Timing; falls under planning. A source i very much respect teaches that the 7-day week actually stems from biological cycles; according to what he explains, there are 6 basic organ aspects in the body, each with complementary organs, a total of 12; each of these has a 2 hour period during the day in which they are most active/sensitive/influential. These times, by organ, are based on the Sun; noon i.e. 12:00, according to this thinking, is when the Sun reaches it's highest point in the sky. They are:
3:00-5:00 am – Lung Time.
5:00-7:00 am – Large Intestine Time.
7:00-9:00 am – Stomach Time.
9:00-11:00 am – Spleen-Pancreas Time.
11:00 am-1:00 pm – Heart Time.
1:00-3:00 pm – Small Intestine Time.
3:00-5:00 pm – Urinary Bladder Time.
5:00-7:00 pm – Kidney Time.
7:00-9:00 pm – Circulation-Sex Time.
9:00-11:00 pm – Triple Heater Time.
11:00 pm-1:00 am – Biliary Bladder Time.
1:00-3:00 am – Liver Time.

However, each of these organ functions also has a 14 hour rhythm and 14 x 12 = 7 days. Hence, the reason why there's not only a 7-day week, but why it is universal (i.e. accepted by cultures all over the globe). These 14-hour cycles go as follows:
Sunday 03:00 to 17:00, lung
Sunday 17:00 to Monday 07:00, large intestine
Monday 07:00 to 21:00, stomach
Monday 21:00 to Tuesday 11:00, spleen-pancreas
Tuesday 11:00 to Wednesday 01:00, heart time
Wednesday 01:00 to 15:00, small intestine
Wednesday 15:00 to Thursday 05:00, bladder time
Thursday 05:00 to 19:00, kidney time
Thursday 19:00 to Friday 09:00, circulation-sex
Friday 09:00 to 23:00, thyroid
Friday 23:00 to Saturday 13:00, gall bladder
Saterday 13:00 to Sunday 03:00, liver

This timing not only explains why siestas are so common but it also suggests a best time for general inactivity during the WEEK: Wednesday from 01:00 until the afternoon at 15:00. Therefore, if one were to establish a human religion based on the index i'm establishing in this book, one would have the 'day of rest' on Wednesday (at least until 3 in the afternoon). The daily siesta, religious or no, would be from 13:00 to 15:00 every afternoon; during this time it is best to refrain from strenuous physical activity, at any rate.
Another important cycle is that of the brain, which has it's intellectual peak in the morning [particularly the late morning], is creative in the afternoon, and sexual in the evening (i.e. focuses on the parasympathic system that includes assimilation of food as well as sexuality). WHICH... brings us to sex.


Humanity's nearest genetic relative in the animal kingdom is the bonobo ape. The bonobo is very similar to the chimpanzee, but the most interesting and prominent difference between the two is that chimpanzee society is patriarchal and hierarchal, while bonobos enjoy a matriarchal system. Practically speaking, this makes a HUGE difference in the lives of the apes; the bonobo are peaceful, while chimpanzees fight incessantly, even to the death. According to a documentary on bonobos i saw, this probably stems from the fact that chimpanzees have always had to compete with gorillas; the gorillas eat all the fruit that falls from the trees, whereas the bonobos have no such competition and therefore a much more reliable and abundant food supply. Because chimpanzees are always fighting over food, they are always fighting.
I should mention that research has shown that human rebellions always start with food shortage; it is the trigger that gets the human brain, as well, to fall into survival mode. One can imagine that the chimpanzees, growing up in such a hierarchal society, are conditioned from before birth to a more fight-or-flight attitude. I'm guessing this is why the bonobo are peaceful as a species, whereas chimpanzees appear to be belligerent as a species; i.e. i doubt it has to do with genetics [as the mainstream undoubtably would claim].
Bonobos are EXTREMELY sexually active; in bonobo society sex is a prominent aspect of everyday life. Basically, everyone can have sex with anyone, and it is frequent. Bonobos use stress for many aspects of social life; often it is used to relieve stress. The most interesting consideration is that since bonobos are our closest genetic relatives, it stands to reason that their sexual nature should be similar to our own. Mainstream human society, however, focuses on HIERARCHAL, i.e. authoritarian, relationships, like the chimpanzee; and like chimpanzees, everything, INCLUDING SEX, is about power. The bonobo, on the other hand, should be a mirror into what is possible for mankind; they do not kill each other and do not tolerate selfish and antisocial behavior; when they run into other groups of bonobos, they associate in a friendly manner with them, sharing resources, and often living together for a time. Chimpanzees, though, fight each other over status, food, the right to procreate; everything; when they meet up with other chimpanzees, they fight them off and often hunt them down and kill them. For all intents and purposes, they are an example of mankind's 'dark side'; we must choose: would we live as bonobo or chimpanzee.

