Category: Essential Thoughts

Essential Thoughts

Essential Thoughts

 

Occasionally, I’ll present my thoughts here. My views are often completely different than the ones that are accepted in society; therefore, I believe my views will be very interesting.

 

2005.01.27    About my failure to be recognized as a scientist  in 1200 words

2005.01.29    I am a genius or maybe even Messiah  in 1100 words

2005.02.01    Anyone can become a genius  in 900 words

2005.02.04    Let’s prevent wars  in 700 words

2005.02.06    Let’s prevent illnesses  in 700 words

2005.02.09    Let’s prevent crime  in 700 words

2005.02.10    Let’s love each other  in 1000 words

2005.03.24    Let’s decide alone about our taxes   in 600 words

2005.03.27    Let’s finish with capitalism  in 250 words

2005.04.16    Let’s talk to each other  in 800 words

2005.05.21    Let’s prevent corruption  in 450 words

2005.05.29    Let’s remove fear   in 600 words

2005.06.01    Let’s remove alienation   in 600 words

2005.06.13    Let’s remove immorality  in  200 words

2005.06.25    Let’s finish with the social evil   in 700 words

2005.07.06    Let’s be free   in 600 words

2005.07.07    Let’s be good, sane, and joyful people  in 200 words

2006.10.09    Let’s demystify the system of education  in 1000 words

2006.10.19    Let’s build democratic anarchy   in 500 words

2007.02.21    Do we need happiness or joy?   in 400 words

2008.01.20    Jesus Christ said   in 200 words

2008.02.15    The problem with democracy  in 500 words

2008.03.08    Equal human rights   in 750 words

2008.03.30    The most powerful tool of justice ever    in 100 words

2008.04.20    That’s it    in 14 words

2009.04.20    My Humanism is the salvation of humankind  in 200 words

2013.01.18    Let’s eliminate unemployment in 2500 words

2013.01.23    “Occupy” movement harms society   in 1200 words

2013.01.23

US Agencies Occupied the Occupy Movement

The Occupy movement was an international socio-political demonstration against social and economic inequality and lack of democracy around the world. It started on September 17, 2011 in New York City’s Zuccotti Park under the name Occupy Wall Street. The movement has called for solutions to the problems of society. I contributed to the movement by offering new ideas for reaching social justice, and they were discussed over the Internet. But the movement has never succeeded in defining its goals or political demands. I will explain why here.

 

The changes that the Occupy movement desired were not acceptable to the government, and it had the interest to prevent the independence of the movement. In 5 months, the government cleaned all demonstration camps of the Occupy movement in the US, but it continued to work. Then the US government sent trained agents to take control over the movement. They managed to control the movement through financial and organizational support. It was not difficult to achieve because the Occupy movement was open to all people. Volunteers run it. There was no hierarchy. Anyone could suggest ideas. As such, the Occupy movement was very vulnerable to the destructive attack of the government. Finally, the Occupy movement has become a tool of the government.

 

At the beginning of 2012, I joined the group “Visions and Goals” within NYCGA of the Occupy movement in New York. I proposed to the group a very simple measure for reaching social justice. It was based on a reduction of work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate. The elimination of unemployment would increase the demand for workers on the market, which would increase their salaries. I have defined it in the article Let’s remove unemployment. Higher workers’salaries would raise the trade of goods and services on the market, which would grow the economy and improve social wellbeing. Such a measure would be beneficial to all.

History has proved it. In the 14th Century, the Black Death killed one-third of the European population, which suddenly increased demand for workers. The shortage of workers increased the workers’ wages. Michael Bennett confirmed it in the article The Impact of the Black Death on English Legal History, Australian Journal of Law and Society, 1995, page 197: “In Parliament, in 1351 the Commons petitioned Edward III for a more resolute and effective response. They complained that “servants completely disregard the said ordinance in the interests of their ease and greed and that they withhold their services to great men and others unless they have liveries and wages twice or three times as great as [prior to the plague] to the serious damage of the great men and impoverishment of all members of the said commons.””

 

According to this, if the Occupy movement accepted a goal of reducing the work to 5 hours per day; the lack of workers would increase workers’ salaries 2-3 times per hour in one year. The daily wages would rise 30-90% for just a 5-hour shift. Workers would work shorter hours and earn much more. It has already happened so that if the idea were accepted, the Occupy movement would get a good goal of joint action.

