Has Antichrist Come

Has Antichrist Come?

Yes, he probably has. If you analyze the current systematic conquering of the independent countries of the world, you can easily find that behind all of these aggressions a pattern of strong, unique power emerges that includes economy, military, media, and politicians. I will try to present that this power belongs to the family Rothschild. I think Antichrist is the head of Rothschild family and his name nowadays is Jacob. He rules the world totally invisibly by the secretly possessed economic power his family has built through centuries.

 

How the family stays invisible while becoming richer and more influential in the world, is easily visible in the recent Russian affair “Mikhail Khodorkovsky.” Khodorkovsky is a 40-year-old Russian businessman who started with the low Russian Government salary, and in ten years he earned billions of dollars in owning the oil company “Yukos.” But it should be said that all his skills emerged from the senior post that he held in the Communist Party’s Youth of Russia. That fact opened him the door to senior government officials including the President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin who enabled him to manage privileged businesses. Because of the wish to achieve the greatest profits, the legality of the Khodorkovsky’s business was very questionable. Then President Putin got in power in the Russian Federation. As a result, Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested on October 25, 2003, for charges on fraud and tax evasion. Then the control over Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s shares of “Yukos” was passed to the banker Lord Jacob Rothschild. The source is the article from “The Washington Times,” November 2, 2003: “Arrested oil tycoon passed shares to banker.” The reprint of the article is available on the web page Action Report Online. This article is significant because it indicates that Jacob Rothschild was most likely a real majority owner of the company “Yukos.” Khodorkovsky simply did not have the money nor the knowledge to step alone in such a big business and make the wealth he was ascribed. Jacob Rothschild had estimated that Khodorkovsky was close enough to the Russian president Jeltsin to enable him a good profit from Russia and that is the reason he hired him as his agent. But in this particular case, greed has forced Jacob Rothschild to make a mistake because he showed a high possibility that he hid his wealth behind Khodorkovsky.

 

Other Russian tycoons such as Boris Berezovsky, Roman Abramovich, and Vladimir Gusinsky also made a fortune practically in no time just like Khodorkovsky did. The legality of their business is under investigation in the same way as the legality of Khodorkovsky’s business. That says they are most likely connected to Jacob Rothschild as well. After being accused of the business crime in Russia, Boris Berezovsky was granted political asylum in Great Britain, the state where Lord Jacob Rothschild has a significant influence.

 

There is another very influential person without whose connections the transfer of the Russian wealth to Jacob Rothschild would not be possible. His name is George Soros. He was born in Hungary to a poor family. After the Second World War, he immigrated to the West where he, not that long ago, miraculously and quickly became wealthy by trading stocks. Most likely, that happened through the influence of the Rothschild family the same way as the new Russian tycoons became rich. These Rothschild’s financial operations would not be possible without the corruption of the Russian government. That was most likely performed by links that his man, George Soros established in Russia through his Institute called “Open Society.” Please read the article The Secret Financial Network Behind “Wizard” George Soros by William Endahl or George Soros: An Evil Rothschild Agent by Brother Nathanael Kapner that presents his relationship with the Rothschilds well.

 

According to this introduction, you may get the impression that the family Rothschild had interest only in Russia, but of course, that would be false, it operates very effectively throughout the whole world. Could we suppose that this Rothschild’s pattern for hiding their wealth behind other families was being implemented earlier in the past? Of course, we could. Not only is the Rothschild family the wealthiest banking family today but it was also the first excellently organized family that spread its business all over the world hundreds of years ago. In that time they had almost a monopoly in lending money to the European Kings. There is no safer and more profitable business than lending money to countries. Therefore, they could have easily later sponsored the rise of the families Rockefeller, Morgan, Goldberg, and others the same way as they sponsored Khodorkovsky and Soros. But it is also possible that these wealthy families may be relatives and partners of the Rothschild family. However, it’s quite apparent that they do not compete with each other on the “free market.” Have you ever heard them argue with each other? Certainly not. Why not since capitalism is all about free competition and they are the carriers of the world capitalism? Simply, the answer is they are one body with one head. They are actually not capitalists; they are feudalists or even slaveholders. Please find more about the Rothschilds in the article: Rothschild Family at Wikipedia and in the article: The Rothschild Dinasty by Des Griffin.

 

The Rothschild family possesses a hierarchically organized structure of agents who buy everything valuable in the world. The Rothschild family may, for instance, own “Coca Cola” and “Pepsi Cola” and from the top of Olympus watching these companies fighting on the market. The Rothschild family, together with their partners might own half of the world but thanks to the capitalist system and its secret business regulation policy that is established practically everywhere, nobody except them themselves is able to know it. By controlling the main businesses and media they actually control the governments in the western countries, and that means they control the whole western world. If you follow the world policy, you can easily see that democratically elected leaders of the countries change, but the policy follows the interests of the rich and therefore stays more or less the same. A high level of united criminal policies around the world points out the fact that there is an invisible organization that rules the world. The facts I have collected about the Rothschild family, tell me that they are the leading family of that organization. I am talking here about a conspiracy that captures almost the whole World. Only the “evil axes” of the world such as China, North Korea, and Cuba are resistant to the influences of the Rothschild family because they are closed to the world.

 

The roots of this conspiracy might have been described in the book “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” The protocols are allegedly the minutes of one meeting of Elders of Zion that happened hundred years ago. You may find them here: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The book gives low-level directions how a powerful Jewish secret organization may conquer the world. Most people think that the Protocols are a forgery made against the Jewish people and that is most likely the result of propaganda. I cannot see that the Protocols talk about the Jewish people, they present particular interests of a very narrow circle of people. And these people are very successful.

 

There are many similarities between what the Protocols say and the situation we have today in the World. For example, all state governments of developed countries proclaim the same policy: formal democracy where the real power is possessed by the rich, market economy where money has the most significant freedom and control over everything, and NATO power that secures such ideology. Those who do not agree with such ideology are under an orchestrated attack of media, politicians, conspiracies, and military power all over the world. Any different idea from the mainstream such is for example mine does not have access to media, policy, science and consequently does not have access to the people. That is exactly what is defined in “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.” One does not need to be very bright to understand who has interest in it and who has the power to realize it. However, I doubt the Protocols are a complete program for the conspiracy against the world because it looks more like a propaganda pamphlet aimed at a narrow circle of people than like a program. Today, Jacob Rothschild has a much more developed manifest for his program, but there is no way we can take a look at it.

 

***

Family Rothschild tries hard to present itself as a regular, modest banking family. But, nothing is ordinary with the Rothschild family. They possess the most valuable assets in the western world and have such a financial power that might buy all promising ones. However, they hide their possessions, wealth, and power. Actually, they remind me of the mafia which pretends to earn money for living by owning a convenience store. Do you think that I exaggerate? They can quickly produce unemployment and bankruptcy to ordinary people and take all their assets. The most famous case was the creation of the economic crisis in the USA in 1929. It is presented in detail in the article How the City of London Created the Great Depression by Webster G. Tarpley. They did it to make workers very afraid for their existence, to make workers dependent of their power, to take freedom from workers and middle class, to make them silent when they work hard for low salaries, to discipline them without complaints. People who do not have a choice may be called slaves. They want total control over people and work hard to get it all the time. Fortunately, they cannot repeat such depression anymore because now it would move the world leading power to the countries which are not under their influences. Their worst nightmare is communist China on top of the world.

 

Do you know that the US Federal Reserve Bank is economically and in any other way the most powerful place in the world? Thomas D. Schauf described in his article: The Federal Reserve Is Privately Owned how the Rothschild family, together with their partners, took control over the US Federal Reserve, over the US and over the “free” world. You can find the same information in Zeitgeist – The Movie: Federal Reserves by Peter Joseph. The Federal Reserve Bank is responsible for the emission of money. The bank normally loans money to the state when the state needs it. The problem is it prints money from thin air and then takes it back from the American taxpayers with interest. How much the American taxpayers owe to the bank right now, you can find here. The annual interest of the debt which is by the way mostly privately owned is approximately eight times bigger than the wealth of “today’s richest man on the planet.” Source: Treasury Direct – the official web site of the US government. Is something questionable here? If you try to find who is the owner of debt at the official web site, you will not find their first and last names but the list of companies, banks, funds, and organizations. They are mostly owned by a small group of associated people. If the number of principal owners was large, and if they were mutually independent, then they would argue and fight each other over the higher profit, and we would see it. These people are far richer than the publicly proclaimed “richest person in the world.

 

Everything is cheating. If you, dear reader, try to print money and buy something with it, you would undoubtedly finish in jail. The Rothschild family does precisely that, but their operations are legal, thanks to the accepted policy of the bank system, and to the corruption of the state system. In 1963, President John Kennedy ended the Federal Reserve System by the Executive Order 11110 and ordered the U.S. government to restore its Constitutional-mandate of controlling the money. President Kennedy was killed 5 months later. Before his death, President Kennedy openly stated that of a vast capital conspiracy existed against humanity: President John F Kennedy: Secret Society Speech. The result of the murder investigation was very doubtful according to Michael Parenti: The JFK Assassination: Defending the Gangster State.

 

Whoever had any doubt about the intentions of the policy of the west after the aggression on Yugoslavia in 1999 should not have it anymore. There, all the masks were taken down. This was a pure imperial, and fascist aggression waged against all laws concerning it and against UN charters. That was the crime. Formally, the president of US Bill Clinton started the war. He had normally resisted committing the crime but do you remember how long he was threatened with the impeachment inquiry because he lied in the Monica Lewinsky case? I think that was blackmail. The case was forgotten entirely right after the aggression started.

 

I have personally witnessed a very treacherous world policy created in order of weakening Yugoslavia and forcing it to give up from its sovereignty. After the free elections in 1990, the people of the Republic of Serbia kept the socialist party in charge while people from other Yugoslav republics chose pro-Western governments. This is the reason Serbia defended its sovereignty vigorously while other Yugoslav republics accepted the Western model of capitalism mostly unconditionally. In purpose to weaken the Serbian resistance, the West strongly supported pro-Western orientated Yugoslav republics. That started the war and the national leaders, wishing to have an essential role in the histories of their nations, made the war pretty nasty. The war finished when Serbia gave up from its sovereignty. But what really lies behind that? Yugoslavia had the best economy in Eastern Europe, and the war destroyed the very idea that the socialist economy might be right. Last but not least, the war made the economy cheap to purchase.

 

The aggression on Yugoslavia was heavily supported and encouraged by the mainstream media and influential people including leaders all over the world. Biased propaganda and all kinds of lies were synchronically distributed worldwide on purpose to justify the aggression on Yugoslavia which lasted, in fact, for more than ten years. You, dear reader, might be deceived by the large propaganda machinery you were exposed to, but your leaders do not collect information there. They had the embassies and intelligent officers in Yugoslavia, and they had to know what everything was about, but apparently, they didn’t have the power, bravery, interest, or desire to tell the truth. The participation in the crime was seemingly more convinient to a large number of them. Yes, many of them, unlawfully, participated in bombing Yugoslavia, many of them killed people there.

 

The aggression on Yugoslavia had to be happening under the control of a very powerful but also totally invisible world organization, and that had to belong to the Rothschild family. Many signs pointed out that George Soros, a man of the Rothschild family, had a lot of interests in Yugoslavia. Source, the article Portrait of George Soros by Neil Clark presents it well. What kind of interest does the Rothschild family might have exactly had in the aggression on Yugoslavia I can only speculate. But we can find it out by calling those who directly waged war to be responsible for the crime they committed before any court, and then the Rothschild family would be indeed called upon for its responsibility as well. You may find more about the war in Yugoslavia in my article: My debt to Yugoslavia. The Rothschild family and their partners have more or less finished the colonization of Eastern Europe. They bought everything valuable there or will soon, and they took control over all of the governments. The Russian government is the only one that might resist the Rothschild family.

 

The aggression on Iraq in 2003 was also waged against all existing international laws. That is a crime as well. When an ordinary thief commits a crime he finishes in jail when the president of the US commits an incomparably worse crime, he is re-elected. So how may that be possible? Simply, the media under the control of the Rothschild family, sophisticatedly convinces the people, not only this is a normal thing but also that this is the best possible solution. Can you imagine a criminal gets to a restaurant, orders a meal, and at the end asks a waiter to pay the criminal to eat? Worse than that happens to you, but you cannot see it. You produce bombs for the rich, then you pay these bombs with your tax payments, and finally the rich use these bombs to enslave other nations and to steal their wealth. Do you understand what cheating is about? You even give your lives in to help the rich taking the wealth of other nations. All presidents of countries or governments who joined the president Bush in the aggression on Iraq are criminals as well. So how come that might be possible? Simply, we live in a total conspiracy where ignorance, lies, immorality, fear, and corruption raise and then rule everywhere.

 

I am convinced that an independent investigation would conclude that the Rothschild family stood behind the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many others as well. Simply, it has such a significant influence everywhere, so that the wars would not be possible without the support from the Rothschild family. The problem is the Rothschild family is above the law so that no one can perform such an investigation. Actually, the law that might prosecute them at the world level does not even exist. The Rothschild family is addicted to getting valuable natural resources and control worldwide, has means to achieve that goal at any price, and can hardly be stopped. They have committed aggression on “evil axes” through all kinds of pressures all the time. If that would not bring a satisfactory result soon enough to them, they will arrange wars there or commit real aggression. However the most likely, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, China, and after that the whole world would be in great danger. Allegedly the Rothschild family had financed most of the wars in the last two centuries, and that tells us they had interest in them. In our current situation, there is no reason to believe that something might change in the future. In our current position, the future is bleak.

 

Let’s suppose the Rothschild family with their companions would take control over all of the countries around the world. Then, dear readers, you would be next. Even if you possess a small convenience store, they will open a bigger one next door to yours with half-price merchandise. With their financial power, they would easily be able to bear the losses until you are forced to close your business. Their last step would be the whole control over all of the people around the world, and that means your complete slavery. Their needs are alienated and therefore cannot be saturated. Consequently, they are not able to do anything but Hell on Earth.

 

But of course, the Rothschild family with their companions will undoubtedly face resistance by China and Russia, numerous world organizations, revolutionaries, freedom fighters, terrorists, and by progressive powers. Today, many brave people who fight back, already exist, but they are not well known because they do not have access to the mainstream media owned by the rulers of the world. Fortunately, the Internet was invented, and it gives you a chance to get different information. I recommend you read, for example, Michael Parenti, or Stephen Gowans 1 and 2. They wrote numerous articles you would not be able to find in mainstream world media. If you are interested to know what really happens in the world, you better read them.

 

***

The Rothschild family is, but its power depends on you people. That is the reason they make you follow them even though you do not know it. They create a policy of your society, and you do not know it. They have created your needs and possessed the environment that satisfies these needs and you do not know it. You work for them, and you do not know it. You buy their products, and you do not know it. They lend you money, and you do not know it. They take your taxes for their interests, and you do not know it. They provide for you every day, directly or indirectly, with the information they want from preschools, through universities, up to the evening news. That means you think the way they want; that means you are what they want you to be and not what you are supposed to be by your nature. They have established and support competition everywhere as the primary tool for your survival. That makes you live in a destructive, immoral environment. That makes you hate each other. That makes your life miserable. Their capital is free in today’s world, and you are not, you depend too much on them. You live in Hell even though you might not know it because they worked hard to make you not also be able to imagine a better life might exist. You are always afraid for your future but should be much more fearful because of their intentions. However, they have made you quiet even by having a chance to have a job. The corruption is higher when the position in society is higher. It makes you passive when you should organize and resist authorities. But there is also a problem; you do not know what you should do, or how to do it.

 

The situation does not need to be as bad as it is today at all. That is the main reason I have created and proposed a new system. It will serve you people and not only the elite. The new system will allow you, people, to cooperate with other people and decide on your future. The system would allow you to create a policy of your society. You will be able to form your needs freely and to satisfy them. You will be able to get any job you want. The new system will give you freedom and will put a capital under your control. The system will relieve you from fears about your future. It will provide you with a healthy happy life. It will make you love each other. And according to the Bible, “lions and antelopes will eat together” meaning in the system I have proposed, all the people will live in perfect harmony. Simply, it will make Paradise on Earth. That is not even very difficult to accomplish. For the beginning, you people only need to believe in the better future and not in the existing system the rich people have created for themselves. I just need to attract you to read my book and think. That should release you from the fear that you may lose some well-being in the new system or from the opinion that nothing can be changed.

 

Sadly, I cannot get enough support even from intellectuals, scientists, and professors who are supposed to give the most significant contribution to the development of new progressive ideas. When I immigrated to Canada, I tried to take a master degree in sociology at York University, Toronto. The mentor of the sociology department told me that I had satisfied the requirements for the studies but my book “The Humanism” was not acceptable as my master dissertation work. So far the professors in Canada and in the US were actually not willing to even give me a review of my book. Why? Mostly, they do not have time for me. If they find the time, they have difficulties to understand what my ideas are about. If they understand my ideas, they are not willing to accept them because they turn upside-down almost everything social sciences have established so far. Besides that, some auto-censure is involved as well. Many professors, and especially the younger ones who might accept new ideas more easily, are undoubtedly concerned about their reappointments at colleges and universities. The development of new ideas has been suppressed everywhere, and that is the main reason the policy of society does not change, even though huge needs exist.

 

Anyway, I do not need to do anything more than I already did to change the world. My book has defined the idea of the new system enough to start changes that would one day make Paradise on Earth. However, the more persistent I am, the sooner the bright future of humankind would be established. When you people find out what the book is about you will undoubtedly accept my idea and refuse to serve the rich. Please read the book and find out why. Without your support, the rich people, including the Rothschild family, will be impotent. Believe it or not, the new system will enable you to organize yourself well, and then you would be able to live without them, but they would not be able to live without you.

 

The new system I have proposed will stop the Rothschild family. My book and this article will disturb them, and that may put me in danger. If I were Jesus Christ, I would rely on God and on his protection. But even though there is a chance I may be Jesus, it still does not mean that I am Him. Dear people, if something unexpectedly wrong happens to me, to my family, or to my collaborators on this project, I want you to know that I blame the Rothschild family and their partners for it. I also count on that the Rothschild family cannot stop the realization of the system I have proposed. They cannot destroy the book already released to the world. The recognition is just a question of time. That means one day my name will be well known around the world. If a tragedy happens to me, to my family, or to my collaborators, I count on you people to prosecute and judge the Rothschild family. If it happens that I am Jesus Christ, I rely on God but also on Christians to never forgive the Rothschild family for any evil that they may possibly do to us. There is a saying in the country I grew up: “God protects those who take care of themselves.”

 

The Rothschilds are Jews. I need to emphasize that I do not have any intention to blame Jews as a people for anything. They have a culture that is not very admired around the world today, but once the system I’ve proposed starts to work, they will become a distinguished people of the world. Speaking of the Rothschild family, the best choice for them lies in joining the system I have proposed. If they refuse, they will lose everything. Namely, their wealth does not have value without the support of your people. The new system will teach you how to find the values of God defined in the Bible, and then you will stop supporting the antichrist. If the Rothschild family accepts the new system, they would openly become one of the most distinguished families in the world. They may even rule the whole world because the system I have proposed would need someone to do so. But this time the leaders will really become directly responsible to the people of the world. Therefore, in that case, the Rothschild family would start contributing to creating Paradise on Earth.

Here is one of rarely published photography of Lord Jacob Rothschild (right). The picture was taken in his home in England. He is accompanied with the just elected Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger and “the second richest man in the USA” Warren Buffet.

 

Good Communism

Scenario “Good Communism” (Heaven) – This scenario presents humane communism through a funny story. The scenario was completed in September 2006.

 

This film begins in a plane that has had an accident and lands in another world. There is a highly developed society in this world, quite different from the one the passengers in the plane have arrived from. In this world injustice, exploitation, corruption, unemployment, crime, evil, violence, destruction, aggression and war do not exist. The passengers learn throughout the film how such a society is created and how to fit into the new world. They succeed in fitting in because the new world is superior and more natural than the one from which they came.

 

The new society has established a communist system. Everyone works as much as they want and takes as many goods and services as they need. I know, you dear readers, immediately think that this is not possible. You think this because you have been imposed with wrong values from wrong authorities since the day you were born. From the standpoint of these values this screenplay presents an impossible system. I believe you will change your minds after living in socialism for some time.

 

First I must say that no coercion could exist in communism. The people themselves will one day establish communism by voluntarily giving all their earnings for taxes. Then, all goods and services will be funded by the common consumption, and will be freely available to all people. If only one individual in society wants to keep his income then all people will continue to receive incomes, but they will be very small (such as $0.01) because one individual has little impact to the whole society. Of course, for the establishment of communism the people need to realize where true values lie. In the first place, everyone should love their work that much so that they would work without compensation. I do not know when such a society will be established, but I’m sure it will come. Then the brightest possible future for humankind will begin.

