfortunately, that theory is as stupid as believing that we can prevent wild animals from becoming hungry by tossing food for them in the forests, oceans, and grasslands.

Beasley is an example of the incredible incompetence (or corruption, or mental defects) of our leaders. The people who believe that food will stop hunger are nitwits who don't understand some of the most simplistic concepts, such as that living creatures must reproduce excessively in order for their species to survive, adapt to the environment, and evolve.

Our emotional desire to "be nice" is triggered when we see a hungry person, or a retarded child, but we no longer allow nature to counteract our kindness. We must now push ourselves into controlling our kindness, just as we must control our cravings for food, sex, anger, and status. We must pass judgment on who deserves our kindness, and what type of kindness is appropriate.

We must acknowledge that some people are misfits

A monkey is a misfit in a human home. Therefore, we would torment a monkey if we put him into a human home, and pressured him to live and behave like a human. The monkey would not be able to follow our rules for clothing, sit at a dinner table, or use our bathrooms. The monkey would likely react to the pressure by becoming angry or depressed.

Most people realize that animals do not have the mental characteristics necessary to fit into a human society. Therefore, we expect animals to behave like animals, not like humans.

The leaders of businesses, militaries, and most other organizations understand this concept, also. They would never allow a person remain in their team if he could not become a productive member. They realize that a misfit disrupts the team, and that the misfit would suffer from frustration, anger, or resentment. They evict the misfits rather than ignore them, punish them, or try to change them.

If we could transport everybody back in time 50,000 years, many of the people who are criminals, parasites, anti-social, diabetic, overweight, rebellious, or hoarders would become normal, respectable, honest people. None of them would be overweight because none of them would have the opportunity to eat excessively, or spend the day lounging. And most of the unemployable people and criminals would be able to take care of themselves because all they would have to do is spend a few hours a day chasing after wild pigs with a sharp stick. They would not have to be an employee, obey laws, go to school, or control their cravings for alcohol, gambling, or material wealth.

A lot of the people who are having trouble with life today assume that their problems are due to poverty, bad parenting, discrimination, bad luck, the devil, or sexism, but most of them are having trouble with life because their mental and physical characteristics cause them to be misfits in our modern world.

No human is yet truly adapted to this modern era. All of us are misfits to some extent, so all of us have to struggle with our modern world. However, some people are such misfits that they torment themselves and other people. It is detrimental for us to ignore or pity the misfits, and it is especially destructive to believe that we can improve their behavior with punishments, Bible studies, handouts, pity, or rehabilitation programs.

Nature keeps the misfit animals under control by putting the animals into a competition for life, which puts the misfits at a serious disadvantage. Now that we are preventing nature from suppressing the human misfits, we must do it.

It is actually better that humans make the decisions about who is a misfit, and what to do with the misfits, because we can make more intelligent decisions than nature, and we can deal with the misfits in a much more pleasant manner. We don't have to torment one another with a competition for life. We can pass judgment on who is such a misfit that he should be prohibited from reproduction, restricted to a few children, evicted to the City of Exiles, or euthanized.

It will be emotionally unpleasant for us to deal with the misfits, but ignoring, punishing, or rehabilitating the misfits creates an even more unpleasant world.

“We should help the mentally ill, not euthanize them!”

One of the purposes of the USA is to pity the disadvantaged, downtrodden, criminals, mentally ill, alcoholics, and other "underdogs". When somebody with an obvious mental disorder commits a crime, many people respond that we should have provided him with help while he was a child.

The people who make those type of suggestions believe that they are wonderful people who "have compassion" for other people, but they are behaving like selfish animals. When a person makes the remark, “We should help the mentally ill people!”, what he really means is:
"You people should help the mentally ill, while I lounge in front of a television and titillate myself with praise for having compassion for them."

They are not showing any desire or initiative to do something about the problem. For example, they do not make remarks such as:
"Let's get together next Saturday evening, and discuss possible methods of helping the mentally ill people deal with their problems, fit into society, and find a job."

It is easy for somebody to tell us that "we" should help the mentally ill people, but how do we help them? Thousands of psychiatrists, religious people, parents, school teachers, and other people have tried but consistently failed to help the mentally ill. The only time people have been successful in helping a person is when they provided the person with information, and the person made an effort to help himself. Unfortunately, education is helpful only for the minority of the population that is willing to make an attempt to improve their behavior.

Those of us who advocate restricting reproduction, or euthanizing defective fetuses and children, must not let ourselves be intimidated by the insults that we are cruel, and that "we should help the less fortunate". We should instead respond to those insults with something like:
"Don't tell me to do something that nobody knows how to do. Until you figure out how we can fix a defective brain, we are not going to let the misfits suffer, or ruin our lives."

We are tormenting the misfits, not helping them

Animals torment misfits, such as by plucking out their feathers, or chasing them away from the food, females, and water. This causes them to die young, or be less successful at reproduction.

Animals enjoy tormenting the misfits,
but humans should experiment with a
more intelligent way of dealing with them.

Humans are animals, so we also torment the misfits. The misfits have miserable, lonely lives, and they waste their time sulking, hating, being envious of us, or trying to get revenge.

The people who oppose euthanizing defective children believe that they are kind, compassionate, and loving, but they are actually allowing the defective children to be tormented.

The misfit children tend to cry and pout, but some of the misfit adults react with anger, vandalism, and temper tantrums.

For example, several misfits who were working at the US Postal Service became violent after being fired from their jobs, resulting in the expression "going postal". Instead of regarding that as an amusing slang expression, we ought to be ashamed that we allow misfits to be tormented to such an extent that we end up with such expressions.

Many of the people who commit crimes were showing signs of being a misfit for years, and sometimes throughout their entire lives, but no society is dealing with the misfits. Instead, every culture tends to evolve to give us what we want, and our emotions want to torment the misfits. To rephrase that concept, we torment the misfits because we are animals, and we are doing what our emotions want us to do, rather than using our intelligence to figure out what we should do.

In order for us to deal with the issue of misfits, we must suppress our craving to torment the misfits and push ourselves into experimenting with intellectually sensible policies. We must be willing to follow policies that are emotionally unpleasant; we must be willing to do something that we don't want to do. This requires that we stop following the Marquis de Sade philosophy of doing whatever feels good and avoiding whatever is unpleasant.

Can nations share the wealth, also?

In order for the people within a nation to share the wealth with one another, we must reduce the number of parasitic people. Likewise, in order for nations to share the wealth, we must deal with the parasitic nations.

If all nations decided to share the wealth today, Pakistan, India, and many other nations would become parasitic because they would take a large amount of material wealth without providing much in return.

To make the situation even worse, the people in the primitive nations tend to have larger families, so if we were to share the wealth with them, they would be able to easily feed their large families, thereby increasing the number of parasitic people every year. It is cruel to let the hungry people starve to death, but it is more cruel to increase the number of hungry people.

In order for the nations to share the wealth, we must deal with the nations that are parasitic. How do we do that?

How should we treat the primitive nations?

I think the only sensible policy is to ignore the primitive nations until they decide to improve their culture. We should not conduct business with them, or give them handouts of technology, food, or wealth. We should ignore them just as we ignore the primitive tribes in the Amazon basin.

Some people advocate that we try to improve life in the primitive nations, such as by putting pressure on their businesses to behave better. For example, some of those nations are using children as cheap sources of labor, and this has resulted in some people in wealthy nations putting pressure on those businesses to hire adults instead. Although this is better than giving them handouts, unless all businesses in the primitive nation are willing to hire adults, nothing will improve.

The reason that it is useless to force a few businesses in Pakistan to replace their children with adults is that it does not solve the problem that caused the children to go to work in those business. It simply causes the children to get a miserable job at some other business. It is analogous to sweeping trash into somebody else's home.

For an example, the author of this article points out that in 1992, some of the clothing manufacturers in Bangladesh replaced the children with adults, but instead of improving life for those children, they just got different jobs, some of which were even more dangerous.

That author, and many other people, advocate that we continue to allow children to be used as cheap labor until we figure out a desirable solution to the problem, but that attitude is as stupid as a person advocating that we support child prostitution until we find a better way for their parents to make a living. Or how about somebody advocating that we continue supporting the amputations of children's hands until we find a better source of income for their family?

The people who advocate that we allow abuse, neglect, pollution, crime, and other problems until we find a perfect solution are allowing problems to fester. There is no evidence that there is a perfect solution to crime, hunger, overpopulation, genetic disorders, or any of our other social problems. We need leaders who have the emotional ability to tell the people who demand that we wait for a better solution:

"You and other people are free to continue looking for a better solution. In the meantime, we are going to implement an imperfect solution rather than let the problem fester. The sooner you come up with a better solution, the sooner we will be able to implement it, so don't waste your time whining about our imperfect policy. Instead, shut your mouth and get to work on finding a better solution."

We hurt the primitive nations when we give them technology, handouts, and pity. We have caused their populations to rise to extreme levels, and the technology that we have provided them has allowed them to pollute their environment to an extreme and to live in unbelievably miserable conditions.

Giving technology, food, and other things to a primitive nation is idiotic because they won't know how to use it properly. It is as idiotic as giving razors, guns, and flamethrowers to a group of monkeys. The only way to help primitive nations is to stop giving them handouts, refuse to conduct business with them, and tell them to improve their culture.

We purchase items from the primitive nations because we want them at a low cost, but that is equivalent to purchasing stolen items from a burglar. It does not help the primitive nations become better, and it doesn't help the burglar become honest.

We cannot help India, China, Pakistan, or other nations by giving them handouts, or by using them as a cheap source of labor. The only way we can help them is to provide them with information and advice.

The people in the poor nations need to become more educated, change their attitudes, and improve their behavior. However, if they don't want to change, that is their problem, not ours. If the people in India want to continue allowing gang rapes, extreme levels of bribery and corruption, and the maiming of children, let them. They are not our responsibility. We can provide them with information, but they have to make the decision to improve.

We must stop feeling sorry for the people who choose to behave like animals. And it is even more idiotic for us to let them immigrate into our nation and contaminate our culture with their crude attitudes and accusations of white supremacy.

It is especially destructive for us to accept their crime networks. For example, Canada has allowed Sikh gangs, and the USA has allowed lots of Chinese gangs. And, of course, the entire world, including Russia, is suffering from the Russian Zionist crime network.

When we find a bird that has fallen out of its nest, or a sickly dolphin on the beach, our natural tendency is to feel sorry for it and try to help it. Unfortunately, the animals that need our help are very likely to need our help because they are in the process of losing the battle for life. If we save them, and if we help them to reproduce, they are likely to create more inferior creatures, resulting in even more animals in the next generation that need our help.

Imagine yourself going to a new planet

I am suggesting such a significant change in attitudes that you might have an easier time adapting to it if you imagine that you will soon be getting into one of many spaceships that will take you to another solar system to start a new life.

The spaceships will have only the people that you regard as friends. There will be no unskilled laborers to work for you, and there will be no children from India or Pakistan to make computers, phones, or clothing for you. You and your friends will have to do all of the work.

The image of yourself and a group of friends alone on a planet might help you develop a more serious attitude. That image might make you more willing to demand that everybody have a job that contributes something of value, and that nobody commit crimes or become a parasite.

It might also help you realize that you must reduce the undesirable chores that nobody wants to do, and that requires making decisions about which material items are truly worth producing. Would you want to assist in the production of 200 different laundry detergents, for example?

Diversity is impractical

As you visualize yourself traveling in a spaceship to another solar system, imagine that the other spaceships have other races of people. When the spaceships arrive at the new planet, would you want all of the different races to mix together? Or would you want each race to have their own city, and each city be allowed to have its own culture?

I have criticized the concept of "diversity" in other documents, and now I will give another reason as to why diversity is unrealistic. Specifically, every culture creates stories, toys, fictional characters, statues, and artwork that resembles their particular culture and race.

For example, the Barbie and Ken dolls resemble European men and women, and they wear European clothing, live in European homes, and use European eating utensils and furniture. They do not look like Chinese people, or use chopsticks, or have a diet that is dominated by rice. They do not look like the people in India, either, or worship Buddha or Krishna, or wear Indian clothing, or worship cows.

Furthermore, all of our songs and children's stories are about Europeans. For example:
• Snow White is a European woman, not an African or Khazarian woman.
• There are different variations of Pinocchio, but all of them depict a European boy, not an Indian or an Arab.
• The song Scarborough Fair has changed through the centuries, but the version most of us are familiar with is based on an English fair, not a Vietnamese or African fair.

Also, Snow White, Pinocchio, Santa Claus, and other fictional people in European culture wear the clothing, shoes, and hats of European culture; live in homes that resemble European homes; and live in areas that have a European climate and vegetation.

The European gods and goddesses look like Europeans, and they have the clothing and hairstyles of the Europeans, not the clothing, appearance, or hairstyles of the Indians, Chinese, Iraqis, Australian aborigines, or Africans.

Are we racist for having a culture that is dominated by European people, plants, and animals?
Were the ancient Greeks racist for assuming that the goddessAthena looked like a Greek woman?

The grasshopper in the Pinocchio story, the wolf in the Little Red Riding Hood story, and the other insects, animals, and plants in European culture, are those that live in Europe, not those that are native to Africa or India. Aesop's fable of The Fox and the Sour Grapes is about foxes and grapes, not pangolins and durians. Snow White ate an apple, not a papaya, kebab, coconut, or sushi roll.

Even the mythical creatures in European culture are likely to be based on something about Europe. For example, Rudolph the red nosed reindeer was a reindeer, not a red nosed camel, armadillo, or platypus.

When Americans created the Band-Aid bandages, they were designed to resemble the skin of a typical American, not a typical African, Indian, or Eskimo. Some of the dark-skinned Americans whine that our bandages do not blend in with their skin, but the bandages do not blend in with anybody's skin because the bandages are a solid color, and our skin has different shades of color, veins, hairs, freckles, blemishes, and sometimes warts.

What has the pandering accomplished so far?

Several people have created variations of a "Domestic Violence Barbie" doll or image.

Have any of those people reduced domestic violence? No!

We cannot improve life simply by hating, whining, or pouting.
When the Barbie dolls became popular, some Americans decided to whine that the Barbie dolls did not resemble their particular race. Mattel responded by producing Barbie dolls of other races, but that did not improve life for anybody. Instead, it encouraged more whining.

Soon Mattel was producing Barbie dolls that were short, tall, and fat. Perhaps in the future they will pander to other types of people, such as dwarfs, Siamese twins, or heroin addicts.

Unfortunately, when we pander to whiny people, we encourage more whining, which results in more pandering but no benefits. For example, in 1992, Crayola began production of a set of multicultural crayons to match more variations of skin colors, but did life improve for the other races? No!

Hollywood created a version of the Wizard of Oz with black people, and a version of Cinderella with a black woman, but did the lives of any black Americans improve as a result? No! And we are not going to improve anybody's life by making a Muslim Cinderella, either.

Likewise, nobody will benefit by changing Mona Lisa to a black, Jewish, or Muslim woman, or by making a version of Snow White with a black woman, or a transgender dwarf, or an obese woman.

Disney is creating a version of Snow White with Rachel Zegler, who is described as "Latino". This makes it idiotic to refer to her as "Snow White". She should be referred to as "Snow Brown", or "Snow Tan", or "Snow Light Brown", and the story should begin with the Queen saying something like,
"How I wish that I had a daughter that had the light brown skin of mahogany".

If Disney also decides to make a version of Snow White with an Ethiopian woman, we should refer to her as "Coal Black", and the Queen would say:
 "How I wish that I had a daughter that had skin as black as coal".

Or should Disney create a Snow White with vitiligo? Or should she be a pygmy or a ladyboy?

Why isn't anyone whining that Christianity is racist?

As far as I know, nobody is whining that the Christian religion depicts God and Jesus as European men. Why doesn't anyone complain that Christianity is racist? Why isn't anybody whining that God be Hispanic, Latino, Chinese, African, Indian, or Persian? Why are they willing to follow a European version of God and Jesus?

There are hundreds of paintings of Adam and Eve, and they all show them as white Europeans. I am only aware of one African Eve, but she is in a comic, rather than a serious painting that is hanging in a church or museum.

Why don't any of the non-Europeans whine that they feel degraded, inferior, oppressed, insulted, and ignored by the racist concept that white Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all races? Why don't they complain that the only black Adam and Eve is in a comic that white people laugh at?

I suspect that nobody is whining about the racist aspects of Christianity simply because nobody has brought this issue to their attention.

If the executives of CNN, Google, Facebook, the ADL, and Twitter, along with thousands of college professors and government officials, were to begin a relentless and worldwide campaign of producing news reports and complaints about the "racist" aspects of Christianity, I think they could convince some of the non-Europeans to whine that they are victims of white, Christian supremacists.

They might also be able to convince some non-Europeans to whine that Michelangelo gave God a pink dress of a European style, rather than a Japanese kimono, an Indian sari, or a New Guinea penis sheath.

The black woman who wrote this news article complained that "The U.S. has never elected a Black woman as governor — or president", but whining about that does not improve lives for black women, or anybody else. Rather, her whining is more likely to instigate anger or pouting, similar to what would happen if a midget journalist were to repeatedly whine that no nation has ever elected a midget President.

The people who whine are dirt in a transmission because they are not providing us with intelligent analyses of our problems, or sensible suggestions on how to improve our world. They are examples of why we must judge people by their effect on society, not on whether they are "nice", honest, wealthy, famous, or friendly.

We must be careful about the information we collect

Although I described this concept in other documents, it is important to realize that each of us picks up bits of information about foods, money, religion, sex, math, chemistry, and sports from other people, many of whom died centuries ago. Our attitudes, goals, verbal expressions, clothing styles, hobbies, and hair styles are the result of our processing of that collage of information.

When we don't care about the quality of the information we are provided, we allow ourselves to be manipulated by Pied Pipers.
Almost all of the information that we have in our minds was created by thousands of other people, most of whom we don't know, and many of whom are dead. Only a small percentage of the population has created information.

The information that we have gathered during our life influences our clothing styles, language, food preferences, and opinions about crime, abortion, and religion. It also influences what we believe about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and the Covid vaccine.

If we don't have any concern for the value of the information that we pick up, then we allow ourselves to pick up propaganda, lies, and deception. Therefore, we should be concerned that we are provided with honest, accurate, and beneficial information.

Everybody is both influenced and influential

Although some people believe that they are of no importance, everybody has some effect on other people, our culture, and the future of the human race. Each of us is influenced by other people, but, at the same time, each of us is influencing other people, especially children.

We influence other people simply by having contact with them. Our verbal expressions, hobbies, hairstyles, lies, crimes, and behavior can have a subtle effect on other people. We can also influence people by boasting about our material wealth or our trip to an "exotic" location, or by making jokes about "camel toes".

For example, the "International Talk Like a Pirate Day" custom began as a joke by two "ordinary men of no importance", but it spread to other people and other nations. All of the "ordinary" people of "no importance" who helped to spread that custom have influenced our culture.

Although most people have never heard about that custom, it has become so popular that it has an entry in the Wikipedia, which means that it is more significant to the human race than most of us, since the Wikipedia won't allow entries for us due to our insignificance.

If we could measure the effect each person has on other people, we would create the typical bell graph.

At one extreme are the people who have the least influence. An example are the quiet, introverted people who spend most of their life alone, and who rarely express their opinions or create anything.

At the other extreme are the people who have the most influence on society. They are people who pass information around, create new ideas or technology, stimulate discussions, explore the unknown, or manipulate people through advertisements, blackmail, and propaganda. Examples are journalists, ADL officials, Google executives, Pope, Hollywood celebrities, college professors, and government officials. Those people are "leaders" because they have an above-average influence over our attitudes, behavior, goals, jobs, education, and activities.

Every culture promotes the attitude that in order to be considered a "leader", a person needs a particular job title, but it is more useful to regard a person as a "leader" if he has an above-average influence over other people's lives, regardless of his job title and why he is influential.

With that definition, any of the criminals, church officials, Hollywood celebrities, ADL executives, journalists, and other people who have an above-average influence on our lives are our "leaders". Furthermore, even an anonymous or secretive person can be a leader. An example of an anonymous leader is the man or woman who has convinced most of the women that diamonds are a girl's best friend, and created the custom of giving a diamond ring for engagements and weddings.

Women have a craving for diamond rings because they picked up that custom during their life, but who created that custom, and why? Scientists have learned to identify their sources of information, but historians do not yet have any concern with how culture developed, or who created it, or why it was created, or who modified it.

If social science was as advanced as the physical sciences, then historians would analyze human culture and explain how our customs develop. They might discover that the custom of giving a diamond ring for a wedding was the result of an advertising program to sell diamonds. If so, the person who created that slogan is a leader because he changed the path that people were following.

No culture yet shows any concern for who created a custom, or why he created it, or whether it has any benefit to us. No culture yet warns us to be cautious about following a leader that we know nothing about, or following customs that have not been analyzed and proven to have a value to us.

During the past few centuries, the physical scientists realized that they must identify and verify the sources of their information, but social scientists are still behaving like medieval doctors who have no concern for where their information comes from, or whether it is valid.

Physical scientists have also learned to be critical of their theories, but people who look critically at their culture or history are insulted as "conspiracy theorists", "unpatriotic traitors", and "Holocaust Deniers", rather than praised for trying to improve their culture and the accuracy of their historical information.

Every society still promotes the prehistoric attitude that we should follow customs without asking why, and without caring whether the custom is beneficial. No society yet sets standards for people who influence culture. This results in "cultural leaders" who are worthless, incompetent, destructive, dishonest, and abusive. For example:

• Some of the employees at Red Bull, Nike, Hallmark Cards, and other organizations have become cultural leaders because they created sports, contests, holidays, and other customs that people decided to follow, but those customs were created for profit, not to improve human life.

• Some people become cultural leaders simply because they make us feel good. Examples are church officials and the "celebrities" in Hollywood and on the Internet. Those people give us customs that are idiotic, and some are destructive, such as the Benadryl challenge.