 

The Activist of the group “Visions and Goals” Patrick Conway (Picture below), responded to me that my idea was interesting but that we first needed to find a consensus on basic issues. Patrick Conway insisted on a consensus of common actions between Democrats, Republicans, Marxists, liberals, anarchists, socialists, and followers of other political views, which is impossible to accomplish. His high education won the confidence of the activists before I had joined the group. Also, he attended all of the meetings of the “Visions and Goals” group in New York, which I was not able to do at all by living in Toronto. Thus, a discussion of my ideas in the “Visions and Goals” group ended. It seems to me that Patrick Conway prevented any agreement in the group “Vision and Goals.” This was certainly one of the reasons the Occupy movement had not defined its vision clearly nor its goals for joint action. This once very active group soon became deserted.

I tried to understand why Patrick Conway would sabotage the group. I was not able to find anything about him on the internet beside what he put on his profile of the group. Here it is: Occupy Wall Street – New York City General Assembly, Vision & Goals, Name: Patrick Conway, What Brought You Here: “I see this movement as a chance to make this country and world a much better place.” Skills: “business management, accounting, computers, ideas.” The information about the group “Vision & Goals” does not exist anymore. Today is impossible not to find information about any activist on the Internet so that I strongly believe Patrick Conway was a state agent with a fake name which only the government could provide. But the picture he enclosed was real. 

 

My article “Let’s remove unemployment” should be welcomed to all the Occupy movement websites because it advocates for social justice and presents a simple way to achieve it. It would have to be published just because it has good intentions. It could have opened the discussion to demonstrate the eligibility, conductivity and feasibility of my views. But the article was not welcome by the Occupy movement. None of their websites published it. Not publishing the article clearly showed that the people who decide what would get published on the Occupy websites did not want the progress of society. They had bad intentions.

 

I have managed to establish my independent hub in the Interoccupy group. As a holder of a hub, I believed that I would be able to participate in the work of the movement actively. I published the action proposals but have not received any response. Interoccupy was supposed to foster communication between individuals, working groups and local general assemblies across the movement but it did not. In reality, it blocked all of the progressive ideas of the members of the Occupy groups. Interoccupy published barely one news article daily which could be found in the major media. They generally published announcements and calls for numerous demonstrations of the Occupy movement. They actually said to people: run across the country, scream as much as you can, and when you get tired, go home and sleep.

 

The government prevented the spreading of progressive ideas in the Occupy movement. Instead it imposed a view that all problems happen coincidentally and that they should be solved independently. In other words, the movement encouraged endless conversations and actions which could not get close to the roots of the problems. The protestors did not have a solution, either the operational possibility that might reduce social injustice.

 

I believe that most of the Occupy movements were secretly financed by the government and by the rich with which the Occupy movement struggles. They made fools of the fighters for justice, who naively fell for their fraud. Some of the members of the Occupy movement have responded to me that they are aware that the US government probably had agents among them, but they ignored it. They believed that they could achieve their goals anyway. In reality, the Occupy movements were blocked at the root of the movement, so it did not stand a chance.

 

The main point of this article is, the US agencies do not have the right to interfere in the political life of the US citizens. They would never interfere in big parties, but they do it in the political activities of poor Americans. US agencies are paid to protect American citizens and not to prevent their political activities. But they do protect the rich. I strongly believe that the US government’s interfering in political activities of the US citizens is an organized crime committed in the interest of rich Americans.

 

The Occupy movement is still alive because it cannot compromise the rich conspirators while it groups dissatisfied people, enabling conspirators to manipulate them easily. Paradoxically, the rich keep it alive. The Occupy movement keeps being supported by the rich even though it does not present any social power anymore because it has helped the rich to direct dissatisfied people to useless paths. I hope this is a good warning for future movements.

 

I learned how conspiracies originated twelve years earlier in the aggression on my homeland Yugoslavia and presented my findings in the article My debt to Yugoslavia. Based on this experience, I performed an extended study which exposed the conspiracy in the western world. I presented the conclusion of my work in the article Jacob Rothschild is guilty for the conspiracy against humankind.