Based on Kropotkin's Mutual Aid concerning the basic premise for ALL social life, chimpanzee society, like human society, appears to be out of sync, if not downright diseased. Social behavior is about as basic and as natural as it gets for most species; chimpanzee society, it would seem, just confirms the challenges that intelligence poses on a species. In many ways, aside from humans, chimps appear to be the most agressive (POTENTIALLY social) species on the planet. This suggests much in relation to human social behavior and what can or should be healthy and natural human mores; especially toward sex.


Just like sex is what seems to truly separate the bonobo from the chimpanzee, in everyday life and attitudes, as well as conflict resolution, it appears to be a major part of what is inherently INhuman about modern culture. A truly human culture, in sync with health and nature, would give sex a very different place in society. That's not interesting because people starving for sex are obsessed by the topic, it is interesting because a natural/healthy/human society would have a completely different idea, practice, and attitude toward sex than people have commonly exibited in the last millennia. Wars over resources, hierarchal and patriarchal cultures, and xenophobic societies the world over appear to say much about mankind's (potential) dark side, but very little over what might be considered better, or good, options for humanity. And sex is right in the middle of it all.

The biological, psychological, and social importance of sex is ignored, ridiculed, and generally made little of by popular culture; anyone who talks about sex at all tends to be considered obsessed, frustrated, or exaggerating. Hierarchal/authoritarian culture basically treats sex as a matter for 'alpha dogs' and they expect those at the lower end of the hierarchy to accept that theirs are the scraps that fall from the table. Therefore, basically, sex is inherently linked to a serf-mentality: people can obsess and fight over sex all they wish, but TPTB refuse to consider the matter essential, important to psychological health, or linked to human rights. In popular culture sex is elitist.
I have given the matter much thought, therefore. If one considers anything to any depth AT ALL, sooner or later sex turns out to be part of the equation (and often a very large part of it). You should understand, therefore, that the detailed opinions i harbor on the matter are a logical result of my interest in EVERYTHING that is essential to intelligent life. The following suggestions and conclusions are, again, the result of careful considerations of data, logic, and common sense,, having nothing to do with my own personal frustrations, fantasies, etc. Avoiding the 3 P's [preference, prejudice, presuppositions], as well, the fact that i will be stressing the importance and form of sex in what i propose as a healthy human society speaks volumes to the importance of sex for humanity; nothing else.

Charles Darwin's discoveries should come to mind: human societies in which women choose sexual partners according to natural imperatives. In order to speak of this matter intelligently, a few words need to be carefully defined; a "father" is a "father figure; a "biological father" is the source of genetic material; a "mate" is a partner to a male or female who shares important aspects of life for a considerable length of time, often in relation to child rearing; a "sexual mate" is someone you have sex with, irrelevant of other aspects of the relationship.
Mainstream culture clouds the issue of sexuality by being vague about such words; "father" can mean natural or cultural father, a "mate" is someone for one night or for one's lifetime; again, using words literally is the foundation for sophisticated ideas, which can then lead to intelligent principles. Popular culture (subconsciously) CHOOSES to be vague in relation to the matter of sexuality and therefore remains vague in how they speak of it. Such behavior/choices are typical of the serf attitude. My own choice and use of words is carefully done and consistent. To be very clear:
- father = CULTURAL father (figure); though this CAN also be the natural, i.e. biological, father [i.e. source of DNA], human imperatives suggest alternatives
- mate = partner in a commited relationship (but not sexually exclusive)