Since we are very arrogant and selfish, we become angry at people who criticize us, and we trust the people who praise or entertain us, but that characteristic causes us to behave like a child who follows anybody who offers him some candy. In order to improve our lives and our culture, we need to push ourselves into being critical about who we follow. We must stop looking for leaders who pander to us and look for leaders who provide us with guidance.

A more useful friend would be: "A person who provides you with constructive criticism to help you improve your life."
We should elect the candidates who provide intelligent analyses, and have the courage to experiment with culture.

We should demand high quality information

Many people are concerned about the quality and safety of the food we eat, but not many people are concerned about the information we put into our minds, or how that information affects our attitudes, goals, and behavior. For example:
• School officials would get in trouble if they provided students with meals that were contaminated with E. coli, but nobody is complaining that schools are providing students with lies about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the world wars, and other historical events.

• If the executives of CNN were putting broken glass into their cafeteria foods, they would be forced to stop it, but nobody stops them from contaminating their news reports with lies, deception, censorship, and propaganda.

• Our government has several agencies to ensure that foods, medical products, and surgical procedures are safe and beneficial, but our FBI, courts, and other agencies are ensuring that information about pedophile networks, the 9/11 attack, and other crimes is suppressed, and that the executives of Google, Wikipedia, the ADL, and other organizations can promote lies and intimidate us with firings and threats of arrest.

We should reverse this situation. Specifically, we should have more concern about the information that we put into our mind than the food we put into our body because what we put into our mind affects everything about our life, including which foods we choose to eat.

The information in our mind also influences our decision of which other information we should believe, and which we should dismiss as crazy conspiracy theories, mistakes, or nonsense. It also influences whether we trust the Pope, Al Gore, Dr. Fauci, NASA, CNN, the ADL, the FDA, or the FBI.

As I pointed out years ago, the information in our minds has a phenomenal effect on us. Therefore, we should demand that we are provided with accurate and beneficial information. Unfortunately, we are provided with inaccurate and dishonest information about almost everything. We cannot even depend upon government officials or businesses to provide us with honest information about foods and health. For example,
• Businesses give us deceptive information about foods and health in an attempt to manipulate us into purchasing their particular products.
• Some government officials promote a food product to benefit a business, such as the officials who prohibited Stevia from being used as an alternative for sugar (recently they have been under pressure to quietly relax that law).
• Many "health experts" promote animal milk as a daily part of the diet for adult humans, even though it causes trouble for many adults, and there is no evidence that an adult needs animal - or human - milk to remain healthy.

There is no concern in any society about resolving the conflicts between contradictory "truths". For example, some people claim that businesses are lying to us about olive oil, and that "it's likely that when you buy olive oil, you're not buying what it says on the label," but other people claim that "independent, peer-reviewed research conducted by the FDA concluded that adulteration was low."

No society cares about resolving the conflict with olive oil. Likewise, there are accusations that businesses are lying to us about the seafood they sell, and this document claims that "according to a commonly cited estimate, food fraud is a $50 billion industry",  but no society is trying to resolve the conflicts and ensure that businesses are telling us the truth.

Free enterprise systems don't care about the truth, and the government officials in a democracy do only what is necessary to attract voters, which is to blame problems on rival political parties, and to make promises to create jobs, increase wages, and reduce taxes. The voters do not put any pressure on government officials to ensure that journalists, schools, scientists, businesses, or anybody else is providing us with honest information.

An ad for Coca-Cola in the 1930's
No society has honest leadership. Instead, we have journalists who lie to us; Hollywood celebrities who belong in mental hospitals; and business executives who deceive us into believing that we are providing children with a healthy meal when we give them Coca-Cola.

We assume that we are highly educated, but the people thousands of years in the future will regard us as ignorant people who allowed their minds to be filled with lies, nonsense, and propaganda from businesses, religions, crime networks, and psychologists.

We must demand higher quality information. We must also hold people accountable for the information they provide.

The billionaires and Hollywood celebrities have the influence and wealth to fund and organize research programs to determine the truth, but they have no interest in the truth, either. Their only interest in life is accumulating absurd amounts of material items and status, and some are now getting involved with a competition to get highest in the atmosphere.

The billionaires who are proposing new cities, such as Belmont and the City of Telosa, are not showing any concern that the people in their cities will have access to honest information, either.

Google has impressive software to find information for us, but instead of ensuring that the information is accurate, the Google employees suppress the truth about many historical events, promote lies, and intimidate people through such techniques as firing James Damore.

Likewise, the ADL doesn't have any concern about the truth. Their only concern is promoting lies and trying to arrest whoever investigates the Holocaust. The executives of Facebook and Twitter are also struggling to stop people from investigating history, climate change, and genetics. The Wikipedia could be a useful source of information, but the people creating it are doing so to manipulate us, not educate us.

We differ in our concern about the quality of our information

If we could measure the concern a person has for the quality of his information, we would create a bell graph. The retards and young children would be at one extreme because they don't care about their information and will believe anything. At the other extreme are the people who have the most concern about the quality of their information, and who put the most time and effort into verifying its accuracy.

In between those extremes are the majority of people who have some concern for their information, but not enough to be interested in looking at the evidence that they were lied to about the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, the world wars, the Apollo moon landing, or the Covid virus.

The same concept applies to meals. If we could measure our concern about our meals, we would create a bell graph in which retards and babies are at one extreme because they don't care about their meals and will eat whatever tastes good and avoid whatever is unpleasant. At the other extreme are the people who have the most concern about their meals, and who put the most time and effort into trying to figure out which foods and quantities are the safest and healthiest.

In between those extremes are the majority of people who have some concern about their meals, but not enough to keep themselves in good health and at a proper weight.

Most people prefer to eat whatever they enjoy rather than be concerned about the value of their meals, and they prefer to believe whatever they enjoy rather than be concerned about the accuracy of their information.

This concept also applies to our concern about our homes and cities. At one extreme are the retards and babies who don't have any concern about their home or city, and are happy to live in an ugly, filthy, noisy, dangerous, and stinky city. Most people have a lot of concern about their home, but not their city, so they will put a lot of their effort into providing themselves with a pleasant home, but they don't want to do anything for the city.

Our prehistoric ancestors did not need a concern about their meals, information, or campsites. They could eat and believe whatever was emotionally appealing. Since they were nomadic and lived in very small groups, they didn't have to be concerned that their campsite would suffer from overcrowding, noise, traffic congestion, crime, homelessness, pollution, graffiti, ugly telephone wires, or ugly roads.

Today, however, people need a much higher level of concern about their information, meals, cities, education, recreational activities, social affairs, holiday celebrations, and other culture. The people with a low level of concern are essentially primitive savages, or talking monkeys, who will not care or do anything when they are lied to by journalists or government officials, and who will not care or do anything about the crime or ugliness of our cities.

Example: Outer Space Pornography

An example of how inaccurate or dishonest information can affect our attitudes, goals, and lives is the "outer space pornography" that NASA and other people are providing us.

The previous document in this series pointed out that travel agencies are creating "travel pornography" in an attempt to manipulate us. That "information trash" is giving us unrealistic views of our planet, and causing us to develop a desire to travel to "exotic" locations, which results in us wasting some of our short lifetime and resources on traveling, and causes us to experience disappointments.

NASA, Hollywood, and fiction authors are doing something similar by producing "outer space pornography" that fools us into believing that outer space is a giant entertainment center that is filled with beautiful nebulas, galaxies, comets, and planets, and that intelligent life is everywhere in the universe, and that those intelligent creatures would love to chat with us at bars.

The outer space pornography is causing millions of people to crave hobby telescopes that are too small to be of much value, and some people have started businesses to develop the rockets and other equipment to create a colony on Mars or the moon, or to take people into the upper atmosphere.

Two businesses sent manned rockets to the upper atmosphere during 2021. The people who made those trips boasted about the excitement of rising up high in the atmosphere, but their excitement was the result of doing something that allowed them to become the center of attention.

Our happiness has nothing to do with how high off the ground we get. The first people to fly in airplanes were excited, but those airplanes remained very close to the ground. Today thousands of people fly every day, but instead of boasting about the excitement of reaching a height of 10 kilometers, they are more likely to complain about the cramped conditions, the rude passengers, the TSA inspections, and the unpleasant bathrooms.

Richard Branson's rocket reached a height of 86 km, but that did not make his trip more exciting than the people who fly at 10 km. Jeff Bezos reached a height of 107 km, but that did not make his trip more exciting than Branson's. Neither of them reached the height at which they discover the meaning of life.

Would living in a blimp be more exciting than living on the ground because of the "incredible views"?
NASA and the billionaires are fooling people into believing that the farther we can see into the distance, the better our life becomes.

As a result of this nonsense, millions of people fantasize about being able to afford the "incredible views" of a house on a hill, or a penthouse apartment, but if it were true that our life improves as we increase the distance that we can see, then if we were to create a blimp that was large enough for a city, the people living in the blimp would have a much more satisfying life than those of us on the ground.

During the first few months of living in the blimp, the people would be very excited, and they would spend a lot of their leisure time posting photos on Facebook and Twitter, and boasting about their "incredible views".

However, their excitement would not come from the views. Rather, it would come from imagining that they are special people.

We have strong cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy and be admired by other people, so whenever we can do something that other people cannot do, we can titillate ourselves with the fantasy that we are special, and that people admire us.

The view from a blimp, space station, or a house on a hilltop, is not "incredible". It is simply "different" from the view we get on flat land, underground, in a cave, or under water. A rocket provides us with a view of entire continents, but that doesn't make the view any better than the "tiny" view that we get from a microscope or magnifying glass, or the view that we get from swimming at a coral reef.

Life is whatever you want it to be. The people who live on flat land can choose to pout about their "terrible" view, or they can choose to enjoy their "beautiful" view of grass, flowers, trees, butterflies, hummingbirds, sunsets, cloud formations, mountains, and creeks.

Furthermore, I would say that many of the people who live on hilltops and tall buildings actually have ugly views. For example, here are live video streams of Times Square that allow us to switch to different cameras to get different views. I would describe almost everybody in New York City, Chicago, and other cities as having ugly views of asphalt, automobiles, smog, haze, telephone and power lines, ugly buildings, ugly rooftops, and ugly advertising signs.

It is especially important to realize that we do not have to be in a rocket to enjoy the view from a rocket, and we do not have to travel to a coral reef to enjoy the view of octopuses, corals, and fish. We can enjoy all of those views while sitting in a comfortable chair and looking at a high resolution monitor.

As I have suggested in previous documents, and I will provide more details in this in document, I recommend that Kastron have lots of small theaters that have very large, high resolution monitors so that we can watch documentaries and observe video from drones and robots from the comfort of our city.

Our happiness is not affected by whether we look at a view of the earth from a window in a spaceship, or whether we look at a view of the earth while sitting in a comfortable chair in a small theater with our friends. Our mind doesn't actually see anything. Rather, our mind is essentially watching "video" that is coming from our eyes. Whether our eyes are looking at the earth from the window of a spaceship or a high resolution monitor, the signals going to our brain are nearly identical.

To complicate the issue of which views are most beautiful, our monitors do not yet show 3-D images adequately, so we can see some things better with our eyes. However, it is important to realize that we can see an item in three dimensions only when it is close to us.

By comparison, when we are in a spacecraft and looking down at the earth, or when we are in a penthouse apartment and looking out of the window, or when we are looking out the window of a mansion on a hilltop, our mind is getting an image that is nearly two-dimensional.

The significance of this is that the "poor" people who have gardens are getting beautiful three-dimensional views of the plants, moss, butterflies, flowers, and trees, whereas the billionaires who are looking out of a window in a penthouse or spacecraft are getting a view that is not much different than what we get from a high resolution video.

Furthermore, many of the beautiful views on the earth are in areas that are difficult to get to, or are visible only during certain weather conditions, or are in areas that are dangerous. Therefore, we will get a better view of those areas by sending a drone or camera crew to provide us with video.

For example, traveling to a volcano is time-consuming and dangerous. It would be much more pleasant to send a drone to explore the area. This allows us to watch the video from the comfort of a small theater with our friends, and we can pause the video, and play it forwards, backwards, and in slow motion. The video allows us to see the volcano much better than we could see by traveling to the volcano.

Instead of encouraging people to travel, I recommend that Kastron provide lots of small theaters with large, high resolution monitors. Those theaters would allow us to observe areas of the earth and events that would be dangerous, annoying, or difficult to see with our eyes, such as tornadoes, the inside of a stinky bat cave, deep in the ocean, or at a beach during a storm in which waves are crashing against the rocks.

Watching video in a comfortable theater also allows us to avoid unpleasant weather, mosquitoes, stinky odors, extreme temperatures, and dangerous conditions. Cameras also allow us to see things that would difficult or impossible to see with our eyes, such as a paramecium, and the inside of a Prairie dog home or bee hive. Cameras could also provide us with infrared, X-ray, and ultraviolet images.

Cameras and monitors are continuing to improve, so every year we have less of a reason to travel, and more of a reason to watch videos in the comfort of a small theater with our friends.

The wealthy people who boast about their beautiful views are masturbating. We are wasting our technical talent and resources by providing wealthy people with trips on rockets and mansions on hilltops.

It makes sense to send a man into space if he is going to explore it and provide us with useful information, but it is idiotic to send a wealthy person into space simply so that he can boast about himself and feel special. Furthermore, as robots become more advanced, it makes less sense to send people into space and more sense to send robots.

We should help one another suppress our craving to show off. It is especially idiotic for men to compete to get into outer space because outer space is dangerous. It is beautiful only when viewed through a camera with a long exposure.

NASA is creating the impression that outer space is full of beautiful galaxies and colorful nebulas, but if we could get into interstellar space, we would discover that - to the human eye - the universe is mostly monotonous white dots on a black background. The stars would not even twinkle, so they would be even more boring than they are here on the earth.

NASA has also created the impression that the moon and Mars are beautiful, but if we were to live on either of them, we would become irritated and bored by the rocks, dust, and miserable living conditions after just a few weeks. We would realize that the Earth is the most beautiful place in the universe.

Many people believe that there are lots of intelligent creatures in the universe, but that theory is not based on scientific evidence. Rather, people are assuming that what they see here on the earth is typical for other areas of the universe. Specifically, they see different races of people on the earth, and we regularly get together to socialize, and so they assume that the entire universe is full of different races of people, and that we will all enjoy getting together to chat at restaurants.

However, this is the same type of mistake that children make when they assume that what they experience in life is what everybody else in the world experiences. This causes children to assume that their friends, parents, and other relatives have the same flatscreen televisions, cell phones, computers, and other items.

A woman in Alabama was hit by a meteorite, but she would be making a mistake to assume that everybody is being hit by meteorites.

There are certain to be more failures with the creation of life than there are successes. Therefore, there are certain to be billions of planets that developed some of the chemicals necessary to start life, but never got beyond that stage. There might be millions of planets that made it to the stage of developing some type of virus-like creature, but then the process stopped and life vanished. There might be only 10 planets that got to the point at which a single cell creature developed, but then life terminated. The Earth might be the first planet that could provide the necessary conditions for intelligent life to develop.

Another problem that outer space pornography causes is that when somebody notices something about the universe that doesn't fit NASA's pornographic fantasy, he might assume that he just discovered "the truth" about the universe. For example, NASA creates the impression that outer space is a playground, but as I mentioned almost decades ago, it's more like the inside of a nuclear reactor. Some people have noticed that there seems to be an electrical charge on objects in outer space, and this has resulted in some of them developing such theories as The Electric Universe, and some of them accuse NASA scientists of being idiots or liars.

That problem is similar to the problem that I mentioned in the previous document of this series in regards to "travel pornography". Specifically, some of the people who traveled to Stonehenge or other "exotic" and "exciting" destinations discovered the truth that the "exotic" location was no more exciting than other areas on the planet, and that has resulted in some of them posting angry and insulting remarks about the travel agent who recommended it.

If we had the technology to take tourists to Mars or the moon, a lot of people would be disappointed and post an angry remark about how it was a waste of their time because there was nothing on Mars or the moon but rocks and dust, and brutal environmental conditions.

By not caring about the quality of our information, we allow NASA, schools, businesses, journalists, religions, Zionist groups, criminal networks, sports groups, charities, and lunatics to contaminate our minds with information trash. We must set higher standards for information.

Our leaders give us a distorted view of human races

Another example of the information trash that our leaders are giving to us is that they claim that all races are "equal", with the exception of "white" people, who they accuse of being "racists" with "white privilege".

They also create the impression that the world consists of only a few races, such as white people, black people, Asians, and Hispanics.

They are giving us a distorted view of human races in order to manipulate our opinions and encourage us to fight with each other. For example, Tiger Woods is referred to as a "black" American by our leaders, because one of his eight great-grandparents was African. He has more Asian and European ancestors than African ancestors.

To add complexity to his ancestry, his white grandparents were a mixture of races, and his African, Chinese, and other ancestors were also mixtures of races. If we could trace his ancestry back 100,000 years, we might conclude that he is a mixture of 250 different races, including 17 Neanderthal races. However, our leaders ignore the complexity of this issue and refer to him as "black" in order to promote their propaganda, such as that there is only one race of "black" people, and that they are being abused by one race of "white" people.

In reality, the "black" Americans are not one race of people because Africa has a variety of different races. Likewise, the "Hispanics", "Latinos", and "Asians" are a variety of different races. There is no such thing as a "white" race, either. Europe and Russia have a variety of "white" races.

To confuse the issue of what race a person is, people have been migrating and raping one another for millions of years, and adopting and stealing children from other races. As a result, some of the people in Ireland have ancestors from Norway, and the people in Norway are a mixture of races, also.

Our leaders give us a distorted view of human races because they want to manipulate us and instigate racial fights. If our leaders were honest, then everybody would realize that every human is a mixture of races, and that would make it difficult for our leaders to instigate racial fights because many of us would not be able to decide which race we belong to, and which race we should hate.

It is easier to instigate racial fights when people have a simplistic view of the situation, such as that "white" people abuse "black" people. That makes it easy for us to figure out which group we belong to, and which group we should hate.

When someone has the courage to point out that there are dozens of different races, and that all of us are a mixture of dozens of races, our leaders reprimand those people for being racists who are referring to "ethnic groups". What is an "ethnic group", and how is it different from a "race"? Our leaders use those words in whatever manner is most beneficial to them at the time.

In July 2020, the ADL updated their document on racism, and defined "racism" so that only "white people" are racists:
Racism: The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people.

They also claimed that all of the races are genetically identical:
"Though many believe that race is determined by biology, it is now widely accepted that this classification system was in fact created for social and political reasons."

In February 2022, they updated the definition of "racism" to remove the implication that only white people are racist, although they kept all of their other idiotic remarks, such as denying that the different races are genetically different. They define words, and change the definitions, according to what is most beneficial to them at the time.

Update April 2022:
The ADL deleted the link to their page about racism, but you can find the page at the Internet archive here, at least until they have them erased, also.

I suppose they believe that they are hiding their page about racism, but they still have a more bizarre PDF file on their website that is intended for teachers of "middle school" children. This document has a brief discussion about dress codes, which creates the impression that it is a sensible document for children, but if you download the PDF file underneath the photograph, where it says "Download activity", you will discover the original definition of racism in the PDF file! (Here is the link to the PDF file.)

That PDF document also encourages teachers to teach children that dress codes "unfairly target girls, girls of color, and transgender students."

So download the PDF file and a look at what they are trying to teach our children before they change or delete that file, also! You could challenge your friends to see who can find the most attempts to manipulate children.

The hypocrisy of our leaders, and their attempt to manipulate us, can also be seen with the way they use the word "Jew". What is a Jew? Is it a person who believes a particular religion? If so, Sammy Davis Junior was a Jew. Or are Jews a "race"?

To make the situation more absurd, many Jews believe that a person is Jewish only if his mother is Jewish, which means that Jewishness is a genetic characteristic that only females can pass on to their children.

The leadership in the world today is incompetent, corrupt, and mentally defective. They have no desire to provide us with accurate or honest information, or sensible guidance and analyses.

Every society should have their own culture

No organization should be required to accept members who don't like the culture of the organization. Every organization should be allowed to have their own culture, and to restrict membership to people who want to be a part of their team.

Also, no organization should be allowed to pressure other organizations to change their culture. The USA, for example, should not be allowed to push Christianity on other nations, or try to stop the Asians from eating cats or dogs. We would not want India to demand that we stop eating beef, or send Hindu missionaries into our nation to push us into accepting the "correct" religion. And we do not want the Muslim nations to demand that we stop eating pork and make our women wear a burqa.

By allowing different organizations to be different, we can learn from one another. If, instead, we try to change one another, we will fight and hate one another.

We should improve our culture, not appease crybabies

The stories of Snow White, Cinderella, and others have idiotic plots, and many of them refer to customs and technology that is outdated. Therefore, if we decide to alter the stories, then we should make the stories more intelligent, or more relevant to our modern world. For some examples:

• The animals that talk could be replaced by people, such as replacing the wolf in Little Red Riding Hood with a recruiter for NXIVM or Scientology, or a dishonest salesman.

• We could replace the nonsense with sensible events. For example, Cinderella could leave the party by midnight so that she can get home before her stepsisters realize that she had gone to the party, rather than because her carriage will magically become a pumpkin.

• The stories that are based on medieval life could be altered so that children get historically accurate information about kings, castles, knights, and other medieval customs, rather than idiotic fantasies, such as a prince climbing on Rapunzel's hair.

• We could modernize the story of Snow White by replacing the queen with a government official who offers her a vaccine that contains a slow acting poison, and the Prince could be replaced with a doctor who gives her an antidote.

Furthermore, if we decide to alter the stories, we ought to consider making the stories pleasant, rather than frightening.

Animals are in a deadly fight for survival, so they need to be constantly watching for dangers. That brutal environment resulted in our ancestors creating stories for both children and adults that are dominated by dangerous wolves, poisonous snakes, and various types of human and non-human enemies.

It was important for people thousands of years ago to constantly watch for dangerous animals and people, but today that behavior degrades our life by causing us to be fearful and suspicious. Children need to be taught that some animals and plants are poisonous and dangerous, but we no longer benefit by encouraging them to be afraid of monsters, animals, or people, or encourage them to fantasize about getting into fights with monsters and "evil" people.

