Chapter 9
It is said that the first king to introduce rules of the road
almost had a rebellion on his hands. "Why", his
subjects asked, "should we be told on what part of the road
we can walk, ride or drive our carts? We are FREE people, are we
not?"
It would, at that time, have seemed a very reasonable
argument. After all, since time began, the rule had been simple:
the big man had 'right of way' and the small had 'out of the
way'. Now all were being asked to obey some nonsense law just to
please a king's arrogance.
Today, no doubt, even the most ignorant of reasoning people
can see that without rules of the road modern civilization could
never develop.
Therein lies one of the greatest lessons available to human
understanding. In its most simple expression it may be put that:
For every human advance to greater freedom there must be a
corresponding, mastering, discipline and order imposed on lesser
freedoms. Or, alternatively, only by bringing lesser freedoms to
order can we progress to greater freedoms.
This is a lesson that the, 'New World Order' has hidden from
present society to allow the Public Relations promotion of
adolescent 'freedoms' that lead inevitably to social chaos and
deliver the great mass of humanity to the mercy of tyrants.
It was in service to tyranny that PR seduced the present
generation of parents and educators to deny children the thing
that children most want: a just discipline which tells them that
their seniors REALLY CARE and do not see them as mere pets and
playthings. Nothing makes a child despise his parents more
quickly than lies, pretenses and indifference to behaviour.
It is in service of tyranny that the British Family
Planning Association recommends books like Make it
Happy, a book said to contain pictures of naked children in
poses that could be called obscene and which gives pornographic
'value-free' information on oral, anal and group sex, communal
masturbation, sexual contact with animals and informs that
intercourse between brother and sister could be an expression of
a loving relationship. Highly damaging literature of this kind is
not unusual as promoted study In Australian schools today.
It is in the same service that the Parents & Citizens
Association of NSW produced a reference book in 1985 which
on p47 has this to say; quote:
(f) Drug Education
(i) Drug education should become part of the present and
proposed Personal Development Programs within the schools.
(ii) ...
Teachers should never give undue emphasis to, nor
in any way underline the dangers of drugs. EQ
EA.
The needs of the elitist mafia created the PR promotions that
have in turn led to the depravities and misunderstandings
mentioned in this book; not to mention far greater numbers of
examples we have no space for. People who lead children to
depravity are so selfish that they prefer to destroy young lives
rather than make honest effort to understand life.
In a world of overgrowing population and pollution, elitism
has failed the mass population. In their own defence elitists now
need total power of life or death to ensure their own survival.
The human social order is called DEMOCRACY and is a system of
individual freedom confined within a kingdom of natural order. It
can be said to be a structure satisfying the need for human
self-motivation with protection against disintegration into
chaos. In other words it is a system of freedom within law.
The system "Common Order, Man Made Unity, No Individual
Self-Motivation" = COMMUNISM, is not a human social order
but a man-made attempt to impose on humanity a social
organization best suited to insects.
Communism, which is only a development of socialism, is not a
human system. It is not even a deformity of a human system as
are, for instance, dictatorships or republics; socialism is a
device or design of elitism.
Capitalism is related to socialism; it is the queen bee and
the worker thing, where the 'queen' provides the authority very
much as with socialism except that, by an extremely efficient
public relations trick, it is presented as an executive ideal
rather than a worker's ideal.
This twin pair is mechanistic, it offers an order based on a
mechanical arrangement of society creating a mechanical elitism
of cybernetics - a system of order governed by intelligence
without wisdom - without soul. Elitism created communism as a
device to regiment common mankind as a slave force; a labour to
create the environment wanted by the self-seeking money-mafia.
Capitalism and communism have the same imperatives, the same
need of a permanent 'public relations' to kill off public
enterprise and independent thinking outside of the required
limits of 'politically correct'; the same permanent mental
curtain to hide secretive control.
A mark of this intelligentsia is long and involved titles
spelling out meanings in a mechanical kind of way, as shown in
the treatment of the word communism above. We human beings, might
think that the, word communism was simply an adaptation from
commune or community, as it is intended we think, but in fact
both commune and community infer a democratic interaction that is
impossible with communism; communism requires a mindless service
to the perpetuation of the system. All thought, as we have seen,
must be politically correct.
Understanding something of the structure of capitalist
communism we quickly see why they want an ability for detailed
surveillance of every member of the society and why it is, in
operation, entirely ruthless and without conscience in its
treatment of those unwanted or rebellious. This surveillance is,
in Australia, most likely to be provided by a system called LEAN.
