Democracies and free enterprise systems depend by the public to manage the government and economy. The public was capable of providing adequate supervision of the simplistic economy and government of prehistoric tribes, but our societies have become too complex for even the most intelligent and educated people.

Our technology has put us into an environment that is overwhelming all of us. It is absurd to continue expecting the public to provide appropriate supervision of a modern society. We need to create an organization of unusually talented people who can work together to provide us with guidance.

All nations have tremendous corruption and crime because every culture expects the majority of people to provide the leadership. For example:

People who are fooled by criminals are not necessarily stupid. The reason it is so easy to fool people is because we evolved to live among a small group of people that we are closely related to, and who follow the same culture, are in good mental health, and can be trusted.

Children assume that they can trust the adults; women assume that they can trust the men; and men assume that they can trust their leaders. We did not evolve to live among pedophile networks, lunatics, Jews, crime gangs, organized religions, or immigrants who whine about "white privilege".

Our nomadic ancestors were not afraid of or suspicious of the people they lived with, but when they settled into permanent cities, they began living among people they could not trust. That created a very unpleasant and unnatural social environment.

Our modern societies require everybody to make decisions about which people, journalists, government officials, school teachers, summer camp counselors, businesses, and potential spouses they can trust, but that is unrealistic because we provide people with too much secrecy. It is even more idiotic to expect children and teenagers to be able to figure out who to trust.

Rather than expect everybody to make sensible decisions about who to trust, this Constitution requires the government to create a more homogeneous and friendly environment so that people don't have to be suspicious of one another.

This constitution creates several government agencies that set standards for behavior and observe everybody's behavior, and pass judgment on whether a person is a beneficial member. The people who cannot be trusted must be put on restrictions or evicted. It is foolish for us to allow them to ruin our social environment.

We will have a significantly more pleasant and relaxing life if we can live among people that we can trust. There should be so little crime in Kastron, and the people should be so compatible, that the children can get together with other children to sleep in the parks at night without any fear of being kidnapped or molested, or attacked by other children or teenage gangs, or insulted for having white privilege or being a Nazi.

The 2024 election in the USA provides a lot of examples of how we are ruining our social environment by being tolerant of abusive people. Specifically, the people who did not want Trump to be elected were creating a tremendous amount of angry and deceptive information about him. If those people were producing poisoned medicines, they would have been arrested, but they were allowed to provide "poisoned information" about Trump.

This is not "news". It is an attempt to incite hatred.

For example, on 2 November 2024, Matt Drudge posted a link to this excerpt of a Trump speech, and claimed that Trump was simulating oral sex.

A woman responded by posting a link to this video that the excerpt was taken from, and it is obvious that Trump was complaining about the microphone; he was not simulating oral sex.

Drudge and the other people who accused Trump of simulating oral sex should be arrested for slander because they were trying to instigate hatred of Donald Trump. They were not making honest mistakes, or trying to educate anybody. They were deliberately trying to deceive people into hating Trump.

Many of the people who hate Donald Trump advocate the concept of arresting people for "hate speech", and they boast about loving everybody, but they are people who seem to create most of the hate speech.

Furthermore, we should investigate the people who set up the microphone for Trump because it is likely that they were trying to sabotage him. I have been a victim of that type of trick.

For example, I was invited to speak to George Noory on the coast-to-coast radio show in 2005, which I did over a phone. About halfway through the interview, George Noory brought Richard Hoagland into the interview. The audio level on my phone suddenly became extremely low, and I had trouble hearing what Noory and Hoagland were saying, and they had trouble hearing me, so I raised my voice. This gave them the opportunity to tell me to calm down and get control of myself.

I mentioned this trick here and here. I assumed that such a simplistic trick would not fool anybody, but I was surprised to discover that my father was deceived by it. He told me that I should have calmed down.

The attempt to encourage hatred of Trump continued even on the election day, 5 November 2024. For example, Forbes posted this brief video that they described as "Trump angrily reacts to Oprah Winfrey", and in their description of the video they claimed he "slammed" her.

However, Trump was showing disappointment or sadness, not anger. The people at Forbes who wrote that description were not trying to provide us with news. They were trying to manipulate us into hating Trump.

Another trick that some people used to deceive us into fearing or hating Trump was to threaten to leave the country if he gets elected. For example, Michael Cohen went on television to announce to the world that he would leave the USA and abandon his wife and children if Trump gets elected.

After Trump was elected, Cohen insulted the people who asked why he is has remained in the USA.

Michael Cohen insisted that he will leave the USA if Trump is elected.		After Trump was elected, he insulted people who asked why he didn't leave.

It should be obvious that his promise to leave the nation was a lie that was intended to manipulate the voters. He was simulating a child who threatens to run away from home if he doesn't get the toy that he wants.

No society considers his behavior to be a crime, but this Constitution requires the Courts Ministry to regard Cohen's behavior as an attempt to manipulate and deceive people into fearing or hating a person. We have to expect that type of behavior from young children, but influential adults must meet higher standards than the public.

When our leaders try to manipulate or deceive us into doing something destructive, such as hating or fearing people that they don't personally like, they are committing an unacceptable crime, and the judge must evict them from the city. The people in influential positions must provide leadership, and those that try to abuse us must be evicted or euthanized.

Our emotions are so stupid that they are being triggered by events that they should not be triggered for. For example, we are not supposed to feel sorry for, or pander to, an adult man who behaves like a child. Men are supposed to be leaders, not pout or have temper tantrums.

Unfortunately, when a man has a temper tantrum, our emotions to help other people can be stimulated, and that can cause us to react by giving him pity, and doing whatever will please him. We must make a distinction between when we are truly helping a person, and when we are being manipulated by them.

We should be disgusted with men who behave like children, and we should be intolerant of men who deliberately behave like children in order to manipulate us.

When women or children become frustrated with problems, they react by pouting or crying in order to let other people know that they need help, but adult men are supposed to react to problems by finding solutions to them. Men are supposed to be leaders for their wives and children, and for society.

Unfortunately, Michael Cohen is just one of many adult men who deliberately pout like a child in order to stimulate our emotions and manipulate us into giving them whatever they want. Although only a few people threaten to leave the nation, there are lots of people pouting and whining about sexism, anti-Semitism, racism, and white privilege.

In order to improve this situation, this Constitution requires the Behavior Ministry to set high standards for people, especially those in leadership positions, and the Courts Ministry has the responsibility of passing judgment on whether a person is providing us with beneficial information, or trying to manipulate us.

The people who try to manipulate us need to be investigated to determine whether they are doing so because they are childlike or mentally ill, in which case they must be considered as low quality humans and put on restrictions, or whether they are working with a crime network, in which case they must be evicted or euthanized.

We should create a social environment in which it is safe for us to trust one another, especially the people in influential positions.

Even if we create a society in which everybody can be trusted, we need a government agency to be critical of the information we are given because everybody makes mistakes. For example, years ago a lot of intelligent and educated scientists recommended arsenic compounds for pesticides; asbestos for insulation; tetraethyl lead in gasoline; and many other things that were eventually prohibited.

Another example is that scientists tell us that we should be concerned about the number of calories that we eat each day, but our understanding of our digestion system is so inadequate that we do not know how much of the food that we eat is actually digested.

For example, there are 9 cal in a gram of fat, so if a person were to eat a meal that had 500 grams of fat, he would be consuming 4500 calories. However, if a person can digest only 80 grams of fat in a meal, then 420 grams of that fat would pass through his digestive system, and perhaps provide food for intestinal bacteria.

We cannot assume that the fat we eat is going to be digested. Each of us has a limit on how much fat we can digest in one meal. Our digestive system also has a limit on the digestive chemicals that it can produce, and a limit on the nutrients that we can absorb.