I suggest we experiment with stories for children that encourage beneficial attitudes and behavior, rather than fighting with monsters, being afraid of wolves, and getting into battles with violent trolls that live under the bridges and come out at night to kill us.

A painting of a picnic from about 1430
For example, we could change the Snow White story so that a queen invites Snow White and other single people to a picnic.

She introduces them to one another, and provides them a basket of foods that none of them have eaten before. She encourages them to suppress their fear of the unknown and try the foods. She also pushes each of them, one at a time, to talk about themselves and their life so that they get to know one another.

The story could include real drawings from medieval times, such as the painting to the right from France, and the story could give accurate descriptions of medieval life, clothing, and foods, thereby providing children with historically accurate information about life in the Middle Ages. Those type of stories would teach the children about human history and culture, and it would encourage them to meet people and try new things.

We will not be a team if we allow diversity

When we allow immigrants of another culture to live among us, rather than join our culture, we become a gathering of incompatible people rather than a united team.

Diversity causes the people in an organization to separate from one another. They resemble a gathering of animals around a pond.

The animals in the photo to the right are not members of a team. Rather, they are suspicious and fearful of the animals that are not members of their particular group.

This concept is true regardless of whether the diversity is a diversity of races, or a diversity of intellectual abilities, or a diversity of physical talents. For example, schools are mixing together children who have a wide variety of physical and mental talents and limitations, and this results in the children separating into groups.

If we do not restrict reproduction to reduce the physical and mental differences between us, the children of the future will have an even wider variety of physical sizes, shapes, and abilities, and a wider variety of intellectual and emotional abilities and disorders, thereby causing the children to form an even larger number of groups that are smaller in size and even less compatible with one another.

Almost all of the leaders of businesses, sports groups, orchestras, militaries, and other organizations understand this concept, and as a result, they evict the people who cannot become a functional member of their team. However, voters, and the government officials they elect, don't care whether the members of their nation are a friendly team, or whether they are separating into groups that avoid or hate one another.

The only sensible solution that I am aware of is the one I described years ago; specifically, create cities that are physically separated from one another by vacant land, and let each city have its own culture. Every city should be able to discriminate against who they accept as a member, and evict the people they don't want to live with. However, every city should be prohibited from accepting immigrants solely to do the jobs that they do not want to do, or don't have the skills for.

With that attitude, every city will be a truly friendly team, and they learn from one another rather than irritate or fight with each other.

We should remove our safety net
Improving our lives requires the courage to experiment

The billionaires are promoting new cities that are virtually identical to what we already have. To truly improve our lives, we need leaders who are explorers. We need leaders who have the courage to experiment with significant changes to our culture.

In this section, I will explain my idea of experimenting with the concept of "removing our safety net" in order to pressure us into dealing with our problems rather than expect a government, police force, or other group of people to pamper and care for us, as if we are children.

We should remove criminals, not live in fear of them

All cultures are reacting to burglaries, rapes, kidnappings, and other crimes by advising people to install locks on their doors and windows, and install security cameras around their home. In the USA, many people also advise us to get guns and dogs. However, this policy does not stop crime. Rather, it creates an environment in which people live in fear of criminals.

We react to dishonest businesses in a similar manner. We refer to this attitude as "Buyer Beware". This attitude causes us to be suspicious of businesses, rather than look to them for guidance.

The Kastron Constitution promotes a different philosophy. Instead of encouraging us to be afraid of criminals, we will be pressured to identify and evict criminals. Before I discuss this policy, consider "blockchain".

Blockchain is an example of hiding from crime

One reason people promote blockchain is that they hope it provides us with better security against criminals, corrupt banking systems, and corrupt governments. Blockchain is another example of the buyer beware attitude; another example of people living in fear of criminals and corrupt organizations, and trying to prevent them from abusing us. We would have a more pleasant life if we switched to evicting criminals.

Some people claim that blockchain has other advantages, such as greater efficiency and eliminating middlemen, but we would improve efficiency even more by getting rid of criminals so that we can eliminate the inefficient and burdensome security policies and devices. We would improve our efficiency even more by getting rid of all types of money, including blockchain currency, and letting everything be free. Blockchain is not a good solution to any of our problems.

How do we eliminate crime or corruption?

The attempts to stop crime and corruption with punishments, Bible studies, and other techniques have failed continuously. The only way we are going to reduce crime is to provide ourselves with leaders who are adventurous enough to experiment with some new policies. My suggestion is that we experiment with these two concepts:

1) Evict criminals and corrupt officials rather than punish or rehabilitate them.

This is the policy that businesses and militaries follow, and which gardeners also follow. In regards to a garden, it is impossible for us to prevent weeds from appearing, but by "evicting" a weed as soon as we find one, the garden is essentially free of weeds.

2) Remove our safety net to pressure the adults to "grow up".

The primary purpose of this document is to explain the concept of "removing our safety net". This concept could be summarized as being analogous to a father who tells his 30-year-old son that it is time for him to get out of the house and take care of himself.

By removing our safety net, we put pressure on all of the adults to get involved with identifying and removing criminals, rather than living in fear of them, and rather than have the attitude of children who expect to be protected by the government, police, insurance policies, security devices, and blockchain.

Security devices should be for protection, not crime prevention

Kastron will not provide security devices for crime prevention. There will be no security locks for bicycles, or locks for the doors of our homes, or steel security bars for windows. The security devices will be used only for the protection of people, such as protecting us from high voltages, dangerous chemicals, and radioactive items. Security devices are also useful for preventing children and animals from having access to certain areas and items.

Homes should not have locks on the doors

The people in Kastron will live in apartments, and none of them will be allowed to have locks on their front doors, security systems, or security bars over their windows. Three reasons for this policy are:
1) By making people vulnerable to criminals, we will have an incentive to do something to reduce crime.
2) We will not have to carry security keys, memorize security codes, or deal with any type of security device at our doors or windows.
3) We will avoid wasting labor and resources on the design, production, maintenance, and recycling of those security devices.

To understand the value of "removing our safety net", consider our prehistoric ancestors. They slept on the ground with no protection from criminals, and none of their possessions were protected by locks. They were extremely vulnerable to crime, and that gave them an incentive to make sure that the people in their tribe were honest.

By preventing people in Kastron from protecting themselves from criminals, we will have the attitude of prehistoric people who want to prevent crime rather than live in fear of criminals.

Another way to look at this issue is that Kastron will provide the type of social environment that we find in some of the popular TV shows, such as Friends. Those television programs frequently show people who do not lock the front doors of their apartments or houses. Their friends often walk in without knocking. The people who watch those programs are not appalled that the people are walking into one another's homes without knocking. Rather, it creates the type of friendly environment that existed in prehistoric campsites. It creates the environment that we were designed for.

We evolved to be under pressure, not pampered

Nature does not provide safety nets. Every creature must take care of itself all day, every day. Humans evolved for that "cruel" environment, but our emotions do not like it. We prefer feeling safe from danger.

Dear God,
Please protect me from burglars, and protect my children from pedophiles.
Our craving to feel safe seems to be one of the reasons that we have such a strong attraction to the fantasy that a powerful god is watching over us and protecting us.

This craving also seems to be the reason we have such a strong attraction to insurance policies, and why we are not critical of their value. The insurance policies provide us with emotional comfort, so we are willing to pay a high price for them.

When we remove our safety net, we are essentially forcing children to move out of the house and take care of themselves. It will cause us to develop a significantly different attitude compared to what we have today. Specifically, it will cause us to be much more concerned with who we are living with, and how they are behaving. We will be less tolerant of crime and corruption because there will be no way for us to protect ourselves from criminals and corrupt policemen or government officials. We will become much more willing to experiment with policies to stop crime, rather than repeat policies that fail.

We will also become interested in observing the children to determine if any of them are showing signs of destructive behavior, and if so, to watch those children more carefully. We will have an incentive to research human behavior so that we can do a better job of identifying the children who are likely to become destructive adults.

Masturbation is out of control

A democracy and a free enterprise system give us the freedom to do almost anything that we want to do rather than put pressure on us to think about what is best for us. This allows us to do a lot of things that make us feel good, but which don't actually have any benefit, or which are destructive. An example are the people who purchase guns and dogs to protect themselves from crime. The guns and the dogs make them feel good, but it does not protect them from crime.

We feel safe when we put locks on our doors and have guns in our house, but that safety is an illusion. For example, the American people have more guns, locks, security cameras, dogs, and canisters of pepper spray than any other nation, but there is much less crime in Japan.

Why do so many millions of people believe that guns and security devices will protect them from crime and corruption? It is because they are frightened by crime and corruption, and they are reacting to it like an animal, rather than using their intelligence to think about what to do. Their attraction to guns and security devices is an emotional attraction.

We feel safe with guns, dogs, and security devices because the human mind has developed an excellent ability to stimulate itself. Most people regard "masturbation" as the stimulation of our sexual emotion, but as I described in other documents, it is more useful to regard ourselves as masturbating whenever we stimulate any emotion. For example, when we praise ourselves for being intelligent, good-looking, or talented, we are "masturbating".

To complicate the issue, we can masturbate for two, very different reasons:
1) We can masturbate in order to stimulate a pleasurable emotion.
2) We can masturbate to suppress an unpleasant emotion. An example are the people who stimulate themselves with fantasies that guns and security devices are protecting them from crime. They are using the guns and security devices like a sex toy, but to suppress their fears of crime.

There are also lots of people who suppress various fears by stimulating themselves with fantasies that they are being watched over and protected by God. Some people suppress their fear of death by stimulating themselves with fantasies that they will go to heaven when they die.

I do not see any significant difference between:
1) An adult who convinces himself that his gun will protect him.
2) A child who convinces himself that his teddy bear will protect him.
3) A person who convinces himself that God will protect him.

We must expect children to be unable to understand or control their fears, but we should restrict influential positions, especially those in law enforcement, to men who have the courage to evict criminals. We will never reduce crime when our leaders want to hide from criminals, or if they believe that security devices will protect us from criminals, or if they believe that they can cure criminals with punishments, rehabilitation programs, or prayers.

Technology provides criminals with more opportunities

I pointed out in previous documents that as technology improves, we provide criminals with more options for crimes, and their crimes become more difficult for us to notice. For example, sometime around the year 2021 some criminals discovered the concept of "scam QR codes".

A QR code!
Should I scan it?
Please help me, Jesus!
That news article encourages us to "think twice" before scanning a QR code, but it is idiotic to encourage people to be afraid of QR codes. It would be better to replace the leaders of our legal system with men who have the courage to experiment with methods of reducing crime.

Another new type of crime that has increased 500% by January 2022 is for criminals to pretend that they work at Amazon. Rather than try to stop the criminals, the US government posted this document with some suggestions on how to avoid being cheated by those criminals. That is as stupid as a government that responds to a rise in kidnappings with some suggestions on how children can avoid being kidnapped.

Technology provides criminals with more options, and we are foolishly responding by encouraging people to become frightened of more things. Today we are encouraged to be afraid of QR codes and Amazon employees, and in the future we might be encouraged to be afraid of drone delivery services and the robots at restaurants, hotels, and retail stores.

It is idiotic for us to be afraid of QR codes, to prepare for crime, live in fear of criminals, or teach children to be afraid of strangers. We will have a much more pleasant life if we trust the people we live with.

We should not allow passwords

None of our ancestors needed passwords, but today most of us have dozens of them. The passwords are supposed to protect us from crime, but according to the British office for National statistics, online fraud increased 70% during the Covid pandemic. A British government official blamed the increase in crime on the silly passwords that many people create, and he advised people to create more effective passwords. This is as idiotic as responding to an increase in burglaries by advising people to put better locks on their doors and windows.

A more sensible response to crime is to replace the leaders of our government and legal system with people who have the courage to experiment with reducing crime.

We should not need passwords. We should be able to trust the people that we live with, including our spouse. Some married couples use passwords to prevent their spouse from accessing their computer, bank account, or phone, but it would be better to teach children to find a spouse that they can trust.

I recommend that we prohibit all of the software, phones, computers, and other items in Kastron from using passwords. We should not live in fear of other people, and we should especially not live in fear of our spouse. Our culture should teach children that a person who cannot trust his spouse, government officials, neighbors, or friends is a fool who is wasting his life in a miserable environment.

We must deal with the defective children

A mother has such a strong craving to take care of her children that she will put up tremendous resistance to the evidence that her child is defective, and she will tolerate children who are extremely abusive and burdensome. Nature compensated for this in several ways, such as by causing children to torment the misfits, and by putting everybody into competition for survival and reproduction, which puts the misfits at a disadvantage.

Today we must analyze children and pass judgment on which of them are unacceptably defective, and we must separate them from the other children, evict them, or euthanize them. This is going to require a security force of men who have the attitude that children are the next generation of people, not "bundles of joy" for us to play with. It will also require men who will not be intimidated by the parents of those children, such as the woman who wrote this article to justify the bad behavior.

Some parents might react to such a policy by covering up the bad behavior of their children. If that happens, we can experiment with a policy similar to what China is considering; specifically, to regard the parents as criminals for being accessories to bad behavior.

Although these type of policies are emotionally unpleasant, it is more unpleasant to live in a world in which we are afraid of one another and being abused by one another. That is why militaries, businesses, and most other organizations demand good behavior. We should apply the same policy to everybody in a city.

Our leaders should not have special security

Every nation is allowing the people in leadership positions to have special security. For example, the president of the United States has the Secret Service agency to protect him.

The policy in Kastron is that everybody is treated equally. None of the people in influential positions are allowed to have special security. For example, they are not allowed to put locks on the front door of their apartment. Instead, they are treated just like everybody else, which will make them just as vulnerable to crime as everybody else. Therefore, if they want to protect themselves and their family from crime, they must reduce crime for everybody in the city.

I've mentioned this concept in previous documents; specifically, by treating the people in leadership positions as ordinary people, and not giving them any special privileges, the only way they can improve their homes, clothing, phones, or meals, is to improve those things for everybody in the city. They cannot improve only their homes, or only their clothing. By treating them as ordinary people, they are under pressure to do what is best for the city.

Another example of why we should follow this policy is to prevent the problem that many cities have in which the low-cost homes are built near railroads, airports, factories, highways, floodplains, and other undesirable locations, and our leaders live in a more desirable area.

In Kastron, there will be only one class of people, so all of the homes will be virtually identical. People will also be free to move around the city. This will give the leaders of the city an incentive to ensure that every home is pleasant, and that all neighborhoods are free of crime. They will also want all of the homes to be far away from the noise of the airplanes and factories, and the unpleasant odors from sewage treatment plants, farm animals, and factories.

Our front doors could have hardware mounted in the hallway

Since the apartments in Kastron are not designed to prevent burglaries, we have a lot more options for the front doors. My suggestion is to use front doors that slide rather than swivel on hinges, but which do not require a track on the floor, thereby allowing the floor to remain flat. This has the advantage of not wasting space inside the apartment, which makes it more practical to make the doors much wider, thereby making it easier to get large pieces of furniture in and out.

By not installing tracks on the floor, we will not have to clean or maintain tracks, and it will be easier to get furniture in and out, and we will not have to worry about tripping over the track.

The front doors can be lighter in weight, which will make them easier to slide. We can also put the hardware for the door in the hallway to make it faster to inspect and maintain the door hardware. Our front doors would be decorations for our homes and hallways, rather than ugly, heavy, security doors for protection from criminals. The two photos below show a sliding door with stained-glass decorations.

The front doors of our homes should
be decorative rather than burglar resistant.

The sliding hardware could be exposed, in the steampunk style.

Doors that are light in weight and don't have tracks on the floor will not be as soundproof as a thick, solid wooden door that fits tightly into a heavy frame, but since the people in Kastron must meet higher standards, how many people would be irritating their neighbors with loud noises? Also, as I will describe in the following sections in this document, the apartments are designed primarily for sleeping and relaxing alone or with a friend or spouse, not for parties or playing loud music. The city will provide lots of public facilities for parties, music, and other activities.

Furthermore, since everybody in Kastron is free to move whenever they please, most people are likely to live next to their friends, rather than next to strangers or people that they dislike, and so we will be less concerned about being irritated by our neighbors.

We have a phenomenal number of options for doors when we don't have to worry about crime, and are not afraid of our neighbors. For example, they could be decorated with wood carvings, canvas paintings, photographs, beads, iridescent tiles, or tapestries.

The sliding hardware could be covered to make it blend in with the doors and walls.
The doors could be translucent glass covered by lace on the inside and/or outside of the door.

Since the city provides all material wealth for free, when we get tired of our front doors, we could give them back to the city and replace them with a different set.

All door hardware would be compatible and easy to use

Unlike a free enterprise system, in which businesses are free to produce products without any concern for whether they are compatible with existing products, the Kastron government will ensure that all of the products are compatible. There will be less of a variety of bolts, nuts, fan belts, filters, bearings, and other hardware.

All of the front doors will use exactly the same rails, bearings, rollers, bolts, and other hardware so that no one has to be concerned with incompatible door hardware.

The walls of the apartments would be designed for the doors, so the walls would have whatever fixtures are needed to hold the sliding rail hardware. Nobody would have to pound nails into the walls, or drill holes into the walls, in order to install or change the doors.

Bathroom doors could be folding or ribbons

Bathroom doors that swivel on hinges waste a lot of space. I suggest we experiment with doors that are less wasteful, such as folding, accordion, or ribbon doors, such as the two below, but higher-quality so they are less likely to bend, twist, and get jammed.

A high-quality accordion door is much more expensive than a door that swivels on a hinge, but the first priority in Kastron is human life, not profit. Besides, if we create high-quality accordion doors, they will last for many decades, so it is only an initial expense.

We could also create bathroom doors that we can walk through, such as macrame doors, accordion strip doors, beaded doors, and doors made of ribbons of fabric. Those type of doors might even be useful as front doors on the apartments for elderly people. Or perhaps those doors would be useful for the teenagers in Teentown because it might help them become accustomed to keeping their noise level low.

In our nations today, nobody would want their front door to be a ribbon door because the crime rate is too high, the neighbors are too obnoxious, and we don't want the neighbors to hear what we are doing. However, by having higher standards of behavior, we might discover that those doors are convenient and beneficial for the elderly people and teenagers.

Our homes should be mainly for sleeping

One of the reasons that I think front doors do not need much soundproofing is that I suggest we design the city so that the homes are mainly for sleeping, and we spend most of our leisure time in public facilities. That might seem to be a bizarre concept, but that is how our ancestors lived for millions of years. We evolved for that type of environment. Our ancestors did not spend much of their leisure time alone in a home until they settled into permanent cities.

Furthermore, until the past century, our ancestors spent a lot of their leisure time with other people in taverns and courtyards because their homes did not have lightbulbs, audio equipment, televisions, video games, furnaces, or refrigerators. Their homes were primarily a place to sleep, and to provide protection from storms.

The paintings and descriptions of life during the Middle Ages show people getting together to eat and socialize, rather than sit in their homes by themselves. An example are the two paintings below by Jan Steen.

The Dancing Couple, 1663
A portion of Revelry at an Inn, 1674

Jan Steen lived in a city in which the people trusted and enjoyed one another. They did not live in fear of one another, and they were not irritated by immigrants who spoke a different language, wore different clothing, ate different foods, and made idiotic accusations about "white privilege" and racist Barbie dolls.

Are we free when we live in fear of our neighbors?

The wealthy and famous people are promoting the attitude that the ideal life is to have a gigantic mansion that is isolated on a large plot of land, but humans evolved to live in close contact with other people. This is why we consider solitary confinement and loneliness to be cruel.

However, we will want to live in isolation if we have to live among burglars, pedophiles, crime networks, obnoxious teenagers, or psychotic immigrants who fantasize about unloading a revolver into our head.

This brings up an issue I've mentioned many times. Specifically, people are constantly whining for more freedom, but they don't know what "freedom" is. For example, are we free when we are so afraid of our neighbors that we hide in our home at night with security devices, aggressive dogs, or guns? Are we free when we promote the attitude of "Buyer Beware"?

Are children free when they are taught to be afraid of strangers, put padlocks on their bicycle, and stay inside their house at night? Are the children free when they are worried about sexual abuse by their school teachers, church officials, police officers, and doctors?

Or will we have more freedom when we can trust the people that we live with, and the children can safely wander around the city without fear of being kidnapped, sexually abused, or attacked by gangs?

Prehistoric people had a more satisfying life than most of us

We assume that our material wealth is giving us a more satisfying life than our prehistoric ancestors, but if it were possible to measure satisfaction, I think we would discover that they got more satisfaction from life than most of us, even though their lives were shorter.

We assume that our prehistoric ancestors suffered because they had to do a lot of physical work, were exposed to cold weather, and frequently suffered sleepless nights due to bad weather. However, they would have been genetically adapted to that environment, just like the animals that lived around them. The cold weather would not have bothered them any more than it bothered the animals in their environment, and waking up in the middle of the night from a rainstorm would not have bothered them any more than it bothered the animals.

Furthermore, their relationships would have been much more satisfying than ours. For example, when the men walked away from the campsite to go hunting, the women and children would be concerned that they find food and come home safely. When the men came home, they would be met by appreciative wives and children. Compare that to the men today who arrive home to women and children who don't notice or appreciate their efforts.

Although most prehistoric children died young, those that survived would have been adapted to their environment, so they would not have suffered from it. Furthermore, they would have had a much more pleasant childhood than children do today. One reason is that they were always in close contact with other people because they didn't live in large houses that isolated them from other children, and they didn't sleep in large bedrooms by themselves, which torments them with fantasies of monsters under the bed. Also, they were not manipulated by businesses into desiring candy bars or toys, and they didn't have to deal with organized religions, schools, gangs, money, or drugs.

We should not provide daredevils with a safety net, either

A small percentage of the population enjoys extremely dangerous activities, such as climbing tall mountains, wandering off the established paths in a desert or forest, and riding jet skis at extremely high speeds. Those people are often regarded as "adrenaline junkies", "thrill-seekers", and "daredevils", and they are treated as if they are ordinary people who simply want a higher level of excitement in life, but I suspect that if we could truly understand their genetic characteristics, we would discover that it would be more accurate to describe them as suffering from some type of defect that makes it difficult for them to enjoy an "ordinary" life.