LEAN, meaning Law Enforcement Access Network was
discussed on the ABC 7-30 report (4/2/1992). The following
comments are taken from transcript.
Quentin Dempster; quote:
A new and powerful Federal Government computer will be
coming on-line later this year to watch the company and land
dealings of all Australians. ... so far there's been little
publicity about this far-reaching scheme ...
Murray Hogarth: In today's high-tech worm there's every
reason to think you're being watched .... and it's the invisible
watchers, roaming through the electronic expanses of computer
databases, who pose a threat to freedoms most of us take for
granted.
...
When they set out to number everyone with the Australia
Card, the people rose up to defend their liberties .... the
government backed off. But the Australia Card debacle was just a
setback ....
Roger Clark: They do take privacy a little more seriously
than they once did, but they have found other ways ... and
clearly one of the ways in which they can achieve their
objectives is not to go through legislation, not to
take the risk of going into parliament ... EQ
EA.
So we see here another example of serious political action
being taken to avoid public reaction. However in this case it has
been made public - this helps create confusion and conflict. Did
you know that the Bill of Rights, officially abandoned
because of public pressure (28/11/1986), had all its important
features introduced as part of the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Bill (10/12/1986)?
We also saw that secretive means were used to import hard-core
porn; in recent years, there are many such instances of public
betrayal.
The problem with computer surveillance is that there is no end
to it. As an honest person I would see little objection to it if
we also had honest government, but honest government today is, as
they say, a laugh. The plans make clear that tax files, medical
records, and property ownership will quickly be encoded on the
one surveillance system.
After that we would certainly find phone and all forms of
card-credit (which in a few years will substitute for almost all
money in the 'cashless' society) will also be added. This will
mean, among other things, that your activities and location can
be ascertained at any time.
Even worse, hundreds of people are using hundreds of
terminals. There will be thousands of mistakes and thousands of
leaks and, you have no protection from spiteful bureaucracy. Not
a pleasant world to contemplate.
People are inclined to get upset about 'identity cards',
computer surveillance, evidences of 'Big Brother' prying into
their affairs, confiscation of assets, legal injustices, etc.,
but in comparison to the long-term mental enslavement of mass
population all such forms of surveillance and control are largely
irrelevant. Were people not already brainwashed into
subservience they would not allow these things to happen.
In fact, common displays of enslavement are so irrelevant that
it would seem overt displays in these lesser fields are mainly
for display of power or to tease and distract the mass mind
rather than for the direct purpose of a surveillance or robbery
no longer essential. Public reactions are predictable, futile and
serve to reassure the manipulators that all is well in the best
of all manipulated worlds.
Knowing the nature of the beast we can know why the bulk of
serious propaganda is directed against children - human style
family is incompatible with a mechanistic society.
They also need to wreck the free-enterprise system. Only a
small fraction of useful work is of value to the elite - most
product is consumed by those who produce it.
We now have better than reasonable evidence of what we may
best call a 'mafia-type' brotherhood of families - an on-going
hierarchical power block determined to own the earth.
Although this 'family' has been operating in the world since
quite ancient times and with varying degrees of success, it is
only in the high-tech world that it has gained the power to fully
achieve its ambitions. A population threat creates urgency.
The working of the system is now evident. The years off
crushing private enterprise will be followed by a short
rebuilding process where international money will pick up the
pieces.
Is there a better way? Does the world really need Australia?
Does Australia really need the world?
An interesting exercise is to imagine all the world sinking
under the sea on one night leaving Australia without exports,
imports or foreign money. If we set aside the emotional shock and
fears, would Australia be worse off or better off?
I doubt if anyone who has any understanding of Australia's
resources and scientific abilities would conclude other than that
we would be greatly benefited. We have all the resources needed
to feed, clothe and house all of our people in comfort and
without want of any essential. We could easily halve the labour
needed to maintain these life-support systems. Our leisure time
could then be used to make Australia a paradise and to develop
scientific understanding.
Public Relations propaganda gives people the impression that
we need the rest of the world and, even if not, then it would be
selfish of us to cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. If
this is so then how do you explain our incredible foreign debt?
We have been importing massively more than we have been
exporting over the last ten years. We have been mortgaging our
children to pay foreign workers to keep us at the standard of
living to which most of us have become accustomed.