Sexual fidelity is an authoritarian concept; really, if you love your mate, would you not rather they enjoy gourmet meals every day? Empathy demands it, after all. Similarly then, would you deny the person you love and are committed to, sexual pleasure?
I once asked myself this question because data, logic, and common sense demand it; after all, if you're going to intelligently consider anything, you can't let the 3 P's get in the way of your considerations. I experienced myself, as victim of the authoritarian upbringing that was brought to bear on me all of my life, that it took about 3 weeks before i had my feelings in sync with my intellect on this matter; after 3 weeks of considering it, i could also FEEL the sense of this very basic question: "Why would i deny my mate sexual pleasure?"
There's a chance that you, too, have been conditioned by the authoritarian paradigm and therefore you also feel uncomfortable with the conclusions i have come to. I will speak of it no more; the 25% must deal with feelings they struggle with and are capable of doing so; unlike the 75% who can never accept basic human behavior that's fundamentally alien to the hierarchal paradigm.

Men and women develop very differently, both physically and mentally; at the age of 14 or 15, women should be able [again, both mentally as well as physically] to assume their female role in relationships and society. Depending on circumstance, a woman age 15 to 18 should be expected to wish to become pregnant; she should also be expected to wish to find a mate [i.e. cultural partner].
Because of the sensitive nature of this topic matter, i will again stress the importance of reading LITERALLY what i'm writing; i.e. in the case of the previous statement, i'm not writing that i believe that women between the age of 15 and 18 should be DEMANDED to become pregnant or find a mate; neither am i saying that they should be expected to do BOTH, let alone in one and the same person. I have written WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN; no more, no less. What details i write down or which will be written down below don't necessarily have anything to do with what the reader might expect me to say, or not to say. In other words, if i do not elaborate on any topic, or aspect of a topic, then i have nothing to say on the matter; perhaps it will come later, perhaps it will come not at all. For whatever reason(s).
The matter of sexuality is basic to considerations on human life and culture; especially if one is considering the matter from the point of view of a religion or philosophy that might be implemented, the last thing the world needs is for any kind of synthesis between the human and inhuman. My considerations of what can or should be human have taken years to evolve and mature; it would only undermine what i have to say to project anything on these considerations or translate them in any way. I have stressed the matter of using words literally, even mentioned the matter of 'literal English' as another language altogether, due to the nature and importance of the topics i'm discussing. If you would benefit by what i have to offer, you would do well to keep these things in mind.

A woman generally has to do with NATURAL and CULTURAL partners in life; she should MATE with a man who is CULTURALLY superior. Such a man should be at least 20 years older than she is. Assuming the (now) common condition of deteriorating telomeres [i.e. aging], men of the age of 'marriage' (i.e. "mating"), should be considered inferior options for procreation purposes; for an older man to procreate undermines the genetic properties of both family and society, as well as humanity itself. In a civilized society relationships should bear all of these aspects in mind and therefore a CULTURE should develop that is in sync with mankind's NATURE, on all levels. All relationships influence everyone and the culture should mirror that reality.
When a woman wishes to conceive, she should have sex with a man who is NATURALLY superior. When a woman ovulates, however, she is naturally drawn to different men than she is the rest of her homonal cycle. This also changes the manner in which she desires and engages in sex. Some sexually inactive women find that they're interested in sex AT ALL during this period; sexually active women may find that their fantasies or preferences turn to other men than their mate; in general, the body of a woman who ovulating has a nose for good DNA/genes; the rest of the month, her nature is to insure a good HOME for her offspring; that takes a good provider, not a good 'fuck', as it were. The kind of sex a woman desires or accepts also changes; during ovulation her tastes may be more 'animalistic' and she may appreciate a 'good fuck', whereas sex as part of social bonding might more appropriately be called "making love". These changes in sexual tastes are not only natural, but they service human relationships as well as the species in general. The culture, therefore, should honor and support them.