There are television programs that provide interviews of some of the daredevils who almost died during their risky activities, and their attitude shows that they are not "explorers" who are interested in learning about the world. They do not gather information about the world, or help us to understand it. Rather, they get involved with physically difficult and/or dangerous activities simply to provide themselves with extreme emotional stimulation.

The daredevils are a problem for society because they are an unnecessary burden as a result of needing rescue teams when they get lost, and medical attention when they hurt themselves. Even worse are the daredevils who suffer such serious injuries that they cannot hold a job, or who require us to provide them with lifetime medical care.

I am willing to provide support for people who get hurt at their jobs and during "ordinary" recreational activities, but I don't want to take care of the daredevils. The aspect of their behavior that I find most irritating is their attitude that they are so important that we should risk our lives to save them when they get themselves into trouble.

Even more appalling are the daredevils who become seriously injured and expect their friends to die with them, rather than abandon them and try to save themselves. For example, when a group of daredevils is trapped on a mountain during a snowstorm, and one of them is injured so badly that he cannot walk, some of the injured men demand that the other people remain with him on the mountain rather than try to save themselves. I would describe such a man as incredibly arrogant and selfish. I think it is more sensible for the others to abandon the injured man and, if they can get home safely, they can send a rescue team for the injured man.

If you are unaware of their attitudes, watch Episode 4 of Series 1, "Swept Away", of the television series I Shouldn't Be Alive. What do you think about the attitude of Larry Kaiser? And do you think he would be alive today if his friend had remained with him? (The tubi site has these episodes, at least sometimes, and for free.)

The daredevils are not analogous to Marco Polo, Charles Darwin, or other men who were truly courageous enough to explore the world, and for the purposes of learning about the world. The daredevils are not doing risky activities to learn anything, and they do not show courage, either. Their attitude and behavior is more similar to that of a child with ADHD, who does idiotic things because his brain or body is not functioning properly, and then cries for help when he hurts himself.

Providing the daredevils with a safety net is encouraging idiotic and risky behavior. My recommendation is that Kastron require everybody to be responsible for their behavior. Due to genetic variations, some children are likely to want to become daredevils, and I recommend that Kastron tell the daredevils to provide whatever services they need. For example, if some of them decide to climb a tall mountain, then the other daredevils are responsible for providing whatever medical services or rescue support they need.

If the daredevils are not interested in providing one another with rescue or medical services, then why should you or I provide them with such services? You and I do not have an obligation to take care of daredevils.

Rather than encourage daredevils, it would be more useful to eliminate secrecy, maintain a database that has details of everybody's life, and study people so that we can understand why some people want to become daredevils. How much of this behavior is genetic? How much of it is due to environmental problems, such as concussions, or a diet that interferes with the proper functioning of their body and/or brain?

We will benefit by studying the daredevils, but not by encouraging their dangerous behavior. Furthermore, we should not promote the attitude that we are a hero when we risk our life to help a defective or troublesome person. It is idiotic for high-quality people to risk their lives to save low-quality people.

Another example of this concept happened in February 2022 when four policemen were shot with a gun as they tried to rescue a baby. A police official praised the four officers as "heroic", and the mayor of the city was "incredibly proud" of them, but I would say they were fools.

In our world today, there is no shortage of babies, and no need to save the babies of criminals or worthless people. We need to control our craving to sacrifice our life for a baby.

It makes sense to try to save an adult who is a respectable citizen with useful skills, but it is idiotic to sacrifice our lives for babies, or for adults who are of no value.

We benefit from pressure, not pampering

Our courtship behavior is inappropriate today

Our natural courtship procedures are appropriate for animals, not modern humans.
The natural method for humans to find a spouse is for the single women to make themselves look pretty, go to some location where the men will be able to see them, and then wait for the men to compete with one another to titillate the women, while the women pretend not to care for any of the men.

The women want to show off their beautiful appearance and clothing, but they have no desire to provide the men with information about their lives, attitudes, or goals.

The men try to impress the women with gifts to show that they can provide a family with plenty of food and support, and the men try to show off their strength and courage to let the women know that they can protect a family from wolves and neighboring tribes. The men also try to make themselves seem high in the social hierarchy, such as by displaying their material items.

This courtship method works for animals and prehistoric humans, but in our modern societies, it causes an incredible amount of frustration, failed relationships, and financial problems for both the men and the women.

The reason our natural method no longer functions properly is because we no longer know one another intimately. We are essentially living among strangers. We know so little about the people that we live with that men cannot be certain of which women are single, or what their age is. Furthermore, we are so deceptive and secretive that we cannot even be sure if a woman is really a female.

By comparison, a prehistoric man would usually pick a wife from his own tribe, and since men tend to pick younger women, this meant that a man was picking a wife that he may have watched the birth of when he was a young boy, and who he grew up with in extremely close contact. He would have learned every detail of her life, personality, and body, and she would have known all of his intimate details. Neither of them would have been surprised to discover that the person they married was not what they expected.

To make the problem of finding a spouse even worse, since we no longer live in close contact with other people in a tiny campsite, in order for single people to find a spouse, they have to travel somewhere, but there are no courtship activities to travel to, so they have to use some other area or facility. Some people go to shopping malls, dance clubs, or taverns; other people join organizations, such as a church, yacht club, country club, or charity; and some people get involved with social or recreational activities, such as sailing, golf, or music.

The women who get involved with activities simply to find a husband can cause tremendous problems because the men are likely to be fooled into believing that those women are truly interested in those activities. For example, if a woman decides to go golfing in order to find a husband, and if she meets a man who is attracted to her, that man is likely to believe that she is playing golf because she enjoys golf. If he marries her, he might become upset when he discovers that she does not like golf, and that she wants to spend her time having children, eating, shopping, socializing with her girlfriends, and watching television.

An even more destructive method that some single women are using to find a husband is to take worthless courses at a college that they cannot afford. This is destructive because those women end up with a lot of debt, but no useful skills. Also, it is destructive to society because thousands of colleges are wasting a lot of labor and resources on worthless courses.

The single men are also making it difficult to form stable marriages because of the problem I described in a previous document of this series; namely, our modern culture is causing men to become obsessed with women's bodies and sex. This causes men to focus too much on sex, and not enough on finding a compatible wife. They also irritate the women with their endless attempts to have sex.

Many single people today are wasting a significant percentage of the best years of their life on the pursuit of a spouse, and some of them are also wasting a lot of their money. Their numerous, failed relationships cause them to accumulate a lot of unpleasant memories of arguments, frustration, and disappointments. Their numerous failed relationships also allow venereal diseases to thrive and mutate, and sometimes result in unwanted children.

Why were arranged marriages popular in the past?

Until the past few centuries, parents would sometimes help their children find a spouse, and sometimes arrange their marriages. That assistance is now considered to be abusive. It is regarded as denying the single people the freedom to choose a spouse that they love.

If arranged marriages are abusive, then why were so many of our ancestors involved with that custom? How did that custom get established? How did it become so popular?

Arranged marriages would have been sensible for prehistoric people because they lived in such close contact that the parents knew all of the intimate details of the few children in their group. Furthermore, the parents were more knowledgeable about life than their children. The end result was that the parents would often make better decisions about which children would make a compatible couple than the children would make.

Furthermore, prehistoric people had shorter lifetimes, and I suspect that they got married while they were teenagers, especially the girls. This meant that they were choosing a spouse while they were ignorant about life, and while the girls still had a desire to be taken care of by their parents. Therefore, the prehistoric parents might have wanted to help their children get married, especially their daughters, to push them out of the nest and make them become adults.

Today, however, we live in such isolated houses, and allow so much secrecy and deception, that parents don't know much about their own children, and they know almost nothing about other people's children. To make the situation even worse, the degradation of the human gene pool is increasing the number of people with mental disorders. As a result of these changes in human life, the success rate of the arranged marriages has been decreasing during the past few centuries, thereby increasing the anger towards that custom.

To add to the problem of arranged marriages, some parents were arranging marriages for economic or political purposes, which meant that they were using their children as tools to satisfy their own selfish cravings for wealth or status.

History should be a science, not a manipulation tool

Many people assume that arranged marriages are due to sexism, or some other mysterious concept, but all of our customs developed for sensible reasons, and we should try to understand the reasons rather than whine, hate, pout, and complain. This is going to require a significant change in our attitude towards what history is, and what a journalist is.

Every society is allowing government officials to alter historical information to make themselves look good, make their competitors and critics look bad, and to erase references to people they don't like. We also allow Jewish organizations, church officials, journalists, business executives, and other people to alter news events and historical information in order to promote their particular propaganda, exploit us for money, or cover up their false flag operations.

We must raise standards for people involved with providing us with news and history. A journalist should be regarded as a zoologist who is observing humans instead of tigers or lizards, and a historian should be considered as an archaeologist who is specializing in analyzing the past few thousand years of human life.

If history had been a real science for the past few thousand years, and if historians had been accurately recording history and providing sensible analyses of events, then we might now have a fairly accurate understanding of the history of arranged marriages, organized religions, the concept of private property, and other customs. Unfortunately, instead of providing us with useful information about our culture, our history books, news reports, encyclopedias, and television documentaries are full of lies, censorship, idiotic accusations, and propaganda.

We must make sacrifices to improve courtship and marriages

Our natural method of finding a spouse is becoming increasingly frustrating, ineffective, and time-consuming, so we should experiment with an artificial method. However, it is important to realize that an artificial courtship activity will feel unnatural to us. This requires the single people to be willing and able to push themselves and one another into using the courtship activity.

If the single people demand the freedom to find a spouse in the manner that they enjoy, nothing will improve. Single people must be willing to sacrifice their "courtship freedom".

We have significantly altered our environment, and that requires us to alter our culture to fit it. We must stop whining for freedom and experiment with better culture.

We must make sacrifices to reduce chores

In order for Kastron to eliminate the peasant class, we must share some of the chores that the peasants were doing. Since it is impossible for us to do all of that work, we need to make sacrifices in order to reduce the chores that we have to do. Some of the sacrifices that I recommend are:
• We eliminate kitchens and dining rooms from our homes and get meals at restaurants.
• The restaurants do not provide menus. Instead, each restaurant manager decides what type of meal to provide, just like school cafeterias are doing today. The city would maintain a menu that shows the meals that each restaurant is providing, and we would go to the restaurant that had the meal we wanted rather than tell the restaurant what to make for us. This is likely to occasionally result in a restaurant attracting more customers than they can serve, but with well-behaved people, the excess customers will be willing to make the "sacrifice" of getting a meal somewhere else, or coming back at some other time.
• We eliminate money, make everything free, and share the material wealth.
• We allow products to have a steampunk appearance to make them easier to manufacture, maintain, and recycle.
• We reduce the variety of products that we produce.
• No person or organization can own land, so nobody is allowed to put fences or walls around land. This will make it much easier to maintain the vegetation in the city.

We should also make sacrifices to improve our behavior

I also recommend making some "sacrifices" in order to encourage better attitudes and behavior. Here are two examples:

Example #1) Sacrificing some "food freedom" will improve our health.

Our emotions want the freedom to eat whatever we want, in any quantity, and at any time. Unfortunately, this "food freedom" causes a lot of people to become overweight, anorexic, or sickly. In addition to hurting themselves, those people are a burden on all of us for several reasons, such as:
• The people who eat excessively are a burden on the people producing food, making meals, and dealing with sewage and trash.
• The people who develop health problems are a burden on our medical services.
• The people with health problems are less productive at their job.

If there were two cities that were identical in all respects, but if one city had such sensible restrictions on food freedom that the people were in good health and a "normal" weight, that city would be noticeably more pleasant and efficient than the city that provided unrestricted food freedom.

A modern society has to make decisions about when we should give people the freedom to become a burden on society, and when we should put restrictions on such freedoms. In regards to food, should the government restrict our food freedom in order to ensure that everybody remains in good health? Or should we give people the freedom to become sickly, obese, and anorexic?

There is no answer to such questions. We simply have to experiment with our options and make a decision about what seems to provide us with the most pleasant and satisfying life.

I suggest experimenting with restrictions on food freedom, but we don't yet know enough about food, digestion, nutrition, or health problems to create truly sensible restrictions. However, the Kastron government will control the economy, so we will be able to shift technical talent and resources away from useless projects, such as private jets and Mars colonies, and into beneficial activities, such as understanding human health.

In addition to improving our health, that type of knowledge can allow us to make our lives more comfortable. For example, by understanding which foods make us thirsty, we will be able to design meals for the evening that reduce the likelihood that we have to wake up in the middle of the night to pee. We will also be able to design meals that reduce problems with farting, messy poop, stomach aches, and constipation.

Although a lot of individuals and businesses are already studying human health, many of them are giving us idiotic and contradictory "knowledge". For example, some people claim that celery and certain other foods have "negative calories" because they require more energy to digest than they provide, but this article claims that there is no such thing as foods with negative calories. Who is correct?

In a free enterprise system, and in a democracy, there is nobody in a leadership position to care whether our information is accurate, or require mistakes to be corrected. This freedom is allowing people to lie and ignore their mistakes about health and nutrition, the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, white supremacy, abortion, and other issues.

By comparison, the Kastron government will have a quality control department that is responsible for ensuring that our information is accurate, and that mistakes are corrected. This will allow us to slowly improve our understanding of all issues.

The Kastron government will set restrictions on food freedom, and although the first restrictions will be very crude, as we learn more about health and nutrition, the restrictions will be improved. It will be easy for us to complain that the initial restrictions on food freedom are based on ignorance and wild guesses, but we have to start somewhere.

Giving a person "food freedom" is useful only if he has the knowledge, intelligence, and self-control to make wise decisions about food. However, letting a government restrict our food freedom is useful only if we can provide ourselves with intelligent, responsible, and honest government officials.

Assuming that we are capable of providing Kastron with competent leadership, I recommend that they experiment with restrictions with foods. For example, they could put limits on the use of sugar, processed white flour, salt, and other items that most people have trouble controlling their consumption of.

In a free enterprise system, the restaurants compete for customers, so they are more concerned about attracting customers than keeping them healthy. This results in restaurants providing excessively large portions of foods for everybody, rather than adjusting the portions according to the size, age, or sex of the person, and using excessive amounts of sugar, processed white flour, salt, artificial flavors, and hydrogenated oils.

In Kastron, all of the restaurants work for the government, and that will allow the government officials to put restrictions on the meals. Since all of the restaurants will be under the same restrictions, the citizens will not have the option of finding a restaurant that gives them the freedom to eat whatever they please.

I suggest that the government put even more restrictions on the meals for children, such as requiring lower levels of sugar to prevent them from becoming accustomed to sugar, and forcing them to eat a variety of different meals so that they are less likely to become adults who are frightened by a meal that is different.

Although this woman was protesting the masks, she is an example of how a person will disrupt the team by demanding the right to do as she pleases.
It is important to realize that restrictions on food will be beneficial only if the people are willing to obey the restrictions.

If people are so rebellious that they demand the freedom to eat whatever they please, whenever they please, and in whatever quantity, then Kastron will suffer from the same type of whining and protests over food laws that nations are experiencing right now in regards to our other laws.

We cannot make people follow laws, or behave in a rational manner. Therefore, restrictions on our food freedom require people who are willing to voluntarily push themselves into "suffering" from such restrictions.

There is a Laurel and Hardy skit in which the fat man puts padlocks on the kitchen cabinets, gives the key to the skinny man, and tells him something to the effect of:
"I am trying to lose weight, so I am giving you the key to the kitchen cabinets, and I don't want you to open the doors for me no matter how much I beg you to!"

Within a short period of time, the fat man is hungry, and he is demanding access to the food in the cabinets, which intimidates the skinny man. Although it was intended to be humorous, it is an accurate description of human behavior. Specifically, there are a lot of people who ask for help in controlling their weight, gambling, temper, consumption of alcohol, abuse of heroin, spending of money, or some other problem, but when someone tries to help them, they put up resistance. Unless a person has the ability to help himself, there is nothing we can do for him.

Example #2) Sacrificing the opportunity to be special.

Our craving to be at the top of the hierarchy has resulted in a culture that provides us with thousands of opportunities to feel important. For example, businesses have created thousands of contests that allow the winners to become the center of attention and feel special. Individual citizens also frequently get into competitions with their friends or neighbors in order to impress one another and become the center of attention, such as competing to have the most spectacular Christmas display, or traveling to the most exotic location, or having the most expensive automobile.

We have created a culture in which we are constantly competing with one another for status. This behavior is exactly the same as a group of animals that are kicking one another in attempts to become the dominant animal. It makes sense for animals to constantly fight for status, but not for modern humans.

We would create a more pleasant social environment if we dampened our craving for status, and pushed ourselves into treating other people as our friends. Unfortunately, it is unnatural for us to treat other people as our friends. All of us, especially men, have strong cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy, and to regard other people as inferior. We do not want to regard other people as our equals. Each of us wants to believe that we are better than everybody else.

We need a hierarchy to provide ourselves with leadership, but our hierarchy should be for a useful purpose; namely, the supervision of the team. We should not use the hierarchy as a way of feeling special. The people below us in the hierarchy should be considered as doing a different job, not as inferior people. And it is especially important to regard the people at the top of the hierarchy as employees in a management position, rather than as Kings and Queens.

The social animals stratify into a hierarchy because we do not want to be equal to the other animals. Therefore, treating the people at the top and bottom of the hierarchy as our friends requires doing what is intellectually sensible rather than what we want to do. We must be willing to make sacrifices in what we want. We must be willing to suffer the emotional discomfort of being equal to the people at different positions in the hierarchy.

Furthermore, the natural behavior of females is to become sexually receptive to the males at the top of the hierarchy, but this characteristic causes a lot of social problems in our modern era. Also, a man cannot be certain of which of the women has become sexually receptive to him, and this can result in the women complaining of sexual harassment.

I suggest that we stop putting emphasis on winning recreational events by eliminating all types of awards, trophies, and prizes. If we provide a reward to the winners, it should be insignificant, such as a carved watermelon that they share with the losers.

Our culture should put us under pressure to ensure that our competitions are productive, rather than a fight over status and women. We should regard our competitors as friends. We should not have the freedom to design any type of competition we please. We should be restricted to designing activities that truly bring some benefit to our lives and society, and which encourage beneficial attitudes and behavior.

That type of culture requires that we be willing to sacrifice the opportunity to feel special. It requires that we push ourselves into regarding the people below us in the hierarchy as our friends and team members. It requires a culture in which nobody is a celebrity, and none of the people at the top of the hierarchy have special privileges.

How many people are willing to suppress their desires?

In order for us to follow culture that is more appropriate for our modern era, everybody must be willing to sacrifice some of their freedoms. We will disrupt the team if we demand the freedom or the right to ignore the laws we do not like.

One of the reasons that we have a tendency to ignore laws is that nobody has the answers to life, so all of the laws, rules, restrictions on freedom, and other customs are just arbitrary opinions, which makes it easy for us to complain that a law is "imperfect" or "stupid".

In order for us to form a team, we must be willing to ignore or suppress some of our personal desires and follow imperfect laws. We must ignore what we want to do and push ourselves into doing what is best for the team. When we encounter a law that we don't like, we should react by analyzing it and looking for improvements to it, rather than whine about it, or violate it.

For example, our initial restrictions on food freedom will be "imperfect opinions" because nobody yet knows much about human health or nutrition, but rather than whine about how "stupid" the restrictions are, we should observe the effects the restrictions are having on everybody's health, and look for ways to improve the restrictions.

We then start the cycle that engineers go through to improve a product. Specifically, we experiment with some of the suggested improvements to the food restrictions, and then observe the effect to see if they are truly improving our health. If so, we keep them, and if not, we change them. Then we repeat this cycle.

Every cycle will provide us with more information about health and nutrition, and that will result in increasingly useful restrictions on food freedom.

You might find it interesting to consider that people in the distant future have so much knowledge about human health that they decide to completely eliminate food freedom. They might have the technology to accurately determine which foods a particular person has even a mild problem with. They might also have computers observing people throughout the day, and accurately guessing at how much energy everybody is producing, and how much water they are losing through breathing and perspiration. The computers could use all of that information to design meals for each person.

In such a world, the people would not have any freedom to choose what to eat, or the quantity. They would be treated like prisoners who eat what they are given, but they would not be abused. Rather, they would have optimum health.

The common belief around the world is that the more freedom we have, the better our life will be, but freedom puts burdens on us, and it allows us to hurt ourselves and other people. The better our leadership is, the less important freedom is.

Most parents do not give their children much food freedom. For example, parents do not give their children a menu to select from. Instead, most children are treated like prisoners. Even though no parent truly knows what type of meal is appropriate for each of their children, parents are providing their children with much better meals than the children would choose for themselves.

Everybody can understand that children benefit by having their food freedom restricted, but adults resist the possibility that this concept also applies to adults.

It is also useful to realize that when we are invited to a friend or family's house for dinner, they do not give us a menu, and we might not know what we are going to eat until we sit down at the table. We could say that we are treated like prisoners when we are invited to somebody's house, but we do not suffer from that lack of food freedom.

If we are willing to restrict our food freedom, and if we can provide ourselves with leaders who are truly honest, competent, and responsible, then we will benefit in a lot of ways by restricting our food freedom, as I described here.

Good leadership is more valuable than freedom. Freedom is useful only when the leadership is bad. Unfortunately, most people react to bad leadership by demanding freedom, rather than improving their leadership.

Should we have the freedom to be finicky with food?

Everybody in Kastron will be free to choose the restaurant that they eat at, so everybody will be able to avoid the foods that they dislike. However, there might be situations in which we have to eat a meal we don't care for, such as when we decide to join friends, coworkers, neighbors, or relatives at a restaurant that we don't care for.

Instead of pandering to finicky people, they should be prohibited from the restaurants they whine about.
In a free enterprise system, the airlines provide finicky people with "special meals", and restaurants and airlines also allow people to waste the food that they do not like to eat.

