With illusions i point at things like social life ,. relations , friendships , culture , up to government .
I was not talking about food , water and shelter specifying them as being the only material real things we encounter in our lives . But the only real things that do not need a social construct to exist .

I was not talking about food , water and shelter specifying them as being the only material real things we encounter in our lives.

A different expression of what you've said formerly. Makes more sense to me.

But the only real things that do not need a social construct to exist .

Yeah, they exist on their own - but to be found and used by a human being, the human being must be trained. Training is an aspect of socialization. If you know where to look and how to do it. "Where" and "How" are social skills, since they must be taught by others and are not passed on biologically, but by teaching. The human animal is seemingly the only animal which does not primarily function by instinct, but by other than instinct. Since that "other" influenced the whole story of human kind, we are, where we are.

things like social life ,. relations , friendships , culture , up to government .

Not, if you see them as a result from being as a man and a woman together. Since their togetherness results in having children. Which result into families. Families result in bigger groups of people. Bigger groups of people result in having them rules set. Rule setting result in cultures and politics. Cultures and politics (which were formerly united but later separated) result in larger than tribes becomings. They result into cities. The cities result into city states. The city states result into nations, governed. Nations result into non government organizations. Non government organizations result into non government. Non government results into ... the rest is to be told.

Without tech, nothing would have happened bigger than clans/tribes, building short lived shelter, hunting, gathering for food and drinking from wells, rivers and rain falls.

For the rest of your response: I understand that you wouldn't find pleasure to shoot someone in the head. Who would, other than a murderer?
Killing is, as if you kill a part of yourself. Since you can relate to the one being killed. A very human trait.
But finding pleasure in the intimate imagination to hurt or kill someone, is not the same. It's to live out fantasies in the mind, without having the need to live them out in real life.

I am very much in favor of tough love.
I treat my son in this way, when I have the presence of mind. I would give you examples, but I don't like to give details of that nature online about him.

I don't think the two of us will meet in the woods, though.

I'd rather have a cappuccino with you ;)

You're still in DK?