Category: English

What God Wants

What God Wants

Jesus Christ is supposed to create Heaven on Earth when He returns to Earth. After long-term scientific work, I concluded that equal human rights would bring Paradise to Earth. If I’m right, does that mean I could be Jesus Christ?

 

God created a wonderful world

 

Something has created the nature in which we live. Nature is complex, functional, rational, beautiful and harmonious. If one pays attention to any part of nature, one may notice perfectionism in the logic of its creation. I doubt it could have been developed without help from a tremendous intelligent power. I have accepted the name of this power is God. I doubt God has control everywhere in nature; instead, I believe God has created a super algorithm capable of bringing the best possible results in generating forms and relations of nature. For example, if people discover that it would be better to jump instead of walk, God’s algorithm might build them wings in a few million years. We, the people, have to learn from nature to understand God.

 

The origin of religions

 

Some individuals have claimed they received messages from God and passed on his will to the people. This was the origin of all religions. Religions contain ancient wisdom that brings good to people, which is why we can say that they carry the will of God. The Bible has presented wise and beautiful words of God. The following verses from the Bible confirm that God wants people to create a good society:

 

Psalm (89:14) ‘Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; steadfast love and faithfulness go before you.’

 

Amos (5:7,15) ‘Ah, you that turn justice to wormwood, and bring righteousness to the ground! …Hate evil and love good and establish justice in the gate.’

 

Galatians (5:22-23) ‘The Spirit’s role in a person’s life is to perfect the person’s character, to make him like God. Its fruits, being shown in human behaviour, are the divine attributes of God: “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control…”‘

 

Colossians (1:9-10) ‘The essence of all true spiritual knowledge lies in God’s divinely ordained laws. It is God’s desire that we be “filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding… in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.”‘

 

Isaiah (9:6-7) “The government will be upon His [Christ’s] shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace, there will be no end.”

 

Micah (4:4) “Every man will sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid.”

 

But why do the messages of God in the Bible pass only the knowledge from the time when religion originated? Why has God, as almighty and all-knowing, not teaching people science or how to build a good society? Does the lack of knowledge in the Bible mean that God’s messengers invented God’s words, or could they not understand his words well enough? However, since different people received different messages from God, they have formed different religions. But God has not sent different messages to diverse religions; he certainly did not deceive people.

 

Mistakes of religions

 

The range of material written in religious books is very comprehensive but not helpful in defining a good society. God is not a blabberer; he is a highly effective creator, meaning his messages should also be effective. In contrast, many sentences in religious books confront wisdom and cannot make a good society. Such sentences definitely cannot be sent by God.

 

Many religions force people to follow the will of God obediently. God certainly does not want to force people into anything because coercion cannot make a right. Power over people is a need of spiritually undeveloped people. Control over people is a privilege that brings evil. This control creates stupidity, greed, hatred, destruction, wars, and hell on earth. It has nothing to do with the will of God. With this in regard, the religions which force people to follow God are in confrontation with the intention of God. God does not need power over people. He is far above such need. God wants people to create a good society.

 

Can we assume that among those people who wrote religious books were some who wanted to reach power over people? When you see how quickly today’s religious preachers improvise verses from the Bible to achieve intellectual superiority over religious people, we can assume some writers of holy books did the same. These people entered wrong ideas into religious texts that have nothing to do with the will of God. They created contradictions in the Bible. For example, God’s 6th commandment states: “Thou shall not murder,” and Jesus Christ, Son of God, according to Luke (19:27), said: “But as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king – bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.” The contradictions in the Bible do not present the mistakes of God but of people. They have prevented the progress of society. God wants people to live well, but people deviate from his will.

 

I have discovered how to achieve the will of God 

 

My philosophy, based on equal human rights, will bring the righteousness and justice demanded in the Bible. Moreover, equal human rights will solve society’s problems and create Heaven on Earth. Therefore, equal human rights must be God’s will.

 

Today, we have defined equal human rights insufficiently. Equal human rights are established formally, while reality suggests they are not equal. Presidents of countries may send people to war, and people cannot do it to them. Bosses may fire workers, and workers cannot do it to them. Teachers may force students to accept knowledge, and students cannot do it to them. Where are the equal human rights there? Throughout history, authorities have prevented the development of equal human rights to maintain their privileges. As a result, equal human rights have never existed, which is why society was never good.

 

Equal human rights imply that all people have equal opportunities in their lives. This includes the right of all people to participate equally in the decision-making regarding all issues of common interest. However, until recently, it was impossible to establish equal human rights because nothing could collect the needs of all people and harmonize the optimal decisions that may satisfy all people. This has become possible with the development of computer technology.

 

We need a democracy that will successfully follow individual and collective needs. I believe such a democracy must give people equal legislative, judicial, and executive powers. Everyone shall get equal rights to evaluate others for whatever they do. Each positive evaluation should bring a small reward to the assessed person, and each negative assessment should result in a small punishment. Such a policy would make everyone work hard to please others and avoid hurting anybody. This should create a good society. The equal evaluating power among people presents a new form of democracy, and the freedom of evaluation presents a new state of anarchy. Therefore, such a policy can be called democratic anarchy. Democratic anarchy alone should be capable of building a much better society than we have today. I have presented democratic anarchy in more detail in the article Democratic Anarchy is the Future of Democracy.

 

***

 

Equal human rights also mean that every person must have the right to work. As long as there is unemployment, such a right does not exist. Unemployed people have to accept poorly paid jobs to feed themselves. It causes the exploitation of workers. Shortening work hours may reduce unemployment till it is completely removed. It will raise the demand for workers and their salaries in the free market until exploitation is eliminated. This will create just relations in the production processes. Workers will earn greater wages, purchase more, and the economy will grow. Such a policy would solve today’s socioeconomic problems and build good capitalism. I have defined good capitalism in the article: Full Employment is a Turning Point of Capitalism.

 

Equal human rights are supposed to improve the economy significantly. The ultimate stage of equal human rights will create an equal possibility for workers’ employment at every public work post at any time. It will be necessary to open a permanent competition of workers for every public work post. Every public job will be filled by the worker who offers higher productivity, more responsibility, and demands a lower wage. It is nothing but a developed work market that is open at all times. I know it sounds impossible because such a division of labour never existed, but realizing it is just a technical problem.

 

I have defined an economic system that will effectively evaluate workers’ productivity, harmonize workers’ rewards, and define workers’ job responsibilities. Of course, such an economy cannot be realized soon because it will require a lot of development before people embrace it. But once people establish it, the burdens and benefits of a living will be justly distributed, forming a just economy. In addition, no company can be more productive than one where each job gets the best available worker. As a result, private companies will lose the productivity battle with public companies, sending capitalism down in history. This will create good socialism. I have defined it in the article: Developed Marked of Work will Create Socialism.

 

The final result of establishing equal human rights will be visible in good communism, where people will develop equal consumer rights. Socialism will teach workers to value work more than money. Then, all people may voluntarily assign all their incomes for taxes, making all goods and services available free of charge. This will be good communism, which should be a synonym for Heaven on Earth. I believe that nothing more than equal human rights is needed to create a good society, and nothing else can make it. I have presented the bright future of humankind in the scientific book Humanism – A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society.

 

Also, I have shown the result of my work through three stories in three screenplays, Good Capitalism, Good Socialism, and Good Communism, for ease of understanding. By reading these screenplays, people can learn how to save the world from social evil and make it a good place to live.

 

Then, am I Jesus Christ?

 

Messiah is supposed to save the world from social evil and make it a good place to live, so I publicly proclaimed myself a secular messiah five years ago. Those rare people who have read my proclamation probably consider me a character from a fairytale. People can hardly accept new critical ideas because they have not developed an ability to think independently by living in an alienated society that authorities have established.

 

Might it also mean that “I am the way, the truth, and the life”? (John 14:6) According to the Bible, God will create Heaven on Earth (Amos 9:13-15). Christian authorities believe Jesus Christ will be highly involved when returns. Since I have defined Heaven on Earth and belong to the Christian religion, should it not mean that I am Jesus Christ and that my path only leads to God the Father? I asked this for the first time 19 years ago here: Am I Jesus Christ?

 

The Church has not accepted me as the Messiah because I have not seen or heard God the Father (Or I am unaware of it, which does not help). According to the Bible, Jesus Christ and God the Father are one. But then, should not Jesus Christ have presented much more knowledge to be equated with the world’s creator? He showed less understanding of this world than ordinary people do today. Also, it is hard to tell how much Jesus Christ’s teaching was original or a reflection of his time. Egyptians preached another world before him.

 

According to the Bible, I also cannot be Jesus Christ because I know nothing about another world and eternal life. However, I can say something about it from a secular point of view. In the article Everlasting life, I quoted the studious Christian website “2001 Translation Bible,” which translates the original Bible written in Greek again. In the article “Does the Bible promises eternal life?” the answer is: “The fact is, it doesn’t… at least, not in those exact words. Why not? Because the Greek word that other Bible translators render as “everlasting” (aionos) doesn’t mean that. It’s what we get the English word “eon” from, and it means a long time.” Due to the different meanings of related words in other languages, Bible translators have sometimes interpreted the lyrics freely.

 

I accept the possibility of eternal life because I do not have evidence that it does not exist. However, I asked myself whether eternal life is desirable, even in spiritual form. (The laws of physics deny the eternity of matter.) One could say that the actor Christopher Reeve was practically destined for a spiritual life. He fell from a horse, broke his neck and was immobile for life. He did not like such a spiritual life, was unhappy and even thought of suicide. But suppose eternal spiritual life exists. Can one imagine this eternal life if an individual desires a glass of red wine that they could never drink?

 

Why do Christians believe that eternal life must be good? I think I have an approximate answer to this question. People who are not free, people who are afraid, are not able to satisfy the needs of their lives. And there is no difference between authorities and their dependents here. Narcissistic authorities need to achieve societal supremacy and are slaves to their megalomaniac ideas that cannot be realized. People who live under the oppression of authorities and obediently follow them cannot meet their needs. They both do not live well and fear death because they feel their lives have not satisfied their expectations. I believe that is why they need faith in a much better and eternal life in heaven.

 

People who live in freedom and who are responsible for their lives live in its fullness. Such people are not afraid of death because they recognize that they have fulfilled their life expectations through living. Death brings them freedom in the broadest sense because they practically do not need anything anymore. Spiritual writers have shown such a state of mind in their work. For example,  Henryk Sienkiewicz in the book “Quo Vadis.” In real life, Albert Einstein presented it by refusing surgery to prolong his life. I believe God made the best solution for the people, and having a longer life than God predicted would be a disadvantage. God allocates a good life and death as a gift to the people who follow his will based on a productive way of living.

 

Finally, numerous Christian interpretations of the Bible suggest that Heaven and Hell are not locations but states of mind. If this is true, I should be accepted as a candidate for Jesus Christ’s work position because my philosophy based on equal human rights will make people love unconditionally, bringing freedom, justice, peace, wisdom, and joy to everyone. If my philosophy creates Heaven on Earth, there is no reason for Jesus Christ to come the second time to Earth. Then, the question would be, does he exist at all? It would be wise for the Church and Christians to examine my philosophy and determine if I might be a candidate for Jesus Christ’s work position for creating Heaven on Earth.

 

Authorities block my philosophy because every social improvement must take power from them. As a result, people can hardly see my work. And thanks to the alienation authorities have imposed throughout the history of civilization, those rare people who have read it have not recognized the importance of my work. Consequently, social progress is plodding. Accepting me as a candidate for Jesus Christ’s work position will make people pay attention to my work, dramatically accelerating the coming of Heaven to Earth.

 

18.10.2013

 

2005.04.16

Let’s talk to each other

This web site is well visited for years now. Currently, I have an average of 150 visitors and 2 downloads of “Humanism” daily. However, I seldom receive an opinion about these pages from the readers. Why is that?

 

I suppose that the ideas are incredible so that the readers probably think the best would be to leave discussions about the new system to authorities, either to leaders or experts. Here problems come immediately. Without matter of how the leaders are chosen and how good scientists are they are not able to understand the new system any better than the average people because my ideas are entirely different from the knowledge they collected.

 

Besides that, the authorities possess privileged statuses in society. The system I have proposed takes privileges away from the people and requires responsibilities that they do not like. These are the reasons the authorities mostly do not want to know my ideas exists.