 

I have discovered that the Rothschilds are the largest enemy of the people. They have hidden their power so that nobody can accuse them of their wrongdoings. Also, they have cunningly taught people to call every criticism of them as anti-Semitism because, in this way, they can hide their evil doings more. I have been accused of being anti-Semite many times even though I am not one. I had to reveal the truth about the Rothschilds because it is not possible to win the enemy if the enemy is unknown.

 

Somehow I managed to publish this article in one of the Occupy web sites but later found it was removed. Conspiracies are a major social problem, and preventing articles from revealing them makes solving the problem impossible. It’s like forbidding doctors to recognize illnesses.

 

Discussion

 

2013.01.18

Let’s Remove Unemployment

This article presents a very simple idea which will eliminate unemployment. It will bring power to the people. It will significantly increase workers’ salaries. It will bring justice and growth to the economy. People know nothing about this idea because the rich hide it from the public.

 

The owners of corporations favour unemployment because the unemployed workers are pressured to accept poorly paid jobs to feed their families. A higher unemployment rate produces cheaper labour. The owners of corporations are capable of generating unemployment by influencing the economic policy from importing labour to rising interest rates. It seems that an unemployment rate of about 5% is very convenient for employers and economists have accepted it as a “normal” state. This “normal” state allows the exploitation of workers through low labour costs, while the total workers’ purchasing power is still large enough to produce profits for private companies.

 

Today’s economy recognizes cyclical, frictional, and structural unemployment. Cyclical unemployment is the result of oscillations in the process of expansion and recession of production, which oscillates demand for work. Some economists realize that the burden of crisis and benefits from profits should be more equally distributed between employers and employees, but they do not know how to implement it.

 

Frictional unemployment is the result of people willing to move between jobs, careers and locations. Structural unemployment is the consequence of a change in technology, which results in the absence of demand for available workers. These kinds of unemployment are invented by scientists to give students something to learn and are not worth mentioning. Economists today are so indoctrinated with the false teaching that they believe unemployment is the unavoidable price, which must be paid for technological development. They even believe that 0% of unemployment is not a positive thing. I want to stress here that 0% unemployment will solve most of the existing economic problems.

 

The current philosophy of economics protects capital as the main requirement for the protection of individual economic rights and of society. This is wrong. We need to base the philosophy of economics primarily on equal human rights because people are the main purpose of the economy and are the subjects that the economy cannot exist without. Besides, equal human rights are the condition for creating a good society. This is the foundation of my philosophy.

 

Society regulates freedom if such freedom endangers people. The stronger has no right to endanger the weaker, and if so, the stronger will be legally punished. Can you imagine what life would be like without law governing the rights and obligations of citizens? But there is no such law in the free market economy. A stronger producer might suppress a weaker from the market and thus endanger their survival. If we have adopted laws that prevent the stronger to threaten the weaker in daily life, we need to protect the weaker in the economy as well. But we don’t, and this is the reason our society deteriorates.

The unemployment of workers cannot form a healthy basis for a good society. A just society requires the availability of work to everyone. If job creation is not needed, full employment will be achieved by reducing the work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate. This is a political measure which needs to be accepted by people and must be enforced in both the public and private enterprises. The regulation of working hours will produce full employment and create a much better economy.

 

The shortening of working hours will reduce employees’ salaries proportionally to the reduction of working hours. For example, an unemployment rate of 10% will shorten the working hours of all workers by 10% and the workers’ wages would decrease by 10%. This 10% of the money the companies take from employed workers will be distributed to the newly hired workers. Initially, the full employment will not burden employers with additional labour costs, and all workers would get employed and receive incomes. The previously employed workers would probably perceive the lower wages as a disadvantage, but in the long run, their salaries will significantly grow because in the reduced work market the employers will be forced to increase workers’ salaries to be able to keep them.

 

The shortening of working hours will bring great benefits to society. The lower salaries of workers caused by the elimination of unemployment are not even close as bad as what unemployment brings to workers who receive no salary. Such a measure would guarantee that unemployment and economic insecurity of workers can no longer exist.

 

People are accustomed to fluctuations in living standards depending on the performance of the economy. The real purchasing power of wages changes more than the unemployment rate due to changes in the market supply and demand, economic crisis, inflation and deflation. Workers silently accept such fluctuations in purchasing power. They accept that they live worse through the crisis. So, why would they not accept this measure in the name of solidarity among workers, which will help them establish a healthy long-term basis to achieve higher standards of living?