Why are we building up a social class of poor and unemployable
misfits? In what way are we helping the world? Our farmers, the
most efficient food producers in the world, are going broke
because the world does not want our food even though some
desperately need it. Our industries are closing down because our
government thinks we should have other people do our work for us,
others who will work for less pay because they are hungry.
No, the way we are the world does not need us but, if we were
free people, then perhaps we could show the world a better way -
a more human way - a way of life not subject to constant New
World Order wars; economic manipulations to enforce an unneeded
and unnatural poverty; order that ignores morality, right and
justice.
The danger posed by the present enslavement is that if
humanity is returned to the primitive then we cannot escape by
efforts.
To not attempt to free ourselves while we can is an insult to
our intelligence and our human gifts. It is a great and
unnecessary addition to human suffering - perhaps permanent loss
of civilization. There is no other escape because those who only
learn enough to enslave others, also, by their deformed desires,
enslave themselves (power corrupts).
There is a common saying in computer talk "garbage in,
garbage out" and while the human brain has great ability to
defend itself against garbage it can be overcome by a massive
onslaught - by authoritative miseducation and commercial trickery
at a scientific level.
Advancing culture will become more fragile in its
technicalities and lifestyles; we need increasing consciousness
to maintain our advance. Brutalizing the young, instilling arti-
ficial values and restricting understanding, can only result in
social disaster. We are well into the danger zone today.
The automobile designed to protect its occupants from the
results of a crash may seem a good, if expensive, idea. Is the
next step to encase pedestrians in safety armour so that they can
be run over with impunity? Perhaps we might consider that going
to great lengths to protect people from the consequences of their
own stupidity indicates a failure of our social order - a failure
of our ability to behave rationally.
There are many examples of communal irrationality in many
walks of life.
Educated people are no longer able to see that the principles
of social order are as insistent and, over time, as certain in
their effect, as are the principles of engineering.
Ignorant people react to moral laws as they did to rules of
the road, as though they are a matter of some tyrant's pleasure.
However moral laws, like mathematical laws, are
there, they are not for our decision or choice.
Because of short-sighted attitudes we have educators today
teaching children that there are no social truths, "Work out
what is to be your behaviour by agreement with your
friends"; or, "Do whatever seems best in your
situation".
The "Situation Ethics" attitude means divorce from
the benefits of historic human experience; to remain modern each
individual would have to re-invent a million wheels.
It is obvious that many people today are so impregnated with
political ideology that they are quite incapable of making! or
wanting to make, a rational assessment of their beliefs. Some
would rather destroy humanity than question their beliefs.
Lesson: The basic threat to society is the same threat the
world over, it is the rise of a criminal elite. This power began
with economic manipulation and the elitists now control the
greater part of world industry and finance.
By historic funding of education the social sciences were
manipulated - from social sciences the news media. The educated
are able to selectively favour people influenced. including
politicians - from politics they maintain their hold on
education; a self-supporting circle.
The evidence of this economic power, when taken in conjunction
with day to day world events, should be quite convincing to any
rational-reasoning mind. There can be no reasonable doubt of the
existence of this elite; only when we look from this viewpoint do
world events become logical. There is no other driving force for
manipulative planning.
Social engineering is abundantly visible, even openly
admitted. There is a cause for each effect! Knowledge is just a
matter of a suitable level of scientific observation.
This situation is not truly mysterious, it is the staled
humanist/socialist solution to the problem of government. A
problem that has grown more urgent as society has become more and
more crippled by manipulation. The answer of the manipulators is
more manipulation, more laws and legal restraints.
On the other hand more and more intelligent people arc now
coming to see through the frail veil. Dr. Susan George, for
example, has been a consultant to the United Nations University,
UNESCO, the UN's Economic Commission for Europe, the
International Union of Food Workers and the Government of
Nicaragua, among other such. Obviously a person in favour of and
favoured by, the internationals. Yet in answer to recent
questions and reported on the ABC we find these comments; quote:
Well, I think this meaning of the word 'development' is
rather obscene. Development in biology means that an organism
unfolds harmoniously in its environment. It means that the flower
becomes a fruit, or the embryo becomes a child. But
the social sciences have taken over this concept and perverted it.
When we say 'development' in the modern sense, we generally mean
outside intervention and meddling. If you meddle too much with an
organism, it will be damaged or will die, which is precisely, I
think, what we're been doing with other people's
lives.
I think development has failed largely because the
assumptions that underlay the whole concept were absolutely false.
...