Scientists in the future might regard the calories in our food as a worthless statistic. When they design meals, they might be concerned with the quantity of fat, carbohydrates, and protein that we can digest, rather than the calories. Therefore, instead of recommending 1200 cal of food each day, they would analyze each person's digestive abilities and nutritional needs and specify that a particular man needs 45 grams of fat, 100 grams of simple carbohydrates, 400 grams of complex carbohydrates, and 300 grams of protein. They might even specify quantities of different types of fiber or fat.

Our digestive system evolved for a prehistoric era, so it is now easy for us to create meals that our body was not designed for. Another example is that our pancreas evolved for the amount of glucose that prehistoric people ate each day, but today we can easily consume phenomenal amounts of glucose, thereby causing diabetes. That type of diabetes is environmental rather than due to a genetically defective pancreas, so it will vanish if we alter our diet to something more appropriate.

It is also possible for us to destroy some of our components. This concept can be seen with alcohol. Our body evolved to handle the small amounts of alcohol that are in fermented fruit, but our modern technology allows us to produce so much alcohol that we can overwhelm our body's ability to deal with it. We now have the ability to consume so much alcohol for so many years that we can destroy our liver and other organs.

Our body has the ability to adapt to our environment, but there are limits on what we can adapt to. Therefore, we must keep our consumption of salt, water, oxygen, sugar, protein, vitamins, and other things within a certain range. We will hurt ourselves from too little or too much of the things that we need. To complicate the issue, each of us has slightly different range for the things we need.

Our body can handle caffeine, but each of us can handle a different amount before it starts causing trouble. However, no culture is teaching people to be concerned with what their body's limitations might be, or to keep everything within certain levels, so there are lots of people consuming enormous amounts of coffee, and Starbucks is permitted to sell cups of coffee to anybody without any restrictions on the quantity, or the person's ability to handle caffeine.

Can a person damage his body or brain by consuming excessive amounts of caffeine, sugar, nicotine, salt, MSG, vitamins, or minerals over a long period of time? No culture knows, and no culture cares.

Farmers have learned that they must provide their crops with specific amounts of water, fertilizer, sunlight, and temperatures, and they have also learned that their animals need to have certain environmental conditions. However, every culture is refusing to believe that humans follow the same rules as all other living creatures, and this prevents doctors and scientists from noticing and acknowledging the evidence that humans also need certain environmental conditions in order to maintain good health.

Furthermore, the refusal to believe that every human is a haphazard jumble of genetic characteristics, and that we all have defects, prevents people from realizing that even the healthiest people are defective creatures, and that each of us would have to understand the details of our particular defects in order to provide ourselves with the optimum environment.

Most people refuse to believe that they are apes, so they refuse to consider the possibility that humans need a veterinarian to design meals for us. Instead, they behave like children who eat whatever tastes good, and in whatever quantity they please, and whenever they feel like eating.

The concept that we must ensure that our protein, fats, vitamins, and other nutrients are kept within certain limits also applies to physical and mental activities. Our bones, ligaments, kidneys, eyes, and brain evolved for prehistoric activities, such as searching for pigs to eat.

A lot of the modern activities are unnatural for us, such as sitting in a chair for most of the day; watching a radar screen all day; working on assembly lines; and wearing pointed shoes. Some of our modern activities can cause our body to develop carpal tunnel syndrome, shoulder injuries, or blood clots, and they can cause our mind to become bored or fatigued.

We need a veterinarian to help us design social and recreational activities. It is risky for us to do whatever is emotionally pleasing.

We can also cause damage to ourselves by pampering ourselves too much. Our muscles, bones, immune system, and mind were designed to adapt to the environment. Parents who pamper their children by doing all of the chores, letting them lounge around all day, letting them eat sweet foods, and preventing them from experiencing disappointments, criticism, and failures, are preventing their children's minds from learning how to deal with life's routine events; preventing their muscles and bones from developing properly; and causing them to adapt to an environment that is full of candy, toys, video games, praise, and lounging.

It is even conceivable that children can become nearsighted if they spend many hours a day with their face close to books or computer monitors because our eyes might have been designed to adjust to a certain extent to the items that they have to routinely focus on.

Animals evolved for an environment in which they must work every day. Animals do not have holidays, weekends, vacations, retirement, welfare, inheritances, trust funds, or sick days. They routinely have time to rest and relax, but those are brief periods of time.

Modern humans, however, are putting some animals, such as pet and zoo animals, into an environment in which they rarely have to work. This can result in the animals becoming bored.

We are also doing this to ourselves. Every culture is promoting the attitude that we will have the best life when we don't have to work; are pampered by servants; and spend every day doing what we want to do. We consider the elderly people who are retired to be having their "golden years".

Ironically, every culture promotes the opposite attitude at the same time, such as "Idle hands are the devil's workshop."

We have a strong desire to avoid work, but that emotion was intended to make us work efficiently, not because we will have a more satisfying life when we are pampered like a baby.

We interfere with the life and development of children when we pamper them. We prevent them from learning how to deal with problems, criticism, and work, and they can become so bored and restless that they get involved with idiotic or destructive activities.

It is especially detrimental to let wealthy parents create economic monarchies by giving their children businesses or large enormous amounts of land, money, and material items. That allows their children to become influential adults without earning their position. This has been happening all around the world for many centuries, and it results in nations becoming dominated by wealthy people who cannot provide useful leadership. Many of those wealthy people could be described as spoiled brats, and some of them depend upon crime to maintain their wealth, and some choose friends and spouses according to who will be beneficial in maintaining their wealth.

In order for children to develop properly, they need to be exposed to the bacteria and viruses in their environment, and they need to be exposed to problems, criticism, frustration, and work. They must experience life to develop properly, and they must earn what they want in order to be a productive member of a modern society.

Unfortunately, the world is dominated by people who either believe humans were created by a supreme being, or that we are like clay that molds itself to the environment. Those people cannot provide us with appropriate guidance because they want to design our culture according to a fantasy creature rather than an ape.

Furthermore, each of us is genetically unique. Therefore, in order to provide everybody with the best health and life, we need to eliminate secrecy, collect "personal" and "private" information about everybody, and adjust everybody's jobs, meals, medical treatments, recreational activities, sleeping patterns, and clothing to fit their particular genetic characteristics and defects. That requires analyzing everybody, passing judgment on their characteristics, and experimenting with culture, but all of those activities will result in occasional mistakes.

Even the most educated and intelligent people make mistakes. A scientist is just an educated ape. They provide us with opinions about life, not the answers to life. We must be critical of the information that we get from even the most intelligent and educated scientists because all of them are just blind men feeling an elephant.

Unfortunately, we often don't realize that scientists are providing inaccurate information until somebody suffers from it. For example, when William Byers died in 1932 from using Radithor, the government realized that radioactive substances must be prohibited from medicines. When children were born with flippers for arms, the government realized that thalidomide had potential dangers.

Although scientists realize that they make mistakes, and they have learned to verify one another's theories, their emotions sometimes interfere with their decisions. For example, they are not critical of the theory that we are ruining the Earth's climate by producing carbon dioxide, or that the universe is full of dark energy.

Some scientists might be under pressure by businesses or criminals to distort their research, and others might have such a strong desire to follow authorities that they resist being as critical of the established theories.

We cannot expect anybody to be unbiased or perfect, so we will benefit by having a government agency that can provide checks and balances for scientists by being critical of their theories. We cannot expect a group of people to do a good job of supervising themselves.

We are routinely exposed to the opinions of our family members, friends, neighbors, coworkers, government officials, school teachers, and other "ordinary" people. They believe that they are experts on raising children, nutrition, marriage, crime, and religion, but all of them are only giving us bits and pieces of information that they picked up during their life.