 

Shortening work hours proportionally to the rate of unemployment will not only eliminate unemployment, but it will also solve the problem of exploitation. Here is a simple explanation: If there are a total of two workers who apply for a total of one work post, the competition among the workers will reduce the cost of labour so that the worker who gets the job will be exploited. If there is a total of one worker and a total of two jobs, the competition among employers will increase the wage of the worker. Regarding this, the reduction of work hours proportionally to the rate of unemployment will put workers in a better position in the production process. Lower availability of workers will raise the value of the labour of workers and thus, employers would pay workers more than they do today.

 

Access to the free market is a privilege that society gives to companies, and the companies must pay for this privilege in a way that satisfies society. Increasing the wages of workers will be at the expense of employers. Employers would not like it at the beginning of course, but later they will profit from higher earnings of workers.

 

Employers must understand that they cannot earn more if there is not a greater consumer purchasing power. They must understand that the purchasing power of society cannot be increased without increasing the wages of workers. They should understand that there is not a better distribution of incomes, neither for employers nor for workers than of the one achieved through a fair labour market.

 

Shortening work hours proportionally to the rate of unemployment would ensure a more fair distribution of incomes inside society. The fair distribution of incomes will provide greater purchasing power to the workers, which will ensure a higher flow of goods, which would again bring greater profits to the owners of capital. Besides, this would remove economic crises because they are primarily based on the lack of trade in goods and services. Shorter work hours will form better capitalism and bring prosperity to society.

Overtime work will continue to be allowed. In the Western world, overtime work pays time and a half. Employers who intend to solve the labour shortage with overtime work will not reduce unemployment. Then the policy that follows the will of the people will further shorten the working hours of all employees, and employers will have to pay more overtime hours. Let the employers themselves realize whether it is more worth it to hire new workers or to pay more overtime hours per worker.

 

The task of a good policy is to simplify regulation as much as possible while achieving the greatest positive impact on society. Today’s policy regulates minimum income, which has a very limited impact on the overall distribution of incomes. In the developed world, a large number of workers earn minimum wage while inflation reduces the real value constantly. Workers of the American corporation Walmart generally receive minimal income due to the unemployment in America. The salaries in Walmart cannot cover basic needs, and so the workers receive social assistance from the U.S. Government. They live at the expense of U.S. taxpayers while Walmart continues to be one of the most profitable companies in America.

 

A good policy will regulate the length of working hours and not necessarily the minimum income. When unemployment removes by reducing work hours, employers who need more workers will have to take them from other employers by offering higher salaries because other workers will not be available. They will have to compete by increasing workers’ wages to attract workers from other companies. It will cause a chain reaction in which the workers’ wages will rise. If employers do not increase wages, they would not have workers. This is a fair labour market. The regulation of a minimum income will not be required any longer. There will be no need for unions as intermediaries in protecting workers’ rights.

The reduction in work hours is not a new idea. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Robert Owen realized the absurdity of daily work that lasted between 12 and 16 hours. In 1817 he proposed the reduction of work hours to 8 hours a day so people would have 8 hours a day for recreation and 8 hours for rest. The employers were strongly opposed to it and did not let the reduction occur. The workers were very dissatisfied. The first significant worker resistance happened in Chicago, on May 1st, 1867, and the day was declared International Labour Day. The struggle between employers and workers has been painful and often bloody. It took around 100 years of struggle for the idea of the eight-hour workday to be accepted worldwide.

 

But this reduction in work hours is not enough today. French socialists in power adopted a new law in 2000, which shortened the work hours of all employees from 39 to 35 hours per week. They did this to reduce unemployment and enable more free time to workers. But the shorter work hours did not lead to an increase in employment because employers burdened employed workers more. That says to me that there is not even a need for a seven-hour workday because the automation in the manufacturing process has reduced the need for human resources.

 

The French Socialists should have been aware that the employers, who are accustomed to exploiting workers, would not easily give up. The socialists needed to implement a higher reduction of work hours until employers are forced to hire unemployed workers. I would recommend decreasing the work week length to 30 hours. The French Socialists were not sufficiently committed, and ten years later, the Conservatives abolished the limitation of 35 work hours per week. So the idea of social justice was lost once again.