 

I hope this has intrigued you enough to read the screenplay.

 

Read the screenplay “Good Communism” (Heaven) in PDF format

Read the screenplay “Good Communism” (Heaven) in RTF format

 

Read the screenplay on line:

Good Communism Part I

Good Communism Part II

Good Communism Part III

Good Communism Part IIII

My Debt to Yugoslavia

My Debt to Yugoslavia

I wrote this long article about the war in Yugoslavia because the truth about it has still not been revealed. Left is the map of Yugoslavia between 1945 and 1991. It had six republics and two autonomous provinces.

 

If a man lives well in his homeland, he normally loves it. So I loved Yugoslavia. Evil people attacked it. It hurt me a lot. I used arguments to defend Yugoslavia to the extent of my abilities. Unfortunately, my words did not reach many people, and therefore, I couldn’t help. I have been a witness to the great injustice that the Western world imposed on Yugoslavia. I immediately realized that it could not have been a coincidence. Still, I did not know who was behind it, so I began my research with the causes and responsibilities for the war in Yugoslavia. Here I briefly summarize the most important observations, which are mostly unknown to the public.

 

In 1990, aggression was committed against Yugoslavia. It lasted for ten years. In this essay, I will try to present the fact that the Rothschild family committed aggression. I wrote more about the Rothschild family in the article Has the Antichrist Come? The Rothschild family has built such enormous economic power in the last two hundred years that it can control the governments of Western countries. They are trying to put the whole world under their control. And so the time came for Yugoslavia. The result of my investigation is presented in the order in which the understanding dawned on me. I wrote it with the idea of making tomorrow better.

 

***

 

People in Yugoslavia used to live quite well before 1990. The living standard was relatively high, and relations between people from the six republics with their six nations and three religions were usually harmonious. These people mainly belong to the Slavonic group and mostly spoke Serbo-Croatian. There was a gap between the rich and the poor, but it was insignificant. Education was free. Health care was covered. One felt safe wherever he went, not only because of the great police but also because people in the surroundings were generally peaceful.

 

Yugoslavia had a sound system, but it was still far from ideal. Yugoslavia was a socialist country with social ownership of the means of production, giving people economic security. But, that security somewhat obscured freedom. Life in Yugoslavia was ideological and bureaucratic. The socialistic system protected workers by privileging all workplaces. This caused irresponsibility in the production process from the level of workers to the level of management, which systematically damaged companies. That irresponsibility of the people was one of the reasons that led to the fall of Yugoslavia. The slower economy lowered workers’ purchasing ability compared to more developed capitalistic countries where job responsibilities were better defined. Even though the income was still higher than that of workers in less developed capitalist countries worldwide, it all led to people’s dissatisfaction. At the federal level, all decisions were made by consensus of the representatives of republics, which was not easy to reach. The whole country would suffer inconveniences if the decision could not be made.

 

This situation followed political pressures from the West supported by economic blackmail that destabilized Yugoslavia. Here, I quote an excerpt from the book “A Century of War: Anglo-American oil politics and the New World Order” by William F. Engdahl, which refers to the situation in Yugoslavia in these times:

 

Under the IMF policies, the Yugoslavian GDP sank in 1990 by 7.5 percent and by another 15 percent in 1991. Industrial production plunged 21 percent. The IMF demanded wholesale privatization of state enterprises. The result was the bankruptcy of more than 1,100 companies by 1990 and more than 20 percent unemployment. The economic pressure on the various regions of the country created an explosive cocktail. Predictably, amid growing economic chaos, each region fought for its own survival against its neighbours. Leaving nothing to chance, the IMF ordered all wages to be frozen at 1989 levels, while inflation rose dramatically, leading to a fall in real earnings of 41 percent by the first six months of 1990. By 1991, inflation was over 140 percent. In this situation, the IMF ordered full convertibility of the dinar and the freeing of interest rates. The IMF explicitly prevented the Yugoslav government from obtaining credit from its own central bank, crippling the ability of the central government to finance social and other programs. This freeze created a de facto economic secession, well before the formal declaration of secession by Croatia and Slovenia in June 1991.

 

The last prime minister of Yugoslavia, Ante Marković, tried to repair the situation in 1990 by accepting the West’s demands and introducing capitalism. He said that such changes required naturally free parliamentary elections, and he worked to implement them.

 

The dissatisfaction of the people and the liberal movement created under the pressure of the West became ideal for great manipulators, nationalists and criminals who, to win the support of their people, transferred the sources of the problem to Yugoslavia. At that time, I still did not know that the “new world order” gave financial and political support to the worst people in all the republics to initiate fights among the peoples and thus weaken Yugoslavia. With the help of corrupt leaders, the “new world order” intended to achieve Yugoslavia’s political and economic colonization. It was nothing but crime.

 

The economic irresponsibility of the people of Yugoslavia found its resonance in political irresponsibility when, through the manipulation of the “new world order,” all republics except Serbia and Montenegro smoothly elected people with bad intentions toward Yugoslavia. The newly elected leaders demanded control over the republic’s resources and accused Yugoslavia of the inconveniences of living together. They immediately sabotaged the program of Federal Prime Minister Ante Marković, which would undoubtedly introduce Yugoslavia into the EU. Thus, the conflict between the republics arose, leading to the Yugoslavia war.

 

Soon, the new leaders in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia announced referendums on secession from Yugoslavia. Their results showed that most people from these republics wanted to secede from Yugoslavia. The Serbs did not wish to secede because they lived in significant numbers in almost all the republics of Yugoslavia. The republics were created under the control of President Tito, who divided the Serbs among the Republics much more than the other nations because they were the most numbered people. This way, the policy of world imperialists, called the “New World Order,” has formed great irresponsibility of the people for their futures and successfully prepared the ground for their conquests.

 

The leaders of the separatist republics declared their independence from Yugoslavia. They called upon the constitutional rights of their republics, which stated that nations were entitled to their self-determination for secession from Yugoslavia. The problem is that nothing inside the constitution law determined how to achieve withdrawal. The secessionists worried about the Yugoslav Constitution Law, which demanded that a consensus of the representatives of all nations must adopt all decisions related to the country’s fate. According to the Constitution of the SFRY, the secession of republics was possible only after establishing an agreement between the representatives of the republics. Taking into account that this obligation did not suit secessionists well, they got the idea that Yugoslavia no longer needed to exist because four of the six republics wanted secession. I think that in those times, the majority of the inhabitants of Yugoslavia would have supported the survival of Yugoslavia. Still, the people of Yugoslavia were never asked about their fate.

 

World imperialists, through full control over public information, misled the world about the reasons for the crisis in Yugoslavia, which was, of course, a form of support to secessionists and pressure on the authorities in Yugoslavia. Then, under the influence of world imperialists, all the countries around the world recognized the secession of the Yugoslav republics even though it was in contradiction with international law. The Helsinki Convention expressly forbids the violent change of borders in Europe.

 

Then, secessionists persistently worked on eliminating Yugoslavia. The United Nations supported this, and finally, Yugoslavia was removed from the UN. Yugoslavia had to ask for re-admission to the UN. The world powers exercised their power by imposing unjust precedents on Yugoslavia. In any case, the demand for the abolition of Yugoslavia was an aggression against Yugoslavia. It also denied the Serbs the democratic right to remain in the country they wanted.

 

People from secessionist republics naively received strong support from the “New World Order” with sincere gratitude. The World imperialists masterfully realized the old tested formula “divide and conquer.” The secessionist countries were immersed in bloody civil wars, which set them back decades. If we exclude the privileged members of society, all these nations already live worse than they had lived in Yugoslavia, and the imperialist world benefits from it.

 

I was against the dissolution of Yugoslavia, but I would not have felt threatened or been severely against it if it happened peacefully. The leaders of the republics who avoided a peaceful agreement and dissolution of the crisis in Yugoslavia were implicitly advocating the war. War brings out the worst kind of people who create the worst atrocities. These leaders had to know that, and that is why I consider them responsible for all the crimes that happened in Yugoslavia.

 

Slovenia

 

In the summer of 1991, the Slovenian government declared independence and cut all ties with Yugoslavia. It took off the frontier symbols of Yugoslavia and announced that Yugoslavia no longer resided there. Given that it had not established an agreement on the secession of Slovenia at the Yugoslav level, this act was an aggression against Yugoslavia. The Yugoslav Federal Army had the constitutional obligation to protect the territorial integrity of the country; therefore, a few days later, the YFA sent tanks to take the border crossing of Slovenia to Italy, Austria and Hungary. It was expected that the surprise and noise of powerful tank engines would do the job, so the army sent tanks without ammunition. However, the Slovenian territorial defence forces were not surprised at all and attacked the YFA with real ammunition.

 

Well-organized propaganda appeared throughout the world at that time that accused the communist army of attacking Slovenia. The YFA soldiers were members of all Yugoslav nations, and incidentally, almost all critical positions in Yugoslavia were held by Croats. The army commander, Veljko Kadijević, was half-Croat, half-Serb. This unnecessary war lasted ten days. A few dozen soldiers were killed in the war. The YFA had almost ten times more casualties than the Slovenian forces because it did not have explicit orders to fight in Slovenia. After establishing peace, the entire YFA withdrew from Slovenia.

 

The question is, why did Slovenia not request secession peacefully? No one would have opposed their request. I think that Milan Kučan, the President of Slovenia, gave some kind of answer to that. I listened to the news all day during that time. One morning, somewhere in the middle of the war, Kučan asked the YFA for a cease-fire. The next afternoon, he met in Austria with the Foreign Minister of Germany, Hans Dietrich Gensher. After that, he stated he did not want to cease fire anymore.

 

Croatia

 

Croatia’s situation was much more complicated because over 600,000 Serbs lived there, or about 12% of the pre-war population. Besides Croats, the Serbs in Croatia were the constitutive people of Croatia, according to the Constitution Law of the Republic of Croatia, and they did not want to secede from Yugoslavia.

 

For this reason, the newly elected Parliament of the Republic of Croatia decided by majority vote to take constituting rights from the Serbs in Croatia and proclaim them as a minority. This could be called a democratic robbery of Serbs in the state of Croatia or a democratic crime. After that, the Serbs declared the part of Croatia where they had lived for centuries as a majority as the Republic of Srpska Krajina. The status of the new republic was not defined, but there was an idea that if Croatia remained in Yugoslavia, Srpska Krajina would stay in Croatia, but if Croatia separated from Yugoslavia, Srpska Krajina would separate from Croatia and join Yugoslavia.

 

Serbs still have memories of the Ustashe regime in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) from World War II, which killed hundreds of thousands of Serbs. The new Croatian government tried to present Croatia to the world as a democratic country, but in practice, Croatia was a follower of the Independent State of Croatia, the racist genocide creation of Hitler in World War II. Croatian President Franjo Tuđman publicly said that the NDH was the eternal aspiration of the Croatian people. At the pre-election rally in 1990, Franjo Tuđman said that he was proud that his wife was neither Serb nor Jew. The new Croatian government introduced a new monetary bill called ‘Kuna’, which previously existed only in the NDH during the Second World War. In the Croatian cities of Zagreb, Split, Zadar, and Slavonski Brod, there is a street named after Mile Budak. He was a Croatian fascist ideologist in World War II who created a formula that stated a third of the Serbs in Croatia should be killed, one-third expelled, and the last third converted to the Catholic religion. It was not difficult for Serbs to recognize the new Croatian government, and they rebelled.

 

I lived in Croatia before the war started and witnessed the events there. The forces that lost World War II in Croatia were preparing revenge on Yugoslavia. Croats were preparing for the war quietly before openly speaking in the media. The new Government of Croatia did not even try to find any compromise with the Croatian Serbs. Still, it acquired weapons in Hungary and tried forcibly to recover the territorial integrity of the republic. After that, the Krajina Serbs received weapons from the territorial defence forces under the framework of the YFA and resisted the Croatian armed forces. The low-intensity struggles started, and the YFA preserved the lines of separation.

 

In Croatia, I worked as a fire protection inspector for the Interior Affairs of the City of Zagreb. One day, on the eve of the war, my colleague came back from a meeting with the senior police chief and transferred the message to our department in which there were about 20 inspectors – quote: “If any of you are members of the Serbian Democratic Party, you will be shot in the head.” All the policemen in Croatia probably heard this message. I have never been a party member, but this was too much for me. I resigned from the job and immediately left Croatia. While working as a police inspector in public companies, I often communicated with the company’s referents for national defence. I heard from them that the Croatian Government was preparing a massive mobilization for the war in which I did not want to participate in any way. I was right. Very soon after I departed from Croatia, I received a call for war mobilization. Many Serbs left Croatia because of this; many Croats did as well. Then, the Republic of Srpska Krajina prepared the war mobilization of people. Many Croats left Krajina because of it, and some Serbs as well.

 

Now, you might be thinking that my colleague’s statement about getting shot in the head was a stylistic figure. Far from it. Not a few months passed since my refuge when a man appeared on Serbian television who claimed that the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of Croatia, Milan Brezak, hired him to kill the President of Srpska Krajina, Milan Babić. As evidence, a recorded telephone conversation between them was presented. The opposition in Serbia quickly declared that the telephone conversation was a forgery done by President Slobodan Milošević. However, it was not a forgery. In fact, I recognized the voice of the telephone operator in the Republic Internal Affairs of Croatia.

 

The Croatian Government needed heavy weapons to return its lost territory of Srpska Krajina, and the guns were already there in Croatia, located in the YFA barracks. Therefore, it prepared an attack on the YFA barracks, accusing the YFA of the aggression and the loss of their territory. The attack occurred on 25.08.1991. At that time, Croatian television proudly reported that on the first day of the war, 90% of the YFA objects fell to Croatia. That was true, but they were mostly abandoned buildings or facilities with little or no YFA soldiers. The YFA barracks were too hard to capture because they had heavy weapons and responded forcefully, although the soldiers were mainly recruited eighteen-year-olds. After that, the YFA had no choice but to free its army by attacking the Croatian armed forces. It began in September of 1991 and ended with the destruction of Vukovar and the siege of Dubrovnik. Well-organized world propaganda accused the Serbs of the war in Croatia.

 

The YFA had always been preparing for aggression from outside, and it was incapable and unprepared for what followed. One YFA soldier dissatisfied with how the war in Vukovar was led took an armoured vehicle and went to Belgrade, where he smashed several parked cars to attract attention to his revolt. Nothing happened to him. A few months later, one American soldier in the United States did the same thing during peacetime conditions and got shot in the head without warning. That is the way most developed democratic countries solve such problems. That is how they “protect” human rights; thus, there are no rebellions.

 

The new Croatian government made master imputations. For example, on October 7, 1991, an explosion in the courtyard in the middle of the “Banski Dvori” palace in Zagreb demolished it. At this time, the Croatian President, Franjo Tuđman, Yugoslav President Stjepan Mesić, and the Yugoslav Prime Minister, Ante Marković (all Croats), were in the palace. Croatian authorities have accused the Yugoslav Federal Army of the attempted assassination of the democratically elected Croatian leaders. The YFA denied any involvement. 

 

The Croatian government dragged out the investigation into the explosion in “Banski dvori.” Still, it did not show the basic information about where the explosions took place and what damages each explosion caused, as if it had no interest in showing the case. So, an independent observer cannot conclude whether the explosion was planted by the Croatian government to accuse the JFA or whether it was caused by a bomb or a rocket fired from a JFA plane. But President Tuđman knew when and where the explosion would occur.

 

Nobody was hurt inside the heavily demolished palace “Banski Dvori” despite being full of people, although a random passerby was killed. How is it possible? On that day, many senior employees of the “Banski Dvori” did not come to work, which is very strange, mainly because the President and Prime Minister of Yugoslavia came from Belgrade as guests. Before the explosion, Franjo Tudjman and his guests stayed in the large reception room. The room had two doors. One was destroyed in the blast, and the other was intact, beside which they all were sitting. Behind this door were two large safes in the middle of the next room. The Croatian TV immediately broadcast it after the explosion. The security staff member said the blast had moved these safes, which sounded illogical since chairs were not moved around. I immediately noticed that the safes were placed there to prevent the explosion from hurting President Tudjman and his guests. However, a change of plan occurred, and they all left the room just before the explosion and went to the opposite part of the “Banski Dvori,” where they could not be harmed. This is presented in Croatia as a miracle, but I am convinced everything was planned.

 

Who might have profited from the explosion? The next day, Franjo Tudjman, under the pressure of this act, declared the independence of the Republic of Croatia. He also attracted many undecided Croats to his nationalist side and displayed the Yugoslav Federal Army as a gang of murderers. The Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, Ante Marković, returned to Belgrade to his alleged assassins the next day after the attack. It all says to me that the explosion in the Croat President’s Palace in Zagreb was most likely the work of the President of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman. If the JFA carried out an airplane attack on the Banske Dvore, President Tuđman must have organized it with the help of an agent provocateur in the JFA, or he was helped by foreign secret services that had their agents in the JFA.

 

On December 7, 1991, five members of the special police unit of the Croatian Republic killed the Zec family with a 14-year-old daughter just because they were Serbs. They hadn’t even tried to hide their bodies; they just threw them in the dump. The murderers smoothly acknowledged all that they did to the Croatian Court but were released due to irregular judicial procedures. The irregularity consisted of the fact that the lawyer of the accused was not present in their interrogation. To me, the explanation was a transparent forgery. No one readily admits to killing if it is not part of a secret plan. That’s why I think that the court had no intention to punish the murderers at all. The case was supposed to show the Serbs that the laws in Croatia were unrelated to them and that they should leave Croatia. After that, Croatian President Franjo Tuđman gave a medal for a heroic act in the war to Siniša Rimac, who was one of the killers of the Zec family.

 

In Croatia, such an ugly situation has been made for the Serbs that two of about twenty of my former colleagues who were Serbs and worked with me in the Inspectorate for fire protection in Zagreb committed suicide or are presented like they committed suicide.

 

During the war in Croatia, the EU and the UN offered help to stop the fight. Many truces were established, but only when Croatia recognized that it could not win the YFA was the so-called Cyrus Vance plan accepted. Representatives of Yugoslavia, Croatia, Srpska Krajina and the UN signed the plan. According to this plan, the YFA withdrew from Croatia, Srpska Krajina was disarmed and came under the protection of UN military forces until the problem between the Serbs and Croats would be resolved through negotiations.

 

When peace was established, the Vatican and Germany committed unnecessary aggression on Yugoslavia silently in January 1992 by supporting the violent secession and recognizing Slovenia and Croatia as independent states. Was it revenge from World War II when Germany formed the Independent State of Croatia? However, other countries have followed suit. Thus, the borders of Yugoslavia have not been changed peacefully through mutual negotiations as required by international law (UN, Helsinki Convention) and the Constitution of the SFRY, but forcefully through international recognition of illegal secession.

 

Newly recognized Croatia did not accept anything less than the full reintegration of the Serb Krajina, which the Serbs refused to take. In 1995, the Croatian government mobilized the army to capture the territory of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, even though it was under UN protection. I don’t think something like that would have been possible without the support of more significant powers. At the time of the Croatian Army’s attack, named Operation “Storm,” NATO aircraft destroyed Serbian communication and radars “by mistake.” According to Cyrus Vance Plan, Yugoslavia had an obligation to protect the Srpska Krajina in case Croatia attacked it. Still, probably due to pressures from outside, that was not done. Serbian Krajina had a vast desert territory and fewer people than Croatian mobilized soldiers. Serbian Krajina could not defend itself, so the inhabitants left it.

 

The Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights claims that during Operation Storm, 677 civilians were killed, mostly older people who did not want to leave their homes. The Veritas Documentation-Information Center lists 1,205 killed or missing Serbian civilians, among them 522 women and 12 children. Twenty thousand houses were destroyed or burned. The regime of President Tuđman ruined the birth house of the famous Serbian scientist Nikola Tesla in the village of Smiljan. His relatives in this village were already dead. They were killed by the Ustase regime in August of 1941, together with 500 other Serbs of this village.

 

This picture has not been presented anywhere in global news media. Why? The international community, very concerned when the YFA started to crush the Croat armed rebellion, was indifferent when the Serbs suffered aggression. This was the most significant departure in Europe since the Second World War, in which 200,000 Serbs, whose ancestors lived in Croatia for centuries, left Krajina in 1995. This picture has not been presented anywhere in global news media. Why? Today, 400,000 fewer Serbs live in Croatia than before the war. Two-thirds of Serbs left Croatia, or 8% of the Croatian population.

