\documentclass[10pt]{article}
%\documentclass[man]{apa}
\title{The World Solution for World Problems\\
The Problem, its Cause, its Solution
\footnote{No copyrights attached.
Everything may be copied or used at one's convenience.
For this convenience's sake, it is scientifically
desirable to mention the source.}}
\author{L. Le\'on}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\pagestyle{myheadings}
\markright{The World Solution}
\begin{abstract}
The book discusses the main world problem of today,
which is the gradual, but lethal change of the soil and
atmosphere, the main cause, which is the world wide
overpopulation, and the main solution, which is world
government by lottocracy. It is a recipe for the solution
of the one and only problem that is facing mankind
which is: his own extermination by his own hands. It is
argued that world problems ask for world solutions and
that this is solely a question of (re-) education. All
man-made problems are ideational (and number dependent),
not physical, thus, an ideational (educative) solution
is required. It is furthermore held forth that the
partial solutions one hears of, such as the recycling of
raw materials, the use of clean energy, the purification
of wastewater, etc., are no solutions at all, but, in
the long run, make the problem even worse. Additionally,
it is contended, that, the integration of all world-citizens
should be enhanced by the introduction of the world-language,
which is English, the mostly spoken second language today.
Then, the need is stressed for 'de-population', which is
necessary because of the number-dependency of the problem.
\end{abstract}
\newpage
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Copyright}
No copyrights attached.
Everything may be copied or used at one's convenience.
For this convenience's sake, it is scientifically
desirable to mention the source.
%\begin{description}xx
\subsection{Kernels}
%\end{description}xx
H.G. Wells
\begin{quote}
The outlook for mankind is a race between education and
catastrophe.
\end{quote}
Alfred Wallace
\begin{quote}
Compared with our astounding progress in physical science
and its practical applications, our system of government, of
administrative justice, of education, and our entire social
and moral organization, remain in a state of barbarism.
\end{quote}
Ernst Haeckel
\begin{quote}
The first task is to kindle a rational interest in our
youth, and to uplift our citizens and free them from superstition.
\end{quote}
Seneca
\begin{quote}
No one can lead a happy life, or even one that is bearable,
without the pursuit of wisdom.
\end{quote}
Schofield
\begin{quote}
It is not too much to say that true education or true child
culture must be based on a full and broad concept of mind.
\end{quote}
William James
\begin{quote}
At present, psychology (pseudology) is in the condition of
physics before Galileo and the laws of motion, or of chemistry
before Lavoisier.
\end{quote}
Epictetus
\begin{quote}
Since it is reason which sets in order and finishes all other things,
it ought not itself to be left in disorder.
\end{quote}
Malthus
\begin{quote}
Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity.
\end{quote}
Livius
\begin{quote}
Of late years wealth has made us greedy, and self-indulgence
has brought us, through every form of sensual excess, to be,
if I may so put it, in love with death both individual and
collective.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\subsection{As Letter to the Reader}
%\end{description}xx
This little book should be regarded as a letter in itself
to all decent thinking people on the planet Earth (section \ref{1}).
It is a recipe for the solution of the one and only problem
that is facing mankind which is: his own extermination by
his own hands. Normally, it is not usual for a scientific
work, to look like a letter to the reader, but rather is a
reader silently understood.

I must speak to you reader, because the problems we have
to deal with and the solution, constitute such vital knowledge,
vital for you and everybody else, that, after coming
to know, you are under the obligation to do something. In
everyday life situations, not knowing might be an excuse for
not acting properly, for acting wrongly, or for refraining
from action. There might not be enough and easy access to
knowledge, one simply has not been told. In our case however,
all humanity is directly at stake, and, when you have
read, you know.

When you know, you do something.
A similar warning of gaining responsibility through getting
to know, was once given (though not heeded) by Tietjens
(1931) with regard to the knowledge of ideation, of human
influence and thinking (for curation, education, etc.) as
explained in his book Desuggestion. It made the medicine
men of today directly responsible for the unnecessary suffering,
often for life (asthma, epilepsy, migraine, sleep
troubles, anorexia ideata and other phobias or compulsions
etc.). Unnecessary, because an expert session of one or two
afternoons would effect a cure. The very theory underlying
it was already published in 1815 (Waterloo year) by Brandis.
Experiments, since, did confirm. Tietjens in fact said:
\begin{quote}
Either what I write here is true, and in that case it
is of infinite practical importance for every human
being; or else it is false, and then its acceptance would
be infinitely dangerous. Everyone, therefore, who is not
completely asocial, everyone who possesses a spark of
idealism, MUST EITHER HELP IN THE DIFFUSION OF THESE
IDEAS OR MUST ENTER HIS PROTEST AGAINST THEM [capitals mine].
He cannot venture to ignore them. (capitals mine)
\end{quote}
This warning, as said, was with regard to direct human happiness,
but it is just as appropriate for this book here in
hand. You see, reader, you simply cannot know and do nothing.

Originally, I was involved in the preparation of a much
larger book about our problem, its cause, and its solution,
but, as we all know, time is getting short, the need for
immediate action is so imperative, that I decided to write a
very short abstract of the solution first. Besides, I do
not know how to get such a large work on social scientific
matters printed, in competition with all the trash that is
rolling from the presses nowadays (section \ref{2}).
Says H.G. Wells, the excellent (and only) mondial sociologist
(section \ref{3}):
\begin{quote}
Our schoolteachers have had no proper training themselves,
and they miseducate by example and precept, and
so it is that our press and current discussions are more
like an impromptu riot of cripples and deaf and blind
minds than an intelligent interchange of ideas.
\end{quote}
The clearheaded reader can observe this all about him up to
the smallest detail, from the foul anchor as symbol of seafaring,
to the teacher that cannot teach, barely write.

As Spencer shows, all laymen in social issues are always
ready to produce their opinions on these issues. And, it is
a fact that even social scientists are laymen in mind science,
in ... social science. They are not interested in the
workings of mind, i.e. in ideation.
Most social scientific literature ... ? Rubbish indeed
(section \ref{4}).
According to Haeckel, this has been so since 1911, and
Spencer, Wells and others knew it to be true earlier than
that. So, lacking the means of having the large work printed
by private ways, yet the need for action getting greater
everyday, I try a short version first, and go and search for
a merciful purse. The main book was originally planned to
be called: Catastrophe or Education, derived from Wells'
very pointed statement of:
\begin{quote}
The outlook for mankind is a race between education
and catastrophe. Outlook.
\end{quote}
World-Problems ask for World-Solutions and this is solely a
question of (re-) education. All man-made problems are
ideational (and number dependent), not physical, thus, an
ideational (educative) solution is required (see also Wells'
'Joan \& Peter', 1918). He knew it, in 1930. It is high time
that we come to know, a 55 years later. Know about our
problems, but most of all ... the solution.
In his days, the nuclear bomb was not invented yet, trees
were not dying so perceptibly, but, ... there already was
the problem of man's suicide clear to see, from 3000 years
of literature onwards.
\begin{quote}
I am talking about the inevitable time when, unless
we do something to stop it, men will be hunting men
through the ruins for food. Wyndham, Lichen.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Catastrophe}
%\end{description}xx
We all know that things on Earth are going from bad to
worse. We might even perceive that we are making our own
environment unlivable, lethal, yet, we have the tendency to
minimize things, to think that somebody will do something
about it, that already, maybe, things are being done.
No way!
First of all, we very seldom even hear of some (partial)
solution, the problems seem more interesting, and then only
about parts of the problem, of the threatening catastrophe.
We can hear or see programs or lectures on the cadmium problem,
the groundwater disappearance, deforestation, files on
the roads, monetary slumps, bombs in the market place, war,
perhaps holes in the ozone layer, famines, un-employment,
locust plagues, hooliganism, nuclear tests, alcohol and drug
addiction, industrial pollution, threatened species, rising
sea-level, etc., etc. without a single mention of the fact that
the pressure on the boiler is through \textbf{overpopulation} with
the sub-causes of superstition. This pressure is roughly a
thousand fold over the safety margin. That we reward the
begetting of children with money that usually is spent on
motor scooters, washing machines or booze, instead of taxing
children heavily is never spoken of. Yet every child, on an
overcrowded planet is a very heavy tax indeed, a deadly one.
The partial solutions we hear of, are childish and simpleminded,
not fit for an earnest, commonsensical thinking
person with a shred of conscience, with world problems on
his hands. So-called scientists even investigate the aftereffects
of a mondial nuclear war, a nuclear winter they call
it, forgetting such important factors as the atmosphere
streaming off into space, the binding of all oxygen, including the
ozone layer, etc. (section \ref{5}).
W.W. 3 cannot be survived in spite of the fantasy that Hackett wrote
about it.

Naturally, when the dumping of waste, for instance, is
regarded as bad, we should not do it. That is a solution
for a six year old kid, not of a grown up thinker, a reasonable man.
Because these childish solutions are often framed
by scientists, I would not call this book, a letter to scientists,
but an earnest appeal to all thinking people, which
may include a scientist when he is prepared to think commonsensical
and free from superstitions, free from rumors
taken seriously as facts. It is therefore too, that I shall
not mention disputable facts, no precise data, means, averages
or significance levels, no absolute numerical values
that may invite mathematical discussion and endless balderdash.

Some able scientists think that our future is measured
only in decades, and, seeing the relative ignorance about
the whole complex of interlaced living conditions, we may
think of one decade (i.e. before 2000 AD), of two, but
also of a half, which would make it 1990 or so. Even the
most optimistic figure would still mean total death, for me,
for you, for your children. I would not mention precise
data, but there are plenty of adamant facts, indisputable
facts, facts not deniable by whatever sort of intellect. It
is such a fact that e. g. our climate has been tempered,
always, by life (section \ref{6}), AFTER the development of life,
that
this means a control-mechanism, a life-typical trick but not
feed-back (section \ref{7}), a kind of pendulum balance that,
like feedback, can go mad too, and that {bf\ our climate is now
showing tendency for extremes}, for an unbalance, and that this will
end in a life-less, sterile planet. We know also for certain,
as indisputable fact, that this process of homothanatia
has started long before Homer (through the invention of fire,
the saw, the axe, etc.) (read Herodotus, see
also Waln, 1938 (section \ref{8}) ), that Sahara, Mediterranea,
Asia, etc. was
once lushly green instead of the brown and yellow of today,
that it is in some form of asymptotic behaviour because of
the absolute-, and minute-, interdependability of all gossamer
tiny influences thinkable. Just do not remark at the
occasional bad summer you might have. That has been so for
ages. But do note the extremes that you can deduct from the
media, these things that never happened before, that are
records of the century and so on. When the water of an
entire year comes down in a week, the rest of the year dry,
it only seems a normal year. Note that these extremes come
faster upon each other every time, centuries becoming
decades, decades then, years. They show the tendency
towards generation, the disturbed balance, the snow-ball,
that has become the normal today in the newsreels.
Droughts, floods, hurricanes, even the size of icebergs,
ocean waves, are not solely remarkable, but they point to a
stampede in climate. Do note such between the lines remarks
as: every year we have to drill deeper for water (India,
America, Africa, etc.). It means not only that when
people have cut their trees, and produced drought, they have
to get water from wells, but that in times to come, there
will be no wells. It all is very well known or it should be
so.
But, ... Nowhere Do We Recognize Any Honest Attempt To Think
About It, In A Rational Way!

A \textbf{world problem} - a \textbf{world solution}, (not agreements
between nations) ! Let us start with that as soon as possible,
for, if not, you, your-, our-, children will be killed
by us.
\begin{quote}
We shall manage to postpone the worst one way
and another but postponement is not solution and
when the breakdown comes, there'll be something
so ghastly that the hydrogen bomb will be humane
by comparison. Wyndham.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Common Sense}
%\end{description}xx
In scientific circles, there seem to be a tendency to
abhor common sense. This is because it seems that common
sense is attainable by common people only, is a way of common
people, is not specifically scientific. Yet, science
has to thank all its developments and progress to common
sense, it is basic for ideation i.e. for science. From
Lucretius, Galileo, Newton, Semmelweis, Fleming, etc. on, it
is all common sense that did it. This common sense says the
following. When a problem is mondial (planetary, Earth
encompassing), its solution also is to be found in a mondial
form. Everybody knows that when e. g. Germany would ban all
traffic, all production, would close all factories, all crematoria,
all blast furnaces, would forbid all use of wood,
all trade and transport of wood, would enforce all material
to be re-circulated, all implements to be repaired instead
of bought anew, use all available space from Autobahn to
parking lots for re-forestation, etc., etc. it would not
alter a iota to our predicament. It might make us survive a
week longer, it would mean death all the same.

Why?

Naturally, because it is only a very, very small operation in
so large a field, it is totally insignificant, it is not a
mondial measure but a national one, local. Air, water, climate,
minerals, animals and seeds, know of no frontiers, no
customhouses, no barriers by fences. Germany, nay any
nation, could not hope to survive, whatever severe measures
they take (for themselves). Helmut Kohl once said plainly
that there is no such thing as a national environment protection
possible. He was heard to argue that we can shut
down our power stations, but the risks remain because of such
stations right across the border. Nuclear power stations
are absurdities that kill imperceptibly. When the demand
for KWh's is growing out of hand, we should realize that
KWh's are always expressible in per head figures, i.e. the
first and natural solution that springs into mind is reducing
the number of heads, the capita.
When any diplomat or else, (as Kohl did) then proceed to
talk about the need for international agreements, an uncontrollable
Homeric laughter should burst lose. It is just
too comical (but heard everywhere). Agreements, whether
national or intra-familiar, are known to be unworkable from
far before Homer (the Argonauts) onwards till this very day.

The second common sense manipulation may fool us: if we
have to do it on a mondial scale, a planetary scale, why, we
have a United Nations don't we?
No way!
United Nations means literally that the nations remain as
such, like in internationalism. In practice, it is far
worse. It only changes intra-national (intra-country or
intra-religious) into inter-national COMPETITION and that
means in its turn, a survival of greed (economics) and an
unbridled destruction of Earth. It means, in fact, an
enlargement in scale of papers, agreements, resolutions,
that everybody seek to circumvent at the earliest possible
moment (section \ref{9}). The very Iliad starts with the
conflict of a
broken agreement within a 'union' of Achaeans, and, 3000
years of (war) history shows that agreements still do not
work. Agreements mean at least two clods, two or more clusters,
they keep only as long as war is less profitable.
Merging the clods however, make agreements impossible, meaningless,
and war too. We don't want united by agreements,
but we need integration, a total absence of clods, clusters,
agreements or resolutions.

Common sense says: 'let there be no nations, they are nonnatural
groupings' (section \ref{10}). No hargle bargle, no barter
between groups, but the fundamental rights and duties of
every citizen of Earth alike in its place. These rights
imply survival for all, these duties imply co-operation for
survival by all (also \textbf{meaning you, me, your children, etc.}).
Common sense now, can be with regard to two wholly different
purposes. It can be used with regard to the individual
only, in which case it is practically always disadvantageous
to others (seeing that the desires of each clash), and it
can be used from the express point of view of the others, of
the whole, of society (when we are all in the same boat).
Unfortunately, mankind has become inferior in this respect
to the animals that live in herds, packs, colonies and the
like. His drive for all behaviour is centered on the huge
paradox of applause, he wants to be the best (i.e. different)
but also the same as the other members of the flock.
\textbf{If he uses common sense at all, he uses it only for himself.}
It is therefore, that he behaves as a stray ling in a herd of
stray lings, a situation that is unthinkable in animal
nature. Common sense is not so much absent everywhere, it
is only misdirected everywhere. This paradox of wanting to
control yet wanting to be controlled, of being different and
being the same, pervades all society up to the tiniest
detail. As Wyndham shows it for the mother (parents) :
\begin{quote}
By a dichotomy familiar to us all, a woman requires
her own baby to be perfectly normal, and at the same time
superior to all other babies. Chocky.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Man's Stupidity}
%\end{description}xx
Although the solution is, for us, the only part of any
significance, a brief survey of the cause is necessary. It
is when we understand the cause fully, that we can grasp the
solution in its totality. The cause: 'man is utterly
stupid', is one way of not mincing matters and it is true
besides. Everybody is infected with stupidity to some
degree. We are trained in it from so young.

Wells, in his
'Short History of the World', triumphantly notes the ousting
of the clumsy Roman numerals, and the Arabic figures, in use
to this day. It is on page 148, chapter XLIV, and the book
is undated except for MCMXXXIII. We know e.g. that in Germany,
30 \% of the forests are dead or dying. We know also
that the brunt of this comes on the fir trees, a 90 \% of
them. And what do we see at X-mas (1983, -84, -85) ? Exactly ...!
The stupid people buy healthy trees, killed by the
chainsaw, in order to have less than a fortnight cheap fun
indoors.
A tree-expensive superstition indeed, a deadly one too.
\begin{quote}
... man, who will leave nothing undisturbed from the
ocean bottom to the stratosphere, and who bids fair to
extinguish himself in the process. Wells, Outlook.
\end{quote}

While Europe sends food to Africa's deforested drought
areas, there is an overabundance in beef, corn, butter, a
milk-lake and the like in the EEC , the storage of which
has become so costly that the farmers must pay a fine for
their production. When harvest comes in, the prices get so
low (through sheer abundance) that the governments pay a
subsidy, and then, having become owners (!), destroy this
excellent food. I myself have seen large pits in the ground
in which apples, pears, plums, etc. were dumped, sprayed with
poison in order to discourage thieving. This is the bestiality
of economics.

The poor peoples of Africa need wood in order to cook their
meals, therefore they de-forestate, yet, inestimable quantities
of fuel in all shapes are burnt up in our hothouses in
order to grow ... flowers, in the civilised (?) part of the
world. These hothouses are themselves not made so as to
retain every stitch of warmth, to use costly fuel optimally,
by treble glazing or five-fold glass, but they are thermally
little better than an open chicken run of wire mesh.

Every year, at the tourist season, thousands of acres of forest in
southern France, Spain, the whole Mediterranean, are set on
fire, and thus, become lost to the (news) paper industry (!).
All these fires are caused by stupidity and most of them
deliberate. It is a great touristy attraction to watch the
immense operations at work, the intricate organization complete
with heavy four-engined bombers that load and bomb
water. Is this sanity then?

In Turkish, as in many languages,
there are two words for the main two different ideas behind
'letter', (Spanish: letra-carta, German: Buchstabe-Brief,
Dutch: letter-brief, etc.). In fact, the extraordinary qualities
for complex thought and communication of English is
caused, in part, just by this rich scala of different meanings
(ideas) behind one word. Important as the translation
of 'letter' in a different language might be, however, I
have a concise Oxford Turkish v. v. English dictionary in
which the word cannot be translated into Turkish namely:
narf-mektup. Do we call it stupidity or not?

Precious cooking-fuel, the garbage of gardens and
orchards, are burned as waste. Nay, we burn our household
garbage, complete with our stupid disposables, whole mountains
of plastic (the malignant growth of economics), we
even burn our dead while we could simply re-circulate these
bodies by digging them in the soil, or dump them at sea.