 

All people try to gain power in society, and they might succeed in some fields. If they are successful, they protect their privileges from the influences of other people and rule. In such a way, rule owners, chiefs, professors, parents. In that way, almost all the living space becomes limited or even inaccessible to the people. In such a way, a man takes away the freedom of thoughts, decisions, and acting from other people. But of course, the authorities convince people they are free, probably with the purpose to prevent them from searching for freedom. The truth is; we live in a closed society where privileged alienated powers of authorities rule over the people. This is what makes us miserable. This is what degenerates us as human beings. This is what must be changed.

 

Everyone who has built any kind of privileges may hesitate to accept the system I have proposed. You may ask yourself now whether the new system is going to take power from you? This is the wrong question. The correct question would be: Why do you need control over anyone? The answer is straightforward, that is because the society you live in does not give you enough of a chance to manifest your productive power. You can only see alienated powers around yourself, and that is the reason you seek the power in the alienated fields.

 

Yes, privileges give feelings of power and happiness. However, such power and happiness are just temporary illusions. Their influence is similar to the impact of illegal drugs. When the effect ends, pain occurs. That is the reason we do not need power over anyone, we need the ability to realize our productive orientation. We need freedom of choice and work, freedom of manifestation of our productive power of being. This freedom will really, for the first time begin with the system I have proposed. The system will bring unlimited productive possibilities to society that will undergo unthinkable advantages.

 

To achieve this goal we only need to prevent authorities from taking power that belongs to other people. The system I have proposed guarantees equal rights among the people. That is what authorities today preach publicly and what they secretly and successfully fight about. In searching for a better future, we should not rely on authorities.

 

A “Great“ leader is not needed anymore, not to mention he would even be harmful. The system I have proposed gives power to the people, and it will not allow anybody to take it from the people. All of the people will be able to compete in producing more advantages to others. I know it sounds like a phrase but please try to get accustomed to the system I have proposed, and you will see that is right. Creating advantages to other people will become the highest value in society. That is how good will defeat evil forever. That will bring benefits to society one cannot imagine today.

 

One does not need a university degree to understand the new system. It is very simple because the laws of human and social nature are very simple. These laws became complicated when we do not understand them, and because of it, we create knowledge that does not apply to their essence. Such knowledge alienates us from our nature and complicates our lives.

 

Please do not hesitate to ask questions, to give your remarks and comments. Tell me which ideas of mine you do not like; maybe we can find the universal language. I really do not understand why the system I have proposed was not accepted immediately when I finished the book twelve years ago. Let’s open a dialogue. Write to me. Any comment will help me explain the system better.

 

I am running a fierce battle to get readers. Please recommend this web site to your friends. Unfortunately, along with all the media today, it seems that is my only way to spread the ideas. The sooner the new system becomes known, the sooner the wish to be implemented will appear, the sooner a better future will start.

Cancer and Conspiracy

Cancer and Conspiracy

Cancer is the leading cause of death in the USA immediately after heart disease. The accepted methods of treatment: chemotherapy, radiation and surgery are very aggressive to humans. Chemotherapy uses poisons such as mustard gas to kill cancer cells. Cancer cells are weaker than healthy cells in the human body and by the use of poisons die before healthy cells. Of course, healthy cells die in the process as well as the human defence system against diseases. Radiation operates in a similar principle and surgery removes the cancerous tissues.

 

According to statistics of the American Cancer Association, 60% of patients survive cancer. These statistics may be exaggerated because of more favourable statistics regarding the fight against cancer suit the association better. It should be noted that according to the same statistics, people who survive cancer 5 years after the detection are considered cured. If the cancer returns after this period, it is a new case. This suggests that cancer survival is realistically below 60%.

 

Furthermore, under the influence of cancer-fighting drugs, people sometimes experience fatal heart attacks. If this or similar cases of deaths are not attributed to cancer, which is possible because it is a grey area, then the real survival rate is significantly below 60%. People younger than 45 years present 3% of the total number of deaths, while 70% of fatalities come from those aged 65 and over. The older bodies are weaker and bear the aggressive treatment harder.

 

The American Cancer Society predicts that every other man of the present population will get cancer while one in four will die from it, and one in three women will get cancer and each fifth will die.

 

This information should alert the American government to accumulate resources in the fight against cancer, but they do not. I guess the American government is convinced that enough has been done in the battle against cancer. In the last 40 years, the United States has spent over 200 billion dollars trying to cure cancer, but the cure is not found. It seems the apathy has overcome which accepts that nothing more can be done. The truth is that the whole fight against cancer is under the control of big business whose insufficiently successful treatment methods earn massive profits and that is more important to them than the lives of people. Dr. Peter Glidden explains it well in short.

There are many theories of cancer originations, as well as alternative methods of prevention and treatment of cancer in which nothing is invested.

 

Dr. Otto Heinrich Warburg (1883 – 1970), one of the leading cell biologists of the twentieth century, in his book “The Metabolism of Tumours,” claims that the primary cause of cancer is a lack of oxygen in the cells. Normal cells cannot survive without oxygen, whereas cancerous cells can. According to him the primary cause of cancer is the replacement of the oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar. Cancer is no more than a defence mechanism that some cells use to survive without oxygen. The support of this hypothesis lies in the fact that the heart is the only organ that hardly can have cancer because of the lack of oxygen in the heart causes heart attack and death.

 

Dr. Warburg exhibited that the lack of oxygen creates acid cells. Tumorous cells are highly acidic. A healthy pH level (potential of hydrogen) in the cell has a value of 7. All values less than that are acidic which is unhealthy. A lower pH signifies lower concentrations of oxygen molecules, which destroy healthy cells and help the growth of cancer. All values above 7 are alkaline, which has a higher level of oxygen molecules, favouring the growth of healthy cells and hindering cancer growth. According to Dr. Warburg, tumorous cells cannot survive in the presence of high concentrations of oxygen.

 

Dr. Otto Heinrich Warburg received a Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine in 1931. He was also the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Cell Physiology in Berlin. It is surprising that the work of such a high authority has not been supported for over 80 years. To be clear, it is not easy to convey oxygen into the cell body because the kidney discards the excess of acidity and alkalinity. However, there are no justifications for the lack of research in the field of increasing the alkalinity of the body which, according to Dr. Warburg, will eradicate cancer.

 

Dr. Theodore A. Baroody, in his book Alkalize or die, from 2002, wrote: “Any stressor that the mind or body interprets and internalizes as too much to deal with leaves an acid residue. Even a mild stressor can cause a partial or total acid-forming reaction.” And continued: “The countless names attached to illness do not really matter. What does matter is that they all come from the same root cause: too much tissue acid waste in the body.”

This introductory presentation suggests that cancer is the result of an unhealthy lifestyle. Unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, and stress reduce the supply of oxygen to the cells and thus favourite the occurrence of cancer. So we can prevent cancer by eating healthy and being physically active. Exercise increases breathing and thus provide more oxygen to the cells which strengthen the body. 

 

Food creates acidity or alkalinity in the body, all depending on what one eats. Unhealthy eating habits that produce acidity and should be avoided are meat, milk, sugar, refined flour, salt, and all their products. Healthy alkaline foods one should increase consumption of are raw fruits and vegetables, whole grains, honey. In this regard, cancer can be suppressed or reduced through a diet prevalent in alkaline foods. Elderly and sick people need to consume mostly such foods. 

 

Dr.George W.Crile (1864-1943) one of the most excellent American surgeons claimed: “There is no such thing as a natural death. All deaths from so-called natural causes are merely the endpoint of progressive acid saturation. Any form of poor health indicates a disturbed state of body chemistry balance – generally an acid state. In fact, over-acidity is common to all health-robbing conditions. An infant is highly alkaline. An 80-year-old person is highly acid. Death is 100% acidity.” Also, he stated: “It is entirely impossible that cancer appears in a person who avoids foods that produce acidity and who rids the body of the acidity with a healthy alkaline diet. In general, cancer is not contracted nor is it inherited. What you are inherited eating habits, environmental and lifestyle. This can result in cancer.” 

It has always been known what healthy food and healthy life are. A government that is concerned about the lives of the people would have to inform the public about the difference between healthy and unhealthy lifestyles. One cannot say that the governments in the Western world do not try to suppress cancer. The Canadian government, for example, recommends a healthy diet and sport and recreation. It calls for free clinical examinations for early cancer detection. It cures all citizens of Canada for free. (However, I cannot help feeling that the Government, by paying the bills for all citizens, primarily supports the Canadian medical industry.) It banned smoking in public places and introduced high taxes on cigarettes. Nevertheless, governments need to stimulate healthy lifestyles a lot more.

 

Western governments should stimulate the production of healthy food by applying tax burdens on unhealthy foods and by prohibiting the use of harmful ingredients in food. The food industry nowadays mostly processes foods with acidic characteristics, then for inexplicable reasons, removes its nutrients and inserts unhealthy substances. For example, from wheat they remove proteins, fats, and minerals, so only acid starch in the end remains. Then they bleach it using chlorine which destroys nutrients in the human body. Such food is consumed far more regularly than cigarettes, and therefore it most likely presents a more significant source of cancer than smoking. But taxing junk food would reduce the profits of the food industry; one of the most profitable industries for big business. They will surely oppose it. Big companies sponsor election campaigns in Western governments, and they will not act against their interests. They will not be taxing junk food.

 

Big businesses lobby in the parliaments of Western countries to permit the use of antibiotics, pesticides, preservatives, and toxins in food production to create higher profits. They have established the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international standard for food production with which they impose rules for food production worldwide. In such a manner they plan to impose unhealthy food ingredients to all of humanity. This will make people ill worldwide. Furthermore, sick people are profitable to the pharmaceutical and medical industries. These industries really have no interest in healing people because healthy people do not need their products and services. The production of food, drugs and medicine, complement each other in creating profits and not in the health of people. We live in a very unhealthy and immoral society, physically and spiritually.

 

Big businesses support only those methods for treating cancer which bring profits to them and reject methods that do not make money. The average initial cancer treatment through adopted methods costs around $50,000. Big profits certainly discourage the medical industry from finding a cure for cancer, and it is indeed not interested in finding an inexpensive one.

Dr. Tullio Simoncini, Italian doctor and oncologist, born in 1951, practiced the use of baking powder in the fight against cancer. Baking powder, or sodium bicarbonate, has a pH value of 10 and, as such, according to Dr. Warburg, is very suitable for the treatment of cancer. Dr. Simoncini claims that cancer causes the fungus Candida albicans, which is explained in his book: “Cancer Is A Fungus.” Baking powder is indeed the best-known anti-fungal drug, and traditional medicine recognizes it as a cure for many health problems. Besides, baking powder is very inexpensive and adequately used is not harmful to the health of people in any way.


Dr. Simoncini’s teachings have attracted a lot of people suffering from cancer worldwide in the last 20 years. There are numerous testimonies that Dr. Simoncini cured their cancer. Many of them were scrapped by modern medicine. Unfortunately, one patient died after his treatment. I do not know if Dr. Simoncini made a mistake in the therapy, but he lost his medical licence in court and was sentenced to a prison term of three years. It was because his method of treatment was not permissible by the Italian authorities. In the United States 600,000 people die each year from cancer, and of course, no doctors lost their permit nor were they sentenced to jail because they used the legalized methods of treatment.


The regulation of cancer treatment in the world is mainly based on U.S. policy since the United States is recognized as the leader in the development of modern medicine. In America, the procedures are regulated by The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), The American Medical Association (AMA), The American Chemical Society (ACS), The National Cancer Institute (NCI), and so on. Big businesses have used their economic power to develop control over these institutions and systematically suppress or ban all natural ways of treating cancer. Modern medicine considers natural healing unverifiable and prohibits doctors to use natural medication even though there is plenty of evidence on the effectiveness of treatment.


Science completely withdraws from Dr. Simoncini. First, it should be noted that science is very conservative and secondly, the big capital has been directing it for centuries. Science cannot develop without money, and big businesses only support science which is suitable for them, ignores science that is not useful to them, while science which acts against their interests corrupts or sabotages. Thus, scientific books are saturated with a large amount of incorrect or insufficiently correct knowledge. A scientist who adopts incorrectly or incompletely right knowledge would hardly accept their mistakes even when they become aware of it.


Medical doctors criticize Dr.Simoncini’s work with the thesis that it is not supported by science and clinical practice and that it is contrary to the widely accepted facts of oncology and microbiology. Besides that, scientific circles claim that the work of Dr.Simoncini has no scientific evidence supported by credible experiments and clinical trials. How can he prove his claims with scientific evidence and clinical trials when his method of treatment is not permitted when clinics are forbidden from using his process of healing? Thus medical science actually prevents the healing of people.


Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, an American nutritionist, has treated cancer patients for more than 30 years by using only natural, healthy food. He argues that the results of his treatment of pancreatic cancer are better than the results achieved by chemotherapy. He has no problem with the authorities because no one can charge him for treating people with healthy food, but he does not have support from the American Institutes without which one cannot effectively fight cancer.


Dr. Gonzalez accuses conventional medicine of not supporting natural healing methods but trying to undermine them. In his book “What Went Wrong” he presents the struggle for recognition of his treatments by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and the National Cancer Institute. He did not succeed because biased scientists have sabotaged his work. They were entirely disavowing the positive results of his work. Alternative methods of cancer treatment cannot get support.

The adoption of the natural methods for cancer treatment and for the implementation of clinical research, must not be prevented, especially not because there are no side effects of such therapies. This does not necessarily need to eliminate chemotherapy and radiation as accepted methods of combating cancer. Clinical trials expanded by new treatment methods can present whether the results of such an anti-cancer treatment can be better. I believe it can be. I have as a philosopher come to the conclusion that truths in nature are very simple and we just need to see them. Therefore, I believe that the cure for cancer is somewhere among us, and we just need to pick it up.

 

I believe that a cure for cancer would have been discovered or at least good prevention if big capital did not prevent the effective fight against cancer. Big businesses are secretly united within a single entity and manage to lobby their interests in all governments, institutes, universities, and the media of the Western world, and thus they realize the power that rules the Western world. If there were two centers of power, they would fight each other for supremacy, and we would see it. You saw how uncooperative Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi ended up. There is an incredible conspiracy behind the big business. I wrote about it in the article: “Jacob Rothschild is Guilty for the Conspiracy Against Humankind.”

 

Through analyzing the failure of the fight against cancer, I cannot help feeling that big businesses use cancer to reduce the over-population of the planet Earth. Cancer is beneficial to big capital because it rids marginalized people, those who do not have enough money for a healthy life, and especially the non-productive elderly. This is a result of the ideology of capitalism, according to which profit is the highest value. The insufficient interest of state governments, academic institutions and the media to solve the problem of cancer suggests that they are all controlled by the same center and are implicitly involved in the crime of murdering people. Conspiracy has affected every pore of today’s society, and I do not see the possibility of a successful contest for the welfare of humankind if we do not face the source of the conspiracy. This is Jacob Rothschild.

October 12, 2014

Related video material:

Suppressed Cancer Cures – Dr. Simoncini – Fungal Hypothesis

What the Cancer Industry doesn’t want YOU to know

Every Cancer Can be Cured in Weeks explains Dr. Leonard Coldwell 

Proven Cancer Cure vs Corruption of The United States Government

SHOCKING Cancer Cures – 100 Years of Suppressed Medicine – Watch This! 

A World Without Cancer — the Story of Vitamin B-17 by G. Edward Griffin

 

Back to Top     

2005.02.10

Let’s love each other

Love is the highest achievement that a man in his life could reach, and therefore it gives the greatest satisfaction possible. In a natural society, love is probably a natural phenomenon that self-develops. In the alienated society in which we live in today, we do not know how to love each other. If we try it, the result is often in controversy with the achievements because the alienation has made our love perverted. To learn how to love, we must return to our nature.


A child loves its parents because it needs them. If as an adult he still depends on authorities, he still loves them, but his love is pretty much underdeveloped, to say the least. Our culture has accepted a system of privileges that stimulates the growth of authorities and restrains the power of subordinated people. The privileged authorities namely take away the freedom and oppress subordinated people. The relation between intrusive authorities and obedient followers always presents some kind of sadomasochism and is therefore very unproductive. It is a perversion of the meaning of love and indeed develops it.


On the other hand, the privileges develop authoritarian narcissism. Narcissism is, in fact, falling in self-love. It is an inferior form of love that prevents the development of love and therefore, prevents a man from reaching the most significant possible advantages a man could achieve in the developed form of love. If you desperately need to become a boss or any kind of authority, if your primary goal in life is earning money, you may achieve an illusion of happiness, but you are headed in the wrong direction.


Narcissistic happiness has a very alienated nature that quickly turns into a conflict with the objective reality and therefore contrary to love, the narcissistic happiness is very unstable and promptly disappears. After such happiness certainly comes disappointment which brings even more significant disadvantages of living and very destructive orientation of such a man. Therefore narcissistic people are much easier to hate than love.


A man can hardly recognize his narcissistic character in himself so that you probably think that narcissistic people are some other people and not you. Almost all people possess some narcissistic characteristics due to the reason our alienated everyday culture teaches us to be narcissistic. Generally speaking, we may say that more privileged people are more narcissistic and therefore they love less. However, the differences are often only in shades. That is the reason the world we live in, is as it is.


To overcome the narcissistic orientation of people we need to accept the nature of society. If a man wants to differ from animals, then he must recognize that the nature of society has a foundation based on freedom and equality of the people.


Therefore, the system I have proposed offers each man full independence, freedom of expression and acting under the condition that such freedom of expression and acting cannot bring other people harm or disadvantages. The system will be forcing people to respect each other. That will be achieved by the system of mutual evaluation. Each man will have an equal right to evaluate the activity of any other person.


Each positive assessment will automatically bring a small award to the assessed person, and each negative evaluation will result in the punishment of the same form. This will direct each member of society to create the highest possible advantages for the community and to diminish or abolish the creation of all kinds of disadvantages.


Technically watching this looks much like love because love is based on indiscriminately caring for others and in giving. But it is still not loving. Once the implementation of this system starts, the people would probably not feel satisfaction in the very act of giving and therefore, that would not be love. In the beginning, the pleasure will come from the egotistic need to getting better evaluations from the people. However, it will be beneficial because people will be creating advantages and avoid making disadvantages for all society.


Narcissism is the leading cause that prevents people from accepting my ideas, from having good and joyful lives. Narcissism is the worst enemy to humankind ever, but most people do not know that it even exists. That is the reason my struggle is very hard. However, I am very persistent in promoting the new system, and one day it will be accepted. Then the people will be relieved from narcissism which is the condition sine qua non for learning what love is.


Developed love requires an entirely productive orientation of a man that is pretty much unknown in our society. That is the reason love is rare today. The new system will enable such direction. It will free people from all types of alienation the authorities have been imposing to society through the history of mankind and will teach people to live following their own nature. The responsibility before the people that the new system proposes will motivate people to set their needs following 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.


Then society will be developing a new culture that will create productive orientation of people. Society will start building love in its best and most beautiful shape. Even the worst people may find some love in themselves when they are satisfied with their lives. As time passes, they will love as well. Love is the final result of the system I have proposed. Once people start loving each other, they will make an entirely new world, benefits that are beyond the wildest dreams in today’s alienated society. You can find more about that in my book Humanism.


A developed man does not depend on anybody because everything he needs he could achieve alone; he loves other people unconditionally just because they are. He finds great satisfaction in free productive acting, in building himself as a productive man and even greater joy in love.


Unknown medical doctor wrote: Let’s dance in the rain!

How to Dance in the Rain:

 

It was a busy morning, about 8:30, when an elderly gentleman in his 80’s arrived to have stitches removed from his thumb. He said he was in a hurry as he had an appointment at 9:00 am. I took his vital signs and had him take a seat, knowing it would be over an hour before someone would to able to see him. I saw him looking at his watch and decided, since I was not busy with another patient, I would evaluate his wound. On exam, it was well healed, so I talked to one of the doctors, got the needed supplies to remove his sutures and redress his wound. While taking care of his wound, I asked him if he had another doctor’s appointment this morning, as he was in such a hurry.

 

The gentleman told me no, that he needed to go to the nursing home to eat breakfast with his wife. I inquired as to her health. He told me that she had been there for a while and that she was a victim of Alzheimer’s Disease. As we talked, I asked if she would be upset if he was a bit late. He replied that she no longer knew who he was, that she had not recognized him in five years now. I was surprised, and asked him, ‘And you still go every morning, even though she doesn’t know who you are?’ He smiled as he patted my hand and said, ‘She doesn’t know me, but I still know who she is.’

 

I had to hold back tears as he left, I had goose bumps on my arm, and thought, ‘That is the kind of love I want in my life.’ True love is neither physical, nor romantic. True love is an acceptance of all that is, has been, will be, and will not be. With all the jokes and fun that are in e-mails, sometimes there is one that comes along that has an important message. This one I thought I could share with you. The happiest people don’t necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the best of everything they have. I hope you share this with someone you care about. I just did. ‘Life isn’t about how to survive the storm, But how to dance in the rain.’

 

2005.02.09

Let’s prevent crime

Once the system I have proposed is accepted, no one would have the need nor desire to commit a crime.


All the people will have a guaranteed income without a matter of what they work or even if they work. The salary will cover the necessary living expenses. Therefore economic survival cannot be a reason for committing crime anymore.


But what about those people who want much more than basic economic needs? What if they want a higher status in society, glory, and money? Naturally, they all will have a chance to get it legally by work. The new system enables all the people to get any job they want. Each position will go to the person who offers the best productivity for the needed public work post at any time. This is a vast difference from what we have today because today, the people have almost no chance to choose their jobs. That is the reason they feel impotent and aim to alienated values that degenerate them.


In the new system, the people would be able to find the job they like, including the ones that give a higher status in society, glory, and money. But one does not need to expect huge fights over better work posts because, in the new system, all of the work positions will be equally demanded. That will also guarantee the covering of each and every work post and the highest productivity of production. This is well explained in my book Humanism.


But what if someone wants power over people, glory, and money without investing an effort to get it, as criminals are used to? Firstly, I have to say that it will be almost impossible to accomplish in the new system. Secondly, the new system will show the people where real values are so that they would seek much less alienated values, and they would avoid committing crimes. In such an order, crime will be in a considerable downfall or even nonexistent.


What about those people who are in jails right now? They will be released from prisons. Instead of prison sentences, they will get the negative values of their productive powers proportionally to the crime they have committed. In the screenplay Good Communism – Heaven I’ve forced these kinds of people to wear red hats. Well, that might be a perfect punishment indeed. Everyone will recognize such people wherever they are. They will be ashamed more than in prisons where they live with the same people as they are. Uncomfortable feelings will make them work hard to escape from negative productive power as fast as they can.


They will be able to take off the red hats only by productive work and behaviour. Reducing the negative productive value they possess would be possible by performing high productivity at their workplaces. This will undoubtedly bring society much more conveniences than their staying in prisons. Also, the former prisoners would have to behave excellently in society. The people will set an eye on them. In case the former prisoners make mistakes the people would give them the negative evaluations which would prolong wearing a red hat. On the other hand, good assessment from the people will help them to escape from the negative productive power they have.


There would not be an easy way out for the former prisoners, and that would also prevent them from committing crimes. The prevention would probably be stronger than the fear of jails because today’s criminals do not feel that they have many opportunities in their lives. The new system will make them become good citizens.


Everyone in the new society will be a good citizen. Everyone will try hard to create the highest possible advantages for all individuals in the community and to diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. People will not be afraid of other people anymore. Fear will not exist anymore. Do you understand what it means? This will make a right, sane, and harmonious society. Security and abundance will be everywhere. Crime will not have any reason to exist anymore. Well, those rare people who might continue doing bad things to society will be healed in institutions for mental health.


9/11

My Investigation of 9/11

The US government conducted and reported on an investigation about the 9/11 terrorist attacks with the help of The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The findings are presented in short here: FAQs – NIST WTC Towers Investigation. It states that the planes’ impact, fire, and the heavy load of the buildings destroyed the WTC and the Pentagon. 

Američka vlada je provela istragu i napravila izvještaj o terorističkim napadima 9/11uz pomoć Nacionalnog instituta za standarde i tehnologiju (NIST). Ti nalazi su ukratko prikazani ovdje: FAQs – NIST WTC Towers Investigation. Izvještaj zaključuje da su udarci aviona, vatra i teški teret zgrada uništili WTC i Pentagon. Američka vlada je optužila vođu organizacije Al-Qaeda, Osamu Bin Ladena da je odgovoran za 9/11 iako nije dala nikakav dokaz koji bi to mogao potvrditi. Pokušali su uhvatiti Osamu Bin Ladena ali je tom prilkom ubijen što je ostavilo mnoga važna pitanja bez odgovora. Istraga nije uspjela dati uvjerljivi odgovor na osnovno pitanje zašto su tih 19 muslimana to učinili?