 

The Croats should have had the right to self-determination like any other nation. But after the crimes they committed against the Serbian people in WWII, they had to do it through negotiations with the Serbs. Instead, they expelled the Serbs from the Croatian constitution, threatened them, attacked them and exiled them from the Croatian state. Croatia is a criminal creation supported by the most powerful countries and the UN. How is it possible?

 

Bosnia and Herzegovina

 

Bosnia and Herzegovina had three constituent peoples: Muslims, who are since 1992 officially called Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. With this respect, the decisions related to the fate of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be taken by consensus of representatives from all three nations. It was not suitable for Croats and Bosniaks, so they decided the fate of Bosnia-Herzegovina by the democratic majority. Bosnians wanted an independent Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Croats only understood the secession from Yugoslavia as the first step. The second step is supposed to be the secession from Bosnia and Herzegovina to join Croatia, but the connection is not made yet. Due to the complicated situation, the agreement on the Yugoslav level, where such problems under the Constitution of Yugoslavia had to be solved by consensus of the nations, was the only reasonable solution. However, the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina chose war.

 

The newly elected Bosnian government wanted to rule the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but Serbs and Croats did not agree to that. Then, an informal division of Bosnia started on the territory where the nations had a vast majority. However, small fights started for areas where the regions were mixed.

 

To prevent war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in March of 1992, the EU proposed a solution to the crisis in BH through a so-called Cutiller plan. Representatives of all the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina accepted the agreement and signed it in Lisbon, Portugal. This made peace in BH. After that, the President of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Alija Izetbegović, spoke with the U.S. ambassador in Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmerman, and told him he was not satisfied with the plan. Then, the American ambassador encouraged Alija Izetbegović to withdraw his signature from the agreement, which he did. Immediately after that, the fighting in Bosnia and Herzegovina continued, but negotiations in Lisbon did not stop.

 

In April 1992, the U.S. and the EU recognized the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It seems that they did not care about establishing a peaceful solution there. It was irrelevant to them that the government of BH in Sarajevo did not have control, even in the whole of Sarajevo. It was not an essential fact to them that 1,500,000 Serbs, or one-third of the Bosnian Herzegovinan population, did not want to secede from Yugoslavia. It was not an essential fact to them that all sides of the conflict were armed. They had to know that their recognition had to lead to war, and they did know it. That was the policy of evil intentions toward everyone living there. Why?

 

Until the recognition of the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the YFA was normally at home in BH. However, it was treated as an aggressor on territory under the control of Bosniaks and Croats. In May of 1992, the YFA agreed with the Bosnian authorities to withdraw its troops from the barracks in Sarajevo and Tuzla, which were in the territory of Bosniaks’ control. On that occasion, the Bosnian army attacked the YFA vehicles and killed one hundred and one young soldiers and their elders. Television cameras recorded it all. Please click to see this video document: YFA Convoy attacked in Tuzla. These were the first vast crimes committed on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The international community hardly recorded it, and the criminals have never been trialled or charged in court. The Yugoslav Federal Army did not respond to the massacres in any way, even though it had the right to do so because it was attacked.

 

But the Serbs in Bosnia were not obliged to rest. In war, there is no possibility to blame and punish individuals for the atrocities done, so the crimes of individual blame go to their people. The Serbs owned a majority of the heavy weapons of the YFA that were located in Bosnia and Herzegovina because the Croatian and Bosnian soldiers and officers deserted from the YFA, leaving the heavy weapons to the Serbs. If the separation and division of Yugoslavia were performed peacefully, the people would share all weapons. By possessing heavy weapons, Serbs in Bosnia occupied the territory they considered belonged to them relatively quickly. That is the reason well-organized propaganda around the world declared Serbs as aggressors.

 

The UN, led by the United States, accused Yugoslavia of the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Yugoslavia was called to stop; otherwise, it would face UN economic sanctions. While Yugoslavia did cooperate with the Bosnian Serbs at that time, it had no power to command them. Also, the Serbs in Bosnia did not have a significant interest in attacking them because they had mostly realized their war goals. Yugoslavia could not stop the Bosnian and Croatian army operations that were far more severe because they did not achieve their war goals. That was the reason the Bosnian government did not want to negotiate peace. The Bosnian authorities were those who did not allow anyone to leave Sarajevo. It was convenient for the Bosnian government to act like victims, but they did not suffer in any way. Bosniaks suffered quite a lot, the same as the Croats and Serbs.

 

Shortly after the ultimatum, a massacre took place in Sarajevo on Vase Miskina Street, where an explosion killed 17 people (Bosnians and Serbs) and wounded about a hundred. All Bosnian media, even today, unanimously accuse the Serbs of it. The Serbs have denied guilt the whole time, and even today, say that the Bosniaks made the explosion for the Serbs to be accused. In favour of it was that the Bosnian television cameras came to the crime site in less than one minute. I would like to ask Bosnian authorities how that was possible. An independent investigation was never conducted. I think that the truth has to be found because otherwise, there would forever remain two versions of the massacre and the antagonism between the Serbs and Bosnians. If we judge it according to who made profits from that massacre, then the answer is the Bosnian government. After the recognition of the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the EU and the U.S., Bosniaks lost interest in the negotiations about the fate of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Lisbon. The massacre in Sarajevo gave them an excuse to stop the talks. The Serbs were declared criminals all over the world, and the UN economic sanctions were imposed on Yugoslavia. After that, all the people in Bosnia and Herzegovina were tortured for three years because the national leaders did not give up on their demands.

 

News February 2, 2014, The ICTY Tribunal in Hague: The grenades at Sarajevo Markale market (1994) were not shelled by Serbs but by the Muslim Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A former Bosnian Muslim policeman who was a protected witness at the Hague Tribunal stated during his testimony in defence of Radovan Karadžić that the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovinafired the grenades at market Markale in Sarajevo by order of then-leader Alija Izetbegović, in Winter of 1994, which murdered 66 and left 140 people injured.

***

Now, I will say a few words about the Serbian crimes. Local Serbs killed two hundred wounded Croatian soldiers captured in the Vukovar hospital after the fall of Vukovar.

 

It was revenge. The executors of the crime were punished by lengthy prison sentences, but the order creator for this crime was not found. To me, the command to kill looks like a fraud of foreign secret services. Anyhow, the local Serbs were to blame. The YFA did not respond to it even though it had to because it commanded the entire operation. Although the Yugoslav Army had intense moral training, in practice, the morale declined together with the fall of Yugoslavia. Since the YFA did not react to it, the killing of prisoners spread to Bosnia and Herzegovina. This led to the greatest shame for the Serbian people. This originated with the massacre in Srebrenica.

 

Srebrenica is a town in eastern Bosnia where mostly Bosniaks lived in the early 1990s. During the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the United Nations, led by the United States, declared the city an UN-protected zone. Srebrenica was supposed to be demilitarized then, but it was not. Srebrenica thus became a safe place for Bosniaks who attacked neighbouring Serb villages, where, according to the Serbian Orthodox Church, they killed 3,287 Serbs from 1992 to 1995. The Serbs had to stop the killings, so they attacked and occupied Srebrenica on July 11, 1995. On that occasion, the Serbs allegedly killed 8,000 Muslim prisoners.

 

The massacre did occur, but Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie, the first commander of the UN protection force in Bosnia and Herzegovina, claims the number of Bosniaks killed was much lower. After several years of investigation, a list of over 2,000 murdered Bosniaks found in and around Srebrenica has been submitted to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. This number also includes casualties during three years of intense fighting. The perpetrators of that crime were Serbs who took revenge for the death of friends and relatives killed by Bosniaks. Also, a list of about 5,000 Bosniaks reported missing was submitted to the court in The Hague. According to the Bosnian side, 6,066 victims of “genocide” were buried in the memorial center in Potočari near Srebrenica, while according to the Serbs, that number is exaggerated.

 

The International Court of Justice in The Hague has accused Serb leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Radovan Karadžic and Ratko Mladić, of ordering the killing of captured Bosniaks. Analyzing the propaganda of the Western world, it is evident that this accusation was aimed at subduing the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Strategically, such an order would be insane and counterproductive when the whole world was watching what the Serbs were doing in Bosnia. Logic says that Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić had no interest in ordering such a crime. However, they are responsible because they led an army over which they did not have enough control.

 

Norwegian film directors Ola Flium and David Habdich investigated the Srebrenica massacre and made a documentary about it, A Town Betrayed. The film can be viewed on YouTube. Among other things, the film shows the statement of former Srebrenica police chief Hakija Meholjić, who, along with other Bosnian delegates, attended a meeting with Alija Izetbegović in Sarajevo. The meeting took place two years before the Srebrenica massacre. In the film, at 28:10, Meholjić reports on what President Izetbegović told them in a closed meeting before the main session. President Izetbegović said: “President Clinton suggested to me that if Chetniks (Serbs) enter Srebrenica and kill 5,000 Muslims, there will be military intervention by NATO forces at Serb positions throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. What do you think about that?”

 

President Izetbegović could not have had any interest in inventing this, so it could be assumed that President Clinton actually said this. This statement is no surprise because the US administration was openly on the Bosniak side, trying to subdue the disobedient Serbs who resisted their domination. The only surprising fact is that President Clinton was very precise in naming the city of Srebrenica and the required number of Bosniaks killed. It sounds like it was part of an elaborate plan. It is also astonishing that this event happened two years later, precisely as President Clinton portrayed it. It is, therefore, necessary to analyze how President Clinton could have foreseen this crime.

 

The offer made by President Izetbegović assumed that the Bosnian military forces would withdraw from Srebrenica, which happened on the order of President Alija Izetbegović. Thus, Bosniaks remained unprotected so that Serb troops could kill them. This is precisely what happened, although there are different versions of that event. But how could President Clinton know in advance that Serbian forces would commit such a crime? Serbs have never done anything like this in their entire history. President Clinton could only know that a massacre would happen if his people organized it. America had to have its agent in the Serb forces who organized the killings of Bosniaks while Serbian Army General Ratko Mladic was in Belgrade.

 

Who could that agent be? General Momčilo Perišić was captured on March 14, 2002, during a secret meeting with US diplomat John David Neighbor at the Šarić Motel on the Ibar Highway in Serbia. According to the official report on the case, General Perišić handed Neighbor secret military documents showing the Serbian army’s involvement in the wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Both were immediately arrested, but Neighbor was soon released because he had diplomatic immunity. On February 5, 2021, the High Court in Belgrade sentenced Momčilo Perišić, former Chief of Staff of the Yugoslav Army and former Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia, to three years in prison for handing over state secrets to the United States in 2002.

 

But why would General Perišić betray his homeland? The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Hague, in one of the last indictments in February 2005, General Perišić was indicted for murder, inhumane acts, persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, extermination, attacks on civilians for failing to stop his subordinates of committing the siege of Sarajevo, Zagreb rocket attack and Srebrenica massacre. On September 6, 2011, the court in Hague sentenced General Perišić to 27 years in prison for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

The accusations against General Perišić were known ten years earlier when the Americans were already in conflict with Yugoslavia, so they needed a traitor in the Serbian army to provide them with the necessary information. Therefore, they could offer General Perišić a waiver of responsibility for the Hague charges in exchange for cooperation, and General Perišić could accept that. That could be the reason why, two years later, on February 28, 2013, the Appeals Chamber of the Hague Tribunal ruled that Momčilo Perišić was not responsible for war crimes committed by the Bosnian Serb Army in Sarajevo and Srebrenica because they were not under Yugoslav command. Thus, the Hague Tribunal annulled the previous sentence of 27 years in prison and acquitted Momčilo Perišić of all charges in the wars in Yugoslavia.

 

That was a precedent that did not happen to other Serbian generals. That precedent may indicate that the United States used its influence in the International Court of Justice in Hague to help its agent. Now, when the Norwegian documentary “A Betrayed City” shows that Presidents Clinton and Izetbegović were able to organize the Srebrenica massacre, it is essential to investigate General Perišić’s possible involvement in the massacre.

 

General Momčilo Perišić might have become a traitor to the Serbs in Bosnia seven years before he was captured in Serbia. The Americans could not find a more suitable person in Bosnia and Herzegovina than General Perišić because he was the most influential Yugoslav general in the Serbian Republic and probably the only general who would have the power to impose the massacre of Bosniaks in Srebrenica. But, of course, General Perišić certainly did not do that voluntarily. Once a traitor to his homeland begins to cooperate with the Americans, he has no choice but to listen to the Americans.

 

But even if General Perišić did not organize the murder of Bosniaks, someone had to organize a systematic killing of such magnitude. Serbs had no good reason to organize it. It could only be organized by a Serb traitor in Bosnia. It should still be assumed that the Americans have found a traitor among the Serbs because they benefited from it. Besides, It is the standard American procedure in all conflicts. It can be determined who ordered the killings because it is not difficult to follow the track of the command to the organizers. Some Serbs certainly know who did it, but they cover it in solidarity, believing they resist the enemy. If one starts from the assumption that America organized the murder of Bosniaks, the investigation will name a Serbian traitor, whoever it was. That would redeem the Serbian reputation in Bosnia to some extent.

 

The accusation against the Serbs gave NATO an excuse to start bombing the Serbs in Bosnia. A month later, the Croatian Army carried out an aggression called Storm on Srpska Krajina, which was also protected by the UN, and on that occasion, it killed 1,268 Serbs while 1,080 went missing, but NATO did not respond to it at all. Why does NATO have double standards? NATO did not stop bombing the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina until the Serbs signed a peace agreement in Dayton. Thus, the war ended in Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the Dayton Agreement, the Serbs got the recognition of the Serbian Republic and 49% of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was approximately what they were offered by the Cutiller plan that they accepted before the beginning of the war. So why, then, was the war waged?

 

Serbia

 

The U.N. economic sanctions imposed on Yugoslavia because of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina closed plants and led to the collapse of the Serbian and Montenegrin economies. Economic sanctions had a more substantial impact on the economy than war. Legal trade traffic across the border of Yugoslavia was utterly suspended, and all business operations had to go through smuggling tracks. Yugoslavia started to depend on criminals. That is how world powers today destroy disobedient states. This whole time, Yugoslavia took care of about an average of 500,000 refugees who had been expelled or run away from the secessionist republics.

 

Serbia and Montenegro remained under UN economic sanctions even after the peace agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina was established in 1995. Why? The UN did not give a definite answer, but there were insinuations that the unsolved problem with Kosovo and Metohija still existed. Serbs consider Kosovo and Metohija the cradle of their nation and their culture. Almost all Serbian medieval Monasteries are located there, while traces of old Albanian culture do not exist. It says to the Serbs that they are native people of Kosovo and Metohija and that it belongs to them.

 

The problems in Yugoslavia started in Kosovo and Metohija in the eighties. According to the Constitution of Kosovo and Metohija, which was created under the control of Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito in 1974, the province of Kosovo and Metohija has formally been in Serbia. Still, it has the same rights in Yugoslavia as the Republic of Serbia, or sometimes even higher. The province of Kosovo and Metohija made all decisions on its own, while Serbia had to establish consensuses with its provinces for some matters to make decisions.

 

Kosovo and Metohija was a very underdeveloped province which was receiving significant financial assistance from all of Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, the communist government of the province was not successful in initiating the development of the economy. So Kosovo and Metohija became a bottomless pit, and its prosperity could not be seen anywhere. Such a situation was dissatisfactory to all of Yugoslavia, including the people of Kosovo and Metohija. This led to the development of nationalist movements in Kosovo and Metohija, which was aiming for the province’s independence. At that time, The journey towards independence was based on Albanians’ high birthrate. On the other hand, the Serbs had been leaving Kosovo and Metohija, either because they received a good redemption price for their properties from the Albanians or because they felt threatened in the province where Albanians, in the year 1990, had nearly 90% of the population.

 

Then, Slobodan Milošević entered the scene. Instead of developing the economy of Serbia and having good relations with the Albanians to solve problems, he responded to Albanian nationalism with strong Serbian nationalism. He organized massive rallies supporting its policy. After that, Slobodan Milošević requested that the Communist leadership of Kosovo and Metohija returns the constitutional functions to the Republic of Serbia that Tito gave them in 1974. Under intense pressure from the Serbian nationalist movement in 1989, the Parliament of Kosovo and Metohija returned it. It was a Pyrrhic victory for Slobodan Milosevic because the Albanians only increased their separatist tendencies after that. Also, strong nationalism in Serbia provoked nationalism in other republics of Yugoslavia. Thus, Slobodan Milošević increased the problems in Yugoslavia. I wouldn’t say that Slobodan Milošević had bad intentions toward anyone. He was just not capable enough of the challenges he met. His opposition to the world imperialists, while previously not having sufficient support at home and abroad, was a big mistake.

 

Regardless of the UN sanctions, Yugoslavia did not give up on its independent policy. It tried to establish some form of agreement with the Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija on a shared future. Still, after the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the Albanians did not accept anything less than full independence, which Serbia could not allow. Then, somewhere in 1996, Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija began to get weapons, founded the Kosovo Liberation Army and started to kill the Serbian police. In 1998, the U.S. Government added the Kosovo Liberation Army to the list of terrorist organizations. However, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, James Bissett, observed that “the American war against terrorism” was not affecting the KLA. Before the war in Kosovo, U.S. administration representative Richard Holbrook publicly met with the rebel leaders of the KLA in Kosovo, which at that time was on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations.

 

In early 1999, someone encouraged the inhabitants of the village of Račak, a strong base of supporters of the Kosovo Liberation Army, to attack the Yugoslav special police force. After the fierce battle, 45 Albanians were killed. These people have been sacrificed because they did not have any chance against the highly equipped and skilled Yugoslav special police forces. This period is very well displayed in these documentaries: NATO’s Illegal War Against Serbia and Lies About Kosovo War. These 45 dead Albanians helped NATO give an ultimatum to Yugoslavia by which Yugoslavia had to accept the occupation of NATO forces. Why, for example, did NATO not provide a warning to Bosnia and Herzegovina when the Bosnian army committed the massacre of one hundred and one soldiers of the Yugoslav Federal Army when they tried to withdraw from Tuzla and Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina before the war even started? Yugoslavia refused NATO’s ultimatum in the town of Rambouillet in France, and that meant it would be attacked.

 

However, attacking an independent country that did not attack another is an imperialist crime, according to the UN Charter. Therefore, NATO tried to justify the aggression against Yugoslavia on charges that the Yugoslav Army slaughtered up to 100,000 Albanians and expelled up to 700,000 Albanians from Kosovo. They could not present any evidence for these accusations because none of them were right. The aggression is carried out exclusively by bombardment, so in its first mission, NATO became a terrorist organization. The aggression lasted 78 days. By the judgment of the District Court in Belgrade, No. 381/2000 of 21 September 2000, William Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Antoni Blair, Robin Cook, George Robertson, Jacques Chirac, Hubert Vedrine, Alan Rishar, Gerhard Schroeder, Joseph Fisher, Rudolf Scharping, Javier Solana and Wesley Clark, were sentenced to a prison sentence of 20 years each for the NATO aggression that caused the death of 1,191 citizens of Yugoslavia and that demolished 25,000 houses, destroyed 78,000 industrial facilities and 66 bridges. People still die today from the radiation of the illegal uranium-enriched bombs NATO threw on Yugoslavia. Please watch the documentary Bombing of Serbia 1999 by Nemanja Trbojevic.

 

The war ended with the UN Peace Resolution 1244. According to it, the Yugoslav army withdrew from Kosovo, the administration of Kosovo was taken over by the UN, NATO was supposed to protect the inhabitants of Kosovo, and the future status of Kosovo should be determined by the negotiations between the Serbs and Albanians, respecting the integrity of Yugoslavia. However, the last conditions of the agreement did not occur. NATO did not protect the remaining Serbs in Kosovo. A former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, James Bissett, claims that after the departure of the Yugoslav army, around 2,000 Serbs were killed in Kosovo, and the rest fled. Please watch the documentary Kosovo – Can You Imagine by Boris Malagurski, which shows the fate of Serbs in Kosovo after the NATO aggression. Western media has never announced the crimes against Serbs that were committed there. Why? The former war crimes prosecutor Carla Del Ponte stated in her book The Hunt: Me and War Criminals that Kosovar Albanian guerrillas transported 300 Serbian prisoners to Albania, where they were killed and their organs removed and trafficked. If NATO carried out the aggression against Yugoslavia because of the 45 killed Albanians in Kosovo, why did it not attack Kosovo and Metohija for the crimes that Albanians in Kosovo committed against Serbs? If we take all of this into consideration, is Kosovo not a criminal creation of the Western world? On top of it all, the United States and most EU member states recognized the independence of Kosovo contrary to the UN Peace Resolution 1244.

