Essays – Page 2 – Aleksandar Šarović

Open Letter

I sent the following letter to Lord Jacob Rothschild on July 6, 2010. Now it is October 23, 2010, and since I have not received a response, I opened it to the public.

Dear Lord Jacob Rothschild,

I have created a new social system, which will replace capitalism and make this world a beautiful place to live in. It will solve each and every problem of capitalism while bringing benefits to all of the people, including you. The system is defined in my book “Humanism – A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society.” For the last 10 years, I have been promoting the new system worldwide through my web site www.sarovic.com but could not reach success. That is because you are preventing the development of society. You may deny it, but it won’t help.

Capitalism is destined to fail, and you cannot save it. If you think that collecting resources from all over the world would give you the ultimate power to rule the world you might be very wrong. Your program is not good enough. The point is you reduce the freedom of people and by using their dissatisfaction produce crime, rebellion, and wars. I wrote about that as much as I could. The result of your work is evil for most of the people around the world. If you are not concerned about that you should be. Your name is increasingly connected to the problems of our world. Sooner or later people will find it more profitable to go after you and your partners than anything else, and indeed more useful than attacking buildings full of innocent people.

I try hard to write this letter as a friend. The system I have proposed is an inevitable future of humankind. In the new order, you will not be able to impose your will to the world secretly as you are used to. But if you consider accepting the new system, you may participate in its development and protect your interests in the best possible way. I really do not think you should be against the new system because by the time it will pool of all the companies around the world and you would be the most influential shareholder by far. In the new order, you would still be the richest man in the world. You would also be able to openly govern the world. The system I’ve proposed needs someone to do it, but this time that person will be directly responsible to the people.

If you refuse it, you might lose everything. You will not be able to prevent the development of society forever. The proposed system is not only the best solution for humankind; it is also the only good one so that people will accept it one day. Then they will organize well and be able to live without you, but you will not be able to live without them. Before that happens, you would probably fight back to protect your side, but you do not have a chance to win.

On the other hand, my side would have a hard time winning over yours. So why would we fight when the best solution for all must be made through negotiations? Why wouldn’t we instead join our powers and let the bright future of humankind come faster? Your involvement in creating a new system might also compensate for your responsibilities from the past and make you an honourable person in the world.

When the new system is accepted a new era will begin where social evil would not exist anymore. The new era will make this world a brilliant place to live beyond the wildest dreams today.

Best regards,

Aleksandar Šarović

Wisdom

Wisdom

Wisdom is the knowledge necessary for a good life. It is the result of an objective understanding of life’s experiences. Wisdom teaches us where the real values in life are. A wise man respects nature and the laws that exist in it. He has a productive orientation, while continually improving himself and his environment, and therefore he lives well. A wise man is always responsible for nature. For example, a man who does not know to swim would not jump into deep water because his objectivity tells him that he will drown if he did so. This is wisdom, although we generally call wisdom the knowledge that is more difficult to understand. Ordinary people cannot see such wisdom. Only a wise man can.

We are proud of our intellectual development, production capabilities, and the successes we reach throughout our lives and believe that our good life mostly depends on it. This idea was imposed by the authorities and might not be true. Today people have a higher standard of living than that of kings in the Middle Ages. Therefore, they are supposed to be more satisfied with their lives than the kings in The Middle Ages were. Are they? I doubt it. The standard of living does not have much to do with the happiness of people.

So where is the problem? The problem is that our subjectivity sends us off course. We easily overestimate the successes we achieve and underestimate the objective reality. It is more comfortable and in the short term more convenient to accept the subjective way of thinking. Practically anything a person thinks may quickly become the truth in his subjective mind. Anything a person does may be easily justified in his subjective mind. Such a fact, even though if personal, could easily release people from fear and bring them great happiness. So why would someone waste their time in finding the objective truth when they can reach it faster through their subjective mind? The answer lies in the fact that subjective knowledge is alienated from its objective reality. Therefore, subjective knowledge easily comes into conflict with objective reality and then often causes a far more significant inconvenience than the initial happiness.

The most common subjectivity that alienates us from the objective reality is our need to have power over people. Such power brings the illusion of overcoming powerlessness in nature or attempts to compensate man’s weakness in life. It is initially very suitable and brings great happiness. This is the reason why most people try to achieve power over others. This is why parents rule over children, teachers rule over students, bosses rule over the employees, the Heads of States rule over the citizens. The rich rule over the poor people.

People have difficulty seeing wisdom when their power in society is questioned because this power brings an illusion of overcoming their powerlessness in nature. If happiness lies in power over the people, then the wealthiest and most famous people in the world should be the happiest people. Are they? The more a person builds their power in society the more they live in illusion and because of it more easily come into conflict with the objective laws of nature. The more he becomes disappointed, feel more pain, and become more destructive. If you enjoy making money in fact, you fight for your power in society. You strive for power that you cannot get enough of.

The result of it is the stress from which your body gets damaged. Or, if you are pleased with your physical appearance and you invest a lot of energy to preserve the beauty and youth, you are also fighting for your power in society. When you see the first wrinkle on your face, it brings the pain. The stress that comes from it slowly but inevitably kills your soul and then, of course, the body. Rich and famous people are often the most dissatisfied. They drink the most in attempt to try finding peace in their minds; they are depressed, they confront other people the most because they cannot find peace. They divorce the most; they live an unhealthy life and are quite destructive.

When a man rises above others, further rise is limited and therefore can hardly bring satisfaction. At high altitudes, one can easily fall, and that brings the pain. A man would never commit suicide if they cannot satisfy their natural needs such as hunger and thirst, but they would if they lose the illusion of power. Therefore, a wise man would never try to realize power over the people, just as the man who cannot swim will not jump into deep water.

Some people have asked me how they can learn wisdom in the short run. It is not possible to achieve, although there is nothing complicated in wisdom. Wisdom should tell them to forget their ego and to improve the world around them. That way they can keep their health and happiness. But the person who is obsessed with themselves can no longer enjoy enhancing their environment. Wise words will hardly encourage the man who has power in society to give up that power because it contradicts with the character he has built throughout his life in an alienated society. If he gave it up, that would hurt him. An intellectual understanding of wisdom is not enough; one needs to feel the right way. The man becomes wise by living a righteous life. Wisdom is the result of a healthy lifestyle.

***

Wisdom is challenging to achieve because it faces significant obstacles in everyday life. Authorities build their power by imposing subjective knowledge on people. Such knowledge is often wholly useless but successfully prevents free thought and diverts people from real problems. Authorities have always determined what way of life people are going to accept, what they are going to think and what they are going to do. Very little of that is the result of free choice. The man was never a real basis of any system or ideology. A man has always been only in the service of various ideologies and therefore cannot be satisfied.

When people accept alienated knowledge, it becomes a value for them. For example, rich people use the vast propaganda that imposes money as the most significant value. That’s why people are obsessed with money. It is just this obsession that gives power to rich people because they have money. Money cannot be the highest value. Once accepted, these wrong values in society become real and challenging to change. But the problem is far more significant. When people get used to following authorities, they lose the ability to make independent conclusions and therefore have a reduced ability to recognize the objective essence. They are alienated from their nature, from their feelings and from logic, and that prevents them from finding the truth within themselves.

Taking away the freedom of people begins with cultural heritage and is instituted by the education system. The education system imposes knowledge, and that is wrong even if that knowledge is objectively necessary. The only proper education is one that follows the students’ interests. Today, education not only does not follow the students’ interests but also imposes a massive amount of entirely unnecessary knowledge. The education system has the task to burden students with useless information that dumbs down the students and makes them powerless and obedient followers of authority. That is all opposite of wisdom. I wrote more about the problems of education in the article My Clash with Sciences. When a man starts to work, the fight for the job and the amount of work itself becomes an obstacle that prevents the man from dedicating enough time to himself to discover what wisdom and the good life is. When after a hard workday a man arrives home, media supplements this difficulty with alienated values, which prevent him from following his real needs. Media teaches us everything diametrically opposite to what wisdom and the good life is.

Today’s control over people is very organized. Authorities take great care to prevent the development of ideas that can take away their power and privilege. Authorities are obstacles that prevent people from seeking the truth and achieving wisdom. A man has learned to follow the authorities and finds the meaning for his existence in imposed wrong values. He becomes a machine that lives, unable to be wise. That is why society cannot develop. That is why people are unsatisfied no matter what they have achieved in life.

***

A man who wants to become wise must not allow imposed knowledge to guide him. He has to follow his path. If a man wants to be wise he has to have time for himself. Time to analyze the world around him and his actions, time to discover where real values lie, to find out what is best for him. He has to relate critically to every form of imposed knowledge. The more and the earlier he begins; the more he is on the right way. It is not easy to achieve, but just in that way, one can develop the ability to find the real values of life. That builds objectivity. Objectivity is a sufficient condition for the development of wisdom.

I followed just this path. From since I can remember I developed my own way because it has been more valuable to me than anything the authorities have imposed. In the beginning, it was nothing significant. I did not accept the imposed knowledge in school, and as a result, I was a lousy student. It was not pleasant because society does not value people who deviate from the accepted norms of behaviour. But in this way, I kept my natural sense and logic, which aimed me on the right path. Money was not a great value to me, and I did not need power over people, so I have largely avoided the major pitfalls. That has eased to me the path to wisdom. I found that creative work gives me great pleasure and because of it I worked a lot.

Of course, as a part of the society in which I lived, I was prone to the influence of authorities as well. I was particularly attracted to competitions. Competition is probably natural for young people. As an architecture student, I managed to win the Yugoslav contest for the arrangement of the Republic Square in Zagreb, Croatia. It brought me fame, money and happiness. I thought at the time that I was on top of the world. On the other side, this success imposed the need for me to stay on top. It was stressful. In following attempts, I did not manage to repeat the victory, which brought me disappointment. Generally, I do not remember this period as a successful and happy period of my life, but I have learned from my own mistakes.

I worked hard to get to the core of the problems from which emerged the philosophy I have been working on for thirty years. It instructed me not to search for happiness by comparing myself and my power to other people. Such comparisons inspire a competitive spirit, which alienates people of their nature. Philosophy instructed me to search for my happiness within myself. Man must rely on his power whenever it is possible because that makes him more independent and enjoy life more. I think it is wisdom. Such satisfaction is easier to achieve than winning competitions, and as opposed to contests, it brings stable joy. I cannot say I am happy every day, but if you exclude the situation in the world, I have no problem that makes me unhappy. I am not stressed, and I do not feel depressed. Indeed I have my inner peace, and I am often happy just because I am. It is a big enough reward for me.

***

If an individual finds wisdom, it is not enough for the success of the society. The whole community should learn what is objectively good, to change and achieve a good life. A population can reach wisdom with more ease than an individual because objectivity could be more easily accomplished in the par among people than through an individual contemplation. A wise society will be built through equal rights among people. This is what has never before existed, and therefore society was never wise or good. Without equal rights, evil authorities and the obedience of people develop, which cannot bring a good solution. We must overcome the intrusive power of the authorities. The only right authorities are those that affect people only if asked to. All others are bullies. When people get equal power to follow and represent their own needs, no one authority will be violent. Most of the problems in today’s society will disappear. In the wild, the stronger animal often eats weaker one, while equally strong animals respect and do not attack one another. Something similar will happen to people when they establish equal rights among people.

The basis of wisdom lies in the fact that no matter what success a man realizes in his life, he must never for his own good and for the good of all who surround him, forget that it is equal to every other man. When a man loses his ability to exercise power over other people, he will stop looking for this power. Equal rights among the people will eliminate the illusion of man’s power, alienated values, and build the respect of every man towards every man. It will teach people wisdom much more than an individual could achieve through contemplation. Then a good society will be built.

When I discovered the importance of equal rights among the people, it became necessary to find a way to implement equal rights in society, and I succeeded in that. I created simple ideas that will gradually and unconditionally form a good community. The first idea is a reduction of work hours proportionally to the rate of unemployment. This measure will lead to full employment, which is the basis of people’s journeys toward equal rights. When unemployment ends, owners will have to pay workers more. Workers will achieve greater buying power, and so capitalism would be better off.

The second fundamental idea is the creation of a system of mutual evaluation. Each person will get equal power to evaluate positively or negatively let’s say, three people. With the help of such assessment, every person will try hard to produce fewer inconveniences and more conveniences to other people. This will build the most significant social wisdom: “Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.” People will become a value to each other and respect one another, regardless of what their positions in society are. People will learn what is objectively right and wrong by receiving evaluations from others. The development of such assessment shall be exercised wisely and good society.

I have promoted these simple ideas for twenty years. They can quickly solve the significant problems of today’s society; however, they do not have access to the public. What kind of world do we live in? People who stray to my web site mostly like my ideas, but expect them to be promoted by scientific authorities and the media. I offered my work to thousands of authorities usually in the form of short articles like this one, Humanism extensively. This article briefly defines an entirely new social system that will achieve the bright future of mankind.

***

The social scientists did not accept me. Why? Generally speaking, the science authorities have always been privileged. Their privileges have prevented them from devoting sufficient interest for equal rights among people regardless of which philosophy they develop. Any philosophy that is built on unequal rights in society is wrong or not correct enough. The more a man is educated, the more he had to accept the wrong or insufficiently right knowledge imposed by authorities. When social scientists get the opportunity to think independently, they already ink significantly through the alienated premises, through a heavy burden of alienated knowledge that prevents them from enlightenment. They can hardly understand objective reality, and be wise. Under the influence of wrong or insufficiently proper authorities, the social sciences are in the wrong or insufficiently adequate path. That is the reason sociology today does not have a solution to the problems of society and society cannot prosper.

I have to mention Professor Erik Olin Wright, elected President of the American Sociological Association. Under the influence of the philosopher Karl Marx he searches for “realistic utopia” which would, among other things, make all goods and services freely available to all people. However, following Marx, he does not propose anything new that might bring the goal even slightly closer. I contacted Professor Wright and informed him that I had developed a system that will one day achieve Marx’s communist utopia. He said that he had not enough time to study my work. But the problem is more profound. People who have invested significant effort in studying any ideology fall in love with their efforts and do not accept changes to the ideas they have adopted. Professor Wright has built his opinion where there is no room for brand new ideas that are inconsistent with the knowledge he has taken. Acceptance of such ideas would have been painful for him.

I offered my critique of Marxism to many magazines. Among others, to the journal “Science & Society.” The editor replied to me that Marxism is not a religion and he would gladly publish my criticism. By his support, I wrote the article The Failures of Marxism and the Right Path to Socialism and Communism, but the article was not published. Their acceptance of my ideas implies their recognition that a significant part of what they were doing is worthless. They are not ready for it.

I have contacted Professor Noam Chomsky as well. He is a great critic of U.S. policy. Unfortunately, his criticism cannot improve the society in which we live because he does not propose a solution that could bring change. I informed Professor Chomsky that I have created a new system that will create a good society. He replied: “You could well be right, but I simply don’t see it.” What Professor Chomsky makes great comparing to his colleagues is that he admitted he did not know.

I have offered my social system to politicians. They did not reply to my letters because my philosophy gives power to the people, which means that it reduces the power of politicians, and of course, they do not like it. Besides, in the system I have proposed, politicians would for the first time really become responsible to the people, and they love that even less.

The media, no matter how independent they are, cannot be independent of the owners. The owners do not admire the ideas of social justice, so they do not want to publish my work. Indeed their interest is entirely opposite. They not only do not want to support my ideas but they are doing everything in their power to deceive people in the wrong way. I cancelled cable television because I am sick of it. Now I only use the Internet.

The education system, the media, the government agencies and corporations control our thoughts, and therefore us, practically from birth. In the article Jacob Rothschild is Guilty for the Conspiracy Against Humankind. I accused Jacob Rothschild of organizing a conspiracy that prevents the development of society. He hides his power so that no one can blame him for the problems he creates in the world.

Finally, I want to stress out that my work does not let individuals have more power in society than other people. Individuals cannot achieve private profit from it, and that is the reason they are not interested enough in my ideas. That is why my views do not have support even though only they can lead society forward.