Together, the doors opened wide for conspiracy theories. A large number of people disagree with the NIST report. They accuse the US government of destroying the WTC by planting explosive devices in it and crushing the part of the Pentagon with a missile.


One of the leading organizations that accuse the government is “Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” The accusations of these organizations are mainly presented on social networks such as Facebook and YouTube. Their reports dominate the topic with thousands of documentaries trying to prove the government did it. These reports are pseudoscientific so I have to disagree with them.


If we analyze motives for the terrorist attack, the government and mainstream US media have found it in the fact that the suicidal terrorists did not like US values, freedom and democracy. Those are really shallow and miserable statements with which I strongly disagree. If they were even slightly objective, they would find motive in the aggressive US foreign policy.


The alternative media has found motive for the alleged government’s involvement in the demolition of the WTC in the desire to get the American people to support the conquering of independent countries in the Middle East. The wars in the Middle East were indeed triggered by 9/11. However, I do not see how US government officials would be able to gain personally from the crime of aggression on these independent countries.


While reading discussions related to 9/11 on various forums, I found the most significant divide was between people who think the government did it and those who do not believe it. I would say approximately half accuse the government of 9/11 and a half don’t. They fiercely argue about why 9/11 happened, who had an interest in it, and finally who did it. They were not able to find convincing answers and an explanation to which all might agree. It triggered me to see the truth about 9/11. I performed my investigation which gave conclusive answers to all of the questions regarding 9/11. I am presenting my findings here.

The twin towers. We all saw two planes hit the twin towers. The planes’ impacts critically damaged them. If the planes were twice as large, they would probably have cut the towers in two. Then the fire weakened the construction of the buildings until the huge loads of the buildings reached critical pressure, causing the crash of the towers. That was the government’s explanation, with which I agree. I wrote the article A Clear Explanation Why the Twin Towers Collapsed in which I have scientifically explained how the skyscrapers crushed down. I believe it is a credible explanation.


The alternative media on social networks have accused the US government of planting explosives which destroyed the twin towers. Thousands of reports and documentaries tried to convince people by using suggestive explanations such as the buildings could never collapse if hit by a plane, or that the explosions which destroyed the buildings were heard by many witnesses. Some of the mainstream media broadcasted or published the accusations of the alternative ones.


I would like to know why not one of these reports asked essential questions like why anybody would try to destroy both twin towers twice at the same time when both of the attempts are extremely difficult to realize? Where exactly would the explosive devices be planted to demolish the buildings the way they went down? Who might plant the explosives? How would planting the explosives possibly go unnoticed by people who work there? Explosive experts would have to plant the explosives exactly at the place where the planes hit the buildings or else the collapse might start elsewhere. That means they would have to know in advance where the jets were going to hit the buildings. This is hard to believe even if the pilots were extremely skilled. But then if the planes hit the building exactly where the explosives were planted, why did they not go off immediately when the planes hit? What exactly might have triggered the presumed explosives and how? What would determine the timing of the explosion? None of that was questioned, analyzed, explained, or discussed, not to mention investigated, which is way too short of a serious accusation against the government.

Here I enclosed one of many very shallow documentaries which try to prove that explosive devices demolished the twin towers: WTC: How The Towers Fell. Instead, it actually proves that the collapse of both buildings was caused by the damage of the planes, fire, and the large weight of the buildings.

 

The slow-motion video at 38:23 is a well-documented cheat easy to debunk. The narrator states that the top of the building disappears in the explosion. But no explosion is to be seen; there is no high-speed debris flying from the place of the alleged blast. Instead, the documentary presents the implosion of the top of the building and collapsing floors.

 

One can see eruptions of smoke and fire coming out from the building, but not as the result of explosions, but under the pressure of collapsing floors. Some people believed they heard explosions in the buildings. They were mistaken. If we throw a book on a table, it will bang. Imagine how loud the collapse of the whole floor would bang! That was what those people heard.

 

The upper part of the building started imploding floor by floor at the level where the plane hit the building. The construction below was rigid and resisted the collapse of nearly 10 stories (see the scale in the above-linked video) which piled on before reaching the critical weight and the kinetic energy of the load, which the construction below could not withstand. Then the weight of the building hammered down floor by floor the whole building to the foundations, almost like a free fall. Yes, the construction was sturdy but not enough to resist the power of the falling load above. The columns below bent and collapsed like nails hit by a big hammer to a hard surface. That is all one needs to understand physics.

 

And finally, the first building to collapse was hit second by the plane. Why? The second building was hit lower than the first one so that the load above the plane’s impact of the second building was more significant than the weight above the first. The more massive pressure quickened the collapse of the building hit second. That also indicates that the collapses were not triggered by the explosion.

 

This video proves that all talk of explosive use is devised fraud of false conspiracy creators. It proves the documentary was created on purpose to accuse the government and trick people.

The Pentagon. No camera clearly shows the Pentagon being hit by a plane. The security cameras around the Pentagon had a speed of one snapshot per second while the plane flew at 200 meters per second so that it escaped the camera. That opened the door to conspiracy theorists claiming not a plane hit the Pentagon but a missile. Again thousands of alternative media have created fake pseudoscientific reports claiming a missile caused the Pentagon destruction. So according to these reports, the Pentagon hit the Pentagon with a missile.

 

These reports did not bother to question where the missing plane was if a missile hit the Pentagon? The attack on the Pentagon occurred at 9:45 AM. Hundreds of people saw the plane hitting the Pentagon and not one person saw a missile. That is the reason these reports did not bother to ask the eyewitnesses what they saw. Even the conspiracy theory stood on extremely shaky legs; not a seriously organized effort has been made to debunk these reports.

 

All these fake reports cannot cheat those who think with their heads and try to discover the truth on their own. Some individuals fought for the fact but got lost in a sea of fake reports. For example, Jeffrey Hill, frustrated by false statements about the destruction of the Pentagon, conducted his own research nine years after the incident. He searched the archive of various newspapers trying to find the eyewitnesses statements. He found many witnesses and interviewed them by unsolicited phone calls in which he asked them to confirm what they saw on 9/11. After that Jeffrey Hill said: “These people did not talk about hypotheticals based on the size of the hole in the Pentagon or the lack of aircraft debris; they related what they saw on 9/11.” Jeffrey Hill presented the voice recordings and his analysis here: What really happened. ”His conclusion was: “The Pentagon was hit by a plane, end of story.” He proved it.

The Pentagon actually collapsed the same way as the twin towers even though the load above the impact point was much smaller. The longer time under the fire replaced the lesser destructive power of the Pentagon weight.

The WTC building 7. It is the core of the conspiracy theory because the supporters of conspiracy theories stated such a building never collapsed due to fire. To them, it looked like a controlled demolition, controlled demolition, controlled demolition… repeated thousands of times in thousands of reports. In such a way the collapse of WTC building 7 has become a controlled demolition to a large number of people.


However, everything that these reports present is wrong. Actual future events proved that high rise buildings do collapse in the fire. On May 13, 2008, the 13-story building of the Faculty of Architecture, at the Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, collapsed under fire. On 19 January 2017 the 17-story Plasco Building in Tehran, Iran, collapsed during a skyscraper fire.

Also, one could not possibly secretly plant explosive devices in either WTC building. First, planting explosives which can destroy the building requires a lot of time and it cannot pass undetected by people who work there, and second, such explosives cannot be invisible.

 

The collapse of WTC building 7 really looked like a controlled demolition as it was presented in media, but that does not mean it was indeed a controlled demolition. All these “deep analytic and scientific” documentaries about the collapse of building 7 have “forgotten” to present that its core collapsed 7 seconds before the rest of the building. They skipped that on purpose because this would prove that no explosive was used in the collapse of the building. Please take a look at the following documentary: 9/11 WTC 7 Demolition – Westside Highway CBS Camera Angle at 7:24.

 

No controlled demolition of any building ever happened in two parts with a 7-second delay. A camera never detected explosion in building 7, nor did anybody see it even though the building was under constant supervision before the downfall.

 

So what happened? Building 7 was damaged by debris flying from the North WTC twin tower (see the picture below). It burned almost all day after being abandoned by firefighters, which was normal after the ruin of the twin towers. When firefighters abandoned the burning building it’s collapse was just a matter of time. The whole day fire additionally weakened the damaged steel structure of the building. The heavy load of the building destroyed the weakest columns of the core of the building which led to its collapse.

But why did the whole building collapse? The fire did not affect the entire building. I am an architect and engineer and will try to explain it here in a way everyone can understand. The collapse of the core of the building together with the broken corner disturbed the balance of the building static causing the horizontal pressure. As a result, the whole building twisted one second before the collapse, which is visible in the documentary. The controlled demolition cannot cause this twist because controlled demolitions always collapse buildings straight down. These buildings drop, they do not twist. This twist destroyed the building.


Steel construction is strongly resistant to axial pressures but is very weak to bending moment stresses. Steel columns are too thin to keep resistance to big bending forces, especially if exposed to high temperature. They act like wooden sticks. One can easily break a stick by bending it until it snaps and that is the only way to break it. The same happens to steel columns. When the construction of building 7 twisted, the load of the building created big bending moment stress to the steel columns. They bent practically without resistance and in no time on the floor most damaged by fire. Then the building collapsed almost in free fall as we saw. Building 7 started falling in the core slightly ahead of the perimeters. That delay presents the horizontal speed of the collapsing columns under the load.


So the only convincing claim of conspiracy theorists lied in the fact that the collapse of building 7 did look like a controlled demolition, however, steel construction buildings actually could not collapse in any other way. This is the only way building 7 was able to collapse.


The US government could not destroy the WTC even in theory. President Bush acted awkwardly when he was informed about 9/11 which tells me he knew nothing about it. He would not be able to hide it if he knew. Also, I cannot even imagine how the government would find one person in the darkest corner of the CIA willing to kill thousands of fellow citizens. Planting explosives in the WTC would require the engagement of a large number of people. Also, there is no guarantee they would all keep silent. That would be entirely an impossible mission. I’ve found that all of the accusations against the government are incredibly shallow nonsenses leading me to conclude that we are witnessing a conspiracy against the government, innocent of the destruction 9/11.

I hope that this analysis has proved to all that conspiracy against the government exists. OK but who are then the conspirators and why did they accuse the government? Did the conspiracy against the US government have anything to do with the suicidal terrorists who attacked the WTC? I think it did and I will try to explain it here.

Only an extremely powerful organization must have organized a conspiracy against the US government. Only the most influential capital could manage it. The conspirators are the powerful owners of large corporations that rule over the Western world. This capital has the interest to dominate the whole world. They wanted to extend their power over the Middle East by using the 9/11 conspiracy. I’ll try to prove it here.

Big capital needed 9/11 to get support from the American people for aggression on the independent Middle East countries and their conquest. All wars that took place in the Middle East after 9/11 are the result of this conspiracy. The US government could not profit from these aggressions, only the owners of corporations could benefit from it. They are the ones who make money in wars.

Could the 9/11 attack be organized by the attackers alone? Was it a gift from heaven to the owners of corporations that enabled them to attack the Middle East? This is hardly possible. In that case, the mass-organized accusations against the US government would not exist. The conspirators would have to wait for an opportunity to conquer the Middle East countries and that was not suitable for them. I believe that big capital accelerated this process by planning the attack on the WTC. The conspiracy was born.

The conspirators could have relatively easily found people ready to destroy the WTC in Saudi Arabia, where most suicidal terrorists come from. One agent of the conspirators might have contacted one person in Saudi Arabia to find people willing to commit 9/11. It should not have been a difficult task in a state full of religious fanatics, very angry at the US for its aggressive foreign policy. In that case, there was almost no risk for the purveyors of the attacks to be caught. I believe the conspirators did it that way. Those suicidal fanatics most likely received money and support to destroy the WTC. Otherwise, they would have difficulty entering the US or attending flight school for example. But the most rewarding thing to suicidal terrorists was pride for being chosen for such a big task. Ironically they committed 9/11 without knowing they worked for their worst enemies. Some information points to Saudi Arabia having something to do with 9/11, but there is strong resistance to any investigation.