The restaurants that allow us to serve ourselves allow us to take large portions of a particular food, and then waste as much of it as we please if we decide we don't like it.

What should our policy be for people who go to a restaurant that provides a meal they don't care for? Should we pander to them and tell the restaurant to provide them with a special meal?

I think that pandering to finicky people is detrimental. If we pander to finicky people, we encourage more of that behavior.

I recommend that the Kastron culture teach people that if they go to a restaurant that serves food they don't care much for, they should either go without eating and get a meal somewhere else before or afterwards, or they should force themselves to eat the food without whining about it.

This same concept applies to people who take more food than they can eat. We should not allow them to waste food. Our culture should encourage people to take small portions, and if they want more food, have another portion. Our priority should be to reduce waste and chores, rather than give people the freedom to waste food. The finicky people, and the people who are wasting food, should be regarded as low quality people.

The only people that we should provide special meals to are those who are suffering from medical problems, such as allergies to peanuts or strawberries. The restaurants, hospitals, schools, and other businesses would be allowed to provide special meals to people who truly have medical problems with certain foods, but we should not tolerate people who are simply finicky or wasteful.

Kastron is essentially a gigantic mansion for a large family

The concept behind Kastron is that the city is one giant family. The people in Kastron are essentially brothers and sisters, and the government is the parents. The city can be considered such a gigantic mansion with such a gigantic yard, that it is broken up into hundreds of pieces. The apartment buildings, for example, are the bedrooms for the thousands of family members who live in the mansion. The restaurants are the dining rooms of the mansion. The social clubs, lounges, music theaters, and other recreational facilities are analogous to the living rooms, family rooms, recreation rooms, and home theater rooms. The clothing stores are gigantic clothing closets. The parks, swimming areas, and bicycle paths are the front and back yard.

When we consider the city to be a giant mansion, we will not want to put most of our labor and resources into our "homes" because our homes are just "bedrooms" of a mansion. We will want to put most of our labor and resources into the other rooms and the yard.
When we design a city with that attitude, we will design it significantly differently compared to what is happening in a free enterprise system. For example, when we regard the restaurants as "our" dining rooms, we will not want the restaurants to be cramped, and we will not want to feel pressure to eat quickly and leave. Instead, we would want the restaurants to be as beautiful, spacious, comfortable, pleasant, and relaxing as they would be in a mansion. We would also want each of the restaurants to be architecturally different so that we have variety. We would not want every restaurant to be identical, like a chain of McDonald's restaurants.

The clothing stores would be "our clothing closets", so we would want to scatter them around the city in convenient locations. We would want the clothing stores to be attractive rather than bland warehouses. We might not want giant clothing stores, either. We might want them to be small, and each one specializing in a different type of customer, such as young children, adult men, and elderly women.

Likewise, we would want the recreation rooms and swimming areas to feel as if they belong to "our family" rather than to a business. Instead of doing hobbies in our home by ourselves, and using low cost, low quality equipment and supplies, we will want the city to provide us with a variety of beautiful and large recreation rooms that provide us with high quality equipment and supplies.

The recreation rooms would provide us with high quality 3D printers, microscopes, CNC embroidering machines, and other arts and crafts items.
The large size of the recreation rooms makes it more comfortable to work, and easier to access supplies.

The recreation rooms would allow us to do hobbies that would be impractical in a home. They also allow us to work among other people, some of whom will have more knowledge than we do, and will be able to answer some of our questions. We will also have the option of working with other people on a project rather than working alone.

The apartments would be bedrooms

I recommend that the apartments in Kastron be large bedrooms for sleeping and resting, not for eating, entertaining guests, parties, or overnight visitors. The homes would not have storage for toys, recreational equipment, or hobby equipment.

I suggest four different sizes of apartments, for four different categories of people. Everybody would be free to move to any apartment they please, but they must pick an apartment within their category. For example, a family would have to pick one of the apartments for families, not one of the apartments for elderly or single adults. The four categories are:

1) Teenagers in Teentown
These would be similar to the dormitories of colleges.
2) Single adults and couples
These apartments would be a large bedroom with a bathroom. They would resemble the master bedrooms of a mansion, or the cabins on a luxury cruise ship. They would be large enough to divide into two sections. They would be for single and married adults who do not have children, including college students.
3) Families
The apartments for families would be the same as #2 but have an additional bedroom that would be large enough to hold up to 6 children. When the children become teenagers, they move to Teentown, so the apartments do not need to accommodate teenagers. The children's bedroom would have a bathroom that was designed for children, not for adult guests or teenagers, so it would have smaller toilets, sinks, and showers.
4) Elderly and handicapped people
These would be the same as #2, but they would be placed closer to the ground and to medical facilities to make it more convenient for people with physical limitations. People who are recuperating from accidents or health problems could temporarily use those apartments, if they wanted to.

Should we be pressured to get out of our home?

One advantage to designing apartments to be bedrooms is that it significantly reduces the size and complexity of the homes, and it eliminates the possibility of fire starting in a kitchen. It also reduces housework, and, even more important, reduces the labor and resources to produce and maintain the apartment buildings.

Robots will eventually be able to provide some of the services performed by the peasant class, but even with robots I would suggest that the apartments be "bedrooms". The reason is to push us into spending more of our leisure time outside of our home.

Some people might respond that this policy is an attempt to control people, which is hypocritical since I advocate that we do not try to control people. However, this is not an attempt to control what people do. Rather, it is an attempt to put pressure on us to get out of our home, even if all we do is relax in a city park or lounge room.

There is no dividing line between trying to "control people", and putting us under pressure to do something beneficial. Modern life is complicated, and it requires us to make decisions about what is best for us.

Some people might say that they don't want to be under pressure, but everybody is already under lots of pressure. For example, we are under pressure to have certain clothing styles, hairstyles, and table manners. In the USA, we are under pressure to drink alcohol at weddings, parties, and other social affairs. Some of us are under pressure by family, friends, and various organizations to join them in their religion, gambling, drug use, or risky athletic activities.

Single women put men under pressure to make money, and to spend money on the women. Single men put women under pressure to have sex. Children put pressure on their parents to purchase toys, foods, sports equipment, or clothing. Some parents put pressure on their children to get involved with certain sports, musical instruments, jobs, religions, or family businesses.

It is idiotic to complain about being pressured to do things. It is more sensible to analyze the pressure that we put on one another, and try to develop culture that puts us under beneficial pressure.

If we did not have any pressure, and were free to do whatever we wanted to do, we would have a life that is similar to that of a pet dog, a baby, a retired billionaire, or a spoiled child. The life that we want is not the life that will provide us with the most satisfaction. It will not give us a life that we enjoy reminiscing about, or watching videos of.

Humans and animals were designed to be under pressure. Nature provided the pressure for our prehistoric ancestors, but today we must provide it. Some of us have more initiative than others, but all of us benefit by having pressure put on us. However, the pressure must be designed properly or it will be worse than none at all.

For example, in the free enterprise system, everybody is under pressure to make money, but there is no concern that we make money in a manner that is beneficial. This results in many people doing things for money that are so worthless or destructive that it would be better for society if they remained at home and lounged all day, like a pet dog. An example are the people who steal items for resale, the telemarketers who try to deceive us, and the businesses that produce shoddy products.

Each of us is under a lot of pressure to do things, but no society is taking control of the situation and passing judgment on what type of pressure we should be under. We are allowing our culture to develop haphazardly, and the end result is that we are under lots of pressure to get involved with worthless or destructive activities.

We would improve our lives if we put ourselves under pressure that is more beneficial. For example, Americans would benefit from pressure to switch to the metric system. Nobody needs or benefits from the freedom to choose their measurement system.

Likewise, the Chinese would benefit from pressure to abandon their primitive language, suppress their envy of Taiwan, and do something to improve China, such as reduce their bribery, corruption, and pollution.

Humans and animals evolved to be under constant pressure. We need pressure, so rather than encourage people to whine about being "free", we should experiment with our culture to determine what type of pressure is the most beneficial. If a pressure results in a benefit to us, then we should push ourselves into accepting it, and if it is detrimental, we should change it or eliminate it.

I suggest that we provide people in Kastron with small homes that are essentially bedrooms in order to pressure us to spend more of our leisure time outside of our home, but will we benefit from that type of pressure? It depends upon the people we live with, our leadership, and our culture.

If we are living among people and leaders that we are frightened of or disgusted by, or if we are living in a city in which the only activities are listening to sermons at churches, drinking alcoholic beverages at bars, and watching professional athletes compete for trophies, then some of us would have a better life spending our leisure time at home.

However, if the city is restricted to people that we trust and respect, and if we have leaders who create a beautiful, clean, quiet city that provides us with lots of parks, swimming areas, music concerts, and other social and recreational activities, then we will enjoy spending our leisure time in the city.

One of the interesting aspects of social animals is that when we have nothing to do and want to relax, we prefer to do nothing with other people, rather than doing nothing in our home alone. Therefore, the city should provide enough lounge areas for us to relax while we look out the window, or listen to music, or watch children play in a park.

The social animals prefer to do nothing with one another, rather than go somewhere where they can be alone.
Humans also prefer to do nothing with other people. We want to be alone only occasionally, and only for brief periods of time.

In our modern cities, it is inconvenient for us to get together with other people during our leisure time. Some of the reasons are:
• Traveling
When we live in private homes on private plots of land, we have to spend time traveling to get together with other people, and that is especially inconvenient during bad weather.
• Food
If we want to get together for dinner at a restaurant, we will feel cramped and pressured to eat quickly and leave. If we get together for dinner at somebody's home, then one or more of us has to go to the trouble of purchasing food, making a meal, and cleaning up the mess, and we have to travel to the person's home.
• Recreation
If we want to get together for a recreational or social activity, a free enterprise system provides a very limited number of activities. Also, most of them are expensive, and many of them are passive, spectator events in which we watch other people do things, which we can just as easily do at our own home. Furthermore, the activities that we participate in usually require us to purchase our own equipment and supplies, which means carrying items around and storing them in our homes.

My suggestions for Kastron will reduce those problems:
• Traveling
Since each neighborhood is a cluster of tall apartment buildings, and we are free to move to any apartment we please, many people will choose to live in the same neighborhood as their friends, which means that they will be able to get together with their friends simply by taking a short walk or elevator ride. If we decide to go into the city, we will be able to travel by underground transportation, so there will be no concern about the weather or parking.
• Food
Since none of the apartments will have kitchens, whenever we want to have a meal with our friends, we simply agree to meet at a particular restaurant. Furthermore, since the restaurants are "owned" by the city rather than by businesses, they will be more spacious, comfortable, and relaxing, so it will feel as if we are getting together with some of our family members to eat in one of the hundreds of dining rooms in our gigantic mansion.
• Recreation
The city government will have a department that experiments with social and recreational activities. When we want to get together for some activity, we pick one of the activities, and agree to meet at a certain time. All of the activities will be free, and they will provide whatever equipment, musical instruments, arts and craft supplies, CNC machines, drones, microscopes, 3D printers, or other devices that we need, so none of us have to be concerned with purchasing items, carrying them around, maintaining them, or upgrading them.

Teenagers instantly become adults

In a previous document I pointed out that the prehistoric children were ready to take care of themselves and raise a family while they were still teenagers. Today, by comparison, most teenagers have to spend a decade or more struggling to acquire enough money to afford a house, clothing, furniture, and other items that are necessary today. Many of them cannot afford to raise families until they are over 30 years old.

By the time most people are financially stable, they are ready to retire. It results in people over 60 years of age having a lot more money than when we were 20 years old (at least those of us who didn't waste our money). This type of economic system is the opposite of what we were designed for.

Kastron will re-create the prehistoric situation by considering all of the teenagers to be "adults" on the day they leave Teentown. They will not have to save money for a home, clothing, or other items. They will immediately become equal to all other adults in the city, move into one of the apartments for adults, and have the same free access to everything in the city that the other adults have.

Furthermore, they will be able to get married and raise children because the city will provide their children with all of the clothing, food, and medical services that they need. They will not need any wedding gifts, or any handouts from their parents. Actually, there will be no giftgiving in Kastron since all of the material wealth is free.

College students will be adults, not large children

As soon as a teenager leaves Teentown, he is an adult, and he is expected to contribute something of value to society, so he will either get a job, or go to college. However, the colleges in Kastron will not be entertainment centers for children who want to avoid work, or for single women to meet a husband. Rather, they will be job training programs for engineers, doctors, chemists, technicians, and other skills that are too complex to be completed in Teentown.

I also don't see any value in colleges offering entertainment courses, or fraternities or sororities. Rather than treat the college students as "children in school", I think it would be more beneficial to make them realize they are adults who are taking a job training program. By considering them to be adults, they will use the same recreational facilities, museums, music concerts, and social clubs as the other adults.

The game of golf is evidence that men need pressure

We are social animals, so we want to spend a lot of our leisure time with other people, and since we, especially men, are naturally competitive, we enjoy leisure activities that are competitive. Unfortunately, when we don't think about what we are doing, we can get involved with activities and competitions that are idiotic, dangerous, wasteful, and worthless.

No society yet is analyzing their activities, or experimenting with more beneficial activities. Rather, we are allowing businesses, lunatics, religions, churches, charities, and other organizations to create activities for us, but they are not interested in doing what's best for us.

In Kastron, the government will have the authority to control all social and recreational activities. They will be able to prohibit the activities they consider useless or detrimental, and they will experiment with activities in order to find ways to make them more pleasant, satisfying, and safe. For an example of what the government might do, consider the game of golf.

The men who play golf assume that the purpose is to win the game, and that they will suffer if they lose the game. This false assumption causes many men to become so obsessed with winning that they put a lot of their time into practicing, and they waste a lot of money by repeatedly purchasing new and supposedly better equipment. Some men go even further and waste their time and money on golf lessons, as if they are students who are trying to learn a useful skill.

There are so many men looking for "better" golf equipment and golf courses that thousands of businesses are involved with the research and development of "improved" golf equipment, varieties of grass, and golf course lawnmowers.

Engineers have put golf clubs and golf balls through advanced computer analyses and windtunnel tests, and they have set up factories to produce highly advanced and precise golf equipment. There are also thousands of people putting a tremendous amount of labor and resources into growing, fertilizing, mowing, and replacing the extremely unnatural lawns at the golf courses.

The golf courses and products as of 2022 are extremely advanced, but unfortunately all of the technology is worthless to the human race. There is absolutely no benefit to any of that technology. All of the technical talent, resources, and labor that has been put into improving the game of golf has been wasted on a project that is as worthless as the research and development of meditation pyramids, Ouija boards, tarot cards, and astrology.

An air flow analysis of
a golf ball is worthless.
So is the technology
for meditation pyramids.
Tarot card technology
is also worthless.

A high-tech, extremely precise carbon fiber golf club has no more of a benefit to human life than a high-tech, extremely precise carbon fiber meditation pyramid. Putting a golf ball through a wind tunnel analysis provides us with "knowledge" that is as worthless as what we would acquire by putting tarot cards through a wind tunnel analysis.

The men who play golf have made the mistake of assuming that winning the game is the important aspect of golf, but it does not matter to human life whether we win or lose the game. The reason we enjoy recreational activities is because we have emotional cravings to socialize, compete for status, get some exercise, and enjoy the sunshine, clouds, trees, moon, stars, grass, and birds, not because we need to win the game.

If we do not have a good understanding of our emotions, or if we do not have much self-control, our emotions can cause our social and recreational activities to become increasingly idiotic, wasteful, and dangerous. Also, we might become so obsessed with winning a game that we push ourselves too much, thereby causing broken bones, torn ligaments, and other health problems. Or we might become so obsessed that we hurt ourselves with steroids, hormones, or other drugs. Or we might spend so much time practicing the sport that we interfere with our relationships. Or we might spend so much money on the activity that we cause ourselves financial troubles, or we clutter our home with recreational items and training books.

If, instead, we can acknowledge that we are social monkeys, and that we want to spend our leisure time with other people, and that we enjoy competing with each other, getting exercise, and being out in nature, then we can design leisure activities to achieve those goals without putting a burden on us, destroying the environment, ruining our relationships, wasting our technical talent, or causing health problems.

As I described in this previous document, our sports have evolved into idiotic activities, and most of the recreational areas make our city look ugly. If we had leaders who would experiment with more sensible recreational activities, we could certainly develop some activities that are much more beneficial, do not put as much of a burden on us, and which we can play in beautiful parks and gardens without destroying nature or ruining the visual appearance of the city.

We would benefit from pressure to control our obsessions and arrogance, and experiment with culture.
Experimenting with our recreational and social activities requires people who are willing to experiment, rather than the people who so are frightened to try something new that they make excuses to keep everything as it is.

People today need to understand that there isn't anything in particular that we must do in order to enjoy life. There is no particular recreational activity that we must play, and there is no correct way of playing a recreational activity. Also, there is no correct holiday celebration, music concert, or wedding ceremony.

In the previous document of this series, I pointed out that I think the game of Jeopardy would feel more natural to us if we switched to using conventional questions and answers, but there is no right or wrong way of playing any game. However, it is possible to design an activity that is better suited to the human mind and body.

By designing activities according to our physical characteristics, we can reduce potential damage to our bones, eyes, and ligaments. By designing activities according to our mental characteristics, we can reduce frustration, anger, envy, and confusion.

In our modern era, we need leaders to analyze our recreational activities and consider their benefits and disadvantages. The only benefit to emphasizing the winning of an event is that the winner will receive some temporary emotional titillation when he becomes the center of attention and can feel important. However, there are lots of disadvantages. One disadvantage is that all of the other people become "losers", which creates the idiotic situation in which there are more people suffering from frustration, envy, and disappointment than enjoying the activity.

Another disadvantage is that, as I explained earlier, it causes people to waste technical talent and resources on the development of "better" equipment, and some people take drugs to improve their performance, or waste their time practicing.

My suggestion is to eliminate the rewards for winning a recreational event, or make the reward something trivial, such as a carved watermelon that everybody shares. The winner should not be treated like a King or Queen. By eliminating the reward for winning, there is no benefit to winning, and so nobody is likely to become obsessed with winning.

In order to experiment with our social and recreational activities, people need to regard those activities as being "social technology", and regard them as being analogous to refrigerators, cameras, and drones. We should look forward to improvements in our activities just as we look forward to improvements with phones and drones.

We are willing to let engineers and scientists experiment with improvements to our products, and we need to be willing to experiment with our culture, also. We must stop boasting about our culture and start treating it as a form of technology that can and should be improved upon.

Cosmetics are evidence that women need pressure, also

All animals groom themselves in order to keep themselves in good health, but modern women routinely do things that have no benefit to their health, such as change the color of their hair and poke holes in their ears. Some women get involved with unnecessary, wasteful, idiotic, and/or dangerous surgeries, such as the Brazilian Butt Lift.

The reason women spend so much time with cosmetics is because they have strong cravings to "look pretty". Many women realize that they want to look pretty for men, but some women make the mistake of assuming that they want to look pretty because they enjoy looking pretty, which causes those women to do things to titillate themselves with no regard to what men like.

Our school curriculum needs to be updated so that it does a better job of preparing children for this era by educating the children about human emotions. The girls should be taught that their craving to look pretty is intended to attract a man, not entertain themselves. That difference is subtle, but very important. If a woman realizes that she wants to look pretty for men, then she would be more interested in doing what pleases the particular men that she wants to attract, rather than whatever titillates herself.

Which men want women to have fat lips, gigantic breasts, or black lipstick?
Unfortunately, nobody has bothered to study men, so we are not completely certain about what we are attracted to. We also don't know which of our desires are genetic and which are environmental.

For example, which men are attracted to gigantic breasts, nail polish, multicolored hair, tattoos, nose piercings, or fat lips? And which of those men are attracted to such features because of a genetic desire, and which are attracted to them simply because they have become accustomed to them?

I personally don't like nail polish, long fingernails, fat lips, or hair colorings, and I consider the bunions, corns, and crooked toes caused by the pointed and high-heeled shoes to be ugly. I don't think large breasts are attractive, either, especially not when the woman is leaning forward and they are dangling like a cow's udder, or when they are full of silicon and look swollen, which triggers images in my mind of those dead, bloated bodies that were floating in the water after the New Orleans levees mysteriously crumbled. I think breasts look better when they are small enough to hold themselves up.

I suspect that one of the reasons that women are convinced that they need cosmetics is because they don't realize that what they see on television and in photos is unrealistic. Cosmetics can make a woman look extremely attractive in photos or video because the resolution is low and the lighting is unrealistic. Cosmetics can also make a woman very attractive when she is at such a distance from us that we don't notice the cosmetics.

However, I think cosmetics, hair dyes, and shaved bodies are ugly when we are so close to a woman that we can see the cosmetics, the stubble of her hairs, and the different colored roots of her hair.

I think it is especially unpleasant when women with light skin use black eyeliner to outline their eyes, such as Taylor Monsen. I think that makes them look like they are sick, overtired, or on the verge of death. (I wrote about some of these issues here).

Women developed a strong craving to groom themselves, but during prehistoric times they put their effort into simplistic and beneficial grooming operations, such as cleaning their hands and feet, removing knots and tangles from their hair, and cleaning their loin cloths.

Today, however, those simplistic grooming operations require only a few minutes each day, but the women have the same strong craving to groom themselves as their prehistoric ancestors, and this results in them looking for some grooming activity in order to satisfy that craving. They end up wasting their time on grooming activities that have no value, such as painting their finger and toe nails, pushing back their cuticles, plucking their eyebrows, and curling their hair.

A woman's craving to groom herself is excessive today. Women today need to control their craving to "look pretty". Women complain about men who do not control their sexual cravings, but how many women are controlling their cravings for grooming, food, babies, or material items?

Men evolved to live among naked, female monkeys, not among women who wear beautiful clothing, shave their bodies, and use cosmetics to make themselves abnormally attractive. I suggest reducing the sexual stimulation of men, and reduce the time that women waste on grooming, by restricting cosmetics to certain social affairs, such as weddings, parties, and festivals. We should prohibit cosmetics for everyday use.