[On economic manipulation.] All these institutions are
centralized, hierarchical, completely undemocratic and working
with a lot of money contributed by their members, mostly their
richer members. What do they do with that money? Well, in many
ways they are helping subjugate all the economies of
the world and making them satellites of 'free
enterprise', so to speak. ... So the World Bank is in charge of
imposing this economic doctrine, the International Monetary Fund
is in charge of imposing structural adjustment, in other words
austerity programs in the Third World, and GATE is involved with
indeed reducing not only barriers to trade, but any standards -
environmental standards, health standards, high wages that could
be considered impediments to trade. I feel very much that the
undemocratic nature of these institutions will mean that a whole new
world order is put into place and that it is an
anti-democratic, authoritarian order run by the elites of the
rich world on their behalf.
...
.. every time citizens in one country, or another seem to
be winning some victories, seem to have gained, for example,
either higher wages or better environmental standards or
whatever, these international agencies will often say, 'No, wait
a minute, it's our law, international law is above
national law and your national standards simply
don't hold up.'
If I can give one example from the US/Canada free trade
pact, a model for what GATE would like to do for the entire
world: British Columbia was planting trees - the province itself-
and the Americans challenged it and said, 'This is a help to the
Canadian timber industry and we don't do that for our timber
industry so what you're doing is impeding trade ..'
That's just one example of the kind of thing that would
happen under universal free trade. The standards for pesticide
residues would become the standards of the FRO ... sometimes 50
times lower than certain national standards. So if I want to
export fruit laden with pesticides to Australia, Australia would
have absolutely no recourse but to accept them .. EQ. EA.
Our politicians say that we must become a republic - free
ourselves from British restraints. But Britain has had only a
protective role over Australian government since Federation. On
the other hand the faceless people behind the UN are now
exercising controls over our lives far greater than Britain
pre-Federation ever did and our politicians have signed hundreds
agreements that (with cutting of our British rights and
protections) would make of us a fully servile dominion of the UN.
What they are doing is, by our rightful heritage, treason, and
treason is no mere figure of speech.
There is a lot more in that one article; there is a lot of
other material I could quote, but if what is here doesn't stir
awakening, a ton of evidence will make no difference. Still, just
one more small item from Dr. George; quote;
.. dystopia, which is where everything is just as bad as
it can possibly be. My dystopia is a kind of worldwide apartheid
in which a very small transnational elite is served by a more or
less permanently employed middle class, people who generally have
job, generally have services, all on the backs of an increasingly
marginalised and criminalised underclass. EQ.
The nightmare of Dr. Susan George - a state of the world that
she does not want to admit is the metamorphosis taking place
before her eyes - is the international 'mafia' now establishing
their ownership of the world.
This mafia consists of only a few hundred families who have
gained their power because of long and brutal ancestral pursuit
of self-interest. They, of course, represent Dr SG's elite. The
middle class is represented by the self-satisfied and comfortably
off who feel secure in a world they think is of their creation
and as honest as, on the surface, it appears to be. The
increasingly marginalised and criminalised underclass is made up
of what is called 'the working class', most of whom are rapidly
becoming redundant in an age of computerized technology.
As members of the working class become redundant they must be
disarmed of their ability to create serious trouble. This is
achieved by de-education, enticement to drugs, fire-arms control,
confused loyalties, sedation and mental fixations to matters of
trivial importance.
What Dr George is afraid to see is that, in the present
socio/industrial arrangement, the lower class is a rapidly
increasing problem. An unneeded workforce that, by its very
existence, creates pollution and a threat to order and comfort a
problem whose most convenient solution is its elimination.
As the need for unskilled and trades work is reduced by
technology, the service needs of those so employed is reduced.
The need for services offered by the middle class is also
reduced. The middle class moves down and the lower middle class
takes over available trades and unskilled work.
To make any useful reduction in human population would require
the elimination of about two out of three existing families
within about 50 years. The elitists have the means and the morals
to achieve this.
How would they go about eliminating surplus people? The most
logical means would be by the use of man-made 'designer' disease.
A few years ago I helped assemble a small booklet called AIDS
(a politically protected disease) and the World-Government plot.
20,000 were printed and sold. The 'anchor' of that presentation
was provided by information in an article by W C Douglas, M.D.,
in the September 1987 issue of Health & Freedom News,
Monrovia, California. The Dr Douglas article referred to an item
in the World Health Organization (WHO) Bulletin Vo1.47
pp257-264, 1972. Here is the important WHO quote:
(3) An attempt should be made to ascertain whether viruses
can in fact exert selective effects on immune function, e.g., by
depressing 7S versus 19S antibody, or by affecting T cell
function as opposed to B cell function (Allison el at., 1971).