The majority of people have a strong resistance to thinking, looking critically at themselves, doing research, and discussing issues, so they provide information that is lower in quality than that from the scientists.

Unfortunately, every culture is encouraging us to believe that the majority of people are so educated and intelligent that they can make intelligent decisions about voting, raising children, crime, nutrition, abortion, religion, and whether we should bomb Iran.

Our prehistoric ancestors believed that everybody was equally capable of creating brilliant theories about the universe, medicines, death, and raising children. We no longer believe that people are equally capable of creating medicines, but every culture continues to promote the prehistoric attitude that everybody is equally capable of producing intelligent thoughts about almost everything else, such as raising children, meals, abortion, religion, alcohol, and selecting leaders.

We prohibit parents from creating medicines for their children, but we allow parents to provide their children with nonsensical and detrimental information about feminism, religion, the Holocaust, and many other issues.

We cannot expect our family members, friends, or neighbors to make sensible decisions about which information is more accurate. The majority of people create collages of information that is full of mistakes and nonsense because they have a tendency to believe whatever is emotionally pleasing, and because most people have ordinary or below-average intelligence. It is foolish for us to believe the information that we get from our family members and friends.

For example, Forrest Maready is claiming that polio was the result of pesticides that have been prohibited, such as lead arsenate. We cannot expect the public to make a sensible decision about whether Maready's information about polio is more accurate than that from the FDA and other authorities.

We should not judge Maready's information according to what our family members or friends tell us. We need the guidance of people who have more intelligence, a better education, and the emotional ability to look critically at information.

We must change our culture significantly. We must stop promoting the prehistoric attitude that everybody is so educated and intelligent that they can make wise decisions about how to live, and what to believe. That attitude encourages arrogance, but all of us need to suppress our arrogance. All of us, even the intelligent people, would benefit from having the guidance of an intelligent group of people who excel in researching issues, having discussions, and being critical of their opinions.

It is foolish to continue promoting the theory that the majority of people can provide supervision for their government, economic system, schools, recreational activities, clothing styles, and other culture, or that they can make intelligent decisions about raising children, nutrition, religion, abortion, and other issues.

We need government agencies to verify the value of the information we are provided, and verify the value of the laws that the other government officials are creating. We also need to ensure that the officials in those agencies are honest, and capable of looking critically at their opinions.

Instead of expecting the public to provide supervision of the government, this constitution experiments with other checks and balances. Three of the most important are:

The US Constitution gives the president the "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons", but there is no requirement that the president show evidence that his decisions are beneficial to society. This allows the president to make decisions secretly, and for selfish or diabolical reasons.

There is also no limit on how many people a president can pardon. President Biden has set a new record with 8064 commutations and pardons. During the final hours of his presidency he set another record for being the first president to issue preemptive pardons to some of his family members and government officials who had not been convicted of a crime.

It is absurd to give the president control over the legal system. If the legal system cannot function correctly, then we should experiment with improvements, not give some government official the authority to override court decisions.

Incidentally, the US legal system is so crude that President Trump should be able to override Biden's pardons without making changes to the U.S. Constitution.

In order to create a more sensible legal system, this constitution does not give anybody the authority to overturn a court decision, or provide a person with immunity from a trial. Nobody is allowed to have any type of special treatment or privileges. Furthermore, the court officials must justify what they do as being beneficial to the human race.

One of the responsibilities of the Efficiency Ministry is to observe the government officials, including the Courts Ministry, and if they decide that a particular trial has resulted in an inappropriate decision, they must provide a document to explain their concerns, and request an intellectual trial to review that particular court case. Therefore, a "review trial" is needed to change the decision of a previous trial. No individual government official can change a court decision by himself.

If that review trial comes to the conclusion that the decision should be changed, then the judge of the original trial will have a failure listed in his database entry, and the officials who complained about the trial will have a success listed in their database entry. Since the worst performing judges are the first to be replaced, this will give us increasingly better judges.

Every organization has the potential problem that intelligent criminals deceive the majority of members. This problem affects all nations. For two examples:

•		In the 1990s, the Santa Barbara city officials proposed reducing the funding of the fire department in order to reduce the city's expenses so that they did not have to increase taxes. The city officials could have reduced expenses by eliminating some of the most unnecessary agencies, or by reducing the salaries of the government officials, or by reducing the corruption and cheating among government officials. Instead, they proposed to reduce the budget of the fire department in an attempt to frighten the public to such an extent that they would be willing to allow taxes to be increased.
•		In December 2023, the BBC suggested that they might cancel David Attenborough's wildlife television programs in order to reduce expenses. The BBC officials could have proposed eliminating the television programs that were the most useless, or reducing the salaries of the executives. There are also lots of ways of reducing the labor and resources involved with producing television programs, such as eliminating the expensive "special effects", or having narrators read from teleprompters or sheets of paper rather than memorize speeches. However, by threatening to eliminate a program that people wanted, they were hoping to upset the public to such an extent that they would support an increase in their budget.

The people who rise to the top positions of free enterprise systems and democracies tend to be selfish, diabolical, and abusive. Their purpose for getting into influential positions is to satisfy their cravings for material wealth and status, not to improve our lives or culture.

The only way to ensure that our leaders are being honest with us is to pass judgment on their honesty, and fire the incompetent leaders, and evict or euthanize the dishonest leaders.

However, we cannot expect the public to provide sensible analyses of influential people, or to have the emotional ability or desire to remove the incompetent and dishonest leaders. We need to create an organization with the authority to to do that, and we must restrict the officials of their organization to men who have the emotional ability and desire to do it.

Therefore, the Quality Division has an Efficiency, Security, and Courts Ministries to pass judgment on whether the people in influential positions should be arrested.

Although there is no way to guarantee that the officials in those ministries are not outsmarted, by having all of the ministries compete to find improvements to society, rather than compete to attract voters, we improve the chances that somebody notices and stops the deceptive government officials, executives, journalists, historians, and other influential people.

None of the existing cultures have any standards for their leaders, so people who have been convicted of crimes are allowed to become government officials, business executives, journalists, and other influential people.

For example, when Peter Strzok was caught trying to manipulate and deceive us about Donald Trump, the FBI's employee disciplinary office recommended that he be suspended for 60 days and demoted. He was eventually fired, and has since become an adjunct professor at a university, and a book he recently wrote about the "Threat of Donald Trump" has been published.

When we fire a government official for committing crimes, and then allow him to educate students and become an author, we are behaving like a stupid animal that doesn't care which animal getd into the top position of the hierarchy.

In order to eliminate dishonest leaders, we must restrict the Quality Division to people who have enough control over their craving to be submissive to our leaders that they can evict or euthanized a dishonest government official, journalist, scientist, or business executive.

No culture requires government officials, business executives, journalists, professors, or anybody else to justify what they do, and if they decide to justify what they do, they can use idiotic remarks, such as:"It is for the protection of the public", or "It is for national security", and "It will provide people with jobs."

No culture has a quality control agency that analyzes the policies of the government officials, or holds them accountable for what they do. This lack of quality control allows government officials to create idiotic policies. For example, government officials do not need to provide sensible justification for restricting a medical drug to prescription only.

Requiring a medical product to be by prescription only is putting a burden on society, and especially on the people who benefit from the medical product. Therefore, the government should require prescriptions only if they can show that the prescriptions provide benefits that outweigh their burden.

However, the democratic governments are restricting almost all medical drugs and products to prescription only. They don't care whether there is any benefit to those restrictions.

For example, there are some devices that can be attached to a person's arm to measure blood glucose levels. People with diabetes can use them to monitor their blood sugar so that they don't have to frequently poke themselves with needles in order to analyze a blood sample. In March 2024, the FDA allowed one of those devices to be available without a prescription, but the others require prescriptions.