The owners of corporations knew they committed a massive crime by destroying the WTC. To hide possible traces of the crimes, they needed to frame somebody else for it. The US government was the perfect suspect. Big capital accused the US government of 9/11 mainly through alternative media. Massive attacks on the US government points to a large organization that supports this conspiracy. Big capital has done it to prevent the development of an idea which might connect them to the crime. In other words, if big capital was not involved in 9/11, there would be no reason for its accusations against the government. In this case, articles which accuse the government of 9/11 would hardly exist, and nobody would take them seriously. That fact indirectly proves big capital committed 9/11. If the government did help the big capital in 9/11 conspiracy in any way, big capital would accuse another innocent victim. Well, they certainly would not blame themselves!

The government is a puppet on the strings of big capital, and big capital does not mind accusing the government if the accusation benefits them. The owners of corporations do it often because, in such a way the people become aware they cannot change anything, they accept their powerlessness. Whenever people hear that the CIA did this or that, there is no way they would ever know if the rich did not tell them. Simply, the rich control all the means of information coming to people. It does not matter whether the CIA did this or that, accusing the CIA means accusing the government. The accusations have never gone to the rich who control the government and profit from it.

Does it mean big capital plans to sacrifice the government? Of course not! It cannot do it with such shallow accusations and also because the government is innocent in 9/11. If under the pressure of accusations against the government, which are paradoxically controlled by the same big capital, the investigation on 9/11 ever reopens, it would in no time find that explosives were never used and that the government is innocent.

Then big capital would release thousands of objective reports about 9/11 in all of the media, which right now it prevents from publishing, presenting a full shallowness of today’s fake reports. The truth would “win”. That would tell everyone no conspiracy ever existed, which would be false. No investigation would ever be performed in Saudi Arabia where the suicides were engaged, and big capital would walk free as it is used to doing after committing crimes. This is just another deception big capital is a master at.

Part of people who accuse the government right now would not accept the truth as Mark Twain said: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Another part of those people would feel stupid and would be ashamed for being seduced. They would become silent members of society without any wish to rebel again. I have already become aware of it while presenting the truth on various forums. Both of these people are useful to big capital.

Now people need to understand that the conspiracy 9/11 triggered wars worth trillions of dollars. Not to mention how much the conspiracy would be worth to big capital if they succeed in conquering all the countries in the Middle East.

 

Can one imagine how many conspiracy agents the conspirators could hire with this amount of money? They could not have had problems finding people who would support their conspiracy theory and say whatever the conspirators needed. The public is already programmed not to understand anything because the media continually present nonsense. People are so confused that they do not know what is true and what is false anymore. I want to emphasize that the prime task of a conspiracy is to gain profit for conspirators, but also it is important to hide it by guiding people to the wrong track. Cheating people is the center of any conspiracy.

 

Among thousands of propagandists who accuse the government of 9/11, I believe hundreds are paid for their job. The rest are so naive followers that they help the conspirators for free. These people do not drop the case even 16 years after it happened.

 

One of the most exposed conspiracy supporters is Richard Gage, a member of the “American Institute of Architects” and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I can guess how he became an influenced person. Probably he expressed his opinion somewhere publically that the government might be responsible for 9/11. After that, he immediately got great access to the media and lots of money to be able to distribute his opinion wider. That attracted naive people and the conspiracy movement was born.

 

Dr. Juddy Wood wrote “the Towers didn’t burn up, nor did they slam to the ground. They turned (mostly) to dust in mid-air.” She called the technology that destroyed the twin towers a direct energy weapon but failed to say anything about it. The readers can easily conclude that only the US government is capable of developing such a weapon. But the dust happened just because more than 5,000 cubic meters of extra light concrete was embedded into the building floors as a sound barrier and to prevent vibration of steel construction. The extra light concrete instantly turned to dust under the heavy pressure of the collapse. The shallow observation of Dr. Juddy Wood got significant access to media and scientific lectures. The truth has much more difficulties in breaking in.

 

The conspirators control media and let corrupted and stupid people speak publicly a lot. There is a considerable number of architects and engineers who do not want to talk about such shallow accusations against the government. Some of them could easily debunk the 9/11 conspiracy but do not have access to media. That is how those who have power in society control society’s opinions.

 

Richard Gage allegedly leads the group of over 2,500 architects and engineers who support the idea that the government committed 9/11. Here is one of Richard Gage’s propaganda works: Over 2,500 architects and engineers prove 9/11 was an inside job! However, I do not believe he was able to attract that many so-called experts because it is impossible to find that the number of stupid or corrupted architects or engineers. “The Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” organization presents pure cheat, nonsense, and pseudoscience; it is more a cult than an organization. Their parent organization The 9/11 Truth is a huge fake organization. This is the only organization which does not provide the founders’ names, nor the names of their leaders; it does not provide any name. That means nobody stands behind their “truth”.

 

“Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth” calls for an investigation which is supposed to uncover who is responsible behind 9/11 but I believe they do not know that they work for these people. “The 9/11 Truth” is a non-profit organization which cannot survive without donors. If they enclose the names of those people who are giving them money that might lead to those people who actually organized 9/11. The investigation just needs to follow the money.

 

The money would most likely lead to Jacob Rothschild unless it stops at David Rockefeller who recently died. Anyway, they have worked together at the top of the world conspiracy. Jacob Rothschild is a hidden leader of the Western world. He is the owner of corporations and big capital from this article. I do not have hard evidence against him because it is impossible to collect it without an official investigation. My accusation is based on the fact that no one else is powerful enough to do 9/11. I have been investigating Jacob Rothschild from the time NATO attacked my homeland Yugoslavia and published the findings in the article: Jacob Rothschild is guilty for the conspiracy against humankind.

 

November 5, 2017

References:

Steel being weakened by a jet fuel fire  

Building 7 Explained: The Tube That Crumpled

Jacob Rothschild is guilty for the conspiracy against humankind

2005.02.06

Let’s prevent illnesses


Modern medicine is pretty good in preventing and healing diseases and as time passes will be better. However, it is pretty weak in healing illnesses based on man’s alienation from his body and soul. These kinds of diseases are originated by the system the people live in. Authorities impose their rules on the people that alienate them from their nature which bring dissatisfaction, pessimism, and stress. Collected dissatisfaction, hopelessness, and stress weakens people’s souls and bodies, blocks natural abilities for self-protection, and opens the door for all kinds of hard illnesses. Modern medicine recognizes that problem but cannot prevent, and often neither heal such diseases because they depend on the social system the people live in. Medical sciences do not have much influence there.


Surprisingly, I’ve witnessed on TV that Pastor Benny Hinn heals these kinds of diseases by using the power of God. Most of the treated people shook hysterically on stage and moaned of happiness as the result of their healing. They could not be actors, and that means Benny Hinn helped them. But then why does Benny Hinn not go to hospitals, why does he not heal the patients, and not close the hospitals? Well, naturally he cannot do it.


How does Benny Hinn heal such diseases? To help the ill people, he needs people to believe to be able to make miracles, and that is the reason he has built his charisma. Then, coming to the stages where God “watches the performance” from heaven, including the not irrelevant influence of the people who directly watch the performance and millions through TV, impose considerable stress on the sick people. The stress initiates enormous energy in such a person, and believing in miracles directs it against the illness. That power breaks energy blockades in an ill person; cleans the collected bearings in his body and soul, and the sick person becomes healed.


So, is God involved here? Of course, He is. He has created us together with all our abilities to protect ourselves from illnesses. But the problem is we have alienated ourselves from our nature and do not know how to save ourselves anymore. Actually, we commit violence to our illness protection mechanism by unnatural living. We were taught to believe authorities, not ourselves, and that is the reason we do not even try to follow our natural way of life, and that is the reason we are impotent.


Benny Hinn presents healed people as miracles to the world, and that is what made him very rich. Becoming rich is something entirely opposite for Jesus Christ’s teaching, which Benny Hinn claims to be wholly devoted to. Benny Hinn’s look and behaviour on the stage tells us he is a charlatan more than anything else. He certainly cheats people, but also he is one of the rare persons who developed skills to heal illnesses that modern medicine cannot cure.


However, how successful Benny Hinn really is in healing people should be questioned. I’ve got the impression that all of the Benny Hinn’s healings happen just before the performance takes place. But we do not know how many people are not presented because they are not healed. Also, I doubt Benny Hinn’s healing of people is permanent. After the performance ends the treated people return to the same way of living that made them ill.


The system I have proposed may heal a large number of diseases just by giving people a healthy natural life. A good, satisfied, optimistic, joyful, and relaxing life would enable it. The American doctor Lorraine Day thinks the same. But the success in it would depend on how much an individual patient would be able to return to his or her nature.


A much better solution is to prevent illnesses rather than healing people from them. People could avoid a large number of diseases in the same way; by a good, satisfied, optimistic, joyful, and relaxing life. We just need to live following our nature and the problems with illnesses will be significantly smaller. How? Accepting a system that gives freedom to people to follow their natural instincts and senses will do it. My book Humanism presents this system.


Humanism Extensively

Humanism Extensively

Capitalism

 

In capitalism, the means of production are privately owned. The capitalist form of production has created the most efficient allocation of economic resources ever, based on the competition of private entrepreneurs. Thus, it has achieved the highest productivity of the economy in the history of mankind, which has established the highest growth of living standards for people. However, the competition of private entrepreneurs has considerable disadvantages. The better producer wins and pushes the losers out of the market. Winners take all, and the losers get nothing. That is why capitalism is brutal. Its side products are fear, greed, and struggle for survival on the market. This struggle is objectively very irrational because the current production is strong enough to efficiently meet the needs of people.


Economic crises are an integral part of capitalism. Crises arise as a result of an insufficient balance between supply and demand. Capitalism doesn’t have a solution that can prevent crises because the entire production is based on the free competition of manufacturers in an unpredictable market. Also, capitalism cannot survive without continuous economic growth. It is forced to continually seek new forms of consumption in which the companies would realize profits as a condition of their survival. Through the development of technology, the cycles of production expansion and recession accelerate faster so that economic instability and the crisis of capitalism occur more often. I think that the frequency of crises will soon force people to seek a better solution than capitalism. Finally, I would like to say that capitalism massively exploits the natural resources of our planet. Limited resources are the final limitation of economic growth and an invincible obstacle to the survival of capitalism.


Capitalism is very demanding in depriving the freedom of people. In today’s society, virtually only capital is free. People have developed consumer freedom on which capitalism bases its survival. Therefore, excessive consumption is established in the western world, which is mainly its own purpose. The people buy useless, cheap goods, which then very quickly become trash, which even then brings new expenses because it has to be transported to waste. Regardless, the citizens of the developed world consider consumption as a maximal value. This is the alienation that capitalism has deliberately imposed over people by using enormous propaganda. Today, many companies dedicate more work hours in finding consumers than in the production of goods. This is an irrationality of capitalism which suggests that capitalism cannot develop anymore and therefore it prevents the development of civilization. In the developed world, consumption has reached its limit when it cannot objectively bring consumers a better life, the same way as a satiated man cannot enjoy eating more food. But due to enormous alienation, consumers aren’t aware of it.


Democratic regulation may improve capitalism but not enough

 

Capitalists systematically exploit workers by taking a part of the income that should belong to workers. Although there is no objective method for determining the level of exploitation, one may say that the difference between the cost of work freely formed in the labour market where every worker has a job, and the one where workers must take jobs to earn money for living, is exploitation. Unemployed workers forcefully agree to accept any job to feed their families. That is why capitalism deliberately maintains the level of unemployment at around 5%. There are various ways to regulate such an unemployment rate from importing workforce up to raising interest rates. High-interest rates increase the cost of production, reduce demand for goods and then, of course, decrease the need for work. Capitalism swears by the free market, but it consciously reduces the labour market to exploit workers more.


Exploitation can be significantly reduced or even eliminated by state regulation. If governments establish shorter working hours for workers proportionally to the unemployment rate, it may make equal the number of job posts and workers. This measure could lead to full employment. The workers could then request wages they consider appropriate for the work tasks they perform, and then they wouldn’t be exploited. This measure would establish a fair relations in the process of production, more stable income for workers, and therefore, of course, more stable production. The entire society would gain a lot from this. So why has nobody ever proposed such a simple measure? This is because increasing the incomes of workers reduces the capitalist profits and that is the reason capitalism opposes it.


Another significant improvement for capitalism is going to be based on tax policy. States plan and order their spending. State leaders plan state consumption which makes the most stable production based on the state orders. The governments are supposed to create a tax policy and use the tax money following the interests of the people, but they don’t. The control over the accumulated money collected through taxes gives the most significant power in the state, and the governments tend to spend the tax-collected money in the way they like. However, even governments do not have the most significant control over this money. The western world has invented a very developed mechanism that gives rich people control over everything, including the tax-collected money. The mechanism starts with friendly advice and lobbying of governments and representatives in parliaments and ends with corruption and blackmailing. They are very successful in it, and that means the collective spending follows the interests of a few and not of the people. This is not fair. We all pay taxes, but only some have control over it. That must be changed.