 

Yugoslavia still has not been released from the UN economic sanctions. So what was the problem? The problem was the President of Yugoslavia, Slobodan Milošević, who was propagated to be the primary blame for all the evil in Yugoslavia, had to fall. Rulers of the world managed to take Slobodan Milosevic out of power in 2000 when elections were held in Serbia. After about ten years of suffering, which the Serbian people were exposed to, the Serbs became tired. They gave more votes to Vojislav Koštunica, the leader of the Democratic Party of Serbia than to Slobodan Milosevic. However, Vojislav Koštunica did not receive more than 50% of the votes in the first round of the elections, so the second round of voting should have been held. The opposition in Serbia declared that the election result was a fraud and assisted by powers from outside the country, and they raised a violent revolution in Serbia. If the opposition went to the second round of the election, Vojislav Koštunica would have legally and peacefully won the democratic election. The powers from outside of the country wanted blood in Serbia. It did not happen just because Slobodan Milošević did not want it.

 

Slobodan Milošević was removed, then arrested and delivered to the International Court in Hague against the Constitutional Law of Yugoslavia. Now, it should be noted that the International Court in Hague is not legal because it was formed by the UN Security Council and not by the UN Assembly. The International Court in Hague was, in fact, created by the imperialist world to prevent any resistance to their hegemony. Thus, the criminal gets the legal right to condemn its victims.

 

Now, I have to say that Slobodan Milošević was sometimes arrogant as the President, which is not a wise characteristic of a politician, but he did not commit any crime. Please see the documentary: “SHOCKING: Slobodan Milošević was INNOCENT!” on YouTube in 5 parts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The International Court in Hague came to the same conclusion eleven years later in the trial of General Ratko Mladic. Slobodan Milošević did not defend himself; he tried to protect his country. He did it very successfully, and because of this, he was systematically murdered there. The prosecutor did not have any proof of Slobodan Milošević’s guilt, so the court mistreated him for four years through an endless trial of war details not related to him. Slobodan Milošević had heart disease. Every medical doctor can confirm that the heavy stress of four years in court endangered his life. Before his death, he cried every day to receive help from an independent doctor but was rejected by the court, which resulted in the infarct from which he died.

 

Finally, by the enormous intervention of the world powers, obedient people came to power in Yugoslavia. Thus, in the end, Yugoslavia capitulated. Only then did the peace come. Only then were the UN sanctions lifted from Yugoslavia. In the end, Yugoslavia consisted of the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro only. It was such an unsuccessful creation that it could not survive. In 2003, it was entirely abolished by the wish of the Governments of Serbia and Montenegro. That is how my homeland was removed from the world map.

 

The aggression of the Rothschild family

 

All that I have written so far can be easily checked. So how come no one has displayed it to the world? I set myself simple questions:

 

Who has the power to dictate what the world media will publish?

Who has the power to present an entire nation unfairly?

Who has the power to impose economic sanctions to one nation unjustly?

Who has the power to remove a founder of the UN from the UN membership?

Who has the power to kill people in an international institution of justice?

Who has the power to make leaders of countries commit crimes?

Who has the power to profit from all of this?

 

Thus, a range of intense powers, including economy, military force, media, and politicians, which were used in the attack on Yugoslavia, says to me that there is a strong force that unites them. After a long period of study, I realized that the Rothschild family and their partners govern the world. I presented my findings in the article Has Antichrist Come? My observations fall into a conspiracy theory; however, have I not enclosed enough evidence that the conspiracy exists? Here is an enclosed YouTube video: Zeitgeist – The Movie: Federal Reserve, which shows the basics of the theory of conspiracy quite convincingly.

 

The Rothschild family is primarily a banking family who first organized its operations around the world. They could not manage all their businesses, so they hired expert agents to lead their companies in their names. To stimulate these agents to earn more money, they receive small shares of the ownership and become partners. The Rothschilds have created the entire hierarchical structure of their partners through the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries and still do today. Some people call this structure Masons, and the top of the hierarchical structure, Illuminati. The Rothschild family has learned that hiding their wealth behind their partners is better so that their power grows while they remain invisible. For almost 300 years, the Rothschild family and their partners could have bought half the world while no one knows it. Thus, the Rothschild family has built a power higher than the largest imperators in the history of humankind, and they rule the world imperceptibly. Being invisible, they cannot be called responsible when they cause evil around the world.

 

The agents of the Rothschild family do not spare money establishing control over the media since the media forms public opinion, and after that, they can virtually do whatever they want. The Rothschild family cannot redeem state media, but it still achieves control over it through governments, which the family puts under its control. This way, they have created propaganda in the whole world against Yugoslavia. One-sided coverage of the war in Yugoslavia around the globe is sufficient proof to me that there is an organization that controls world media. According to the data I have collected, the Rothschild family, with their partners, must have control over the organization.

 

If the owners of the world’s largest corporations, such as Rockefeller, Morgan, Goldberg, Wartburg, Goldman, etc. (who also hide their power) were independent of the Rothschild family, then they would, according to the competitive nature of entrepreneurs in capitalism, be confronting each other, but they don’t. Some rivals of the Rothschild family would have publicly disclosed the truth about the war in Yugoslavia, but it did not happen. It tells me that the old wealthy families have built a partnership with each other to control the world better. The Rothschild family is the leading family of the association because it stepped into the world market in an organized manner a hundred or more years before the partners mentioned above. I would like to stress again that this story is about a conspiracy. The leader of the world conspiracy cannot be David, the head of the Rockefeller family, because he is very exposed. He publicly tells the Presidents of the United States what they should do. The conspiracy leader must be someone who does not appear in public, like the head of the Rothschild family. His name is Jacob, and he is most famous for his love of art.

 

Through its agents, the Rothschild family helps the election campaign of influential politicians around the world so that the politicians obey them. Politicians do not have much choice. Anyone who does not follow the policy that conforms to the Rothschilds can be presented very critically in the media, which may quickly bring their career into question. I remember a very reasonable U.S. president, Jimmy Carter, whom the media has declared to be one of the least capable American presidents of all time, and that ended his career. Slobodan Milošević was not sufficiently aware of his enemies’ power, so he resisted them strongly. That is the reason he ended badly. People, please think a little bit about this; all the information you have received about Slobodan Milošević came from the people who attacked him. Is not this horrible? A former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, James Bissett, claims that the charges against Slobodan Milosevic were pure fantasy. There is something even worse than that; James Bissett claims that George Soros funds the International Court in Hague. That means the people who judged Slobodan Milosevic are the same people who attacked him.

 

Yugoslavia resisted the world powers for eight years, and finally, the world powers lost their patience. When they presented Yugoslavia badly enough through their media, the world powers demanded the world politicians do something “in the name of justice.” In the beginning, “justice” was mainly based on the accusation of Yugoslavia and the illegal recognition of the secessionist republic independence. The demand for imposing UN economic sanctions on Yugoslavia passed relatively quickly. After that, the leaders of the Western countries received a request for military aggression against Yugoslavia. Here, Russia put a veto in the UN Security Council, however. Attacking an independent state without the consent of the United Nations was a crime. Therefore, this request could not be easily passed. Formally, US President Bill Clinton was supposed to launch the attack on Yugoslavia. Naturally, he resisted committing the crime. Then appeared the Monika Lewinsky case, where the media showed great interest in the sexual life of President Clinton, informing about it every day for more than a year. Then, the American Congress, Senate, and Supreme Court found the interest in the sexual life of the president of the US and subpoenaed him to testify about his sex life before the Grand Jury. Since when are the US Congress, Senate, and Supreme Court interested in the sexual life of the American president?

 

The answer is – from the moment Bill Clinton resisted committing the crime of aggression on Yugoslavia. President Clinton lied before the Grand Jury about his sex life, which is what most people would do in his place. And because he lied under oath about his sexual life, it led to charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and his impeachment. Bill Clinton’s sexual life might have removed him from the presidential position. Seriously?

 

Bill Clinton’s impeachment process was nothing else but blackmail. The blackmail forced President Clinton to lead the criminal NATO aggression on Yugoslavia or else face removal from his position. Of course, President Clinton preferred his job more than the lives of thousands of people and commanded the attack on Yugoslavia. The Lewinsky case was completely forgotten the moment that Bill Clinton decided to carry out military aggression against Yugoslavia. Now the question comes up: who has such a power to manipulate the American Congress, Senate, and Supreme Court and to blackmail the president of the United States? It is undoubtedly a powerful organization with exceptionally wealthy people. It narrows down people who may commit such a crime to a few, and the investigation should not have problems finding people responsible for it even though they hide their wealth and power of influence.

 

It should be pointed out that not all members of NATO bombarded Yugoslavia. The aggression committed: Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The aggression refused Greece, Island, and Luxembourg. Honour to them! All the presidents of states or governments who joined President Clinton in the aggression against Yugoslavia are also criminals. How might that be possible? Naturally, the Rothschild family has built conspiracys against humanity throughout the centuries, in which ignorance, lies, stupidity, immorality, fear, and corruption grow and then rule. Dear readers, you have received all the information about the war in Yugoslavia from the same people who started the aggression in the first place. Is this not a horrible fact?

 

The Rothschild family did not destroy Yugoslavia to give the Yugoslav people democratic rights. This, indeed, is not the case. It destroyed Yugoslavia to take control of the people of the former Yugoslavia easily. Through their agent “benefactor” for Eastern Europe, George Soros and his “open society,” the Rothschild family gave donations to the opposition of the Communist Party, which was in power in Yugoslavia. This opposition was interested in destroying Yugoslavia, mainly itself, so that the donors did not need to interfere much in their affairs. But there was coordination. Maybe you have not noticed, but the destruction waited in line, one after the other: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Metohija.

 

However, maybe some higher justice exists! Have you noticed that the chief domestic destroyers of Yugoslavia, Janez Drnovšek, Franjo Tuđman, Gojko Šušak, Alija Izetbegović and Ibrahim Rugova died of cancer? Coincidence? Please check how many national leaders die from cancer in any country around the world, and maybe you will then become aware of what a coincidence it should be. With this respect, if my name were Janez Janša, Milan Kučan Stjepan Mesić, Vladimir Šeks, Ejup Ganić, Haris Silajdžić, Hashim Thaçi, Ramush Hardinaj or so, I would check my health more often.

 

All the mentioned politicians were utterly united in the desire for their states to become members of the EU. However, the people of these states were not even close to having the united wish of joining the EU. Why did these politicians fight so hard to get out of one country and then hurry to join another? It is even stranger that Yugoslavia and the EU have no significant organizational differences. But that all is irrelevant to them. The only relevant fact to them is to be in the real center of attention because it gives them power. They know this can be achieved only by obeying the rules that higher powers preach. These people are interested just in naked power, and they realize it over the bodies of dead people.

 

The Rothschild family did not destroy Yugoslavia to leave the Yugoslav companies to free market either. Their agents attacked Yugoslavia from the inside. Who are these agents? They are the newly established owners of companies in all the republics of former Yugoslavia. They first conquered the media because they controlled public opinion. Now, whatever newspapers you read in the region of former Yugoslavia are under the control of the Rothschild family or follow the Rothschild family’s policies because they do not know what else to do.

 

All new tycoons who made fortunes from nothing are agents or partners of the Rothschild family, even though they might not be aware of it because they communicate with the lower agents of the Rothschild family only. The tycoons have received enormous amounts of money at their disposal to invest in everything that promises good business. They also have priorities in purchasing companies with the help of local politicians that they have corrupted. Even if these tycoons were successful businesspeople in socialist Yugoslavia, they were offered the recapitalization with a large sum of money and business connections that they could not refuse. Some petty thieves could independently have enriched themselves through the robbery of public property, but big thieves cannot survive long without the support of the Rothschild family. The Rothschild family, with its partners, keeps all significant roads of production under their control so that they can quickly push non-cooperative entrepreneurs out of the game. Thus, the colonization of all the republics of the former Yugoslavia was conducted.

 

Briefly about the reasons for the violent breakup of Yugoslavia

 

Yugoslavia was the country with the most developed socialist economy in the world. The Rothschild family tried to show that the results of socialism cannot be good, and they succeeded. Without Rothschilds, there would be no war in Yugoslavia. The war destroyed what the peoples of Yugoslavia had built for generations and jointly owned. The war broke business ties between the republics, the market decreased, and earnings decreased, so companies lost value and were sold cheaply to partners of the Rothschild family.

 

But why exactly were the Serbs to blame? When the Rothschild family does evil, they need someone to take the blame for them. What nation could be more suitable for the Rothschild family than the Serbs, who were the only ones to elect socialists in the whole of Eastern Europe? That’s why they had to get a particular lesson. But certainly, the worst thing for Yugoslavia was that it led to an independent policy, that Slobodan Milošević did not allow a rapid and uncontrolled transition to capitalism, that he did not allow social companies to be sold for nothing to the Rothschilds. This is why Slobodan Milošević had to fall.

 

World powers under the control of the Rothschilds made life miserable for all the peoples of Yugoslavia. When they finally imposed peace, all nations, except the Serbs, proclaimed them their saviours. All these nations are, in fact, grateful to their criminals, executioners, torturers, and thieves, even though they don’t know it. The most terrifying fact is that today, there is an entirely invisible force that can do evil to an entire country, destroy it, rob it and enslave it without anyone knowing anything about it.

 

***

 

This article has a significant shortage of evidence that proves a direct connection between the Rothschild family and the destruction of Yugoslavia. The Rothschild family does not appear in public, does not give statements, and does not leave visible written traces, so it is challenging to unmask them. I think that the Rothschild family can be easily connected to the war in Yugoslavia by conducting an investigation of the former U.S. President, Bill Clinton, for the criminal aggression on Yugoslavia in the International Court of Justice in Hague. But, oh well, the U.S. Government does not recognize the jurisdiction of the Court for its citizens. Was it not because this Court was unjust from the very beginning? Can any American court run an investigation of its former President? Theoretically, it can, but Americans are almost continuously aggressing other countries, and no president was ever called responsible for it. This world does not have a good defence from evil, especially not from such evil. That’s why we live in destructive times.

 

The other presidents of the states that have performed the aggression on Yugoslavia have just followed the media lynch demands, and except for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, they cannot blame Jacob Rothschild. I have presented here that the Western media covered the aggression on Yugoslavia like members of organized crime. The investigations against them could lead to Jacob Rothschild.

 

However, maybe the easiest way to connect Jacob Rothschild with the aggression on Yugoslavia is by proving that Slobodan Milošević was murdered in the International Criminal Tribunal in Hague. There is a basis for investigation against the doctors who have been caring for the heart disease of Slobodan Milošević in the court in Hague. Three months before his death, a medical check-up found traces of the medicine Rifampicin in his blood. It is a drug for leprosy and tuberculosis, which is known as a neutralizer of some effects of the medication Milošević received for his high blood pressure and a heart condition. Milošević was informed about it four days before his death when he stopped taking the medicine.

 

Finding the not-needed medicine in Milošević’s blood that reduces the drug’s effect on his heart condition could be characterized as a murder attempt. The investigation into why the medicine for leprosy and tuberculosis was traced in his blood was never performed. The court released notes that Slobodan Milošević had open access to medicine, so he was able to take it on his own. In other words, he may do it on purpose to kill himself. The investigation of Slobodan Milošević’s death did not consider that he cried to receive help from an independent doctor. The court rejected his request, and it resulted in the infarct from which he died. It is no surprise that the investigators concluded that Milošević died of a heart attack as a natural cause.

 

However, many doctors stated that his death would certainly be prevented by the routine operation of coronary angiography and stenting. This is an elementary medical proceeding of heart disease, which would save his life. His doctors have to answer why such a routine intervention of inserting stenting in his heart artery was not performed. More information can be found here: Death of Slobodan Milošević. The investigation against the Medical Officer of the Detention Unit, Dr. Paulus Falke, can show that somebody must have ordered his death, and that can lead to Jacob Rothschild.

 

A brief public appearance, which occurred four years ago in the home of Rothschild in England, could show how much power the Rothschild family possesses. In the next picture from left to right are Warren Buffet, currently “the richest” man in the world, the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Lord Jacob Rothschild.

 

The photograph was probably taken to impress the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, who conflicted with Jacob Rothschild at the time over the Russian oil company Yukos. Later, Jacob Rothschild found that the publication of the photos was a big mistake because it transformed him from a retiring lover of arts and flowers into a mighty person in the world. I think that Jacob Rothschild invested an effort in keeping his status as a modest philanthropist by presenting the meeting as a meeting of philanthropists.

 

That could easily be the main reason why Warren Buffet, currently declared the wealthiest man in the world, decided to give 85% of his wealth, or about 50 billion dollars for humanitarian purposes, to the Foundation of Bill Gates, the majority owner of the company Microsoft. This scenario would be possible only if these 50 billion dollars belonged to the Rothschild family. It looks to me like a very probable scenario. Thus, one could conclude that the Rothschild family provides its beginners with a 15 percent commission. Whether these 50 billion dollars would go to humanitarian purposes or it is just a show for the people remains to be known. Indeed, a beneficial arrangement stood behind it for all involved sides. I believe that behind the grey, refined, apparently good-natured sir in the picture above, enormous power is hidden, such a potential that almost nothing may occur on the world level without his approval.

 

His son, Nathaniel Rothschild, in the following picture, gets his first experience ruling the world. He attended the proclamation of the Independence of the Republic of Montenegro, on which occasion he expressed his congratulations to the President, Milo Đukanović.

 

The presence of Nathaniel Rothschild in that act can be interpreted as the result of his help in attracting significant foreign investments for the construction of Porto Montenegro (which is one of the models of government corruption). However, Montenegrin television showed his presence only in the afternoon news, while it excluded him from the evening news. This caught my attention because such important ceremonies are not cut short in prime time. I concluded that the Montenegrin television tried to cover up his presence. This led me to the conclusion that the presence of Nathaniel Rothschild at the Declaration of Independence of Montenegro was, in fact, a signature at the end of the successfully completed job of breaking up Yugoslavia. Montenegro was the last republic that broke away from the former Yugoslavia.

 

I’ve discovered the intentions of the Rothschild family by watching CNN and the BBC. Of course, I don’t believe in the propaganda of those media, but I still watch them because they show where new crises will appear. How will they not know when they are in the service of crisis creators? Crises don’t even “exist” if these media don’t publish them. As a rule, they attack independent countries of the world and then, under the pretext of fighting for justice and democracy, discredit the governments of such countries. The Rothschild family will try to destabilize any country that is not under their influence or control. It is a crime, and that is what we should call it.

 

***

 

If this article looks convincing to you, please recommend it to your friends. The more people are aware of the evil that the Rothschild family and its partners induce, the less they would dare produce it because, one day, they may be called accountable for what they are doing. This is the purpose of this article. I fight for the whole society to cease their fear for the future and have a good, healthy and joyful life. This is worth a little risk.

 

Written on 08.08.08

 

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

 

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

 

Aleksandar Šarović 

 

Good Capitalism

3.1.2.1          Good Capitalism

 

Full employment is the turning point of capitalism

 

Humanistic reform of the economy must start with the elimination of unemployment. Workers’ unemployment cannot form a sound basis for creating a good society. A good community can only develop on equal human rights. A just society requires the availability of work to everyone.

 

Unemployment creates the exploitation of workers. When a work position opens on the market with a high unemployment rate, a large number of candidates apply. The competition of workers may tear down their incomes to a level sufficient only for basic survival in order to get the job. Unemployed workers have to accept poorly paid jobs to feed their families. Unemployment has widened the gap between rich and poor, creating injustice and problems in capitalism.

 

Employers favour unemployment because they profit from the exploitation of workers. Employers can maintain unemployment because they do not necessarily need to hire employees most of the time. Large employers support political parties that maintain unemployment through economic policy. It starts with importing cheap labour and ends with rising interest rates. This is how unemployment becomes state policy and how state policy maintains the exploitation of workers. To secure their privileges, the rich have imposed the belief that unemployment is an unavoidable price to pay for technological development. They have pressured economic science to accept that “0% of unemployment is not a positive thing,”[1] which they accomplished.

 

The capitalists have found an unemployment rate of about 5% the most convenient, so 5% unemployment has become a “normal” state in capitalism. This “normal” state exploits workers by dependence on capitalists, while workers’ total purchasing power produces enough profits for employers. The market economy should appreciate workers more, but capitalism resists it. Due to long struggles, workers have gotten some rights through laws and trade unions. Still, the existence of poverty confirms that the interests of workers are not protected enough.