All continents on the planet need desperately a thorough
re-forestation, but then in large tracts, in climate significant
tracts of say 10 x 10 degrees (section \ref{11}). The water
for this cannot be carried by hand, yet, all daily traffic
of say Manchester, when the engines are taken out and coupled
to water pumps, would suffice to pump that water from
the rivers, while we could easily go about on foot, or by
bicycle. (We should not ride dogcarts or horses, but have
all animals as our friends, not as slaves.) (The days for
that need are over, slavery to machines, animals free.) (Is
not, according to human dignity, a man who sits on a horse,
the most ridiculous sight, him thinking to sit on a motorbike?)

The problem of starvation in Africa is of course
dependent on numbers and food availability. Yet, only a
very few scientists can be heard to warn that, seeing the
rate of reproduction, a 10 year old saved now, will increase
the same problem 3 or 4 fold in ten years time, when there
will be the same drought. Malthus' theoreme, shared by say,
Spencer and other scientists, still holds. It says that
when one hands out food, first, people get less interested
in producing it for themselves, and second, population will
increase. This, naturally must not lead to the conclusion
that we should let people starve, which is inhumane, but it
should be understood that food delivery can only take place
when it is conditioned that no more children are produced.
This, as is obvious, makes problem and solution one of a
mondial ethics. (What right have we to reproduce freely,
(Wells' breeding storm) and demand of other peoples to check
offspring?) Stupidity made Marx and Engels so vehemently
attack Malthus, because he disturbed an absurd, stupid dream
of a world without private property, without ethics. It was
tried during the French revolution, and many times after, it
always showed to be impossible, as Malthus knew. The fundamental
ethics of handing out food did not escape a Malthus.
He perceived that it gives one an (unwarranted) power (control)
to discriminate, to rule, to enforce conditions,
hence, a tyranny. Naturally it is a tyranny to condition
not to have multiple reproduction, waves of children, but
such a tyranny, when imposed on ALL mondial people, is far
easier to endure. It then, is conceived as a necessity.
(Dispensation dis-enforces the rule).
But the reverend Malthus also advocated a premium on the
turning up of new land. This, together with his professional
superstition (the laws of gods, sperrits, etc.), must be
skipped in his writings. After all, they are from the 18th
century. Stupidity, also simply must result in a lack of
all ethics. In an ethics of a dream, not reality-related.
A proper world-government would see to it that every citizen
has his rightly one-square-meal-a-day, but also the duty \textbf{not
to produce more than one child per couple}. This, until the
load is lifted from nature. That is, when stupidity is
replaced by common sense.

Everybody should agree that admitting nuclear power stations
is sheer insanity, a stronger form of stupidity. We
all know that things that can go wrong, will go wrong, some
day (Spencer) and such risks thus, are not those of sane
men. Protesting against nuclear weapons is just as stupid.
The most primitive missiles, the V2 rockets of Hitler's Germany,
that carried a ton of explosives, fired onto some power
stations of say, Germany or France, could thereby destroy
life on the Northern hemisphere. So, in fact, could the
old-fashioned gases that were used in the trenches, on a
future Fuehrer, when countries like Russia, France, etc. are
permanently nuclear booby-trapped, through their power stations,
only waiting to be triggered-off by stupidity, or by
a most simple attack with conventional (!) weapons.

Is it not sheer stupidity to let one man, or a small
group of insane economists-diplomats, fanatic mediocrits,
decide and take measures that can kill off thousands or millions
of people? This, only for his applause, his gathering
of votes (see Churchill vol 1, Shirer, Schwarzschild, etc.).
Or a B.B.C. its world-service, that could have been a mondial
integrative force, a blessing for mankind but is still
braying its stupidity all over the globe. Is that sanity?
Or these royal distinctions, pinned on macho-bucks, the pop bastards,
that gather piles of money by mutilating millions
of children and grown-ups, especially because of this dirty
money? You are aware, of course, that your government willfully
rewards the undesirable in man, the making of debts,
and punishes the desirable, the saving for later. This
through tax and tax subtraction.

Do you know that the very tea you drink might have been
on transport for two times the actual distance between your
kettle and the harvesting soil? While at sea, the cargo is
sold, the ship's course altered, the cargo sold again,
course altered again, etc. And then, tea, like tobacco, coffee
and the like, is a decided non-essential, only permitted
when numbers of inhabitants are below the maximum, when
there is ample food reserve stored on the pole-caps, and
food is abundant for everybody. Until then, every stitch of
good soil is to be used for essentials, for food or reforestation.

Then, a child knows that Olympic games cannot but be held
in Olympia. But what of the stupidity of transporting
'Olympian fire' halfway over the globe? A schoolboy knows
that a flame consists of oxygen from the air, and gaseous
atoms from the fuel. Even when you transport a piece of
Olympian-grown wood that is burning over a few miles during
its brief existence, you do not transport the necessary oxygen atoms.
What clods they think we are to assume we
believe that they take open fire in an aero plane! Of
course, once inside, it will be extinguished and only re-lit
after safe landing. If not, the pilots and air companies
are greater clods than they think we are. Then, all the
stupid political problems in Olympian gamestry, are unnecessary
when we simply hold these games where they ought to be
held. People, then, can take it or leave it, nobody would
mind.

Have you never heard of students that cannot attend lectures
(taxpayers money) for three whole months because of
the business of inauguration rituals for a students club
keep them occupied? They know that belonging to that club,
is a certain way to high office, high social position in
later life. They ... help each other discriminatory, i.e.
the right man does not get the right place, but the club member who,
often, is certainly the wrong man. How long are we
going to accept stupidity, and the insults of being taken as
stupids by diplomats, civil servants, advertisers, show businessmen,
scientists and university officials without
protest?

Do you realise that the junk and scrap on the sea-bottoms
by the sinkings of World War 1 and World War 2 could provide
Western like existence with regard to necessities (shovels, rakes,
knives, scissors, etc.) for a century? That the powder used
up in these wars (for killing and devastating) is ample for
centuries of cooking in Ethiopia, that the hot baths Seneca
wrote about, were luxuries destroying costly trees, that
people who buy flowers are obstinately insulting so many
hungry bellies, that your motor-yacht with its hundreds of
h. p's (kilowatts) is sheer crime since it robs other, dying
people, of h. p. 's necessary to pump water or cook food? Do
you ever ask who's petrol it is that these stupid macho culls
in their motor- and car- races and crosses, use up in
huge, noisy, quantities, in order to arrive ... nowhere but
where they began, yokels going in circles indeed? Or these
vulgar vultures of society, rally drivers, who cross through
hundreds of miles of barren African scenery, populated with
the most utter poor people imaginable. People that would
give anything for say, a plastic jerry can, for carrying
their water, who stand there, watching the rich in money,
poor in brains and morals pass by in huge clouds of dust, in
tearing noises of mishandled engines. Do they give a single
thought to poor people, to the rights of man, are they not
the limit of stupidity? These bastards that shake good wine
in order to spray it away.

And do you know that practically all illnesses that you
are docily suffering from, but wholly unnecessary and for
life, (asthma, epilepsy, migraine, etc., etc.) were curable in
a few afternoons, in 1920 (section \ref{12}) ? Knowing this,
are you going
to refuse to pay, or going to court, in order to get adequate help.
Doctors, then, would be forced to study their
business, books of Cou\'e, Baudouin, Satow, Ambrose, etc., or
the articles in the Lancet, Brit. Med. Journ.

Are you aware of the piles of stupidities that are
released daily, for you to read or hear? When you hear of
Taiwanese fishermen being maltreated in Argentine, near the
Falklands, do you then see the utter stupidity of going to
fish over more than half the Earth's circumference distance
away? When there is no fish in Taiwan, then one should go
and plant crops. When one wants to fish in Argentine, one
should go and live there. These stupid open fires in central
heated houses, the architects that build an airfield
office-building in the form of an aero plane, etc. What stupidity!
Did you ever notice a street-planning that is
worse-, instead of better than no planning, street naming
that is worse than no naming, traffic rules that are worse
than no rules, your food that is not good enough for other
countries because you (have to) accept a level of radioactivity?
Did you ever notice how all problems in your
society, like crime, terrorism, labour problems, etc. are
always attacked by all sorts of solutions except the only
common sensical one?
\begin{quote}
Fundamental stupidity! DeBono.
\end{quote}
DeBono says that, in order to understand rationality (or
intelligence or whatever name we invent) it is well to study
stupidology. Indeed, for a mind-scientist, this is a must.
Besides, it is, as Democritus pointed out, real democritic
fun. Stupidology is the first department of the study of
man and his society, a large part of which is taken up by
the study of superstition (section \ref{13}). It is as old
as mankind!
So one studies
\begin{itemize}
\item the superstition of (romantic) love (of giving),
\item the superstition of democracy, of
\item the faith in the media, in
\item the belief in man's rationality and good-will,
\item the superstition of the advertisers,
\item the thought that they want
you to have things instead of the knowledge that they want
your money,
\item the false belief that our education aims at the
best for the pupil instead of at applause in teachers and
pupils, in
\item the excellence of our education,
\item the superstition that art must pay, that building must
be art not scientific technology, usability, etc.
\end{itemize}
There are superstitions about the
calendar, the legality of governments, the national flag or
the anthem, about money and economy, about science, frontiers and
custom houses with their blackmail, etc. Wells has it
expressed as
\begin{quote}
the dirty side of nationalism.
\end{quote}
In the neighborhood of Batavudurum (Nijmegen, The Netherlands),
one can
travel in all directions with a couple of bottles of whisky
in his possession, except in one. Solely by going in the
direction of the German border, a fancy line on the maps, a
superstition, one has to be asked questions, even pay money,
in, what Wells called, the blackmail of the frontiers. When
a serious student of mind-science has filled a notebook with
stupidology for some years, it makes a reading about our
planetary population like the saying: If I had to invent a
totally stupid population on a planet, I could never hit on
such a one (section \ref{14}).

Man's stupidity ... ? Unlimited!

He has let science and technology run away with him, he has
made it the killer of all life. He has made science and
technology a plaything for applause, for stupidity, instead
of a useful instrument to \textbf{better living for all, in harmony
with all other living nature}. So has he taken the potential
blessing of audio-visual instruments and turned it into the
pus of cancerous society, superstition and mutilation. We
might think that our society is based solely on copulation
and money. In reality, these are only manifestations of the
real drive, the drive for control of the individual i.e.
applause, the stupid paradox of applause, of wanting to control
one-self by one-self yet, wanting to be controlled by
others, wanting to be like others. Spencer shows us how all
education, all philosophy, all scientific work, is subjected
and ruled by applause, by irrationality that has taken the
place of usefulness, of decoration over usability, \textbf{since man
started living in larger groups than the family}. As in Wyndham's
'Seeds of Time':
\begin{quote}
Science, the great anti-biotic.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Common Sense in Government}
%\end{description}xx
A planetary population with a high-technology development, that
consists of sovereign nations, means a wholly
crazy society. A population sharing one planet, but ordered
on nationalism or internationalism, simply must be crazy.
It is almost needless to say that in time, they would invent
institutions and institutes, university faculties and lectorates,
practicing International Justice or international
law, rights and duties. This means a sociological impossibility,
a monstrum, namely 'the rights of a group', a
nation. (Only individuals can have, and do have rights \&
duties.) But a basis of nationalism is not a point of
departure for the rights of man, for justice. These then,
cannot, and do not teach, nor know about, the fundamentals
of the rights and duties of man. Take an example of e.g.
Ireland's neutrality during World War 2. (In parentheses, a
mondially organised population would not know war, other
than from the history books.) All national and international
judicature would whole-heartedly agree that Ireland was
in her right by staying out of the war.
The reality however, is different.
Let Monsarrat speak (The Cruel Sea) :
\begin{quote}
From a narrow legal angle, Ireland was within her
rights: she had opted for neutrality, and the rest of
the story flowed from this decision ... .
As they sailed past this snug coastline, past people
who did not give a damn how the war went as long as they
could live on in their fairy-tale world, they had time to
ponder a new aspect of indecency.
\end{quote}
The very neutrality of Ireland costed thousands of lives,
or, when we translate it into duration, it prolonged the war
for six months, if not a year. A six year war, costing sixty
million lives, should tell the tale. How can this extra
murder be based on rights?
Another question is with regard to the Irish people themselves.
Only by a very, very small margin was England not
overrun. Had this happened, with Ireland's neutrality in
the balance, certainly, Ireland would have been the next
stop for Hitler, on his way to Canada and the U.S.A. The
Irish government had absolutely no right in remaining neutral,
even if the population had wanted it so. Either the
rights and duties of man are just as the whim of the moment
dictates, i.e. a crazy world, or, they are so basic and
unchangeable that experts all over the globe necessarily come
to the same conclusions. As it is with natural science,
when two opposing theories exist, one simply must be nonsense.
When they can exist wholly logical side by side, we
are dealing with a crazy world. When a man is a murderer,
but over the border, over the fancy line, he no longer is a
murderer, the line, the society that contrapt such a line,
is crazy.

During the Falklands crisis, two sociologists in both camps,
Britain and Argentine, kept track of ideational indoctrination
and theory formation in children (it was scientists
then, that stood outside the war). It appeared that Argentine
children held that geographico-logically, the islands
belonged to Argentine. They also could draw a good picture
of the geography of their country. The English children, on
the other hand, could not draw their country very well, yet,
they maintained that the free choice of the inhabitants
would be the criterion for who was right and who wrong.
Two, separate and wholly correct theories, leading to two
totally opposite views about rights of man. Ergo, the WHOLE
set-up of the (mondial) society must be crazy. Ergo again,
when a solution is the correct one, both of the correct
ideas of the children, must then be possible in perfect harmony.
This is the case only with a world government. The
Falklands, then, do not belong to either Argentine or Britain,
but to the world-state, and \textbf{everybody is allowed to
live there or anywhere else}.

No wonder our fundamental Rights are so much as loose leaves
in the wind. That they are violated by whims and circumstance,
by skin colour, groups, self-imposed rights, illegal
authorities and superstitious rituals, that there is no sign
of a brotherhood such as there is in almost every animal
species. We, that are not I's but mere (mental) bits of
everybody else, the result of advertisements. No wonder,
while Rights are only valid for persons themselves, not
groups or corporations, we are not allowed to see to these
rights.

The butchery at say, Thermopyle, could not effect much
harm to the people in Iceland, but today, with the whole
planet at stake, and only decades to spare, with poisonous
molecules traveling from Athens to Ankara in days, or to
Alabama in months, we must be fundamental in justice, in
rights and duties, and that is anti-national, anti-international,
but mondial, integrative of population, mondial
of organization, mondially governed.

Then, there are these Conventions of The Hague and Geneva.
A pre-Homeric stupidity indeed.
What governmental stupidity is it to make war a blood sport,
to make rules for war! The stupidity is NOT caused by the
fact that wars occur, but by the fact that there are governments,
nations, i.e. wars. Only a sovereign government
could hit on the idea of rules for the war-sport, a mondial
government would not have wars.
Ambler said (The Dark Frontier):
\begin{quote}
The united mind of a people is the mind of a child.
That is why you will notice a child-like quality about
most successful politicians. They reflect the mass mind.
\end{quote}
Earth is divided into hundreds of areas of different
nations, into a thousand different religions, into millions
of differing ideologies, ideas about how Earth should be
governed. Everybody has his own ideas about how things
ought to be run. In fact it is part of the familiar paradox
too, it says: everything is for me, only the scraps that I
throw away do not interest me. All these differences, these
divisions, are more or less ready for war. That is when
groups can form that are dictated (controlled) by a group
ideology (idealogy). It is in such way to understand
Ambler's flag-makers in:
\begin{quote}
Somebody once called the ammunition industry the bloody
international. He must have forgotten the flag-makers.
\end{quote}
In the words of Wells, ideologies or nations, they are
either at war or preparing for war.
It should be possible in our modern society, with the aid of
real science, to develop \textbf{a system for government that leaves
no scope for dissatisfaction in anybody}. When we are able
to walk the moon, we should be able to construct the
fundamentally-, basically-, ultimate form of government that
would guarantee everybody's whole-hearted support. Note:
the development of a governing system by scientists, and
NOT, as today, by governors, diplomats. In case of difficulty,
we can always look at the children when they want to
start a game in a 'FAIR' way. \textbf{When nobody has the slightest
reason for complaints about the form of world-government,
because it is the only fair way, all politics (parties) stop
at the spot, what is more, there is no longer any sense at
all for diplomacy whatsoever.} But there is Bogardus for
example who, as sociologist, says:
\begin{quote}
He (Aristotle) arrived at what is the modern scientific conclusion,
namely, that no form of government is
to be worshipped to the exclusion of all other types.
\end{quote}
He, in fact, denies then the possibility of a fundamental
ethics, one that leads to a scientific-, ultimate-, fair-,
sort of government that puts out all other forms as being
non-scientific, silly, war-promoting, life-eradicating, that
by right of all citizens of earth have to be kept away. His
so-called modern scientific conclusion is from two years
after Hiroshima and the civilized
countries then, were not yet booby trapped by their own (??)
nuclear power stations. This sort of sham-science we do not
need. Ethics is about the right of everybody to grow up,
and to live in an ordered (world) society, is about the
duties of everybody to promote this organization. Personal
ideologies then, should be identical. Most, if not all
ideologies (usually at war with each other) like religions
(also at war with each other) come down to the desire for
the man to have a say in government. Because in a crazy
society, one would expect plenty of crazy phenomena, most
people in any group feel themselves-, or are in reality-,
maltreated, unjustly dealt with, discriminated. They want
to change that. Simple laws for fishery or food production/
distribution, or for safety control seem very unjust to
those who are in the business themselves, the catchers,
preservers, sellers, etc. Others, who never eat fish, who cannot
in fact stand the very stench of it, wonder why these
fishers cannot just obey these laws, why these laws could
not be more stringent, or even why the poor brutes in the
seas should be bothered with at all. Rules of the road,
designed for maximum safety, we always want to apply to the
others, we being free from them. The simple common sense
reasoning soon shows that a system in which all Earth citizens
would have a say, are practically impossible.
So much for democracy. It would mean endless (continuous)
referenda to be held on all decisions thinkable.
Plebisoothing, plebiseething indeed. One would be filling
in forms twenty four hours per day, even when all 5 billion
citizens could be linked up to a giant computer. Besides, a
decision about, say, the desirability or damage of the
building of a dam in the Bamboozlian river valley, of necessity
concerns all Earth citizens, but only those whose villages
are to be drowned, add most fierce campaigning, totally
unconnected with the desirability-, respectively
damaging- aspect of the decision. Another important matter
is that 999. 99 promille of the citizens cannot even decide
at all, lacking the necessary scientific knowledge.
\begin{quote}
Before he can vote, he must hear the evidence; before
he can decide he must know.
\end{quote}
said Wells in his Outline.