The possibility should also be looked into that the immune
response to the virus may itself be impaired if the infecting
virus damages more or less selectively the ceils responding to
the viral antigens. If this proves to be the case, virus-induced
immunodepression might conceivably be highly instrumental in
prolonging certain virus infections, such as murine leukaemia,
hepatitis, sub-acute sclerosing panencephalitis, or infections
caused by LDV, LCMV, or ADV. EQ.
We may not understand that but we can see it has a
relationship with the following comment; quote:
The World Health Organisation, in published articles,
called for scientists to work with these deadly agents and
attempt to make a hybrid virus that would be deadly to humans
.... they said, "An attempt should be made to see if viruses
can in fact exert selective effects on immune function. The
possibility should be looked into that the immune response to the
virus itself may be impaired if the infecting virus damages, more
or less selectively, the cell responding to the virus."
That's AIDS. What the WHO is saying in plain English is
'Let's cook up a virus that selective& destroys the T-cell
system of man, an acquired immune deficiency.'
Why would anyone want to do this? ...
If their new virus creation worked, the WHO stated, then
many terrible and fatal infectious viruses could be made even
more terrible and more malignant. Does this strike you as being a
peculiar goal for a health organization?
...
Because of the artificial nature of the AIDS virus it will
not transfer easily from man to man until it has become very
concentrated in the body fluids through repeated injections from
person to person, such as drug addicts, and through high multiple
partner sexuality such as takes place in Africa, among
homosexuals and among native American Indians. After repeated
transfer it can become a 'natural' infection for man, which it
has. EQ
This disease had to be started in a situation of high person
to person contact so as to become human specific; it was.
Nothing much has changed since that booklet was produced. So
far as we know, no new mutation has yet occurred to make the AIDS
virus so highly infectious as to become a serious threat to the
moral community.
On the other hand there appears no reason to believe it is not
a man-made disease. The technology is there and to add substance
to that point I will quote a small item from a report in The
Sydney Morning Herald (14/2/1985); quote:
A mad scientist may have been responsible for unleashing
the AIDS virus, an expert said today. Consultant Dr Seale, a sex
disease specialist, made his claim after discovering links
between AIDS and the lethal VISNA virus which attacks sheep. He
believes the scientist created AIDS by mistake while
experimenting with VISNA.
Dr Seale said the only difference between the two viruses
was that AIDS had an extra gene which could have been 'quite
easily' inserted during experiments. EQ.
Obviously Dr Seale had not read the WHO item. Having looked
closely at the world situation we can see that there is reason
enough for certain interests to want such weapons of mass human
destruction. We can deduce from the manner of its first spread
that it was no accident and the failure of governments world-wide
to take normal disease control action is very significant.
A designed virus would seem a most useful way to reduce
population. It has the advantage of working best among unhygienic
and ignorant people (i.e. the poor). It is also easily spread by
contaminated immunization, especially if, as with AIDS, the
incubation period is long and variable.
Furthermore treatment can be cost selective in favour of those
well-off and able to afford quality health monitoring. Obviously
there is a good buffer zone between the lower levels of society
and the elitists.
If there is no world-government plot why did the advocates of
manipulative government not broadcast their plans world-wide? Why
was John Kenneth Galbraith's advocacy of an elite composed of
intellectuals and academics, not publicized until it was common
knowledge? Why was the idea in Bertrand Russell's book kept in
the social sciences closet? Why did Robert Theobole not make
world headlines when he said at the World Future Society (1975),
"It's naive to deny the necessity of some kind of competent
elite."?
Is there a problem? Who is to decide just who is 'competent'?
Would common display of the plan threaten it? Would it, perhaps,
be too obvious to too many that there is a preordained bias in
favour of the ego-maniac when we plan for a competent elite? Can
we know how much brain-wash splashes on to the brain-washer?
Power corrupts! Who could believe elitist government won't
nurture the seed of self-destruction? They may be mad, but not so
mad as to risk revealing their plot to the common herd.
If a plan cannot be argued in public, giving full involvement
to all who want to take part, then it is a sick plan - a plot.
All able to read and understand this book will see that there
is a solution to world problems, it begins with putting our own
chosen representatives into parliament.
Recent figures show that over the last decade or so the rich
have become richer and the poor poorer. We do not object to the
rich getting richer .. if they earn it, or the poor getting
poorer .. if they deserve it. What is objectionable is robbery;
whether it be money out of a pocket, food out of a mouth or our
rights of social inheritance - robbery is our just complaint.