The evolution of male and female brains is very different; the gender differentiation of the human brain is part of what makes us successful as a species and makes us who and what we are. The intellectual specialization of the male brain is a variation of the massive mammalian brain that is uniquely human. It takes it's toll in puberty when growth of other parts of the male body is stunted while the male adolescent brain becomes 3-dimensionally and 4-dimensionally specialized; in a natural setting the 3-dimensional specialization leads to the male ability to focus on the environment; the hunter-gatherer must leave and/or lead the group in search of food, while females focus on more internal aspects like the home, the direct environment, child care, etc.. The 4-dimensional specialization has to do with TIME; it's about planning, cycles, seasons, politics, travelling, etc. If the males of the species had not specialized to care about that which is far away and in the future, mankind could never cross a desert or store food or water for future need. The female of the species, however, has her mind more on the IMMEDIATE needs of her group, like the hunger of her child or peace among it's members.
If you like, it should be accepted that mankind has it's limitations and people ARE NOT able to deal with everything, and certainly not at once; it is the males who naturally look to the OUTSIDE, while women remain focuses on that which is more INSIDE. Asian cultures acknowledge such differentiation in their Yin & Yang theories and principles. Genetically speaking, mankind AS A SPECIES is stronger for having one half who look AWAY while another have focuses on THE MOMENT. In this manner men have a great need for what women offer, because the specialization of their brain has blinded them to many human parts of existence with which women are naturally attuned. On the other hand, if men HAD NOT specialized as they did, mankind would probably still be living in caves; perhaps very SOPHISTICATED cave dwellings, but simplistic nonetheless... It is mankind's unique ability to look BEYOND that makes him 'man'; and men need women to keep them rooted in natural life, so they don't lose themselves, as it were, in the activities of their intellectual mind. In a very real way, therefore, men really NEED women much more than women need men. ON THE OTHER HAND, without men women do tend to oversimplify life, especially in regard to political and technical matters that have, after all, become very real aspects of modern life. Emotionally, though, men need the presence of women in their lives more than women need the presence of men. It is always a matter of degree, though, since the very fact that women are naturally in tune with their basic/animalistic humanity, gives them a strong urge to be part of a healthy human social group, which naturally includes males.

The unique specialization of the mammalian brain of men results in the situation that one might say that only a man of 40 years old might be called mature, whereas a woman of 20 might be called mature FOR A WOMAN. Ironically, one might say, there are no men; the only whole people are young women, for a 'man' of 20 years of age hasn't nearly reached the cerebral specialization and maturity that uniquely makes him a man; on the other hand, with the degeneration of telomeres (as is commonly experienced in modern life), a man of 40 years old has clearly inferior genes for reproduction! And since being able to reproduce is an essential aspect of LIFE, one might say that older men are not really (healthy) men at all (anymore). To put it bluntly: young men are wannabes and mature men are hasbeens... In a way, therefore, real men do not exist.
I believe modern culture subconsciously suffers under this dilemma to a very severe degree. Modern culture is obsessed with young women and i believe it is because they are the ONLY real example of good humanity. According to Darwin's research as well, "older' basically means "unhealthy"; his research clearly shows that youth = attractiveness because it equals health; individuals seeking a sexual mate look to the most HEALTHY specimen they can find; on the one hand that means young men and young women, but because of the modern obsession with sexual fidelity and marriage for life, young men truly make poor mates! So in the end ALL men are inferior, either from a natural or a cultural point of view. The only REAL human beings who have everything to offer are young women. Both young and older men desire them and find them attractive, and older women wish to look like them. NO ONE wishes to look like either a mature man or women (though mature men are the only men who are capable of being good mates).
This is actually quite a problem for mankind as a species; if women would follow their natural hormonal instincts and have sex during ovulation with the most attractive males, i.e. with young vibrant healthy young men, this would benefit the gene pool immensely. Who knows; it might even create a genetic situation in which people become healthier and ever longer living, as perfectly healthy genes come to make up the foundation for babies, who grow up into longer-living healthier adults, who then have sex with healthier longer-living adults, etc. etc. etc.
As things stand now, EVERY man, no matter how unattractive from a genetic point of view, has about the same chance of procreation as any other. There is simply NO natural selection taking place whatsoever and it all has to do with the same authoritarian paradigm that has degenerated chimpanzees into a belligerent killer species.