What is the benefit to having those devices by prescription only? There is no black-market for those devices, and there are no crime networks selling them, and the hospitals are not treating people for misusing those devices. Even the stupid and irresponsible people can use them without hurting themselves.

Nobody would be harmed if those devices were available without a prescription. Most people do not want one, even if they were available for free. Most of the people who want them are people with diabetes, and the people who want to use them for a month or so in order to learn about their blood sugar levels.

Likewise, most of the other drugs and medical devices that require prescriptions are of interest only to a few people, so the prescriptions are a burden with no benefit.

In a democracy, the public is supposed to provide quality control for the government, but the public cannot do that. The public has allowed the officials in the FDA, FBI, and other agencies to be incredibly incompetent, dishonest, and mentally ill.

The FDA justifies prescriptions by claiming that the prescriptions are "protecting" people, but the only people who might possibly be protected by prescriptions are the adults who are stupid, mentally ill, senile, or retarded. However, it is more sensible to put the incompetent adults on restrictions, just like we do with children, rather than make everybody suffer with prescriptions.

The prescriptions and other laws are doing nothing to stop people from abusing heroin, steroids, fentanyl, cocaine, alcohol, nicotine, steroids, caffeine, aspirin, sugar, automobiles, soda, donuts, state lotteries, jewelry, or any of the other things that people are abusing or hurting themselves with.

There are some people who are tormenting themselves by letting their house become cluttered with items, and there are other people tormenting themselves with financial problems as a result of expensive college courses, excessive shopping, or gambling, but laws cannot stop those problems, either.

In the USA, there is such a strong "Feel Sorry For Me" attitude that the government, businesses, schools, and other organizations are under pressure to adjust their policies, products, laws, and activities to help the worst behaved and most incompetent people. However, our attempts to stop people from causing hurting themselves are failures. We must push ourselves into experimenting with different policies.

This Constitution requires the government officials to design culture for the City Elders, rather than the worst behaved people.

The adults who are too incompetent to handle medical drugs, blood glucose monitoring devices, alcohol, and other things must be classified as inferior people. They must be put on restrictions, such as prohibiting them from reproducing, getting into influential positions, and having access to certain products or social clubs. It is foolish to put everybody on restrictions in an attempt to prevent the inferior people from their self-destructive behavior.

The Social Clubs Minister is authorized to create clubs that provide people with medical equipment, and people are allowed to experiment with medical drugs. Instead of putting restrictions on the medical drugs and products, the executives of the clubs must prohibit the children and adults who are incompetent, irresponsible, or obnoxious from having access to the club. This will allow the higher-quality people to have access to the medical products.

By having a Quality Control Division that is independent of the other government agencies, and by giving them the authority to demand government officials provide explanations for their policies, they will be able to fire the government officials who create idiotic and detrimental policies, such as an official who restricts blood glucose monitoring devices to prescription only.

The Quality Control Division also has the authority to pass judgment on the behavior and value of business executives, journalists, scientists, and other influential people. This cannot guarantee that we have excellent leadership, but it will significantly improve our chances that the incompetent and dishonest people are removed from influential positions.

The Courts Ministry is required to be intolerant of loopholes, but to help ensure that people in influential positions are not outsmarting the Courts Ministry, one of the purposes of the Efficiency Ministry is to pass judgment on whether somebody is trying to use a loophole.

For an example, in October 2024, the Federal Trade Commission prohibited businesses from using "tricks and traps" that "make people jump through endless hoops just to cancel a subscription". They also proposed prohibiting "corporations from running up the bills with hidden and bogus fees, requiring honest pricing and spurring firms to compete on honesty rather than deception".

However, instead of creating those laws, the government should have interpreted their existing laws as prohibiting that behavior. By creating new laws, they allow the dishonest and abusive business executives to remain in leadership positions, and they encourage other business executive to look for loopholes

A more sensible policy is to require everybody to understand the purpose of the law, and not allow people to argue over the words in the law. This is one reason why the Cities Council of the World Government has the authority to fire a President.

The Laws document points out that laws are useful only to the people who are capable of understanding them, and who are willing to use them. We cannot stop crime with laws that prohibit the crimes. The only way to ensure that the people in a city are behaving properly is to set high standards for the people, and evict the abusive people.

We must demand that our leaders behave better than the public. They should be excellent role models. When we find one of our leaders justifying his abusive behavior by saying there was no law against it, our response should be that he should have a better understanding of the purpose of the laws than the public. We should not have to tell our leaders how to behave, or what the laws mean.

Our natural tendency is to entertain ourselves, but our emotions evolved for a very primitive era, so a lot of what we find entertaining today is destructive, wasteful, or irritating.

For example, in order to cause an ape to want to take care of its children, we developed emotions that are entertained by the idiotic behavior of children, rather than irritated by it. For example, we giggle when they stumble as they try to walk, or when they do "baby talk". However, giggling at that behavior can encourage the children to continue doing it rather to than improve themselves.

Prehistoric people had to work every day, so even though the mothers would giggle at their children's idiotic behavior, they would put their children under pressure to help with chores and learn how to take care of themselves.

The prehistoric women might have giggled at the silly behavior of adults, also, but they were not attracted to adult men who acted like children. They wanted men who could take care of a family.

Today we are no longer under pressure to teach children to take care of themselves, and women are no longer under pressure to find a man who can take care of them. This is allowing mothers to pamper their children to an excess, and to be entertained by adult men who behave like children.

Our emotions are so stupid that we can be entertained when adults behave in a manner that is similar to that of a child. This has resulted in television companies producing blooper videos, which are excerpts of adults making mistakes during the production of a television program.

It has also resulted in citizens posting their own versions of blooper videos on the Internet in which adults are stumbling, tripping, breaking objects, mispronouncing words, dropping their cell phone in a swimming pool, and slipping on a wet or icy surface.

It can be useful to create videos of people making mistakes if the video is intended to help people understand how to avoid those mistakes. For example, the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board created this video that describes an explosion that burned 14 workers to death at a sugar factory.

Not many people realize that sugar is just one of many common items that can be explosive when it is in a powdered form. That type of video educates us about accidents, rather than entertains us. Its purpose is to help us understand why those accidents happened, and how to prevent them in the future.

However, when we treat mistakes as entertainment, we encourage people to deliberately make mistakes in order to become the center of attention. This problem is most easily noticed with children. Specifically, when parents giggle at the mistakes of their children, or their "baby talk", the children often respond by deliberately acting childish.

The parents who encourage their children to act silly are using their children as masturbation objects to titillate themselves with. They are treating their children like circus animals. It is even more destructive to giggle at the stupid behavior of adults because that encourages adults to behave like children

YouTube adds to the problem by providing money to people who create popular videos, and that has resulted in many adults deliberately behaving in stupid or childish manners in order to attract our attention.

The businesses that produce television advertisements add to the problem because a popular style of advertisement is having adults behave in child-like manners. Those advertisements are using childish behavior to stimulate our emotional attraction to children in order to increase their profits, and we ought to be disgusted that businesses are treating us in that manner. Those businesses are exploiting us, not respecting us.

This constitution improves the situation by requiring every person and organization to treat other people as friends.

Since the government has complete control of culture, they can experiment with methods to discourage or prohibit the blooper videos, and encourage both children and adults to become impressive role models rather than obnoxious and clumsy clowns.

One method of reducing the blooper videos is to alter the way we create videos so that people make fewer mistakes in the narration. For example, instead of having people memorize speeches and look into the camera as they speak, they can read from a Teleprompter or sheet of paper.

We want people to look at us when they are talking to us, but we don't need to satisfy that emotional craving, especially not when we are watching educational documentaries. We should be paying attention to the images and the information, not the person's face and mouth.