***

The system I have proposed will really take power from authorities and give it to people for the first time in human history. Man will become the center from which everything proceeds and to which everything returns. Each person will have equal rights of decision-making in society, and therefore the system will for the first time indeed follow the needs of the people. Each person will have free access to any work post at any time, and that will definitely abolish the privileges and all the disadvantages that come from them. The system will democratically establish a very efficient method of bearing the responsibility of individuals for their free actions, and that will contribute to the development of cooperation among people at all levels of human relationships. That will make a good society. That will teach people wisdom.

One day the world will accept my ideas because freedom and equal human rights are conditions without which it is not possible to achieve a good society. When people realize that man to man is the highest value, then they would more easily share the benefits they possess with others and would reach the wisdom and good life sooner. It will also teach people to love. Wisdom is to find a way to love. Love is the highest possible value after basic human needs are met. Love brings joy. People who do not feel love have nothing no matter what kind of success in life they have achieved. People think that they are able to love. I realized that behind their love often lies narcissism and the need to create power over people. This is mainly because our culture supports the development of alienated values and thus prevents the growth of love. You think you love? I have created a little test that can tell you if you love. The test is here: Do you love?

My philosophy on which I have worked on for 30 years gives me pleasure, although I still have not managed to present it to the world. From the beginning, I have envisioned that my work would not be accepted easily but to be honest, I did not predict it would be this hard. I will probably not be able to see the implementation of the results of my work. Sometimes I am sad about that, but there is nothing I can do to speed up the process. It now depends on you people. My work has given me a tremendous reward because it helped me to penetrate deeper into the laws of nature. I found wisdom. Whenever I develop some new thoughts in my philosophy, I feel better, and I love this world more. I also enjoy writing because I know that one day my work will bring a good life for all people.

December 17, 2010

Updated

February 28, 2013

Future of Democracy

The Future of Democracy

The word democracy derives from the Greek words that mean “people govern.” Generally, it is assumed throughout the world that the democratic way of decision-making is the best possible and therefore, the most acceptable. The only problem is that nobody knows what exactly it means. It would be ideal if people mutually agree and create rules on an equal basis that would be valid in their collective, but it is impossible to achieve because every society brings an unlimited number of decisions about which all people cannot decide on either due to lack of interest, knowledge, or time.

Therefore, today an indirect form of democracy where people elect at the polls their representatives in government is generally accepted. Candidates who win the most votes of the people receive the mandate to govern on behalf of the people in a given period. The peoples’ representatives in government should represent the interests of their electors, but they cannot successfully do it, because they have insufficient insight into the wishes of the voters who have elected them. It goes without saying that an elected government has no desire at all to meet the needs of those people who did not vote for them. Besides that, representatives of the people are quite privileged, and as such they more often represent their own interests or the interests of a privileged class of people who help them in elections rather than the interests of the people. So that in practice, indirect forms of democracy cannot adequately follow the will of people and therefore, they are not satisfactory. Also, the democratically elected leaders can cause significant harm to the people of which there is not an adequate defence. For example, democratically elected Adolf Hitler and George Bush are remembered mostly by the destructions they initiated “in the name of the people.”

The will of people may be followed to a greater extent by a direct form of democracy through referendums, where people directly decide on issues of self-interest. The intention of the majority of people accepts or rejects the proposed decision. This form of democracy also has significant disadvantages. Firstly, I would mention that a majority of people might outvote a minority and thus cause inconvenience to the minority, which is unacceptable. The principle of consensus among representatives of people on issues that people should vote about, make such a form of democracy more acceptable. But direct democracy is rarely applied, primarily because governments do not like people messing with their businesses and then because the organization of referendums is not a simple process. Finally, each society brings a vast number of decisions about which one could not call for referendums because people do not have enough knowledge about making all the decisions or are not interested in it or do not have time to participate in them. And so decisions in society are always brought by privileged authorities that do not follow the will of the people sufficiently.

Does this mean that the will of the people cannot be carried out? That democracy cannot be developed? Scholars of social sciences do not see a solution to the problem of democracy and cannot establish any consensus on how a developed democracy should look like. The establishment of a developed form of democracy requires the discovery of a new pathway that will effectively implement the will of people. To reach it, one needs to think outside the box. I have managed to create a straightforward and original way, leading to a fully developed democracy.

***

Let’s allow every person, who within the scope of his activity can affect us in any way, to do it freely upon their will. We do not even have many choices because we cannot interfere with the freedom of activities of presidents, doctors and mechanics, or any other worker, nor do we have the ability, nor the time, nor the right, perhaps not even the desire to do so. However, all these people may create advantages and disadvantages through their actions to individuals and society. We indeed have developed the ability to sense whether or not the activities of a president, doctor, mechanic, or any other person, brings some advantages or disadvantages to us. And according to it, we should have the right to award a person who through his or her acting creates convenience for us and punish a person who does inconveniences to us. Such a right would certainly direct all people to perform the least inconveniences and the greatest conveniences to other people. Such an orientation of society would undoubtedly follow the will of all the people in the best possible way and therefore, would present a developed democracy.

My philosophy is based on the equal rights of people because it is the only proper orientation of society. In this regard, let each person have the same power to punish let’s say three individuals who hurt him or her the most in any month, and to award let’s say three individuals who realize the most significant benefits to him or her each month. This is the essence and the rest is a technical matter which will be performed through an application on the internet. Everyone will be able to negatively evaluate people he or she does not like, for example, their prime mister, neighbour, or boss. And vice versa, everyone will be able to positively evaluate people they like, for example, their friend, teacher, or singer. The sum of all of the positive and negative evaluations that individuals receive will tell every individual how he or she is appreciated in society.

I propose also that the rewards and punishments have an equivalent value of let’s say one dollar. Each award a person receives from somebody will bring them one dollar and each penalty will take away one dollar from them. In that manner, all people will become the same authorities who have a small direct power in society. Given that all people will have equal rights and the power of evaluation, and that they can give their rewards and punishments to other people regardless of any written rules, such a democracy will present the form of anarchy. That is the reason why I have called such an evaluating system democratic anarchy. I am confident that this is the only possible path toward full democracy and good society.

Democratic anarchy will direct each member of society to respect other people. People will become values to all people. They will create the most significant possible advantages for the community and diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. Such a measure will definitely decrease uncontrolled or insufficiently controlled individual power originating in privileged social status. I have to stress that the privileged status of individuals causes the greatest inconveniences and problems to society. In this straightforward way, the populus will realize a great direct power in society for the first time in the history of humankind, which will result in highly harmonious and constructive social relations.

Many people, including university professors, have given me remarks in the sense that people are not able to objectively judge other people. I have answered them that objectivity is desirable but not essential. People will judge others the way they feel, and every person is obliged to take into account the consequences his actions may have on other people. By adopting this system, this will happen, and that is what will bring considerable benefits to society. Furthermore, a system that supports the equal rights of people will develop objectivity in the community, and when that happens, people will certainly objectively judge other people.

Individuals will not have much power in society, but their evaluations joined together will be very powerful. A person who receives a large number of negative assessments would try hard to avoid doing anything inconvenient to other people. Besides, the person who receives bad evaluations would never know who has evaluated him negatively so that he would try to improve his behaviour towards everyone. As a result, bullies will not harass children at school anymore; bosses will not abuse their employees at work, neighbours will not produce noise at night, salespeople will not cheat their customers, politicians will not lie to people, etc. They will all try to please other people in the best possible way. This is what will take privileged powers from all the people; this is what will eliminate social evil and form a good society.

The system of democratic anarchy will especially affect authorities. The higher the position an authority has in society, the greater the responsibility they would bare to society. For example, The President of the US might get 100,000,000 bad evaluations from the American people for bad policies, lies, and criminal aggression on countries. That would cost him 100,000,000 dollars in only one month. On the other hand, I doubt that his supporters would certainly evaluate him positively because they might easily have higher positive evaluation priorities and would spend their positive evaluations elsewhere. Non-privileged presidents would no longer dare perform bad policies anymore. And if it happens somehow, they would run away from their positions very fast. Only the most skilful and brave individuals would dare lead countries. They will not be authorities anymore, but our servants.

People will judge other people freely. In this regard, I have received many complaints in the sense that people may evaluate other people maliciously because of spite or envy. I answered that such a risk exists but I would add that individual assessment of one dollar might not cause significant harm to anyone. The damage that an individual can make is insignificant compared to the damage authorities can make because they often pull back the whole society. Take the example of Adolf Hitler and George Bush again. In the system that I have proposed these individuals would get so many negative evaluations from people from the very beginning of their careers that they would no longer dare to cause evil. Their followers would receive negative assessments as well so that organized evil would hardly rise in such a society. It is possible to forbid people who receive a large number of negative evaluations from governing society. In this way, authorities will no longer dare to carry out aggression and wars.

Is it worthwhile to allow individuals to wrongly judge others for one dollar if such trials would abolish all forms of destructiveness in society? Sure it is. Also, the new system will develop objective values and the conscience of the people where malice and envy would hardly exist. If something like that would still exist, each person would be able to correct a possible wrongful assessment that he gave to another individual by instigating a correct evaluation even many years later when he experiences enlightenment under the influence of the new system. And they will.

So what if influential people who own mass media unfairly accuse someone of evil in society and thus prompt people to give bad evaluations to the wrong person? Such things are easily possible in today’s society. However, there is a proverb that says: “Lies have short legs.” One day the lie will be revealed, and then I would not like to be in the skin of these individuals who lied because they will be punished by the people for sure.

Democratic anarchy will finally and unconditionally create a good society, and therefore it presents the greatest invention of all the time.

***

Under pressure from democratic anarchy, an elected government will inevitably follow the needs of the people. The authorities would indeed not dare to make the most important decisions for society alone because they can easily make mistakes that might bring about the wrath of the people and a large number of negative evaluations. If the authorities are not sure what the needs of the people are then their responsibility, clearly defined by the fear of peoples’ evaluations, directs them to discover love towards peoples’ participation in decision-making processes through referendums. In this regard, they will develop a simple, fast, and efficient method for direct decision-making of the people, most likely over the Internet.

The people will directly create the macroeconomic policy of the society because it is the foundation that directs the economy, and that means an entire community. How? Quite simply, one first needs to enable every person to decide how much money from their gross income they want to pay for taxes. The average values of all the peoples’ expressions will determine what percentage of salaries each worker will put aside for taxation. Furthermore, in the same way, each person can decide on how tax money is spent. Each person will determine how much tax money they would set aside for: the defence of the state, public safety, education, health, housing, recreation, infrastructure, etc.

Theoretically, people can decide on a collective consumption within the consumer groups as much as they want. All these groups of shared consumption will have a far greater overall impact if they are democratically allocated. Following the living experience, people will learn how much money should be collected for taxes and what the best way to spend it is. Thus, this spending will follow the needs of people in the most efficient way because it will no longer be alienated from society. In such a way, the people will become active members of society and so; they will accept their community a lot more. Given that the new system offers stable and good relations among nations, people will no longer allocate money for the needs of armies and armies will cease to exist. In the democracy I have proposed, war will no longer be possible.

The people must directly make strategic decisions in society because that is the only way the policy of society certainly follows the interests of people. Professionals could make all other decisions, and they will be directly responsible to the people for those decisions. Once people get the power to participate in the decision-making process of their own interests and when they can judge those who make decisions on their behalf, which will present the most developed form of democracy. There’s no better political way. Such a democracy will realize all the dreamers’ dreams in the history of humankind. Once such democracy is accepted, people will become so satisfied with it that they will not allow anyone to seize it from them.

***

This is just a basic idea about the future of democracy. It cannot be understood well enough without reading and analyzing my book “Humanism” available free of charge here: Table of Contens.

January 15, 2011

Future of Values

The Future of Values

Value is a need. What we need more has a higher value. Values can be objective and subjective. Objective values are correct ones, and they directed us to the right way and make our lives right. However, the man has a tremendous contemplative ability to establish subjective values where they do not exist, and then he has the need to impose them to other people. Such values are alienated from their objective essence and once adopted in society, they direct people to the wrong path. People in the wrong way cannot live well. This is just what is happening to us. To improve our lives, we must make a general inventory of the values we adopted. We need to unmask the alienated values and support the natural ones. That will direct society to the correct path.

I will try to explain what it is actually about in an example that compares the value of air and money. Money has market value because it can be appropriated and can realize the power in society, while air cannot be appropriated and it has no market value. But if we compare the use value of money and air, we realize that air is unlimitedly more valuable than money because without air we cannot live.

Now imagine two men and let’s say one of them has 1,000 times more money than the other. In a society where money is the accepted value and air is not, it means that the first man is worth 1,000 times more than the other man. In an alienated society, the possession of value gives power in the community, and that means the first man would have 1,000 times more power than the other man. This is wrong, immoral and unjust. However, this is basically what we have today. Today, people value their own achievements far more than the value of air, and it is very wrong because there is no life without air. Since air is not appreciated enough, people are irresponsible to it, and that means they are irresponsible to their own future. If these two men become aware of the importance of air, they would then be able to make an agreement that let’s say the air they jointly own and breathe is worth at least the same as the amount of money they together possess. Then the ratio between the values these two men possess would no longer be 1:1,000, when only the market value of money is taken into account, but 1:3 when one takes into account the use value of air as well. Such arbitration of the distribution of values would be fairer, more moral and correct to the human point of view and in the long run; it would contribute to the protection of air, and that means, of course, the protection of people.

Such an arbitration of values might seem as unnatural and impossible to realize. I could agree that such arbitration is unnatural, but it is a necessity because we live in an unnatural society. In this way, the society we live in would begin to learn how to appreciate air as a natural asset.

To those who think that such arbitration is unrealizable, I would say that similar arbitrations have been successfully implemented for a long time. Insurance companies can calculate at any time the worth of human life down to the last cent, although it is not objectively determinable. However, such arbitrage is useful because people receive financial support from insurance companies for the death of their partners without which some people would have difficulties making ends meet in the cruel world we live in. Or, courts could precisely calculate how much money the life of a man is worth. It can be calculated by comparing a time imprisonment sentence for murder with the same period of imprisonment for stealing money. There is nothing objective about it, but the benefit of such arbitration is excellent because the fear of criminal law punishments prevents many people from killing other people, what is undoubtedly a great benefit.

Similarly, it would be useful to arbitrate the value of the air that surrounds us. Since the atmosphere is not defined as market value, we do not appreciate it enough as a value and relate irresponsibly to it. When people realize that air is one of the highest natural values, then they would appreciate the atmosphere more. When the air becomes a defined value in society, then people will act responsibly to it. It is a condition of our survival!

Money has an alienated value because it gives power in society. That does not mean that we should negate the value of money because it would just deteriorate the situation in today’s alienated society. We need to establish such a society that would be able to demystify the value of money, in which the value of air will become higher than the value of money. It is a natural orientation of society that will one day be accepted and direct society in the right way.

***

To create a better society, we must define all values that are accepted in society or should be accepted in society. Firstly, it is necessary to determine the values that society holds in common ownership in some territory. These values include land, water, air, and everything that people commonly possess at a particular region, whether they built it or just found it as a value. Then, one needs to determine all the values that people hold in private ownership in the same territory. Why is it necessary? Firstly, to determine what values are. If we define the values that are beneficial to society, people will strive to reach such values for the benefit of the community. This is the path to a good society. Secondly, it is necessary to determine how much of these values each person holds. Man becomes aware of his worth when he compares himself with other people. It is an alienated need but it exists, and that is why we must accept it. Values that every man achieves in his life will be summarized. The sum of these values I call the “productive value of a human” (PVH).

The value of the common properties, which include land, water, air, etc., cannot be objectively compared to the value of private properties. Therefore, the value of the common properties should be determined by arbitration. The arbitration will be based on the ratio between the total value of the common property on the territory of some region and the total value of private property. Experts might propose the most acceptable rate. Then political parties may create a range of possible ratio values through negotiations, and the final result may be determined directly by the people. All the people will choose the ratio that suits them the best.