It would be beneficial on genetic, social, and personal levels for a culture to be organised as follows; women should mate with a man who is at least 20 years older; these women should be aware of the ovulation method and be able and willing to choose when to become pregnant and what the gender of their child will be. If they choose to impregnate themselves, they should seek to be sexually serviced by a young male of their choosing.
It is common knowledge that young men and mature women have the strongest sex drives; young men, therefore, should either mate or be sexually active with women who are 20 years older than they are. These young men will make themselves available to any young woman who chooses his seed for procreation purposes; in this way, the most attractive genes will be distributed over more women than unattractive combinations of genes. However, as even relatively unattractive males still possess the attractiveness of youth, and because mature women are no longer interested in procreation,, even these young men should be able to find a mate with which to be sexually active. In the end, the steps i'm explaining lead to a situation in which ALL members of society lead a natural healthy sex life, unlike modern society in which very few men are sexually fulfilled, and only young women have to options by which to POTENTIALLY live very sexually active lives. (In modern society even young women are often sexually frustrated, but that is about culture, not about nature. The aforementioned is, by the way, an extension of the argument in which young women are the only truly human people on the planet today; certainly, as a group, they are the only ones potentially having as much sex as they like.)

Men from 35 to 40 years old should seek a mate among the women of 15 to 20 years of age. Such men have experienced their own personal sexual tastes and have matured to the point that they are capable of entering into a committed relationship; that is beneficial to the potential children of their mate, as they will be able to enjoy a father who is experienced, knowledgeable, focused, probably financially accomplished, and accessible as father figure.
When the children of the 20-year old female and 40-year old male are mature, i.e. about 20 years later, the then 35 to 40-year old women should seek out another sexual partner from the young men in society; her (then) 55 to 60 year old mate, the 'father' of her children, could continue to play a sexual part in her life, but it is, as a rule, unlikely that a 60-year old man will be willing or able to service the sexual needs of a woman in her sexual prime.
Young men who have been sexually active with mature women who later seek a young woman as mate, could either continually be sexually active with their then 55 to 60-year old (sexual) partner, or not; that would of course depend on every relationship individually. It should be clear, though, that the sexual appetites and intensity of 20, 40, or 60-year olds are inherently potentially very different. Mainstream culture gives such as little respect as it does gender differences.


Humanity does not only consist of genders and age groups, each with their own very specific requirements and preferences; there are 2 more essential aspects to humanity that i wish to discuss and that belong in the discussion of procreation and relationships. The politically correct nature of these aspects makes the potential outrage towards my views on age and gender probably seem minor by comparison. They are, however, potentially as powerful tools as gender and age in assuring mankind's genetic and social health. The basis for the following goes beyond what foundationing information i have so far offered; in part, it even goes further than anything ever discussed in the mainstream. As should be clear by now, though, such a point is moot; if anything, the fact that the mainstream ignores a point should be a sign that it must be significant indeed!