The result of 5 billion votes (5 million when the population
is reasonably checked) not based upon thorough knowledge
against a hundred or so that 'are' thought over, must
be disastrous for any planet we can think of.
\begin{quote}
Unless a man has education, a vote is a useless and
dangerous thing to have. Outline.
\end{quote}
was written by Wells years before Hitler proved it amply.
But, it must remain possible for every serious problem to
be brought to the notice of the government, even when the
scientists (the stigmatized, therefore the 'officially
approved') will not co-operate with the common citizen who
brings it on. When we remember from history that common
citizens had no access to their governments with the ideas
and inventions that could have shortened World War 1 and World
War 2 by
some years (Parkinson), this need seems important enough to
be incorporated in our plans (section \ref{15}). We should
not forget the
asthma, epilepsy, etc. that have been mentioned. In this, the
government should over-rule the pre-Herodotean medicine
concepts that do not work, and insist on scientific knowledge
about curation, i.e. about life. Medicine men should not be
allowed to let people suffer needlessly, and be paid for it
grotesquely. Government should not only be mondial, it
also, like science, should be based on common sense in order
to be legal. When one of them is lacking, the other goes as
well. A clearly stupid law, makes it the duty of every citizen
to break it. Then, with Howard Spring:
\begin{quote}
God damn Engeland. And God damn Ireland. And God
damn every country that thinks its dreams are worth one
young man's blood.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Superstition to be Banned}
%\end{description}xx
When we take rumours or hunches, though unproven, as
facts and act upon them, when we take customs and rituals as
natural laws and let us be ruled by them, we are superstitious wrecks.

When, as is shown by all history and is demonstrable
every day in our age (1985), a religion, a superstition, is
a cause for fierce wars, heavy loss of life, indiscriminate
slaughter, torture, rape, devastation, (Lebanon, India,
Pakistan, Ireland, Sri Lanka, South-Africa (section \ref{16}),
etc.) this is
sufficient reason and very imperative indeed to ban out all
religions here and now. With Lucretius, in regard to the
butchery of Iphigenia:
\begin{quote}
Such are the heights of wickedness to which men are
driven by superstition.
\end{quote}
A second reason for this is that people are burdened, for
life, with the misery of sin, and a fear for death (the
hereafter). A deadly superstition, ruling and ending life
indeed. The commonsensical philosophies of 2000 years ago,
that showed us the perfect attitudes towards life and death,
have been over shouted by stupid, stubborn, superstitions,
for the greed of a few. \textbf{One should have experienced it himself,
as I did, this tremendous feeling of liberation, of
relief, as is preciously described by Lucretius too, when
one becomes able to think freely.}\\
A third, yet also important
reason is the impossibility to develop any sort of science
(ethics especially) when one takes an influence into
account (gods, mermaids, sperrits, etc.) that has never been
demonstrated, is only a rumour, is totally unlikely to
exist, and, should it exist, would be totally unpredictable.
The most simple formulae like: half M times the square of V,
or: velocity is the distance divided by the time, become
un-usable when a never to be known, incalculable factor is
introduced, nay, these formulae have only become usable just
because they have proved to be correct in our reality without
these mystical, mysterious factors (section \ref{17}).
One is free to
believe in sperrits (the term is from Long John Silver),
gods, ghosts, mermaids, centaurs, nymphs, pseudo-analysis
(section \ref{18}), flat earths, inhabited moons, ufo's,
psycho kinesis,
etc., but one has not the right to let society be ruled
according to the (hypothetical) laws of these illusions.
One cannot have rumours ruling life, nor have them ruling
scientific facts. A rumour, an opinion, as everybody knows,
becomes not truer by an increase of the number of
believers. After all, we know that man is a cruel bastard,
he has no human dignity at all. He does not shrink from
throwing live animals in boiling water (crabs, lobster), and
this cruelty combined with superstition, gives to the most
ugly slaughtering.

With regard to the fundamental rights and duties of man,
(of every man), we have no right to induce (communicate,
indoctrinate, etc.) misery producing ideas in our children.
We have the duty, they have the right, to truth only
(Russell, Spencer, Wells, etc.).
\begin{quote}
In this modern world, it is, I hold, second to murder to
starve and cripple the mind of a child. Wells, Outlook.
\end{quote}
When one wants to think crazy, it is his own right, but to
propagate it as truth, is contradictory to the rights of
others. Suppose a nuclear fanatic THINKS that some god has
given him the task of destroying the whole god-less planet!
After the flood, the book indeed promised the next destruction
to be fire, nuclear fire. The creed is: You may think
as crazy as you want, as long as you do not deviate from
telling knowable truth, telling it to children, teach it.
The same rule goes for the man who wants to sell coloured
water in small bottles at the market place. He has the
right to try to sell them, but not to state that they are
powerful medicines.
Knowable truth is not that gods and mermaids do not exist
(an unwarranted statement of atheists), but it is that they
have never been found to exist (section \ref{19})

In our daily life there are many superstitions that need
only a scientific exposure and a will to draw conclusions
from these exposures. They are the cause of stupidities,
irrational and automatic behaviour (in ideas first) that
must produce stupidity in our children, our whole life.
They cause, as Wells put it: impromptu riot of cripples and
deaf and blind minds, in our press and current discussions.
What more reason does one need for a most strict censure on
teachers, parents and the media? Democracy and freedom of
the press, are violations of the rights of man. We only
have to read the papers, follow a discussion or lecture on
the radio or television to smack a total absence of the will
to think superstition-free, and the absence of knowledge
about fundamental ethics. We notice overall commerce, a
thwarting of truth for the sake of selling, applause, and
disinterest in any rights \& duties. After all, that is
already a most strict censure in itself, only a non-sensible
one. Fascism, Communism, Socialism, etc. are as much superstitions,
superstitious beliefs in an ordering for a better
world, as is every religion. They are real illusions, i.e.
totally void of any relation with reality, with man's
nature. Says Warwick Deeping:
\begin{quote}
For Sorrell's sufferings and struggles had not led
him towards the illusion of socialism. He had seen too
much of human nature.
\end{quote}
A beautiful example of an everyday superstition is: it is
Sunday. Nobody would dream to realize that it is not, that
we simply call it so, that it would give us tremendous gain
(gratis) when we changed this stupidity for rationality
(section \ref{20}). A child soon observes that the
Sunday is precisely
the same as any other day. There is the same lighting
arrangement in the sky, there are as many rainy Sundays as
rainy other days, etc. It will also wonder why we have to go
and enjoy (!) ourselves on a crowded beach when tomorrow
(Monday) it is empty. When grown up, it might wonder why
all these precious buildings, factories, offices, power stations,
shops, etc. are standing and doing nothing during 2
out of every 7 days, a 28 \%. Thus the new earth citizen
today, starts off with being forced to find stupidities the
normal. It has to learn not to say 'tooth's' and 'foots' but
teeth and feet. Then it learns the superstition of Sunday,
of weekend. When it enters primary school, these stupidities
are reinforced by the teacher, and it has to learn some
more. Not only does one hear khet, but one has to write it
as cat, with the sound-symbol of cate. It also learns the
superstitions of their nation being the best, of the flag,
their solely important language, of gods, sperrits and so
on. No wonder it will grow up into an individual with a
strong tendency for the superstitional (and for applause),
to let superstition and applause prevail over basic rationality,
over the rights of man. No wonder too, that it then
finds it normal when historians write in the present tense
(for silly applause) while realizing that the present can
only report about all things that of necessity happens
simultaneously, in the 'now', and that the past tense admits
the possibility to have Plato putting on his clothes first
and then going out, all that in a reality of 2500 years ago.
(The present does not exist because it has no time factor,
and all reality, physics and mind alike are time-structures.
The present has no time, we can make it a knife-edge, as
thin as we like (a limit).)
The child has become an adult, even a scientist, though
craziness is not foreign to it. In Wyndham's Chocky:
\begin{quote}
... if everybody goes around pretending to believe in
things that aren't there, how on earth is a child going
to distinguish what really is, from what really isn't?
\end{quote}
Superstition, like all false ideas about our reality, costs
lives and causes misery, stupidity and unhappiness in people.
We find in Sinclair Lewis' The God Seekers:
\begin{quote}
Many pastors and thinkers believe that darkies (dark
coloured humans) are like hosses and beef-critters: act
real cute and knowing all right, but not got one speck of
a soul to be saved or to be reprobated and to writhe in
eternal fiery torment. May be they're lucky.
\end{quote}
Indeed they should be when compared to a superstition-ruled
man. Or, to show you something of the sad pollution of little minds,
in the same book:
\begin{quote}
What a sanctified little miss she is! Had a strong
conviction of sin at five (!!!), and used to go off and
pray in a closet.
\end{quote}
\textbf{Happiness is synonymous with the absence of superstition.}
But we should not try to fight superstition by means of fire
and the sword as Christianity, Islam, Fascism, Communism and
others try to promote their creed. Instead, we should fight
it by common sense and science, education, by example.
This, however, will not always work. \textbf{Epictetus remarked
that it is very difficult to convince one who, in the teeth
(tooth's) of facts, sticks to his false ideas, his superstitions,
his wrong opinions (about reality).} In such cases we
must either join them in their silliness, and, clap our
hands with the children or, when we want a new and better
world, there is no other way than to use ridicule. Let them
feel our contempt for self-imposed slavery, for silly superstitions,
for journalists that demand freedom of speech,
while happy under the most stupid censure of their own making.
When reason does not work, and the sword is out of the
question, ridicule is the next best thing. Ridicule is
exactly the opposite of applause the ruler of insane life.
Applause means control over the applauders, and contempt for
what one controls. Ridicule shows our contempt, thus shows
us to be in control (of reason). With Lewis, this time his
Arrowsmith:
\begin{quote}
More terrible than their rage is the people's laughter.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{The 'Cannot' Syndrome}
%\end{description}xx
Spencer related a remarkable piece of human stupidity, to
be seen in everyday life. It said that when a man has no
knowledge about, say, molecules or some other very complex
physical topic, he would not dream of trying to explain this
topic to experts in molecules. He would know that he would
be the laughing stock, no applause to be gained. Yet, in
the case of a subject, billions times billions more complex
and important than any physical subject, i.e. social
science, society and mind, everybody is immediately ready to
spout his (stupid) opinions in the presence of everybody
else, whether mind-scientist or not. The phenomenon is just
as flabbergasting today (1985) as it was in Spencer's time.
One outcome of this strange phenomenon, is that when one, (a
specialist in mind, in ideation-theory of two decades standing)
proposes a well-thought-over governing system,
\begin{itemize}
\item a fair system,
\item a scientific system, and
\item not comparable with any contemporary ideology,
\end{itemize}
one hears as first (and only) reaction:
impossible (section \ref{21}) !
World integration and organization ... impossible!
Rub out superstition, have a free science ... impossible!
When one then asks: 'how do you know what is possible and
what not, what have you studied in influence, should not
experts in influence (ideation) tell you what is possible
and what not?' one is simply wiped from the table. After
all, to make it possible depends on making people accept
ideas, i.e. influence. The resistance against simple, most
fair, all people benefiting ideas is understandable, in
some vague way, because even the most un-attached scientific
thinker has a natural resistance against new ideas (they
attack his person), but to make a pertinent statement about
an impossibility without knowing a stitch about the business
in hand is sheer stupidity, is stupidity that makes our
extermination a certainty.

Cannot is what Semmelweis' colleagues said, when he
told them that simple hand-washing could save 75 lives out
of the hundred birth-giving women that were otherwise
doomed. When he showed them an actual drop in mortality in
his own clinic from their 75 to 3 per 100, he evoked downright
hostility. Women begging for permission to have their
babies on the street (which was forbidden in Vienna) knowing
that in the hospital they got (were) killed. That was science!
The same science of today, with millions suffering
from Seneca's disease for life, needlessly (section \ref{22}).
Albert
Speer, an architect, ignorant of influence (ideation theory),
freely discussed the possibility to influence Hitler.
He also quotes Mosley (Sir Oswald, the British Nazi, not
L. Mosley, 1975) as saying that Hitler did not (try to) hypnotize him.
What utter stupid nonsense, as an ideation scientist will know!

Why did it take 2000 years to develop the method of
printing, out of the well-known principles of printing coins
and seals (500 BC - 1500 AD) ? Certainly this had something
to do with the cannot syndrome, and superstition, and
not wanting to know. It was also because of the wrong people knowing,
(the others thinking that they knew) that lenses
were in use in the form of a drop of water by ancient
coin-makers, that it took thousands of years to develop
glass lenses. Certainly a young Xenophon or so, must have
observed the magnification by a drop of water on the skin
after a swim? Could nobody use the stupid mass-killing for
sacrifices, in order to extract an eye and see what is was
like? When finally the lens appeared, bacteria were reported and
what happened? Nothing ... for 200 years. It then
took a Pasteur to state that they did something. He too,
had to fight for his possible idea, against the cannot syndrome.

When I wrote above that asthma, epilepsy, etc. were curable
in an afternoon's time in 1920 (Nancy School) and earlier,
ten to one, the reader thought impossible or cannot, i.e.
without knowing what he was talking about. Should he take
part of my library home (some two meters bookshelf), study
it for some time, he'd know better, although not being
expert immediately after (see also Ambrose, Baudouin,
Brooks, Cou\'e, Erickson, Howe, Kline, Orton, Satow, Schofield,
etc., etc.). He, then, would be freed from the cannot syndrome
in this particular field, in ideation theory.
Heavier than air cannot fly, was known to be a fact even
by those who took the trouble of weighing a dead bird. Man
still cannot fly, but then, we have the battle of definitions on our
hands. What was meant, in those days, was that
man could not hope to transport himself through the air.
Now, what exactly changed the, not able to fly man, into the
able to fly man? A simple change in ideas. First was that
it should be possible, second came the technical ideas about
reality, its physical laws, that developed machines that man
used to be flown in. Only an ideational change!

Mussolini stated that no revolution could change the
nature of man (Gunther). He knew nothing about mind, like
Speer. We can easily change the very (suicidal) nature of
man and that is a revolution! In Wyndham it is shown how
much of you is you, and how much of you is the others.
\begin{quote}
But I'm free. I can think for myself. You think you
can - but can you really? Every thought of yours is
based on somebody's teaching, or a scrap of information
picked up from somebody else. One might even say that
there is no 'you' - you are no more than a conglomeration
of bits of other people.
\end{quote}
In Wells' Outlook, the same can be found about the so-called
freedom of choice.
\begin{quote}
What we do as purely spontaneous individuals is hardly more than a
narrow choice between prescribed things.
\end{quote}
\textbf{I, here, as mind- (ideational) scientist, state most absolutely
that the attainment of a proper world-government is
easily to be achieved, nay, should have more chance, than
whatever stupidity of today.}

It only depends on you, your ideation towards others!
War, and the extinguishing by environmental destruction;
they are physical operations, situations, happenings, so
much is certain, but ..., the causes for these, are purely
ideational. As in Wells' 'Joan and Peter' every problem in
politics, every problem in the organization of production
and social co-operation is a psychological problem ... The
term psychological, of course, must be regarded to mean
(human) mind study. All that is required is an ideational
change. For this change, a multitude of decently thinking
persons are necessary, ... you!
But impossible, not.

Hitler showed how ideational change in an entire Volk
(60,000,000) was easily possible in ten years time, from
good, friendly people, to murderous fanatics. Look at the
rapid spread of Christianity, of Islam in History, but also
at ... the use of antibiotics in our world. Antibiotics
took the globe in only some years.

With adequate scientific improvement of the same methods,
as all ideologies showed to work, i.e.
propaganda (section \ref{23}), (is
education, teaching, indoctrination, suggestion, persuasion,
ideation, etc.) the change of a planet's population from
lunatic-, self-destroying-apes (S. D. A's), into responsible
Earth-owners, is far easier than Hitler's achievement,
because the latter allowed common sense, human dignity to
dissent. We have only human dignity in mind. The idea of a
lottocratic world-government, today, can cover the globe in
half a year or so.
When, in the teeth of facts, a man will sabotage a common
sensical organization of human society and a fair sort of
government, by saying that it cannot be done, he is guilty
of every shot fired, every starving belly, and, his own plus
our extinction as well. When ignorant, he should only
admit: I don't know. When one knows what is at stake, and
also that the solution is possible, one is held to become a
world-citizen, a world-man, himself.
\begin{quote}
For me the alternative was to be a world-man or no
man. Wells, The Passionate Friends.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{The Rights and Duties of Man}
%\end{description}xx
Nowadays, (1985), one hears and reads much about institutions
that are concerned with the rights of man. The
duties, like in the American Declaration, Geneva and Helsinki,
are wisely kept out. Close scrutiny soon reveals the
fact that little about fundamental ethics is demonstrable in
these institutions. Most time these institutions favour the
monstrous doctrine of the Summum Bonum, i.e. the good of
all being the criterion for man's rights. This definition
is mine and seems a necessity (section \ref{4.4}). It
means the very possibility to violate any person's rights
for a gain in those of others. When the majority votes
for-, or gaines by-, this cannot be an excuse for harming
any individual (prof. Lynch).

Rights and duties, are related as Aristotle related the
inner side and the outer side of a circle. \textbf{The rights of
one are the duties of others.} They are indivisible.
Talking solely about rights, is as much nonsense as speaking
about nourishment without mentioning food. When one hears a
statement from such an institution (of human rights) saying
that everybody has the right to determine the number of his
children, the contradiction with everything we know about
our reality is so striking that the question is why this
fundamental ignorance is tolerated any longer. First, the
right to live and the right to die, is only and solely in
the person himself, nowhere else. A not (yet) existing person
therefore, has no rights and no duties, nor has a dead
one. \textbf{Parents have the right to start a new Earth-citizen
only when there is a fair chance of him becoming a happy
world citizen AND then only when the planetary population is
decidedly below the maximum that Earth can bear (5 million).}
This parental right then, is shared by every citizen. The
premeditated production of misery, by creating an individual
that is chanceless from birth onwards, is crime. A planet
that can hardly sustain (in happiness) a bare five million
humans, but is overloaded with the thousandfold of this number
(five billion), presses upon every would-be parent the
cold realisation that the new individual will be in utter
misery, will find an end, like we (1985), in the most horrible
circumstances.

The rights of the new individual clearly implies too, a
thorough study and expertness in the bringing up of such an
individual, amply PRIOR to its conception. This even, is
not yet thought about. He has the right, the parents the
duty, of starting him off with the merest chance of happiness.
This shows another stupid, alleged right, namely to a
freedom of speech, Mill's Paradox.
An excellent eminence in mondial sociology like H.G. Wells
even could not think ethically on a level fundamental enough
to be somewhat final. He notes with some approval in his
Outline, (there is an Outline and an Outlook) that the trade
unions became appreciative of the value of education. They,
therefore, founded schools and courses. It was beyond Wells
(and many others), to realise that such schools simply have
to teach the violation of human basic rights (and duties).
They have to teach that a man under some contract to do certain
work, a contract that he likes, has the duty to stop
work when the union commands a strike (Summum Bonum principle again).
Furthermore, they have to teach that, while an
employer has the right to contract employees (often made
into a duty for him), he has not the right to sack the
employees at the spot when they break contract without clear
force-majeur (section \ref{24}).

In much of the serious literature, generally, very fundamental
and basic thinking about the rights and duties of
man, is lacking. It is the cause for group-consciousness,
this clustering process that is the all-out cause for war
and disaster, for torture and rape alike. One group insists
upon some right, another group demanding a different right
(employers, employees). All this, while it is obvious that
rights and duties are precisely singular not manyfold or
multiplicate, one set for each human.

\textbf{Common thought seldom penetrates into fundamental ethics,
so that it becomes scientific and mondially applicable.}
Smoking, it is said, is bad for your health. A false conception
of personal freedom now, deducts that one has the
right to determine this risk for himself. Already, though,
there is a slight uneasiness about this, and the rights of
other people who share the same room and do not want to be
smoked. Further, it goes not, and in 1985, in a large lecture hall, I encountered majority rule, hence smoking was
allowed (tyranny of the majority). Perhaps an individual
here or there, might hold that the illness and death by
smoking comes at the cost of society, not on the individual
whether he is insured or not (the premium is paid by others
too, and is tuned to these risks), hence, smoking is no personal
right but an anti-social act.