We titillate our emotions when the narrators pretend to be in the room with us and look at us, but that illusion will not improve our lives, and we will not suffer if the narrator is reading from a sheet of paper or Teleprompter, or if he is not visible to us.

Since we are animals, we want to look at the people who speak to us, and we want them to look at us, but every adult should have enough education and intelligence to realize that when we look at a person on a television monitor we are looking at an image of a person, not a real person. We should also realize that he is looking at a camera, not at us.

Nobody has such a perfect memory that he can give a speech without making mistakes occasionally. Therefore, requiring narrators to memorize speeches requires the television crew to repeatedly record the narration until he does it correctly. That is a waste of labor and resources, and it can irritate the people who have to produce and edit the video.

The purpose of the Efficiency Ministry is to improve other government agencies and organizations, so they have the authority to prohibit the Television Ministry from having people memorize speeches. The Efficiency Ministry can demand the narrators read from teleprompters, laptop computer, cell phones, or paper.

It is also acceptable to display the text that the narrator is reading. That would be especially useful when the narrator is using technical words that are not well known, or when he is describing a complex topic. That also allows people to pause the video to read the text to get a better understanding of what was said.

Another trick that the television businesses are doing is to frequently show the face of a person who is listening to a conversation. For example, when there are two people having a conversation, the video editor will alternate back and forth between showing the face of the person who is talking and showing the face of the person who is listening.

Creating that type of documentary is a waste of time of the camera operators and the video editors. It does not improve the documentary. It merely titillates the audience because it makes us feel as if we are in the room with the people, and looking at all of them. Therefore, the Efficiency Ministry should prohibit the Television Ministry from using that trick.

Another justifiable reduction in labor and resources is for the Efficiency Ministry to require the Television Ministry to prohibit music in the educational documentaries. The educational videos should be serious, not entertaining. Music should be restricted to entertainment programs.

All nations have agencies that provide functions that are similar to that of the Quality Division. For example, the USA has the USDA, the FDA, police departments, the FBI, and courts. All of those agencies occasionally do something beneficial, but all of them are failures at understanding and reducing crime, corruption, and mistakes. We must set much higher standards for government officials in order for those agencies to be truly useful.

In order to provide the Quality Division, and the other government divisions, with better leadership, this constitution makes some significant cultural changes. For example:

The presidents can make decisions for their division without asking for the approval of other presidents, but there will occasionally be times when the presidents must deal with a policy that affects two or more of the other divisions, in which case the presidents must agree on a policy.

A common problem with governments is that the officials cannot agree on a policy, and they end up wasting months or years arguing with each other, and they sometimes give up and do nothing about the problem, such as the Santa Barbara officials who do nothing to reduce the noise of the private airplanes.

In order to prevent stalemates, if the presidents do not resolve a conflict within a month, or if they vote to continue looking into it as a way of doing nothing about it, the Courts Ministry has the authority to pass judgment on whether they are making sensible decisions, and if not, the Courts Ministry can fire one or all of the presidents, thereby forcing the voters to select new presidents.

This constitution promotes replacing leaders who cannot solve problems, rather than tolerating their excuses for failure, and rather than punishing or rehabilitating them.

The U.S. Constitution does not require government officials to vote on issues. This allows cheating.

For example, most of the Republican officials, especially in the Senate, opposed the Federal Reserve Act, and there are accusations that the people who wanted the Federal Reserve Act arranged for the Senate to vote on it on 23 December 1913 because that was when a lot of the Republicans had gone home for Christmas vacation. If that accusation is accurate, the people who arranged for the vote on that day should be regarded as criminals.

In order to prevent cheating, when the presidents have to resolve an issue, all three of them are required to vote.

The Quality division encourages people to become part-time and temporary officials. The reasons for advocating part-time jobs are explained here, and the following reasons are specific to the Quality division:

When an animal is irritated by one of its members who is lower in the social hierarchy, he tends to react by trying to intimidate the animal, such as by hitting him or snarling at him.

Humans inherited that behavioral characteristic. As a result, when we become upset with somebody who is lower in the social hierarchy, our natural tendency is to intimidate the person, such as by yelling, insulting, hitting, or slapping him.

We also try to control people through sarcasm. We tend to think of people who make sarcastic remarks as being clever, or that their remarks are "witty comebacks", but remarks that are intended to hurt a person's feelings should be regarded as the equivalent of a dog that is growling at us.

Although intimidation and violence is useful for animals to keep one another under control, it is not very useful for humans.

To make the situation even more absurd, many cultures promote intimidation, insults, and sarcasm as "freedom of speech". For example, when people go into the public streets to chant slogans and display insulting signs, we refer to it as "free speech" or as "the right to peacefully assemble", rather than as "a temper tantrum that is intended to intimidate people into submission".

What is the difference between:

	a) A group of people who try to intimidate us with protests.		b) A dog that tries to intimidate us with growling and biting.

The Behavior and Courts Ministries are required to be intolerant of people who try to intimidate us. People who cannot present their opinions in an intelligent and peaceful manner are to be regarded as having a brain that is too similar to that of an animal to fit into a modern society. If they are only mildly annoying, they can be restricted to certain neighborhoods and jobs, but the more seriously annoying people must be evicted.

By evicting the people who try to intimidate us, we will create a social environment in which we can calmly and peacefully discuss any issue we please without worrying about somebody insulting us, hitting us, spitting on us, or yelling at us.

Every culture gives pity to the people who cannot control their anger and arrogance, but this constitution raises standards for people.

All of us regularly experience situations in which we don't get what we want, but we react differently to those disappointments. For example, when wives ask for a divorce, some husbands react by threatening them, beating them, or murdering them.

Many children react to not getting what they want by yelling, pouting, begging, vandalizing objects in the house, or by trying to manipulate the person into giving them what they want. Many people have reacted to the failure of becoming wealthy by stealing items, or by joining crime networks.

The people who react to disappointments and failures by having tantrums, committing crimes, or other undesirable behavior, are reacting like an animal. For example, when people with pet dogs go on vacation, some dogs react by whining or destroying things in the house.

Our modern era causes us to be emotionally stimulated much more frequently than prehistoric people, and to a greater extent. For example:

•		We experience more extreme stimulation from food compared to our prehistoric ancestors because we have phenomenal quantities of a wider variety of better tasting foods.
•		Men today experience more extreme sexual stimulation as a result of modern women wearing beautiful clothing and having bathrooms to keep themselves clean, and because businesses are using sexual images to manipulate us.
•		We are stimulated to an excess by the enormous quantities and varieties of material items.
•		We are stimulated to an excess by the tremendous amount of status that we can achieve today. For example, we can become famous to the entire world if we can become Hollywood celebrities, billionaires, government officials, or athletes.

Our modern social environment is causing us to be stimulated more often, and to a greater extent, than we were designed for. We cannot satisfy all of our cravings for food, sex, material items, and status. This requires us to have more self-control and a better understanding of our emotions. We must understand that we cannot to satisfy every emotional craving, and do not need to.

It is especially important for people who are perpetually unhappy to consider that their misery is coming from their mental or physical problems, rather than from other people or mysterious concepts. People today must react to unhappiness by remaining calm, analyzing their situation, and experimenting with their life and attitudes.

Unfortunately, our typical reaction to problems is tantrums, pouting, ignoring them, or accusations that we are victims of something, such as bad parents, racism, poverty, anti-Semitism, or white privilege.

Even worse, a small percentage of unhappy people react with hatred, violence, vandalism, rape, or murder.

What is the difference between:

	a) A dog that has a temper tantrum when its owner goes on vacation.		b) A man who kills his wife and her lawyer when she wants a divorce.