I also suggest the women in Kastron be prohibited from behaving and dressing in sexual manners while they are working, and restrict the flirting and sexually attractive clothing to courtship activities and certain other social affairs. By providing courtship activities, we can prohibit men from pursuing women in public locations and while working, thereby eliminating a lot of the complaints of women, and a lot of the frustration that the men experience during their search for a spouse.

Finally, as I described in this document, women would not be allowed to have cosmetics in their homes. Instead, the city would keep all of the jewelry and cosmetics at stores that are scattered around the city, and the women would be given access to those stores only for certain social affairs. This policy has the additional benefit of eliminating a lot of the clutter in the bathrooms, and it reduces the time that women waste in their bathrooms.

We should be concerned about our role models

Prehistoric men took care of the women and children, but modern men exploit women in a variety of ways, such as forming businesses that compete to provide the women with worthless and dangerous cosmetics, body piercings, jewelry, shoes, and surgeries.

The businesses also exploit the women by providing them with role models that use extreme amounts of cosmetics and surgeries. The Kardashian women are examples. The Kardashians have had such a noticeable influence on the attitudes and behavior of women that some journalists and cosmetic surgeons have referred to it as "The Kardashian Effect".

Some businesses exploit women by pretending that one of their role models has started a cosmetic business, and that she did this in order to provide superior cosmetics. For example, in this article, Kylie Jenner is referred to as a "beauty executive" because of her involvement with the business called "Kylie Cosmetics", but it is not "her" business. She is not truly a "business executive", and she does not have enough of an understanding of science, manufacturing, biology, chemistry, or engineering to develop or manufacture cosmetics that are safe to use. She is being used like a worm on a hook to lure women to that particular company's products. This could be described as deceptive, dishonest, abusive, and disgusting.

Imagine if the Kardashians were being promoted as role models for scientists.

Imagine a business creating a company called "Kylie Krisprs" but pretending that it is Kylie Jenner's company, and that the Kardashians are "Genetic Engineering Executives" who are in control of the design and production of the equipment, as in the advertisement to the right.

The free enterprise system encourages deceptive, abusive, and dishonest behavior.

In Kastron, businesses will compete to appease government officials. If we can provide ourselves with appropriate government officials, this will allow us to put the businesses under pressure to be honest, and to design products and services that are truly beneficial.

We know what we want, but not what is beneficial to us

The women who use nail polish, lip injections, breast implants, and other types of beauty procedures are doing so because they believe it makes them more attractive, which in turn makes them feel better about themselves. Up until about November 2021, the WebMD site had a document that claimed:
Studies suggest that people are generally pleased with the results of their cosmetic surgery and report improved self-esteem, social confidence, and quality of life.

Those remarks have been removed, (a copy is here), and I wonder if they were removed because someone pointed out to them that a lot of people regret their cosmetic surgery.

Since social science is a farce, we don't yet have any serious analyses of cosmetic surgery, but the Medical Accident Group claims that 65% of the British people regret having cosmetic surgery. The Medical Accident Group consists of lawyers who profit from people who regret their surgery, so they are probably exaggerating the number of people who have regrets, but even if only 25% regret their cosmetic surgery, I would describe that as a significant percentage. However, in a democracy, and in a free enterprise system, there is no concern for how many people regret their cosmetic surgeries, marriage, tattoos, job, college education, or children.

A free enterprise system and a democracy give us the products and services that we want without any concern for whether they are beneficial to us. Also, nobody is under any obligation to observe the effects of what they do, or fix their mistakes. This creates the idiotic situation in which some businesses are profiting from cosmetic surgeries, while others are profiting by undoing the cosmetic surgeries, and lawyers are profiting by helping people fight with the businesses and hospitals that performed the surgeries.

This situation reminds me of the story by Dr. Seuss in which a salesman is profiting from putting stars on some of the Sneetches, while at the same time profiting by removing the stars from other Sneetches. If that story had some lawyers advertising their services to file lawsuits for the Sneetches, it would be even more realistic.

We must control our feedback loops

I suspect that an analysis of the people who have had cosmetic surgeries or tattoos would show us that they convinced themselves that they would benefit from the procedures because of a particular characteristic of the human mind that we must be aware of and control. Specifically, our mind has the ability to set up a feedback loop to stimulate ourselves.

For example, if a person is lonely, and if their face is ugly, they might set up a feedback loop in which they imagine themselves becoming beautiful and admired as a result of cosmetic surgery. This self-stimulation can convince them that they truly will become beautiful and admired from the surgery.

It is important to realize that there is no limit on how much time we can spend titillating ourselves with fantasies, whereas there is a limit to how much we can stimulate ourselves sexually. It is impossible for a person to sexually masturbate for hours every day, but it is very easy for our mind to stimulate other emotions for hours every day.

We set up feedback loops for lots of reasons. For example:
• To counteract low self-esteem. If a man has been a failure during his life, he might set up a feedback loop in which he visualizes himself becoming successful and admired.
• To counteract loneliness. If a man is lonely, he might stimulate himself with fantasies in which he has lots of friends or a spouse.

We can also set up feedback loops to torment ourselves. For example, when someone proposes putting medical data into a publicly accessible database, or allowing the government to track people, some people will set up a feedback loop in which they imagine people looking at their data, and laughing at them. They can torment themselves for hours a day with these fantasies, and that in turn can cause them to become convinced that they must have privacy and secrecy.

Although we can use feedback loops for beneficial purposes, we must be aware that our mind has no concern for whether our self-stimulation is beneficial or detrimental. If we do not make intelligent decisions about our feedback loops, we can stimulate ourselves into desiring all sorts of idiotic things, or becoming frightened by nonsensical issues.

The feedback loops also determine how much pain we suffer from. When a person gets injured, he can set up a feedback loop in which he repeatedly focuses on the pain, thereby spending more of this time whining than he otherwise would. By ignoring the pain, it will be less painful.

One of the most detrimental types of feedback loops is when people repeatedly titillate themselves with fantasies of being a hero who is saving the world from such things as climate change, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, meat eaters, sexism, racism, white privilege, or abortion. It is possible for these people to become so convinced that they are heroes that they consider attacking or killing the "evil" people in order to save the world.

If a person can understand the concept of a feedback loop, and if he has enough self-control, then he can use the feedback loops for beneficial purposes. An example is a prehistoric man who is hungry and worried that he and his family will die of starvation. He can make himself feel better, and motivate himself, by setting up a feedback loop in which he imagines himself finding food and enjoying a meal with everybody at the campsite.

Our prehistoric ancestors were certainly using this characteristic to help them through the difficult times, but today people are setting up feedback loops for all sorts of idiotic purposes, such as to convince themselves that they will become beautiful, admired, and respected when they get some cosmetic surgery, or to convince themselves that they will enjoy life and be respected when they become so wealthy that they can afford a larger house or a yacht.

The people who cannot control their feedback loops are dangerous to themselves and everybody else because they can use the feature to convince themselves of something that is idiotic, wasteful, destructive, or violent. For example:
• A woman who has trouble finding a husband or getting a job can set up a feedback loop in which she imagines that she is a victim of sexism. Or she might convince herself that men don't like intelligent women.
• A short man who is having trouble finding a wife can set up a feedback loop in which he imagines that women are cruel creatures who enjoy tormenting short men.
• A Jew can set up a feedback loop in which he imagines that Jews are the superior race.

How do we help people control their feedback loops?

How do we help people avoid setting up idiotic feedback loops? The only thing we can do is to educate people about this issue. However, if a person does not have the ability to understand or control his thoughts, there is nothing we can do to stop him from behaving in an idiotic or destructive manner.

We cannot make a person become more intelligent, or give him more self-control, or stop him from setting up idiotic feedback loops.

During prehistoric times, nature took care of this issue by putting everybody into a competition for life. The people who set up inappropriate feedback loops, or made idiotic decisions, tended to be less successful at reproduction and survival.

Today we must pass judgment on who among us has mental qualities that are inappropriate. They either need to be put on restrictions, evicted, prohibited from reproducing, or restricted to just a few children.

It is likely that some of the people that we put reproduction restrictions on will react by setting up a feedback loop in which they imagine themselves as "Underdogs" who are being abused by cruel, hateful, arrogant, selfish, elitist, eugenicists. We must not let them intimidate us.

We should look critically at our desires

As I pointed out in a previous document, we assume that we are happy when we can do what we want to do, and we assume that we are suffering when someone prevents us from doing what we want to do. In reality, we are so ignorant that we cannot be certain of when we are enjoying our life, and when we are tormenting ourselves.

For example, when a child insists that he must have a particular toy, candy bar, or article of clothing, most parents realize that he does not really need those things. Parents can often figure out that their child's desires are the result of television advertisements or peer pressure. Most parents realize that the child is tormenting himself.

This concept applies to adults, but not many adults are willing to consider the possibility that they are just large children. What is the difference between:
a) A child who has been convinced by advertisements or peer pressure that he needs a particular candy bar or toy.
b) An adult who has been convinced by travel agencies that he needs to visit an "exotic" location, or convinced by a religion that he needs a display of Jesus in his front yard at Christmas, or convinced by peer pressure or businesses that he needs an expensive automobile, large house, or cosmetic surgery?

Every society promotes the attitude that children need guidance, but not adults. A free enterprise system and a democracy encourage us to believe that we know what we should eat, who should be the president, which nation deserves a bombing, how we should deal with abortion, and which cosmetic surgeries we need, and that businesses and government representatives should give us what we want.

In reality, adults are only slightly less ignorant and confused than a child. All of us are overwhelmed with modern life, and many of our desires are the result of deliberate and inadvertent manipulation by businesses, friends, Hollywood celebrities, the ADL, and religions.

Women who claim that their life has improved as a result of lip injections or other beauty procedures are behaving like a child who claims that his life has improved as a result of getting the toy or candy that he saw on a television advertisement. Likewise, a man who claims that his life has improved as a result of acquiring a status symbol is also behaving like a child who believes that his life has improved because he has acquired a toy that his friends want.

“I need that toy to improve my self-esteem, social confidence, and quality of my life! Give it to me!
It is true that a child will receive pleasure when he is given a toy that he craves, but if he had grown up in Kastron, he would have become accustomed to having free access to all of the toys at the children's recreational facilities, so none of the children would have developed a desire to own any toy.

Likewise, if a girl were to grow up in Kastron, the government would prohibit the Kardashian women from being used as role models, and none of the businesses would be allowed to advertise or promote their products. In that environment, the girls would not develop cravings for Brazilian Butt Lifts and other unnecessary cosmetic options.

We should not encourage people to satisfy their cravings. Rather, we should help one another realize that it is foolish to assume that what we want is truly what we want because many of our desires are the result of what other people want us to want.

Furthermore, even if we can figure out what we truly want, we would be foolish to believe that what we want is what we benefit from.

Rather than trust our desires, we should routinely ask ourselves such questions as:
Why do I want this? Did I pick up the desire from other people, an advertisement, or a television program? How exactly will this item improve my life? What are its benefits? What are its disadvantages?

Children should be educated about emotions

Children today need to learn about their emotions, human behavior, and human history. Unfortunately, it is impossible to teach children about human emotions and behavior until we make some dramatic changes to our culture. Specifically, we must eliminate religion and the theory that the human mind is like a piece of clay. We must be willing to teach children that they are monkeys, and that they inherited their emotions from monkeys.

A zoologist would never be able to understand a wolf or a monkey if he believed that animals were created by a God, or that their minds were like pieces of clay. In order for a zoologist to understand an animal, he must have an accurate view of what an animal is.

Likewise, a historian must have an accurate understanding of the human mind or else he will misinterpret historical events, customs, and human behavior.

When we switch to teaching children that they are monkeys, we can provide them with sensible explanations for their emotional cravings, which can help them understand and control their cravings.

For example, the girls would understand that their craving to look pretty is because the prehistoric women who were the most successful at holding onto a husband were those who had a strong desire to be pretty. That knowledge would help the girls realize that their craving is to attract men, not to entertain themselves.

The schools could point out that the same concept applies to food. Specifically, we have a strong craving for food because the prehistoric people with a strong craving were more successful with life than those who did not have strong cravings, undoubtedly because their stronger cravings for food caused them to put more time and effort into finding food.

That knowledge can have a significant effect on our attitude about food. For example, if a person believes that his craving for food was given to him by a loving God, then he is likely to regard his craving as a pleasure, and that will cause him to want to eat whatever is pleasurable.

However, if a person realizes that his craving for food developed to push animals into searching for food, and that he has certain preferences for flavors, odors, and textures in order to help him avoid the indigestible and poisonous foods, then he will realize that his craving for food is intended to keep him in good health rather than to bring him pleasure.

The difference between regarding food as a source of pleasure and as a way of maintaining our health has a very important effect on our attitude. When we realize that our craving for food is intended to keep us healthy, then we are more likely to think about what we eat, and eat foods that are beneficial to our body, rather than eat whatever titillates our emotions. We will be willing to "suffer" with food that is not as tasty as we would like it to be, and in smaller quantities than we want it to be.

If, instead, we regard food as a source of pleasure that has been provided to us by God, then we are likely to eat whatever tastes good, whenever we please, and in whatever quantity.

The same concept applies to a man's craving for sex. That craving is intended to cause men to chase after women, reproduce, and remain with the woman while she raises the children. It was not intended to make a man's life more pleasurable.

If a man assumes that his craving for sex is a pleasure provided to him by our loving God, then he is likely to want to enjoy his God-given pleasure whenever he is in the mood. He is also likely to believe that he is suffering whenever a woman prevents him from enjoying his God-given pleasure. He might even become so upset that he rapes a woman, or deceives her into having sex.

However, if he realizes that sex is just a trick to make him reproduce, and that "nature" doesn't care whether he or the woman enjoys it, then he will be more willing to ignore the feeling or masturbate when it is inappropriate to have sex with a woman.

Likewise, when a woman believes that she likes to look pretty in order to please herself, then she is likely to do whatever feels good, regardless of how idiotic, time consuming, wasteful, dangerous, or stupid it may be. However, if she realizes that her craving to groom herself is to make herself attractive to men, then she is more likely to control her craving and do whatever is attractive to the particular men that she wants to appeal to.

Children should be educated about these concepts so that they don't mistakenly assume that they must satisfy their cravings. They should be taught that their cravings are analogous to the lights that turn on and off in an automobile, and that we must often "suffer" by ignoring those cravings.

Rather than explain all of these concepts to the children in words, I think it would be best to give children practice in controlling their emotions. I suggest that the schools experiment with putting children into situations in which they must suppress or ignore a craving. I think they need to experience those situations in order to realize that they:
• Have the ability to control their emotional cravings.
• Can easily tolerate the "emotional pain" and "suffering" of being denied what they want.
• Benefit tremendously by using their intelligence to decide what to do.

To complicate this issue, different people have different mental qualities, so children will differ in their ability to control their emotions and tolerate the emotional pain of being denied what they want. If we could measure everybody's ability to control themselves, we would create the typical bell graph. Rather than feel sorry for the people who have the most trouble controlling themselves, we should regard them as mentally inferior. They should be prohibited from influential positions and reproduction.

Which cosmetic options should Kastron provide?

A century ago the pharmaceutical companies were selling worthless and dangerous pharmaceuticals. We have improved that situation somewhat, but no society yet is passing judgment on which of the cosmetic options are beneficial.

Most of the cosmetic surgeries, tattoos, hair coloring dyes, fingernail policies, lipsticks, and other grooming products are worthless because they are not improving life for anybody. Rather, they are wasting resources and technical talent, and encouraging idiotic attitudes about beauty and finding a spouse.

A laser can remove some tattoos, but it requires six or more sessions of burning the skin.
In Kastron, there is no peasant class, so all of us must share the work that needs to be done. Do you want to spend any of your life giving people unnecessary cosmetic surgeries or tattoos? How about spending some of your life giving those people additional surgeries to undo what you did earlier after they regret their decision?

If you are a scientist or engineer, do you want to put your life and talent into improving the technology for lip injections, hair dyes, or lasers for tattoo removal?

If our societies had useful leadership, our leaders would analyze the benefits and disadvantages to all of the modern grooming procedures, and provide us with guidance. For example:

• Hair dyes
How do we benefit by producing hair dyes? Are those dyes improving our lives or relationships? What are the disadvantages? Do the chemicals hurt the health of women, their fetus, or the environment?

• Shaving armpits and legs
How do we benefit from women who shave their armpits and legs, or who use chemicals to dissolve the hairs, or who use wax to pull the hairs out? Do the benefits outweigh the disadvantages of producing those products and dealing with their disposal?

We should analyze the advantages and disadvantages to each grooming procedure rather than give everybody the freedom to do whatever they please. My suggestion for Kastron is to severely limit the grooming options. Some suggestions are:

• We prohibit all types of permanent hair dyes.
A lot of people assume that hair dyes are making their lives better by making them look younger, but there is no evidence that the people who dye their hair are having a better life than the people who do not. However, producing the dyes requires people work at unpleasant jobs, and we still don't know much about the effect the dyes have on human health or the planet.

If the hair of a woman turns gray earlier than normal, then she will appear younger if she dyes her hair, but only from a distance. Once we get close to her, we will see that the roots of her hairs are a different color. Likewise, the people with dark hair who try to give themselves blond hair will look as if they have blond hair only from a distance. As soon as we get close we will see the dark hairs of their eyebrows, face, and body, and we will see the dark hair roots.

Many of the people who dye their hair are single people who are lonely, and they are hoping that deceiving people about their hair color will allow them to find a wonderful spouse, but it would be more sensible for us to experiment with courtship activities, and encourage people to be honest about themselves.

My personal opinion is that women look better when their hair is its natural color, even if it is gray. Also, I am more impressed by a woman who can accept and be honest about her limitations and defects, compared to a woman who is ashamed of herself and trying to deceive us.

• We prohibit women from shaving their armpits and legs.
A woman who shaves the hair under her arms and on her legs will be more attractive to a man, but only when the woman is at such a distance from us that we cannot see the stubble of the hairs. I do not think that the stubble looks nice.

As with hair dyes, there is no evidence that a woman's life or relationship improves by removing body hair. Rather, shaving has a lot of disadvantages. For example, the hair is nature's way of preventing skin from rubbing against itself, so it serves a useful purpose.

Furthermore, since the women who shave their body hair look more attractive at a distance, this results in men becoming excessively stimulated by women in public areas. I think we should reduce the sexual titillation of men, not increase it.

Many women complain that men are treating them as sex objects, but when the women shave themselves, they are encouraging that attitude. The women should practice what they preach by letting their body hair grow. This will help men realize that women are humans, rather than sex toys.

• We prohibit sexual outfits for young girls
A "normal" man does not have a sexual attraction to a young girl, but when a young girl is dressed in certain types of sexually attractive clothing, and when she is at a distance from us, or in a photograph, she will look like a small adult, not a young girl. That can titillate a man's sexual emotions, which we should not do. I suggest prohibiting sexually attractive clothing for young girls.

Why do adults want to look young?

Why do we have such a strong desire to eliminate wrinkles, gray hair, and other signs of aging? It is because of our emotions, and the manipulation by businesses. As I pointed out in a previous document we were not designed to live beyond about age 45, so we never evolved the emotional characteristics to enjoy old age. We do not enjoy the visual image of wrinkles, gray hair, saggy skin, decayed teeth, or skin blemishes.

We become emotionally upset when we notice ourselves aging, and businesses exploit this characteristic by offering us products to look younger, and by fooling us into believing that our life will improve as a result of our younger appearance.

It would be more beneficial if our culture pushed us into being grateful that we are living longer today, and pushed us into being honest about our age.

If we could accept the fact that we are living longer, and that we deteriorate from age, then we could alter our culture to deal with it, such as adjusting jobs and work environments for older people, and providing them with their own recreational activities, restaurants, music concerts, and other activities.

Unhappy people seem more terrified of old age

Another reason I think a lot of people are upset when they see themselves aging is because they have not enjoyed their life, and they feel as if they are being cheated when they notice themselves aging. However, cosmetic surgery and hair dyes cannot fix a wasted life and allow them to become young again.

People who regret their life should try to learn from their mistakes rather than repeat the mistake of assuming they need more money, fame, trips to exotic places, or sex.
The people who regret their life should take responsibility for it rather than fool themselves into believing that their misery is due to a lack of wealth, fame, sex, or freedom, or that they are suffering as a result of discrimination, sexism, anti-Semitism, poverty, or bullying.

The people who regret their life are victims of their own stupid decisions. They ruined their life because of the decisions they made about their goals, education, how to treat other people, who to trust, who to ignore, and who to look to for guidance.

The people who regret their life would have benefited from better leadership and less freedom. They should control their arrogance enough to admit that they were failures in life, look critically at their past, try to learn from their mistakes, and try to enjoy what is remaining of their life, rather than continue to ruin their life with stupid decisions.

We must push ourselves into enjoying old age

It is foolish for old people to try to appear young, or to lie about their age. We don't benefit by denying reality, or deceiving one another. We should instead acknowledge that we are living very long lives today, and we should design our culture to deal with it.

Our economic system should be designed to allow the older people to change their jobs and work environment, rather than expect people to retire and do nothing, or expect all age groups to handle the same work load and environment. For example, we could provide older people with part-time jobs that are only a couple hours once or twice a week.

We should also push ourselves into regarding wrinkles, gray hair, oversized noses, and sagging bellies as proof that we successfully survived the dangers and diseases of life. We should regard the older people as the winners in the contest to survive life's problems.

The concept of enjoying old age is similar to what I mentioned years ago about funerals. We suffer emotional trauma when a friend dies, but we cannot improve the situation by encouraging one another to pout, or by allowing businesses to exploit our sadness with expensive gravestones, caskets, and funerals.

Our prehistoric ancestors had more intimate relationships than people have today, so when one of them died, they suffered more emotional trauma than we do. However, nature put pressure on them to keep their emotions under control. They could not waste hours a day crying and pouting, and they did not have the technology to inject dead bodies with formaldehyde, or arrange for elaborate funerals, coffins, or gravestones.