The mondial aspect goes even further, although admitted,
that suicide is in general desirable in our overcrowded situation.
It is a true fact that smoking causes tobacco plantation
where good food or forest could be growing. It is
also true that it leads to mondially organised commerce,
transport, sales organization, duties, packaging and advertisement
industry, etc. (It is as with flowers. By buying
them, you cause production, transport, preservation chemicals,
and deny good soil to re-forestation or food-growth).
Only the combined salaries of all customs personnel all over
the world, solely concerned with im-, and ex-port, duties,
banderolles, control and so forth would be ample to buy food
for Africa. While the man in the street thinks that smoking
is his own business as long as he does it outside, in the
open, that it is only a person-destructive habit, the reality
shows it to be socio-destructive not a personal right,
apart from suggesting the habit to others. His hospitalisation
is a burden of cost and effort on society, his need for
tobacco makes for a costly social superfluids. Rights \&
Duties ought to be scientifically studied and discussed, put
on paper and taught to every world-citizen nay, particularly
children (section \ref{25}).
\begin{quote}
To this day I will confess, I dislike the restriction
and distortion of knowledge as I dislike nothing else on
earth. Wells, Outlook.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{An Utterly False Comparison}
%\end{description}xx
There have been scientists who compared the situation on
a planet to the one on a (space) ship. On very first sight,
this comparison holds some water, yet on closer scrutiny,
the comparison is false, the conclusions for human life on
our planet therefore are false too. On a ship, a space
ship, if one likes, there is a captain (and crew) and there
are passengers. The captain is an expert in sailing the
ship, setting the course and what not. Then, the ship is
owned, not by the passengers, but by some syndicate, or
group of owners or else.

Not so with Earth!

Earth, is the possession of every living thing on its surface,
that is, crew and passenger alike. And they are
equally ignorant of the working of the ship. True, the
plants and the animals can not (verbally) claim their
rights, yet, they have rights (Hutchinson Harris writes
about animals that recognise rights in others, but this is
anthropomorphism). But it is man who by means of his extra
degree of freedom in ideation (section \ref{26}), is capable
to judge,
therefore it is only his duty to see that all rights are
divided and distributed, share and share alike.

A more appropriate comparison of a planetary population
would be that of a huge space-ship, a billionfold in complexity
compared with anything we know of, with no captain
or crew, with no other owners than this population itself,
that is set aboard all of a sudden. This ship has food,
oxygen and other commodities aboard, yet would not be able
to change its course, has no engines. On this ship, the
passengers would first be bewildered by all the things that
are to be found, all the dangers too, that would be incorporated
by inexpert fiddling with its apparatus. What would
such population of passengers do? They would first of all,
\textbf{keep their numbers down}, then, try to become familiar with
the instruments, and, would form a sort of captaincy that
would decide about the oxygen and food production/distribution,
in short, the well-being of all passengers.
Such a captaincy, logically, would want to be advised by
those who have a little knowledge about the workings of the
instruments. Soon, they would deduct that Summum Bonum
(section \ref{4.4}) and democracy does not work. The majority
might think to feel happier with ozone than with oxygen 2.
Thus, no captaincy as instrument of democrazy! The only
fair method for such a captaincy would be the appointment by
lot. It is this captaincy that all thinkers like B. Russell
(who could produce such nonsense about ideation and knowledge),
A. Huxley, and especially H.G. Wells, have taken as the
most important topic for their studies in sociology. A mondial
sociology that is, one that was propagated by the very
Socrates, although the latter left no self-written notes
(section \ref{27}).

We are clearly NOT passengers on a luxury liner, on a
holliday cruise, with a concerned and expert captain and
crew, with cooks, stewards, pursers, maids and with all other
slaves that would spoil us. Instead, we are crammed in a
lifeboat with nobody in authority, (I mean in BOAT authority,
not own-pocket authority), with little food and water,
with many of the fellow survivors stark mad, constantly in
the most immediate danger of foundering and with the severest
utter heavy weather in store. The only thing then, and
open to us all, is ... get organised, stop producing more
survivors for some generations, refrain from persuading suicides
to stay on, and kick those who think survival depends
on mermaids and are constantly praying and sacrificing to
them, into co-operation, kick them into co-operation instead
of letting them sabotage the workings of the ship (boat).
That too, is a rough comparison which may hold some water.
\begin{quote}
We want men who know, not men who need to be told.
Howard, Spring in Fame.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Democracy and Things}
%\end{description}xx
One of the superstitions that deserve extra treatment
here because it is falsely, but generally, thought to be
heaven, is democracy, the illusion that all earth citizens
can-, and therefore should-, have a say in the crucial matter
of government.
When we want to arrive at a scientific-, ultimately fair,
all citizens encompassing-, planetary government, one that
is easily realisable in practice, and guarantees the optimal
happiness for all, equal chances for all, it is clear that
we must look at the stupidities of earlier methods, and certainly
at the (still) existing ones.

No nation, country, or
large group (religion e.g.) has ever been found to be ruled
other than by a dictatorship. The ONLY other alternative,
namely ALL citizens deciding on ALL matters, a real democracy,
has never been found except on small scale group-
behaviour, and about insignificant problems (football clubs,
card parties, etc.), nay, it is a sheer impossibility. When
the dictating force is one person, it is called a dictatorship,
often a tyranny. When it is a group, whether self
installed or chosen by the majority, it has been called a
democracy, yet remains in practice a dictatorship all the
same. The minority in it, obviously, never has its way, it
would in fact be very odd if it had, and ... it would be
equally dangerous for Earth as well. Spencer asked what it
would be like, if the majority decided that one should not
live beyond 60.

Democracy, or Democrazy, (the decision by
the majority) in a family with three children, would result
in a stupid life for all, consisting mainly of eating
sweets, and playing in the mud outside, late into the night.
Never would a parent have a stitch to say in the matter of
education or simple health measures. (This is mankind. A
shock of infants with an occasional grown-up inbetween.)
Indeed, in such a family, the minimum of workability could
only be reached by the use of a typically children's strategy
for playing, i.e. the decision by the lot. It is then,
and only then, that undesired (by the majority, the children)
measures may turn out possible by a fifty procent
chance (section \ref{28}). When a coin is used, it is fifty
procent
chance, when it is in the form of eeny-meany-miny-mo, the
chances are even less (two parents, against three children).
What is more, the dissatisfied always could cause a re-vote
of some sort, thus negativating any measure. The early literature
(Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, etc.) is full of such
lottocracies, the governing of, by lot appointed persons.
It is the factor common sense again.

Since a child knows
that the only solution for our planetary problems lies in a
proper mondial government (an indisputable fact), the same
child would agree to an eeny-meany- ... system of governing.
But, it is equally clear that majority decisions (rule by
referenda) is a sheer impossibility with 5 billion of citizens.
Besides, the majority may, nay will, take the wrong,
the very earth-destructive decisions. It seems to scientists
that it is better to let the learned, the wise, govern.
Naturally, the scientists can see what is damaging and
what measures are necessary, they too are the only ones that
can develop a fundamental, mondial ethics, guaranteeing all
rights to all citizens. Scientists, then, should govern.
But here is the obvious impossibility. Apart from they
being ruled by applause, by the pressure to publish, by
copyrights, etc. This choice for government out of the scientists,
the thinkers, the wise, the commonsensical rationals,
would be in violation of the very basics of fundamental ethics.
It would mean an unwarranted discrimination.
It would be possible to complain, correctly, why must I do
it or why am I not included (meaning political parties,
smuggling of arms ... war). Besides, these thinkers and
scientists are necessary for doing what they have to do,
i.e. think, not administrate. In so many words, the only
group of people on Earth qualified for governing Earth, have
something else to do and we must not discriminate them.

Absolute democracy, being not possible, we must have a dictatorship,
a group of governing people not chosen in a discriminating way,
but as a duty for the group, not discriminatingly
appointed. Our children when starting a game, our
football matches that have to start, our choice of trumps in
cards, they all show us the indiscriminating way, the only
fair way, the only way against which absolutely no thinking
citizen on Earth, can rise his protest, namely the working
of the lot. Lottocracy cannot be objected to by sensible
people, only by cranks. It is the only obvious-, and the
only fair-, way of attaining the government. The principle
can be used on the level of cities, of hemispheres, and, of
course, for the whole planet. Scientists do not want the
job. They have better things to do, yet, they would like to
explain scientific truths to anybody who wants to hear. We
must make certain that our governors are the first of those
wanting to hear.

So we arrive at a logical, fair, and scientific
way to form a world-government.
\begin{itemize}
\item We put all citizens
into a file of a computer, the computer produces two citizens
at random every day, out of the group of say, 45 year
olds, and they are the conscripts for a year, starting that
very day.
\item They are conscripts in the service of mankind,
and their service of one year, includes 3 months for
instruction in procedures, and ... in understanding scientists.
\item When they govern, they know hardly a thing about the matter
in hand but ... they have a conscience. Then, their office
is right on the campus of a scientific establishment, so
they can get all the advice necessary, and fast.
\item Every day
two join up, every day two are just finished. They need not
stay on for the finishing of a job, they can just go.
\item They
are located all over the globe, they cannot therefore become
a group or party with interests of their own, but are electronically
linked up.
\end{itemize}
There is no, absolutely no, secrecy
and they are solely interested in the well-being of mankind,
in man's rights \& duties, in human dignity. In this way
they are just ... co-operatives.
\begin{quote}
Human society is as yet only a truce and not an
alliance. Wells, The Passionate Friends.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Characteristics for Governors of Earth}
%\end{description}xx
The workings of our contemporary governments and those
found in all history, show some clear characteristics of
diplomats in general that are 'not' desired in our new
world, our FAIR government.

First of all, \textbf{a governor, should 'not' want it}. When he
likes it, it means he gets something out of it, it means he
wants to do something for it, in other words, his decisions
will be according to his wanting the job (lying, cheating,
barter, corruption, etc.), not according to the problem.
Decisions ought to be taken solely with regard to the problem
(desirabilities are problems too). We all see the hectic
campaining for places in government everyday. It, in a
way, 'caused' the second world war and its 60 million casualties
(see Churchill vol. 1, and Schwarzschild, Angell,
Mowrer, Bromfield, etc.). The same principles are habitual to
the 'United Nations' that were akin to the League of
Nations, a cause for all the wars and murdering going-on on
the planet today. The killing-deciding persons 'want' to be
chosen (applause), they practically do everything for it.
Our new-world governors therefore should not like it, should
get nothing out of it, should do the job only as the conscripted
soldiers do their job nowadays, as a duty but not liked.

Second is a characteristic in our diplomats that is more
or less related to the first. We would want the very best
man in the job, yet, because of the desirability of it, we
always have the least worthy ones (section \ref{29}).
It means that when
a measure is very, very, necessary for bland survival (of
everybody), it will not be decided upon because it is not
liked by the electorate (section \ref{30}). No matter
how killing or
destructive a decision may be, the governor, the diplomat,
decides with his eyes on the electorate. He means to stay
on, to survive (Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George, Baldwin,
Chamberlain, etc. and ... even Churchill, and so on). The singular
occasions on which, for instance, the Roman Empire was
ruled by integer, well-willing, and intelligent people, like
Seneca (with Burrus) or Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, show that
'the very best at the helm', is not tolerated for long when
other people hanker after the job, because it pays. The
principle is done away with as soon as possible, (like Aristides'
ostrahisation because of him being just). Yet, even
these, the Pericleses, Asoka's, Seneca's, etc. really didn't
like their jobs and got little satisfaction from it. But
... we cannot press-gang the capables in our society, the
scientists, the wise.

A third phenomenon not desirable as characteristic in the
new-world government, is the working of barter, when 'partner'
in a group (democratically chosen). What Harry Hopkins
said (see Sherwood), 'hunger is not debatable', would be
excellently translated into 'extinguishing all life is not
fit for barter'. Governing persons should not be able to-,
should be prevented from-, doing barter with other governors.
There must be no way to work by: 'if you support my
proposed law on ..., I will support yours on ... '. The only
criterion for a law being passed, a decision being taken
should be 'in' mankind itself, and 'in' this law or rule
itself, not in barter.

A fourth, but very important factor, is the possibility
of group-consciousness in the governing persons, a conspiring
for themselves, against the citizens, often by the natural
tendency to have a leader, a Fuehrer. Hitler came to
power in this manner, Trotsky warned against it, Lenin
realised it too late, and it would start as the 'party'
a-ruling, followed by the leader of the party gaining absolute
control (section \ref{31}).

With these simple statements it is
childishly easy to develop a system for world government
that is the only fair one, that is not discriminating for a
part of Earth's population, AND may give all scope to the
fruits of modern science to be made use of. As I said, such
a government is easily effected, given a world-spread cooperation
among decent thinking people, (the reader).
Wells pointed to a stupid tradition that even emerged in
the formation of a new government from scratch on, the
U.S.A. He wondered why they started the old bi-cameral
structure again (Outline). With a bi-cameral system, there
are four 'contestants' already. Two ruling parties and two
opposition parties. When we have a president, a primeminister,
a cabinet, a congress, a house of representatives,
a senate, an electorate, some unions, bankers, industrialists,
advertisers, media, an opposition party and so on,
what is one to govern anyway, and how? It means barter,
lobbying, cattle dealing, and aping the stupid opinions of
the electorate. All this has to go.
\begin{quote}
{\bf We have a right to
proper government, a government that takes decisions, not
liked by everybody, no, even hated by everybody, by every
earth citizen alike, but absolutely necessary. A government
that knows no economics, no industrial competition, no
superstitions, but thinks in terms of clear water, clean
air, space for everybody, friendship with all animals and
plants, and resources equally shared by all.}
\end{quote}
Man plus the
dignity of man. 'Scoundrels', says Tacitus, 'find it easier
to agree on warlike measures than on means to achieve harmony
in peace-time'.

But a word must be said for the advisory role of scientists.
When Woodrow Wilson came to Europe to enforce his will (son)
on the nations, it was said that his stupid scheme was
advised by scientists. They cannot but have been pseudologists
instead of scientific mondial sociologists. They
lacked, as Schwarzschild admirably shows, every iota of
insight in man and mankind. They were nationalists (Americans),
intra-nationalists (Southerners or Northerners)
intra-intra nationalists (may be from Utah, Wisconsin, or
Mass) and even further devided into Bostonians, Detroitans
etc. They cared not a fig about the citizens of earth, about
war and peace, about rights \& duties of man. They were
solely interested in applause, personal applause, Bostonian
applause, Massachusets applause, Northerners applause and
finally (!!!) American applause. Such a situation we cannot
allow to happen again. A scientist should belong to the
natural world-brotherhood of scientists. For this, he must
be free from superstitions and he must have liberated himself
from cheap applause. In fact he must be really interested
in his science regardless of applause. Hence, he is
mondial in thought and teaching. Then, a sociological scientist
must not be so easily caught on a lee-shore as our
pseudologists. These, as is well known, are completely at a
loss when a simple college graduate asks a most obvious
question. (Such as: 'You are talking about mind, well, what
is the difference between mind and inanimate, what are the
differences between the vegetative, the animal, the intelligent,
this not as the manifestations, but the real basics,
the mind-typical?) This question, obvious today, because in
the lecture halls there is a continuous comparison and examplication
of animals and humans, could be safely asked, but
cannot be answered. A child knows then that this indicates
not science, but nonsense, triviality investigation, a playabout
with the tool, not with that what the tool is made
for. When one looks at A in order to know about B, one
should be able to at least say HOW this A compares with B
fundamentally. Clearly, a social organization based on such
pseudo-scientists too, would lead to nonsense measures as
Wilson's tyranny showed, and ... war and war. Says Sinclair
Lewis:
\begin{quote}
... there's two kinds of fun in politics: revolution
against tyrants, and then revolution against the revolutionists when
they turn tyrants. The God Seekers.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Pooling}
%\end{description}xx
{\bf We all 'have' to share Earth and everything on it. We
therefore all have the responsibility for its functioning
and upkeep on a healthy level.} This points to the familiar
principle of pooling. Pooling is acting together losely,
socio is the co-operation of pooling, is intelligent structure,
is organization. Mondial sociologists cannot study a
concept for a fair and safe society without a thorough
knowledge of man's characteristics with regard to this pooling
phenomenon.

Schwarzschild and many others expressly
pointed to the absence of knowledge about man, that made for
the total failure of the League of Nations (and the United
Nations) and for wars and wars, and torture and bestiality.
An example of the pooling of words without the pooling (cooperation)
in acts. Had the members pooled their power,
their forces, their armies, World War 2 and Hiroshima would not
have happened (section \ref{32}).

Pooling in money is well-known. When a large group of people pool
a little money each, the total of which is to go to
the person who predicts the outcome of a physical process or
a game, correctly, this winner (?) gains a tremendous lot of
money (section \ref{33}). Often, a large part of this gain
is strainedoff for the cost of the organization of such lotteries, in
fact, even the simple raffle in a pub, the fruitmachines,
the bingo-evenings, are designed to produce a gain for the
non-participants, for the organizers. When one hears of a
person who spent every week, 25 units of money, during 25
years, in a State Lottery, for the chance of winning 100,000
of these units as gain, but without result, one can calculate that,
had he put this money in the bank, with a reasonable
interest, he would have had the 'certainty' to attain
these 100,000 units. Obviously, the truth about these matters is
entirely different from what the advertisements
declare. This same State then, when it recognises the misery
brought by gambling and wanting to do something against
it, certainly looks very odd indeed.

The pooling of risks too is habitual and similar to the
general use of police, firebrigade, army, etc. (section \ref{34}).
When there is a risk of a great loss by circumstances, one can
put this loss on the bill of an insurance company, meaning
that, in order to make it at all possible, many and many
people must pay and pay without ever claiming such loss.
On first sight, insurance seems advantageous for society.
It makes it possible for a person to run risks that formerly
he could not dream of, the consequences of which he could
never hope to suffer in his life. On second sight however,
there is the question of: 'why should you (like to) run
risks like that at all?' 'We pay, and you get away with it
cheap, others not'. When a boxer or mountaineer enthousiast,
takes a risk of very high costs in hospital or rescue
operations, this is community money, risked for the pleasure
of a few (section \ref{35}). He can say: 'it is insured',
but he forgets
that it affects the premium rate for all others. Clearly,
we need a simple concept for understanding the principle of
pooling.

When in a block of flats, the water was pooled, i.e.
everybody paid the same part of the total bill, I encountered
a woman who had a clever system for cleaning her empty
milk bottles. She simply put them under the running tap for
a quarter of an hour or half an hour. Had she had to pay
for her own use of water, she most certainly would have
saved water, or would even have left the cleaning of these
bottles to the milk company. Even severe advice for everybody to use
water sparingly (in a very dry summer) would not
convince her. 'Others will do it', and 'nobody would know
about it', was the word.

There was a similar case of a block of appartments in
which the bill for central heating was pooled. Instead of
turning the radiators down a little when the room temperature
was too high, people opened windows and let the draught
take care of the superfluous warmth, stoking the environment
thereby. These examples are not incidents by cranky people,
but only those that came to be noted down for later use.