It should be noted that a higher value of the common property would reduce the value of private property and vice versa. The mean size of the expressions of all the people would determine the total value of common properties that people together own on the territory of the region. Such arbitration cannot be objective whatever the value society adopts, but it will bring significant benefits to society as a whole because people will begin to appreciate values that they do not recognize today.

Given that the common properties belong equally to all people, it is necessary to ensure that all people equally share it. The equal share of the jointly owned property would become a fundamental value of the PVH every human being possesses. Why is this important? With such an act all the people would accept the fact that man is a value and more importantly, he would be equal from birth to every other human being in society. This is an essential condition for the prosperity of society.

Every person may increase their PVH if they, by their own free will, sell the private properties they possess to the region they live in. In this way, they would get values in PVH equivalent to the values of companies, real estate, cash, shares, and all other assets that capitalism recognizes as valuables. The owners of private properties may find an interest in the transfer of their private properties to society because the PVH will present a form of humanistic shares of a pooled public company on some territory. An increased value of PVH will bring them a higher income. Also, PVH will be inherited through generations. In that way, the owners of the means of production would accept PVH as an acceptable universal value.

If owners of private properties would not be willing to sell their means of production to society, they might be forced to do it under pressure from the higher productivity of public companies. Namely, public companies will adopt a principle of work competition of workers for each work position at any time. There is not a more productive economy than the one in which each job gets the best worker available. Such an economy will achieve the productivity that private companies will not be able to follow and therefore they will be forced to join public companies. Last but not least is the fact that the work competition would enable all the workers to choose jobs they love more, which is almost impossible to achieve now. In such a manner, work will become a direct value, which is very important for the formation of a good and sane society.

The productivities workers offer at every work post would not make sense if the workers would be irresponsible for achieving the productivity they proposed. By using the PVH, it would be possible to form an effective system of bearing the responsibilities of workers for the economic productivity they offered in the manufacturing process in public companies. In the case that workers do not meet their productivity proposal, they will bear responsibility by losing an equivalent value of the PVH they own. In the case their company realizes losses, the workers would take their responsibilities proportionally to the numerical value they offer for the total damage of the company.

If workers propose greater responsibility for their work, they would in the case of the company’s losses, achieve a more significant loss of the values of their PVH. In that manner, the PVH would ensure great responsibilities of workers in the production process, which is the basis of the prosperity of society. Conversely, if a company achieves profits, workers who propose greater responsibilities for their work will make a higher gain of their PVH values. PVH actually presents the productive power of workers so that it will be a very stimulating initiator in a productive society. I wrote more about it in the article The Future of Economics.

The PVH will become a simple and easily applicable measure that presents how much an individual has contributed to the creation of advantages and disadvantages to society and to nature. A greater PVH will give a man a higher reputation in the community. But, considering that some people would probably not like to have their PVH be compared to that of other people, such a value may be kept secret, known only to the owner of the PVH himself.

***

A good future for humankind cannot be based only on the value of nature and capital. It is necessary to evaluate all forms of improvements that a person realizes to nature and society, and then add the value of it to his PVH. For example, each award could be evaluated by PVH and then it should be added to the value of PVH of a person who received the award. Conversely, if a man produces damages to nature and society, it is necessary to regulate a punishment for that in the value of PVH. Such measures will be applied automatically whenever needed. Thus, the PVH will stimulate people to do well and prevent them from causing evil. In this manner, the PVH will contribute to the creation of a significantly better future for humankind. This will be better explained in the following examples.

If a region has too low a birth rate, for example, people may decide to stimulate parents who want children with some values of PVH. At this moment it may be difficult to expect because right now the planet Earth has a population of 6.5 billion people, and that number is proliferating. Generally speaking, at some point in time, Earth will no longer be able to feed all its residents. Therefore, today we are in dilemma that should not be: either we would limit the birth rate by mutual agreement, or we will reach a point where we would have to kill each other because there is not enough space on Earth for permanent grow of the population.

I think that the average restriction on the birth of two children per family is reasonable and it would in by the time reduce the population of planet Earth to a reasonable limit. However, do not consider limited birthrate as a ban of birth, but those families that may want to have more than two children will pay taxation which in the last instance may include the value of PVH. That price may be as hefty as to maintain a reasonable number of inhabitants of the planet. But of course, that is conditioned by the fact the whole world accepts such an orientation. If it does not happen, there will not be an acceptable solution to the problem.

PVH will be especially affected by disobedience to the law. If a person acts against the law, they will lose a legally defined value from his PVH. Each crime may be easily judged by existing laws and recalculated into a value representing the PVH. If a person commits a severe crime, he might lose all the value of their PVH and even get into a negative value. Intrusion into the negative value of the PVH cannot be kept secret. If this happens to someone, everyone would know. Thus, the negative value of PVH could become more uncomfortable and painful than prison can be so that prisons will no longer be needed. Each person will avoid committing any crime carefully. If a person still gets a negative PVH, they will try hard to get out of it, and that will only be possible through hard productive work, and outstanding behaviour over a long period.

By using PVH, we could very successfully regulate the protection of the environment from all kinds of pollution. It will be necessary to conduct studies and accept regulations of the maximum allowable pollution of air, water and earth. People who violate the environmental protection defined by laws or rules would be punished by losing money and in the last instance by a regulated value of PVH. It is possible in this way to punish entire enterprises and regions or even countries. Such regulation will surely protect the planet Earth from pollution. If the whole world does not accept an effective system of the protection of the environment, then the consequences will be unacceptable for all of the people.

***

Society may create a complex regulation that will through rewarding and punishing people by a value of their PVH, impact on building a good society. However, all values cannot be regulated, because people have varying individual needs. Therefore, the value representing the PVH should also depend on unregulated values, based on people’s opinions about the free actions of others. This is an entirely new measure and, in my opinion, the most critical rule of the future. I call it democratic anarchy.

Democratic anarchy is a new form of social relations, wherein every person exercises an equal power in society. It is possible to accomplish it in a manner that gives each person the right to evaluate the activity of any other person. Let each person have the power to allocate a total of say six evaluations per month. Three positive and three negative evaluations or five positive and one negative, etc. Each positive assessment should automatically bring a small increase in the total value of PVH to the assessed person. On the other hand, any negative evaluation will result in a punishment of the same form. Let us say that awards and penalties of such assessment would have an equivalent value of one dollar.

When people get such a power, they will become respected members of society, and as such, they will eventually become values in society. Of course, every man will strive to gain more positive and less negative evaluations from other people, and that is why such assessment will direct each member of society to create the highest possible advantages for the community and to diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. As a result, bullies will not harass children at school anymore, bosses will not abuse their employees at work, neighbours will not produce noise at night, salespeople will not cheat their customers, politicians will not lie to people, etc. They will all try to please other people in the best possible way. This is what will eliminate social evil and form a good society.

The system of democratic anarchy will especially affect authorities. The higher the position an authority has in society, the greater the responsibility they would bare to society. For example, President Bush criminally attacked Iraq. Thus, he brought death and suffering to millions of people, including Americans, but Americans not to mention Iraqis were not able to stop him. In a society where money is practically the only accepted value, a person could quickly become worthless in the eyes of another person and because of that, ugly things happen. In a system of democratic anarchy, President Bush could get 100,000,000 bad evaluations from the American people for bad policies, lies, and for criminal aggression on Iraq. This would reduce his PVH for the equivalent of 100,000,000 dollars in only one month.

On the other hand, I doubt that supporters of President Bush would undoubtedly evaluate him positively because they might easily have higher positive evaluation priorities and would spend their positive evaluations elsewhere. By applying the system of assessment, President Bush would not dare perform bad policies anymore. And if it happens somehow, he would run away from his position very fast. Only the most skilful and brave individuals would dare lead countries. They will not be authorities anymore, but our servants.

Democratic anarchy is actually the most potent tool of justice ever. How come? The answer lies in time. There is a saying: “Silent water moves hills.” The permanent power of evaluation even with such a small force like one dollar will make people respect each other strongly. Human beings will become values. Everyone will try hard to please society in the best possible way. Such a social orientation looks pretty much like love. Love can be defined as indiscriminate care about people, and democratic anarchy will surely bring it. Once love is established in society, it will create a good and sane society. In the future, the system of evaluation will probably abolish state laws, police, and very states. Nobody will need them anymore because a perfect society will be formed.

It is very understandable and desirable that the PVH becomes a significant value in society and therefore should be additionally stimulated. This will be achieved by giving people voting power in society proportional to their PVH. In that way, privileged members of society would easier accept full democracy. I wrote more about the new form of democracy and democratic anarchy in the article The Future of Democracy.

***

The new system of values will enable the entire productive orientation of society. What does it actually mean? A person will become a center from which everything proceeds and to which everything returns back. Each person will have equal rights of decision-making in society, and therefore the system will for the first time indeed follow the needs of the people. Each person will have free access to any work post at any time, and that will definitely abolish the privileges and all the disadvantages that come from them. The system will democratically establish a very efficient method of bearing the responsibility of individuals for their free actions, and that will contribute to the development of cooperation among people at all levels of human relationships. That will make a good society. Such a life would liberate people from the pressures of authorities, and that will allow the demystification of alienated values that authorities have imposed on people throughout history. The new life will enlighten people. Authorities will lose power over people. Idols will lose importance. They all will become ordinary people. Money and goods will lose their alienated value. People will accept natural values and learn to live in harmony with their own natures. This will create a good society and bring the joy of life.

It can be expected that by the development of natural values, people will cease comparing themselves to other people. Comparison with other people has always been just an alienated need. As a result of enlightenment, a man may one day lose the need to evaluate other people or to be evaluated. People will probably dismiss the PVH as the last alienated value. Then people will pay attention to natural values. Person to person will become the most significant value. Care for other people, sharing with others, helping others, friendship and brotherhood will become the most essential needs of people. The person will find great pleasure in productive activities and in the act of love. They will love others unconditionally just because they are. Love is the final result of the values that I have proposed. Love is the highest value a person can achieve for himself and for others. Once people start loving each other, they will create an entirely new world, values that are in today’s alienated society practically unforeseeable.

February 12, 2010

Future of Economics

The Future of Economics

The market economy is accepted as the most productive because it brings the most significant benefits to society. Employers offer jobs on the free market, and workers provide their abilities to work. By definition of the labour market, employers and workers collaborate for mutual benefits that should optimally satisfy their needs. In practice, it does not happen this way because unemployment puts employers in a privileged position in which they exploit workers.

A good economy requires a balance between supply and demand for work, and this will be achieved by creating an equal number of jobs to the number of workers. Full employment will be realized by reducing work hours proportionally to the rate of unemployment. It will increase the demand for workers in the free market and bring more justice to the economy.

However, nobody in today’s world thinks that most of the problems of today’s market economy are primarily based on the underdevelopment of the market economy. The main problem of today’s market economy is not too much market, but rather, not enough market.

Workers in capitalism have jobs protected by laws and unions, and that means the jobs in capitalism are privileged, although to a lesser extent than in socialism. A more productive worker cannot apply for a work position already taken by another worker. That is the reason the division of work in capitalism cannot allocate the labour most efficiently and achieve maximum productivity possible. Privileges are the main mistakes of every society. One should protect the existence of workers, not jobs.

***

A better future of humankind necessarily requires that workers become subjects with equal rights in the process of production. This will be achieved when all the workers have equal opportunities to choose any job they want in public companies. We need to establish the standard for the selection of workers, and history has already presented that there is no more socially justified principle of employment than hiring the best available worker at every work post.

People are taught by capitalism to love competition, and being the winner brings enormous satisfaction. People do not hesitate to exert an extreme effort to reach such a goal. Why would we not open competitions for every public workplace at any time? The realization of such an idea is just a technical problem, while it will bring enormous benefits to society.

To achieve such an economic system, we need to find an efficient way to evaluate the productivity of work offers, define job responsibilities, and harmonize rewards for work at any time. In short, the workers who offer the highest productivity and accountability and demand the lowest salary should get any public job at any time. It would be nothing else but a developed market of work. However, it will require time for the market of work to develop enough and be accepted by people.

The work competition in the market of work will incentivize workers much more than capitalism can through wages. The existence of workers would never be endangered because every worker will be able to find a job in a fully employed environment. It would establish such a rigid form for worker’s responsibility that no one would dare to offer work proposals they would not be able to meet. The market will also regulate workers’ salaries in the most objective way. The living standards for all people will increase in an unprecedented way. People will be thrilled with living in such a system. The following text defines the developed market of work.

***

There is no fairer or better division of labour than a competition of workers through their labour productivity for any workplace at any time. Productivity would be measured by money earned, by the amount and quality of goods produced, or by rating the productivity of workers by consumers. A worker who offers higher profits, more manufactured goods, a better, cleaner and cheaper production will get the desired job. Comparing the productivities of workers may be complex but also very simple.

Such division of labour seems impossible because it has never existed. The reason such a division of work has never existed is nobody believed that it is possible and did not invest any effort in developing such an idea. Aleksandar Šarović has taken into account the potential problems that such a division of work might bring and formed solutions that would solve such problems. Once people accept such a division of labour, it will bring considerable economic benefits to all.

Of course, this division of work will relate only to public companies, because if it applies to private enterprises, that would practically mean a seizure of private property. Private companies will continue their businesses as they do today.

It will be necessary to regulate and democratically accept a new division of labour in public companies by the law. One day, a proposed division of work will be accepted by society because it is the best possible. The principles of such a division of labour are natural and straightforward.

A worker who offers the highest productivity for any workplace at any time immediately becomes a prime candidate for that position, regardless of whether the position is occupied or not. If there is already an employed worker at such a workplace who does not want to leave their job, they would have to accept the productivity offered by the competitors, and in that case, they would continue to hold their work positions. If they would not be able to take the new responsibilities or would not want it, they will immediately vacate the workplace and leave it to the competitor.

The existential security of workers is necessary as a condition of stability for society, and therefore the society will guarantee it. In the proposed system, all workers will automatically be economically secured after leaving any job. Losing a job will not create income stress, and workers will have the ability to find a new one in a full-employment environment quickly.

Such security will remove the great fear of unemployment that is prevalent around the world. Capitalism finds the primary motivation for work from the fear of economic survival of the workers, and that is the reason it does not provide enough financial security to the people. The new system will build motivation for work from the free choice of choosing work and in the satisfaction that comes from it.

***

The advantages of such a division of work will be enormous. The best worker in every workplace ensures maximum productivity for companies and the best satisfaction of the people’s needs. Thus, such a division of labour finds its justification.

Besides, the labour market will give people the freedom to choose jobs that they love more and therefore, they will enjoy work far more than they do today. Work will become a direct value for itself.

Furthermore, the open labour market will eliminate privileges. Today, people might experience a loss of privileges as significant inconveniences. However, it should be said that privileges are one of the leading causes of problems in society. Eliminating privileges means reducing, if not removing, corruption, immorality and destructive issues in today’s society.

With time, people will realize that the loss of privileges would considerably increase the possibility of finding work that will enhance the personal productive power of workers. The power of being develops creativity and brings great and stable satisfaction that privileges could not achieve. That is the reason the proposed labour market will be accepted one day and bring virtually unlimited benefits across society.

***

The labour market will regulate the price of labour. This will be achieved by giving the job with limited productivity to the worker who demands the lowest price for current work and, consequently, a lower income. The cost of ongoing work will be one of the factors that determine the amount of income for workers. In this regard, the market of work will make suitable jobs achieve lower salaries, and inconvenient jobs will be compensated with higher payments. In such a way, a developed market of work will form an objective price of labour and balance the interest in all jobs.

Given that the workers will determine the amount of their income themselves, they will also be most satisfied with their earnings. Unions as mediators between the employers and the employees will no longer be required.

The work must become easily accessible to all. In order to achieve a balance between labor supply and demand, it will be necessary to equate the number of jobs with the number of workers. Otherwise, there could be an unnecessary struggle for jobs. If the creation of new jobs will not be necessary, full employment will be established by reducing working hours in proportion to the unemployment rate. This policy must apply to both the public and private companies. Such a measure will achieve full employment of workers. In addition, it will reduce the exploitation of workers by employers until it is abolished and will enable the establishment of an acceptable distribution of income for all workers. Such a measure will finally establish general stability in society.