I suggest that the Kastron government do what nature used to do, which is to put pressure on people to control their pouting when somebody dies. I think funerals should be brief, and they should promote pleasant and sensible behavior rather than pouting and stupid remarks, such as: "I wish I had spent more time with him!"

The Kastron government will have a department to experiment with social and recreational activities to encourage people to get out of their home and do things with other people so that we enjoy one another while we are alive.

I suggest experimenting with our funeral customs. For example, we could prohibit funerals, or we could make them simple and pleasant. Also, instead of putting dead bodies on display for people to stimulate themselves with, they should be available for education and medical purposes, and those that are not needed should be used as fertilizer so that they can be recycled.

Most modern grooming procedures are worthless or detrimental

During the past century, people have been putting a lot more time and resources into grooming options. For example, my grandmother told me that when she was a teenager, most girls did not have pierced ears, but today almost every woman has several holes in each ear, and many women today are also piercing their nose and lips.

If cosmetics and other grooming options were truly beneficial to us, then we would notice that human life has been improving during the past century. However, I do not see any evidence that people today are having more satisfying lives, or that relationships between men and women have been improving. Rather, it seems that the opposite is happening.

People are using a lot of cosmetics because they believe that they are suffering from ugliness, and they assume that the beautiful people are having a better life. Although it is true that most people are not very good looking, and that the attractive people have a better chance of getting a job, have a wider choice of friends and spouses, and are treated better by everybody, the issue is complicated because our personality has a significant effect on our life. There are lots of attractive people who are ignored or treated badly because we don't like their personalities.

The people who are lonely, having trouble finding a job, or suffering from low self-esteem are being deceived and exploited by businesses that are trying to sell worthless cosmetic products. The unhappy people are being fooled into believing that their life will become wonderful if they purchase certain jewelry, cosmetics, or lip injections.

In order to truly improve our lives, we need to analyze our problems and discover their true sources. How many of us are truly suffering as a result of ugliness? There certainly are some people who suffer because they are ugly, but are they going to improve their appearance simply by changing their hair color or piercing their nose?

We will improve our lives by experimenting with our attitudes and culture, not by deceiving people about the color of our hair, or injecting Botox into our face.

We need leaders to dampen our stupid behavior

Our grooming freedom is resulting in millions of women convincing themselves that their breasts are too small, their hair is the wrong color, or that they need more earrings. It is also causing millions of men to convince themselves that they need hair transplants, bigger muscles, or a "six-pack".

All of these people are tormenting themselves, and they are causing businesses, doctors, nurses, scientists, and other people to waste their talent and the earth's resources on products and services that have no benefit.

I doubt if many prehistoric women worried that their breasts were too small, or that their hair was the wrong color. Why are so many women concerned about these issues today?

It is for the same reason that so many people are developing idiotic obsessions for money, fame, trophies, awards, sex, mansions, yachts, and food. Specifically, most people cannot handle the complex options that modern technology is offering us. They are overwhelmed, and they frequently make stupid decisions about what to do, who to trust, and what their goals should be. In our modern era, we need intelligent, responsible leaders to put restrictions on our freedom and provide us with guidance.

Cosmetic surgery should be beneficial, not frivolous

If cosmetic surgery was as simple and safe as getting a haircut, then it would be sensible to let everybody have surgery to fix their unpleasant features, but our medical technology is so crude that I think we should restrict cosmetic surgery to "practical" purposes, rather than to let somebody improve a feature that they don't like. Likewise, if we could easily replace worn, defective, crooked, and ugly teeth, then it would make sense to do so, but our dental technology is also so crude that we should use it for fixing problems, not to make people look artificially perfect.

There is no dividing line between medical procedures that are "practical" and "frivolous", but we have to make a decision. In the free enterprise system, the decisions are made according to money. Specifically, if a person has enough money to afford a particular medical procedure, he is likely to get it, no matter how risky or wasteful it is.

For example, a few of the children who inherited a lot of money from their parents have been using the money to fund expensive cosmetic surgeries to make them resemble Barbie or Ken dolls, such as Rodrigo Alves, who became a Ken doll, but is now becoming a Barbie doll. (Here is a video of her being interviewed by another Ken doll.)

In Kastron, everything will be free, and everybody will be treated equally, so we have to make intelligent decisions about which medical procedures to provide. Providing medical procedures requires people to do some work, but without a peasant class, that means we have to share the chores of producing the equipment and supplies, and we have to share the nursing chores for the people recovering from the surgeries.

I am willing to support cosmetic surgery for a person who gets injured during his job, but I don't want to share in the chores of unnecessary surgeries, such as giving a man a pec implant or giving lip injections to a woman.

It might help you to make decisions about which products and services we should provide if you imagine traveling to another solar system to create a new world.

Imagine that you are the leader of the group. How many people would you tell to become cosmetic surgeons, chemists who develop cosmetics, and assembly line workers who produce cosmetics?

Surgeries and cosmetics put a burden on us. I advocate reducing the burden by allowing the government to pass judgment on which of the cosmetic options are beneficial, and which should be considered unnecessary.

A tremendous percentage of the population is unhappy with their physical appearance, but surgery and cosmetics are not a sensible solution to this problem. A better solution is to restrict reproduction to people who are better looking, better smelling, and in better mental and physical health. The people who don't like their appearance are being cruel when they have children.

Should men be allowed to shave their face?

Since I suggest that we prohibit women from shaving their body hair, some people might claim that I am being hypocritical for allowing men to shave their face. However, there is a difference between men shaving their face. Specifically, the hair on our face is as thick as fur, and it doesn't stop growing, so we have to either trim it or shave it. Also, a beard doesn't serve a useful purpose any longer, unlike the hair under our arm and between our legs.

However, we could restrict men on what type of shaving they do. For example, I suspect that electric razors would reduce labor and resources compared to standard razors and shaving cream. I am basing this assumption on my casual observations of how I can use an electric razor without ever replacing the blades, even though the manufacturers suggest that we replace the blades every 6 months or so.

I have noticed that the blades eventually become so packed with oil and skin that they don't work well, but instead of replacing the blades, I dip the razor into a hot solution of water and citrus oil cleaner, run them for a few seconds, and they become as good as new.

There are a lot of men who complain that electric razors don't work well with their beards, but so what? We can tell those men to suffer with an imperfect shave. It is more important for us to reduce unnecessary chores than it is for a man to have a perfect shave.

In a free enterprise system, the businesses compete with each other to convince men that they need a perfect shave, but in reality it does not matter whether a man has a perfect shave.

Our lives do not improve from razors
that shave below the level of the skin.

Some businesses have developed razors with multiple blades that boast about cutting the hairs below the surface of the skin, but that increases the chance that some of the hairs grow underneath the skin (image to the right), which is irritating and ugly. Those businesses are wasting their engineering talent on a product we do not need or benefit from.

Actually, those businesses are making life worse for us by encouraging perfection. They are encouraging men to waste their time comparing one another's faces and competing to have the most perfect shave.

When our culture expects us to have perfect skin, perfect teeth, a perfect shave, and a perfect haircut, we put ourselves into a competition that is worthless, frustrating, futile, and idiotic. We would have a more sensible and relaxing social environment when we accept our imperfections.

The men who believe that they need a perfect shave have been deceived by businesses. Even if a man does have a perfect shave, his face will have lots of other flaws, such as blemishes, non-symmetrical features, imperfect teeth, and hairs poking out of his nose and ears. Furthermore, when people open their mouth to speak, we sometimes see a droplet of saliva stretching between their lips or tongue. I think that is more unpleasant than an imperfect shave.

If businesses began an intensive advertising campaign to sell surgeries to improve the shape of our ears, or to sell "earstick" in different colors (which would be analogous to "lipstick"), they could certainly convince a lot of people to start noticing how weird our ears look, and that we need ear surgery and earstick to make our ears look better. What is the difference between a man who believes he needs surgery to give himself perfect ears, and a man who believes he needs a perfect shave?

The manipulation by businesses has caused us to become obsessed with trying to have a perfect appearance. This obsession is causing us to waste our time on attempts to be flawless, and waste our technical talent, labor, and resources on the research and production of cosmetic products that are doing nothing to improve our lives. I recommend that the leaders in Kastron dampen this craving to be perfect, and to push people into accepting our crude, imperfect, animal characteristics.

We need to make sacrifices in order to get rid of the peasant class, and I think that accepting our imperfections is one of the easiest sacrifices that we can make.

Don't be intimidated by OCD people

Although the free enterprise system is a bad influence on us, I wonder if one of the sources of pressure on us to be perfect is coming from people who are OCD. If we had complete surveillance of the human population, we would be able to determine who among us is criticizing the men who have imperfect shaves, or who make insulting remarks about imperfect haircuts, wrinkles in clothing, and other meaningless imperfections.

We might discover that the people who are putting pressure on us to be perfect are mainly the OCD people, in which case we would have another example of how our culture is influenced by the people with mental disorders.

Children should be exposed to real people

The news reporters in the movie Idiocracy are only a slight exaggeration of those in the USA.
The media companies are in competition to attract our attention, so they tend to pick the unusually attractive men and women for advertisements, television programs, photos, and video.

Also, they put the people through a lot of preparation to give them a perfect shave, a perfect haircut, and a lot of makeup to cover their skin blemishes and flaws.

They also prefer to use people who have unnaturally white teeth, and teeth that are abnormally perfect.

To make the situation worse, when Hollywood makes movies, they have a tendency to make the male actors shave for every scene, and make both the male and female actors comb their hair and clean their clothing, resulting in unrealistic situations, such as a man who wakes up in the morning with a perfectly shaved face, and a man who has just finished running through a muddy grass field in the rain, but has perfectly combed and dry hair, and clean, dry clothing.

The media companies are exposing children to abnormally perfect people. This is causing the children to feel inadequate, and to want cosmetic surgery. It would be more sensible to expose children to reality.

However, in order to expose children to real people, we have to allow the government to put restrictions on our freedom. We cannot be free to produce any type of video or photograph we please. The government will have to set standards for documentaries, television news, educational videos, and other types of publications and photographs, such as demanding that people be more realistic.

We can allow artificially beautiful people for artwork, but I recommend that the government prohibit the artificially perfect people for documentaries, educational videos, news reports, and other serious work.

This extreme emphasis on beauty and perfect grooming causes children to become accustomed to seeing the artificially perfect people. That can result in children noticing how ugly they are, and they are reminded of their imperfections every time they look at advertisements, television, magazines, or movies. This can lower their self-esteem, and cause them to struggle to become better looking.

I suspect that if we reduce the emphasis on beauty and perfection, such as by restricting the jobs on television to people who are more ordinary, we would be less aware of our own imperfections, and the imperfections of other people, and that would give us more sensible attitudes and behavior.

I also recommend that we prohibit all types of beauty contests. I don't see how society benefits from those contests. I suspect that those type of contests are encouraging obsessions with visual appearances.

In Kastron, the government will have the authority to prohibit activities and experiment with activities. Although this will allow them to put restrictions on our freedom, the government officials are required to observe the effect that their restrictions have on our attitudes and behavior. This will help us to understand human behavior, and figure out which activities are bringing improvements to our lives, and which are detrimental.

We should study the unusual people, not insult them

Humans inherited the desire to torment the members of our group that we regard as inferior. We don't pluck out their feathers, but both children and adults torment the inferior people in other ways. This is an extremely cruel and inefficient method of suppressing the genetically inferior members of a group, but animals don't have any other option.

We will create a more relaxing social environment if we suppress our craving to torment misfits, and instead study humans. Unfortunately, we cannot study humans while providing people with the freedom to be secretive about their life. We must eliminate secrecy and keep a database on everybody's life. We must be able to gather the same type of detailed information about humans as we gather about animals. That database will allow us to analyze people and understand such issues as:
• Which of our undesirable characteristics are inherited; which are due to random genetic mistakes that cannot be prevented or predicted; and which are caused by environmental issues, such as brain injuries?
• Why do some people like the effect of nicotine? Are those people also likely to be attracted to other stimulants, such as caffeine or amphetamines?
• Why do some people enjoy becoming intoxicated? What is different about their mind, body, or diet?
• I talk to an imaginary person when I think about something. Does everybody do this? Is this typical among the people who produce intelligent thoughts, or is it typical of the people who have problems with their thyroid hormones, blood sugar, sleeping, or intellectual abilities?

I suspect that the people who resist a database that has details of their life are the people who are ashamed of their characteristics. Ironically, the people who are ashamed of themselves would benefit more than the rest of us by removing secrecy because if we can understand why those people have disgusting qualities, we might be able to help them figure out how to compensate for their problems, thereby improving their lives. An example are the people who have diabetes. If they had been so ashamed of themselves that they refused to let scientists study their problem, we would still have no idea what diabetes is, what causes it, or how to compensate for it.

We must not allow the miserable, mentally ill, and defective people intimidate us into allowing secrecy and deception. We must not let them intimidate us with their whiny accusations that we are "prying into their personal lives". The benefits of understanding humans are tremendous, but there is no benefit to pandering to miserable people.

Animals are more selfish than they appear

We are misinterpreting animal behavior

We inherited our mental characteristics from animals, so it is important for us to understand animal behavior, but that requires that we keep our animal emotions out of the analysis. Otherwise we might do what many people do, which is to criticize humans for being violent, polluting the earth, and committing crimes, while praising the animals for having superior behavior.

The awful behavior that we see with humans is not because humans are inferior to animals. Rather, I would blame the bad behavior of humans on two issues:
1) By developing technology, we have put ourselves into an environment that we are not adapted to. For example, our emotions cannot deal with the enormous amounts of food that we are producing today, resulting in people who are overweight, and we cannot deal with enormous amounts of material wealth, resulting in crime, hoarding, pouting, envy, and hatred.

2) We are allowing genetic disorders to accumulate. Every year the human race becomes more defective, resulting in increasingly miserable people and bizarre behavior.

Wild animals appear to be better behaved only because they are properly adapted to their environment, and they are not degrading genetically. Animals are actually much more violent, selfish, destructive, and abusive than humans, and understanding that concept can help us to understand ourselves because a human is essentially an "improved monkey".

Animals are ruthless dictators

The social animals are submissive to one another, which creates the illusion that they are friendly and lovable creatures, but they are submissive only when they lose the battle for dominance. Each of the animals actually has an intense craving to be "the boss", which is why they are constantly fighting with each other for dominance.

The males are also constantly fighting with each other for females. They have no desire to be nice and allow each male to have his own female. Also, neither the males nor the females do anything to help one another find a mate. The animals do not even help their children find a mate.

Animals are extremely independent, selfish, and arrogant. This is why it is difficult for us to control animals. Animals do not want to obey any animal, including humans. Every animal regards itself as the owner of the world, and regards other animals, including humans, as inferior and potentially dangerous. Our pet dogs and cats will grab meat from our dinner table because they believe everything belongs to them.

A pet dog will often refrain from grabbing meat from the table, which creates the illusion that the animal understands that the food belongs to us, but an animal refrains from grabbing at food only when it is concerned about being emotionally or physically hurt as a result.

Likewise, when a dog tries to have sex with our leg, he is raping us, and the reason is because he has the attitude that he will do whatever he pleases, and that every creature is subservient to him.

A pet dog does not regard himself as a possession of a human. He regards a human as a source of food and entertainment. He does not regard the home that he lives in as belonging to the human. Rather, he considers it to be his home.

An intelligent animal would be horrible

If we could increase the intelligence of a dog or monkey to the point at which he fits into a human world, but if we left his emotions exactly as they are, he would be more selfish than any human has ever been. He would continue to believe that he owns everything he sees. He would want to grab at whatever food attracted his attention, and he would refrain only if he thought he might get hurt. Likewise, he would refrain from raping us only if he was worried about getting hurt. He would make the most selfish human dictator appear to be a generous and kind person.

An intelligent animal would be much more willing to get involved with crime networks, human trafficking, bribery, deception, and abuse. He would make the worst human criminals look like nice people.

There is a video of a chimpanzee that is using a frog as a sex toy. Although some humans have sex with animals, also, if an animal had more intelligence, but the same emotions, he would be more willing than any human to use people and animals as slaves for labor and sex.

The accusations of human trafficking, torture, rape, pedophilia, and other crimes that have been made by such people as Jenny Guskin and David Shurter are appalling, but an intelligent animal would make the people involved with those activities seem to be well behaved.

If an intelligent animal became a Hollywood director, he would be more abusive and diabolical than Harvey Weinstein, and if he was an executive at Google, he would be more intolerant than the executives who fired James Damore.

Another way to look at the difference between animals and humans is to regard the humans who get involved with theft, rape, human trafficking, torture, and other crimes as behaving more like an animal than like a modern human. They are not evil, stupid, uneducated, or suffering from poverty. Rather, there is something about their mind that causes them to behave more similar to an animal.

We control animals with deception and fear

Animals are so extremely independent, arrogant, and selfish that our primary method of controlling them is through deception, such as raising them from the time they are babies to fool them into believing that humans are a natural part of their life, and by exploiting their emotions by offering them food and a safe place to sleep.

We also control them with fear, such as by making them afraid that they will be hit if they do something that we don't want them to do.

In the case of horses, we torment the horse for 40 to 60 days, and then almost every horse gives up and allows us to put a saddle on its back. That could be described as torturing an animal to the point at which it becomes a submissive slave. We could describe that as being analogous to the torturing of children in order to create slaves, which Cathy O'Brien claims to have been a victim of.

We could also describe our treatment of horses as being similar to the "rehabilitation program" of the government in George Orwell's story 1984, and the rehabilitation programs of the communist governments, and the "reeducation" programs that the liberals and vegans want to impose on conservatives, meat-eaters, and "climate change deniers".

Incidentally, why don't any of the animal rights activists and vegans complain about the torturing of horses for horseback riding? Is it because nobody has brought this issue to their attention? Or is it because they want to entertain themselves with horseback riding, and have no problems with hypocritical policies?

Also, horses frequently chew on the metal fixture that we put into their mouth. Some people believe that they do this because they are "relaxed and comfortable", but we ought to consider that they do it because it irritates them.

By deceiving, torturing, and intimidating animals, we can make them become our pets, entertain us at circuses, do work for us on farms, and give us horseback rides.

The animals that are manipulated by humans believe that they are doing what they want to do, but in reality those animals are being outsmarted by humans. We trick the animals into becoming a type of slave that believes it is free and independent.

If animals could speak to us, they would tell us that nobody tells them what to do. If we ask a horse why he gives us horseback rides, or if we ask a dog why he lets us put a leash on him when we take him for a walk, they would say that it is because they want to do those things.

We can also manipulate humans with deception and fear

Humans are more intelligent than animals, but being more intelligent than an animal is nothing to boast about. Humans are almost as easy to control with deception and fear as an animal. For example, millions of people were manipulated by the September 11 attack, even though most people have the intelligence to figure out that it was a false flag operation, and that the World Trade Center buildings were demolished with explosives.

Most people are also easily manipulated with fear, such as the fear that they will get sick from a virus. And when I was a child, there was so much fear that the Russians would attack us with nuclear bombs that the schools would occasionally have exercises in which they sounded an alarm, and all of us children had to hide under our desk and prepare for a nuclear blast.

Animals are not our friends

Many people are forming very close relationships with animals, but animals do not truly accept us as a friend. They treat us slightly differently than they treat their own species. For example, they would not care if we marked our territory with our scent. They would ignore our boundaries, rather than compete with us for territory or status, because they do not regard us as their equal, or as a member of their social hierarchy.

Animals can develop an emotional attachment to a human, but it's not the same as the attachment that they develop for their own species. Likewise, humans can develop emotional attachments to animals, but it's not the same as what we develop for other humans. We can also develop an emotional attachment to a potted plant that we are growing, and we can feel sad when it dies, but it's not the same relationship that we have with a human. Finally, we can develop emotional attachments to inanimate objects, and we can feel sad when they are broken, stolen, or lost. We refer to them as items of "sentimental value", but our relationship with them is not the same as with a human.

Some pet dogs have risked their lives to save their owner, which creates the impression that they care about us, but animals don't understand the concept of "risking their life". Animals are not "brave". They are simply following their emotional cravings to defend themselves, their group, their children, and their territory.

There have been humans who have risked their life to save an item of sentimental value from their burning house, but they did not regard it as "risking their life". They regarded it as saving something of sentimental value. They assumed it would be safe for them to save the item.

Some dogs will bark at or attack a vacuum cleaner, but not because they love their human owner and are trying to protect him from danger. Rather, they attack a vacuum cleaner because they are following emotional cravings that are so simplistic that they cannot differentiate between a real danger and a vacuum cleaner.

The crude qualities of an animal can also be seen when we irritate a pet animal that "loves us". Specifically, they will attack and/or kill us. This happens most frequently with pit bulls, but it has also happened with pet monkeys, and these horses kicked people who irritated them.

Update April 2022:
YouTube removed the video of horses kicking people because it violates "YouTube's policy on violent or graphic content". They allow us to watch Hollywood violence, but not watch horses kick people. Is that your idea of sensible leadership?  Is that type of censorship for our protection?

Incidentally, most people consider horses to be a kind, peaceful animal that loves humans, and that horses are appropriate for children to ride and play with, but according to this study of traumatic brain injuries, the Americans over the age of 30 are getting more brain injuries from their activities with horses than any other activity. For people between 18 and 30, most of the traumatic brain injuries are from using skateboards and rollerskates, both of which are also considered acceptable for children.

We use animals for our pleasure, not their benefit

The emotions of an animal are so stupid that they can be triggered inadvertently. Since humans inherited those stupid emotions, we have the same problem. An obvious example is that the animals that have a visual similarity to a human baby can trigger our craving to take care of it. This causes us to want to feed, kiss, talk to, and pamper puppies, kittens, and certain other baby animals, including giving the animals expensive medical treatments and funerals, whereas we ignore or despise the animals that are visually different from humans, such as opossums, anteaters, beetles, rats, and ostriches.

Furthermore, there is something about the visual image, posture, and behavior of horses that titillates the sexual emotions of women, thereby causing many women to develop an irrational attraction to horses.