 

Society may introduce justice in production processes through a fully employed environment that balances the number of jobs with workers. Reducing work hours will make full employment a reality. Such a measure will require the prevention of work imports and regulation of overtime work. It will increase workers’ demand on the market and put them in a better position in production processes. Full employment will increase workers’ wages and reduce exploitation. However, no formula can determine what exactly exploitation is. Only workers dissatisfied with their earnings may present it. Workers will be satisfied in a fair work market where their work is equally demanded as the jobs they need. The more balanced the work market is, the more satisfied workers are, and the less they are exploited.

 

Society may increase workers’ satisfaction by further reducing work hours, which will create negative unemployment. Negative unemployment is a shortage of workers on the market. It will further increase workers’ demand and incomes. Negative unemployment may put workers in the privileged position that employers have practically always been in. When workers are not available on the market, employers who need more workers will have to attract workers from other companies by raising their salaries. Competition among employers will start a chain reaction in which workers’ wages will grow, bringing more justice to the production processes.

 

The rise of workers’ salaries in the negative unemployment environment was proven in the 14th Century when the Black Death killed one-third of the European population. Suddenly, the crops in the fields perished because there were not enough workers to harvest them. The Chronicle of the Black Death, a firsthand account finished in 1350, states: “the shortage of servants, craftsmen, and workmen, and of agricultural workers and labourers, left a great many lords and people without service and attendance… there were far fewer people to work the land: peasants were able to demand better conditions and higher wages from their landlords.” Suddenly workers and their labour were in much higher demand, enabling those who survived the Black Death to be in a much better position to negotiate work conditions. The shortage of workers increased the workers’ wages. The servants’ higher salaries contributed to economic growth, but the employers were not happy with it.

 

  • At Cuxham (Oxfordshire, England), a plowman demanded from his Lord a payment three times greater in 1350 than in the previous year.[2]

 

  • “In Parliament, in 1351, the Commons petitioned Edward III for a more resolute and effective response. They complained that ‘servants completely disregard the said ordinance in the interests of their ease and greed and that they withhold their services to great men and others unless they have liveries and wages twice or three times as great as [prior to the plague] to the serious damage of the great men and impoverishment of all members of the said commons.’”[3]

 

According to this historical example, if a political party offers a reduction of work to 5 hours per day and wins an election, the lack of workers would increase the lowest workers’ salaries two to three times per hour in one year. The minimum daily wages of workers would increase 30-90% for just a 5-hour shift. The fair work market is the best choice for bringing justice to the economy.

 

The first problem with eliminating unemployment is that employers do not want to increase workers’ salaries because they profit from exploiting them. But on the other hand, excessive wage demands of workers may make the economy unsustainable. This would reduce employers’ interest in production and slow down the economy.

 

Negative unemployment will make employers unsatisfied. Very unsatisfied employers may avoid paying higher workers’ wages in a fully employed society by moving their businesses out of the country. People need to understand that Western capitalism has established laws that give more freedom to capital than workers, which needs to change. At the very least, the laws need to provide the same rights to workers as to capital.

 

Any capital departure results in business closure and newly unemployed workers, bringing trouble to a domestic economy. Full employment would again require a reduction of work hours. The shortening of working hours would reduce workers’ incomes in the short run. Workers would not like it. On the other hand, it is not easy for employers to organize a new production by finding new employees and new markets. The escape lies in finding the length of work hours that optimally satisfies the needs of workers and employers.

 

Today people have accepted the 8-hour workday suggested by Robert Owen at the beginning of the 19th Century. There is no particular reason for an eight-hour workday. Society just took it and adapted to it. Besides providing full employment, the workday length should be a function variable that coordinates workers’ and employers’ needs and justice in the economy. This function should be primarily based on the full employment of people. If more workers search for jobs than employers search for workers, the work hours should be shortened. And vice versa, if employers need more workers than are available, the economic policy should consider extended work hours. The second essential principle of work regulation should be based on the work hours people desire the most.

 

The length of a workday can be a potent regulator of the free-market economy and the basic point of democracy in the economy. Political parties may propose the best full-time work period for workers and employers. It would probably be one of the most critical decisions of political parties, making them elected or not. On the other hand, the work hours can also be directly determined by the work needs of workers. Every worker may express the most desired work hours, and the average value would decide. Democratically determined work hours are supposed to create a fair work market, which will present a turning point for capitalism, making it a decent social system.

 

Minimum wages would no longer be needed. Full employment will increase salaries for all lower-paid workers at the expense of higher-paid workers and employers’ profits, balancing an enormous gap between peoples’ wages in the western world. Besides, workers being able to purchase more will contribute to the economy’s growth, earning employers more profit and workers higher salaries, bringing benefits to all. 

 

***

 

Shortening working hours proportionally to the unemployment rate will improve capitalism, but this study from the beginning intended to achieve a lot more. A better future requires a reconstruction of the economy as a whole. The introductory statement showed that the planned economy is more stable than the market economy, which is significantly more productive. A new economy will have to take advantage of both systems and eliminate their deficiencies.

 

 

 

[1]Mike Moffatt, Why 0% Unemployment Isn’t Actually a Good Thing (ThoughtCo, 2020) www.thoughtco.com/what-a-0-percent-unemployment-means-1147540www.thoughtco.com/what-a-0-percent-unemployment-means-1147540

[2] David Routt, The Economic Impact of the Black Death, (Economic History Association  EH.Net Encyclopedia, 2008) http://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economic-impact-of-the-black-death/

[3] Michael Bennett, The Impact of the Black Death on English Legal History (South Wales: Australian Journal of Law and Society, 1995) Vol. 11, p 197 http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUJlLawSoc/1995/1.pdf

My clash with sciences

My clash with sciences

My education

 

I am a genius. It seems to me that people think geniuses are those rare individuals who have high intelligence. Intelligence is just an excellent asset to a genius, but it isn’t necessary. A genius is a person who preserves his nature, a person who feels very well which way to go, the one who is able to select the most essential information from an unlimited quantity. He is a person who unmistakably feels what note to choose when composing music. A genius is a person who knows and does great deeds.

Geniuses are a product of freedom. A genius does not accept the knowledge of which the purpose he does not understand. That is how he protects his genial nature. He is nothing else but a supernatural person who can do what he likes. Everyone is supposed to do great deeds in the fields of their interests by their nature. Everyone should have the characteristics of a genius. People are not geniuses because they alienate themselves from their nature or they cannot do what they like.

 

It is hard to be a genius today mostly because people are prisoners of the culture of imposed knowledge. Schools do it the most, so they are the primary origin of alienation. Students cannot pass exams if they are unable to reproduce the imposed knowledge. People who obey to imposed knowledge have to suppress their natural needs, instincts, and feelings and thus, they alienate themselves from their nature. Such people copy needs, emotions, customs, and words that they have accepted from authorities throughout their lives. People who are alienated from their nature do not feel enough of what they need according to their nature and therefore take alienated knowledge readily which develops the process of alienation.

 

Alienated people from their nature are not able to create genial works. They become the opposite of geniuses; they become living machines. Imposing knowledge is a misfortune to the people. Please do not get me wrong; knowledge is necessary for human development, but it must not be imposed; it should be freely accessible and accepted. However, no one can avoid the torture of imposing knowledge today. Scientists especially cannot because they cannot be scientists without a university degree. That is why there are no geniuses in the sciences today. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I do not know of any. The more the schools demand acceptance of exposed knowledge, the less the chance students will have to protect their human abilities and, in accordance, they have less chance to be geniuses.

 

Only spiritually free people can create genial deeds. Looking at the world around me I can recognize geniality in the band Pink Floyd. They made deeply touching, compelling and beautiful music that is distinguished from everything else I have heard. This is the music of sorrow, suffering, criticism, and hope. The music portrays our world at the turn of the millennium brilliantly. If their composing were conditioned by a finishing music conservatorium, maybe these libertarian people would have given up from the academy and would not have been allowed to compose such beautiful music. If they found the strength to finish the music academy, I believe that it would certainly somehow alienate them from their nature and they would not be able to compose such grandiose music.

 

***

 

I consider my complete education as violence to my needs and freedom, and that is what it really was. Not only was my body captured in school, the school tried to enslave my thoughts, but I resisted drastically. I cannot say the resistance was my conscious decision. It was something built in me. I did not learn anything there, and that is the reason I had to attend the fifth grade again. Then I found I had to learn just enough not to repeat the whole year.

 

After finishing high school, I enrolled in the study of architecture. I liked the creative work of building houses. Through considerable difficulties of studying an uninteresting program, I did graduate the faculty. A professor who led my graduation work told me that he had never seen lower average exam marks than mine. I knew that without him and in those times I became conscious of the fact that being a lousy student advantaged me considerably compared to others.

 

As a third-year student in the faculty, I was proclaimed as one of the best architects in Yugoslavia when I won the competition for the arrangement of The Republic Square in Zagreb. It needs to be stressed here that I got the reward thanks to the sound logic I managed to save through refusal of alienated knowledge, and of course, my love for architecture that gave me tremendous work energy. The sensitivity, objectivity and creativity I have been developing throughout my whole life helped me win the competition, not the studies at the faculty. If people feel their nature, loves what they are doing, and if they have a talent for what they are doing, they will achieve much better results than they could obtain by studying and receiving diplomas.

 

At the end of my architectural studies, a collection of books by Erich Fromm fell into my hands. Fromm strongly criticized the world we live in. I had similar views, and during those times I already created the basic ideas as to how a good world should look like, but it didn’t cross my mind that I am the one who should do something about it. By reading Fromm, I found that in the field of social improvements I could give much more to society than in architecture. That’s how I decided to change the world. It excited me a lot and gave enthusiasm and tremendous energy to work. I started writing my book “Humanism – A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society,” without any doubt of my credibility.

 

However, I had to earn money to live. Philosophy requires vast freedom of thoughts, which a job in the field of architecture could not give me because creative work in architecture captures too much time. That was the reason I gave up from architecture entirely right after the graduation. At that time I found the job as a fire protection inspector. An average person can learn the entire knowledge I used for this job in a few short courses. The position did not burden me much, so I was able to write, yes, the most important book ever.

 

Writing the book inspired tremendous creativity in me, far more significant than architecture. Good ideas about changing the world have been coming to my mind without end. When that happens, a person cannot stop even if he would like to. It brings a lot of satisfaction. But also, I needed to invest a lot of effort to compose thoughts. I did it by analysis, cleaning, and rewriting the notes. In the development of new ideas, I did not use existing sciences because I didn’t know them well. I used basic logic that was already pretty much developed in me in those times. When basic ideas were finished, I had to research existing sciences to connect my thoughts to the existing state. By understanding what my goal was, I didn’t have any difficulties in studying the issues anymore. In the beginning, I thought my book would have been finished in one year, but the problems were much more complicated than I had predicted and it was not my only preoccupation, so it took me ten years to finish the book. I’ve got the power to work from understanding that my book would one day change the world entirely and create a sound and sane society.

 

When I finished the book, I started presenting my ideas to scientists. Unfortunately, the only support I got was from Professor of philosophy Andrija Stojković from the University of Belgrade. He wrote a review of my book. He also helped me spread my ideas among scientists in Belgrade, in Hegel Society and in the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, but we were not successful.

Perhaps in hope to find interested people for my philosophy in the west, I immigrated to Canada, in 1993. I was trying to work professionally on my philosophy by searching for funds from various organizations and foundations but didn’t receive any. Again, I got into a situation in which I had to earn money for a living. During that time, an economic crisis was in Canada, and there were not many available jobs. The exception was new computer technology. The situation forced me to buy a computer and computer books, and I began learning computer programming. The demand for programmers was much larger than the supply so that I got the first job easily. Nobody asked me for any diploma. I was not an especially good programmer because the job was not interesting to me. My thoughts were focused continuously on my philosophy.

 

Fortunately, my wonderful wife Dušica had an understanding of my work and offered me to take care of our daughters and home, and to work on my philosophy in my spare time, while she earned money for life. That’s how I got the time to work on my philosophy. You wouldn’t understand how grateful I am for that. The whole world should be thankful to her as well. She was the only person who had an understanding of my work, and without her, I wouldn’t be able to find enough free time to think about my philosophy and write what you are reading.

 

Criticism of sciences 

 

Since I finished my book “Humanism,” 16 years ago, I have been sending thousands of letters to professors of social sciences trying to interest them in how the bright future of humankind would look like, but I did not succeed. I’ll try to explain why.

 

Science is an objective and systematic knowledge about facts and laws of reality acquired by systematic analysis and experiments. Scientists create and develop sciences. Scientists naturally aim to learn higher expertise and, on this path, they create new theories that should bring conveniences to society. If such approaches do not conflict with reality directly, scientists accept their opinions as objective or accurate. However, relative harmonies of such theories with actual facts, still don’t guarantee the objectivity of such arguments. They may be subjective, or in other words, wrongful. The subjective approaches create alienated knowledge or false knowledge that alienates a person from reality. If scientists are prominent enough authorities, society accepts their alienated knowledge, which then alienates all the people from objective reality. Once received alienated knowledge serves generations of scientists as the basis in spreading alienation. Such sciences aim society to wrong path and prevent acceptance of objective knowledge. It aims society to solve problems inside frames that cannot bring good results. Alienated knowledge as a general rule brings disadvantage to society.

 

***

The social sciences, especially, are on the wrong or not good enough paths. They are very alienated from objective reality. The alienation has come from not sufficient challenge of ideas coming from social science authorities throughout history. The essence of social science should be creating the vision of how to build a good or at least better path to the future of humankind, but the scientists do not have it. They should be initiators of positive changes in society, but they are not. As a result, they do not have influences on social events.

 

In the wish to approach social sciences, I tried to enroll my master’s degree in sociology at the University of North York. One of the professors there sincerely advised me not to waste my time with sociology, explaining that I would not be able to get any job with a master degree in social sciences. I understood it as his opinion that there are no benefits of sociology. I responded to him that I had new ideas about the advancements of society, but he didn’t show any interest in listening to me, the same way thousands of other scientists didn’t. Another professor at the same University briefly reviewed my book “Humanism,” and told me that I satisfied the requirements for the studies, but my book was not acceptable as my master dissertation work.

 

The book that will change society entirely and make the world a beautiful place for living is not acceptable to social sciences! This example shows clearly how generations of scientists may turn into a dead-end street when they base their intellectual paths on alienated knowledge. What to say about the professors of Marxism? In Yugoslavia, Marxism was an obligatory subject in all high schools. Then the capitalist revolution came, and Marxism was revoked. What thousands of professors and doctors of Marxism do now?

 

Do you think philosophy is science? I don’t. If it is indeed a science, there would be some benefits from it, but I cannot see them. Philosophy is a word of Ancient Greek origin which means ”love wisdom.” It tries to give basic answers to the questions about human beings and their existence in nature and society. Naturally, one of the most significant interests of philosophers was defining the origin of the world. All of the answers philosophers proposed throughout the history of mankind were probably alienated from the objective reality. We live in an endlessly small part of an indefinitely large world to be able to define its origin objectively.

 

Great philosophers were through support or criticism of their predecessors writing large amounts of books trying to build and present objective opinions about the reality that surrounds us. But they did not succeed. The proof lies in the fact that philosophers did not define the basic idea for creating a good society yet. The powerlessness of philosophers to find objective answers to the questions that bother people has resulted in the creation of a massive amount of alienated knowledge. Studying philosophy today doesn’t mean seeking for wisdom because it is not known what it means. Studying philosophy today means learning about the history of failure of human thoughts. It is harmful because an enormous amount of alienated knowledge leads people to the wrong path where they can hardly recognize the origins of problems.

 

Philosophers are full of good intentions, but I have not noticed that they worked seriously enough on how to improve the world. Why? One of the rare attempts did the philosopher Karl Marx. He wrote in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: “Workers of the world unite against the capitalist exploitation!” But Marx did not define how a proper organization of society should look like.

 

Maybe he thought that united workers would develop the best possible self-organization of their communities, and meet the needs all of the people. However, nobody has ever succeeded in implementing it. The problem is two people can relatively easily agree on something but never about everything, all people can hardly agree about anything. Marx’s successors have solved this problem by taking all power into their own hands. They have become authorities and authorities tend to oppress people. This way, the authoritarian socialism immerged which regressed Marx’s intentions.

 

The problem lies in the fact that nobody has ever tried to create a system that might function without the influences of authoritative powers. I did it, and that’s the reason I succeeded in defining a good society.

 

Philosophers mainly agree that people must have equal rights, but in reality, they do not exist, and philosophers don’t recognize that sufficiently. Therefore, it isn’t surprising that they don’t understand the significance of the Golden Rule, which I believe first time is written in the Bible: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!” Or: “Do not do unto others what you do not want others do unto you!” All that philosophers have searched for to make a good society one might put into this sentence. But taking into account that the significance of this sentence was not understood clearly enough, no serious attempts were ever made to realize the idea.

 

I have invented how to make the golden rule work. This will be achieved by the system of evaluations among people. I called it democratic anarchy. Each man will get an equal right to evaluate a few other people by his own choice. Each positive evaluation should bring a small, but a noticeable award to the people being assessed, and each negative assessment should carry punishments to the negatively evaluated people in the same form. What would we get with that?

 

The system of evaluations will remove the privileges of people which are the origin of evil in society. A small equal power in the hands of the people will make people respect each other strongly. Human beings will become values to other human beings. Everyone will try hard to please people as best as they can and diminish or abolish creation of all forms of disadvantages. This will create what philosophers in the history of humankind have tried to reach unsuccessfully, this will solve the problem of today’s democracy, this will eliminate the evil in society and create a sound and sane society.

 

***

 

The scientists of political science have created a complicated political science that is very alienated from the nature of society. It happened due to the absence of deep enough analysis of political reality throughout the history of humankind. The political science certainly cannot give answers to the problems of today’s society and does not have the vision as to how a good political system, equally acceptable to all, should look like. The highest level of political science today is called democracy. However, political scientists, together with other social scientists, were never able to form a consensus to determine what the developed democracy is supposed to look like. The problem is not about the impossibility to make such an agreement; it is about the complete lack of will to form it. Scientists of political science are extended hands of the state political system, and they do not have any wish to change or confront it.

 

The most prominent professors and doctors of political sciences today do not analyze politics trying to offer the best solution for people, they analyze politicians and try to support those who best fit agenda of the rich. They know it is their best bet to get the air time in the media and to be prosperous political scientists. So the most prominent intellectuals are just public gossip people. They like to gossip like everybody else. So politics today is just a big show which does not have anything to do with democracy. If political scientists try to enter deeper into sciences, media would not support their work, and nobody would know they exist. Neither political science would help them because it depends on the rich people. The media airs the opposition as well but only those who cannot endanger the governmental policy. In this way, it gives an impression that democracy exists. That’s the reason we live in a formal democracy in which the people almost don’t have any influence in forming the policy of society.

 

I have defined a developed democracy in which people will directly impact all questions of their interest. It will be based on democratic anarchy and direct democracy.

 

The people will primarily be interested in creating the macroeconomic policy of society, which is unthinkable today. Each human will directly participate in deciding what minimum income in the community should be. The average value of all statements will determine the minimum salary of workers. In such a way, the decisions of people will coordinate the economic security of workers and their income based interest to work.

 

Also, each person will be involved in the decision as to what part of their gross income they want to allocate for taxes. The sum of all decisions of all people will form the tax policy of society. The money will then be taken from people’s incomes proportionally to the height of their income. Furthermore, each person will participate in how the tax money is going to be spent. They will decide what part of their tax money they want to spend on: education, health care, housing, recreation, infrastructure, etc. The sum of all the statements of all people will define the allocation of tax money. The advantages of such a democracy will be huge. The collective consumption will not be alienated from the people anymore. It will satisfy the needs of the people in the best possible way. The people will be delighted. The people will accept their communities more. This is the way to disalienate society. When such a democracy is established political science would probably not be needed anymore. The problem is the rich prevent me from spreading this kind of democracy to the people.

 

***

The scientists of political science have created a complicated political science that is very alienated from the nature of society. It happened due to the absence of deep enough analysis of political reality throughout the history of humankind. The political science certainly cannot give answers to the problems of today’s society and does not have the vision as to how a good political system, equally acceptable to all, should look like. The highest level of political science today is called democracy. However, political scientists, together with other social scientists, were never able to form a consensus to determine what the developed democracy is supposed to look like. The problem is not about the impossibility to make such an agreement; it is about the complete lack of will to form it. Scientists of political science are extended hands of the state political system, and they do not have any wish to change or confront it.