***

The system would have no meaning without efficient regulation of workers’ responsibilities. If the workers increase the competitive powers by offering productivities that they would not be able to realize, the irresponsibility of people will make the system collapse. Today, for example, politicians do precisely that, and this is one of the leading causes of immorality and disappointments of society.

The new economy will form a very efficient method of accountability for the realization of productivities workers offer so that they would not dare to propose productivities they cannot accomplish. It will be realized in such a way that workers would guarantee the productivity they provide by a new value called “a productive value of a worker.”

The productive value of workers numerically presents the total contribution of each person in the creation of values in society. It will be something similar to the shares of corporations. These shares will bring workers a regular income that will, among other things, be proportional to the value of their past work. People will also inherit these values from their ancestors.

By using the value of past work, one could form an effective system of bearing the workers’ responsibilities for realizing offered productivity in the manufacturing process. If workers do not meet the proposed productivities, they will take responsibility by losing the values of their past work proportionally to not realized productivity. Also, it will apply to any damage people may produce to society. It sounds complicated, but the implementation of such responsibility may also be very straightforward with the help of democratic anarchy, which is explained later. The possible loss of the value that presents the productive power of workers will prevent workers from offering productivities they cannot achieve.

The workers will numerically determine the heights of their responsibilities in the production processes of public companies. The higher accountabilities the workers offer for the desired workplace, the greater right to work they will have.

In the case that the company’s revenue increases, the workers will share the profit in publicly owned companies, proportionally to numerically determined responsibilities they propose for their work. Such gain will be expressed in a value that presents the workers’ productive power. And vice versa, in case of production losses, workers who propose higher responsibility for their work will realize more significant loses in values representing their productive power.

***

Finally, one should ask whether formal education is necessary for work. Could workers compete for work positions regardless of the level of education they possess? Alternatively, can a person who knows mechanics compete for the job of a dentist? Of course not, but also one should not condition anyone’s employment to be dependent on the possession of diplomas. Firstly, a degree does not guarantee skilfulness. Secondly, conditioning work with diplomas unnecessarily reduces access to desired jobs. The limitation of employment with possession of a degree has evolved to the level of absurdity, which restricts the freedom of labour to a vast extent.

Besides, the vast volume of knowledge that the education system imposes usually has no connection with the profession of people. It serves authorities to ensure the survival of an authoritarian system and presents an unnecessary burden that alienates students from reality. In this regard, it is necessary to remove education as a bureaucratic requirement for having the right to work.

The new system will develop such a significant responsibility of the workers for the jobs they perform so they will not dare to apply for jobs if they do not have enough knowledge. This means that formal education in the future will still be welcome, but not necessary because the knowledge can be acquired independently or in the best way, through working practice.

***

No economy can be more productive than the one where the best available worker gets each job. Therefore, public companies will become significantly more productive than private ones. Under the competitive pressures of public companies, the owners of private companies will try to increase their productivity as public companies do. Still, they could not go far enough because they would not have the operational capabilities to oppose public companies. Given that workers in private companies would not have the freedom as workers in public companies, and would not be able to participate in sharing the profits, they will be less interested in working for private companies.

Some regions in the world will one day accept the open work competition because a better division of labour could not exist. The higher productivity of the public companies will force the owners of private companies to join them. The owners of private companies will, in exchange for their firms, get the equivalent value that presents their productive power, which will proportionately increase their incomes in public companies.

Also, owners of private companies will find out that large companies are more stable to conjuncture changes, which will ensure greater stability of the economy and the values they possess. When the owners of private companies get the chance to join such a company, they would most likely do so, because it would preserve more of their capital values.

One can expect that by the time all companies in a region will merge into one public company, which will operate similarly to big corporations. The company will have a central leadership that will establish effective coordination of work. It will open job positions where they are most needed and will close off ones that are not needed enough. Such an organization of the economy will decrease market competition between companies, but it will ensure the efficiency of production by lowering the level of competition from the companies to the level of jobs.

The high responsibility that the new system of work division requires from workers will force manufacturers to avoid economic losses in an unpredictable market by organizing production on the demand of consumers. People will democratically determine the height of taxes and directly allocate the tax fund for various consumer groups of collective consumption. People will directly determine their joined consumption, and this will present the basis of a democratically planned economy. Furthermore, individual consumers will be increasingly required to order their expensive needs in advance. Production based on the orders of consumers presents the planned economy. It is the most stable production possible.

Furthermore, great responsibility in the production process will force the workers to establish their mutual relations more on cooperation than on competition, at all levels of production processes and thus, it will contribute to the productive development of society. The free growth of the market economy will, therefore, develop a democratically planned economy.

The complete implementation of equal human rights in the economy should be called socialism. Nothing else deserves this name. Socialism will come spontaneously as the final result of full employment.

This is just a basic idea about the future of economics. It can be better understood by reading and analyzing my book “Humanism” available free of charge here: Table of Contens.

February 12, 2010

Epilogue

Epilogue

Capitalism has failed

Social sciences are based on the authorities from the 18th and 19th century. The father of today’s economy is Adam Smith. He presented the market economy as the “invisible hand” that leads private producers to promote social interest through the implementation of self-interest. Good manufacturers produce goods that are demanded on the market and therefore achieve good prices with which the good producers make a good profit. Weaker manufacturers cannot compete on a commodity market, so they are forced to sell their work to capitalists. In a society where the demand and supply of labour are equal, every worker is well paid.

When labour supply becomes more significant than the request, which is something capitalists may achieve in purpose, then the workers are forced to accept lower wages to survive. That is how the capitalists realize profits through the exploitation of workers. The capitalists would be happiest if the development of the economy ended up with Adam Smith’s theory even though the free market often brings an economic and social crisis. The market solves such crises by creating a painful balance in which the marginalized workers suffer the most. The problem with capitalism is that it values profit over people.

The market competition of private companies has mainly formed a small circle of winners who secretly rule the world with the financial power they possess. This power controls economics, politics, science, education, and media almost all over the world. In such a way, they carry out the exploitation of the whole world. These people hide their power because in that manner nobody can accuse them of causing harm to the world. I wrote about them in the article “Has the Antichrist Come?”

The wealthiest people have set their poltroons at all of the critical positions of society, and so they could easily prevent any positive change in society. They are so powerful that they could remove almost everything that opposes them. The changes in government in the Middle East and North Africa that are occurring right now are their deeds. The wealthiest people have a goal to put these countries and their people under their control. The aggression against Libya is indeed their work because they want to steal Libyan oil. I have no proof for that, but the claim is built on the fact that nobody except them could mobilize the presidents of the developed countries to commit the criminal attack on a sovereign state and then get world media to give full support to this criminal aggression.

As a result of the work of the riches people of the West, a very irrational, unjust and immoral civilization is established, that is most likely fatal for humans. Nearly seven billion people on planet Earth are not satisfied with the way they live, which opens the valves to destruction in society. They heavily pollute land, water, and air which endangers our health.

The rulers of the western world have found that they could no longer reduce the population of planet Earth enough, so that they are trying to reduce the population of the world by poisoning food using the international criminal regulation of food production called “Codex Alimentarius,” established in the year 1963 at the UN level. By its help, they impose rules to food manufacturers throughout the world that, among other things, limit the amount of nutrition in processed foods and encourage or enforce manufacturers to use very unhealthy ingredients.

As a result, people today progressively suffer from serious illnesses that require expensive treatment. This brings enormous profits to the medical and pharmaceutical industry, which is mainly owned by the same group of people who produce food. This develops the cycle that leads to disease and the death of people. Rima A. Laibow M.D. Medical Director of The Natural Solutions Foundation, who dedicated his life fighting for healthy food, stated by citing the WHO / FAO report, that the application of the rules and guidelines of “Codex Alimentarius” at the global level is to cause illness and death of billions of people.

Capitalism is in the final criminal imperialist stage. The right-oriented social scientists, under the influence of the imposed education system and the conservative environment in which they live, cannot go far enough in changing the existing system to make these changes have a satisfactory effect to the improvement of society.

Socialism has failed

Socialists advocate equality among people and social ownership of the means of production in support of marginalized workers. On top of that group rose Karl Marx, who is accepted as the leader of the political and economic theory of socialism. He predicted that capitalism will destroy itself through its own inner contradictions. We have just witnessed the falling of the profit rate, which, according to Marx, is one of the reasons that will cause the end of capitalism. In the developed world, interest rates are very low. A small increase in the interest rates may lead to a series of company bankruptcies. On the other hand, the fall of interest removes profit and represents the end of capitalism. Capitalism has a very narrow operational space for its own advancement, and therefore it presents an obstacle for the development of civilization.

Capitalism keeps alive today the lack of a better system that could replace it. It should be thanked Karl Marx who wrongly directed the Left political orientation. By studying the “widest” law of movements in society through the dialectical and historical materialism, Marx concluded that the free market should be abolished because of the exploitation of workers. Antagonism between workers and capitalists, according to Marx, can only be solved through revolution. These are probably the most significant intellectual errors in the history of mankind which have obstructed the development of society.

By proposing the abolition of the market, Marx removed the scale that enables the effective performance of the economy. By abolishing the market, Marx abolished the categories that define the productive producers, quality of goods, demand, objective price and earnings. He actually beheaded the economy. Marx was aware of it, and so he offered a substitute for the market economy with a planned economy based on people’s consciousness. The idea of a planned economy was correct but only if it is democratically formed because it is the only way to follow the needs of the people. Without computer technology, a democratically planned economy could not be successfully implemented, so the authorities took over power over society.

The consciousness to which Marx called upon is an idealized construction that cannot be explicitly defined, and so everyone can interpret it as they wish. Even the worst murderer could find an excuse in his conscience for the crimes he performs. A system cannot be based on idealized values. Idealism is also contrary to Marx’s materialist philosophy.

Lenin used Marx’s philosophy to perform the socialist revolution, but he completely removed Marx’s notion of equality of men claiming that workers have not developed enough knowledge and consciousness, and therefore they must be guided. Under the influence of Lenin, all socialist states typically had the same presidents throughout a lifetime that imposed their wills upon the people more than kings could have done. People who do not have the freedom to bring to life their being powers cannot be productive. And so socialism has formed a very inefficient and unhealthy economy that destroyed socialism and the left political and economic orientation.

Even today a lot of social scientists naively expect a revolution that will change the Western world. Revolution cannot bring a good result because no violence can deliver a good result. Marxism would not be allowed to preach at universities if it could threat capitalism. It even seems to me that capitalism supports Marxism because it puts the Left progressive forces on the wrong path. Capitalism invests tremendous energy in brainwashing the people, after which they are not able to recognize good ideas. If some ideas appear that could challenge capitalism, they are blocked by the economic power of capitalism that prevents the access of such ideas to the public.

So where is the exit?

Marx did not see that the abolition of the market economy not only abolishes the exploitation of workers but also the only possible basis for the establishment of a healthy economy. The problem of the market economy is not too much market, but in fact not enough market because the labour market is entirely undeveloped. Marx should have struggled to shorten the working hours of workers proportionally to the unemployment rate, and the market would then align supply and demand of labour and the income height level in the acceptable intervals for workers and capitalists.

The developed work market requires free access for each worker to every public workplace at any time. It is possible to realize only in public companies in the manner a worker who offers the highest productivity, greatest personal responsibility, and the lowest price for work should be hired at every workplace.

The developed labour market will profoundly advance the “invisible hand” which will bring today unthinkable balance into the process of work division and enormous benefits to society as a whole. It will abolish the privileges and exploitation to which Marx complained because no one can exploit the people who can take the position of the “exploiters” at any time. The labour market will abolish privileges and the socially devastating corruption they bring.

The free choice to work will allow work to become a value for itself and people will find far greater satisfaction in work than they do today. Only that can result in the association of free producers Marx called upon. In the end, the best workers at every public workplace will achieve higher productivity than private companies can so that the work market will end capitalism. A developed market is the best allocation of work possible, but also I would add that it is the only good one. It presents the only viable path to socialism and a better society. These are successes that revolution and imposed ideology cannot achieve.

The new economy requires precise monitoring of job offers and of defined responsibilities of all workers, which is not possible to achieve without computer technology. For this reason, Marx was not able to think about developing the labour market. A greater desire than technological capabilities directed by Marx and the Left to the utterly wrong way.

***

The solution for humanity requires a radical change in the whole society we live in. This change must be acceptable to all people equally, or it will sooner or later inevitably lead to discord in society. It must be based on the equal rights of people. It must follow the nature of society and respect the environment that surrounds us. It must effectively meet the needs of individuals and the community as a whole. Dear readers, it probably seems to you that such a society cannot be achieved; however, I have defined it on this web site.

On the path to creating a good society, I had to reject the social sciences almost entirely because they are on the wrong way and are unable to offer a good solution for society. I approached the creation of a good community in the same way as car designers would approach the production of a good car. My method is based on system engineering, logic, and wisdom. I explored how the most rational political and economic input of people would bring the maximum output for society. Fuel for social activities will be based on more economic market, and more political market than capitalism can afford so that it will send capitalism down in history. Once accepted by the society, the new labour and policy market will establish equilibrium in society. The new political economy I designed, will establish people as the greatest values. The new system will in a completely original democratic way, solve social problems of society and make this world a beautiful place to live.

I’ve worked on the new system for 30 years. Social scientists do not accept me because their knowledge is based on the authorities of the 19th century. Can you imagine a supercar designer that follows the design of carriages from the 19th century? Moreover, they do not understand the optimal principles of technical engineering on which my work is based. In the end, I must say that the system I have proposed abolishes the privileges of social scientists as well so that they avoid my ideas even though they are the only good solution for humanity. The lack of support for my work endangers society and prevents the arrival of a bright future for humankind.

Aleksandar Šarović

April 27,.2011

References:

Aleksandar Šarović, Has Antichrist Come?

Dr. Robert Verkerk, Codex Alimentarius

Matthias Rath: Codex Alimentarius Commission – A Threat to Humankind

Dr. Rima Laibow about Codex Alimentarius

WHO/FAO Report, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases

Aleksandar Šarović, Humanism

Aleksandar Šarović, Wisdom

Aleksandar Šarović, The Future of Economics

Aleksandar Šarović, The Future of Democrac y

A leksandar Šarović, The Future of Values

Failures of Marxism

The Failures of Marxism and the Right Path to Socialism and Communism

The market economy is accepted as the pinnacle of productivity because it brings the highest profits and benefits to society. However, the market economy, as we know, has significant disadvantages as well. The superior producer profits while suppressing the losers from the market. The market economy values profits over people which causes injustice in the process of production and distribution. This is an alienation that develops inequality and leads to unfair exploitation of workers.

Socialists have fought against injustice in society. At the top of their community rose Karl Marx. He called upon the working class to unite and decide their fate for themselves. He was absolutely correct in this. On the other hand, Marx argued that the antagonism between workers and the owners of the means of production can be solved only through socialist revolution. In this he was wrong.

The socialist revolutions that followed Marx’s ideas brought more equality to the distribution of basic material human needs than capitalism did, but they also created a lot of damage. Revolutions require a high degree of destructiveness and therefore cannot return a final positive result. Violence produces more violence and certainly cannot bring a lasting good. Violent seizures of power create masses of unsatisfied people who must be controlled by the political power. Thus, inequality within the societal decision-making process is produced and must exist. The people usually do not realize that lacking the right to make one’s own decisions and participate in decision-making processes may be worse exploitation than the loss of surplus value. This series of events is precisely what occurred in the socialist revolutions. To organize, implement, and ensure the lasting effect of socialist revolutions, new leadership are generally autocratic, and therefore spread alienation throughout society with all the unfavourable dictatorial phenomena that are well-known throughout history.

Yet even today, most Marxists naively expect a revolution that will change the Western world and bring socialism. The liberal democracy profits from the Left being weak, so it supports rather than attacks Marxism.