 

Privileged people always find a way to oppress the marginalized, and that has always been the primary source of problems in society. But in the 14th century, a huge natural tragedy helped the disenfranchised. The Black Death killed one-third of the European population, which produced a vast labour shortage. “The shortage of servants, craftsmen, and workmen, and of agricultural workers and labourers, left a great many lords and people without service and attendance.” The crops in the fields languished because there were not enough people to harvest them.

 

Suddenly, workers and their labour were in much higher demand, enabling those who survived the Black Death to be in a much better position to negotiate work conditions. Historian and economist Thorold Rogers documented that the peasants were virtually given everything they asked. Wages have increased significantly (2-3 times) in one year, and the higher purchasing power of people has improved the economy. More about this can be found here: The Economic Impact of the Black Death.

 

Now what? Shall we wait for a new tragedy of humanity, or will we, in the name of justice and solidarity among people, be smart enough to shorten working hours as long as unemployment exists? Only that would force companies to hire unemployed workers. Only that would build justice and balance in the process of production and distribution. Such regulation of the market will use “the invisible hand” to balance the demand for labour and income heights in the most acceptable way for workers and employers.

I received criticism saying that expensive work drives capital to the places where the labour is cheaper. My response was the state market can always protect itself by duties and taxes on the borders. However, does capital not go to developing countries anyway? Yes, but this situation will come to an end because if workers in developed countries do not earn enough, they cannot buy enough of the goods that the large capitals produce. The less the capital invests in society, the less profit it receives. The capital which invests more, profits more, and more easily survives on the market. The same will happen when society accepts a new labour market regulation.

 

On the other hand, the departure of capital cannot bring workers into an existential threat anymore. The eventual increase in unemployment caused by the departure of capital would result in a more significant reduction of working hours of workers; thus, economic security would still be guaranteed to all people. The shortening of working hours will reduce the incomes of workers, but they would remain high enough to provide a decent life. Capitalism has spent a lot of energy in developing the consumer mentality, which is very unnecessary, and the egotistical character trait of workers, which is wrong. The solidarity in shortening working hours will fundamentally change it.

 

The question is, why has such a simple idea never been suggested? The reason should be sought in the conspiracy of big businesses, which by their economic power, prevent the advent of new ideas that can improve society. Big businesses supported ideas that cannot improve society. Big capital supported Marxism as the leading ideology of the Left because they have always known that Marxism cannot create a good society, and as such, it does not constitute a hazard to them. Otherwise, Marxism, as a vehicle of the violent revolutionary ideology, would have been outlawed. Marxism is useful to big businesses because it mistakenly directs the Left. This is proved by the practice of the socialist revolutions.

 

Thanks to the conspiracy of big business, my ideas do not have access to the media, universities, politics, and so, nor to the people. This article has been sent to hundreds of news publishers, predominantly left-oriented, and so far only “Global Research“ published it. But one day, the idea of reducing work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate will break through, and society will demand its implementation. This will reduce the privileges of employers and increase workers’ rights. It will also reduce the difference between the earnings of employers and workers. In such an environment, the capital will lose its significance. A fair labour market will spontaneously initialize a new social and economic system that will replace capitalism and substantially meet the needs of society as a whole. I have presented this system in detail in my book, Humanism. Humanism would be equally acceptable to all people and would further improve society.

 

2009.04.20

Humanism is the salvation of humankind

The entire structure of today’s society has been built on alienated authoritarian premises. Therefore all of today’s social systems must be changed from their foundations. Only then they will be able to serve people and their natural needs. Only then will it be possible to build a good and sane human society.


The system I have proposed at this web site is not only the best solution to the problems of today’s world, but it’s also the only good one. That’s the reason my system will be accepted by the whole world. This system prevents hunger, fear, corruption, narcissism, racism, immorality, crime, war, and all types of destruction in society and encourages the development of productive human powers. In short, the system promises a better life for everyone and harmony to the people. It will turn the main principles that humankind has been established on so far upside down. The impact on the people will be so enormous that future generations will call everything before the implementation barbarianism, and everything from the implementation on will be known as civilization.


Humanism will save humankind from all social evil and will create love, joy, peace, health, beauty, freedom, security, justice, equality, harmony, abundance; it will make a paradise on earth.