Mankind is working towards a situation in which all races will eventually dissappear. Should mankind continue on it's present authoritarian course, there will one day be no Chinese, Indian, black, caucasian, or any other race on the planet; they will all have disappeared in a racial potpourri common to what happened in Brazil where there is neither indian, black, or caucasian but only mullato.
This is essentially a RACIST situation! After all, if your actions lead to the EXTERMINATION of a race, let alone of every race [!], you are essentially a rascist, whether you are so intentionally or consciously or no. I believe, therefore, that when a young woman seeks a sexual mate to impregnate here, she should find one who exibits the same racial elements that she does herself. This does leave some room for interpretation, obviously, since women who are racial hybrids may seek to choose one aspect of their genetic heritage over another. In the end, though, it would mean that racial integrity would GROW rather than diminish. If one does not wish for the extermination of all human races on Earth, there is no other course of action possible.
The advantages are many; the only disadvantage one could offer has to do with the authoritarian trauma and how men seek genetic dominance over the children in their house.

The second procreative aspect i would argue is for that of blood type. There are basically only 3 blood types: 0, A, and B; AB, is a hybrid from that forever ultimately falls away into it's building blocks A & B. As you perhaps do not know, blood types are as follows:
- A = AA or A0
- B = BB or B0
- 0 = 00 [zero (not "O")
Whether a person is, for example, AA or A0, it shows the signs of A; a person with blood type A either got an A from one parent and a 0 from the other, or he/she received an A from both. Either way, he/she will show all the characteristics of an A.
Unknown to most cultures in the world but respected in Korea, Thailand, and Japan,, the blood types each have typical characteristics. This specifically relates to humanity and the (potential) authoritarian paradigm because each blood type has a very different way of dealing with authority! Very very few people have ever given mankind's authoritarian trauma thought, but the number of people (outside of the aforementioned ones) who give blood type IN RELATION TO AUTHORITY thought, are again a tiny fraction of that. Based on all of my research and considerations, however, i believe the matter to be very relevant to the health and future of humanity. Both blood type and race should be respected and honored, not ignored and belittled.

Just as women should procreate with someone of their own race (of appropriate age, of course), they should mate and procreate with someone of their own blood type. This allows for harmony in the home, for health, and for social stability. People with certain blood types not only share common psychological characteristics, but also dietary ones. Though the blood type diet may not be as important as Dr. Peter D'Adamo suggests in his books, it is my own experience that diet and blood type still have significant health effects. If there should be a household, let alone a community, focused on growing and eating foods based on the needs and preferences of a single blood type, that should alleviate a lot of stresses now considered common and unavoidable. Also, similar to the matter of race, humanity should be able to enjoy the diversity of cultures possible when differences are respected and embraced, rather than mixed into oblivion, confusion, and ignorance.
There is much to be said on the topic of blood type and i will include elsewhere in the book articles that i've written in the past.


Communities, humanity, and individuals alike would be served by a religious institution to guide everyone in achieving the above goals. On no level are people served by ignoring these aspects of the human condition. Whether it's about age, gender, race, blood type, or trauma,, there should be support from the community in making choices possible that support each of us individually and all of us collectively. The alternative is a steady disintigration of everything that makes us human, as well as a (continuation of) lives that are unhealthy, unhappy, full of stress, full drama, sexually repressed, selfish, antisocial, and generally self-destructive.
Whenever i discuss just about anything, people reply that things get too complicated; i'm sure the 75% feel that they are carried outside their comfort zone, while the 25% feel solidarity for the 75%, knowing that most people could never deal with such complications, so where's the point?
Everything i'm discussing, therefore, is moot from the viewpoint that people of the 75% are involved in the choices to be made. Having said that, it is especially in regards to dealing with the 75%, as well, that there needs to be a religious institution to guide the 25%; that has to do with the integrity of a human society, as well as expanding human society to include as many of the 75% as possible, and as quickly and peacefully as possible, as well.