The most prominent professors and doctors of political sciences today do not analyze politics trying to offer the best solution for people, they analyze politicians and try to support those who best fit agenda of the rich. They know it is their best bet to get the air time in the media and to be prosperous political scientists. So the most prominent intellectuals are just public gossip people. They like to gossip like everybody else. So politics today is just a big show which does not have anything to do with democracy. If political scientists try to enter deeper into sciences, media would not support their work, and nobody would know they exist. Neither political science would help them because it depends on the rich people. The media airs the opposition as well but only those who cannot endanger the governmental policy. In this way, it gives an impression that democracy exists. That’s the reason we live in a formal democracy in which the people almost don’t have any influence in forming the policy of society.


I have defined a developed democracy in which people will directly impact all questions of their interest. It will be based on democratic anarchy and direct democracy.


The people will primarily be interested in creating the macroeconomic policy of society, which is unthinkable today. Each human will directly participate in deciding what minimum income in the community should be. The average value of all statements will determine the minimum salary of workers. In such a way, the decisions of people will coordinate the economic security of workers and their income based interest to work.


Also, each person will be involved in the decision as to what part of their gross income they want to allocate for taxes. The sum of all decisions of all people will form the tax policy of society. The money will then be taken from people’s incomes proportionally to the height of their income. Furthermore, each person will participate in how the tax money is going to be spent. They will decide what part of their tax money they want to spend on: education, health care, housing, recreation, infrastructure, etc. The sum of all the statements of all people will define the allocation of tax money. The advantages of such a democracy will be huge. The collective consumption will not be alienated from the people anymore. It will satisfy the needs of the people in the best possible way. The people will be delighted. The people will accept their communities more. This is the way to disalienate society. When such a democracy is established political science would probably not be needed anymore. The problem is the rich prevent me from spreading this kind of democracy to the people.


***


Law is an extended hand of the political system. The science of law is alienated from its objective reality the same way all others social sciences are because it was created by the privileged class of people. Unjust society creates an unjust legal system. From this injustice emerges the cruel system we live in. A cruel system creates cruel people. Cruel criminals do cruel criminal acts. Cruel judges punish criminals cruelly. The cruel justice may find its justification through preventing cruel people from producing evil, but such justice is not satisfactory. Crime is on the rise everywhere, and prisons are full.


The law is probably the most conservative social science that ensures the official system in society. It is precious to political power. In Canada, students cannot enter the school of law before they graduate some other faculty. But because of that after the graduations, lawyers get some privileges that formally nobody besides them has. Without them in Canada, one cannot buy real estate, cannot divorce, cannot perform legal proceedings; practically people cannot protect their rights without them. Privileges always form some sort of immorality; therefore justice can easily switch into injustice.


I would like to present one obvious example. It is about the International Court of Justice in Hague. The Chief Prosecutor of the court, Louise Arbour, indicted Slobodan Milošević, the president of Yugoslavia for war crimes in the middle of the aggression from her country, Canada, as a member of NATO, on Yugoslavia in 1999. Not one accusation against Slobodan Milošević was proved in the four years of the trial in Hague. If prosecutor Louise Arbour took a closer look, she would have noticed that her Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chretien, did commit a war crime indeed by sending Canadian bombardiers to kill people in aggression on Yugoslavia. The aggression was committed against the charters of the UN, Canadian laws, and even against the constitution of the NATO pact. But she didn’t accuse her Prime Minister of the war crimes. This immoral woman was then awarded for her deeds by promotion to the Supreme Court of Canada and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. I think that the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia in Hague is an immoral or even criminal place that shamelessly calls itself justice. I also believe this court is the beginning of the end of everything that is accepted as justice today.


Once the system I’ve proposed is accepted, People will have equal legislative power in society. It will be manifested by the equal rights evaluation among people. I have called it democratic anarchy. I have to repeat it because it is essential, the positive assessment will bring small awards to the assessed people, and negative evaluations will result in the same form of punishment. Such a little power in the hands of people will eliminate privileges which are the primary cause of evil in society. People will respect each other. They will learn to create the highest possible advantages to other people and diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. In such a system, people will determine what is right and wrong through their own practice. Lawyers will not be needed anymore, and science of justice will probably finish in history textbooks. Then the moral time will emerge.


***

Economics is the social science that studies the production of goods and services. Today is accepted the economy of the free market or the capitalist mode of production where the means of production are privately owned. The capitalist mode of production has managed to perform the most efficient allocation of production resources based on the market competition of enterprises. Capitalism has realized the highest increase in production productivity in the history of humankind, which created the most top growth of living standard ever.

 

But the capitalist economy also has significant disadvantages. The economics of capitalism help capital owners. They do not deal with the exploitation of workers. Furthermore, the free market brings instability to the production process that capitalism cannot solve. Capitalists prevent the removal of disadvantages of the capitalist economy because it would necessarily endanger the survival of capitalism.

 

However, I have created an entirely new publicly owned economy that will solve the problems of capitalism and establish greater productivity than the capitalist form of production can. The new economy will mostly base production on consumer orders. This will create a democratic planning economy that will ensure stable production. It will guarantee employment and economic security for every person. It will achieve high productivity and stability by lowering the company’s market competition to the level of jobs. A worker who offers the highest productivity for any public workplace at any time will get a job. This is a significant change that I have presented in detail in the book “Humanism.”

 

The new economy will establish a very efficient system of accountability as a condition of ensuring high productivity of the economy. This will create the most productive economy possible. It will be higher than private entrepreneurship can produce so capitalism with all its negativities will go down in history.

 

The market will determine the amount of workers’ wages. The right to work will be provided by a worker who requires a lower salary for the same job. The more inappropriate jobs will be better compensated for income, which will equalize the interest of workers for all jobs and they will be satisfied with the wages. Work competition will eliminate privileges in the production process, which will eliminate corruption as the main source of the immorality of today’s society. Workers will be able to choose the jobs they prefer, and they will enjoy the work. Work will become a value for itself.

 

After capitalism, humanism will emerge, a system that will far better follow the needs of people. The economy of humanism will be simple, and every man will be able to understand it in the short term. Accepting a new economy, however, requires in-depth analysis and extensive debate in society so that it can be accepted. I never managed to accomplish this.

 

Conclusively, I would say that social sciences will lose their importance. The new system I have proposed will demystify social sciences to their real essence and then we will all get to know social sciences well. The same way that people speak their mother’s tongue well, without matter of the level of education, all people will become good sociologists, philosophers, lawyers, economists, psychologists, artists, etc., just because they live in the new system.

 

***

The situation in natural sciences is not much better. Medicine is definitely not on the right path enough. Today, cancer is cured by chemotherapy and radiation. These methods stop cancer to some extent, but they also harm patients. As a general rule, cancer more wins than losses. I would say that these methods are somewhere in the range of the Middle Ages use of leeches to cure illnesses. Medicine doctor, Lorraine Day, has entirely abandoned medical science and won her breast cancer by changing the way of living and by eating healthy food. I’ve heard for many such cases. Why doesn’t medical science research it? The development of medicine requires serious studies of traditional alternative medicine, but modern medicine refuses it.

 

The fact is big corporations have taken control over methods of curing illnesses, and they earn a lot of money healing people. They don’t even have the interest to be successful in healing people because healthy people do not spend money on medicine. This is the horrible truth. Traditional medicine is forbidden in modern medicine. That has happened, firstly, because the medical sciences are conceited by possessing new knowledge and secondly, because conventional medicine cannot bring profit to corporations. The documentary Vaccine Nation presents it well. Modern medicine is very inhibited. I don’t remember the last time modern medicine invented a cure against an illness. In fact, the same medicine change s its name to bring higher profits to the pharmaceutical industry. Medicine doctors should ask themselves, is their purpose supporting the pharmaceutical industry or curing people? I am not saying that modern medicine does not bring betterment to people, but objectively it requires a general reform.

 

I believe that most illnesses originate from unhealthy living, through the alienation of people from their nature, and through the stress that emerges from it. Once the system I have proposed is accepted, it will enable people to live in harmony with their nature and illnesses will then significantly disappear. Also, I believe that people in the future will acquire a basis of medical sciences, as much as family doctors have so that they might be able to cure themselves alone or recognize the illnesses and visit proper medical specialists.

 

***

Psychology is a science that studies the mental processes and behaviour of a human being. It tries to solve the problems of man’s psyche. All these problems originate from the alienation in society. In an alienated society, man is a wolf to man. He imposes his will to other people and tries to build conveniences to himself regardless of what effects it might have to other people. Psychology is naturally completely powerless in solving social problems, so it can’t be very successful in solving psychological problems either. Psychoanalytic Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung created their own teaching and brought hope in curing mental disorders. They were very popular, but their teaching was abandoned as unsuccessful because it was alienated from the causes that cause psychological problems. All psychological problems originate from the cruel, immoral social system, the system that puts obligations and discipline in first place, the system that kills humanity, the system with no human warmth or love. Psychoanalytic help people as much as they are able to make a human touch with people who have psychological disorders. The more the doctors show they care for their patients, the more they are able to help them, because this is what is missing most in today’s alienated society.

 

When the new system I have proposed is accepted, people will not be able to benefit themselves at the expense of others. That will be provided by the system of evaluation among people. I will repeat it again to stress the importance. Each person will get an equal right to evaluate a few people they choose by his free will. Positively evaluated people will automatically receive small awards and people who get negative evaluations will be punished in the same form. Such assessment will be significant enough to people so that they will try hard to create the highest possible conveniences to other people and avoid or stop producing damages to them. All people will be careful and caring towards other people. In such a manner, man will become a value to another man. In such a manner man will build and develop love in him himself. This will remove psychological alienation. That will bring mental health, and I believe psychology will not be needed anymore.

 

***

Physics, chemistry and biology are natural sciences that have brought significant benefits to people. However, they also have theories that cannot be proven and might be alienated from their objective nature or, in short, wrong. All of chemistry is one big theory including nuclear physics. So far, work in these scientific fields confirms the validity of these theories, but that doesn’t mean it will stay the same in the future.

 

These sciences bring a lot of damage to humankind as well. Scientists give themselves rights to play with atomic and molecular modifications too easily. This is especially wrong when nobody knows for sure what consequences they might bring to human. If such researches may bring profits to corporations, they strongly support them without paying much attention to possible harmful effects on people.

 

Nuclear power plants produce vast amounts of radioactive material that is unhealthy for people in the long run. The food we eat is produced by the use of fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, and chemical products that are unhealthy for people and nature. All chemical materials are created with the intention to improve life, but they are actually long-term pollutants of the ground, water and air. The planet earth is one massive, unhealthy storage of waste. There is a lot of initiatives around the world to protect the human environment from pollution, but corporations resist them because these measures reduce profits. Capitalist corporations are interested in profits only, not in people. It comes to my mind that genetically modified food was first produced and consumed in the U.S. Nobody knows in certainty what the consequences of such food have or will have on people. Scientists have very different opinions about that. Scientists who oppose the use of genetically modified food do not have access to the media controlled by corporations.

 

The disease of cancer is growing. Governments of countries around the world almost synchronically accuse cigarettes of that and therefore, prohibit smoking to make themselves look like they work seriously protecting the people. Of course, I do not think that smoking is healthy, but I don’t believe either that smoking is the primary cause that spreads cancer. A combination of some research I did shows that the United States has a smaller rate of smokers than Asia or Africa, but it has a larger the rate of lung cancer. Greece has the highest smoking rate in the world, but it does not follow with the highest percentage of people suffering from lung cancer. Something else causes cancer more than cigarettes, and it comes from developed countries.

 

More and more people are buying expensive organic foods. This is indeed not because chemically, and biologically treated food is healthy. Please see the documentary movie Food, Inc. about the food we buy and eat. In the future, people will devote more attention to healthy feeding and the protection of their environment. In the system I have proposed, corporations will no longer have the power over the sciences. Scientific research must be independent of external influences, but scientists will be required to adopt the standards of producing healthy food. The new system will stop poisoning the people and polluting the environment.

 

***

Technical sciences are those that have objectively developed the living standard of people and most likely bring maximum benefits to society. But if human needs are alienated, then these objective sciences become alienated from their meaning as well. In the developed world, production has overcome the real human needs, it has become its own self-meaning. It has become much more a condition of survival of the system we live in than the real needs of people. I cannot find words strong enough to express how wrong it is.

 

Mathematics is probably the most objective science that undoubtedly, significantly contributes to advancement in society. But the question is how much is it objectively needed? The math I’ve used in my work as an engineer and programmer is probably only the math that is taught in middle school. I was required to take high-level mathematics at the University, just to meet the bureaucratic requirement for acquisition of the title Bachelor of Architectural Engineering. I think that the bureaucratic standardization of knowledge in the scientific world should be removed as harmful. It is at least a loss of time. It is not necessary to learn complete sciences if one does not need the knowledge, or if one is not interested. Life practice should demonstrate what knowledge a man should acquire to perform the job he wants, and then it is necessary to provide access to needed knowledge to everyone at any time.

 

 

The Future of Sciences

 

Authorities have throughout history been building unjustifiably complex, mystified and alienated sciences. Not only that sciences have incorrect or insufficiently correct basis, but academic recognition gives credibility to such base, which damages society. It directs people to wrong paths, the paths that cannot solve the problems of society because they are alienated from the nature of the origin of social issues. Also, lack of critical acceptance of knowledge accustoms people to expect answers to all questions from authorities. That alienates people from the power to mobilize their own abilities to solve problems. Usually, such an attitude impoverishes a man’s abilities to recognize, understand and resolve scientific, work, and everyday life problems.

 

Alienated knowledge is mainly wrong; it doesn’t allow people to see the exit from the dead-end street in which humanity has entered. I’ve made a significant breakthrough because I didn’t accept alienated sciences. I kept a natural logic and felt about what is right and what is not. In preparing the solutions to the problems of humanity, I’ve just used simple reasoning with which I achieved straightforward answers that the alienated people through the system of education were not able to perceive. The basis of this logic can be expressed as follows: “In the future people will no longer go to school to learn what is good, they will learn what is good in everyday life.”

 

The most complex changes in the system I have proposed will probably be related to the division of work. The future economy will have to be able to follow the changes of social needs through greater mobility of labour. The only good division of labour that such changes will be able to support will be based on a constantly open free market. The worker who offers the highest productivity in any public workplace at any time will get the job.

 

Bureaucratic determination of necessary knowledge to perform different work tasks by formal education and examinations, will not be able to follow new requirements and will no longer exist in the new system. Bureaucratic conditions unnecessarily reduce the ability for workers to be employed in positions they want, because formal education requires a lot of time. I would say that an average person can learn most jobs in a short period. Why then does education last 12 to 20 years or even more? School in the first place has a goal to lead people to the way that authorities have imposed throughout history. In that manner, the followers of authorities guard their privileges. This is a very alienated path that harms people. Such education becomes a break for the development of society.

 

Formal education should not be a condition for obtaining a job because it is not a sufficient guarantee of workability. The best learning comes through practice. When a man loves what he does, he quickly learns everything he needs to perform his job. The new system that I have proposed will establish a new, highly effective method of accountability for the possible insufficiencies of the realization of working proposals of workers. The new system will enable workers to give far greater guarantees for the productivity of their work than they can through diplomas, recommendations, experience or morality in society. The responsibility of every worker will be much higher than the private entrepreneurs today have. This responsibility will be so high that nobody will try obtaining a job for which they don’t have enough knowledge.

 

Although diplomas will no longer be an important factor in hiring, education will continue to be necessary, but it will change significantly. The opinion formed in capitalism that education is profitable for students makes education expensive. But knowledge is beneficial for society as a whole because educated people produce benefits to society. Therefore education should be free. In the future, all of the people will have simple and easy access to all knowledge, and to all sciences.

 

The central principle of education in the future will be based on the shortest and most straightforward way to achieve the required knowledge. One can assume with great certainty that most students will not study subjects that disinterest them or don’t give them direct benefits. Doctrines that are not going to get interested or bring immediate benefits to society will go down in history. People will determine what sciences will survive and which will not by their own interest. Education in the future will aim to teach students the knowledge they consider necessary. This is the path of disalienation of sciences. Students will take specialized courses on their own free will. They will make their curriculum of studies on their individual needs and abilities. I assume that the lectures in the classical sense will mostly no longer exist. Knowledge is already available over the Internet, and this trend will expand and improve. I think a focus on the future apprenticeship will be based on the consultation of students with teachers, where teachers will explain to students what material wasn’t sufficiently clear to them when they were studying on their own. Students and professors will discuss problems in particular fields of work and perform exercises through workshops. These workshops will probably include online students from around the world.

 

I will try to explain clearly in one example what the shortest way to achieve required knowledge exactly means. Let us say that someone wants to study rocket science. He begins the studies and soon finds out that he doesn’t know enough maths to be able to follow the lectures in rocket science. He will then stop the study of rocket science until he learns enough maths to continue studying rocket science again. Education will be very accessible and straightforward in the future.

 

Today, for example, an average surgeon needs to educate himself for more than twenty years. What slavery to the bureaucracy that is! What a loss of time in the most creative edge! I think that the average educated person may acquire proficiency in surgery in a much shorter time if he removes everything that is unnecessary. How? The student surgeons will typically attend the operations of experienced surgeons. When a student finishes the program to be a surgeon, he will estimate alone whether he is able to perform a surgery. The surgeons will not evaluate their own skills wrongfully because the regulation of the work responsibility will be much stronger than it is today. The patients will not be in danger of non-professional surgeons because experienced surgeons will supervise the beginners. Besides that, when a beginner surgeon feels capable of surgery, he will still need to convince patients that he is capable of doing it because patients will choose their surgeons alone. A surgeon who makes a big mistake performing a surgery might lose patients forever. So if a beginner surgeon doesn’t feel capable of delivering an operation, he could attend additional education as much as he feels he needs.

 

Today’s complicated system of education has created the opinion that ordinary people cannot easily overcome the knowledge used by experts. This is wrong. Everyone is able to do it if they find an interest and ability to do it. Everything in nature is simple, and that is the reason the essence of any science is straightforward. In the fields of sciences, there is nothing that cannot be easily understood. Science becomes complicated when subjective, powerless and ignorant people alienate them from their real essence. Then we are talking about alienated or false doctrines.

 

I think that in the future, all people will be interested to know and understand the basics of all sciences. People learn while they are alive. People in the future will understand the essence of all sciences much better, but that doesn’t mean that all people will be experts in all scientific fields. Great scientists need to study and work for years to perform at an expert level. A pianist can quickly learn where all the notes on the piano are, but a good pianist needs to practise playing for years, and that makes him a pianist. An excellent pianist must love music, and that love gives him the inspiration to sit for hours before the piano and exercise. The same applies to the experts at every workplace and every science.

 

Aleksandar Šarović

December 4, 2008

The End of Capitalism

The End of Capitalism

Today is accepted the capitalist economy in which the means of production are privately owned. The capitalist form of production, based on the competition of private entrepreneurs has created the most efficient allocation of economic resources ever. Thus, capitalism has achieved the highest productivity of the economy in the history of humankind, 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 unnecessary because the current production is strong enough to meet the needs of people efficiently.


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 fair labour market where workers may choose their jobs and the one where they must take jobs because they have to earn money for a living is exploitation. Unemployed workers must accept any job to feed their families. That is why capitalism deliberately maintains the level of unemployment at around 5 percent. 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 demand for work. Capitalism swears by the free market, but it consciously reduces the labour market to exploit workers more.


Exploitation can be eliminated by removing unemployment through a state regulation. If governments establish shorter working hours for workers proportionally to the unemployment rate, it will make the number of job posts and workers equal. 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 better relations in the process of production, a more stable income of 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. Capitalism is immoral, and that is the reason we live in immoral times. Such immorality must end if humanity wishes to have a good future.

 

Capitalism is very demanding in depriving the freedom of people. In today’s society, virtually only capital is free. People have developed only consumer freedom on which capitalism bases its survival. Therefore, excessive consumption is established in the modern world, which is mainly its own purpose. I don’t understand people who buy carts full of useless, cheap goods, mostly produced in China, 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. In the developed world, consumption has reached its limit when it cannot objectively bring consumers a better life, the same way as a full-fed man cannot enjoy eating more food. However, due to significant alienation, the consumers aren’t aware of it.


Economic Crises

 

Economic crises are an integral part of capitalism crisis arises as a result of an insufficient balance between supply and demand. Capitalism doesn’t have a solution that can prevent crisis because the entire production is based on the free competition of manufacturers in an unpredictable market. The cycles of production expansion and recession accelerate faster so that economic instability and a 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 exploits the natural resources of our planet Earth on mass. The limited resources of the planet Earth are the final limitation for economic growth as well as an insuperable obstacle for the survival of capitalism.