2008.03.30

The most potent tool of justice ever

The most potent tool of justice ever is the system of evaluations among the people invented by me. Each man will have the equal right to take or give one dollar, or one cent, or something like that, from a few people monthly as an award or punishment for their behaviour. How can such a small power in the hands of individuals, even if it unites, be the most potent tool of justice ever? The answer lies in time. There is a saying: “Silent water moves hills.” The permanent power of evaluation will make people respect each other. A human being will become a value. That will make a miracle no other tool of justice has ever been able to make. That will create a good society

2008.03.08

Equal Human Rights will Build a Good Society Unconditionally

Many people think that the escape from an entirely wrong history of humankind will come from some high level of knowledge that people cannot understand. The output should be based on the work of great thinkers such are Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, Kant, Hegel, Marx, etc. However, by following these people, we are not on the right path. The lack of the ability to have thus far created a good society confirms that.

 

But why would we not try to find a common denominator for all positively oriented philosophies and develop it? That might produce a good result. I think that all contemporary philosophers agree that people have to have equal rights. The development and acceptance of equal human, civil, legal, constitutional, and other rights all over the world confirm that the relationship between people is evolving toward equal rights.

 

But do we, the people, as the result of this effort, have equal rights today? No, we do not! Equal rights are established on a formal level, while the reality presents that rights are not equal among people. The president of your country may send you to war, and you cannot do it to them. Your boss may abuse or fire you, and you cannot do it to them. Your teacher may force you to accept knowledge, and you cannot do it to them. Where are the equal human rights here?

 

Authorities impose their will on the people, and people have to follow their will. Such a relationship creates on one side, privileged people, and on the other side, deprived ones. This creates a major social problem. I wrote more about this in the article Privileges are evil. Privileges are the biggest mistake humanity has ever made. I saw it firsthand, so it was not hard for me to research ideas of equal human rights for 25 years. That means one does not need to search for an escape from today’s social problems in a profound philosophy. The exit is located on a very shallow level of philosophy.

 

Equal human rights primarily include the right of all people to participate equally in the decision-making processes on all issues of common interest in society. Today, that right is partly implemented through the process of democracy, but democracy is not efficient enough in following the needs of people. Besides, democracy cannot support the needs of individuals, so they often remain unsatisfied. By being aware of this, I have created a simple idea that will successfully represent the needs of every individual and society as a whole. This will be achieved by mutual evaluation among people, which I call democratic anarchy.

 

Each person will get an equal right to evaluate, let’s say, three people positively, and three people negatively every month. Each positive evaluation will bring a small award to the assessed person, and each negative assessment will result in a small punishment. This will direct every person in society to respect the needs of every person, to create the highest possible conveniences to the community, and to reduce or abolish the creation of any forms of inconvenience. Thus, equal rights among people will create a good society. I wrote more about it in the article Democratic Anarchy is the Future of Democracy.

 

Equal rights among people require that every person has the right to work. This is, in theory, a highly developed right, but in practice, unemployment is still normalized. Shortening working hours proportionally to the unemployment rate will eliminate unemployment. It will increase the demand for workers and their salaries. Workers will be able to purchase more, the economy will grow, and society will prosper. I wrote more about it in the article Full employment is a turning point of capitalism.

 

Human rights should be developed further by forming equal access of every person to every public workplace at any time through a new division of labour. The best available worker will get every job. Only this should be called socialism. Socialism will be more productive than capitalism so the latter will go down in history. More about this can be found in my article The Future of Economics. People will accept socialism in the distant future as a final act of the abolition of privileges and unequal rights in society.

 

All social evil starts with unequal rights among people, and all social evil will be entirely removed when equal rights among people are established. Then, the president would not dare to call for war, managers will not hire or fire workers, and teachers will no longer teach the material that does not interest students. The consistent acceptance of equal rights among people will solve all social problems. And there is no other realistic way to achieve a good society. Everything I wrote in my philosophy is the result of the development of this idea.

2008.02.15

The problem with democracy

Voters today often find that their votes do not have an influence in creating the policy of society because politicians do not follow their will and they do not fulfill the promises they gave to voters. That is the reason, for example, that the participation at elections in the USA falls below 35% of the voters’ body. To increase the credibility of the lousy election system in the US, an election show is created that lasts for more than a year, and it is broadcasted every day on prime time on television. As a result of such propaganda the people support their favourites the same way fans support their idols in sports which in essence has nothing in common with democracy.