People are now so confused in their values and their
appreciation of life that parents often excuse exposure of their
children to sick and depraved influences as, "They have to
learn to cope with REALITY".
"Sickness and depravity" is not a reality of life~
it is a reality of death. That is what is meant by
"good" and "evil" - good is that which
advances life, evil is that which destroys life. Who decides what
is good or evil? No one! It is in the nature of life. Children
need to be warned about poisons but do not need to be exposed to
them. The 'realities' they need to learn are the principles of
healthy living.
The people who planned this arc not stupid, they have been
careful not to disadvantage everyone al the same time and those
disadvantaged most will always be kept too poor and ignorant to
do anything about it. So, despite that Australia (1992) is in
deep recession and morally at an all time low, the majority of
people arc still in the mood of "I'm all right Jack."
When it's their turn to suffer they will be at first
incredulous and then angry but, like others before them, they
will retain their arrogance. 'They will ignore the truth. They
will not listen to those who have studied the problem but will
think of their own brilliant response - a protest march - a
petition to the Prime Minister to tell him what he should do - a
new political party. And the politicians will try not to laugh on
TV.
Because of false teachings and confidence trickery people have
become more and more irrational - we are easily persuaded that we
need more and more laws to control our every activity; we cannot
be trusted to run our own lives.
A mere 100 years ago we needed comparatively few laws and
could appreciate the need to live by general rules of behaviour.
In a truly advancing culture the word "advancing" MUST
refer to an increasing understanding of life and increasing
morality. Increasing social complexity has to be balanced by
responsible behaviour. Increasing freedom to create means
increasing rigidity in areas already mastered. Genuinely
civilized people are more self-disciplined and need less law.
Examples of the problems caused by mental confusion are
over-population and environmental destruction.
With overflowing good will and equal ignorance we rushed to
undeveloped but stable communities and upset the balance of
nature. We leave them with starvation, pain and conflict, and
blame everything and everyone but ourselves. Why do we not solve
our own problems first?
Almost every common attitude today is in reverse of reason.
These problems would never have come to being had it not been for
the manipulation of social behaviour.
Assuming that light really does help us to see, what is the
alternative. Should we accept that the criminal hierarchy know
best and surrender the world to their care?
It must be well apparent to any reasoning person that
population cannot keep doubling every thirty or forty years, with
use of resources and pollution proceeding even faster. The
present system is out of control! Is our choice between natural
disaster and man-made disaster? I would not be so keen to expose
the system if I thought that the alternative.
The present socio/industrial system may have been right at one
time but it is certainly long out of date now. The elitists are
social engineers only in so far as self-interest is concerned,
they have no feeling or understanding of human need. It will be a
long haul back but the main difficulty is to make a start.
Right now Australian governments are dead set on selling
"public owned" assets to help toward a temporary'
relief for disastrous government and to make us vulnerable to a
NWO economy. Twisted thinking gives many people the idea that
public ownership is socialist. Public ownership is not socialist,
socialist is a myth.
Over the last ten years or so more than half of Australian
private enterprise (small business) has been made bankrupt
because of destructive government policies brought into force
over the last twenty years and, for longer than that, social
engineering ideology has dominated the education system. These
policies must be reversed.
Our first need is Constitutional Democratic Government and the
obvious reversal of international policies to policies that serve
local needs. We can do nothing to help the rest of the world we
understand our own problems and have cleaned up our own
back-yards.
Having stopped the rush to the precipice and got the nation
reversing back to the highway we can then start thinking about
the future we can then have. The present industrial system is
incredibly wasteful, probably around half of our work is taken up
with administration and book-keeping and about the same
percentage of the energy we use is also wasted.
Having lived through the changes in public attitude and
understanding that have taken place over the last twenty years I
know that this is reversible, similar effort in the right
direction would allow people to accept a more rational lifestyle
and more logical appreciation of progress. I can see cities built
from the ground up for efficiency; I can see people becoming more
socially integrated; I can see people accepting communal
ownership in many more areas where community ownership is more
convenient and efficient; I can see private ownership and
enterprise being more secure.
I cannot tell you, even to my limited understanding, the
future. If I could you either would not believe me or you could
not understand, we have to go there to see and do for ourselves.
Nevertheless, if you believe I know anything, then believe me,
there is a better, a much better, way.
.../Next Page
.../Back to Contents Page