***

How does exploitation occur? Marx did not identify the problem, and it has, therefore, remained hidden until now. Employers, with administrative assistance, maintain the unemployment rate at the level they find most suitable for themselves. The higher the unemployment rate, the cheaper the labour because workers are forced to accept any job to be able to feed their families. Unemployment may depress wages to a bare minimum which is sufficient only for basic survival.

On the other hand, if workers do not earn enough, they are not able to buy the goods that private companies produce. I believe that an unemployment rate of around 5% best suits the capitalists’ interest and that this is the reason economists support it as a “normal” state. This “normal” state reduces labour costs and maintains exploitation while purchasing power is still strong enough to produce profits for companies.

So what is the solution? Work must be accessible to everyone. It will be necessary to create an equilibrium between the number of jobs and the number of workers available to establish a proper balance between the labour supply and demand. If the creation of new jobs is not necessary, full employment would be achieved by reducing work hours proportionally to the rate of unemployment. This is a political measure that must be treated equally in both public and private companies. This will eliminate unemployment.

Shortening work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate may abolish exploitation. Here is a simple explanation: If there are a total of two workers applying for a total of one work position, the competition amongst the workers will lower the price of work and the worker who gets the job would most certainly be exploited. If there is a total of one worker and a total of two available jobs, the competition amongst the employers would raise the worker’s wage. In an extreme situation where the employer must hire the worker or close the company, the worker might even earn more money than the employer himself. The same is possible also if workers’ skills are highly demanded.

And so, if Marx proposed shortening work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate, unemployment would not exist, and employers would have to fight for employees by raising wages. Then the market would harmonize the demand for labour and the income level to acceptable ranges for both workers and capitalists. This would diminish, if not eliminate, exploitation. Workers would be put in a far better position than a revolution could have achieved.

If we apply the shortening of work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate today, workers would earn more and be able to purchase more, in turn causing a significant reduction or elimination of exploitation. Also, it would reduce today’s economic crisis because the crisis is based on peoples’ insufficient purchasing power. This would create much better capitalism. This could solve many of today’s economic problems and bring more prosperity to society.

***

The Market is the best thing Mother Nature has offered to the field of economics because it gives balance to society. However, Marx did not see it that way. By studying the “widest” law of movements in society through dialectical and historical materialism, Marx concluded that a market economy should be abolished because of the exploitation of workers. This was a big mistake in the intellectual history of mankind. This error has prevented the development of society and socialism. By proposing the abolition of the market, Marx removed the measurement of values that reveal the performance of an economy effectively. He abolished a measure that defines human needs, demand, supply, objective value of goods and earnings. He essentially beheaded the economy. Marx was aware of it, and so he offered a substitute for the market economy with a planned economy based on people’s consciousness.

The consciousness which Marx called upon was an idealized construction that cannot be explicitly defined, allowing for anyone to interpret it as they wish. That is why it was prevalent amongst revolutionary leaders. Even a murderer could find absolution in his conscience for the crimes he commits. A system cannot be based on idealized values. Idealism is also contrary to the Marxist materialist philosophy. Without defined values, chaos may ensue. This chaos is what created the environment for the rise of authorities who took total control over society. All the presidents of socialist states ruled lifelong terms. They were privileged and as such could not make a productive environment for the economy.

Until recently, the planned economy could not be democratically established by the people because the information technology that could make it possible did not yet exist. This is why the economy had to be planned by authorities, and as such, it could not follow the needs of the people. An authoritative planned economy primarily supports the needs of the authorities. Authorities were well aware of the shortcomings of the planned economy and tried to overcome them by forming an ideological, working, and humanitarian consciousness. However, this is non-achievable with the privileged authoritative forces that control production and distribution. People’s consciences cannot be developed without freedom; only obedience may develop without freedom. Obedience brings poor lives, regardless of what people may achieve. En route to force people towards the “good” path, the autocratic power controlled the society, thus not differentiating from the extreme dictatorial regimes. Such control oppresses the society and is, therefore, doomed to fail, as all dictatorships have thus failed. Irrespective of some initial success, the authoritative planned economy is alienated, non-productive, and non-perspective; these characteristics are visible in the examples of the breakdown of so-called “real socialism.” I believe that Marxist socialism never stood a chance.

***

Socialism will come after capitalism, but not through revolution. It will happen by introducing more democracy and more of a market of work than capitalism can afford. Nobody in today’s world even thinks that most of the problems of today’s market economy are primarily based on the underdevelopment of the market economy. I will try to present here that the main problem of today’s market economy is not too much market, but rather, not enough.

The economy today has accepted a regulation of work rights that support the people’s work privileges. Once a work position is occupied, it is protected, and nobody else can take this position regardless of the workers’ work performances until the position becomes vacant. Following that, if jobs are not subject to the competition of workers, they do not exercise good enough production. That is why socialism has resulted in a poor quality of output of goods and services. Jobs in capitalism are also protected, and that means privileged, although to a lesser extent than in socialism. That means capitalism could neither allocate resources efficiently enough nor achieve productivity efficiently enough. One should protect the existence of workers, not jobs. The development of the market economy requires the growth of the labour market! The development of the labour market will naturally improve the economy, bring justice to the manufacturing process, and provide stability to society.

Marx fought for equal rights for the people but failed to define what equal rights really are. A better future of humankind necessarily requires that workers become subjects with equal rights in the process of production. This will be achieved when all workers have an equal opportunity to choose their work. Therefore, it is necessary to open a permanent labour market. The developed market of work requires free access for each worker to every public workplace at any time. There is no fairer or better division of labour than a competition of workers through their own labour productivity at any workplace at any time. Productivity would be measured by earned money, by the amount and quality of goods produced, or by rating the productivity of workers by consumers. An employee who offers higher profits, more manufactured goods, better, cleaner and/or cheaper production will get the desired job any time.

It probably seems impossible to you, dear readers, because such a division of labour has never existed. Such a division of work has never occurred because nobody trusted that such a thing is possible and did not invest an effort to develop such an idea. I have. I have taken into account the potential problems that such a division of work might bring and formed a solution that would eliminate such issues. Once such a division of labour is accepted, it will bring considerable benefits to all.

Of course, this division of work will relate only to public companies, because if it is applied to private enterprises, that would practically mean a seizure of private property. Private companies will continue their business as they do today. A new division of labour in public enterprises would be necessary to accept democratically and regulate by law. It will not be easy to implement because the resistance of society to change, but one day this new division of work will be accepted by society because it is the best possible division of labour. I will present in this article the advantages that such a division of labour would produce and you, dear readers, may decide whether it is acceptable or not.

A worker who offers the highest productivity for any workplace at any time immediately becomes a prime candidate for that position, regardless of whether the position is occupied or not. If at such a workplace there is already an employed worker who does not want to leave his job, he would have to accept the productivity offered by the competitor, and in that case, he would continue to hold the position. If he is not able to take the new responsibilities or does not want to, he would immediately vacate the workplace and leave it to the competitor.

The advantages of such a division of work will be enormous. The best worker in every workplace ensures maximum productivity for companies, and yet because of it, such a division of labour has its justification. Besides, the labour market will give people the freedom to choose jobs that they love more and therefore they will enjoy work far more than they do today. Work will become a direct value in itself. Furthermore, the open labour market will eliminate privileges. This will eliminate corruption, the source of immorality in today’s society. Today, people might experience the loss of privileges as a great inconvenience. But by time, people will realize that the loss of such privileges would significantly increase the possibility of finding work that will allow bringing workers’ needs of being to life. Being needs of work develop creativity and bring great and stable conveniences that privileges could not achieve. That is the reason the developed labour market will be accepted one day and will bring significant benefits across society.

The labour market will regulate the price of labour. This will be achieved by giving the job, with limited productivity, to the worker who demands the lowest price for current work and, consequently, a lower income. Price of work will be one of the main factors that determine the income amount of workers. In this regard, suitable jobs will achieve relatively lower incomes and worse jobs will be compensated with relatively higher salaries. In such a way, a developed market of work will form an objective price of labour and balance interest for all jobs. Given that the workers themselves will determine the amount of their income themselves, they will also be most satisfied with their earnings. Unions as mediators between the employers and the employees will no longer be required.

The existential security of people is necessary as a condition of stability for society, and therefore, society will guarantee it. In the new system, all workers will automatically be economically secured after leaving any job. Losing a job will not be financially stressful anymore, and each worker will have a great ability to find a new job quickly. This will remove the great fear that has spread around the world. Capitalism finds its primary motivation for work from the workers’ concern for their economic survival. That is the reason it cannot guarantee economic security to the people. The new system will build motivation for work from the freedom of choosing work and in the satisfaction that comes from it.

The system would have no meaning without a valid regulation of workers’ responsibilities. If workers, to gain competitiveness, offer productivities that they would not be able to realize, the system would collapse. For example, today’s politicians do precisely that when they promise a better living standard than they could deliver. The new economy will form an advantageous system of accountability for the realization of the productivities workers offer so that they would not dare offer productivities they cannot accomplish. It will be realized in such a way that workers would guarantee the productivity they provided by a new value that I call a “productive value of a man.”

It would not be sensible to present a new and complete form of bearing responsibility in this essay since I have developed and introduced it entirely in my book Humanism. But in short, it would be necessary to determine and present the total contribution that each person has made in the creation of accepted values in society. This contribution will be presented by a numerical value. It includes the capital values a person possesses as well as all other non-capital values he has accumulated in society. It will be something similar to the shares of corporations but in a human environment. These shares will present the productive value of man. They will also bring workers a regular income so that they would be accepted as values. Also, these shares should have to be inherited from their ancestors. These shares would become a new effective means for bearing the workers’ responsibilities for achieving the offered productivity in the manufacturing process. If workers do not meet the proposed productivity, they will take responsibility by losing their shares proportionally to the unrealized productivity, or in other words, proportionally to the damage they have produced. The possible loss of the shares will prevent workers from offering productivities they cannot achieve. Besides, a greater responsibility in the production process will lead workers to base their mutual relation more on cooperation than on competition, at all levels of the production process, and thus it will contribute to the productive development of society.

Such people’s responsibility will be extended to everything that people do in their lives. If people do something useful to society they will be rewarded with these shares and vice versa, if people produce damages to society they will be punished by the loss of their shares. This will be accomplished by courts as is common in today’s democracy. Here we should immediately point out that the democracy we know has significant disadvantages. Namely, two people can quickly agree about something, but never about everything. All people can hardly agree on anything and therefore can scarcely make decisions that will satisfy everyone’s interests. The democracy we know cannot solve this problem. It is necessary to find a new democratic tool that will build optimal decisions for everyone. This will be done through democratic anarchy.

What is democratic anarchy? Let each person get an equal right to punish let’s say three individuals who disadvantage them the most in any given month and to award let’s say, three individuals, from whom they attain the most significant benefits in any given month. The rewards and punishments may have an equivalent value of let’s say one dollar. Such a small direct power in the hands of the people will motivate each member of society to respect every individual, to create the highest possible advantages for a community, and diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. As a result, bullies will no longer harass children at school, bosses will not abuse their employees at work, neighbours will not produce excessive noise at night, salespeople will not cheat their customers, politicians will not lie to people, etc. They will all try to please each other in the best possible way. The new system of bearing responsibility is explained in detail in my book Humanism.

No economy can be more productive than one where the best available worker gets the job that he is needed for. In this model, public companies will become more productive and more profitable than private ones. That would put private companies under challenging positions or even potential bankruptcies. The owners of private companies, under the competitive pressures of public companies, would try to increase their productivity similarly to public companies. They would not be able to do it well enough because they would not have the operational capabilities to oppose the public companies. Specifically, private entrepreneurs would not be able to accept the participation of workers in decision-making and profit sharing processes, because, in that case, they would no longer be able to gain any advantage in their own companies to their workers. What then is private ownership for?

Given that workers in private companies would not have the freedom offered with employment in public companies, and could not participate in sharing the profits, they will be less interested in working for private companies. Private companies, along with capitalism, will go down in history. The owners of private properties will be adequately compensated by society.

It can be expected in the new system that all companies in a region will, with time, merge together into one big company. The company will have a centralized leadership that will establish the most effective coordination of work. It will open job positions where they are needed and will close off ones that are not needed anymore. Such an organization of the economy will decrease market competition between companies, but it will ensure the efficiency of production by lowering the level of competition from the companies to the level of jobs. The new economy would bring new values which would be less based on profit and more on the maximum satisfaction of human needs.

***

Direct democracy will be intensely developed as well and implemented in all strategic political and economic decision-making. For example, with the integration of information technology, each person will participate in the decision-making process regarding how much income money should be separated for taxes after the leadership proposes, and the parliament accepts, what the minimum tax percentage of incomes would be sufficient for the system to operate. Together, people would create a fiscal policy of society. They will democratically decide how much of their tax money should be allocated for education, health care, public safety, infrastructure, etc. This would form the democratically planned economy Marx desired but was not able to conceive without information technology. Production based on the demands of the consumers is the most rational and stable production possible. Given that the new system offers steady and positive relations among nations, people will no longer allocate money for the needs of armies and armies will, therefore, cease to exist. In a developed democracy war will no longer be possible.

The political and economic model described here will improve the efficiency and stability of production, introduce justice into the process of production and distribution, and provide significantly higher advantages to all members of society. By accepting it, and thereby ushering in equal rights and powers in society, people will become genuinely equal. Only that should be called socialism.

In general, the new system will rid the people of authoritative pressure and give them the freedom to follow their own interests, while at the same time driving people to mutual respect. Such experiences will demystify the values imposed by authorities and will teach people to live following their proper nature, which will, in turn, free them from all types of alienation characteristic of present-day society. Furthermore, the system will teach people to set their needs according to the possibilities of satisfying them. This is the chief prerequisite for overcoming destructiveness in society because people who permanently satisfy their needs are not destructive. The proposed system promises a natural, harmonious and highly prosperous development of society.

The new system will bring people the freedom to learn what their real values are and how to get closer to their own nature. They will begin to understand that work itself is a great value; individual to individual is a prime value, while goods will lose their alienated value. Once this is followed, they would also understand that collective consumption is the most rational consumption and they will be willing to allocate all their incomes directly towards taxes, causing all goods and services to be distributed free of charge while establishing the most stable and rational democratically planned economy. This is communism; the best social system possible. That was what Marx desired but was not able to define, a flourished society.

My book “Humanism” presents socialism and communism in detail. It is available free of charge here.

April 03, 2012

Homosexuality

Homosexuality

Homosexuals most likely build their orientation on narcissism, which develops a close emotional bond between the members of the same sex.

Everyone who has thought about homosexual relationships for a long time develops a desire to investigate sex with same-sex members. Given that homosexual orientation was until recently prohibited or shameful, homosexuals have hidden their sexual desire. In such an environment, homosexuals were indeed unhappy people. The enormous stress under forbidden desires and long-term suffering resulting from the inability to achieve homosexual relations established the homosexual orientation. After that, the first homosexual experience brings incredible happiness and strengthens the homosexual orientation. I am convinced that if homosexuality were not forbidden, homosexuals would be less passionately homosexually oriented. Any forbidden love between a man and a woman may confirm this claim. If their relationship is undesirable or prohibited by their families, such a relationship raises passion. Restricting love is counterproductive. The same applies to homosexuals.

Members of the same sex who live together should have equal rights as married people except the right to name their relationship as “marriage” because it is not natural. Language should be rich enough to distinguish between natural and unnatural human relations. Homosexual sensitively opposes it fiercely because they have suffered deeply while hiding their sexual orientation, and it is essential to them that their homosexual relationship is accepted by society as natural. It would be better for them to accept their relationship as at least controversial because it would increase the possibility of returning to a natural state. A natural state can achieve genuine joy in life.

I think that homosexuality is undeveloped love, just as falling in love. Developed love is not even necessarily sexual. When people learn to love, they will lower their narcissism, which will return them to their nature, significantly reducing or even ending homosexuality. In a disalenated society, people will find that marriage between a man and a woman is a good solution.