The reality must be far worse. It points to a different
society with regard to laws. There should be a code
instead, an internal law of conduct. With Wells:
\begin{quote}
Necessities bury rights. And create them. We've
done with that way of living. We wont have more law than
a code can cover and beyond that government will be
free. The World Set Free.
\end{quote}
Look at the trains, the busses, waiting halls, the streets
'n parks, dustbins, etc. that are all pooles (public money) !
I once had the experience to be unable to convince a student
in social science, of a decidedly anti-social act. It was
with regard to a canteen that worked on the principle of the
so-called cafeteria system, meaning that the customer was
supposed to fetch his food on platters and dishes which he
took himself, and put away after use in the proper station
for dishwashing. Not doing this latter, I marked down as
contra social. He answered that this would imply that it
meant something to me (and others). I affirmed this, showing how,
when the dirty dishes remained on the tables, the
proprietor had to take on extra personnel for doing this
gathering, hence higher prices (for the same product) and
therefore a disadvantage for all other customers. He could
not grasp this reasoning and made a diverting answer (the
customary strategy in such cases) saying that this was
advantageous for the un-employment problem. I, going along
with the digression, answered that it was a mis-appreciation
of our reality to think that we must have less unemployment,
that on the contrary we must have more and more.
Quoting Cicero first, who had praised un-employment adequately,
I remarked that; the more employment, means the
more production, which in turn means faster devastation of
our environment, and death coming faster. But a social scientist
of that sort, will never be able to understand that
all argumentation (against common sensical co-operation)
stops when our extermination looms near.
\begin{quote}
It was the groans of dying men she wished to hear Iliad.
\end{quote}
Another example is a pooling principle that resembles insurance.
When a workman is paid only for the work he does, a
situation of an earlier century, he will spread his spending
of money in order to cope with rainy days when work (pay) is
impossible. When there is a little rain, he will easily
endure it for the sake of the upkeep of his family. When
his payment is pooled, i.e. spread over the year, in combination
with the payments of others, the result is that when
there is a tiny drop of rain ... down tools. Even the man
who wants to go on a little, is sanctioned by his comrades
for doing so (Summum Bonum fallacy). There is nothing to be
'gained' from going on working.
In our circumstances, pooling seems to be subject to a
simple law. When it is 'I, to have' (the normal rule for
all life (section \ref{36}) ), there is no thought of any other
human being
and his rights, when there is responsibility involved,
duties, there are 'only' others to do it, not I, (I, to
have, not I, to do, i.e. only rights no duties). People
think by nature that they have rights, never that they have
duties, except in small families or tribes somewhere.
{\bf I have my rights, you have your duties is normal in our world.
A governmental system should be based upon this knowledge
(by advisors).}
\begin{quote}
The whole earth belongs to everyone. That is not a
doctrine, that is a fact - long overlooked. Wells, The Holy Terror.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{A Concept for Government}
%\end{description}xx
By simply applying common sense it is very well possible
to develop a fair and workable system for our world government.
A system that nobody can possibly object to,
and that will end all politics, diplomacies, opposition parties,
ministries of defence, wars, etc. and therefore, all
secrecy, the arch-enemy of co-operative existence. We know
\begin{itemize}
\item that first of all, the job must not be liked,
\item that secondly,
the scientists must shed their fruits of study into it,
\item that
there must not be the risk of conspiration within the group,
\item that there must not be the possibility of a leader grabbing
the power, and besides,
\item that there must be an ample number
of governors in order to eliminate the chances for a lunatic
to decide matters.
\end{itemize}
Certainly, {\bf scientists should not 'decide'}, for the obvious
risk of their hobby-horses becoming a lethal threat as the
first atomic bomb was. Remember that before this first one
was exploded, nobody was certain that the atmosphere as a
whole would not be destroyed. The risk of staking all life
on it was easily decided upon by scientists.
\begin{itemize}
\item The only impartial system now, as the children teach us,
is also the only scientific-, common sensical- one, namely
{\b the appointment by lot}.
\item Naturally we do not want a {\bf six-year
old} to be appointed, nor do we like a {\bf senile old man} like a
Hindenburg (who, as head of a state of 50 millions, thought
a wheelchair too expensive (see Bullock, Fest, Toland,
Shirer, Gunther, etc.), a Hindenburg who held the power to stop
Hitler.
\item The occasional crank we take care of by a great
number and by {\bf avoiding veto's}.
\item Just as children (try to)
fiddle with this lot, we, in the jury-system, have managed
to bungle the advantages of the conscience(s) appointed by
lot.
\item The jury members should only have personal encounters
with (mind) experts, certainly not with the show-business
and theatricals of the courtroom. Justice should be done,
i.e. conscience and expert advise.
\end{itemize}
The only obvious way then, for our world-government, is
\begin{itemize}
\item to have say, a thousand
world-governors appointed by lot.
\item They are not necessarily
scientists, even not intellectuals or wide-scope students of
reality. They will be ordinary citizens and need only
everyday common sense.
\item Thus it will be necessary to make
all the advisory help from scientists and others, available
to them, any time, on any occasion.
\item But these thousand governors
should never be able to 'meet' in person in their
assemblies. We don't want speeches and indoctrinations,
machinations for certain ideas, and we tolerate no secrecy
which is the core of diplomacy. Fortunately, today, (it was
not possible in the days of the Roman empire) we have such a
technological skill that we can form a thousand institutions
on Earth, that are magnificently 'en communicado' with every
other one 'and' with the general public.
\item Linked up to these
centres, should be the university-like organizations for
scientific search (not re-search as Andreski 1972 pointed
out). These centres, consisting of a department for science,
and one for housing the (one) governor, make for easy
access to whatever scientific advise is required.
\item The governors are not chosen, but taken at random by computer
out of the whole content of Earth-citizens of say,
{\bf 45 years of age}.
\item When appointed, they have (as duty) the task
of {\bf governing for a year}, i.e. after a schooling period of
two months, an effective 'sitting' period of ten. The
schooling is necessary in order to teach them general knowledge,
the procedures, and the way to understand scientists.
\item During the in office period, they are only in electronic
contact (computer, screen, printer, telephone, etc.) with each
other.
\item {\bf There is no (repeat no) permanent chairman.} The
necessary member during a session, the one who 'orders'
things in agenda fashion, can easily be appointed by computer.
\end{itemize}
Such a setup can work admirably when, as always, common
sense is born in mind and is basic for it. We have a thousand
centres spread over the planet, perfectly linked up
electronically, in which science is being performed, and
that have a separate cubicle that serves the world government.
We do not discriminate the scientists by bur-
dening them with government, in fact, we discriminate nobody
at all, the burden of giving advise to governors keeps scientists
human. Decisions are not taken by the scientists,
only advise is given. The deciders,
\begin{itemize}
\item are a random sample of
the mature population of Earth,
\item they do not like the job,
\item they have to do their duty,
\item they know absolutely nothing
about the decisions to be made, so
\item they 'have' to ask advise.
\end{itemize}
There is no barter, nobody gets any profit from
whatever subject that is decided upon, thus, only the scientific
necessity prevails. The scientists study and advise,
the (random) citizen decides, a perfect integration of
knowledge and conscience.

But there is another matter.
When things are arranged in such a way,
\begin{itemize}
\item it need not be that
the appointment of all governors must happen on the same
day, in fact, it is far more 'barter and cowtrade' preventing
when two or three persons are taken everyday.
\item Except on
the precise occasion of a voting session, there is no harm
in having everyday two persons starting, and two persons
ending their duty. It prevents barter and clodding even
more than the absence of proximity.
\item Since there is no seasonal
work involved, we even need not have their year in 365
1/4 days, 360 days being good enough, or 300, 600, etc.
\footnote{At the end of Tao Stoic 200 from the book {\it Tao Stoics}
from the same author one may find: "A Lottocracy in which every day
{\bf three persons} are drawn out of the
group of {\bf 45-year} olds, to govern for {\bf 300 days}."
If one also wants the group to be completely renewed after 300 days
then the total number of governors (representatives) must be
equal to {\bf 900}.}
\end{itemize}
But, as so many 'good' science-fiction writers like Wyndham,
Wells, Hoyle, etc. show, very intricate and complex social
scientific material is often best communicated in the form
of a story (section \ref{37}). Theorising often is too limited.
I shall therefore form a little story later on, in which thoughts
about this subject of the organization of a world-government
are unfolded.
\begin{quote}
No existing government can become a world government
and a world government cannot be a large-scale imitation
of any existing government. Wells, The Holy Terror.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{The Veto Nonsense and Unanimity}
%\end{description}xx
Herodotus reported about a people that had the custom
(like many animals living in tribes) to kill a person who is
ill. 'Naturally', he comments, 'the unfortunate man
protests that nothing is wrong with him but to no avail'.
In such a case, a veto-right, the right of one person in a
small scale group being able to torpedo a general decision,
would be life-saving (for the man). It would even be advantageous
to the group in Summum Bonum fashion. In our case,
things are different. When 20 shipwrecked people in a lifeboat
should agree with a proposal to drill a hole in the
boat except one sane person, who means to survive, the existence
of a veto right, then, might well save the lot. This
example more or less reflects our state of affairs. But
there are other reflections possible.
\begin{itemize}
\item First of all, one
wise man in a boat-load of 20 may compare to a ratio of 100
in the 5 billion, or even to 3 in the 1000 governors.
\item Secondly,
the proposal and vote to drill a hole, can easily be
made into the opposite proposal 'not' to drill such hole.
The veto of a sane man for the first, could be compared to
the veto of a crank, the one saving lives, the other
destroying life. When you veto the 'not' drilling, you in
fact drill.
\item Third, it may be thought that a decision should
be unanimous when it is lethally serious. When 10 doctors
decide that operation is very urgent, and 10 others decide
it is deadly, what are we to do? Also, a mere simple 'majority
decides' can easily be disastrous too. Ten to one,
the majority consists of totally ignorant and disinterested
illiterates, the minority would be the wise, the thinkers.
For this, the curve of Gauss shows the story of the two
minorities, the proper (?) insane on the one end, genius on
the other end of the scale. Gauss shows the impossibility
of democracy, the majority always the nuts, hardly ever the
mediocrits, the wise in the minority. It is inconceivable
how modern pseudologists remain mathematical game players,
therefore know the Gaussian curve, yet do not translate it
into their reality, meaning that democrazy is the most utter
undesirable form for organizing a group, any group of persons
in a society, let alone rule the world by it.
\end{itemize}
With regard to the veto right, when we call a 999 of the
1000 votes as being unanimous, we have eliminated this possibility
of a crazy person wrecking things by veto. But
there still is the possibility of voting 'for' drilling a
hole, and voting against 'not' drilling a hole. What is the
difference in the two propositions? This clearly is that
the one proposal asks for a change (in things) the other
asks for no change. Drilling is change, not drilling is
'let alone' is no change. These ideas should be worked out
into a system for decision making in our world-government.
When a really serious decision is to be made (governors will
meet with no other than serious ones) the rule should be:
acceptance when there is unanimity only, (i.e. 999 votes)
'for' a change in natural being, and dismissal of the change
only when at least 750 are against the proposal. There then
'must' be the stipulation that these proposals should be
made in such a way that this unanimity is necessary 'for' a
change in the natural things, and 750 votes necessary for
proposals that leave things alone (non-change of nature, the
normal 'let go' of nature (section \ref{38}) ). A 750 is enough
to decide to do nothing, but in order to do something, to alter
things, 999 of the 1000 must be voted.
\begin{quote}
The animal world may know dictatorships, even the
right of the better, it is fortunately free from democracy, not to
mention Veto-rights. May Ling.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{The Disarmament Syndrome}
%\end{description}xx
Since the earliest of times in sociological studies, it
has been known that the mob, a number of people as a group,
under a group-consciousness, lack any form of intelligence,
of rationality, of reason. Persons imitate the mob practically
criticless (section \ref{39}). No matter that the person is of
excellent qualities, he loses all that once he participates
in group-behaviour. Mowrer told how Hegel was a bad teacher
but he became popular because:
\begin{quote}
... in his philosophy of History, he advanced the
agreeable thesis that humanity had finally come to manhood in the German
race.
\end{quote}
The evils of sectarianism, nationalism, religious consciousness,
etc., we really need no LeBon, De Tocqueville, Hitler,
or Goebbels to show us (for proximity see (section \ref{40}) ).
We can easily see it in our own environment.

A group too, cannot
have a conscience, a responsibility, or even an egoism, an
'I, to have'. Groups, having no ego's, cannot have what is
fundamental for each and every living individual, every cell
even in our body, a well-being, in other words, an egoism.
The result therefore is this total lack of intelligence
because this latter is a phenomenon of ideation, and strictly
bound to an ego (section \ref{41}). All our advertisements
are based upon this knowledge, that the group (of consumers to be) has
no intelligence, is easily affected by six-year-old logic.
It is why they (advertisers, show-men, etc.) have utter contempt
for their public. They control it, and what you con-
trol you have contempt for, hence contempt for that mob of
headless chicken. The rioting mob is worse, because, as
hypnodynamici know, the members are in trance. It is therefore,
that a decent person, who would ordinarily never
thought of wrecking somebody else's car, can easily be
induced to do so, through the simple act (by a clever,
trained, agitator) of someone trying to do it, seemingly in
vain. Imitation, after all, is the only principle of
ideation, of acting in-, and understanding-, of reality.
The agitator only has to do 'as if' he is trying to upturn a
car, the mob then, takes over immediately and your car is
wrecked. All this is simple basic sociology (mass-ideation)
fully known to Herodotus and Tacitus alike yet seemingly
unknown to contemporary science, 2500 years after Herodotus.
Said Mowrer, that nothing is more dangerous than the void
left by a loss of religion. (But in ideation theory, we
know that it is a different matter when we are liberated
i.e. free from superstitious beliefs.) Hitler's strategy
was wholly tuned to this knowledge. He wrote a handbook
about it, and he showed in praxis how the results could be
formidable. This total absence of rationality in 'group behaviour'
is important in this respect because the disarmament syndrome
is one of the results, but also, it could be
'used' rationally by social survivalistic experts. As it
is, it gave Hitler the opportunity he needed, he could make
people see black as white, thus have them prepare for war
(section \ref{42}). This mob, now, has been infatuated by
disarmament
since time immemorable. They, as six year old logicians,
think that it will bring peace.
The six-year old logic of disarmament is: 'no weapons, no
war' and it is absurd, as every grown-up can reason out by
himself. The naked animal, man, is armed to the teeth
(claws, kicks, etc.) thus a physical impossibility to disarm
him. Besides, a weapon (any object, bacterium, electric
current, etc.) is only a weapon 'after' the fact, or when
intended to be so. And then, ... is extermination (death)
deeper or more thorough, more profound, when machine gunned,
than done by atomic bomb, or sling-shot?

Six year old logic, there are plenty of examples in
everyday life of the child. Such logic, we should adopt for
simple things like language, the calendar, geometry, etc., not
for complex-, lethal problems. When the six-year old of a
friend had just escaped being run over by a car, with
tremendous, awful shrieking of brakes, he came in in quite a
temper. 'Daddy, why are there roads' he cried. His logic
was: 'no roads, no cars, no shrieking of brakes' (it was the
latter that had upset him, death being beyond his grasp).
It is the same sort of logic of the bomb protesters. Did
they not better to either study war, its causes, (i.e. peace
too) themselves, or, let experts tell them how to participate
in preventing war, for good, as I am trying to do here?
Since learning, all learning, is synonymous with ideation,
is the incorporation of history in one's present behaviour
(section \ref{43}), it is not always sufficient to study
Homer (Hesiod
etc.). Very illuminating e.g. would be for, say, people of
after 1940, to re-read the newspapers of the years between
1919 and 1940 (and of course, Angell, Churchill, Mowrer,
Voigt, Shirer, Wells, etc.). Today too, we can easily learn
from them that World War 2 was actually caused by the disarmament
movements. A 60 million people lost their lives because
disarmers agitated FOR war with words that denounced war. A
thing, only possible when one does not have the foggiest
idea of what one is doing. (Hitler and Goebbels too, cried
'peace', while the message was 'war'). All over these
(English, French, American, etc.) newspapers, one can read:
'we are going to make war' in between the lines. Even clear
is it, that one can learn how, up till 1934, World War 2 was
avoidable without a shot being fired, but for the disarmers,
that till 1938 even, it was avoidable with very little
shooting, also but for the disarmers (section \ref{44}).
For the sake of
the voters, many of which were disarmers, governors were
competing in their election campaigns, sacrificing 60 million
people for votes (see Churchill vol. I, Mowrer,
Schwarzschild, etc.).
Remembering Polybius (a must for war-peace students), we
know that to cause a war and to start a war are totally different
things. Hitler started World War 2 but, disarmament move-
ments caused it, as it caused even Alexander's wars. Xeres' army
counted millions, yet not a single bazooka was
found in it, nor was Carthago's lot determined by atomic
power, or a wooden horse. People demonstrating against
atomic bombs, or against ten inch artillery, that wear
badges of broken rifles, are utterly stupid like chicken
that run after the leader chick. No reasoning higher than
six-year old is to be found. Preventing war is only possible by
attacking its causes. These are naturally
NON-PHYSICAL, non-implemental, non-molecular, but wholly
ideational. No movement against arms, but movements against
ideas, against group-consciousness, against 'nations', religions,
superstitions, and against wanting to have a say in
matters wholly foreign to one's capabilities. In Wyndham's
'Web', we find:
\begin{quote}
Most of the conflict in the world reflects the conflict in our mind
as we strive to move forward while the
brakes of false doctrines, superstitions, obsolete standards, and
misconceived ambitions are always at work on us.
\end{quote}
It is utter insanity even to claim a disarmament movement to
be a peace-movement. It means WAR. Let not a disarmer fool
you into thinking that he, like you reader, like every sane
man, is against war. In the latter case, he would study the
subject, the phenomenon, its principles, (Homer, ..., Caesar, ...,
Gibbon, ..., Wells, ..., Hitler, ..., Hastings,
..., etc., etc.) hence would not be a disarmer but one of us,
mondial integrationists. Clemenceau said that war was too
serious a matter to leave it to the military. We should
certainly not leave peace to the ignoramoi.
War, ... it kills!
With regard to 'the bomb' itself, Huxley (A) said:
\begin{quote}
A single national government may be able to prevent
technological discoveries from being developed in its
territories. But it cannot prevent them from being
developed elsewhere.
\end{quote}
This, logically leads to the conclusion of a world government, when
no 'elsewhere' is existing. Says Wells:
\begin{quote}
It may have taken long years of research and the contribution of
thousands of scientific workers to discover
an explosive or poison, but when that has been attained,
only a recipe and materials are needed for its production. It has
become a part of 'our human heritage'. Outlook.
\end{quote}
With regard to a nuclear war in the West. Who would ever
think of it? With all these countries (France, Germany,
Britain, etc.) booby-trapped to the teeth, would the Russians
risk hostilities there? It would wipe them out as well as
the rest of the Northern hemisphere. It may, nevertheless,
happen that a bomb goes off in the Mediterranean where somebody
(Lebanon, Israel, Pakistan, Syria, Etc.) might think it
necessary for his survival. The other Western countries,
then, would be careful to remain neutral because of their
vulnerability by their own powerstations, their stock-piles
of chemical and bacterial weapons. Who would engage in a
body-contest when he has a life-handgrenade in his hand with
the pin torn out? Who would set off fireworks in a powdermagazine?
For a scientist then, the protestations in the streets
are so ridiculous, when any terrorist can steal nuclear
waste, and produce a bomb in his bathroom that, laughingly,
he thinks with Wyndham:
\begin{quote}
We have a new world to conquer: they have only a
lost cause to lose. The Chrysalids.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Population}
%\end{description}xx
Let the reader go to the nearest shopping center, the
nearest supermarket. Let him look around and think: 'How
much easier life would be when 999 of the 1000 people where
not here'. All this thronging of people going to buy, let
us say 'essentials', food, soap, toilet-paper! They go home
and eat it, use it, and then, in a couple of days, they are
back again. A street in London or Rome, all these busses,
cars, scooters, how nice it would be if only 1 out of the
1000 was there. Or take some roundabout in the center of
the Netherlands. This continuous stream of traffic going on
and on, all people inside going 'somewhere'. What is the
purpose of it all, the logics of it? Where and why are they
all going.
Should you come to know, you would realise how little it all
means to someone's happiness, his well-being. True, there
might be one individual in there who is going to see his
parents, long neglected, or friends, long not seen. But
then, he could easily go there by bicycle, or by a silent,
electrical, fast, train, only filled up for such rare occasions.
The rest of the traffic ... could easily all go.
All these washing-machines, carpets, truckloads of lifechicken,
going from A to B, and those from B going to A (and
further). These cars, then, would not have to be produced,
neither would be the spare parts, the fuel, the snowmachines in
winter, the daylight flooding during the night,
the energy for it, etc., etc. All these workers and all this
energy, these earth-resources, could then be devoted to go
and lead a useful life (when being taught how to do so).