The future of democracy will no longer be based on privileged elected representatives in parliaments and leaders. The development of computer technology allows people to directly participate in making all key decisions of common interest. Individuals will directly create a policy of society, and in the first place, economic policy. People will be particularly interested in deciding on the macroeconomic policies of society. People will directly determine how much money they will want to single out for taxation from their gross incomes. The sum of all such decisions from all people will form the total tax in society. Please, do not get me wrong. This does not mean that each person will pay as much tax as he or she wishes. It says the people will participate in the formation of the state budget and then they will pay taxes according to the heights of their incomes.


Furthermore, every person can decide on how the tax money is going to be spent. Each person will determine how much of his tax money should be allocated for: the defence of the state, public security, education, health, housing, recreation, building infrastructure, etc. Theoretically, people can decide on a collective consumption within the 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. Collective consumption 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. Once people get the power to directly decide in society, they will be so satisfied with it that they will not allow anyone to take such power from them.

Technically, there is room for democratic improvement for capitalism, which might bring betterment to society, but capitalism is very close to its limits. Capitalism is not a good enough system. Capitalism is immoral. Capitalism is based on the privileges of authorities and the powerlessness of ordinary people. Privileges are unjust and create alienation. As long as there are injustice and alienation in society, it cannot be right. Capitalism is not a rational enough system because it requires too much unnecessary work and excessively exhausts natural resources. Capitalism cannot establish a stable production and therefore cannot form a stable society. That is the reason capitalism cannot prosper. That is the reason capitalism is a bad enough system and should be replaced. But in today’s society, no idea exists that might remove capitalism. There is no alternative to capitalism. Good leaders who try to restrain capitalism by reforms cannot achieve significant success because capitalism cannot be improved enough to form a good and sane society. After good but unsuccessful leaders, disappointed people often choose a strong right-wing leader who makes the situation worse.


Capitalism suffers in production-saturated societies but prospers well in scarce societies. That is why capitalism often searches for help in wars in which it destroys everything and practically runs its development from the beginning. Capitalism may always withdraw from the crisis; however, one should not think about how to help capitalism survive, but rather about the creation of a far better system for all people. Such a system must take power from authorities and give it to the people. I have proposed such a system, but it is so different from all existing models that people cannot readily accept it even though they would all live far better.


The New Social System: Humanism

 

All political and economic measures, which I have mentioned so far, can be applied in capitalism. The new system that I have proposed accepts the model of the market economy. Private companies will continue to operate in the same way as today. Significant changes will occur in public companies.


In capitalism, the opinion is built that states are lousy businessmen. In fact, so far that is relatively true. The reason can be found in more privileged working positions of workers in the state sector concerning the ones in private companies. Following the philosophy that inadequately interprets the working rights of workers, jobs in the state sector are generally more protected than in private companies. The workers can hardly lose their jobs even if their work performance is weak, contrary to the workers in privately owned companies. Privileged positions create the lower efficiency of state companies, and as a result, the state companies lose the productivity battle against private enterprises. However, by the structure of production, the state-owned companies are hardly different from the capitalist system of production, and therefore the result of work in state-owned companies should not be worse than the privately owned companies. However, it may be much better. The state-owned companies will organize new production based on more market than capitalism can afford. In the first place, a permanently open labour market will be established, and that will make the economy more productive than the private companies may achieve.


The new division of work is a necessity

 

Privileges of all kinds must be put to an end. A good economy requires the complete abolition of privileged work positions. One should protect the economic existence of workers rather than jobs. The reform of the new economy will firstly affect the division of labour. There is no fairer or better distribution of employment than an open market competition of workers for every position. The worker who envisages and offers the highest productivity for any public work post at any time will get the job. Productivity could be measured by earned money, by quality and quantity of produced goods, or by the productivity evaluation of workers by other workers or clients. A worker who offers more profits, manufactured goods, better, cleaner, or cheaper production will get the job. That is an idea. How to make such changes to bring the most possible advantages and the least possible disadvantages to society is just a technical problem. I have defined a pretty good solution in my book Humanism, but that will probably have to be more developed by practice.


This kind of labour division naturally requires equality of the number of work posts with the number of workers. Otherwise, it could lead to unnecessary fights for jobs. The new system will make full employment a reality. If the creation of new work positions is not needed, full employment will be achieved by reducing work hours in all companies proportionately to the unemployment rate.


Also, under the new system, each public job will be equally desirable. This will be achieved by giving the job with defined productivity to the worker who demands the lowest price for current labour and, consequently, a lower income. The price of current work will be one of the factors that determine the height of the salaries. Therefore, better jobs will realize relatively lower incomes and worse jobs will be compensated through relatively higher incomes. This way, the labour market will set objective heights of salaries and will balance the interest in all job posts. Since the workers themselves will be setting the price of their current labour, by the same token, they will be the most satisfied with their earnings.


The system would have no meaning if the workers, on their way to succeed greater competitive powers, offer productivities that they would not be able to realize. Today’s politicians do precisely that for example. The new economy will form a very effective system of accountability for the realization of productivities workers offer so that they would not dare offer productivities they cannot accomplish. I will talk more about that later in this essay.


No economy can be more productive than the one where the best available worker gets each job. Such an economy will easily become significantly more productive than the capitalist one so that capitalism will be forced to recede. Also, the workers will no longer be interested in working for private enterprises where they do not have enough freedom to choose jobs or decide on their incomes, nor do they have the opportunity to cut into the profits. In the new system workers will participate in the distribution of profits, which as a rule is not the case in private companies. Soon after this system is implemented, private enterprises will be forced to withdraw and join the new system.


Defining the value of man’s productive power is a necessity

 

To create a good society, one should define and accept all values that are or should be, relevant to the community. Then, one will need to determine which of these values each person possesses. The sum of all values that a person creates throughout his life, presented by a numerical value, may be called human productive power.


The value of human productive power will incorporate, firstly, capitalist values, such as real estate, money, shares, and all assets that capitalism recognizes as valuable. In fact, this measure will enable simple free association of private enterprises. Owners of private companies will receive stocks for their ownership of the integrated company. They will not be forced to merge their companies, but they will do it under heavy pressure from higher productivities of public companies. Besides it, they will learn that a greater merged company would be more stable to conjuncture changes. The joined owners of companies would realize smaller profits in good businesses, but also smaller losses in bad businesses because large companies will cover the disturbances of earnings on the market. The production of such companies will be very stable because it will be increasingly based on customer orders. If owners of private companies today could have an option to join such a company they would most likely do it because that would save more of their capital value in the frequently arising crises of capitalism.


With human productive power, the establishment of an effective system of responsibilities of workers will be possible. In publicly owned companies, workers will share profits proportionally to the numerically determined responsibility they propose for their work. This is an idea for which I just hint on here. It cannot be understood well enough without reading and analyzing the book Humanism. The same goes for most of the new ideas I am presenting here. The higher responsibility will naturally realize a larger share in profit, in the case that the company’s profit increases. Such profit will now be expressed in a value that reflects the workers’ human productive power. And vice versa, in case of production losses, workers who propose higher responsibility for their work will realize more substantial losses in value representing their productive power.

A good future of humankind cannot be based on the value of capital only. Man needs to become the most considerable value, and this orientation can be stimulated by the value that presents the human productive power. Besides the capital-based value that represents an element of human productive power, we need to recognize and include all other values that society accepts or should accept. Such values are the people themselves, their education, work experience, contributions that they have given, and awards that they have received for creating values to society, etc. The pooling of different forms of value will require a comprehensive study and – indeed – difficult negotiations in society. However, after some time, new, democratically regulated standards of all values that can be created in the community could be established. Such regulation will automatically be applied whenever necessary. This will be explained in more detail in the following paragraphs.


If the society would like to stimulate education, it might raise awards for higher education in the value that represents human productive power. If, for example, a region has too low a birth rate, people may decide to award parents with more children with this kind of value. And vice versa, if a region has too high a birth rate, people may choose to punish parents who have more children by a particular value representing human productive power.


The value of personal productive power will be especially affected by disobedience to the law. If a person acts against the law, they will lose a legally defined value from their productive power. Each crime may be easily judged by existing laws and recalculated into a value representing human productive power. If a person commits a severe crime, he might lose all the value from his productive power and even get a negative value. The proposed system can make the assignment of such a negative productive value much more painful than a prison can be so that prisons will not be needed anymore. Each person will avoid committing any crime carefully. If a person still gets such a negative productive power, he will try hard to fix it, and that will only be possible through hard productive work, and outstanding behaviour over a long period.


Taking into account that most people would probably not like to have their productive power compared to that of other people, such a value may be kept secret, known only to the owner of the value himself. But those who enter into negative productive power will have to take recognizable clothes, and this will force them to improve their behaviour.


Society may regulate whatever it needs through evaluation of human productive power. However, all values cannot be regulated, because people have varying individual needs. Therefore, the value representing personal productive power 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 step of the future. I call it democratic anarchy.


Democratic anarchy is a necessity

 

Democratic anarchy is a new form of social relations, wherein every person exercises equal legislative, judicial and executive 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 right to allocate a total of say three positive and three negative evaluations per month. Each positive assessment should automatically bring a small increase in the total value of productive power 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 assessments would have an equivalent value of one dollar. If the society were afraid of such power of individuals, the power of evaluation could be reduced. Even the assessment with the power equivalent to just one cent would be enough for the improvement of society.


Democratic anarchy 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. 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. Given that all individuals will have the equal right of evaluation, and that they will give their assessments independently of any written rules, such a democracy will assume the form of anarchy. In this straightforward way, the people will for the first time in the history of humankind realize a great direct power in society, which will result in highly harmonious and constructive social relations.


People will judge other people freely. That means an immoral person may evaluate other people dishonestly, but it will not matter much because an individual power of one dollar cannot produce harm to anybody. Individuals will not have much influence 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 for 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 not 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.

 

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. That will create a miracle no other tool of justice has ever been able to make. That will create a good and sane society. In the future, the system of evaluation will probably abolish state laws, police, military force, and very states. Nobody will need them anymore. A perfect society will be formed, and everyone will recognize that. Human society will become prosperous beyond the wildest dreams today.

It is understandably desirable that the value of human productive power becomes very important to society and therefore its acceptance should be additionally stimulated. That will be accomplished, firstly, by giving each person voting power in the community, proportionate to the value of his productive power. I am talking about a significant change in the democratic system. Today, people have only the right to choose their parliamentary representatives. They have neither opportunity nor right to participate in making other decisions that regard their interests in society. We need a compromise equally acceptable to all. Let each person have a right to participate in making any democratic decision in society, but let him earn this right by his productive contribution to the development of value in society. This system proposes unequal voting power, accepted by a consensus of political parties. In reality, it will contribute to the development of democracy because the people will, for the first time, get a chance to directly participate in decision-making for all questions regarding their interests.


Secondly, each person should get an income for work in publicly owned companies proportionate to the total value of his productive power. The value of human productive power will thus become a humanistic form of shares. This measure will additionally encourage residents of specific regions to voluntarily merge their private companies into one big “humanistic” company.

Thirdly, the value of personal productive power must be inherited through generations to be accepted. Through the implementation of such measures, every member of society will recognize the value of human productive power as a great value so that this will contribute significantly to the development of society.


The economic security of people is a necessity


Capitalists are not at all interested in how consumers will make money for the purchase of goods they produce, even though there is no survival of capitalist enterprises without it. Liberal capitalism does not want to take care of the losers on the market, and this is another reason why capitalism must go down in history. The new system will ensure the economic independence of each individual as a precondition for achieving freedom and survival of society as a whole. Only one individual who is not economically cared for enough may endanger the whole community. Also, the system of work competition needs a higher degree of economic security and stability than we have it today so that each resident will receive some kind of income. The height of individual income will primarily depend on the value that presents the productive power of man, then on the price of the current work taking into the account that every activity is a sort of work, as well as on the accomplishment of proposed productivity.


The people will also directly establish the level of minimal earning directly. If workers’ interest in performing their work is insufficient, the society may directly reduce the minimum income, which would stimulate workers to work more. If productivity is higher than necessary, society will then increase the minimum salary and thus lessen the income-based stimulation for work.