It is not even relevant to the creators of shows who wins; it is all about how to make voters happy if their candidate wins or sad if they lose the election, while the politics don’t change at all. That all is a vast manipulation, which many people are aware of. So why then are there no attempts to change something here?


Democracy by definition requires the power of decision making in the hands of the people. Of course, that confronts to the will of the influential people that much, so that scientists have not been able to create an academic consensus of how a developed democracy is supposed to look like. But politicians use the word democracy whenever it is suitable to them like their democracy is a perfectly defined solution. Of course, it is not.


I have defined a developed form of democracy in my book Humanism, where all people will really decide about all issues of their interests and in such a way define the best possible political orientation of society. So why then do people not take my ideas into consideration?


Firstly, that is because it requires intellectual effort which cannot be directly profitable. People who try searching for the satisfying solution soon realize that a redistribution of the real decision making power in society can be very hardly accepted due to a large number of different interests of people who have different powers inside society. Besides that, my ideas strongly decline from the knowledge and customs people are used to, so that my ideas are often emotionally unacceptable to them. No arguments help here. The inertia to changes in society is nothing else but a consequence of conspiracy of authorities through the entire history of humankind. Today accepted knowledge still has the intention to make people obedient followers of authorities.


After fifteen years of promoting the ideas of how to build a good society, I’ve not succeeded in making people interested. Paradoxically, this has been happening in the time of political, economic, and moral crisis around the world, when numerous people searched for an escape from unfortunate situations, and could not find it because no other idea besides mine existed to create a good society. Unfortunately, the acceptance of the way to a good society will require a lot of time.


2008.01.20

Jesus Christ said

Jesus Christ said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”. In other words, people may come to God the Father only if they follow the will of Jesus Christ, defined in the Bible. The analysis of Jesus Christ’s words presents without any doubt that Jesus Christ has a goal to build a good man and good society.


Jesus Christ has directed many people to a good way through the Bible, but He did not succeed in leading the whole society to the right path because a good society was never established. The Bible should have presented the road to a good society a lot better. I did it. My book Humanism shows the only path that may solve all social problems. Does it mean the only way to God the Father for the whole society, leads through me?


If the Bible is right when it states that Jesus Christ will create heaven on earth in His next arrival, and if I am right when I say that heaven on earth is possible only through the way I proposed in my book “Humanism,” then I am Jesus Christ. This statement should be a strong enough reason for Christians to thoroughly investigate my work.


2007.02.21

Do we need happiness or joy?

Firstly, happiness and joy are not mutually independent categories; they often supplement each other. But in this analysis, we can separate them. Happiness is over passing the unhappiness. For example, a hungry or thirsty man is happy when he consumes food or has a drink. On the other hand, a man who is not hungry or thirsty cannot be happy when he consumes food or a drink.

In an alienated society, a lot of unhappiness exists. Poorness and weakness in society are misfortunes. That’s why earning money, achieving power or glory in today’s society presents a symbol of happiness. First, it should be said that such happiness is difficult to achieve. Secondly, such happiness is alienated from its nature so that it is an illusion. Earning more money, achievement of more power or glory in society cannot make happiness last long.


On the contrary, the result looks more like the use of illegal drugs. The higher the alienated happiness an individual achieves, as a rule, results in higher unhappiness for the individual, and that affects the whole society altogether. The most successful people today are most often the least satisfied with their lives. They have problems everywhere; they get divorced the most; they consume alcohol and drugs the most in purpose to find their own peace. Everyone who tries to analyze happiness could see that. Therefore people should not aim for such happiness.


The system I have proposed will assure economic existence to each person and give each person equal power and rights in society so it will remove unhappiness. Where unhappiness does not exist, happiness cannot exist either. So what are we going to do?


Let’s enjoy our lives! Joy is a far more stable and lasting emotion than happiness. Joy is the result of an utterly productive orientation of a man. Continuous productive activity of a man that advances him himself, society and his environment create endless joy. I am not speaking about any kind of sacrifice to any idea; I am talking about natural life, based on innate knowledge the people have alienated themselves from. The system I have proposed will form a natural life, and that will enable people to enjoy their lives.