***

Homosexuality is a wrong human orientation resulting from an unhealthy society. Society is insane because it is alienated, neurotic and destructive. Homosexuality cannot be removed until society is healed. In the healthy society, I have defined in my book “Humanism,” homosexuality would be reduced if not removed.

My philosophy states that thoughts determine a person. I rather reject the genetic theory of the nature of a person’s character and orientation. Life creates a person. At birth, a person is an empty box. They do not know whether they are people or frogs. They have developed instincts for survival and individual characteristics, but nothing determines their character, interests or orientation. All that they know is created in the interaction within their environment. This interaction begins with the parents. The relationship between parent and child is the most important one for the development of every individual and then also for the development of society. Children see their future through the lives of their parents. Today, parents live in an alienated society which makes them dissatisfied with their lives. Such people could hardly find love in themselves. Lack of love creates trauma in the development of children. These children do not see a promising future for themselves. That is when the significant problems of today’s society begin. On the contrary, if the parents are happy and love each other, the children build faith in their future.

I’ve concluded that only an equal relationship between parents can build love. If the father is the authority of the family and the mother is not, they are not equal, and the relationship between them cannot be defined as love. In my book “Humanism,” I have presented that some level of sadomasochism always exists in such relationships. Such a relationship is not good and cannot leave a good mark on the development of children. Suppose a father is an authority and a mother is only a person who serves in the house, which is an existing phenomenon even today. In that case, the children usually appreciate the father more than the mother. It may cause the son to love more men than women. I think it is the primary origin of male homosexuality. In support of this hypothesis is that throughout history, homosexuality rates have been higher among men than among women. In my opinion, that is because patriarchy was the dominant relationship in families. If the son in such a family does not develop homosexual tendencies, he would probably not build a love for women either because the family in which he has grown has not taught him to appreciate and love women. Daughters from such marriages would most likely seek more love from authoritative men because they could hardly enjoy others. They would probably spend their lives seeking love from a man who might be unable to give it.

The situation is significantly different if the father is an adverse authority, an authority that the child fears or despises. The son in such a family would instead build a love for his mother, which would cause in him a better attitude towards women. The daughter may also establish a better relationship with women than men, which can direct her toward a homosexual relationship with women. Of course, human biological characteristics, character, a degree of narcissism, stress, and culture also play a significant role in sexual orientation. Still, I believe the crucial role comes from the families where the child grows up.

Similar results will occur if the mother has the dominant role in the family. The son would admire his mother, which would, with great certainty, direct him towards a heterosexual relationship. Such a son can be passive in relationships with women and expect women to make decisions. Depending on the father’s passivity and other factors, her daughter may develop homosexual relationships with other women. If such relationships do not evolve, it might be difficult for her to establish and maintain a relationship with men.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the same rights relations between men and women are the only reasonable solution for the development of the family and society. Husbands and wives must respect each other as human beings, regardless of their differences in intelligence, strength, or other skills they possess. There must be mutual respect between parents and children also. Parents must have the highest authority over their children, but they must also respect them. Parents need to build their respect through their good example and by using rewards and punishments. In addition to the full equality of parents, it may still be good if the father is somewhat higher in authority over daughters, and the mother slightly higher over sons, because it will reduce or remove the inclination of a child to develop homosexual tendencies.

***

This observation regarding homosexuality is based on my philosophy. When I crystallized the conclusion, I decided to check out what science has discovered in the field of homosexuality. According to the references I found on the Internet, the study about the homosexuality of psychologists Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, published in 1981, seems very important. They have examined more than a thousand homosexuals and heterosexuals over three years of data collection. They then analyzed data for five years and spent two years verifying conclusions. After ten years of work, they concluded that family does not affect the sexual orientation of children. This study has contributed to the notion that homosexuality is part of the genetic code and should be accepted.

Does this mean that my contemplation was wrong? No, it does not! Recent studies by two Taiwanese psychiatrists, For-Wey Lung and Bih-Ching Shu, published in Comprehensive Psychiatry in 2007, examined parents’ role in forming homosexuals. They have questioned members of the military in Taiwan. Using a statistical model-based study, they concluded that the influence of parents and increased neuroticism could explain homosexuality in 62% of cases. In short, according to them, the relationship between father and son has the most critical role in becoming male homosexuals. They argue that paternal affection and introverted and neurotic characteristics are the leading causes of male homosexuals.

Added on April 4, 2019. Dr. Neil and Briar Whitehead from New Zealand are the authors of the book My Genes Made Me Do It (2016). They made conclusions based on a 20-year study undertaken with more than 10,000 scientific papers and publications on homosexuality. They concluded that homosexuality is overwhelmingly environmental and nothing about our genes compels homosexuality. Genetic homosexuality has been a convenient myth promoted by gay activism for decades. The research based on 33,000 pairs of twins in Australia shows that when one of the siblings is gay, there is only an 11% chance the other sibling is gay too. If homosexuality occurs by genetics, identical twins will always be identical for same-sex attraction. The research proves that homosexuals are not born that way.

The research also states that no people become homosexual because of upbringing either. According to it, parents do not influence making a son or daughter homosexual. This contradicts my opinion. The study did not consider that we live in a society that does not know how to love. But later, the study states that an increasing number of young people in dysfunctional families identify themselves as homosexual and transsexual. In my opinion, this is a direct result of the lack of love. Once we learn to love, the number of homosexuals will decrease. My article “Do you love?” teaches it.

***

I have not read these studies because that is not of my primary interests. But I use their conclusions to emphasize the incompetence of western social scientists. Why are they incompetent? Today’s scientists are recruited from excellent students who have developed the ability to repeat knowledge. Such people are used to accepting knowledge uncritically; otherwise, they would not be able to replicate it and would not be excellent students. People who get used to uncritically accepting knowledge have less ability to detect substances because they are used to receiving it from authorities. I had the opportunity to talk to many professors of social sciences and often became disturbed by their lack of logical reasoning.

I concluded homosexuality almost incidentally. Lung and Shu, and Neil Whitehead confirmed by their studies that I was right. My conclusion should logically be the first idea that leads to the origin of homosexuality. Why was such research not provided before Lung, Shu and Neil Whitehead? What have the sociological and psychological scientists been working on in the field of homosexuality so far? Social sciences not only do not contribute to the development of society but also prevent it. And this is no accident. Why?

We live in a capitalist society in a continual economic and moral crisis. It is afraid for its survival and therefore hinders the natural development of values that can present the immorality of capitalism. Capitalism promotes perverted values to be perceived as normal. That is also why media propaganda supports homosexuality. But that is not enough; they need support from the sciences to be more convincing. Capitalists can always find people who, consciously or not, follow the interests of corporations and fund those people to develop suiting theories.

That is why the American Psychological Association has instructed for years that changing homosexual orientation is to harm. In contrast, the west has generally capitulated to the idea that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable. The study from Neil Whitehead states that half the homosexual population moves towards heterosexuality in the natural course of life; it’s just that very few people ever hear about it.

I believe that Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith were honoured by getting such an extensive study and a large sum of money, and they were sure that they honestly did their job (as much as they could). This is not about corruption but instead about something much worse. It is a conspiracy that covers practically all the activities of the developed world to the detriment of society. Scientists who actually may contribute to the development of social science are ignored and do not get research grants, and have no access to the media. Supporting studies such as this one from Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith have wrongfully directed social studies and were very successful.

As a result, the social sciences today are useless and damage society. Generations of scientists who have been wrongly directed cannot recognize the correct path today. Lung and Shu have managed to make their study because the Taiwan government that funded them is far from the influence of the west, while Neil Whitehead works for the New Zeeland government. The truth may be found only far away from the west. However, besides the fact that they were published in the west by some miracle, these studies are not supported there.

I am very disappointed with today’s social sciences. However, who will accept my idea if sciences cannot? So I have to vigorously attack today’s social sciences to attract attention to my work. I’ve already done so in the article My Clash With Sciences and plan to oppose them further in my next article.

My article, Do you love? teaches people how to love unconditionally and eliminate homosexuality. It has been offered to numerous psychological magazines. All the answers I received can be summarized as follows: “Your article, “Do you love?” is interesting, but unfortunately, its form does not fit into the conception of our journal.” Unfortunately, I do not have time for a formal study of the sciences I am writing about, so the critical message that the article carries and this one you are reading now will not be accessible to the general public soon. That’s a shame.

20.11.2012

References:

” Homosexuality: the importance of mothers and fathers” by Neil Whitehead and Lower Hutt, New Zealand

Studies of identical twins show homosexuality is acquired, not genetic.

Jacob Rothschild Guilty

Jacob Rothschild is Guilty for the Conspiracy Against Humankind

It is well documented that the Rothschild family was by far the wealthiest and most powerful family in the world 200 years ago. They realized that power over people is not popular, and decided to rule the world secretly. It is documented that they hide their wealth and power, which indicates that they are most likely still the wealthiest and most powerful family in the world. People should have equal rights but do not because the Rothschilds built their power by taking rights that belong to other people. Thus, the Rothschild family has become the evil that oppresses the world and a significant obstacle to the progress of society.

***

My interest in conspiracies arose when I found out that they exist in the case of the destruction of my homeland Yugoslavia. World media presented the dissolution of Yugoslavia as an internal conflict amongst the Yugoslav people; this depiction was just a facade. The essence of the breakup of Yugoslavia was rooted in the colonization of the country. In 1990, the western republics, Slovenia and Croatia, elected parties that supported capitalism. Previously ruling communists won the Serbian election. As a result, Serbia impeded on the pro-Western reforms in Yugoslavia. I realized that the Western politicians and media supported the pro-Western republics and accused the Serbs of all of the problems Yugoslavia entered. This bias was the result of a conspiracy that aimed to alienate people and weaken them politically and economically, which is precisely what happened. The conspirators got power over the whole territory of former Yugoslavia and cheaply took resources that were built by all the people of Yugoslavia.

People realize that injustice happens around the world. Many media accuse the corporations that rule the world and produce wrong, but they do not blame the people who govern these corporations. In that way, the media accept that nothing can be done against these rulers. Conspirators like such media because they spread general apathy in society. I have recognized that the allegations against corporations are useless and that it is necessary to find people who benefit from the ruling of the corporations to be able to stop them.

Around the year 2000, I wondered, who might have such high power that they could destroy Yugoslavia? Through investigation, I came to the conclusion that all roads lead to the Rothschild family, although they are very unexposed. The Rothschild family secretly governs the Western world, and so no one could hold them responsible for it. No one could remove them from power. Is that not the goal of conspiracy? At that time, I noticed that many religious people believed that doomsday is approaching and speculated on the identity of the Antichrist. They suspected George Soros, Prince Charles, and even the Pope. I tried to take advantage of the interest of Christians and suggested in the article Has the Antichrist Come?, written in 2003, that Jacob Rothschild could be the Antichrist.

By the nineteenth century, the Rothschild family had already become the wealthiest family in the world. Lord Byron presented the family in his poem “Don Juan,” canto 12/5, written in the year 1823.

Who hold the balance of the World? Who reign
O’er congress, whether royalist or liberal?
Who rouse the shirtless patriots of Spain?
(That make old Europe’s journals “squeak and gibber” all)
Who keep the World, both old and new, in pain
Or pleasure? Who make politics run glibber all?
The shade of Buonaparte’s noble daring?–
Jew Rothschild, and his fellow-Christian, Baring.

Then began the Industrial Revolution and the blossoming of colonialism where the Rothschilds certainly became even richer; but then withdrew from the public. Why did they do this? After conquering the Western world, as expected, they wanted to capture the whole world. Taking into account that rulers were often unpopular, and for this they could have even paid with their heads, the Rothschilds have decided to conquer the world secretly. And they have succeeded. Today, they are not placed on the list of the wealthiest people in the world. One could get the impression that they lost wealth in the last two hundred years, but there is no supporting evidence. On the contrary, I believe that the Rothschilds have never been wealthier or more powerful than today.

How can the Rothschilds increase their wealth and influence in the world while decreasing their visibility? The Rothschilds, as the wealthiest people in the world, have cleverly made contracts with poor agents who then represent them in the ownership of companies. As a reward, these people usually receive about 15% ownership as a gift, to incentivize their work, while the rest belongs to the Rothschilds. These people were immediately able to buy mansions, yachts and planes. They are very grateful for it, loyal to the Rothschilds, and do their best not to disappoint them. Such contracts are mutually very beneficial.

An example: After the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky for tax evasion in the oil company “Yukos” in Russia, the Russian government threatened to seize his stocks. Then the control over Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s shares of “Yukos” was transferred to Lord Jacob Rothschild. The source is the article from “The Washington Times,” November 2, 2003: “Arrested oil tycoon passed shares to banker.” The article was republished on the web page Action Report Online. This article is significant because it indicates that Jacob Rothschild was most likely a real majority owner of the company “Yukos.” Khodorkovsky simply did not have the money nor the knowledge to step alone in such a big business and made the wealth he was ascribed. In this case, greed had forced Jacob Rothschild to make a mistake as he showed a high possibility that he hid his wealth behind Khodorkovsky. It should be added that the value of these shares, according to Forbes, exceeds the entire wealth of the whole Rothschild family.

Can we assume that the Rothschild model of hiding their wealth behind Khodorkovsky was applied to the other families throughout history? Of course we can. The Rothschilds were the wealthiest people in the world long before the wealthy families Rockefeller, Morgan, Buffet, and others appeared. The Rothschilds have most likely sponsored the rise of these families in a similar fashion to Khodorkovsky. The Banking Monopoly states: “During WWI, JP Morgan was thought to be the richest man in the US, but after his death, it was discovered that he was only a lieutenant of the Rothschild’s. Once Morgan’s will was made public, it was discovered that he owned only 19% of JP Morgan companies “. David Icke writes in Children of the Matrix that the Rockefellers and Morgans were just “gofers” for the European Rothschilds. Political Vel Craft argues: “Warren Buffett Is Rothschild’s Front Man In The United States.” None of these articles provides evidence that the Rothschilds contracted Rockefeller, Morgan, Buffet, and others to represent them in the ownership and management of the world’s biggest companies because the contracts that regulate their relationship are secret and as such are inaccessible to the public.

But the articles provide beyond a reasonable doubt that something like that is more than possible. In this way, the Rothschild family most likely controls the largest banks, the most profitable companies and the most influential media. They are united in a single hierarchical organization that has absolute financial power, which brings them political power and controls all power centers in the Western world. In such a manner, the Rothschilds most likely manage the Western world, although they are not in politics, nor on the lists of the world’s wealthiest.

If there were two centers of such power, then they would have fought for dominance and through their strife we would know who they are, but there is no such thing. The absence of such conflicts tells me with complete certainty that the Rothschild family has monopoly power in the Western world. Therefore, we can hold the Rothschilds accountable for almost everything in the western world. This article will do that to a large extent.

Jacob Rothschild hides his power so much that he does not hesitate to use any means to present himself as a humble philanthropist. An insinuation: A photo of Jacob Rothschild taken by mistake in his home, Waddesdon Manor in England, with the “richest” man in the world, Warren Buffett, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, has recognized Jacob Rothschild as a very influential man. That is most likely why Jacob Rothschild decided to present Warren Buffett as a great philanthropist and himself as a man surrounded by such people. I think that Jacob Rothschild was behind Warren Buffett’s statement that he intends to donate 85% of his wealth to charity. Of course, in this case, this wealth belongs to Jacob Rothschild. The source: Reuters.

In 2012, David Rockefeller decided to sell 37% of his Wealth Advisory and Asset Management Group to Jacob Rothschild for an undisclosed sum. Source: Financial Services. It’s no surprise they cooperate well, but this is not the problem here. When people buy something, they usually need to pay taxes. According to the law, there are some exceptions and buying corporations is one of them. In this particular case even issuing a bill is not necessary. Why is the law so convenient for those who purchase corporations?