Society as a whole will guarantee the economic security and stability of each individual. This will remove the fear that rules throughout the world today. Capitalism finds the primary motivation for work from concern for the economic survival of workers, and that is the reason it cannot guarantee financial security to people. The new system will build motivation for work from the free choice of choosing work and in the satisfaction that comes from it.


To each according to their needs is the future of humankind


By that time, people will learn that collective consumption is significantly more rational and stable than the individual consumption, so that they will directly decide to allocate more money for taxes from their gross incomes. The more people allocate money for tax purposes, the more goods and services will be allocated for the needs of the collective consumption of society. This is the planed consumption that the most developed democracies in today’s world spend mostly on national defence purposes. 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 new system, war will no longer be possible. People will direct funds for the requirements of the common social standard. I am talking about vast amounts of money that can significantly improve the standard of society. The new system will enable the introduction of free individual consumption. Some states today have free education, free health insurance; some states distribute some goods and services freely. Why would a new system not provide more?

People will change very much in the new system. I think that one far away day; in purpose to establish a more stable and rational economy, all people will freely allocate all the money from their gross incomes for tax purposes. Then, all of the goods and services will become freely available to all people. The products will lose their alienated market value, but the value of the use of goods will still remain. It will be worth the same as air is worth today. I am not talking about utopia or about the oppression of people, but about the advanced technical system that will follow the needs of the people. If only one man, however, would like to keep his own income, theoretically the completely free goods and services would not be applied.


The conclusion


The new economy will naturally step in; it will remove the shortcomings of capitalism and ensure further development of civilization. It will mainly base its production on customer orders so that it will be stable. It will level down the market competition from the level of companies to the level of work posts. There is no more productive economy than the one in which each position gets the best possible worker, and that is the reason why capitalism will go down in history. The new economy will eliminate the disadvantages of capitalism and will bring much more significant advantages to society. After capitalism, humanism will arrive, a system that will follow the needs of people a lot better.


The political and economic model described here will improve the efficiency and stability of production, introduce more justice into the process of production and distribution, and provide significantly higher advantages to all members of society. The open market of work posts will eliminate the workers’ privileges. This will further eliminate corruption, the main source of the immorality of today’s society. The market for labour will give people the freedom to choose jobs that they like more. Work will become an immediate value to itself, and people will enjoy working. People will be free. Freedom is a state when people do not have to ask permission for anything from anybody except their own conscience. Of course, freedom is dependent on the possession of a conscience. Conscience will be built on a large degree by defined responsibilities of people. Accountability will be so high that people will base their mutual relations in cooperation at all levels of human relationships, and in that manner, they will develop a productive development of society.


In general, this system will rid the people of authoritative pressure and give them the freedom to follow their own interests, while at the same time forcing people to mutual respect. Such experience will demystify alienated values imposed by authorities throughout history and will teach people to live following their proper nature, which will, in turn, free them from all types of alienation characteristics of present-day society. People will then realize where real values are. Furthermore, the system will teach people to set their needs following 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.


Once this system is adopted in a smaller community, the people will make this community a beautiful place to live. When the rest of the world sees that, it will not have any other choice but to follow suit. The new system will establish a good and sane society all over the world. It will build a bright future for humanity. Conclusively, I would like to point out that the system I have proposed not only represents the best solution for the future of humanity but also represents the only good solution. It will bring prosperity to society regardless of the level of economic development. The biggest problem is the time needed for people to understand the system, accept and implement it.


November 1, 2009


Humanism is joy

Humanism is the Joy of Living

In this essay, I will talk about how to create a good society with a particular emphasis on the happiness and joy of living. It is a field presented by Erich Fromm. He analyzed the work of the highest authorities in the area of productive living and gave his recommendations on how to achieve a healthy and joyful life. Fromm examined the problem from a psychological perspective and left it to the individuals to accept his proposals. Although Fromm sold many books, it cannot be determined how successful he has been in improving society. I wanted to accomplish a lot more, so I created a political-economic system that will unconditionally and inevitably give all people a good, healthy and joyful life. 

People want happiness but are not successful in finding it. I’ll try to explain in this essay why! In short, happiness is the result of satisfying needs, while the inability to meet the needs creates a misfortune. Man forms need through his thoughts. Thoughts objectively define the basic human needs, such as for example, freedom and realization of assets for survival. Inability to achieve freedom and finding food creates an objective misfortune. This type of misfortune today should not exist because society is sufficiently developed to be able to overcome it, but it still exists. Why?

 

Thoughts are free, and as such, they are free to set needs. Man is aware of his own powerlessness in nature and has a need to overcome it. At such moments a man can easily use the freedom of his thoughts to create a subjective vision of the nature that surrounds him. Generally, such a view tries to glorify his person and diminishes the power of nature. If such an opinion does not directly confront the forces of nature man adopts it as real. In this way, a man builds the illusion of overcoming the powerlessness in nature. That is how the man alienates himself from his nature.

 

The man most often tries to compensate his powerlessness in nature by creating power over other people. This is achieved by using physical force, ideology, power, wealth, fame, and values that give power over the people. Every success in the field of obtaining control over people in a man’s subjective consciousness easily gives the characteristics of overcoming his objective powerlessness in nature. It is an illusion that brings great happiness. It looks real to the alienated man, and he accepts it as such. A man, who achieves power over people or becomes rich or famous, experiences an eruption of captivating happiness.

 

But it raises a big problem; the man who becomes convinced that he has overcome his powerlessness before nature sooner or later comes in contradiction with the objective laws of nature. He reveals that his life is passing, that stronger, richer, more famous people emerge than he is. The result is disappointing, the illusion of happiness vanishes and pain appears. Once a man becomes convinced that he has overcome his own powerlessness in nature, any violation of its illusions leads in his subjective consciousness threatens his survival. Then he desperately acts in the field of alienated interests, trying to develop more power, more wealth, or more fame.

 

But no activity can affect the nature of the origin of such needs. Control over the people cannot overcome objective human weakness in nature. So the man in the field of alienated interest cannot find his satisfaction. That is why such a man lives a permanently dissatisfied life. When a man satisfies his hunger, he does not eat anymore because it would bring problems in his stomach and he is aware of this. But man does not recognize the causes of trouble arising from the formation of alienated needs. Otherwise, he would have dismissed alienated needs. The result of the creation of alienated needs is a lot worse than when a man with a full stomach continues to eat.

 

In an alienated society, successful people are more alienated from their nature, and therefore lead to stress and divorce for example, and if they do not live reasonably, productively, and disciplined enough, which is difficult to achieve with the privileges they have, then, their way of life leads them to depression, drug addiction, alcoholism, etc. If you pay attention, you can see that the powerful, rich, and famous people who are not responsible for their lives, are not happy. They just try hard to demonstrate success and well-being. As a rule, they are very concerned about their wealth, fame, power, and do not enjoy life because they are alienated from their natural needs.

 

Furthermore, power over people develops a human narcissistic character that glorifies own personality and underestimates other people. Narcissistic man loses respect for other people. He misses the ability to achieve natural advantages in relation with other people. Greed makes him heartless, perverts his soul and takes away the joy of living. Such a man often creates real suffering to other people preventing them from meeting their needs. Benefits arising from the equal rights among people by their nature are the most significant benefits possible that human nature can accomplish. The man who, because of his ignorance, rejects such benefits is his own worst enemy.

 

Inability to meet the alienated needs creates alienated misery, but it looks real to man. For example, a man would never commit suicide because he cannot satisfy his natural needs, for example, hunger, but he would do it if he cannot meet his alienated needs. If a man by his subjective conscience finds the origin of his problems outside of himself, then extreme tension coming from an inability to meet his needs turns him to the destruction of the world that surrounds him. Alienation develops irrationality and permanently miserable life from which it is difficult to find a way out. An alienated man lives a spiritually impoverished life no matter what he achieves. He cannot understand the nature of his needs, acts against his nature and lives an unhappy life.

 

Therefore, the society must develop an orientation that will stimulate objectivity and not alienation of objectivity. This is precisely what the system I have proposed promises. This system will bring society to a natural, pleasant and joyful life.

 

It may sound unbelievable, but all the problems with happiness and unhappiness will be solved by establishing equal rights among the people. Today we have formal equality proclaimed by human rights laws. In practice, there is no equality because there are a vast number of different privileges of people that bring harm to society. I have proposed a new system which will begin to solve the problem of unequal rights among the people by the system of equal right evaluation among people. I’ve called it democratic anarchy. Each person will have an equal right to evaluate a few people of their choice. The positive assessment will slightly increase the income of the evaluated person, and the negative evaluation will somewhat diminish it. Such an assessment will force every man to respect other people; to do everything they can to beautify other people’s lives and not to do anything that can hurt other people. This will be the basis for the establishment of a healthy, constructive and productive orientation of society.


Equal rights among the people must be extended to equal rights of people to work. The new system proposes an open competition of workers performed by their labour productivity offers for the right to work at any public work post at any time. Productivity will be measured by the earned money, by the quantity and quality of goods produced, or by rating productivity obtained from consumers. The worker who offers more profit, more manufactured goods, better, cleaner and cheaper production will get the job. This is only a technical problem that can be solved. I wrote more about it in the article The Future of Economics.


There is no better division of labour than the work competition on the labour market. The new division of labour will balance the interests of workers at all workplaces by using a newly defined system of responsibility of workers. More responsible positions will be more rewarded in the case of increased productivity and more sanctioned in case of a fall in productivity. Thus, a new division of labour will abolish privileges, one of the most significant sources of problems in our society. Therefore, a new division of work will make all jobs equally desirable. Thus, a new division of labour will be accepted by all members of society as just. Also, the work competition will achieve significantly higher productivity than private enterprise can accomplish, and that will send capitalism with all its disadvantages down in history.


The work competition will allow each man to get a job that they prefer. Thus, work will become the value for itself. A man who loves some work will make more significant efforts to achieve the highest productivity in the desired workplace and thus will obtain the right to work. When a person invests energy in the field he likes, he is building his productive orientation and life satisfaction. Thus, the man’s creative power of being will bring significant stable benefits in the form of the joy of living.


Happiness and joy are similar phenomena, but there is a difference. Happiness is a convenience that cannot exist without unhappiness and generally does not last long. Happiness is more significant if previous unhappiness was higher and vice versa. Happiness does not necessarily depend on man’s activities; it can come or not come. The joy of life is a permanent and stable natural advantage because it occurs as a man’s entire productive orientation. It is hardly accessible when one has no freedom of decision and action which is the case today. For that reason, it is challenging to find a joyful man today.


Real equality among men will reduce the possibility of establishing supremacy among the people, and this will reduce the possibility of the appearance of false and alienated fortune and misfortune. A joyful man much more readily accepts the limitations of his nature, and therefore subjective happiness and unhappiness could harder affect him. A joyful man will not necessarily be able to meet all his needs. Whoever invests a great effort in satisfying his needs and cannot reach satisfaction will be sad, but will not be angry. The system will set an objective justice and respect among the people that will obstruct the appearance of anger. Sadness is a much healthier emotion than anger. It is also a better emotion because it allows a more rational response. Sociologically, as opposed to anger, sadness does not create conflict. Psychologically, sadness in contrast to anger, enable a man to understand objective reality, to solve problems productively and constructively. Angriness destroys the soul and sorrow develops it. Sadness can direct man to a better life and angriness cannot.


Happiness is short-lived. The alienated man wants to keep it as much as possible no matter what, and therefore easily becomes self-centred, greedy and develops many negative character traits that harm him, and society as a whole. Natural and joyful man lives a productive life and knows that his benefits mostly depend on him alone. Because of it, he is very willing and eager to share, ready and willing to cooperate on all levels of human relationships and as such, he helps produce benefits to society.


The proposed system will enable a man to be productive, satisfied with himself, and believe in his future. Such a man is able to love.. Today we distort the meaning of the word love because capitalism by its cruelty virtually destroyed our ability to love. The ability to love cannot be received; it must be earned by the productive way of living. It is, in fact, the highest accomplishment of productive life and gives the biggest joy of living. Besides that, the proposed form of a living will enable a man to reach the most significant knowledge – wisdom. A wise man has everything he needs regardless of how quantitatively or qualitatively it is, and therefore he is the master of his emotional states and lives a full, peaceful, and joyful life. This man is a free man.