There should be a location for all women in a community to go to, where they can find advice, support, social contact with other human women, teaching, and suitable mates, especially for procreation. Let's call it a "temple", just so we have a word for it; women could go to the temple for all kinds of needs or wishes, and if procreation were one of them, there would not be a reason for any stigma in regards to coming to the temple. Young men who are not in a commited relationship with a mature woman could go there for sexual release, as well as mature women going their in order to find attractive young men for their own enjoyment. However, women would also go to the temple for any number of other activities and goals. After all, since information is one of the key elements in establishing a free and human society, it is logical that there be a place where information is freely distributed. Indeed, within an authoritarian society ruled by copyright, it is the only option.
Modern mosques fulfil a similar diversity of activity and goals; they are about much more than Islam study or worship. 'Human temples', therefore, can fit into any society, no matter the percentage of traumatized folk. As the activities therein are private, compartimentalized, and regulated,, they need not trigger the sensibilities of those who either do not enter there, or who enter there for other purposes than those wishing to practice human values.
Through organizing contact between people of appropriate race, age, gender, and blood type,, integrity of teaching and humanity would both be made easy for all participants. Ultimately, as well, they would be centers that the 75% themselves could come to enjoy and appreciate. Which brings me to the matter of expanding human society and dealing with the 75% in society.


Information is power; money and brute force are also power, but information is key. Therefore, there should be information which stays out of the hands of the 75%. As Jesus's advice states: "Throw not your pearls to swine or they will turn and rend you"; if the 75% were aware of the procreation plans of the 25%, they would work ceaselessly to destroy them. Indeed, it would become their main goal in life, before they move on to anything else. Therefore, one might say: "What happens in the temple, STAYS in the temple". [Some human humor there.] There is information that should stay within the 25% and because of this, there is information that should be reserved for men, as well as to men of a certain maturity. The UNDERSTANDING of all i'm discussing here takes YEARS to assimilate in theory as well as practice. Ideally, in a human society (or in a human community within an authoritarian society), the PRACTICE of human values will be supported by the temple and the 25% who actively, and consciously, practice human teachings there. This practical support will especially serve children and women, who do not tend to the intellectual aspects i'm discussing here. What i'm saying is that not everybody in a human society needs to KNOW about all aspects of what it takes for a society to BE human. In fact, it would be better if many people were ignorant of most aspects of it. For instance, women are authoritarian by nature; though it's nothing like the DISEASED authoritarianism of the 75%, basically women tend to fall in line with a female hierarchy as long as it seems fair. Therefore, it would not be hard for a group of (mature) women to consciously guide the activities in a temple so the matters of age, gender, race, blood type, and trauma are respected; not everyone involved needs to know every detail of how and why temple activities take place.
Similarly, there should be information that gets conveyed to males in society, that's restricted to mature men; that way, no matter the choices men make in their immature years, they can't consciously or subconsciously convey sensitive information to people of the 75%. Now a very practical element of human family life presents itself: men who start to father a family at the age of 40, will themselves be 60 by the time their firstborn is 20; they will be 80 years old by the time their firstborn is 40, i.e. when he [assuming it's a male] is ready to assume the full mantle of human knowledge and responsibility. Now, when it becomes possible to determine the gender of one's children, a lot of amazing opportunities present themselves. A human couple should, therefore, first have a male child. As males require more time to mature, and since they should only be presented with the most sensitive information after they've achieved maturity, a man should 'father' a son as soon as possible; in other words, a man's 20-year younger bride should go to the temple to find a suitable mate and arrange for that impregnation to produce a male offspring; nine months later she will bear a son and the father can look forward to passing on the appropriate knowledge to his son as time passes.