The Rothschilds have such massive financial power that they could easily redeem all the worth of the stock exchange. Also, they offer investments to independent companies that the companies could hardly refuse. If the owners of the companies accept the terms of the investment, they may even retain control of their companies. It is critical for the Rothschilds that they are cooperative. If these companies oppose the Rothschilds, they run into problems. A considerable campaign comes to mind that was supposed to split Microsoft in two because of the allegedly unacceptable monopoly that the company had in the world. The majority owner Bill Gates started playing bridge with Warren Buffet on which occasion Buffet probably explained to Gates the importance of “cooperativeness” in the Western world. I believe that Bill Gates accepted and since then there was no pressure to split Microsoft anymore.

The same happens with entire countries. Saudi Arabia has been cooperative with the Rothschilds, and therefore nobody touches it. The Rothschilds do not care what oil company exploits oil in the world as long as it belongs to them. If it does not, then the people who control the oil lose their power or even their lives like Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. I do not claim that the Rothschilds have organized the killing of those people. No, their deaths were a side product of the Rothschild’s need to control oil in the world. I do not claim either that the Rothschilds wanted to steal the oil. It will still technically belong to Iraq and Libya. But the Rothschilds will bring to power obedient people contrary to Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein. Thus, the Rothschilds will establish control over these countries and then of course over their oil. No one else has such power. The Rothschilds are able to achieve this goal because they are invisible and cannot be held accountable.

One of the most important agents of the Rothschild family is George Soros. By portraying himself as a “great benefactor,” at the end of the millennium, he helped the reforms in Eastern Europe and donated one billion dollars to these countries through his organization “Open Society.” The name he gave his organization is at least shamelessly hypocritical because he is one of the prominent members of the most closed society. He is a pirate who wounded many countries and their people as a result of his greed. William Engdahl wrote about it in his article: The Secret Financial Network Behind “Wizard” George Soros. The article also presents Soros’ connection with the Rothschilds.

Can the people who do not believe in conspiracies explain why Soros has donated one billion dollars? Here is my explanation. It was not a gift but a big scam by which the agents of the Rothschild family’s secret organization took the properties of Eastern European countries. I have no evidence. But if you think that the pirate Soros donated one billion dollars to the countries of Eastern Europe to let independent people get rich, then the Rothschild’s conspiracy has successfully formed the way you think. By giving donations to Eastern Europe, Soros promoted capitalism as an ideal system financed parties and media, and corrupted politicians. That allowed other agents of the Rothschild’s to step in an organized manner and buy the state ownership in these countries. That is how an investment of one billion dollars returned trillions. This is the only proper way to interpret Soros’ philanthropy. It was organized crime. Some local people in these countries got rich as well, but they are agents who run the Rothschild companies and generally work for commissions.

The governments of East European countries received assistance from representatives of the West, binding them to follow the policy of Western countries. If some government of the East European countries opposes the policies imposed from the West then that country experiences rebellion against the government. The President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich was dismissed by violent revolution because he tried to build a closer relationship with Russia. This was a very sophisticated operation that funded the revolution in Ukraine, which has misguided the world about occurrences in Ukraine by controlled media, which has forced the leaders of the world to support a violent change of government in Ukraine. Who could have an interest and the power to achieve it? Only the Rothschilds.

Russia opposes the aggressive policy of the West, and therefore the West increasingly attacks it. I believe that this is the beginning of the third major aggression against Russia after Napoleon and Hitler. I do not think it would be an armed war between America and Russia because both sides know they cannot win. The battles will be performed by economic and political exhaustion and will last until one of the parties gives up. The Russians defeated Napoleon and Hitler, and I believe they might defeat Rothschild as well, primarily because they are moral contrary to the corrupt West and therefore stronger. It would take years, if not decades, of exhausting struggle, during which the countries will stagnate, and people will suffer.

The Rothschild family decides for whom people vote for in the US elections and in all the influenced countries around the world by investing large amounts of money to political parties that are most suitable to them and by promoting them through the media they control. In the end, it does not matter to them who will win because they finance, through their agents, all influential parties that follow their interests around the world. Thus they ensure that the policy that suits them would be accepted wherever liberal democracy exists. In the 2012 presidential elections in the US in, both the dominant parties have spent around a billion dollars. There were more candidates for the presidential position, but the Americans did not even know they exist. Where is the democracy? This is the hidden dictatorship of the Rothschild family.

It very rarely happens that things do not work out as the Rothschilds predict. But it does happen. On the way of conquering the world, the Rothschilds met resistance from the Serbs. Serbs resisted the Rothschild family in the attack on Yugoslavia for ten years. The Rothschilds lost patience and decided to break the opposition by way of military aggression of NATO pact on Yugoslavia in 1999. Only the Rothschilds can organize aggression against a sovereign country without consequences because no one can connect them to this aggression. Only Rothschild can mobilize all the western media to justify this aggression through lies which have backed the support of the world nations for aggression against Yugoslavia. Only Rothschild can benefit from it.

US President Bill Clinton, as the highest authority of NATO, was supposed to command the aggression against Yugoslavia. He knew that such a command would be criminal because it did not have permission from the UN. Therefore, Clinton persistently refused to issue such a command even though the Rothschilds pressured him for years. Then the Rothschild agents set up the Lewinsky case and blackmailed him with impeachment if he refused the aggression against Yugoslavia. Only the Rothschilds can blackmail the US President in such a manner. President Clinton, of course, preferred his position more than the lives of thousands of people and commanded the attack on Yugoslavia. Immediately after his approval, the Lewinsky case was forgotten entirely. Please see the chronology at CNN. Clinton got a 500 million dollar donation to build his library in Little Rock, Arkansas. May it be the reward for the attack on Yugoslavia? I wrote excessively about the war on Yugoslavia in the article My debt to Yugoslavia. I am deeply convinced that an investigation against US President Bill Clinton for the criminal aggression on Yugoslavia would lead to Jacob Rothschild. But who can sue President Clinton?

The successful aggression on Yugoslavia encouraged the Rothschilds to go further in conquering the world. Thus, in turn, came Iraq and Afghanistan, countries rich with minerals. These states were independent, and that is something the Rothschild family certainly wanted to change. To make this easier to accomplish they chose George W. Bush for the US President in 2000 because he was entirely on their side as opposed to President Clinton. For the aggression on Afghanistan and Iraq, they needed the support of the people. It was found in the terrorist attack in New York on 9/11/2001. I think the Rothschilds would wait way too long for such an opportunity so I believe they made it happen much sooner by the help from their Muslim allies which the terrorists did not know about. There is an open suspicion that Saudi Arabia was involved. President Bush immediately accused Afghanistan and Iraq of the terrorist attack even though he had no proof. He gave the ultimatum to Afghanistan and Iraq which they could not accept and ordered the aggression against these countries.

Practically only the Rothschilds can control the American government, only they could benefit from the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, only they are able to launch the aggression, and only they could establish a puppet government there. Only they could have profited from these wars. To hide their responsibility if something went wrong, they cunningly sought reserve culprits for the wars. They could not find anyone else but the US government itself. Therefore they formed the conspiracy theory that claims the Bush administration carried out the attack on the twin towers in New York 9/11/2001 to obtain a pretext for attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. This is nonsense. President Bush did not have the operational ability to derive a significant personal benefit from the aggression on Iraq and Afghanistan. I am sure President Bush did not know about that because he was surprised and reacted very awkwardly when he heard that the planes hit the World Trade Center.

But numerous experts who claim that the WTC building number 7 was demolished with explosives were found, and they accused the US government. This conspiracy theory is presented a lot in the media which would not be possible without the support of the Rothschild family that controls the media. I am an architect, and I know that the steel structure is weak when exposed o high temperatures and rapidly loses its loading weight capacity when it is exposed to fire, as opposed to concrete structures. Building number seven was burning on low floors almost all day collapsing under the heavy load of the building, which looks like a demolition. The same thing happened to the twin skyscrapers. They collapsed faster because they were strongly damaged by the hit of the planes.

With such conspiracies the Rothschilds deceive people. The accusation against the US government does not bother the Rothschilds at all, because it serves to carry the burden of all the evil that the Rothschilds commit. Some indication exists which presents the possibility that the Rothschilds bypassed the president, helped the terrorists in the United States achieve their goal, and obstructed the investigation to bring suspicion to the US government. Thus they remove any possible doubt from themselves. I wrote more about it in the article: My Investigation of 9/11.

The Rothschilds support false conspiracy theories because they invalidate the credibility of real conspiracies. Many people write about the evil Rothschilds even though often they do not have evidence. The Rothschilds have never sued any such writers because such trials would bring negative attention. Instead of it, they encourage all kinds of attacks on themselves because the more nonsense people write about them, the less credible their attacks are. Even more, Rothschilds often accuse themselves of the stupid conspiracies. For example: Before it’s News recently published: “Rothschild Takes Down Malaysian Airliner MH370 to gain rights to the Semiconductor Patent – Getting Rid of Those Who Stood In His Way!” What a stupidity! It is equally absurd as if they are accused of stealing food from a grocery store. The authors of such texts should be afraid the Rothschilds might sue them for slander. Of course, unless the Rothschild’s agents hired them to write such articles. Such articles can bring benefits to the Rothschilds because of its shallowness they devaluate the real accusations. Unconvincing conspiracy theories create the opposite effect so that people dismiss conspiracy theories as impossible in today’s “democratic society.” And that is a part of the Rothschild’s conspiracy as well. With such articles, the Rothschilds become innocent people who suffer unjust accusations in the eyes of the world. They are very crafty. Media under control of the Rothschilds deliberately indoctrinate people by imposing misinformation and shallow values, because misinformed and stupid people are obedient and cannot resist.

On the other hand, nobody investigates the real conspiracy. In the TV broadcast, Democracy Now on 3.2.2007, the U.S. General Wesley Clark said that immediately after 9/11, the Pentagon planned attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Is that not enough proof that there is a conspiracy? Clark is a real whistleblower because he unadvisedly betrayed the criminal action by the U.S. authorities. The U.S. Army General’s statement has not awakened any interest in the U.S. judiciary or the media. On the other hand I am not sure if whistleblowers Assange and Snowden have said anything that is not known, but still, they are persecuted by the American justice system. Why? Because the U.S. justice and the media are controlled by the Rothschild family. The media have a purpose of removing public interest from the real issues by imposing endless useless public discussions. Assange and Snowden are victims created precisely for that purpose. If what they have revealed did not fit big capital, you would not know that they exist.

To return to the US aggression on Iraq and Afghanistan; if you physically attack a man you will most likely end up in jail; if you attack Iraq and Afghanistan, kill hundreds of thousands of people to steal their resources, nothing will happen. It cannot be like this. Given that I am very well versed with the aggression against Yugoslavia, I recognized in the criminal aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan the handwriting of the Rothschild family. Have you ever asked yourself why the President of the US may be impeached for cheating on his wife but cannot be impeached for the criminal aggression against Iraq? I am deeply convinced that the investigation against US President George W Bush for the criminal aggression on Iraq would lead to Jacob Rothschild. But who can sue President George W Bush?

To decrease the dissatisfaction of the people in the United States due to wrong policies of George W. Bush, the Rothschild family, aided by their agent David Rockefeller, chose the young and intelligent Barack Obama for the US presidential position in 2008. I read somewhere that David Rockefeller, agent of the Rothschild family, first congratulated Barack Obama on his victory long before the election. Barack Obama as a humane man attracted the American left and tried to remove the problems that the conservative Bush administration built in America. But he was not strong enough to succeed in doing so. Just before the nomination for the presidency, Obama graduated Harvard law. People who complete university must be obedient followers of authority otherwise they would not be able to complete their studies. The Rothschilds knew that they could relatively easily manipulate young Obama and that is why they chose him.

The Rothschilds turned an exemplary law student who believes that everyone is innocent until a court proves him guilty into a criminal and murderer. Obama signed an order for the predatory arrest of Osama Bin Laden that resulted in his cruel murder in 2011. He spat on his own diploma. Why did he do this? He felt pressure from the media and the U.S. government officials that surrounded him. They are all controlled by the Rothschilds because otherwise, they could not be in the position they hold. No one has convinced me that Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with the terrorist actions that are attributed to him. If you noticed, all the media’s gravest charges have been proved only by putting his picture on the television screen. It is possible that the death was the silencing of a man who was wrongly accused and who could tell an uncomfortable truth in court.

America, pressured by the Rothschilds, kills people around the world with the excuse that in this way they fight terrorism, spread democracy and human rights. That is a lie; this is only about the discipline of disobedient countries. Obama sends drones that kill people in Afghanistan daily under the pretext that it prevents terrorism and spreads democracy. This is terrorism. Could you imagine Afghan drones flying over the United States and killing people because America is an undemocratic and terrorist state? The biggest crime of President Barack Obama was the aggression against Libya. I am deeply convinced that the investigation against US President Barack Obama for the criminal aggression on Libya, would lead to Jacob Rothschild. But who can sue President Barack Obama?

On the way to conquering the world, the Rothschilds certainly want to conquer Russia. In the recent election campaign the newly elected President of the United States, Donald Trump promised the reconciliation with Russia. President Trump also announced the crackdown on lobbying by “the global elite,” which is synonymous with the Rothschilds. Why would he do this? They have the same interests. I think that nothing significant will be changed. So a choice of continuing conflict between Russia and America is more likely than cooperation.

Sometimes leaders of states lose their lives violently. Knowing what kind of power the Rothschild family possess, if I were in the position of public attorney, I would ask the Rothschild family if they know something about the unsolved murders of Presidents John Kennedy, Salvador Allende, Olof Palme, Nicolae Ceausescu, Slobodan Milosevic, and others. For this, of course, political will has to exist. If it appears, I believe that the Rothschilds would get scared of such an investigation and would stop creating the criminal policies of society. I believe that this would immediately reduce the problems in the world.

Other heads of “developed” Western countries are also either corrupted or incompetent because other people have no access to such positions. The Rothschilds founded the Bilderberg group. It is a private organization that openly recruits and ideologically directs leaders of the Western world. No wonder that the presidents of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Turkey have recently adopted rebels in Syria as legal representatives of the government. This is a crime. These rebels were secretly created and financed by the Rothschild family with the goal to take control over Syria. That is how the Rothschild family replaces the disobedient governments of independent countries. Thus gaining control of all the resources of this world that they do not have yet under control. And since they are entirely invisible, no one can stop them in that.

A few years ago I saw on a YouTube video, which cannot be found anymore, that the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said: Do not worry we control the U.S. government. An intelligent man cannot afford such an arrogant statement if the process of the enslavement of American society is not completed. However, Netanyahu did not tell the truth because Israel does not control the U.S. government, but rather the Rothschild family does. The Rothschilds control the US Congress as well through the AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee). If any senator or representative of the people opposes the Rothschilds, they will not be politicians anymore because AIPAC has the power to dismiss disobedient politicians and they know it. The American laws have been created in a way that suits the rich for centuries. No wonder why those who purchase corporations are not required to pay taxes. America is a colony of the Rothschilds. This is indirectly confirmed by the National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski. He said in 2012, “I do not think there is an implicit obligation for the United States to follow like a stupid mule whatever the Israelis do. I think that the United States has the right to have its own national security policy. ” This sentence shows all the weakness of the US administration to the power the Rothschilds possess.

The Rothschilds control the judicial departments of Western countries as well. They have established the International Court in Hague to judge the nations that oppose them. So that is why the Serbs were punished. In 2012, the judgments were made by which the Croatian generals Gotovina and Markač and Kosovar politician Hardinaj were declared innocent in the war in Yugoslavia while the Serbian general Tolimir received a life sentence of imprisonment. The civil war in Yugoslavia produced evil on all sides. General Tolimir is no more guilty than the other three people. The judgments are crimes of the corrupted court. Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic was killed in Hague by the drug against leprosy, which annulled the activity of medications for the heart. As the court had no evidence against him, the tension of the four-year stressful trial and most likely inadequate medical treatment for his ailing heart killed him in 2006. Vojislav Šešelj, president of the Serbian Radical Party, was in jail in the Hague tribunal for ten years without a verdict, then he was released without a sentence. That court is a crime itself and a shame on today’s society. Judges from all over the world judge at this court and that means that judges all over the world are corrupt and that there is no justice anywhere. James Bissett, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, claimed that George Soros, the agent of the Rothschild family, funded the International Court in Hague. This means that the Serbs were tried by the same man who attacked them. It says to me that the family Rothschild has an impact not only on governments around the world but also on the judiciary system. The family Rothschild should be charged for the evil they produce but this, of course, is not possible with a corrupt court. Besides, no one knows that they are responsible for it and therefore he creates the evil in the world uninterruptedly.