The humans who react to problems with violence are behaving like an animal, and we cannot improve their behavior with punishments, rewards, therapy, or Bible studies. The Courts Ministry is required to be as intolerant of them as we are of violent animals. The violent humans are too similar to a violent animal to fit into a modern society. They must be put on restrictions, like a child, or evicted, or euthanized.

The Schools Ministry is required to teach children to react to problems by investigating them, discussing them, and experimenting with solutions. The children who become adults who cannot follow that advice and choose to pout, have tantrums, or ignore their problems must be regarded as mentally inferior.

For example, this child had a tantrum at Walmart and threw food and bottles on the floor (also mentioned in the Surveillance document). Although we cannot expect children to behave as well as adults, the Behavior Ministry must set standards for children, and those who cannot meet the standards must be put on restrictions or euthanized. We do not help those defective children or society by pandering to them.

Now that some nations are offering assisted suicide, we have a new problem to deal with, and that is the people who request assisted suicide but don't want to die. For example, on the day that this woman was going to be euthanized, the doctor asked if she is certain that she wants to die, and she said no.

Animals have an intense craving to survive, but they have no concern about the quality of their life. Suicide is unnatural. Suicide requires more intelligence and self-control than any animal has, and more than many humans have.

The people who request assisted suicide are having a miserable life, but allowing them to cancel after they have started the process will encourage other miserable people to request assisted suicide when all they really want is some pity. That will not improve their life, and it will waste a portion of everybody's life who gets involved with their request for suicide.

When a person requests assisted suicide, the Death Ministry must carry through with it even if the person decides to cancel. The reason is because the person obviously has a serious problem, and we should not let him waste our lives or encourage that idiotic behavior. We do not help those people or society by pandering to them.

The inferior people are another reason we need a social credit system. Passing judgment on everybody's behavior will help us determine who is appropriate for influential positions, and who should have restrictions on their reproduction.

Many documents have pointed out that if a nation, business, sports group, or orchestra is dominated by dishonest, violent, or retarded people, it will be a miserable organization regardless of what type of culture they have. A police department, legal system, government agency, school, and media company will be dangerous if the members are criminals, blackmailed pedophiles, or lunatics.

The most important aspect of an organization is its members. Businesses and militaries are aware of this concept, which is why they evict the people who are not beneficial team members. Nations are the opposite. No nation cares whether its government officials, police officers, or other citizens are contributing to the team or causing trouble.

By not caring about the quality of the citizens, the high-quality people become dominated by criminals, savages, and mentally defective people.

By not caring about the quality of our citizens, we create a miserable social environment for the higher-quality people.

The percentage of mentally disturbed people is increasing every year, and there are more immigrants who refuse to adapt to their host nation, and this causes the higher-quality people to have an increasingly difficult time finding friends and a spouse.

The low-quality people are also a bad influence on our culture. They inadvertently push our culture into giving them what they want, which is the Marquis de Sade philosophy. This will result in a culture that encourages extreme titillation with sex, food, material wealth, and status, and allows us to avoid responsibilities, work, and criticism.

High-quality children will suffer when we don't care about the quality of the people we live with.

The higher quality children will have an especially unpleasant life because children have a much stronger desire for human relationships than adults. Those children will have a difficult time finding friends, and they will be dominated by children who encourage crude attitudes and behavior.

The Jews are aware of how low-quality people can destroy an organization, which is why they are bringing millions of stupid, dishonest, and neurotic migrants into America and Europe.

The primary purpose of a living creature is to reproduce, so imposing restrictions on ourselves will require tremendous self-control. However, we cannot expect each person to have enough self-control to analyze his genetic characteristics, compare himself to other people, and make a wise decision about whether he should reproduce. Furthermore, most people are of average or below-average intelligence, so they could not make intelligent decisions even if they had enough self-control.

We need a Reproduction Ministry to make those analyses and decisions. However, we cannot expect everybody to be willing to accept their decisions, so we need a Security Ministry and a Courts Ministry to pass judgment on which people must be evicted, or put on restrictions.

Modern humans must be able to acknowledge the evidence that humans are animals, and we must control our reproduction just like we do with domestic animals, and just like nature does with wild animals. The people who cannot accept this concept must be regarded as having an unacceptable mind for this modern era.

The USA promotes the attitude that the people who have a miserable life are the underdogs, the disadvantaged, the downtrodden, and the unfortunate, and that they are helpless victims of something, such as a lack of opportunities, anti-Semitism, racism, or poverty.

That attitude causes people to believe that the underdogs will become wonderful citizens if we give them pity and special treatment, such as financial assistance, or quotas to force businesses to hire them, or by acceting them in a school that they don't qualify for.

This Constitution has the opposite attitude. Specifically, that the underdogs have a miserable life because they inherited genetic characteristics that gave them an inferior mind and/or body. Even though many of them have some excellent mental and physical characteristics, there is something inferior about their genetic design that is interfering with their life.

Half of all living creatures will always be below-average in their genetic characteristics. It is idiotic to believe that there is a method to convert the low-quality creatures into high-quality creatures. Our attempts to convert the low-quality people into high-quality people will always fail. We will waste our labor and resources, and we will irritate, frustrate, or disappoint everybody.

It is better to euthanize the seriously defective babies, and tell the people who turn out to be low-quality to accept their unfortunate characteristics, and for schools, businesses, and other organizations to put their resources into helping the higher-quality people. Everybody will benefit from that policy, including the low-quality people.

For example, when schools put their resources into helping the higher quality children develop useful skills, we end up with talented technicians, carpenters, supervisors, engineers, doctors, machinists, farmers, and scientists. Everybody will benefit as a result, including the low-quality people.

Every culture is torturing the misfit children and their parents.

By comparison, when schools put their resources into helping the low-quality children, all we can expect is an improvement in their low-level skills.

Many of them continue to be unemployable, and those that can find a job will only be able to do the most simplistic of jobs.

Some of them become criminals or drug addicts, and some torture themselves, create depressing art, or commit suicide.

Our emotional craving to take care of children causes us to believe that we are wonderful people when we help defective children survive, but we are actually being cruel when we let a person live in a world in which he is rejected by other people, or he becomes unemployable, homeless, a drug addict, suicidal, or a victim of a pedophile network.

Every culture condemns euthanizing the homeless people, but the homeless people are being tortured. During the past decade or so, some people have interviewed a few homeless people to find out what their lives are like, and their lives should be described as "horrible". Just one example is this interview with Ashley.

It is also cruel to make parents raise misfit children. Parents should enjoy their children, not suffer sadness and frustration by the strange behavior, loneliness, suicidal thoughts, or rebellious attitude of misfit children.

No culture gives people the freedom to adopt as many children as they please. People must be a certain age in order to adopt children, and they must qualify.

However, every society allows fertile people to have as many children as they want, and at any age. To make the situation more absurd, many of the anti-abortion people want to force people to raise children that they do not want, including retarded children and the children of rapists.

No culture would be so cruel or stupid as to force a random person to adopt a retarded child or the child of a rapist, but if a woman, or even a young girl, has a retarded child, or gets pregnant by a rapist, many anti-abortion people demand that she raise the child. The anti-abortion people have no concern about the quality of a child's life, or the quality of a parent's life.

This constitution doesn't give anybody the right to adopt children, or have their own biological children. Instead, the Reproduction Ministry is required to restrict reproduction to the people who have better genetic characteristics. Nobody is allowed to raise retarded children, either. The obviously defective children must be euthanized.

If we were concerned about the quality of a child's life, then we would analyze our physical and mental characteristics, compare ourselves to other people, and voluntarily refrain from having children if we have inheritable genetic disorders that are worse than the average person. However, we have such a strong craving to reproduce that we have children for our entertainment, not because we want to deal with the responsibilities and work of raising children.