But, let me be clear before going on first of all.
I would NOT propagate putting all these people in a gaschamber,
or through a sausage machine !!!
True, our problems would be over, we would have clean air,
clear water, but the price is inhumane. Only nature's
method here, is to be thought of. Nature's method can NEVER
be wrong. Unnatural-, and anti-natural methods are solely
reserved for man, for 3 rd degree ideation and acts, and
they would require common sense, planning, organization,
rights and duties of man, human dignity. These observed
population phenomena tally accurately with ... simple recreation.
Beaches, rivers, forests, and ... traffic and traffic.
How would one-pro-mille do! Indeed, all this is number
dependent. It represents the pressure of
overpopulation leading to conflict, nerve complaints, war
and gas-chambers. So it is with the use of electricity, of
wood (formerly woods and forests), plastic 'throw-away'
cups, saucers, plates, platters, spoons, knives and forks,
but also children's toys, plate-glass, insane products like
chewing gum, the very butchering of pigs and cows, the
production of washing machines and the polluting operation of
them, the soaps in the rivers, and the soap factories,
etc., etc. One man, every person, causes roughly one-five-billionth
of the total destruction.

NUMBER DEPENDENCY!

{\bf All problems, all world-problems may be caused by ideation
indeed, they only get real substance by numbers, multitudes.}

Once, it was thought that the drug, the golden triangle
would see to a natural diminishing of the world-population.
Certainly, the traffic accidents do not exert much influence,
nor are earthquakes, droughts and floods, heart-
attacks, or the small-scale wars in the Lebanon, Shri Lanka
and so on very effective, in a de-population to the tune of
three zero's (5 billion to 5 million). Then, there was the
hope in a distinctive trend through the pop bastards, to
advocate massive suicide for youth. It looked promising but
came to nothing. It held a favourable discriminating factor
though. Not, like in wars, would the prime of healthy youth
be decimated, but those who had no use for anything in life,
not even for themselves. It now seems that nature made a
lucky strike by the invention of AIDS. With a doubling
period of one year, and starting with 1000, it would take 23
years to reach a 5 billion. By then, the 'breeding storm'
could well have produced a billion or so more to add to the
total. Besides, our expectancy for planetary survival does
not cover a full 23 years.
\begin{quote}
We live under the cruel empire of the masses (Vivimos
bajo el brutal imperio de las masas.
\end{quote}
said Ortega. This is
not only thanks to the phenomenon of group-consciousness,
but also to the over-'mass'ive population that makes for
clodding, clustering therefore for war. When rats are
placed in over-crowded conditions they too show a higher
aggressivity. Take a volume of milk and dilute it a 1000
times with water. Now try to make butter of it. A world population
of a thousandth of today would not curdle into
nations. Group-consciousness is fed by crowdiness, it consists
of vulgarity.

When you are in a life-boat, fit for only 10, but loaded
to its gunnels with 50 persons, you will not so much become
a victim of the cruel sea but more of overcrowding. Quite
possibly, you would not start throwing 40 people overboard,
but you most certainly, would object to having 50 more people
added. The life-boat Earth, almost on its way to the
deeps through overcrowding, also has such a 'maximum' load.

What is this number?

In 1931, there was a symposium about the future of man. It
was on an afternoon of New Years day. During this, prof.
Kidder warned severely that, unless we acted intelligently,
now (1931), our civilisation was in for a terrific crash.
It was then envisaged, that a world population of 0.35 billion
(and speaking all the same language (section \ref{45}) ) would be
still a world of wars. In those days, 1931, the actual
world population was 1.9 billion i.e. more than 5 times the
critical of 0. 35. (not speaking ...). In the same days,
Wells spoke of the 'Breeding Storm' and was very concerned
about it. Today, 1985, there are 4.8 billion persons on
the planet or a factor of 13 times.

Even in Plato's time, the burden of man on his own environment
(especially through de-forestation), was far too
heavy, was catastrophical. It had caused the whole Mediterranean
to be 'semi-desert' although Plato, lacking the
knowledge we have now, was not aware of that. He did not
know that his own country had once been lushy green, long
before Iliad. The amount of charcoal e.g. that was needed
for the smelting of metals, the quantity of wood for constructions
(rapidly destroyed by the enemy) taxed the
Mediterranean climate far over its limits. In general,
every individual on Earth, 'causes' so many cubic stonethrows of
wood to be killed, so many tons of the various
metals to be smelted and transported, by, again, energyswallowing
methods, so many radios, television sets, bicy-
cles, etc. to be produced (under energy absorption), so many
KWH's converted in the powerstations thus devastating our
environment, etc., etc. and, in addition to that, they require
oxygen too. Knowing about the overloaded condition in Plato's time,
the estimates made during the symposium of 1931,
appear now wholly ludicrous. Naturally, for a better figure,
a better estimate, we must take into account an existing
level of luxury, of semi-essentials, that adds greatly
to the problems, hence to the solution for a safe and secure
future (section \ref{46}). It is impossible to go back to nature,
i.e. go
without metals, without fire, as it is without sane organization.

We must guess anew.

There is another deduction to be made from the example of
the life-boat. Would we be all-right when only one person
was in it, it being made for 10? No way. Even this would
endanger the live more than say the proper load of ten, or
even 14. The rule of 'the least, the best' does not work,
although, only one pair of humans on the planet would make
their future quite extensive. A better estimate would be a
reduction of the contemporary number by three zero's.
{\bf Indeed, a planetary population of 5 million, instead of 5
billion would give us more, better chance, a better climate
than Plato had.}

But this seems preposterous to the average reader. Do
you mean to say that we have managed to place the optimal
population of 1000 such planets on only one? Indeed, without
fiddling about the precise estimates, with decimals,
even factors of 2 or 3, it is clear that the population density
on our planet was even destructive in Homer's time, we
have got to go some factors 10 below that. But then there
will not be enough men to dig the necessary coal!? Indeed,
but also, there will be far fewer people (furnaces, powerstations,
factories, washingmachines, etc.) to need this coal.
It is why a maximum population of, say, only 1000 for the
whole planet, is a little too low (although not lethal).
There is a healthy necessity for persons getting specialised
for some of the jobs that need be done for the well-being of
the whole (not the least, scientists, educators (see mr.
Coker in Wyndham's 'Triffids'), etc.). A fair estimate of 5
million, roughly the population after the last Ice age, may
easily prove IN PRAXIS, to be happier when doubled or
halved. There is no harm in deciding so then. True enough,
everybody then, need only to do active work, necessary work,
compulsory work, during perhaps two, three or four months in
every year, but this need not make for unhappiness. We
still have to teach them how to live happily 'on their own
steam', i.e. without being constantly entertained by others.
But say, a Britain with only 60 thousand instead of 60 million,
isn't that empty?

No! Man-emptiness implies a tree-fulness, air-clearness,
water-clean-ness, and the empty life of today, may
become full when only one pro-mille of the people remain.
Remember too that a life-boat made for 10, has less chance
with one or two persons in it than with the full load, or
half of that. When survival is difficult, we need some persons
'in co-operation' in order to save our lives. That is
why co-operation must be mondial not national (competitive).
Wells, in his novel 'The Holy Terror' therefore speaks of a
new world organization as: 'Parallel Independent Cooperation'.
Indeed, a co-operation that has to start with
all well-thinking people. With regard to the life-boat
example, certainly, we would not throw out 40 persons, taking
life never has an excuse (no Summum Bonum (section \ref{4.4}).
But there is a difference in not admitting
50 real-life persons, and not adding not (yet) existing persons.
Before conception, a person does not exist, has therefore no
rights. Immediately after conception, he has full rights
(the rights of man start 9 months before birth). {\bf Infanticide
therefore is out of the question, but 'not-producing'
persons is the solution.}

Now, everything that we can think of in our world, has
been produced on purpose, has been made on purpose except,
new citizens. True, it is widely known that certain acts
'may' produce a baby, but while acting (copulation), there
never is a thought of actually producing offspring. It is
like meeting a man on a bicycle who on the question of where
he is going, answers that he did not know he was on a bike,
was thinking he was preparing a meal.

The new-world citizen of today, arrives more or less
unexpected, is regarded somewhat as a domesticated pet that
can learn to speak too, but never as a potential-, future-,
participant in world-citizenship. We must plan our population,
not only qua number, but certainly as purposeful act
to add an integer, happy individual. Not, as in Wells' Holy
Terror:
\begin{quote}
People marry for passion, a most improper motive, and
their children take them by surprise.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Justice and Rights \& Duties}
%\end{description}xx
In the Nether countries, when one studies 'Law', one
studies 'Rights' (Rechten). It is quite instinctive to the
Dutch and Germans (Spanish: Derecha) to confuse rights with
laws. In reality this may be done only when all laws are
identical with-, are only mere descriptions of-, the fundamental
rights \& duties of man (of all man). This seldom is
so, nay, rather never. {\bf In order to be in concord with the
rights \& duties of man, a law must be applicable to ALL
earth citizens, should be independable of time, must not be
stupid, and may not be based on revenge, a man-un-worthy
principle.} Of course, all laws today (1985), still being
made by illegal governments, governments of so-called
sovereign states, they are based on this illegality. Be it
remembered that in Nazi Germany, the 'Rechtswissenschaften'
(science of rights) was entirely legal and studied, although
it had nothing to do with RIGHTS. Similarly was the Nuremberg
Trial, as Goering maintained, legal only because of the
victors being in power, but indeed, the rights of man were
the topic.
While it seems very necessary to have local governing (i.e.
not-mondial), in order to rule over local, incidental matters,
it is clear that it cannot, and must not be able to
rule on subjects like industry, energy, forests, housing,
building, water, food, etc. that of necessity are of mondial
consequence (section \ref{47}).

It is needless to say that any form of world-government,
must be based upon a strict basis of mondial ethics, on justice
for all, on the principles of 'rights and duties' for
every citizen. As it is today such justice is totally
absent, through lack of this basic ethics. Due to the drive
for behaviour being 'applause', stupidity has lodged firmly
in the sphere of law too. Indeed, a judge, as well as a
law-maker, does his work not because justice comes in the
first place, but because of his need for applause. In order
to understand this fully, the reader simply must study the
first six pages of Spencer's Essay on Education. Countless
stupidities, now, are the result. True, in some countries
there is a jury-system. It almost resembles a 'Lottocracy'.
But in praxis, it shows the effects of a group, as group, of
the reward of deciding fast so as to get home, the influence
of (religious) superstition (starting with the very oath),
of a smart police- or law officer, a natural authority over
all citizens (jury members), who is often vote-dependent,
and who 'wants' the man guilty, his theory thus confirmed,
of the impression that a witness or accused makes, the newspaper
headlines, the films they ever saw in their lives, etc.
Top stupidity, of course, is the command that the jurymembers
should forget, or not take into account, some irrelevant
or damaging facts or questions to which the defence
protests. An artificial amnesia, only possible with prime
hypnotic techniques. Unfortunately, the members of the jury
are just as stupid as the whole population of which they are
a 'random-, representative sample'. They turn about (or a
blind eye) precisely as fast as the U. S. consensus from one
day before, to one day after, Pearl Harbour. They are not
assisted (personally) by all experts thinkable that they
desire, but have to pick up relevancies and facts in the
courtroom, a theater ruled by rituals, superstition, en fin
... by Epictetus' appearances. When they have to deliberate
over a decision, IN ONE CHAMBER, the leader principle
and barter, parties and opposition parties, with the whole
scala of contempt, pliability, begging, applause, stubborn
clinging to 'what mother used to say', is in operation.
When they call in an expert, he is likely to be applause driven,
a god-like scientist with nothing human in common
with them. The system is only one of the judicial stupidities.

Then, there is the stupidity of 'jurisprudence' for
instance. It means that the ruling of some judge, some
decades ago, in some case, becomes an 'argument' in a ruling
of a later judge in a different case. As if two cases could
ever be remotely alike! A child knows that a judge should
judge a case solely as this particular case, not as some
alternative form of another case in the past. The judge
thus, IS 'making' the laws instead of simply testing
behaviour against them. There is the proverbial resistance
against, what is called: 'the taking of the law in one's own
hands'. A professional jealousy. When there is no lawenforcing
officer immediately at hand, in a direct crisis
situation, we know from far before Cicero, the man has to
see about his own safety himself. With a burglar in your
house, you are in direct life-danger. Your life then, is
far more valuable for society, as law-abiding citizen, than
the criminal. A fundamental right to defend yourself, and
your property, as was recognised in ancient times, not only
is a right, but a DUTY. If you can manage that without
killing the intruder ... good. But it should not involve
the tiniest of risks. Yet, this, nowadays, is strictly forbidden
in most countries that have a judicature out of
fairy-tale books. A thousand lives of criminals are not
worth the life of ONE single upright citizen, a million not
the life of one integer policeman. The good citizen thus,
is compelled to speak and act, to seem to agree with this
ridiculous laws, but in the meantime, he should prepare to
defend the safety of self, kith 'n kin. A stupid law simply
'must' be broken by the good citizen, until a world government has
eradicated all this nonsense.

There is also
the stupid hang to a binary approach. True, all ideation is
fundamentally built on pairs, binaries, but our life has
reached such complexity that a more elaborate system than
the binary code is necessary. Even our math's and geometrics, our
calendar and clocks cannot be binary. In some
countries, now, the defendant has to plead: guilty / not
guilty. There is no scope here to answer it as: 'true, I
performed the act, yet the law is stupid, therefore I feel
no guilt at all'. The choice guilty/not guilty contains the
statement that one agrees with the law or its interpretation
as being just. There is the ridiculous demand too, to
answer a question by yes/no. The obvious question: 'Your
honour, do you still beat your wife?' shows that questions,
because they contain statements, cannot be answered as usual
in a binary way (section \ref{48}).

Perhaps the most stupid case that one can read in the
papers, is that of a criminal who goes untried (the report
said that the judges had not taken involvement with the case
itself) on the grounds that the evidence had been come by
through illegal, unauthorised means. In other words, the
factual act is no longer criminal, when we have looked,
observed, investigated it in the wrong way. The same child
would decide that the act remains the act, but that the
investigator should be 'judged' as well upon having been at
fault. This brings us to the absurdity of 'a higher
appeal'. A lower (!) court had ruled (condemned), and in
the appeal the case was not even looked into. Only the fact
that the evidence was unlawfully gathered.
What nonsense is the appeal to a higher court really! Is
the later one better? In that case, the first one apparently was
not adequate. Are we not applying the very best we
have, in so serious a business as justice? Besides, when
proper justice has been done, all other courts' rulings
should be, of necessity, exactly alike and in accordance
with the ruling of the first. Otherwise, the justice would
be comparable with the throwing up of a coin. We would know
roughly what can be expected, but not the main fact.
The only rational case for a higher court would and could
solely be the judging of judges themselves, judges suspected
of in-justice, of having erred in their job.
\begin{quote}
The law is the most dangerous thing in this country.
It is hundreds of years old. It hasn't an idea. Wells,
The World Set Free.
\end{quote}
There is the absurd resistance against hypno-investigation
(and hypno-restoration (section \ref{49}) ). The evidence gained by hypnodynamic (is idea-dynamic) means is not regarded as solid.
Why should it be less truthful than a testimony without it?
What is the difference anyway between the usual rhetoric,
the oratory of counsellors, and hypnotic induction? What
sort of trances are there in witnesses, accused, experts,
counsellors and judges through the stress of being in court?
These things, properly known to hypno-dynamic experts,
should be known to those who use it, and judge over it, as
well. Have the law-practitioners the remotest ideas about
ideation, about ideas as testimonies, of opinions, of hypnodynamically invoked ideas, of hypnology?
Then how can they 'judge'? Then, true, a testimony can be
false, but when through hypno-dynamic means, the murder
weapon can be found, or the body of the victim, the car number might be retrieved on which blood traces or dents may be
identified, are we then not a step nearer to the truth then
when in ignorance? Then, ... how stupid is the rule that a
medicine man should be present when hypno-investigation is
used! What is a physicist, a first-aid man, to know about
ideational techniques? Certainly not more then the next
(door) amateur who has read some leaflets about it, if that.
Knowing the genesis of stupidity, the shift in drive, from
belly to applause, its logical development, we know also of
the same in the practising of law. Judges, jury, counsellors, prosecutors, etc. are driven first by applause and a
long way second by justice (see Spencer).

But the most
utter, inhumane stupidity is the founding of justice upon
revenge. We know that it is phylogenetically very young,
therefore ontogenetically very young too. Children are very
apt to it. It is a Neandertaloid-era arrest. (Children,
like Xerxes who punished the sea (revenge), can be observed
to do likewise with inanimate objects.) No proper justice
whatsoever, can exist on a basis of revenge, as our justice
is today. The stupid wench from Olympia, the goddess Justicia, has been blindfolded for no purpose. She was already
stark blind for human dignity from birth onwards. Carrying
a sword and a pair of scales, instruments for measuring and
paying out punishment (revenge) is so contrary to human dignity that even animals are beyond it. The sword and scales
show the superfluousness of the blindfold. They mean 'an
eye for an eye' or '14 eyes for 14 eyes'. Certainly we can
do better than Hammurabi qua human dignity?