In short, power corrupts, and as long as there is power over people, there will be corruption. In my book, Humanism – A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society,I have proposed the elimination of the power of man over a man. This is the only way to build a good future for humankind, but powerful and corrupted people do not accept such a system. Others are so influenced by the system of education and the media that they could not recognize the benefits of the system I have proposed.

The conspiracy has absorbed science as well. Sometime early in 2012, I watched a video from the conference of “The Institute for New Economic Thinking.” In this video, George Soros has called upon all economic schools, including Marxist, to contribute to finding a way out of the financial crisis. The call is not sincere because if it were, they would analyze the economic ideas I offered to them, but they had no such intention. They do not want to solve the financial crisis because it suits them better than the release from the economic crisis. What’s that all about? The plight of capitalism is not based on a lack of production, but on the lack of purchasing power of people. If the big businesses cared about bringing the economy out of the crisis, they need only to find a way for people to earn more.

For this reason I wrote the article Let’s Remove Unemployment where I offered shortening working hours proportionally to the unemployment rate. In this way, the ratio of jobs to workers would be equal. That would establish a fair market of work which would justly regulate the salaries of workers and profits of employers. In such an economy, the owners of companies would have to attract workers by increasing wages. The increased purchasing power of workers would increase the trade of goods and services, and that would bring businesses higher profits and would pull the economy out of the crisis.

But it would also reduce the economic dependence of workers on businesses. That would free workers from fear of their financial future. Workers would no longer be interested in fighting wars for the interests of big business around the world, for example. Big business is not interested in making money because it already has all the money; it has an interest in controlling the people, and its best bet is during a crisis. And that is the main reason the economic crises exist. All economic crises, including the U.S. Great Depression, are incurred through monetary and interest rate manipulation of the Rothschild family. Webster Griffin Tarpley wrote about that. Through economic crisis, the Rothschilds force independent entrepreneurs to bankruptcy and cheaply take their wealth. So Rothschild’s wider circle of people depend on their power. Then workers, through fear for their own future, silently accept unfairly low wages and their own powerlessness. And if they rebel against the injustice that is happening to them, they at best can abolish the government, but that can change nothing. The policy controlled by the big business remains the same.

The shortening of working hours proportionally to the unemployment rate should be the first idea to come to the mind of an independent thinker to reduce the suffering of workers and improve the economy and society. But such a view is nowhere to be seen. Why? Because it is forbidden by the conspiracy of the Rothschild family. Such an idea would start a transformation of society towards a better socio-economic system. That is why such an approach cannot be heard at universities or in media. None of the media, including those on the left, wanted to publish my article “Let’s Remove Unemployment.” Why? Because most of them are controlled by big business and the rest is influenced by imposed knowledge. The brainwashed people do not believe that such a simple measure can fix society and economy in the first place because they’ve never heard for it. An idea that does not have access to the public cannot be accepted by political parties either. So the cycle of powerlessness never ends.

But why did Soros call the Marxists when he knew that they were the greatest enemies of capitalism? Then I realized that they are not afraid of Marxists. Probably half the professors of sociology in the Western world are Marxists. They openly teach Marxist philosophy in universities, which would not have been possible if Marxism could undermine capitalism in any way. I am deeply convinced that the Rothschilds consciously manipulate the Marxist-oriented professors by putting them on the wrong path. This way, they reduce the possibility of the appearance of an excellent left-social system that could defeat capitalism. I wrote about it in the article Marx still prevents the progress of society.

This conspiracy was established a long time ago. Apparently, Lenin returned to Russia from exile with suitcases full of money. The reason? Russian Czar Nicholas Romanov angered the Rothschilds with his support of the American government in conflict with the Bank of England. Besides, the Russian Czar allegedly repaid the debt to the international bankers and did not want to continue to borrow money from them. That was enough for the Rothschilds to finance the revolution. Marxism is planned for disobedient countries. In the West, the revolutions were prevented by the murder of the Marxist leaders. Rosa Luxembourg for example. A similar thing is happening to Syria right now. This is possible only because no one can imagine that the Rothschild family is behind all of it. They realize their interests through the financing of crimes because no one can connect the crimes with them.

The Rothschilds have imposed a system of education that makes people stupid. I am not exaggerating. Such education helps them to stay in power and rule over society. How did they do it? They have been supporting mistaken scientists for centuries who develop wrong or insufficiently right knowledge, and by the help from politics which they also control, they have imposed such knowledge to the system of education. Almost all social scientists may belong to such a group including Karl Marx. Sigmund Freud is a supported creator of the unsuccessful theory of psychoanalysis, which is mostly rejected. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was supported in developing a wrong philosophy from the standpoint of creating a good society. Less well-known Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith are promoted in the development of the theory of homosexuality registered in the genetic code. I’ve shown that this theory is wrong in the article Homosexuality. These scientists have become authorities mostly with the help of the Rothschilds.

University students have been forced to accept the incorrect or not enough correct knowledge of such authorities if they want to pass exams. Intellectuals who have taken such knowledge became incompetent and could not find an escape from the problems of society. The best students of the wrong or insufficiently correct sciences became the most influential people in the community and then spread false knowledge. In this way, the Rothschilds have produced weak and useless sciences. I wrote more about it in the article My Clash with Sciences. Scientists who are deeply influenced with false knowledge cannot improve the world; nor understand or accept progressive ideas. That is the reason the world cannot move forward.

Conspiracy has affected food production as well. In my article Epilogue, I wrote that indications exist that the Rothschild family deliberately poisons food to produce food cheaply and make more profits. Thus also hire medical and pharmaceutical industries more, over which they have control too. Furthermore, health care and the pharmaceutical industry are not keen enough to treat people honestly, because healthy people are not spending money on medical treatment. There are indications that the Rothschilds deliberately poison people with food to reduce the Earth’s population. William Engdahl in his book Seeds of Destruction states that the expansion of genetically modified crops and food all over the world today, have reached that scope that can and must be proclaimed as “genocide, crimes against humanity.” Dr Peter Gøtzsche exposes big pharma as organized crime. The Canadian Cancer Society warns of a rapid increase in cancer cases and predicts that every other Canadian will become ill through their lives. Causes of cancer are hardly researched and discussed because every debate will accuse new manufacturing technologies and could accuse corporations that make money at the expense of people’s lives.

The conspiracy of the Rothschild family has reached every pore of today’s society. Only cooperative people, those who follow the interests of big business have access to the media and are in influential positions in society. They are obedient because they are corrupted by their positions in society and by the markedly high living standards that the system gives to them. People believe that these corrupted individuals deserve everything because of their hard work and skills, but this is not true. They are only pawns of the people who actually run society. But that is not all, the Rothschilds control their opposition as well. They corrupt fighters for justice who publicly confront the existing system but do nothing to change it. They took control over the “Occupy” movement. Also, they like to support indoctrinated fighters for justice who are unable to make progress. Noam Chomsky, for example, is an honest fighter for justice, but has his fight helped humankind? Has he offered a solution that might improve the situation around the world? He has not. And so the Rothschilds must love his contribution to the betterment of humankind. While people who might improve society, like me for example, do not have financial support, do not have access to universities, media, or politics, and cannot help. Every day you can see all kinds of published nonsense, but my philosophy that defines the bright future of humanity has no access anywhere. Everything is based on a deep conspiracy. People who believe media and follow fighters for “justice,” actually work in favour of their own powerlessness.

This article has been sent to hundreds of news publishers and was published only by Veterans Today. Why? A large number of editors do not believe in conspiracies, those who believe are afraid of the Rothschild family (unfortunately, influential RT is among them), and the rest are controlled by the Rothschilds. Even the media specialized in conspiracies did not want to publish it because their primary task is to write nonsense ordered by the Rothschild family.

The conspiracy is completely hidden, so the public does not know anything about it. It is possible that only Jacob Rothschild has access to the entire conspiracy. He has far more power than any emperor in the history of humankind, but nobody knows it. I believe that his wife thinks he is just a successful businessman. Even his son Nathaniel, until recently, did not know how influential his father was. When he learned that he would inherit his power, he suddenly transformed from an irresponsible adventurer to a very successful “independent” businessman. Of course, a narrow circle of his family was acquainted with the conspiracy, as well as several other family members, including, of course, David Rockefeller, who rules in the name of Rothschild over the United States. In the hierarchy below them, no one, I repeat, no one, I believe not even Soros, knows how powerful Jacob Rothschild really is. That is why the conspiracy remains undiscovered.

So then, how have I discovered how powerful Jacob Rothschild is? Around the turn of the millennium, I became convinced that the Rothschilds rule the Western world by studying various documents on the Internet. Many papers and the genealogy of the Rothschild family suggest that the London branch manages the whole family. A variety of statements, articles, and documents indicate that Jacob is the head of the London branch. That is how I realized that Jacob Rothschild is the secret ruler of the Western world. He suits the role perfectly as a quiet man mostly known for his love of arts and flowers. This image is, of course, built up so that no one would have thought that he could be the leader of a global conspiracy. I have no substantial evidence against Jacob Rothschild because it is impossible to collect it without the help of governments. State governments are corrupted, incompetent, or afraid of the power of corporations, so they have no intention to search for evidence and accuse Jacob Rothschild. By finishing my research, I concluded that there might be only a 0.1% chance that he is not at the head of the conspiracy hierarchy and a 0% chance that he is not among the top five. Jacob Rothschild is certainly guilty for the conspiracy against humankind.

The situation in the world is only getting worse, and so I have decided to act. It makes no sense to attack presidents, governments and corporations under media accusations of evil in the world because they are only highlighted puppets Jacob Rothschild has managed and protected. This article is not proof against the Rothschilds, but it provides sufficient information and explanations that, beyond a reasonable doubt, can and should invite public prosecutors to launch an investigation against the Rothschilds. But this requires political will, which corrupted governments do not have. Therefore, the sad situation in the world does not change. We must not allow evil to act freely. This article’s task is to inform people about what is happening in the world, and I expect the unsatisfied people to exert political pressure on their governments to launch an investigation against the Rothschilds. Or choose new governments that will show the courage to initiate such an investigation. Once the Rothschild family is accused of the crime, the crime will end. Then, the evil in the world will end as well.

Written 20.12.2012

Updated 29.11.2016

February 26, 2024. Today, Jacob Rothschild, the secret ruler of the Western world, died. From now on, his son, Nathaniel Rothschild, takes his secret position while pretending to be an ordinary citizen.

Recently, it came to my mind that the family may be successfully debunked by going after seemingly benign conspiracies, such as Chemtrails, Global Warming, or Flat Earth. Flat Earth is one of the most successful conspiracies ever, making people believe they are bright while the Rothschild family controls them by manipulating public information. People who spread seemingly benign conspiracies would more readily admit who pays them than those who commit crimes. Investigators just need to follow the money that drives the spread of conspiratorial ideas. The Western world is obviously controlled by one center, and according to me, nobody else but the Rothschilds has the power to make it happen.

Continues on Mayan prophecy is true.

Mayan Prophecy

Mayan Prophecy is True

Before reading this article it would be a good idea to read Jacob Rothschild is guilty for the conspiracy against humankind. A good society will be much easier to establish when the Rothschild family is stopped. It’s not hard to do. People who face increasing problems of living, mainly protest and demonstrate on the streets of cities around the world. I must tell that the protests against governments are useless because governments are just predetermined, scapegoats. Nothing would be better if people replace a head of state or government. Protests against corporations and banks also cannot bring success, because they are only tools of power. People should demonstrate against the Rothschilds because they are to blame for all the problems. Once accused, they will retreat into defence, which will allow for a better tomorrow.

If you people, want to relieve the colonial chains you must stop Jacob Rothschild. Syrians, peace and justice cannot arrive in your country until you stop Jacob Rothschild. Iranians, if you want the West to let you live in peace, you must stop Jacob Rothschild. Serbs, if you want to cleanse your name, you must stop Jacob Rothschild. If your country is over-indebted and riddled with high and imposing taxes, Jacob Rothschild is as guilty for it because he corrupts politicians. Workers, if you want to ensure the right to work, you must stop Jacob Rothschild. He deliberately keeps the unemployment rate high to pay you less for your work. Folks, if you had any problem that has affected you, Jacob Rothschild is guilty of it. If you live in poverty, Jacob Rothschild is guilty because he seizes the money that should belong to you. If you, or your loved ones, have been a victim of crime, Jacob Rothschild is guilty because he has built a criminal society. If you’ve lost someone close in the war, Jacob Rothschild is guilty because he is the primary initiator of wars. If you are hungry anywhere in this world, Jacob Rothschild is guilty because he builds an immoral society. If your spouse has left you, Jacob Rothschild is accountable for it because he has created an unhealthy society. If you are not the most significant authority for your children, Jacob Rothschild is guilty because he breaks families. If you are sick, if you are high or drunk, Jacob Rothschild is guilty because he formed a sick society. If you are dissatisfied and unhappy, Jacob Rothschild is guilty because he does not allow the formation of a healthy community. Folks, even if you lack nothing, you would not be mistaken if you fight against Jacob Rothschild, because he builds a very uncertain future.

My voice is not strong enough, because I have not access to the media, so I ask kindly for your help. I made up this poster, which accuses Jacob Rothschild. Get it by clicking on the image above or on this link. Create a picket sign from it. When you decide to demonstrate against anyone, anywhere, bring that picket sign with you because Jacob Rothschild is undoubtedly directly or indirectly guilty for what ails you. You may also attach this poster on the rear windows of your car or print it on a T-shirt. Show to the world that you are tired of injustice and evil. You people have the power; you just need to use it. If a sufficient number of you people carry this poster, it will send a strong message to society that will stop the Rothschilds and open the gates for the creation of a much better future for mankind.

It would not be wrong, for instance, if you come and bring the posters to the front of Waddesdon Manor, Buckinghamshire, England, where Jacob Rothschild lives. Go there and accuse him of the evil that has befallen on you. Inform RT (Russian Television) about it. They will be happy to broadcast your demonstration worldwide. Russian TV is the biggest thing that the Russian government has made because it is probably the only influential television in the west independent of the Rothschild family.

I am convinced that Jacob Rothschild is a coward. He has lived far too comfortably that he could be brave. Once you people start demonstrating against him and accusing him of his crimes, he will be scared and will stop committing evil. This statement, of course, leads me to danger. In this regard, I declare: If by some chance I get struck by lightning while I am walking my dog Meda, or if I eat a green salad with polonium dressing, or something like that happens to me, I want you to know that I accuse Jacob Rothschild of that.

Under the influence of the Rothschild family, you people persistently choose a very complicated option that cannot solve any of the social problems of the world. My philosophy is, and it will resolve all the social issues of the world. Once you begin to examine my philosophy, the Rothschilds will not have any chances.

My philosophy is based on equal rights among people. Only equal rights among the people can build a bright future for humankind. To be more explicit, as long as privileges exist there cannot be equal rights among people, and society can not solve its problems. It cannot be good. There are only one “equal rights,” and I have defined them. Equal rights among the people will save this world from evil and build a paradise on earth. In this paradise evil will no longer exist, no one will fear for their future. All people will be happy and satisfied. The changes will be so significant that practically nothing will remain the same. The history before the implementation of my social system will be called barbarism and from the implementation will be called civilization.

My philosophy will realize the messianic prophecy. This means that I am messiah Aleksandar. According to the Mayan prophecy, the Messianic changes are expected to start today, 21.12.2012. That is why I published this article just today. Today, by this action against Jacob Rothschilds I have begun a movement of transformation in society. I do not know when the change will occur, but I know that it will happen because there is no other alternative for the realization of a good society.

21.12.2012