We want children for the same reason that we want more material items, sex, food, and status. Specifically, we want to titillate ourselves.

It is not natural for an animal to be concerned about the quality of another animal's life, or even the quality of his own life. It requires a lot of intelligence and self-control for us to refrain from having children, and to be willing to euthanize defective children. It also requires a lot of intelligence and education for a person to come to the conclusion that he would be wasting his life by raising a retarded child.

In order for the Reproductive Ministry to make sensible decisions about who should reproduce, we must eliminate secrecy and gather data about everybody's life.

There are some people who claim that when a doctor discovers his patient has a inheritable genetic disorder, he has the right to keep that a secret from the patient, and there are people who think that the each of us has right to keep our genetic defects a secret from our relatives, potential spouse, and our biological children.

This constitution gives everybody the right to know about the genetic history of everybody, and doctors cannot keep medical problems a secret from their patients. Doctors must put all medical information into our entry of the People database. That will allow children to discover their particular medical characteristics, and allow everybody to see the medical and genetic characteristics of their potential spouse.

Militaries do not provide their members with much freedom because the military leaders of the past who provided freedom were defeated. The deadly competition resulted in militaries evolving to become effective organizations.

The businesses in a free enterprise system also put tremendous restrictions on the freedom of their members because the businesses that provided freedom went bankrupt.

The competition for survival causes the leaders of militaries, businesses, and other organizations to try to prevent problems, rather than stop it after it occurs.

By comparison, organizations that do not have much, if any, competition, such as churches, charities, political lobbying organizations, and government agencies, do not suffer much if they are inefficient or corrupt.

Government officials are so incompetent and corrupt that they play a "cat and mouse game" with people who do not want to follow the rules. Governments refer to a person's disregard of a law as "finding a loophole", rather than as "criminal behavior".

This constitution requires a government to be intolerant of loopholes. Everybody is required to have enough intelligence to understand the purpose of the rules, rather than argue over the definition of the words.

Another example of this loophole issue is that some government officials complained in 2024 that there was a loophole in the laws against child pornography that made it legal for people to create child pornography with the AI software.

This constitution requires government officials to interpret the laws against child pornography to refer to any type of pornography regardless of how it was created. That

If somebody in Kastron were to create child pornography with AI software, and then justify it by saying that the law prohibits "photographs" of child pornography, not images created by AI software, the ministers are required to respond that he should have the intelligence to realize that the law prohibits "child pornography", not "photographs". Therefore, the law does not care whether the pornography is a photograph, oil painting, laser printed image, inkjet image, tile mosaic, 3D sculpture, a hologram, or something created by future technology that we don't yet know about.

In order to reduce crime and abuse, governments must have an attitude similar to that of militaries and businesses. Specifically, government officials must be authorities rather than submissive representatives, and they must ensure that everybody, including the government officials, are productive team members. They must hold everybody accountable for what they do, and require everybody to be concerned with how we affect one another and the future generations.

This concept that we must be strict with people has been known for thousands of years, and a lot of expressions have being created to describe it, such as:

This concept might be easier for children to understand if it was less abstract, such as:

Our crude emotions cause us to put up resistance to restrictions on our freedom, even when we are aware that the restrictions are for our benefit, such as the rule to avoid texting with a phone while we are driving a vehicle.

Military leaders do not care if the rules irritate some of their members. They design the rules according to what is best for the organization. They do not pander to their members. Our government officials must have the same attitude.

We are arrogant, selfish creatures who want to do as we please and give orders to other people. Modern humans need the intelligence to understand that we are animals, and that we benefit from leadership and restrictions on our freedom. We also need the emotional ability to stop whining about being oppressed, and start discussing which freedoms to provide, and which to restrict.

However, instead of demanding the freedoms that we want, or the freedom that our ancestors had, our discussions should be about which freedoms are beneficial to modern humans and the future generations. For example, we want the freedom to reproduce, but that freedom causes genetic degradation for modern humans.

Here are some examples of how we can benefit by putting restrictions on our freedoms:

Example 1: Courtship will be more pleasant and productive

All cultures are providing men and women with the freedom to pursue one another in any manner they please, at any time, and in any location. This results in men and women pursuing a spouse at their job, at doctors offices, on trains, in elevators, and everywhere else. This results in a lot of frustration, disappointment, awkwardness, anger, and accusations of abuse.

This constitution regards courtship to be just as unacceptable in public locations as peeing, masturbation, and pooping. Therefore, courtship is prohibited in public locations and limited to the official courtship activities that the Courtship Ministry provides. Single men and women must refrain from pursuing one another in public locations.

Although that restriction on our freedom will be an irritation to us because it will force us to control our emotions, if we can follow that rule, it will create a more relaxing and pleasant social environment for both men and women.

No business executive would tolerate an employee who poops or masturbates in the offices or hallways, and we should not tolerate men who persue women while they are at their job, or in any other public location. This will allow women to relax around men at their jobs, swimming areas, restaurants, and all other social and recreational areas and activities.

The Courts Ministry has the authority and responsibility to observe people and ensure that they are following the rules. The people who cannot refrain from flirting in public must be regarded as behaving like an animal. Those people need to either be put on restrictions, such as restricted to certain neighborhoods, or evicted from the city. We must raise standards for people and stop tolerating, ignoring, and giving pity to, the people who cannot, or refuse to, meet those standards and follow the rules.

Our nomadic ancestors would have considered it absurd if somebody told them that they could pee only in certain areas of the forest, and that they must pick up the poop from the dogs that they used for hunting and toss it in an area designated for trash, but we are now living in a significantly different environment, and those restrictions make our lives more pleasant.

Likewise, our modern societies are causing men to be sexually titillated to an excess, and putting men and women into close contact on a regular basis, so we will make life more relaxing and pleasant for both men and women if we dampen the sexual titillation, such as by prohibiting women from dressing in a sexual manner while working, and restrict courtship to government authorized events.

The men who behave like dogs must be evicted or put on restrictions.

Our goal should be to make life more relaxing and pleasant for everybody, and that requires that we stop tolerating the behavior that is irritating.

We should regard the people who pursue one another in public as behaving like dogs that are sniffing our crotch.

We should not ignore them, give them pity, make excuses for their bad behavior, or allow them to annoy us. Instead, the Courts Ministry is authorized to pass judgment on whether their behavior is so irritating that they should be put on restrictions, or evicted.

It will be unpleasant to put restrictions on, or evict, the men and women who cannot control their courtship behavior, but we allow the police to arrest people for such things as public masturbation, so we can learn to tolerate the arrest of people who cannot control their courtship behavior.

We will create a more pleasant and relaxing social environment when we live among people who voluntarily follow the rules. Evicting a man or woman who becomes a public nuisance for flirting is no more cruel than evicting a person who becomes a nuisance because he cannot refrain from rape or murder.

We need to change our attitudes on what is "cruel". We need to define "cruel" according to intellectual reasoning, not emotional feelings. We should consider ourselves to be cruel when we allow a few badly behaved members to torment the others. Furthermore, allowing the badly behaved people to reproduce is even more cruel because it increases the number of badly behaved people in the next generation, thereby making the situation worse.

The Behavior Ministry of the Health Division is authorized to set standards of behavior for both adults and children, and pass judgment on everybody, and the Courts Ministry of the Quality Division can impose restrictions or evict the people who cannot meet the standards, and the Reproductive Ministry is responsible for preventing the inferior people from reproducing.

Example 2: News articles must be educational

The Journalism Minister of the Health Division is required and authorized to set standards for journalists, which includes passing judgment on the adjectives that they use. For example, this news article starts with:

Those particular adjectives should classify that document as a personal opinion, not a news article. This concept would be more obvious if the journalist had used the opposite adjectives, such as:

A free enterprise system puts journalists into competition to attract consumers, not a competition to be the most informative or educational. This results in journalists looking for ways to titillate our emotions and attract our attention, and one of their techniques is to use adjectives that make the news events appear emotionally exciting. They are frequently informing us of the prettiest flowers, or the "best" foods, sports, automobiles, and events.