The fundamental mistake in organizing justice in such a
way, rests on the allout misconception of a 'Summum Bonum'
principle, meaning that one is allowed to hurt people for
the best of the whole. Scientifically, this promise of
being hurt (revenge) 'might' hold persons back from hurting
others, yet, there is no logical connection between the two.
People who have actually hurt society or persons in it, must
be either re-educated (by modern ideational means) so as to
prevent repetition, or, when this is not possible, should be
isolated from society, preventing repetition thereby. Can
one (judge) state and act on, the verdict that the man is a
danger for society, (for women or children, etc.) AND sentence
him for 5 or 10 years? Is he not dangerous anymore after
that then? When, after the proper time in prison, the pseudologists or pseudiatrists declare him no longer a danger
for the kids or for humanity what on earth are they talking
about? Everybody can grow, turn, or be made into a danger.
It goes for your neighbour, his wife and your own dog as
well. Wells said it admirably:
\begin{quote}
Make men and women only sufficiently jealous or fearful or drunken or angry, and the hot red eyes of the
cavemen will glare out at us today.
\end{quote}
That other people are only 'potentionally' dangerous and not
'de facto', is caused by civilisation, the moral restraint
of not to do what one really would like to do
((self-)discipline). Thereby, is criminality in general
dependent upon the pressure of population in the first
place, followed by the circumstances like poverty, the show
of riches of others, education, effectiveness of the police
apparatus, and very, very long way off, on genetic mutation.
The difference between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal,
lies not in the potential danger, but in the fact that the
latter has demonstrated a lack in restraint, while the good
citizen practises this restraint (still). For both, the
prediction of danger is positive, only in the one, the likelyhood
is great. {\bf The criminal has shown to take rights that
he denies to others, and to demand duties of others that he
himself will not perform.}

The measure of man, is man, said the classics. The measure
of rights, of your rights, is that what you grant to others,
of your duties is that what you demand from others. In simple
daily life, the man who blasts his claxon in the middle
of the night, when taking leave of his hosts, might be
called out of bed in a following night, with the message
that he denied the right of sleep to others some nights ago.
In the same way may a car owner who cannot wash his car outside
without his radio blaring away, expect that somebody
would dump his garbage over it later. {\bf The rights you
'take', you 'must' allow to others.}
Wilful disturbance of the peace of others, who might be
studying or trying to catch sleep, or have sick children,
does not give the victims the right to disturb the peace in
general too, but they have the right to disturb it for the
man himself, when he is sleeping. With regard to the law,
this is different, because it implies all others.
Naturally, what has been misdone, if possible, should be re-paired
by the culprit. This is not revenge but simple basic
ethics. A person who has stolen say, 1000 units from
society or from some other citizen, by damaging or taking away,
has to pay back, restore for the full amount. This,
needless to say, includes the cost of investigation, the work
done in the justice organizations, etc. The man, when
caught, must then re-store the amount of the organization
and pay, salaries, equipment, etc. of investigators and
judges alike, to the full. After all, these are costs taken
from society as a whole, by committing this misdoing. Every
non-criminal citizen has the same right to taxpayer's
moneypool, therefore, when these are not fully restored, the
criminal would profit by his crime, by this amount added.
No re-venge but re-pair.

There always remain people that would deny this statement
about the revenge-type nature of punishment in our judicature.
They are blind for proof, for the fact that the measure
of punishment (revenge) depends today, on the ratio of
the crime. This is only allowed when it is for restoration,
and then only to the full amount. The person(s) of the victim(s),
are taken into account, the amount of money, the
fact of recidive, etc. We cannot be blind for the cold
facts that a thief of a large amount of money gets heavier
(!) punishment than the thief of a very small amount. For
the fact that when he has done it before, the revenge is
larger, for the fact that when the victim is a normal man,
or when he is the prime-minister, the measure of revenge
differ accordingly, for the fact that 'sympathy, magnanimity,
mercy, leniency, etc. ' play a determining role. With
regard to judges, defending counsellors and public, even
mob-shouting take part in meeting out justice, revenge. Our
ways of meeting out 'capital punishment' (in itself antiethical)
up till today, indicate the barbarious inhuman
nature of revenge. All animal breeders know that to put an
unhappy misproduction to death in a humane, a human dignified way, is to put the animal in a box with ether in it.
The animal thus gets sleepy, is narcotisised, and dies.
Since 1825 when the knowledge of the workings of ether
became fully known, there have been executions by beastly
firing-squad, hanging (Nuremberg), by the Garotte, the Guillotine,
electric shock, etc. Not human dignity, but bestiality in order
to revenge. This involvement of 'emotion' in
the process, a clearer sign for the revenge-like nature is
hardly thinkable. This emotion makes it possible that there
are 'good, less good, and bad' types of defending counsellors.
In clear language, it means that for the same crime,
the punishment depends on the skill of another person. Very
rich people will say: 'We'll get you the very best'. The
unfortunate has to do with less skilled counsellors and get
heavier revenge. Justice in the new-world must be based
upon rights and duties, not upon emotions.
\begin{quote}
Maybe justice is an unemotional proposition, like
building ... Sinclair Lewis, The God Seekers.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{The Disappearance of the Night-sky}
%\end{description}xx
Yes, you read this correct reader. Within little time,
the night-sky will disappear. It is certain that, even
today, space-flight and orbitory occupation has become commercialised.
One can buy the services of spaceflight and
rocketry firms in order to put things in orbit around Earth.
To put things in order is one thing, to put things in orbit
is quite another.
Space is the latest addition to the spheres of existence.
First there was only land for Neandertal man, then came the
waters, the second sphere in roughly Homer's time, a substantially bigger one. Soon, i.e. 2700 years later came
air, an even larger sphere, and now, there is a fourth added
namely space. The development of the use of these spheres
seem to be on a fixed pattern. After the merest experimentation,
they become military almost directly, and then follow the commerce
and trade application. Travel first, and
advertisement hard upon it. Because of the little suitability of
the waters for advertising, the utter suitability of
air and space will be extra pronounced.
So it is that one can see airplanes in the sky trailing messages
that mean nothing to you but will purport to induce
you to buy things you don't need, visit places you don't
want to go to, eat, and drink or smoke things that are certainly
not good for you. Now, with advertising in general,
a top-stupidity has emerged. It is the fact that ... the
customer himself pays for it, not the firm or the directing
manager but you, the buyer. Often, even, the law admits
subtraction of the cost of advertising from the tax, so that
all taxpayers pay for it, if not, it is footed by the bill
in the price of the article or service, so that the buyer
pays for it (double). This, seeing the fact that the other
fellow does the same hence competition remains on equal level,
makes it possible to embrace the (stupid) principle of
shooting a fly with a ten-inch piece of artillery, in a
broadside of twelve guns. It is YOUR money! (Of course,
you also pay for the debts that others make, through tax
subtraction and you are punished for saving-up for later by
tax). Waste, stupidity is rampant and wholly logical
because the tax payer or the customer, often both, foot the
bill. We therefore can observe engineers breaking their
heads in order to find silent air-flight, while the advertising
machines just 'must' make as much noise as possible.
Hence the ugly drone of numerous, noisy, air-engines in the
summer sky (I could see a full 15 in one go once). Commercial
stupidity; and wholly ridiculous if it wasn't that the
costly fuel being wasted is in reality our-, your-, fuel,
your precious metals and raw materials being worn and torn
at your own cost as well. Is greater stupidity thinkable
than that you PAY for the wasting of your own riches, by
others, without protest?

But now space. This fourth sphere has passed the military
initial stage and has become commercialised. Soon,
executives of trades will want to shorten their wholly
unnecessary airtravels (at the taxpayer's-, consumer's
expense by tax subtraction) from 10 hours to one hour, using
space hops. The gain in time is justified by it being the
customer, YOU, who pays, and they will waste the extra time
and those of others by alternative absurdities. Directly
after this stage or consonant with it, comes advertising in
space. It is well to remember that those who decide these
things have absolutely no scruples and know that you are to
foot the bill. It is therefore very easy to estimate the
further developments when there is no world-government to
stop the bastards. Already (1985) there are serious and
advanced plans and possibilities, enabling you to have the
remains of your dear ones, compressed into small metal tubes
or cubes which are later to be strewn out into orbit. This
is a reality or becomes so very soon. While air advertisement has to rely on sound as well as on sight, it will very
rapidly be realised that no sound is needed for space advertising, only size. On clear nights people will look up at
the night-sky. It all will begin on a small scale. Since
it is very difficult to say to your friends 'there goes
granddad' when he is strewn about in small cubes, it must be
possible to put these remains in a huge inflatable mausoleum
that circles the Earth. Then you can see it! (Naturally,
they will not actually put your-, or anybody's- granddad in
orbit but since you'll never be able to check up on that,
granddad will be flushed through the toilet). After that,
the richest religion, Christianity, will pecuniate for a
large cross to be sent up, advertising that 'Big Brother is
watching you'. With the development of still flimsier and
more reliable plastic sheets, it will become possible to
produce advertisements of the required kilometer size.
Inflating such things with a fraction of the atmospheric
pressure is possible through a relatively small pressure
bottle. Soon, a sickle and star will follow the Christian
cross, and other chosen people symbols. Then will appear a
hammer and sickle, the stars 'n stripes, or a huge ribbon
with 'Democrazy' on it. In quick succession will follow an
Eiffel-tower revolving along its long axis, tooth-paste
tubes, tyres, chewing-gum tablets and medicines. There will
be washing-machines, vacuum-cleaners, sausages, Piat, Merceless, Hitlercars, Polvo, etc. There will be Dafts and
Craterpillors, large cranes and small arms ammunition. A
big, ball bearing 9 mm cartridge may temporarily obscure a
ball-bearing saying F. D. C. , sheets, Light-bulbs, blankets,
Electronic microscopes, and ball-point pens, Oranges, hunting knives, computers, radios and Napkins follow one another
through the sky.
All this, IS not in geostatic orbits because the distance
then, would require a size, well out of proportion in order
to be readable. Geostatic orbits would make it possible to
remain in the night-sky permanently (with corrections for
solar-wind drift). When not geostatic they can disturb
radio-, and radar investigation even during day times. On
the other hand, many will go right over the poles, giving
the Icelanders and the Laps, their full benefit. Benefit
indeed, MY goodness! Soon the level of light in the nightsky, will exceed that of the full moon by 500 or 1000 times.
This means the end of street lightling and finally, cars
will no longer be fitted out with head-lamps.

In former times, there could be primitive peoples,
untouched (i.e. unspoiled) by man or missionary. They would
have developed new gods and religions because they began to
see strange gods in the day and the night, things that their
forefathers had never told them about. Due to our jet-age,
they would see blinking lights in the night, and horribly
straight creeping clouds in the day sky. They became a good
excuse to sacrifice more of their unwanted people to these
gods. Wives had to learn fast, that it would not do to nag,
in order to evade sacrificion at the next happening of jetflight. In future, these new gods in the night-sky, saying
'GRIMS', or these huge sausages, the large windmill that
says 'JEERS AUS HOLLAND' (an illiterate advertiser), would
give ample scope to rid the tribe of unwanted children or
critics, by sacrificatory rituals, new theogonies, new theologies, new agonies.

In the days of Homer, it could have happened that a large
planet like Icarus (astronomers call them planetoids,
although they wander far better than planets) would collide
with Earth, and smash all the life therefrom. These Trojans
would see a strange light for some minutes, an hour later
they would be dead, on a shaken planet on its way to a new
orbit inside Mercurius' orbit. Some millennia after Homer,
such an accident became highly predictable through the
invention of the telescope. It was not till after Hiroshima
that our technological progress enabled us to plant a hundred
hydrogen-bombs on such a culprit months before the collision,
and blow it into harmless bits.
With the advancement of space technology, thus, through
space advertisement, not only is observation of our solar
system no longer possible, but even the radar warnings stop
altogether.

Of course, when the first mausoleum or toothpaste tube is
launched, astronomers all over the world will stand on their
hindlegs. There is nothing they can do though. They have
the unfortunate occupation of which nobody takes notice when
they go on strike. Nations, however 'can' do things. They
can send a man up there, who clamps a rocket on the Eiffeltower in orbit, sending it back into the atmosphere. This,
however, is an act of war. Besides, the next orbiters will
be booby-trapped by buckshot stingers, small packs of rockets that will puncture a space-suit.

This development, the loss of our night-sky, is predictable by sociological means, just as war and diplomacy,
economic predation, is predictable in our crazy world. Precisely as certain as wars are going on still, and will go
on, so will the night-sky become as light as, say, a rainy
day. {\bf The only possibility to thwart this stupidity is a
world-government that is well-advised by scientists.
International agreements will not help, as they will never be
accompanied by sanctions.} Even the taxing of advertisement,
instead of the 'rewarding' of today, cannot prevent it
because ... it is the customer who pays, it is all in the
price.

Freedom, the notion so dearly coddled, so costly paid for
(in blood), so much advocated in literature, is, 'the presence of choice' (section \ref{50}). Well, you can choose to go and live
on a small island in some ocean, but you cannot choose to
enjoy a night-sky for very much longer. The only thing you
can choose still, is a better organised world, one that is
controlled, governed, organised, kept in check, by a proper
World-Government
\begin{quote}
Humanity has been compared by one contemporary writer
to a sleeper who handles matches in his sleep and wakes
to find himself in flames. Wells, The World Set Free.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{The Emptiness of Life}
%\end{description}xx
It is impossible to look directly into other people's
minds. It is also impossible to even guess at an animal's
mind. On the chance that the reader may become involved in
a battle of words, a battle 'about' words, a clash of definitions, we may think that animals really have no state that
we call happiness. They have (temporary) states of gratification, of elation, of top-excitement, which they show us in
wagging tails, purring or otherwise, yet, it all seems not
what we call happiness. We must have a separate word for
the typical human state, the timeless enjoyment of happiness. Look at the dog's behaviour when his master enters
the house. He is delighted and wags the tail frantically.
The next moment he is kicked about, because he has wrecked
the best cushions and the couch, feathers all over the
place. While we see the momentary delight, we would not say
that the dog leads a happy life.
The dog's mental state is thus, first very temporary, and
second absolutely dependable on outside circumstances. The
dog, or darg (from 'The Invisible Man') has no foresight
(longer than a few seconds), no freedom to use its ideas in
its mind. Man has such freedom, and, this adds to his possibilities to be miserable as well as to be happy. Man can
be unhappy, simply because he knows that to-morrow ..., or
because his friend, wife, or son, is ..., because the radio
has told him that ... It is clear that when we preserve the
term 'happiness' for the typically human mental state of
lasting contentness, a state of well-being distinct from
terms like enjoy, elate, gratificate, etc. it means first of
all something more permanent than a full belly or a pat on
the back, a stroke along one's whiskers. Specifically, it
must have its roots in typical human ideation, i.e. this
particular freedom over ideation, to be called 'happy'
(Unhappy is he who thinks himself so (Seneca) ). Thereby,
it must be solely of his own doing, not by outside influences (that may change any moment without foreknowledge).
All the rest is simply animal-type gratification, fickle,
one might say. On the other hand, what is known to all wise
men, but apparently never realised by so-called therapeutists (section \ref{51}), outside circumstances can not make one happy
or unhappy, since the two are SOLELY caused by internal
ideation (Unhappy is he who ...). Only, then, this (own)
ideation should be under one's own control. This is the
crux of the matter. Happiness cannot simply be translated
in being content with everything, no, it also means that
there is control AND some content too. The empty mind might
be content or not, yet, lacking content, it is meaningless
to speak of contentedness. As is evident, an empty mind is
precisely what is contrary to human dignity. As Wells said
in 1918:
\begin{quote}
Everyone who seems worth anything seems regretting
his education wasn't better. Joan and Peter.
\end{quote}
Then, there is the possibility of being unhappy or happy
without knowing it consciously (3 rd degree). There is
Forester's: 'The Daughter of the Hawk', were it says:
\begin{quote}
She was very, very, lonely and unhappy - although at
ten one hardly knows when one is unhappy if the unhappiness is not so
great as to bring tears.
\end{quote}
{\bf Exactly as there is a distinction between human life and
animal life, making the two incomparable, there is also a
distinction between animal and vegetative life
(section \ref{52}).} While
the cellular life remains more or less the same, clearly the
individuals, the plants and the animals differ in that the
former have little or no inquisitiveness, interestedness in
their environment, while the latter are always interested,
nay, survive by it. We need no biologists or even pseudologists
to tell us, we can observe it in every bee or grouse,
beetle or mouse. We always see their little lives being
ruled by investigation. On a still higher level of
ideation, in mankind that is, this has developed into science
and technology. But ... this inquisitiveness has
retarded into a professional (i.e. absent when at home)
task, burden, the 'real' interestedness dwindled to a few
persons. Most accademicians are irritated when in their
leisure time, they have to be bothered with their scientific
subject. It is a phenomenon more pronounced in the socalled
social sciences. There, it is normal that a psychologist
cannot cope with, and think not about, a psychological
problem in himself or his family (sleep-troubles, concentration
difficulties, problems at school, etc. (section \ref{53}) ).
While it
seems 'normal' that all parents could cope with these things
(all should be influence experts, hypnodynamici) ( 'Thou
shalt not come near to a childe when thou hast not knowledge
of the lores of Minde'. The kiddies are entitled to the
best we have, no bunglers!), psychologists are only psychologists
(pseudologists) when at work, in their special building, the laboratory.

Especially now, when Earth is at the verge of resterilisation,
its overcrowded population suffers from a
severe disinterestedness in the environment, a mental
sterility, an emptiness in life. A life, more comparable to
beast-life than even in the days of the Stoics who already
signalled this sorry state of affairs. It is why, to the
extreme profit of prophets, priests, home-made gods
etc., people keep searching for the values of life, for the
purpose, for a handhold, the deeper (!!!) meaning. They ask
non-existent questions, to fill their emptiness of mind.

Had people been 'normally' inquisitive in Herodotus'
days, lenses and printing had become possible at least in
the days of Jezus of Nazareth. Caesar could have had his
books printed, and his world would have known microscopes
and telescopes (section \ref{54}) (see also Wells' Outline). Because of
gross stupidity, superstition, and overcrowding, this was
not to be. Animal-like, man's interest goes no further
than his comfort, his luxuries, and that, even with a minimum of time-span for his foresight (section \ref{55}). The reader can
easily test this by asking a thousand persons some easy
questions like: What season is it in London when the full
moon describes a low arc in the sky at New Zealand? or, how
come icebergs to radiate warmth?, what so-called contraceptives are really abortives?, is Morse code binary?, how to
send a photograph over a mile by sound (ships-bell, drums,
trumpet, cracker \&c) ? When one gets one correct answer, it
will be more or less learned by heart, but with no further
interesse for our larger environment (section \ref{56}). Man's happiness
is necessarily on a different scale than mere animal existence. We know for 3000 years that, in order to live happy,
we must live according to our actual reality, i.e. we must
come to know as much as possible about this actual reality.
It has been said by Confucius, by Gautama, the Stoics, by in
fact all wise men of the past. One cannot have experienced
real full happiness when one never has experienced this liberation from emptiness, from mere animal existence. It is
therefore too, that only those who actually have experienced
it, can, and will, agree with this, they are the only ones
who can judge. But this real happiness is made impossible
for practically all by, mostly unnecessary, toil. From this
toil, we can easily be liberated when we free ourselves from
the assertion, pumped in from early childhood onwards, that
we must produce, must have 'an' economy, a battle of competing consumerity. We must work, and produce in order to gain
our daily bread, our luxuries, we must carry our weight, etc.
This all has to end. We shall not have an economy at all,
once world-government has been properly organised. We may
produce what is necessary, even a few semi-necessities like
implements for harvesting, but we shall not be able to
afford, sheer stupid luxuries like thousand kilometer airtravels, for no reason other than mere recreation.
In order to live man-like, i.e. on a higher level than
animals, we must fill up our emptiness, our disinterestedness
in our world. When we live, when we occupy a planet,
wholly as animals, but coupled to an intelligent-like technical skill,
we destroy all life on the planet. It is so
deep-founded in nature, 'that the inconsistent shall be
destroyed' that we have little chance going on as we do now.
These things are known to experts, to those selected people
that have still some fundamental intelligent interestedness
left. Is it not inconsistent that, as the reader can test
out, not one mother-to-be in a thousand can be found who has
made a study of what is required of her for giving the new
citizen all the chances for a happy and full life? We have,
as Spencer (Sociology and Essays) demonstrated, for almost
everything in our lives, a range of diploma's, and expert
courses, except ... for the most critical (and lethal) task,
i.e. the upbringing of citizens to be. The parents to be,
study everything physical during the pregnancy period, for
nappies, for feeding, for afterbirth and so forth except the
most crucial knowledge namely: what to develop in the new
child so that it grows up, capable to:
\begin{itemize}
\item exist in a society,
\item develop intelligently,
\item being happy.
\end{itemize}
Do, ask parents and teachers alike, they do not know a thing about
these three requirements, these three fundamental rights the
new citizen has, hence their duties. Ergo, our children,
unfortunately have to grow up and learn to be human (e) in a
society, precisely as, (that is: not different from) the
customs in general use long before Homer. Parents do as
their parents used to do (and the neighbours, uncles, etc.),
pupils will do the same when their time comes.