Capitalism cannot escape economic crises, but disasters can be reduced by sound economic policy. Such a policy is not popular in the capitalist world because it diminishes the freedom of capitalist entrepreneurs. The big financial crisis occurred in 2008 in the U.S. To ensure economic growth, its survival and maximize profit the U.S. banks started offering loans to virtually all people who have requested it. The banks have decided that providing credits with insurance companies is a sufficient guarantee for their investments. People found the possibilities for quick profits and massively demanded relatively cheap bank loans with which they were buying, building and selling houses. In the beginning, the entire U.S. economy benefited greatly.


The most prominent economic experts of the American capitalism have enjoyed the proper business of the economy, and they didn’t want to pay attention to the fact that a significant expansion of production naturally brings culmination, saturation, and stagnation of production and often ends in a recession. It just happened in a relatively short period. Overproduction of apartments and houses from the high-profit business encountered difficulties in finding buyers. The recession of production is equal to a catastrophe for the debt based economy. When manufacturers cannot earn enough money to pay the bank loans, they go bankrupt.


Individual cases are not a problem because banks can recover their claims by selling the debtors’ mortgages. In the massive manufacturing recession that began in the United States, a vast number of debtors appeared who could not pay their money loans and were forced to declare bankruptcy. Banks were no longer able to recover money loans from debtors because they couldn’t sell the ownership of the mortgages even by reduced prices. The massive recession has led banks to the threshold of bankruptcy. To make things worse, a liberal economy has expanded throughout the entire world almost, so the whole world has become mutually dependent. This is how the world economic crisis started.


The American economy

 

Banks lead the economy of capitalism. The bankruptcy of banks would trigger the liquidation of the economy. That is the reason states prevent the bankruptcy of banks through bailouts. It should be said that rescuing banks deviates from the basic principles of liberal capitalism because a company that doesn’t preserve liquidity in capitalism disappears. One can even say that the states rescue capitalism by using socialist measures.


USA rescues private banks in the U.S. by borrowing money from the U.S. Federal Reserves. The U.S. Federal Reserves are the Central American Bank, which is also privately owned. This means that the U.S. rescues private banks by getting into debt with the largest private bank in the world. The U.S. Federal Reserve is the owner of the U.S. national debt. The total U.S. national debt is a sum that presents all the domestic annual costs reduced by the income taxes citizens of the U.S. pay yearly. So, re-borrowing with the Federal Reserve Bank renews this debt. The U.S. Federal Reserves don’t have enough money to loan to the U.S., so the bank additionally emits money from “thin air” for the needs of the U.S. The U.S. federal debt returns American citizens from the income taxes. Does it mean that the U.S. bails out private banks by using the money that American citizens return to the central bank? It is quite possible.


The bailout cost somewhere around one trillion dollars. The banks were supposed to return the money but were they did so? The banking system is very complex and as such creates grey zones where corruption rules. The wealthy people have such a power in the US that they are capable of legalizing what would usually be considered a crime. After the bail out the national debt rapidly increased for about one trillion dollars almost immediately and it never rapidly decreased. Instead, it continued to grow which tells that the debt was not being paid. The Federal Reserve Bank helped private banks but not the people, and I firmly believe the American people will pay a good part of it through taxes. This is a big injustice.


The owners of the U.S. Federal Reserve possess immense wealth. They regularly collect interest from the U.S. national debt, and of course, they do not have the interest the American national debt ever returns. In fact, their interest is for the debt to keep growing because that way, they achieve greater exploitation of the American people. The only concern that they have, stems from the fact that they do not want to kill the cow they milk. That is the reason they have almost eliminated interest, the symbol of capitalism. Does it not indicate the end of capitalism?

However, despite this, the American Government cannot use money from the taxes, because all the money goes to the loans return. So the current costs of the U.S. government are funded by new loans to the same bank. The owners of the Federal Reserve are legal pirates. They have managed to impose to the American people through the organized media propaganda and corruption of politicians, that their piracy is the most normal thing in the world.


The U.S. Government must take a right to issue money from the Federal Reserves because otherwise, the American people cannot escape the problem. However, it might be difficult to do it. President John F. Kennedy did precisely this by Executive Order No. 11110. Soon after that, he was killed. Executive decision No. 11110 of President Kennedy was revoked immediately after his death by the president Lyndon Johnson. The American debt is growing progressively and thus creates one massive problem that will encounter in the future.


***

Capitalism is based on a debt economy, which is the leading cause of today’s economic crisis. However, in the media, the crisis is explained by greater consumption than earnings. I don’t think this explanation is good enough. There is a much larger quantity of produced goods on the market than consumers can buy. The market balanced it but anyway this is the source of the crisis. The crisis is the result of considerable disproportions in the earnings of people. Some people earn too much, and others too little. To be able to buy needed goods those people who have too little get into debts with interest with people who have too much. When the debts accumulate, the debtors can no longer afford to buy new goods because they have to return the debts. This debt restrains the economy. One can say capitalism suffocates itself.

 

The American industry is in big trouble as well. In the consumer-saturated society, one cannot produce goods for unknown consumers and expect they will be so thrilled with such products that they must buy them. Capitalism is based on the fear of survival. That fear works counterproductively for capitalism in the recession of production. When the recession comes, workers and companies are afraid for their future, so they keep their money because it is the highest guarantee of survival in an uncertain future. They then decrease their spending and do not buy goods. This strongly affects companies because they cannot sell their products so that they endure great difficulties up to the point when they collapse into bankruptcy. Workers lose their jobs massively, they do not receive income, do not buy goods and the crisis progressively deepens.

 

A similar economic crisis occurred as a result of deflation in the year 1929. There are some indications that behind the crisis, stood the most significant capital, which withdrew money from the market, which brought a vast number of the companies into bankruptcy. At that time, the state hasn’t even tried to save the economy. In this manner, the most significant capital took wealth from bankrupt people and increased their power.

 

The crisis today is different from the Great Depression in 1929 because the U.S. intends to save the American economy. The ruin of the American economy would remove the U.S. as the dominant force in the world and bring China or some other country to the top. This is the worst nightmare for the carriers of U.S. capitalism, so they cannot allow it. The American economy will be helped by the U.S. financial assistance this time.

 

Emitting money from thin air usually leads to inflation where money loses its value. Inflation encourages consumption, which renews the economy. Despite the massive emission of the U.S. dollar, inflation is still not significant. It is firstly because the U.S. gives the impression that it pays back borrowed money even though the debt is being recalculated all the time and grows. The inflation is also not high because payment transactions around the world take place mostly with U.S. dollars. Virtually all countries around the world maintain the value of the U.S. dollar through their economies, and this gives higher value to the dollar than America deserves. Emission of the U.S. dollar is, in fact, a form of exploitation of all countries around the world.

 

However, the emissions of the U.S. dollar needed to bail out the economy are so significant that they will undoubtedly lead to inflation. Inflation sounds horrible to those who have much money because it reduces the value of their money, but it is still a far better solution than the collapse of the American economy. Perhaps after that, the U.S. dollar will probably no longer be the only world currency. However, I think that the biggest problem for the U.S. economy is the U.S. manufacturers leaving the United States and going to cheaper production countries. If the U.S. does not re-establish its production well enough and does not reduce its costs, especially those imperialistic ones, it may perish. I think that the mistakes of the American policy have been so significant that the U.S. will in the foreseeable future, lose political and economic primacy in the world. It is not even wrong because more equitable countries, create more equitable people.

 

The American President

 

The new President of the U.S., Barack Obama has received significant support from the American people, and perhaps most importantly, from the media. It said to me that the considerable capital had accepted him as an appropriate person to resolve the problems coming from the economic crisis. Barack Obama will decrease tensions in American society by his human qualities and abilities. I think US President Barack Obama will reform the U.S. health care system and get the US closer to the health standard of the developed world.

 

Americans, like all other nations, are taught to believe that a good democratically elected leader can solve their problems. It should first be noted that there is no option to such beliefs, and secondly, these beliefs are wrong. First of all, power corrupts, and practically incorruptible people do not exist. Also, wealthy people have more power than American leaders. They perform much pressure on the US presidents from all sides including media and president’s who under their control, assuring the presidents that the options that the rich represent are the best. Under such pressure, Obama declared the war in Afghanistan righteous even though it can never be. Besides, U.S. politics in Afghanistan cannot achieve success. One cannot win people who are willing to give their lives for the goals in which they believe. The only good thing President Obama can do in Afghanistan is to stop the war, but it would confront him with wealthy people who profit well from that war and on which he very much depends.

 

Furthermore, President Obama is trying to find an escape from the crisis that the U.S. economy is in by improving. The rich people prevent it because every improvement of capitalism must take power from them. Barack Obama and all other good leaders who try to restrain liberal capitalism by reforms cannot achieve significant success because the rich people stop it. After sound, but unsuccessful leaders, disappointed people, often choose a strong right-wing leader who makes the situation worse. However, the worst in all this is that people have no alternative. People today are powerless and in it lay the foundation of the social evil today.

 

***

Technically, there is room for 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 good. Capitalism is not enough rational system because it requires too much unnecessary work. Capitalism cannot establish a stable production and therefore cannot establish a stable society. That is the reason capitalism cannot prosper.

 

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 withdraw from a crisis; however, one should not think about how to help capitalism survive, but rather about the creation of a far better system than capitalism for all the people. Such a system must take power from authorities and give it to the people, and this will solve all social problems of capitalism. I have proposed such a system, but it is so different from all existing models that people cannot accept it quickly even though they would all live far better. However, my proposal may open discussion which by the time may bring better future of humankind closer.

 

 

The New Social System: Humanism

 

The new democratic tax policy is a necessity

 

States plan and order their spending. Countries are the largest consumers, and therefore they can stabilize production to the grand scope. Today it is the job of elected representatives of the people. 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 important decisions of common interest. Individuals will directly form a policy of society, and in the first place, economic policies.

 

People will be particularly interested in deciding on the macroeconomic policies of the society. The state budget will be created through direct democracy. 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 means 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. They will have a far greater overall impact if they are democratically allocated. In such a way, the people will become active members of society and so; they will accept their community a lot more. Collective consumption will no longer be alienated from society. 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. Once people get the power to decide in society directly, they will be so satisfied with it that they will not allow anyone to take such power from them.

 

***

The 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. They will organize new production, far more productive than the private companies can achieve.

In capitalism, the opinion is built that states are lousy businessmen. So far that is relatively true.

 

The reason can be found in more privileged working positions of workers in the state sector comparing to the ones in private companies. Following the philosophy that inadequately interprets the working rights of workers, jobs in the state sector are generally protected. The workers can hardly lose their jobs even if their work performance is weak contrary to the workers in privately owned companies. Workers in public or state companies do not have enough developed the income-based stimulation to work more. Good work is often not paid better than a lousy one. Workers in the state sector, especially managers, can often benefit more by corruption at the expense of the company rather than from their work. As a result, state companies lose the productivity battle against private enterprises. Privileged jobs, poor wage policies and corruption create the bad productivity of state companies. 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.

 

Even though the privileges of workers in private companies are less than the ones in public companies, they still exist. The majority of jobs usually are occupied, and they are not available to other workers even if they might be more productive than existing ones. Also, there are positions in private companies that are more awarded by high income than the workers would demand on the free market. Why is that? Capitalists need buffer zones between themselves and exploiting workers, which are unconditionally obedient. Secondly, it justifies inequality and thus gives the stability of capitalism.

 

Capitalism still does not have a developed mechanism of rewarding good work and punishing a lousy one. Income awards are punishments, are not fairly distributed. Perhaps it could be presented best by the management of American corporations. They are compensated by severance packages in the millions of dollars even if they have damaged their companies by their incompetence. I see no other reason for that than it is essential for the rich people to preserve the immorality of the system. The money they are sacrificed shows how important it is to them. This is a form of corruption that does not give a good perspective to private companies and the capitalist system.

 

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. It is necessary to allow an access of every worker to every work post. That would be accomplished by giving every public job position to the best available worker. Also one needs to develop an objective system of remuneration to each employee for good work and a system of punishment for bad work. These measures will build a sound economic future.

 

The new division of work is a necessity

 

The state-owned companies will accept an entirely new economic system that will be far more economically productive than private companies. Firstly, the changes will affect the division of labour. There is no fairer or better distribution of labour 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 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 advantages and the least possible disadvantages to society is just a technical question. I have defined a pretty good solution in my book Humanism, but that will probably have to be more developed through 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 proportionately to the unemployment rate. Also, under the new system, each job will be equally desirable. This will be accomplished 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 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 system would have no meaning if the workers on their wish to achieve greater competitive power, 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.

 

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 or decide their income, 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. They will be adequately compensated for their companies.

 

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, essential 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 the human productive power. The human productive power will be one of the most critical factors which will determine the amount of worker’s income. This value will be significant.

 

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. This measure will look like a free association of private enterprises although the merge will be achieved under heavy pressure from higher productivity of public companies. Owners of private companies will receive stocks for their ownership of the integrated company. They will also find an interest in the fact that a merged company would be more stable to conjuncture changes.

 

This would in principle mean that the former owners of companies would realize smaller profits in good businesses of the merged corporation, but also smaller losses in bad businesses because the large corporation will cover the disturbances of earnings on the market. Also, the production of such corporation will be more stable because it will be increasingly based on customer orders. If owners of private companies could have an option to join such a company today, they would most likely do it because that would save more of their capital value in a frequent crisis of capitalism.

 

The value of human productive power may establish an effective system of responsibilities of workers for realizing the offered productivity in the production process. Workers will increase their competitiveness at the desired workplace by offering greater responsibility for the job. The responsibility will be expressed in numerical value. The higher the number, the greater the responsibility it will mean and the greater right to work. This is an idea for which I hint 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 significant declines in value representing their productive power.

 

***

The good future of humankind cannot be based on the value of capital only. Man needs to become the most significant 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 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 society could be established. Such regulation will automatically be applied whenever necessary.


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 decide 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, he will lose a legally defined value from his productive power. Each crime may be 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 to 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 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 by 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. However, that will not work for people who fall into the negative value of productive power. They will be very visible to everyone.


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. 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 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 highest possible advantages for society and to diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages. Given that all individuals will have the equal right of evaluation, and that they will give their assessments independent of any written rules, such a democracy will assume the form of anarchy. In this straightforward way, the populus 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.


Individuals will not have much power in society, but their evaluations joined together will be very powerful. A person who receives a large number of negative assessments would try hard to avoid doing anything inconvenient to other people. Besides, the person who receives bad evaluations would never know who has evaluated him negatively so that he would try to improve his behaviour towards everyone. This is what will take privileged powers from all the people; this is what will eliminate social evil and form a good society.


The system of democratic anarchy will especially affect authorities. The higher the position an authority has in society, the greater the responsibility they would bare to society. For example, the president of the US might get 100,000,000 bad evaluations from the American people for bad policies, lies, and criminal aggression on countries. That would cost him 100,000,000 dollars in only one month. Non-privileged presidents would not dare perform bad policies anymore. However, 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 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 power 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. I wrote more about democratic anarchy in the article The Future of Democracy.


***

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 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. 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 participate in decision-making about all questions regarding their interests directly.

 

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 high importance – this will contribute significantly to the development of society.

 

 

The economic security of people is a necessity

 

Capitalists are not interested at all 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 individuals 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 today, so that each resident will receive some 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, 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, the community will then increase the minimum salary and thus reduce the income-based stimulation for work.

Society as a whole will guarantee the economic security and stability of individuals. This will remove the fear that rules throughout the world today. If people were not afraid for their financial future, they would be spending money, and that would quickly pull out today’s economy from the crisis. However, capitalism finds the primary motivation for work from fear 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.

 

Besides that, the restoration of demand would help the economic crisis of capitalism, but this is not sufficient enough. Consumption already exceeds the real people’s needs in the developed world. A long term exit from the crisis of humankind should be sought in changing the system of values that rule today.

 

 

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 individual consumption, so that they will directly decide to allocate more money for taxes from their gross incomes. The more people allocate money for taxes, the more free goods and services will be allocated for the needs of the collective consumption of society. This is the 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 needs of the collective 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 treatments; 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 goods will lose their alienated market value, but the value of the use of goods will remain. It will be worth the same as air is worth today. I am not talking about utopia or oppression of people, but about the advanced technology system that will follow the needs of the people. If only one man, however, would like to keep his 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 conscience. Of course, freedom is dependent on the possession of a conscience. Conscience will be built on a large degree of 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 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 sound 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, represents not only 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.

 

 

Aleksandar Šarović

January 6, 2009

References:

 

Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis Director Martin Borgs made a fresh insight into the greatest economic crisis of our age: the one still awaiting us.

 

Credit As A Public Utility: The Solution to the Economic Crisis – video speech of the former U.S. government official Richard C. Cook, who sharply criticized the American Federal Reserve Bank.

 

Zeitgeist: Addendum . Video made by Peter Joseph that digs deep into the core of the problems of capitalism. However, the movie fails to provide enough efficient solution to the problems.

2013.01.23

US Agencies Occupied the Occupy Movement

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Discussion

 

Privileges are Evil

Privileges are Evil

Privileges are definitely the biggest mistake of mankind of all the time. I would define privileges as a condition that gives individuals power over others. Our culture, which we inherited, teaches us that power over people is a value so that privileges become values as well. The word privilege immediately reminds us of people who have power or the very successful people, but privileges are far more widespread. Almost every person is somehow privileged, and that is not good. This article mainly presents the sources of privileges, the reasons why they are not good, and how they can be removed.

 

Talents a man himself possesses should not be considered as privileges, but skills in the alienated society easily earn privileges. Ability should not be considered a privilege, but if ability gives people power over others, then it becomes a privilege. Work should not be considered a privilege, but if the job gives people control over others, then it becomes a privilege. Achieved material wealth should not be considered a privilege, but if it gives people power over others, it becomes a privilege. Beauty should not be considered a privilege, but if beauty gives power over others, it becomes one. Hope you get the point.

 

Most people, by their subjectivity, consider privileges as overcoming their own powerlessness in nature. Privileges can easily create to the man the illusion of power in nature and then it gives him great happiness that looks like the real overcome of his powerlessness in nature. Such a man tends to start admiring himself greatly and creates a narcissistic feature of his own character. This feature of character glorifies the subjective vision of conscience, which develops the alienation of man from objective reality. A narcissistic man is so burdened with himself that he is not able to notice anything valuable besides him exists. He loses respect for people, and that prevents him from reaching natural benefits in relationships with other people. He loses respect towards nature as well. Legend says that Narcissus felt so in love with himself that he did not manage to learn to swim, so he drowned in the lake where after a fall while he was watching his reflection.

 

A man objectively does not need privileges, but subjectively they easily bring an illusion of power in nature, fool people and become a significant value. However, privileges bring happiness to the narcissistic man coming from the subjective vision of power, and therefore he invests a great effort in maintaining the survival of his own privileged status. But normally, it does not matter how much a narcissistic man tries, nothing can overcome his weakness in nature. Obviously, it is not possible to keep beauty and youth, and everyone who tries to do so is their own worst enemy because they are condemned to lifelong suffering. Other alienated needs are more challenging to identify, but the final result is the same. Privileged people in real life must encounter conflicts with objective reality. Then they necessary suffer. Pain destroys the souls of narcissistic people, and they very often find escapes from the painful suffering in the perversion of their own sensibility.

 

Narcissistic people, by their subjective consciousness, may identify the loss of privileges with the loss of their existence, so that any threats to their privileges causes them to panic and fear, and they desperately seek salvation. Hurting someone’s narcissism provokes hatred that cannot forgive. Nothing attacks people as much as someone’s injured narcissism, nothing destroys marriages as much as someone’s injured narcissism, nothing kills people as much as someone’s hurt narcissism, and nothing provokes wars as much as someone’s wounded narcissism. Injured narcissism is the leading cause of destructiveness in society. All evil in the history of humanity comes from narcissistic forms of the character.

 

Privileges corrupt people. People that privileges cannot spoil are so rare that they can be considered nonexistent. I am not sure that privileges would not be able to corrupt me at least a little bit. Privileges should be prevented as a requirement of establishing a constructive orientation of people. Preventing privileges means overcoming narcissism and destructiveness in society.

 

Powerless people tend to reach privileges. The higher the feeling of the weakness of a man in society and nature, the higher is his need for creating privileges. With this in regard, the more we overcome the weakness of people the more the problem will be solved. The powerlessness of people will be overcome by using the system I have proposed.