Although this issue of adjectives may seem to be so trivial that there is no need for the Quality Division to be concerned about it, this is not a trivial issue. By trying to attract the attention of consumers, the journalists are giving people a distorted view of life.

For example, their exaggerated descriptions of a solar eclipse are fooling many people into believing that they will improve their life by watching a solar eclipse, and some people go so far as to purchase telescopes to see the eclipse, and some people go even further and travel to where the eclipse will be more easily observed.

Our lives cannot improve simply by watching an eclipse. If we did not have a moon, we would never see an eclipse of the sun, but life would be just as much fun.

Conversely, if the Earth had several moons, then we would see a lot of eclipses, but that would not give us a more satisfying life.

An eclipse of the sun is "spectacular" only because it is unusual, and we have a tendency to make the mistake of assuming that something unusual is better than something that is common. One reason we make this mistake is because we have a certain amount of curiosity, which causes us to enjoy discovering something new.

However, most of our attraction to something unusual seems to be because we have intense cravings for status and attention. When we experience something unusual, we can titillate ourselves by telling ourselves that we are special for being able to experience the event, and we can become the center of attention for a while by boasting about it.

Another reason that some people become excited by an eclipse is because they are bored. When we become bored we search for something to do. This can cause us to become obsessed with an idiotic activity, such as watching as many eclipses as possible. This behavior is similar to when a retired person becomes so bored that he becomes obsessed with traveling around the world, or playing bingo or golf.

If the earth had a few dozen moons, and if eclipses were happening every week, we would lose interest in looking at them, and nobody would become the center of attention for talking about how he traveled to see an eclipse. If eclipses happened every day, we would be irritated by people who boasted about watching the eclipse.

This concept applies to all events. For example, there are so many automobile accidents that nobody wants to hear about them. We only want to hear about the unusual accidents. Likewise, there are so many crimes occurring that we only want to hear about the unusual ones.

I think the sunrays created by clouds are more spectacular than an eclipse.

It is certainly interesting to observe an eclipse, but I think that the clouds provide more spectacular visual images.

In addition to constantly changing their shapes and sizes, the clouds can interact with the sunlight, such as creating sunrays.

At night the clouds sometimes have beautiful and interesting interactions with the moonlight.

I think the clouds are beautiful decorations in the sky, and the way they interact with the sun and moon is much more interesting than an eclipse. The exception is when the clouds are a gigantic, gray, shapeless sheet.

Furthermore, we can see the clouds interacting with the sunlight and moonlight everywhere on the planet, and on a regular basis. We don't have to wait years for beautiful clouds to appear, and we don't have to purchase a telescope or travel to a distant location.

Clouds can also interact with the sunlight in such a manner that the cloud has tints of green, violet, blue, and red. The Wikipedia says it's fairly common, but it seems to be unusual in my area (Goleta, CA).

Since many people never notice the beauty of the clouds, and probably don't know what I am referring to, I took the photo below from my living room window to show it, although it looks like the camera is out of focus.

Those clouds reminded me of the colorful nebulas in outer space, except that those clouds were slowly changing their shapes and colors because of the wind.

An eclipse is interesting the first time we see it, but I think there are lots of aspects of life that are more fascinating than an eclipse. For example, I think it is more fascinating that some people centuries ago could predict an eclipse.

I also think it is interesting to consider that the moon just happens to be the size and distance from the earth to almost exactly block the sun. If the moon had been a different size, or a different distance from the earth, it would not be able to so perfectly eclipse the sun.

Some scientists claim that the moon is slowly moving away from the earth, and that makes me wonder what the eclipse looked like millions of years ago, and what it will look like millions of years in the future.

In June 2022, this news article describes the "epic" alignment of 5 planets and the moon, and that it is a "spectacle" that we will not occur for another 20 years, and that it is so difficult to observe that it "could require losing some sleep."

Is that alignment of planets truly so epic and spectacular that it is worth interfering with our sleep? I don't think so. Looking at the alignment of planets is looking at some dots in the sky, which is less exciting to me than watching an automobile odometer change from 99,999 to 100,000.

In March 2023, Jupiter and Venus appeared close in the sky, and journalists wrote such idiotic remarks as:
and:

A few weeks later some journalists told us that "5 planets will parade across the sky in rare astronomical event", and that it would be "a rarely seen spectacle". In January 2024 journalists told us about an alignment of 7 planets.

Some of the planets are frequently appearing together in the night sky, but are those events truly important enough for the journalists to regard them as "news"?

The free enterprise system is causing journalists to exploit and titillate us rather than educate us. Another example is that weather forecasters in January 2024 were using the expression "atmospheric river" to describe a storm in California. In reality, it was just another of the large rain and snow storms that occur on a routine basis all around the world.

When journalists or other people create excitement about an eclipse, a food item, Stonehenge, a recreational activity, a travel destination, a Hollywood celebrity, Prince Harry, a clothing item, or any other activity, thing, or event, they can cause people to develop an attraction to it. That can result in people wasting their life and money on worthless, idiotic, boring, destructive, or dangerous activities. It can also cause people to become disappointed, frustrated, or angry when they realize that they wasted their life or money.

Exaggerating the value of something should be regarded as manipulation and deception, not advice, leadership, or guidance.

The opposite is also true. Specifically, when journalists and other influential people exaggerate the bad aspects of something, they can cause people to dislike it, even though it might actually be beneficial. The ADL does this on a routine basis by claiming some people are anti-Semites or Holocaust deniers. Businesses sometimes do this to attract people's attention, such as this video created by Business Insider that shows us the "worst food trends of the decade".

The Efficiency Ministry in the Quality Division is restricted to people who have shown an awareness of this concept, and they are expected to dampen this behavior by passing judgment on the journalists, and requesting the Journalism Ministry to fire and replace the journalists who cannot meet high standards.

Example 3: Treating nonsense as the truth

The Journalism Minister of the Health Division is required to prohibit journalists from giving credibility to such idiotic concepts as ghosts, curses, witches, and clairvoyance. For example, when a cargo ship got caught in the Suez Canal, blocking traffic, some journalists responded with idiotic articles about a "Pharaoh's curse" and "Ramesses’ Revenge".

That is not journalism because it does not educate or inform us about a news event. It is either an attempt to titillate emotions, or it is damage control to cover up a crime. The Efficiency Ministry provides some checks and balances by also passing judgment on the journalists.

Example 4: Businesses must produce beneficial information

The businesses in a free enterprise system provide us with distorted, worthless, and deceptive information about their products. Most of the videos that they produce about their products are worthless sales propaganda with music instead of intelligent narration.

The videos and documents they produce about their products are intended to titillate us rather than educate us, and some advertisements are intended to make us remember their particular company name or brand name.

Some businesses have been so successful in promoting a brand name that children grow up to be adults who assume that the product name is the word for item. For example, many people believe that "Kleenex" and "Band-Aid" are the English words for certain items, rather than brand names. In England, people refer to vacuum cleaners as "hoovers", and when they use a vacuum cleaner, they refer to themselves as "hoovering", because the Hoover company produced vacuum cleaners.

The Journalism Minister of the Health division is authorized to pass judgment on whether a business or other organization is being manipulative or confusing with their documents and videos, and if so, they can require the information be edited to make it more informative. If a business has already dissolved by the time the Journalism Ministry has made this decision, then the Journalism Ministry can edit the information.

The Efficiency Ministry provides additional checks and balances by also passing judgment on the descriptions of products.