The people who form relationships with animals are doing so because the animals are triggering their emotions. They are not considering what is best for the animal. They are developing a relationship with the animals simply to titillate themselves.

We use animals for our pleasure, not for their benefit. This is why millions of people abandon millions of pets every year. When we become bored with an animal, we dispose of it. A pet animal is nothing but a tool that we use for our pleasure, and when we no longer want to use it, we toss it in the trash.

The people who abandon their pets boast that they do it because they love the animal and want to set it free, but their decision to abandon an animal is not due to an intellectual analysis of the issue. Rather, they are stimulating themselves with fantasies that they are heroes for setting the animals free. It is just another form of mental masturbation. They use the abandonment of the animal to make themselves feel good.

Boasting about abandoning an animal is analogous to a father who abandons his wife and children and then boasts that he is a hero for setting his family free to do as they please.

This concept also applies to the people who capture mice alive and then release them somewhere else. They boast that they are too kind to kill an animal, but in reality they are using the mice as a way to titillate themselves with praise. They stimulate themselves with fantasies that they are heroes, but they are actually torturing animals. The reason is because no matter where we release animals, we will increase the number of animals in that area that are competing for food and shelter, and this in turn will increase the fighting, suffering, hunger, and deaths, until the population returns to what is stable for that area.

Our leaders should help us, not cheat us

All of us have a craving to be at the top of the hierarchy, but we differ in how strong that craving is. Most of us do not put much effort into getting into the top positions of governments, businesses, schools, or other organizations. We are content to be at a lower level of the hierarchy.

How and why are some people getting into the top positions? Are they so talented that they get into those positions without much effort? Some of them probably are talented, but I suspect that most of them have such abnormally intense cravings for status that they are willing to put a lot more of their time and effort into achieving the top positions. I also suspect that a lot of them are willing to cheat in order to achieve their goals.

The reason I say this is because if we compare the behavior of people in influential positions to that of "ordinary" people, we notice some significant differences. For example, most of us are much more friendly with our competitors. There are a lot of musicians, athletes, carpenters, and other people who occasionally train with their competitors in order to learn from them. Some people also post videos on the Internet to help their competitors become a better carpenter, machinist, artist, or athlete.

However, none of the people who are getting into the top positions of society are behaving in that manner. For example, none of them get together with their competitors to help one another, and they never post documents or videos on the Internet to teach their competitors what they have learned.

The people in the top positions of society do not want to help their competitors. Rather, they are frequently trying to suppress, censor, murder, arrest, blackmail, insult, and intimidate their competitors. Their behavior is more similar to an animal that is fighting for the top position, rather than like an athlete who is competing in a fair and friendly manner.

When musicians or athletes train with their competitors, they are doing the equivalent of political candidates or business executives getting together to help one another become better competitors. We never see such behavior with government officials, business executives, ADL officials, or journalists. They get together only to conspire in crimes.

It is also important to note that talented athletes never arrange for competitions in which they compete against people they know they can beat. They want talented competitors who can put them under pressure. By comparison, the people who become government officials try to eliminate their competitors and arrange for opponents that they know they can beat. Government officials do not complain that they want tough competitors to put them under pressure. They don't even want competitions to be fair.

It is also important to note that athletes, musicians, carpenters, engineers, and doctors would never support a monarchy for their particular field. For example, athletes would never support the concept that the winner of an athletic competition remains the winner until he dies, and then his son becomes the winner. Doctors would never support the concept that a person who becomes a doctor can pass his medical license to his son, who can then pass it to his son. A musician would never support a concept that the son of a musician can inherit his father's position as a musician.

By comparison, the people who are rising to the top of our governments, businesses, and other organizations are routinely pushing us into allowing monarchies, inheritances, trust funds, nepotism, and other types of cheating.

If there are any business executives, journalists, or government officials who truly want to earn their position, and who want to inspire their competitors rather than censor, blackmail, or murder them, they are a small minority. Most, or all, of our leaders are behaving like overly aggressive, extremely selfish, arrogant animals that are trying to dominate us through violence, deception, and cheating.

Although there are badly behaved people in every type of job, the people who are competing to be athletes, carpenters, engineers, pilots, and dentists are competing in a much more fair manner compared to the people who are competing for leadership positions in our governments and other organizations. Why is this? I suspect that the two primary reasons are:

• We have emotional cravings to be at the top of the hierarchy, but we do not have cravings for any of the modern jobs, such as technicians, dentists, or farmers. As a result, the people who choose to become technicians, dentists, or farmers are doing so because they want to do that type of work, not because they have a powerful emotional craving for the job. By comparison, we have powerful cravings to be a leader, and the people with abnormally intense cravings will have an abnormally intense desire to become a government official, Hollywood celebrity, business executive, or church official. Those people will put much more effort into becoming a leader than the rest of us.

• We set high standards for certain jobs, such as athletes, doctors, and waitresses. We pass judgment on their behavior, and demand that they perform their job properly. Athletes who cheat are evicted from the competition; doctors who are incompetent lose their license; and waitresses who are irresponsible are fired. By comparison, we don't have any standards for people in leadership positions, and we don't even care if we know whether they are male or female, or whether they are suffering from senility or dementia.

In order for us to get better leadership, we need to make dramatic changes to our attitudes. We must stop behaving like animals that passively allow people to fight for leadership positions, and then mindlessly follow whoever wins the fight. We need to set high standards for our leaders, just as we do for doctors, engineers, carpenters, and pilots. We need to hold our leaders accountable for what they do, and replace those that are incompetent, and arrest those that cheat.

Can our leaders require us to wear a mask?

As I write this document, many governments are requiring us to wear masks in certain public locations, and this has resulted in some people complaining that they have the right, or the freedom, to choose whether they wear a mask. Although some people have an intelligent reason for opposing the mask, such as a medical problem that makes it difficult for them to breathe, most of them are simply upset that the government is telling them what to do.

This man is an example of people who have a tantrum when they are told what to do. They want to be the boss, and do as they please.
The man in the photo to the right was told to wear a mask while inside the Costco retail store, and he reacted by having a tantrum (video here). He is only one American who insists that he has the constitutional right, and/or the freedom, to choose whether he wears a mask.

As with so many of the issues we face in the modern world, the wearing of masks is much more complex than it appears. To understand this, consider that a mask could be described as a "clothing item" or as "safety equipment".

Does a business, military, sports team, or government have the right to tell us to wear safety goggles, helmets, hairnets, or gloves in certain situations? Does the Iranian government have the right to prohibit tattoos and some hairstyles?

Does the government have the right to force us to wear clothing at swimming areas, parks, and forests? Or do we have the freedom to be naked when we want to be? Does a government have the right to force us to use bathrooms and bedrooms for waste elimination and sex, or do we have the same rights and freedom of animals to poop, pee, masturbate, and have sex wherever we please?

What is the difference between a government that requires people to wear a mask in public locations and:
a) A school that requires the students to wear a certain uniform.
b) A government that requires people to cover their sexual organs in public locations.
c) A government that requires women to cover their face in public.
d) A government that requires women to hide the breast-feeding of babies.
e) A business that requires their female employees to dress in sexually titillating outfits in an attempt to attract male customers.
f) An airline that requires people to sit in their seats, put their trays in an upright position, and fasten their seat belts during takeoff and landing?
g) A hospital that requires masks during surgical procedures.
h) A government that requires us to use seatbelts in an automobile.

In order for us to form a team in this modern era, we need leaders, and we have to follow thousands of laws. Unfortunately, we are selfish, arrogant creatures who want to be at the top of the hierarchy, so we want to impose laws, not follow them. This emotional characteristic results in endless complaints that the laws are "oppressive", and that they are denying us our "freedom" and "rights".

The Declaration of Independence claims that we were endowed by our "creator with certain unalienable rights", but there is no evidence that humans have a "creator", or that we have such a thing as "unalienable rights". Our "rights" and our "freedoms" are whatever we want them to be.

Instead of arguing over whether we have the freedom or the right to choose whether we wear a mask, burqa, or bathing suit, we should analyze our laws and pass judgment on which laws are beneficial, and which should be modified or eliminated. However, we should not judge a law according to whether we like it. We should instead observe the effect that it has on our attitudes and behavior. For example:

• If a law that prohibits people from putting locks on the front doors of their homes results in a more pleasant social environment, then it would be a beneficial law, even if the people do not like it.

• If we improve marriages and reduce the number of women complaining about sexual harassment by prohibiting flirting in public places, and requiring people to find a spouse at a courtship activity, then it would be beneficial, even if the people don't like the courtship activities or the restrictions on their "flirting freedom".

When we disagree with a law, we should discuss the value of the law, not demand the right or freedom to ignore the law. For example, my reaction to the laws that prohibited Stevia from being used as a sugar substitute was to post this document to explain why I disagree with that law.

The people who do not want to wear a mask should react by posting their analysis of the law and explaining what they think would be more beneficial.

Unfortunately, we cannot yet have discussions about our laws because we don't yet have leaders who are interested in such discussions. Instead, we have leaders who ignore, censor, harass, intimidate, arrest, fire, and torment those of us who criticize their laws or express differences of opinion.

If we had higher-quality people in leadership positions, then we could have intelligent discussions about the value of our laws, recreational activities, school curriculum, and all other culture, including the wearing of masks.

If somebody had evidence that wearing a mask inside public buildings is beneficial for both healthy and sick people, then the government could justify encouraging, and possibly requiring, us to wear masks. However, if the masks are beneficial only when people who are sick with certain diseases are wearing them, then the government would be able to justify making a person wear a mask only if he had one of those particular diseases.

We are afraid of an anus, but not a mouth

One reason that I wanted to bring up the issue of masks is to point out how differently we treat a mouth compared to an anus. We regard a person's mouth as a wonderful part of human anatomy, and some songs describe a woman's lips as being "sweet", but we are horrified by an anus. People regularly kiss each other on the mouth, but we are so disgusted by our anus that we don't even want to clean it properly, and we think that children will be damaged if they see an anus, or are provided with information about that part of our digestive system.

What is the difference between letting people wander around in public with an exposed mouth, and letting them wander around in public with an exposed anus? We regard an anus as a health hazard, but when we talk, laugh, sneeze, or cough, we spray saliva, mucus, and particles of food into the air. If we were to examine what we are spraying out of our mouths, we would likely discover a lot of bacteria, and sometimes fungus, viruses, and yeasts.

We also drop bits of ear wax and dried mucus from our nose and eyes at random times during the day, but nobody is worried about those substances getting into their food or the air they breathe. Nobody is demanding that we cover our ears, eyes, or nose.

The reason we are so horrified by our anus is simply because our ancestors developed strong emotional inhibitions about waste products.

If we were to exert some self-control and study our bodies, we might discover that our mouth is spreading more diseases than our anus, except during certain situations, such as when we are infected with dysentery.

Our pee is also more sterile than our mouth, so women might get fewer diseases if they switched from kissing a man's mouth to kissing his penis. Also, our envelopes would be more sterile if we switched from sealing them with saliva to sealing them with our pee. Sometimes people lick their fingers or spit on their hands to get a grip on something, but it would be more sterile if they peed into their hands.

When a man pees, he normally does not get pee on his fingers. He only touches the skin on his penis. However, most people are horrified if he does not wash his hands afterwards, but nobody is horrified when somebody touches his mouth, or gets saliva on his fingers. And nobody expects anyone to wash their hands after touching their ears, eyes, or nose, or after sneezing or coughing into their hand, or after blowing their nose.

The point of this section is to give you another example of why we should push ourselves into thinking about what we are doing rather than following our emotions.

We need more pressure to think, not more freedom

People are constantly demanding freedom without having any understanding of what freedom is, what they are asking for, or how they will benefit from it. This issue is especially relevant and interesting as I write this document because there is a growing dispute around the world about whether we have the freedom to avoid the Covid vaccine.

I have seen only a few photos and news reports of the people protesting the vaccines, but from my casual observations, most protests seem to be for stupid reasons. For example, most of the people are insisting that they have the "right" or the freedom to choose whether they get a vaccine, and some of them are basing this on religious nonsense, such as claiming the vaccine is the Mark of the Beast, or that the vaccines contain "...Luciferase so that you can be tracked. Read the last book of the New Testament to see how this ends."

The photos below show three of their protest signs, one of which seems to have been professionally printed, but by whom?

Incidentally, some protest signs are sarcastic, such as the sign that says "Mandate Vegetables". Why do we react to disagreements with government officials with sarcasm rather than analyses, research, and discussions? It is because humans are monkeys. When a monkey is annoyed by another monkey, he tries to intimidate the other monkey into changing his behavior by glaring at him, showing his teeth, or kicking him. Since humans prefer using language, we try to intimidate other people by making insulting or sarcastic remarks.

Some people justify protests in public streets by claiming that they are ordinary citizens with no authority, and that the only way they can spread their brilliant ideas to the public and government officials is to have a protest in a public area. However, that is faulty reasoning.

Almost all of the people who brought improvements to human life were originally ordinary people of no importance. Very few of them were the children of famous people who had special privileges. They became influential by impressing people with their analyses, explorations, and experiments, not by having protests.

For example, if Charles Darwin had staged protests in the street rather than study animals and plants and then write a book about evolution, none of us would know of him or his theory. Likewise, if the Wright brothers had participated in protests to demand the government support airplane research, rather than put time and effort into developing an airplane, we would not know of them.

We must stop treating protests as "freedom of speech". They should be regarded as an adult's version of a child's temper tantrum. Protests do not provide us with information. They are attempts to intimidate and manipulate us. Protests are not merely worthless; they are destructive.

When we are upset with something, the most appropriate reaction is to analyze and discuss the issue. For example, when I saw the accusations on the Internet that the World Trade Center towers were demolished with explosives, I reacted by analyzing the issue, and then presenting my conclusions to the world. Although the majority of people ignored, ridiculed, or insulted me, if I had demonstrated in the street with a protest sign, I would not have had any impact on the world, and you would not know of me.

Unfortunately, the majority of people do not want to react to problems by thinking about them, doing research, looking critically at their theories, discussing the issue with other people, or considering alternative opinions. Most people don't have enough intelligence to produce an intelligent analysis anyway. As a result, when most people become upset, they prefer to hide from the problem, or have a temper tantrum.

How many people understand the concept of a vaccine?

A vaccine cannot protect us from diseases; it can only help our body be better prepared to defeat a disease. However, some of the people who are protesting the vaccines are so ignorant about vaccines that they are making senseless remarks. For example, here is a video in which a sarcastic, unvaccinated man confronts a vaccinated man with such remarks as: "if you got the vaccine, aren't you protected from people like me who don't have it?"

The ignorance about vaccines is another example of how our modern era is becoming increasingly complex as our technology improves, and that requires us to:
• Occasionally update our school curriculum to do a better job of preparing children for the modern world.
Set standards for people to meet. We need a certain level of understanding of modern technology, human behavior, and culture. We also need an understanding of manipulation techniques, such as false flag operations, the wolf in sheep's clothing trick, and the Pied Piper trick.

“Nobody tells me what to do!”

“Nobody tells me what to do!”
Some people have intelligent reasons for avoiding the Covid vaccine, such as their concern about the side effects, or because they believe it is a trick to reduce the population.

However, most of the people who are protesting the vaccine are complaining that they have the constitutional right, or the freedom, to choose whether they get a vaccine. That is not an intelligent response. That is the behavior of an animal that is fighting for dominance.

Was the virus or the vaccine designed to reduce the population?

There are a variety of different theories about the virus and the vaccines. For example:
• The virus is a military weapon created by the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.
• The virus is a hoax that is intended to frighten us into taking a vaccine that is designed to sterilize or kill us in order to reduce the population.
• The vaccine is truly intended to help protect us, but the pharmaceutical companies rushed it into production before it was proven to be effective, and while many people had a bad reaction to it. This is why the FDA describes the vaccines as "for emergency use only", rather than as "safe and approved", and why Denmark stopped using the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, and why the CDC advised adults to avoid the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

An interesting aspect of the people who believe that the virus or the vaccine is intended to reduce the population is that they complain about the virus, the vaccine, Bill Gates, the Wuhan Institute, the "Globalists", the Great Reset, or Dr. Fauci, but not the concept of reducing the population, or the operation behind it.

Another interesting aspect of the people who complain about the dangers of the vaccine is that they are behaving similar to the "9/11 truth seekers". Specifically, the "Vaccine Truth Seekers" are not providing intelligent analyses, or encouraging discussions. For example, Mike Adams wrote:
• "I’ve done some rough math, and it’s beyond alarming. It spells the end of human civilization if we don’t stop the vaccine holocaust in the next 365 days."
• "The important question becomes: Can human civilization remain intact if we lose over 50% of the population?"

However, he doesn't bother to explain the "rough math" that gave him a figure of 365 days, or provide evidence that human civilization will end if the population returns to what it was many decades ago.

He is not helping us understand what is going on, and he is not encouraging us to get involved with determining our future. He is behaving like a pig that is trying to confuse the other pigs about the thousands of Hormel Amusement Rides that quickly appeared all around the planet.

The Vaccine Truth Seekers appear to be wolves in sheep's clothing who are trying to incapacitate people with fear, and to direct people's anger towards a few people, such as Bill Gates and Dr. Fauci.

Even more interesting, none of the Vaccine Truth Seekers mention the benefits of reducing the population. I suspect that they ignore that possibility because they don't want to start a discussion of who should be eliminated, or whether a vaccine is the best way of reducing the population. They also seem to be trying to distract people from the significance of this operation.

What is that significance? Nations have been fighting with each other all throughout history, but the nations are now working together to provide everybody with a free Covid vaccine. This is the first time the nations have ever done anything on such a large scale as a team.

This website has been claiming that 20 to 40 million people have been injected with the vaccine each day, from at least August 2021 (when I first kept track of the values) through today in February 2022. The quantity of vaccines, hypodermic needles, and other products that are being manufactured and distributed is phenomenal. For example, Corning had to build another large factory to produce enough glass vials. The program to develop the vaccine would also have been long and complex.

Regardless of whether the vaccines are safe or deadly, this is an incredibly large, complex, and expensive operation, not a trivial operation conducted by Bill Gates and a few other "Globalists". I would say that the immense scale of this operation, and the pressure being put on us to take the vaccine, is evidence that it is indeed intended to reduce the population.

The people behind this operation are not going to stop it simply because a few people are whining for their freedom, or claiming that the vaccine is the Mark of the Beast. Furthermore, what is the point of complaining about the vaccine now? If the vaccine statistics are honest and accurate, almost 90% of the adults in Europe and America have been injected, so complaining about the vaccine now is like a pig complaining about the Hormel Amusement Ride after 90% of the pigs have already walked into it.

The people who believe the vaccine is deadly should stop wasting their time by whining about the vaccines and prepare for the future by discussing such issues as:
Who will survive the vaccines? Are all of the vaccines deadly? Did President Biden and Bill Gates get the same vaccine as the public?
• Will there be enough skilled people remaining to provide us with food, electricity, and other services? Or should some of us start learning useful skills? Is this why Bill Gates and other billionaires have purchased so much farmland?
• Are the Israelis getting the same vaccine as Europeans, Americans, Chinese, and Russians?
Who will be in the leadership positions when this program is finished?

If the vaccine is deadly, it will get rid of a lot of people who are trusting of authority, and leave behind a lot of rebellious, selfish, arrogant, stupid, mentally ill, and anti-social people.

It will also leave behind a lot of religious nitwits, such as Christopher Key, who created the Vaccine Police to oppose the vaccine and promote God and the drinking of our pee to protect ourselves from the Covid virus. Or is he another wolf in sheep's clothing?


If the vaccine is deadly, we should try to figure out who is avoiding the vaccine. It is possible that they are the people who are whining about speed cameras, facial recognition software, and other attempts to reduce crime and bad behavior.

They might also be the people who interfere with our understanding of human health and behavior by demanding secrecy with their medical data, school records, job performance reviews, marriage status, and other "personal", "private", and "sensitive" information.

Will the future be worse than a dystopian movie?
If those are the people who are avoiding the vaccine, then instead of improving the human population, the vaccines might do the equivalent of boiling sewage, which concentrates the filth.

The vaccines might create a world in which most of the public are mentally disturbed, paranoid, secretive, and rebellious, and a group of wealthy families controls them with violence, deception, and religion.

Actually, if the people responsible for the vaccine are the same group responsible for human trafficking, murder rituals, and pedophile networks, the leadership of the future will be even worse than the most horrendous leaders in the dystopian Hollywood movies.

All of the suffering could be described as “natural events

In many documents I pointed out that we can interpret life in any manner we please. Two examples that I have given are:
• We can waste our time crying and pouting when our parents die of old age, or we could accept it as a part of life, and be glad that our parents had a long life.

• We could consider the abortion of a defective fetus, or the euthanasia of a defective child, to be murder, or we could regard it as an act of kindness to prevent somebody from spending a life of loneliness and misery.

If the Covid vaccine is a trick to reduce the population, most people will probably become very sad or angry if they find out the truth. However, we could describe it as a "natural event". Likewise, the 9/11 attack could be described as a "natural event", or a "natural calamity". The reason is because humans are a part of nature. Therefore, anything people do could be described as a "natural event".

What is the difference between being killed by a human, and killed by a lion, virus, tornado, volcano, or rattlesnake? An alien from another solar system may regard all of those deaths as "naturally occurring events" on the planet earth. They might not see any significant difference between humans killing each other and a baby bird killing its sibling, or chimpanzees killing one another. They may regard all of the fighting and killings of the humans, monkeys, birds, and other animals as "typical, animal behavior".

An alien would likely say that the victims of the vaccine are victims of their low quality mind because they have done nothing to stop the crime networks, despite many people struggling for centuries to inform the public about the corruption, pedophilia, false flag operations, and propaganda.

The aliens would say that they are victims because they ignored or ridiculed the people who tried to help them, and chose to follow Lady Gaga, Rush Limbaugh, Al Gore, and the Pope.

We should learn from our mistakes, and one of the most important lessons is that we need to provide ourselves with leaders who are much more honest, responsible, and intelligent.

Can you become one of those leaders?