 

Privileges may be developing from childhood

 

An exaggerated concern for children may be a more severe problem than the neglecting of children. I will try to explain it with the example of the upbringing of Adolf Hitler. The mother of Adolf Hitler admired his son unconditionally. She did everything she could to please him. She did all his chores instead of him. Psychologist Erich Fromm believes that this is not loving because of the lack of responsibility for the future of the child, and I agree with him. Adolf Hitler grew convinced that he was perfect without the investment of any effort. In this way, he developed his extreme narcissistic view of the world. The world for him existed only as far as he could subjugate it to his needs. His mother was just a maid for him who fulfilled all his wishes and pulled him out of unpleasant situations. This made him irresponsible towards life and incapable of loving.

 

Of course later on in real life, as a result of ignorant upbringing, Adolf Hitler experienced many painful moments. The pain brings most people back to reality but not extremely narcissistic Adolf Hitler. While he was suffering in unpleasant reality, he got into his shell and performed endless internal monologue to himself with which he justified his inadaptability to society. The speaker skills he developed in this way helped him expose himself to the German people during a sensitive political moment. The rest is history. Adolf Hitler’s story is not about criminal genetics but about the very irresponsible upbringing of the child. I am convinced that if his mother did not spoil him during the earliest years of his life and if his father spanked him occasionally, Adolf Hitler would probably became a prominent retailer or something like this, and 35 million people would not be killed in the Second World War. With this respect, even violent parents are not as bad in the upbringing of their children as the ignorant parents who spoil them. They are the greatest enemies to their children while at the same time they do significant damage to society.

 

Millions of children around the world are brought up similarly as Adolf Hitler, where parents really damage their children with good intentions. Spoiled children are very irresponsible and do not develop their natural abilities. They have big problems throughout life and suffer because of it. A child’s high degree of narcissism can be identified by excessive confidence or by exaggerated fear, and also by strong aggressiveness or extreme isolation. A child’s aggression can only be removed by severe penalties while in the case of excessive seclusion a lot of knowledge and attention are needed. If parents show weakness towards children’s aggression or indifference towards children’s depression, they can easily create very inadaptable children who will be unhappy in their lives and during one moment of crisis they may become murderers. The Virginia Tech massacre is such an example where a student killed 32 people and wounded many others before committing suicide.

 

If parents do not fulfill their parental duties in the upbringing of children, then it is most likely too late for the productive development of children. Then only psychiatrists or oppressive state apparatus can somewhat help. Now you are probably wondering where is the boundary in upbringing that divides responsible and irresponsible children towards their future. This border is defined by the knowledge that is the fruit of the equal people relationship. This is a state where children will not feel superiority or inferiority. I’ve established a system that will achieve such a society in my book Humanism.

 

Economic privileges

 

The owners of the means of production realize the most widespread form of privilege today. In a society where there is high unemployment of workers, employers are especially privileged. Unemployed workers are forced to accept low-paying jobs to feed their families. The privileged owners of the means of production exploit it by abusing workers giving those poor wages while accomplishing higher profits for themselves. Then, employers develop narcissistic traits that make them insensitive to the needs of workers. In this manner, the exploitation of workers occurs; the foundation of today’s problems in society.

 

The solution to these problems is straightforward. All that needs to be done is reduce privileges of employers. Their privileges will be reduced by abolishing the unemployment of workers. This can be done by reducing work hours proportionally to the unemployment rate. Once unemployment is removed, employers will have to compete with each other to hire workers by increasing the incomes of workers. Workers will achieve a higher purchasing power and will buy more, which will help the capitalist economy produce more and profit more. The problem is that the increase of workers’ rights reduces the privileges of employers and the latter vehemently oppose it. This problem must be resolved because only the equalization of the rights of people can build a good future of humanity.

 

In the final stage of the development of the new humanistic system, I have proposed the complete abolition of employer privileges by introducing a system of work competition in public companies. I have proposed a work competition among workers in public companies. Each work post will be taken by a worker who offers the highest productivity at any time. No one position in public companies will be privileged any longer.

 

In the new system, each work position will be equally desired. This will be achieved when each work position with defined productivity get a worker who asks for the lower price of labour. Labour price will be one of the factors that determine the height of income, but it can be said that better jobs will achieve relatively lower salaries and worse jobs will be compensated with relatively higher incomes. Thus, the labour market will balance working interest in all jobs.

 

The new economy will form an advantageous system of accountability for the realization of productivity workers offers so that they would not dare offer productivity they cannot accomplish. Responsibilities of managers and workers will be so significant that they would have to mutually agree on the production and establish a high degree of consensus before making decisions. This kind of market economy will result in co-operation at all levels of production processes and thus, will contribute to the development of a productive society.

 

No economy can be better than the one where every job gets the best worker available. Such an economy will easily become significantly more productive than the capitalist one so that capitalism will be forced to withdraw. When capitalism ends humanism will begin. It will abolish privileges by creating equal rights relations in society and will build an unthinkably better future for humanity.

 

My experience with privileged people

 

The owners of the means of production might be privileged to the consumers as well. The owners of the ski resort, Mt. St. Louis and Moonstone in Ontario are privileged. Their privilege arises from the fact that Ontario is a flat province so that the little hill they possess at a distance of 100 kilometres from Toronto is always full of skiers. This privilege made the owners of the ski resort arrogant.

 

Last year, I went with my family there to ski. We bought tickets for the ski lift. I placed my ticket in a special transparent pocket designed just for that purpose. When I entered the lineup of the ski lift, the owners told me to put the ski pass on a string or to leave. I answered that I would go if they returned my money for the ski pass. They did not reply to my request; instead, they used force and push me down into the snow. One of the workers jumped on me while the owner struck me with his boot in the ribs. My wife and daughters watched all of this, screaming at them to leave me alone, so they did. I immediately called the police expecting that the police would protect the citizens, but this was not the case. Namely, the police in Canada protect private capital more than people. The policemen told me that I must leave the ski resort.

 

The privilege of ownership of the ski resort gave them great power, and that alienates those people from their own nature. And so they have built a high degree of narcissism, and as such, they have lost the ability to correctly perceive the natural laws and reach a normal healthy life. They cannot find happiness in their lives. If these arrogant people somehow get unlimited power, they might become some variant of Adolf Hitler. Many arrogant people around the world would repeat what Hitler did if they got the chance. It would be entirely wrong to conclude that such opportunities cannot occur again.

 

Now, I am living in a big building that has an outdoor and indoor swimming pool. There is a service of maintenance and a board of directors composed mostly of retired people who make decisions of common interest. For a director position in the Board of Directors mostly apply residents who need power over people, and they like using this power. Life experience taught me that people who love power are the worst people because they love to use their power at the expense of others. The Board of Directors has hired a woman who works as a lifeguard at the pools and maintains order. She forbade me from protecting my five-year-old daughter with sunscreen at the outdoor pool because someone from the Board of Directors wrongly informed her that sunscreen damages the pool installation. This was misinformation because sunscreen may be harmful to the Jacuzzi but not for the pool. However, this rule was in force for years and harmed the users of the swimming pool.  The other tenants have told me in confidence that they protect themselves from the sun at home before they get to the pool. I succeed to revoke this stupid decision by writing a letter to the management board. 

 

I played amateur soccer and basketball for more than forty years. I mostly did it because running is healthy. I was never particularly handy with a ball, but it was always more comfortable for me to run after the ball than running around a stadium. I scored a lot of goals and enjoyed it a lot. One should cheer as much as they can because it is healthy. On the other hand, there are players to whom winning is the issue of “life or death.” They do not show joy in the game, they play very aggressively and cannot stand defeat. These are mainly talented people for sports whose talents build their privileged statuses in games and consequently the narcissistic feature of their character. They bring conflicts into sports. Finally, I’ve escaped from such conflicts by not playing collective sports anymore. The relationship between my orientation and theirs is the relationship between health and illness. People are not aware of that because if they were, they would select good and not evil for themselves. One day my philosophy will solve such problems.

 

In the system that I have proposed, every man will get an equal right to evaluate any other man. Each positive assessment should automatically bring a small prize to the assessed person. On the other hand, any negative evaluation will result in a punishment of the same form. Let us say that awards and penalties of such assessment would have an equivalent value of one dollar. Arrogant people, such as the mentioned owners of the ski resort, members of the Board of Director, and talented soccer players make a lot of mistakes to many people, and because of that, they would receive a large number of negative evaluations for an extended period. After that, they would no longer dare to create any disadvantages in society. Such measures will definitely reduce the uncontrolled or insufficiently controlled power of individuals coming out from privileged statuses in society. Only then will the destructive orientation of society be overcome.  

 

Privileges made Clinton, Bush and Blair criminals

 

What can one expect from truly privileged people? U.S. President Bill Clinton opposed the request from wealthy people to commit criminal aggression on Yugoslavia until the Monika Lewinski case was imposed on him. I wrote more about it in the article My Debt to Yugoslavia. Enormous pressure was put on President Clinton to comment on the nature of his relationship with Monika Lewinski. As a result, he gave a false statement before the Commission of the U.S. Congress, negating the nature of his relationship was sexual. Now I’m asking from when the U.S. Congress is interested in the sexual life of American presidents and why? But the Monika Lewinski case was so “important” for the survival of the United States, that Bill Clinton should eventually be impeached from the presidential position. This is the story for naive people. This story only served as blackmail for President Bill Clinton to force him to commit the aggression on Yugoslavia which was the interests of the most influential people of the world. Apparently, the career was much more important to President Clinton than the lives of innocent people. After the aggression against Yugoslavia, the impeachment was forgotten entirely. Here is the chronology of the Monika Lewinski case. Official information on how the case was closed was never released.

 

Keeping his position was not Bill Clinton’s only benefit through the aggression against Yugoslavia. When his term for presidency expired, he established a philanthropic foundation, “William J. Clinton,” to finance his library in Little Rock, Arkansas and charitable efforts in dozens of countries to reduce poverty and treat AIDS. When his wife, Hillary Clinton, wished to take the position of the U.S. Secretary of State, Bill Clinton was demanded to release the list of donors to his foundation to avoid possible conflict of interest. It was presented that the Bill Clinton Foundation collected a rather large amount of 492 millions dollars. I claim that many donors of his fund supported Clinton’s aggression against Yugoslavia and their donations were the reward for the criminal action. This is corruption and crime of the worst kind. President Bill Clinton has to take responsibility before the court for what he did.

The aggression on Iraq was a crime according to the resolution of UN. The aggression began with U.S. President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair on charges that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein produces weapons of mass destruction (WMD) based on nuclear-biological-chemical reactions. Such weapons in the hands of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda could supposedly be used against the United States. The investigation has shown that the allegations were lies. Anyone who tries to make a small effort to see events around the world objectively would clearly see that the aggression on Iraq was conducted for control of Iraqi oil. British MP George Galloway furiously attacked the criminal US and British intervention in Iraq.


U.S. President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, through the aggression on Iraq, have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and more than 4000 of their own troops, along with 30,000 wounded. In addition to this, George W. Bush spent one trillion U.S. dollars on the war, which must be returned by the American people. Every citizen of the United States now owes $4,000 more to the American Federal Reserve Bank for the aggression against Iraq. If someone tries to steal $4,000 in America, he will finish in prison, but when the President of the USA robs every citizen in America for this amount of money, nothing happens.


It should be said that this is the type of crime for which most courts around the world would judge the most severe penalties. Well, then why have the presidents of USA and UK Prime Minister not been called to bear their responsibility for the war crimes before the court? It is evident that leaders of the developed world are privileged people who are above the law. It must not stay like this. As long as there are people above the law, justice will not exist. Without it, people who live on planet Earth cannot hope for peace, prosperity, or a beautiful future. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, together with their associates, must be prosecuted for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, for the enormous material damage that their criminal aggressions have caused, for the costs the war brought to their people, and for the pirate robbery of Iraqi oil.


Once the system of evaluation that I have proposed is adopted, the state presidents will no longer be privileged. The system will prevent the heads of states from calling wars. Also, people would individually allocate no money from their taxes for armies and armies would cease to exist. In the new system, waging wars will be utterly impossible.


Rothschilds are the most privileged people

 

One should not think that American presidents commit crimes to earn all the profit. American presidents come and go and cannot organize the exploitation of conquered countries for the short period time of their mandate in such form that they could earn significant profits from their aggression. Some people have power over the American presidents, and they stay at their positions permanently. These are the owners of corporations. Leaders of these corporations have a name, and they must be held accountable for what they did. I am convinced that the principal owners of these corporations are the Rothschild family, and behind them are the families Rockefeller, Morgan, Wartburg, etc. Forgive me if I skipped any more precious names.


I wrote more about these families in my article Has Antichrist Come? I do not think that American presidents work under direct orders from these wealthy families. Around the presidents are located the exclusive rings of associates who attended the schooling of the mentioned wealthy families. Hardly anyone can get close to the presidents without excellently passing the exams. These associates impose the will of the wealthy families to the presidents. That is the reason the change of the US President or the UK Prime Minister almost does not change the policies of these countries.


The Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, Wartburgs and others cannot escape the responsibility for what they have been doing. A lot of people call them out on Google and YouTube for the crimes they have committed. I believe that in the foreseeable future, most of the people around the world will understand that these families are the evil that governs the western world and are the prime source of problems in today’s society. They will realize that releasing the world from the control of these wealthy families means freeing the world from exploitation, poverty, war, alienation, and all other disadvantages of today’s society. Then these families will be in real danger. But I do not want the path to a better future of humankind to be dirtied with anyone’s blood.


I want the future to be built on the equal rights and universal agreement of all the people. I think that the best solution for these wealthy families is to accept the system that I have proposed. By accepting the system I have suggested, they would protect themselves from lynch. The new system would undoubtedly punish these wealthy families for their crimes. But what would the penalties be? Death sentences practically don’t exist today, so they do not need to fear about that. In the system that I proposed, there will be no prison sentences, so they should not need to worry about that either. They will lose their privileged status. That would not be pleasant to their alienated conscience, but I would not recommend them to unleash their anger upon me. I think that the world would not forgive them if they attacked my philosophy or me. Besides that, they should be grateful to me because, without my philosophy, nothing could guarantee the survival of their families.


When the system I have proposed is accepted, I am convinced that these families would still remain the wealthiest families in the world. One cannot deny that by organizing capitalism, these families have created the most significant economic progress and huge betterment of the society. By accepting the system that I have suggested, they will lose the power of secretly ruling the world, but it was not particularly successful anyway. See what their results are! Besides, I think that even if they were far more skilled than they are, they would not be able to reign throughout the world because it is not possible. The people would rebel even if they were in golden cages. People need freedom in the first place. When the world is finally free of their chains, they would no longer have to hide their powers.


People all over the world will recognize them as the most distinguished families. Is this not an excellent recognition? In the new system, they would even be able to take open control over the entire world, because the system that I have proposed would need someone to lead the world. This time, the leaders will actually become directly responsible to the people worldwide. If they make mistakes, they might get billions of bad evaluations from people, which would cost them billions dollars every month. Even they would not be able to afford it and therefore would work hard to create a sound policy of the world. In this case, the Rothschild family and their partners would begin to contribute building a far better future for humanity. In this case, all people win, and nobody will lose. Is this not a good offer? If they think about it, they will find the system I proposed is the best option for them as well.


Life is better without privileges.

 

I never wished to be privileged. Never in my life was my goal to have power over others. I needed money for the fulfillment of natural needs only. Maybe sometimes a little more, but earning money was never a primary goal in my life. That has given me a lot of time to concentrate on my real needs, and that is why I have achieved success in my own life. That success can be measured in the first place by the fact that I have no problem with myself. I do not drink alcohol, I do not take any medication, I have neither neurosis nor depression, and I do not lack anything. On top of it all, I have a lovely family. Someone can say that this is not a big success in life, but I would respond to them that not many people manage to achieve such a state. It is especially hard for privileged people to make such a result. Also, by finding my inner freedom, I was able to achieve significant progress in my philosophy. Success is great not because my philosophy was challenging to create, but because no one else has worked seriously in this field. People are so burdened with alienated values that I did not have real competition in the area of my work.


But, as a young man, under the influence of society, I was ambitious to promote myself. I reached some success in the field of architecture but found out that it was not a successful period in my life. Notably, that period reminds me of my great dependence on smoking. At that time, I never even tried to stop smoking because I knew that there was no chance to overcome my addiction. Then, I focused on my philosophy, which brought me inner peace even though I continued to have a habit to smoke. When my first daughter was born, I felt I should stop smoking in the name of our health. I was preparing myself for a terrible battle against cigarettes. And then came an incredible surprise; I quit smoking without any problem. I think my work helped me build inner peace that liberated me from my dependence on cigarettes. If I was successful in the quitting, why wouldn’t other people be able to achieve similar results? A healthy life, which my philosophy addresses, will help people all over the world get rid of their problems, and of the addictions that prevent them from having a good life.


Someone might think that my indifference to achieve privileges, to earn money, to build power in society, to promote at work and buy houses, result from my megalomaniac need to change the world. This would not be true. I’ve just discovered that the freedom in the field of my own interests that is also good for people brings more satisfaction than any privileges can. But in one moment of my life, I noticed that all the values I need were located behind non-crossable walls that prevented me from reaching them. I found my goal when I decided to tear down the walls, to change the world and make it an excellent place to live. Or to be more explicit, I am by nature a little lazy, and if I were able to find interests and satisfaction in everyday life, I would never focus on my philosophy. I was not even a talented writer. Changing the world was not an easy goal, but I had no choice.


But wait a moment, weren’t all the great founders and leaders, including imperators, claiming that they wanted to build a good world? Yes, but there are vast differences between them and me. I would point out that the most significant difference comes from the fact that the great founders and leaders, including imperators, had privileged power over people, while my system will not give me any higher authority than any other person has. Also, my system will bring good life and happiness to all people worldwide, which no great founders or leader, including imperator, has ever managed to achieve.


By my nature, I hardly start something, but once I move, I do not give up. Then nothing can stop me on my way. At this point, I have been developing new ideas for 27 years that will one day change the world entirely and make it a beautiful place to live; but still, I have not reached success in society. In the last nine years, 250,000 people have visited this web site, and they took 2,500 copies of my book Humanism. Yet, none of them have found it valuable to join me in my effort to improve the world.


What’s the problem? People usually recognize my good intentions, but generally, they have little confidence in themselves to review them. No one is engaged in researching the development of society, and that is the reason people think that new ideas are unrealizable. They are convinced that otherwise, some institution would work on them. People expect that the authorities lead them on the right path, but authorities do not want changes that reduce their power. Each turn of the accepted knowledge is a threat to the privileges of authorities, and practically the foundation of society needs to be changed in order a good to create a sane society. The road to progress is closed. Despite that, I know that I have defined how the bright future of humanity will look like, I know I am right, and that is the reason I cannot find more significant meaning to my life than working on my philosophy. It brings me the work satisfaction from which I will not give up.


Privileges must be removed

 

Privileged statuses bring pleasure to most people, but I would say that this status is alienated from the natural needs of people so that it necessarily results in real disadvantages that people, due to of their ignorance, do not associate with privileges. In most cases, such people cannot find their inner peace. They are under constant stress and seek relief through alcohol and drugs. Furthermore, the state of internal tension prevents people from recognizing objective reality. The state of inner tension makes it difficult for people to sense the correct path and make proper decisions in their lives. It makes it difficult for people to re-examine the premises that led them into their current situations and makes it difficult for them to be enlightened. Privileges certainly alienate people from the possibilities of finding satisfaction in the natural relationship among people. In reality, privileges are powerlessness itself.


All problems in society are caused by an inadequate system of values. Expecting that privileges of any form of having power over others can bring happiness is just as likely as getting happiness from cocaine. They are both hallucinations based on illusions. Privileges are evil. When society revokes privileges only then it will get a chance to achieve a better life. It is not easy to do, but there is no other path. Changes in society that do not abandon privileges are cosmetic changes only, and cannot bring prosperity to mankind.


The escape from this evil lies in the formation of the objective system of values which will be based on the natural needs of society. The system that I proposed will build such values. It will establish man as the highest value in society. The new system will form a scale with which the value of man could be defined and measured so that people can easily notice and accept it. Once the objective values are accepted by society, forms of alienated powers arising from privileges will lose their importance because objectively, they are not values. The new system will direct people to the right path. It will give people the being power they need so they will not ask for privileges anymore. And if people would still be interested in a search for privileges, they will not be able to find any because the new system would remove them.


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


My humanism will save the planet Earth from all social evil and will create love, joy, peace, health, beauty, freedom, security, justice, equality, harmony, abundance; and will make a paradise on earth.


Aleksandar Šarović

March 8, 2009

2013.01.18

Let’s Remove Unemployment

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

2009.04.20

Humanism is the salvation of humankind

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


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


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