Equal rights among people will rid the people of authoritative pressure and give them the freedom to follow their own interests, while at the same time forcing 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 characteristics of present-day society. Furthermore, the system will teach people to set their needs following 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 system I have proposed will enable the people to develop themselves correctly and to be mentally and physically healthy. Healthy individuals will promote a healthy society, and a healthy society will form even more healthy individuals. The process will develop, and as a final result, a harmonious and good society will appear with individuals full of the joy of living. The proposed system promises a natural and highly prosperous development of society, beyond the wildest dreams today. The system is defined, in detail, in my book, “The Humanism” available free of charge here.


April 8, 2004

Updated November 13, 2013

Humanism Clearly

Humanism Clearly

Throughout history, authorities have been trying hard to keep power in their own hands, just as they are doing today. Even though nowadays a formal democracy exists almost everywhere, the people are still impotent. This is the main reason why the world passes through phases of destruction, instead of through continuous development. The impotence of the society is so great that not even an idea exists of what a good society should look like. Finally, thanks to the development of information technology and to my persistence, I have discovered the path to create a good society, as defined in many utopias. My utopia, described in the book “Humanism,” is no longer wishful thinking, but a pure science that determines an inevitable and bright future of humankind.

 

A positive future for humanity ultimately requires power in the hands of the people. Each person should have the ability to directly represent and protect his interests wherever he needs to. I am talking about brand new ideas that will give people the power that is, under present circumstances, unthinkable. In the first place, I need to stress that new ideas will bring about a complete change of the existing social systems since they have been built under the influence of authorities.

 

The new political and economic system that I have proposed is equally acceptable to all. It will end all kinds of oppression and give much greater freedom to everyone, but it will also require each individual to be responsible to other individuals in society. The whole system is based on a highly developed form of democracy. It will even realize greater economic productivity than capitalism can, and stability that capitalism cannot provide at all. Ultimately, it will force capitalism to withdraw. This new system prevents crime, wars, and all kinds of destructiveness in society, as well as encouraging the development of human productive powers. It will totally change the world and give a wonderful life and harmony to humanity.

 

To create a good society, we should first define and accept all kinds of values that are or should be, important to society. We then need to find out how much of these values each person possesses. The sum of all values that a person creates throughout his life, presented by a numerical value, may be called human productive power. Taking into account that most people would probably not like to have their productive power compared to that of other people, such a value may be kept secret, known only to the owners of the values themselves.

 

The value of human productive power will incorporate, firstly, capitalist values, such as real estate, money, shares, and all assets that capitalism recognizes as valuable. Besides the capital-based value that represents an element of human productive power, we need to acknowledge and include all other values that society accepts or should accept. Such values are the people themselves, their education, work experience, contributions that they have given, and awards that they have received for creating values to society, etc. The pooling of different forms of value will require a comprehensive study and – indeed – difficult negotiations in society. However, after some time, new democratically regulated standards of all values could be established. Such regulation will be automatically applied whenever necessary. I’ll explain it better in the next paragraphs.

 

The human productive power will undoubtedly be strongly affected by the economic productivity of workers. In publicly owned companies, workers will share profits proportionally to the numerically determined responsibility they propose for their work. Higher responsibility will naturally realize a larger share in profit, in case that the company’s profit increases. Such profit will now be expressed in a value that reflects the workers’ human productive power. And vice versa, in case of production losses, workers who propose higher responsibility for their work will realize more significant declines in value representing their productive power.

 

If the society would like to stimulate education, it might raise awards for higher education in the value that represents human productive power. If, for example, a region has too low a birth rate, people may decide to award parents with more children with this kind of value. And vice versa, if a region has too high a birth rate people may choose to punish parents who have more children by a specific value representing human productive power.

 

The value of personal productive power will be especially affected by disobedience to the law. If a person acts against the law, he will lose a legally defined value off his productive power. Each crime may be easily judged by existing laws and recalculated into a value representing human productive power. If a person commits a severe crime, he might lose all the value of his productive power and even get a negative value. The proposed system can make an assignment of such a negative productive value much more painful than a prison can be so that prisons will not be needed anymore. Each person will avoid committing any crime carefully. If it still happens that a person gets such a negative productive power, he will try hard to escape it, and that will only be possible by hard productive work and by outstanding behaviour over a long period.

 

Society may regulate whatever it needs through evaluation of human productive power. However, all values cannot be regulated, because people have varying individual needs. Therefore, the value representing personal productive power should also depend on unregulated values, based on people’s opinions about the free actions of others. This is an entirely new idea and, in my opinion, the most important invention of the future. I call it democratic anarchy.

 

Democratic anarchy is a new form of social relations, wherein every person exercises equal legislative, judicial and executive power in the society. It is possible to accomplish it in a manner that gives each person the right to evaluate the activity of any other person. Each positive assessment should automatically bring a small increase of the total value of productive power to the assessed person. On the other hand, any negative evaluation will result in punishment in the same form. Let us say that awards and penalties of such assessment would have an equivalent value of one dollar. If the society were afraid of such power of individuals, the power of the evaluation could be reduced. Even the assessment with the power equivalent to just one cent would be enough for the improvement of society.

 

Democratic anarchy will direct each member of society to create the most significant possible advantages for the community and to 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. Given that all individuals will have the equal right of evaluation, and that they will give their assessments independently of any written rules, such democracy will assume the form of anarchy. In this straightforward way, the people will for the first time in the history of humankind realize a great direct power in society, which will result in highly harmonious and constructive social relations.

 

It is understandably desirable that the value of human productive power becomes very important to society and therefore its acceptance should be additionally stimulated. That will be accomplished, firstly, by giving each person the voting power in society proportionate to the value of his productive power. I am talking about a significant change in the democratic system. Today, people have only the right to choose their parliamentary representatives. They have neither opportunity nor right to participate in making other decisions that regard their interests in society.

 

Here we need a compromise equally acceptable to all. Let each person have a right to participate in making any democratic decision in society, but let him earn this right by his productive contribution to the increase of values in society. This system proposes unequal voting power, accepted by a consensus of political parties. In reality, it will contribute to the development of democracy because the people will, for the first time, get a chance to directly participate in decision-making about all questions regarding their interests.

 

Secondly, each person should get an income for work in publicly owned companies, proportionate to the total value of his productive power. This measure follows the existing state of affairs to a large extent, but it will also introduce new rules, more justice and order in the system of the income distribution. Thirdly, personal productive power must be inherited through generations in order to be accepted. Through the implementation of such measures, every member of society will recognize the value of human productive power as a great value – this will contribute significantly to the development of society.

 

he new economic system adopts the existing model of the market economy. Private enterprises will continue to function in the same way as they do today. The new system will change publicly owned companies significantly. First, the changes will affect the division of labour. There is no fairer or better division of labour than an open market competition of workers for every work position. The worker who envisages and offers the highest productivity for any public work post at any time will get the job. This measure is necessary, in the first place, because it will definitely abolish work privileges that are the basis of inconvenient orientation and problems in society. If you think that this might lead to a rat race for work positions and you are already afraid for your job, you need not to be. The new system will create a new regulation of the division of labour that will prevent such undesirable effects.


The new system will make full employment a reality. If the creation of new work positions is not needed, full employment will be achieved by reducing work hours in public companies proportionately to the unemployment rate. Also, under the new system, each job will be equally desirable. This will be achieved by giving the job with defined productivity to the worker who demands the lowest price for current labour and, consequently, a lower income. Better jobs will realize lower salaries and worse jobs will be better compensated through higher incomes. This way, the labour market will set an objective measure of direct work value and will balance the interest in all job posts. Since the workers themselves will be setting the price of their current labour, by the same token, they will be the most satisfied with their earnings.


The new economy will necessarily require an efficient system of determining the workers’ responsibility for the realization of productivity that they have offered. The system would establish a new way of bearing the workers’ responsibility through the value of their productive power. A failure to realize offered productivity or a fall in productivity would reduce the total value of workers’ productive power proportionately to their responsibility in the productive process. And vice versa, the rise in productivity will increase the total value of workers’ productive power proportionately to their responsibility in the process of production.


No economy can be more productive than the one where the best available worker gets each job. Such an economy will easily become significantly more productive than the capitalist one so that the latter will be forced to recede. Also, the workers will no longer be interested in working for private enterprises, where they do not have enough freedom to choose jobs, to decide on their income, nor do they have an opportunity to share in the profits. Soon after this system is implemented, private enterprises will be forced to withdraw and join the new system.


The owners of means of productions who voluntarily surrender their private property to society will realize an increase in the total value of their productive power proportionate to the value of the surrendered property. The value of personal power will become a humanistic form of shares because each worker will receive for work in a public company an income proportionate to the value of his productive power. This fact may additionally encourage inhabitants of a region to voluntarily pool their private companies into what I call a “humanistic” corporation.


The humanistic corporation will develop its production by customers’ orders, and will thus achieve the most stable production. Work competition will ensure the best production performance, and will, therefore, realize the greatest consumer convenience to society. Last but not least, the system will be based on such a high degree of workers’ and managers’ responsibility that they will have to cooperate at all levels of production processes and to establish a high level of consensus before making decisions. This kind of market competition will inevitably end up in cooperation at all levels of production processes, and will thus contribute to the productive development of society.


Democracy will improve dramatically as well. The future of democracy will no longer be based on elected leaders. Development of computer technology allows people to participate directly, through a referendum, in making all key decisions of joint interest. To prevent an overruling of the minority in a society, all the referenda questions must be created by the consensus of political parties. Each decision may have a scale of values prepared by the agreement of political parties; each voter may then choose a value that suits him the best. The mean of all the values expressed by members of the population, as a function of their voting power, would point to the acceptability of each and every decision in the society.


The people will directly create policies of their society, firstly, the economic policy. In the system of pooled ownership over means of production, money will also be pooled. Joint ownership of money will make the introduction of direct democracy into the economy possible. Each voter will directly participate in the distribution of the collectively owned wealth realized through the revenue of a collective. The money will be distributed for purposes of development of the economy (the total quantity of money for investments in the economy), for individual consumption (the total amount of money for workers’ earnings), and for collective consumption (the total amount of money intended for collective consumption of the whole population).

Given that the new system proposes unequal voting power, each voter will actually distribute the total value of his productive power among different voting groups. The sum total of all the voters’ statements, given in all voting groups, will form the total amount of money intended for these expenses groups. In such a simple way the people will actually directly create the macroeconomic policy of society. The present-day system of income distribution, establishment of fiscal and developmental policies of society, will thus be upgraded democratically.


The new system has to ensure economic independence of each individual as the main precondition for the establishment of a free society. Besides, the system of work competition requires a higher level of social insurance than we have today, and for that reason, every inhabitant will receive some income. The individual income level will depend primarily on the total value of personal productive power, then on the price of current labour, as well as on the accomplishment of proposed productivity. Within the distribution of money intended for individual consumption, the people will also directly establish the ranges of workers’ earnings, by setting the level of minimal earning directly. If workers’ interest in performing their work is insufficient, the society may directly reduce the minimal income, which would stimulate workers to work more. And vice versa, if productivity is higher than necessary, society will then increase the minimum salary and thus reduce the income-based stimulation for work.


Assets intended for economic development will have to be further allocated to those sectors of a “humanistic” corporation that predicts higher shorter-term profits in the free market. In that way, society, as a whole, will achieve the most significant consumer and economic benefits. People may also directly decide on the distribution of money for collective-consumption needs, up to the level of their interest. In the future, the instability of the market economy will be replaced by a stable, planned production based on customers’ orders. Under such circumstances, the market policy will be less anarchic and more democratic, which will open up a possibility of development of a democratically planned economy.


The political and economic model described here will improve the efficiency and stability of production, introduce more justice into the process of production and distribution, and provide significantly higher advantages to all members of society. In general, this system will rid the people of authoritative pressure and give them the freedom to follow their own interests, while at the same time forcing people to mutual respect. Such experience 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 characteristics of present-day society. Furthermore, the system will teach people to set their needs following 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.


Finally, I would like to emphasize that the proposed system not only provides the best solution for the future of mankind but also the only good one. Like a crown, the system predicts that the work will become a direct value itself, whereas commodities will lose their alienated value. Therefore, the development of such a system may realize the nowadays-impossible goal: “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” In any case, the system will make Paradise on Earth.


My book, “Humanism” elaborates everything I have said here more precisely, and much more. It is available online free of charge here. The changes I have described will affect almost every science. An individual can make no more significant improvement here. That is a job for teams of scientists. I will appreciate anyone willing to cooperate with me on this project, anyone, giving me comments on the book, or even everyone who would just read it.


Thank you very much.