If the 25% are to expand their numbers (at the expense of the 75%) as fast as possible [which is preferable considering the threat they present to all life on the planet!], all other offspring should be female. This has many reasons; one important one is that the women in a human society could actively attract men in authoritarian society into the human fold by seeking out the 25%. In this way alone, many goals are achieved. When the women who belong to a human society marry a man who does not suffer from the authoritarian trauma, that man will accept the human values of a human society, because his solidary inclinations to support the 75% become much less pressing. He may KNOW that there are billions of people suffering from the authoritarian trauma he himself grew up in, but if he's surrounded by a family and community that lives human values, it will be possible for him to let it go. After all, he is a man and if his wife demands that he embrace the human values that are already inherently part of his emotional makeup, he will overcome what emotional turmoil it takes. He will also be supported by conscious and educated males in the human society, giving him all the emotional and intellectual support he needs. Such a man will, however, never be allowed into the fold of ULTIMATE human knowledge, for he cannot be trusted because of the inhuman relationships he will carry with him all of this life. However, though he may never know what his wife's BROTHER will ultimately be allowed to learn, he will be a male force of good for humanity and the planet; were he to remain in the folds of the authoritarian paradigm, he would continue to support the inhuman choices of the 75%, thereby being part of the problem, as opposed to being part of the solution by being an active part of human culture.
All daughters raised and educated in human families will know how to recognize males that belong to the 25% or the 75%, i.e. whether or not a man suffers from the authoritarian trauma or not. She could, and should, have the help of other men and women (in the temple and outside) to both meet and chose such an appropriate mate; as the temple is, among other things, a location for women seeking to superior DNA, men from outside human society (i.e. those still within the folds of authoritarian society), can be invited to partake in certain sexual activities in the temple. Such dual goals service genetics, romance, as well as making the temple tolerable in the eyes of authoritarian people (as long as they don't learn what they shouldn't).

A mother should have a child, wait 6 to 7 years, and then have a daughter. Interestingly enough, it turns out the Essenes had rules that were similar; however, they were very sexually restrictive (and therefore, i believe, inherently inhuman). These rules applied to Essene royalty; they were only allowed to have sex until impregnation and were then required to abstinate 7 years. Women should wait 6 to 7 years, mainly because it takes that long for a child to grow up enough so he or she can tolerate the arrival of a new sibling; younger children, whose emotional and intellectual evolution is still extremely limited, experience the arrival of a sibling before they're 7 years old as a threat to their survival. Obviously, this depends on how many adults are there to provide support, what kind of relationships these are, etc.; however, in general, it is a bad idea to offer competition to a child who is too young to deal with it. This could lead to amoral attacks on the younger child, which could potentially produce quite a significant trauma itself!
Generally speaking, therefore, a woman in a human society should strive to have a son, and then a daughter every 7 years. I should think that 3 daughters would be a reasonable expection, considering physical and emotional interests. Certainly, the last thing a human society should be interested in would be large families where the needs of neither parents nor children can be properly met. Perhaps, ultimately in regions where there are no longer any people who suffer from the authoritarian trauma, people might simply chose to have 1 son and 1 daughter; either way, that would be, for now it seems, utopian. As well, until the ENTIRE PLANET is free of the authoritarian paradigm, the inhuman threat remains. Living in a human way should be considered a tao and not a goal unto itself; the consideration of what should occur once there are no longer people suffering from Black Pedagogics, is a luxury problem that (a sane) mankind will deal with once the time comes.

Men of the 25% from authoritarian societies should be very much drawn to women from a human society; first of all, with all the sexual repression going on in authoritarian culture, their prospects in that area are very poor indeed. As well, if they look forward to living with a woman who is 20 years younger, their prospects are immeasureably better than authoritarian society offers; finally, if they come into a family that is made up only of human people (i.e. made up of the 25%), they should feel intensely at home. It would, therefore, simply be a matter of any woman in a human society to take her pick of appropriate men; the limitations placed on her choices due to age and blood type, therefore, should not be a problem. Indeed, she will likely still have the ability to pick from rich and otherwise superior men, as men in authoritarian societies rarely find such attractive women interested in them. Such things are immensely profitable to the entire human community at large.
A human women should, however, be free to consider any man, no matter his race, social status, or genetic state; it is his superior CULTURE which will support humanity, his family, and the community they live in.



The S.E.E.D.