Brought up as empty vessel, feeling best only in an empty
life, is well-nigh impossible for a living being, a child.
The void must be filled. It is therefore that slum-yokels
got their chance in filling it up with ... sexuality, prostitution,
voyeurism, sexuality for pay. This made it possible for the
people to fully indulge in frenzied trance
states (section \ref{57}), to misform their whole ideational apparatus,
into a mono-mania, a mono-ideism of the pop-syndicate, a
world of voyeurism, a medicine-man frenzy. There is the
lingering trace of inquisitiveness, with regard to sexuality, which is made 'profitable' by selling voyeurism from
running-belt producers. Sexuality, the orgasm from it for
sale is inhumane enough, watching it in others for pay,
voyeurism, is even lower than any animal we can think of.
It is a monstrous exploitation of the 'lower' instincts of
man,

Nobody who contrives to understand the texts in the public moanings of French prize-breeder stallions, to overhear
the orgastic roars of the pleps, observe the movements in
the frenzy states, the invariable crying for a mate, a 'you'
or a 'baybee', can doubt that, like the cultural state in
America, all life seems centered around the copulative function (section \ref{58}). A romantic concept of 'love' has evolved from
the very old, superstition loaded times, as an excuse for
all sorts of irrational behaviour (see also Hoyle's science fiction
'The Black Cloud'). While mating and family formation cannot but
be based upon 'I, to have', it is turned
into the false idea of 'I, to give'. It cannot stand the
most obvious test from our reality (section \ref{59}). Alexander says
that:
\begin{quote}
no drunken man in our civilisation (!) ever reaches
the state of anaesthesia and complete loss of selfcontrol attained by the savage under the influence of
these two stimuli dance and (so-called music).
\end{quote}
This we are fed upon daily by our television sets and
radio's although it was writ far before the pop-syndicate
era. Nowadays, with Sukharno, we call it mental illness,
sheer insanity, animals do far better.
We, not only have to restore man's dignity, his fundamental rights and duties, but also fill his emptiness with
valuables, fill up this horrible void with life-typical,
mankind-typical inquisitiveness in nature, environment,
society. Knowledge; it is said, is power. It is true, it
gives us the power to be happy, to secure our future. It
too, is a necessity for rationality, for sheer sanity and
survival.
\begin{quote}
We have tamed and bred the beasts, but we have still
to tame and breed ourselves. Wells, Outline.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Good-willed Misconceptions}
%\end{description}xx
Many well-willing people have come to almost the same
conclusions as e.g. a Socrates, namely that everyone is a
citizen of Earth first. Logically, many a writer proposed
the only solution for man's self destructory tendencies is
the formation of a proper world-government. A child can
conclude that. But, most of these, were not aware, as we
are aware now (1985) that total extinction was so near
(probably before 2000 AD). Streit was such a one, and he
was a real 'internationalist'. This, however, is not good
enough. Downright anti-nationalism, anti-groupconsciousness,
is something entirely different from mere
'Union' as he called his book, mere 'internationalism'. In
the latter, nations remain, only these are united (agreements,
resolutions, diplomacy, papers, balderdash, and war
and war). Have we a better practical test in our reality
for the silliness of 'union' than the United Nations, The
League of Nations, the United States even? Are today no
people being shot and bombed then? From Pericles' Athens
onwards we know of plenty 'unions', all however came to a
rapid end. Even the Iliad starts with the disruption of a
union, and is not the EEC still absolutely unworkable
after 35 years?

A Europe ... ? Rubbish!
Streit landed in a morass by wanting to have the cake 'and'
eat it. He wanted to federate or unite or associate or
whatever, but keep the nations as nations by letting their
cultural characteristics remain. How different is this from
what we know to be exactly the only preservative for mankind
namely 'integration' instead of union. This last means a
merging of peoples, of cultures, of (former) nationalities
etc. not merely paper agreements to co-operate on such and
such an occasion. He realised correctly that:
\begin{quote}
... no world organization based on national
sovereignty could suffice ...
\end{quote}
but he wanted first of all, majority rule, which is criminally unjust,
and he wanted some fiddle faddle of federation. Cannot we see
that e.g. every American is proud of
his being American, yet, when Southerner, he has contempt
for a Northerner, nay, as citizen of such or so a 'state'
(remember the 'united' in the United States) he looks down
upon fellow Americans from a different state. In their
reality too, criminal laws e.g. are different in different
states so that a criminal can do well to escape over the
state-border. But, logically, a criminal act remains so on
every place of the globe and exacly so. How easy could
America do away with all 'states', with all provinces, counties,
etc. yet, the cities remain because they are physically
so. Then, as Gald's shows with regard to Orbajosa:
\begin{quote}
The subject of all discussions was always the
supremacy of Orbajosa and of its inhabitants, over all
other villages and peoples of the earth (El resumen de
todos los debates era siempre la supremac'a de Orbajosa,
y de los habitantes sobre los dem's pueblos y gentes de
la tierra).
\end{quote}
Federation, association, union, agreements and the like are
not good enough. They make for group-consciousness,
contempt, war, economical greed, national competition and ...
extinction. They must be replaced by integration.
Integration that should be favoured by the world-governmental
rules. It should pay (man's egoism being fundamental for
his being), that a person sheds his nationality by
integrating qua place on the globe, qua culture, and/or by marriage,
etc. but foremost in MIND.
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Some Science Fiction Stories}
%\end{description}xx
Because a change in ideation (thinking, opinion, attitude,
knowledge, concepts, etc.) is required, in the reader
first of all, and ultimately in every world-citizen, it
seems workable to mould it in a rough sketch of different
societies by way of a science fictional story (i.e. by aid
of common sense, known facts and our 'reality'). Basically
they should be constructed from 'the' social foundation for
living together on one planet i.e. the rights and duties of
man, or in other words fundamental ethics. Let us take a
most primitive one, and a most scientifical (commonsensical,
rational) or sophisticated one, although I am no match for
the other science fiction writers.
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Story One}
%\end{description}xx
'Ktong was certainly an outsider of his tribe although
still allowed in because of his youth. He knew it himself,
but the other members began to suspect it.

In this part of the wild forest, it was known that somehow, there managed to be other tribes in their world, a
world of which no one had ever found an end. One could walk
for days and days without leaving familiar ground, and days
and days after that and still be able to return to tell the
story. When one went farther, one usually did not come
back. Sometimes, young women would disappear and return
not, without leaving the usual traces of bones, cloth, utensils, trinkets as would be in the case of a wild beast
attack. Occasionally, in their verbal history, they had
encountered a 'foreign' man, a man not of their tribe
although, except for speech, almost entirely identical to
themselves. These made excellent impalemental sacrifices
for the god Xenok, the cruel god that ruled their simple
lives with iron hand. As is normal in such circumstances,
they would attack immediately, grab him, bind him. There
was absolutely no thought of a friendly approach, trying to
exchange knowledge, learn things 'new' from him. Very seldom too, one of them would go almost up to the point of no
return, and then either disappear, or return with some
booty, a strange woman even. (When she was very young or
beautiful, the Chief would confiscate her, which might be an
incentive for not returning).

Existence in the tribe was very simple. That is to say,
so long as one existed at all. In the same era, a hundred
years before Hiroshima, in a different jungle on the globe,
a certain mr. Spencer had asked the rhetorical question:
'what if the majority-rule decides that no one should live
beyond 60?'. It was a preposterous question for his fellow
Europeans, yet, in 'Ktong's tribe, it had been in practice
for immemoriable ages. True, their 'politik' might be
called a tyranny (of the god), or a dictatorship (of the
Chief), but, this was only made possible, and kept in being
by common consent, majority-rule, like the later Nazis would
demonstrate somewhere else. The elderly, therefore, the
unfortunate, like in Nazi-Germany, were impaled as a sacrifice to the god, on orders of the Chief, applauded by the
whole tribe, unless ... he disappeared in time (Herodotus).

'Thou shalt not live beyond two score and five'. But the
overall daily existence was nevertheless quite simple. One
awoke in the morning and automatically went to the god. It
was necessary for the well-being of the tribe that immediately after awaking, one went out of the hut, towards the
village center, where there was the god, the pole, around
which one had to walk in one lefthanded circle, while keeping touch with the pole by the left hand. Even the smallest
of kids did it. When one was capable to walk, one could
appease the god. (However wounded or ill they were, the
tribe members saw to it that they 'could' walk, in order to
escape sacrifice). Because of the kids, it was why the pole
was evenly polished by the gentle friction of hands, from
one foot upwards.

Everybody 'knew' (!?!?) that this ritual was necessary,
but, simpleminded people as they were, nobody gave it
another thought, except ... 'Ktong (section \ref{60}). It was well known
of course, that everybody in the tribe was the same,
although even in the case of brothers, all members were different. First of all there was the class of 'chosen ones',
the almost godlike Chief and his sons, the only ones that
were allowed to live into old age and die of natural (!)
causes, but there were also natural talents for charcoal
making, cooking, fishing (in the meter wide brook that was
all the water they knew), in hunting, in weapon-making, nay,
in the sub-human class of womanry, there were good weavers,
good skinners and good dancers. (As in the days of Homer,
the female egg-cell being unknown, it was thought that woman
only took part in the reproduction as breeding soil for the
male semen, they therefore were not 'really' man, had no
inheritance rights, in fact hardly any rights at all).

But 'Ktong was more fundamentally different from the other boys of his age, from grown ups even. He 'wondered'
about things, he always wanted to know, he pondered over,
even a seed from a tree, a pebble, a tree struck by a bolt
from Xenok, about sun and moon, in fact he was almost an
alien to his fellow youths. Seeing the lack of organization
in the daily ritual of rounding the pole, of appeasing the
god, he once had deliberately shirked the actual going round
(after a trial without touching first). He had merely gone
towards it, let himself be distracted by some other boys,
and had returned home. And then, guess what happened ...
absolutely nothing! Not to him, not to the tribe, (the season was the rich season). No, indeed, it was that very day
that he found a beautiful glassy pebble (diamond) in which
one could see the shine of the sun, a marvel for the whole
tribe, and confiscated by the chief. After this, he had
done it again and again, although not with the same happy
results of finding something, but certainly with no harm to
anybody. His mother came to know. She had noticed it once,
had made a remark a-whispering, (one never 'spoke' of these
things), but when he objected that all that was stuff and
nonsense, she had conspiratorily whispered something like
'these men', worried all the same. 'Ktong now, getting
observant in the question of gods and the ritual in particular, had seen that two very, very important members of the
tribe, had skipped the ritual totally unknowing. They had
come upon each other on their way to the pole, started marvelling about the hunt of yesterday, were joined by others
who had returned, forgot all rituals and returned to their
daily busines without knowing of the sacrilege committed.
Again, nothing happened.

It was on the day that 'Ktong just did not feel like it,
that his father observed his omission. Raving mad he was,
the boy had started to eat without the ritual. With the aid
of his club, he had forced to boy to do 'it', although
unwillingly and stubborn, blaspheming about the nonsense.
On that day too, during a thunderstorm, G'ta was struck near
a tree and was horribly burned. He was an important figure
too, very pious (section \ref{61}), had three wives whom he loved dearly
because he beat them almost every day. This was enough
proof for the father to take preventive action for the wrath
of Xenok. Indeed, it was some time ago that there had been
a sacrifice. The sharpened end of the pole had not been in
use for a month if not more.

It was thus, that the cleverest thinker of the tribe, was
impaled in his youth, his anus spiked on a pole, with every
ounce of his small weight being pure agony, that his still
beating heart was torn out after an hour of unbearable suffering (section \ref{62}). Common consent, common cause, majority-rule,
democrazy defies all decriptions in this, the bestiality (my
apologies to the real beasts).

So it is, that superstition and majority-rule can give
people rights and duties that maim every aspect of human
dignity till its very core (section \ref{63}). Rights and duties that
kill, that satisfy insane sadism. The inquisition is still
rife in all parts of our (1985) world (Lebanon, Pakistan,
Punjab, Ireland, etc.). Hands are amputated, people stoned
to death, torn apart by explosives while shopping, all that
through the theo-sademania, the insanity that has converted
the rules of a Xenok, to legal (!!) laws of the state.

\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{}
\footnotetext{See also the far better stories
like: 'Rain' by Maugham,
'The Wheel' by Wyndham or his 'The Chrysalids', Forester's
'The Sky and the Forest', 'The Earthly Paradise', Wells'
'The Country of the Blind', even Huxley's 'Brave New World',
where one superstition was replaced by another, etc. That all
show the violation of man's fundamental rights by superstition.}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Story Two}
%\end{description}xx
Mr. Adeevee, very much at ease, strolled along the path
around the cubicle that bulged only slightly in the landscape. Nowadays, the building as jolly game, or as experi-
ment with materials, was no longer admitted. No ... !
Buildings had to be earthquake- and hurricane- proof, had to
have the minimum of energy waste with the maximum of
(usable) volume, had to be no burden on the environment, no
high obstacles for the climate, but co-operative with climate and environment (section \ref{64}). Long since, therefore, the type
of half-sphere had been decided upon, although a full sphere
was still to be found here and there. Naturally, nature was
encouraged to 'grow' on top of the buildings that were, logically, very large. The surface-to- volume ratio becoming
more efficient with size. The cubicle for world-government
then, was the smallest to be found, yet linked up to the
rest of the university buildings by tunnels, and, for nice
days, by outdoor footpaths. Mr. Adeevee, therefore could
see the huge mounts of the buildings further on, beset with
low bushes and grassy parks, where birds lived and occasionally a rabbit, squirrel or ferret. Adeevee was called among
his friends, laughingly, as 'Andive', people liked to take
their names from their world-citizen number, (birth registration was not by names but by number, to which the parents
numbers were added when necessary) and it was sport to make
jokes with them. His number was A1D V2E E3B so that a
clever calculator could guess what date in the future it was
(taking into account that the swich-over to a decent and
easy 16 digit system of counting and calculating was already
long past).

Adee, or Adeevee, or Andive, had time enough, and therefore, when he encountered a growth inspector for buildings,
he stopped to make a chat. It was usual that at least once
in the three or four years, the growth on the buildings were
inspected and all little saplings that promised to become
trees, were then carefully dug out, and replanted elsewhere.
They then, could not endanger themselves and the building by
rooting in too shallow a layer of soil. Planting was almost
everybody's passtime nowadays, i.e. for people that had not
many other leisure- time hobbies. The inspector therefore
was doing it for fun, he had naturally done his citizen's
duty of three months work. Yea, the inspector agreed, this
'really' was life worth living. He studied and bred frogs
in the evenings or on the rainy days. Besides, he was
interested in the classical historians. He even had travelled on foot (no sense in traveling fast, when one could do
his obligatory work period anywhere, and had his right for
one square meal a day as every world-citizen had) to where
these historians themselves had travelled, only, as he mentioned, he had found a lush green country as Mediterranean,
whereas the historians like Herodotus and Xenophon had only
known semi-deserts.

"Aren't you forgetting this one?" said Adeevee, pointing
to a woody looking sapling.

"That, sir, is a wild rose. It can easily survive here
and does no harm. Besides, we are rather short of space for
new plantings at the moment."

"Of course, your are right. But do you know that that
small tree over there was dead last spring? That would provide a new place."

"It is all in the notes sir. You know that dead trees
have to be left alone for at least three years, and only
then, is it allowed to dig them out and put them somewhere
in the undergrowth. Are you very busy in governing at the
moment sir? I could use a hand with that funny little beech
there. It needs quite a lump of soil being taken with it."
"Certainly I will help you. The next 'session' is after
dark, tonight, and I have prepared for that already, just
you wait a second for my putting on an old suit."
When he returned and after they had been happily at work for
some time, he asked:

"What is it you do when not inspecting growth?"

"Oh, inspecting is only one of the many hobbies. I also
am a member of a little group of enthusiasts, investigating
the life of frogs, but my main occupation is always history."

"Any specialisations?"

"Well,you know how it is. You study a lot of Thucydides
and Herodotus and then you start wondering, ... wondering
about the ideational control, in resistance against the most
serious infections like the plague. But you know, it is a
specialisation in ideation theory, in Nousology in fact, and
so much has been found out since ... We learn perfect
strategies and practices for staying healthy and happy in
primary school nowadays. It is only too true, that nobody
be allowed near children, who has not extensive knowledge of
Idealogy. But, I actually was in Olympia, where they hold
the world-games every four years. These absurd people, the
old people, ... holding Olympian games all over the world,
Tokio, Rome, even a place called Amsterdam. How silly! I
was there, and I soon fell in with a group of perhaps, 300
people who were building a new Acropolis. Almost professional stone masons they were, and excempt from the duty
work by governmental decree. Ah, you would know about that,
it is all in your computer. They were making an admirable
piece of work, the stone and marble no longer being corroded
by a hostile atmosphere though. I was even able to explain
to them the symbolism of the Swastica, as a 10,000 year old
symbol of the heliolithic culture. These Nazis only borrowed it for the time being. In general, I became more and
more involved in history from the point of view of wars,
strategy, so-called statemanship, power and the like."

"Then you must be very well read in our father of mondial
organization?"

"Oh yes. Wells cannot be missed even when only his 'History' is taken into account. But I have contrasted his
writings (novels) of say, 1914 with those of 1918 and then
1931. One can easily see a development in his idea content
and structure."

"Oh, we have learned about him of course on our steampreparation for governorship."

"Funny, is it not, in those dark ages of wars and wars,
when there was secrecy about everything, governing in particular. Now, we can discuss precisely what we like, you
being governor not withstanding. We can tune in and follow
all that happens in governing. What was the subject again?
Was it not that island in which they wanted to kill all rabbits?"

"Yes, that's what it is all about. I am not in favour of
any killing at all. Things will turn out admirably when you
leave nature alone, we all learn this as kids in the
school."

"And right you are sir. Nature knows far more about
keeping balances than we can dream of. My god, the old people must have been quite a lot of genuine bastards. Com-
pletely devoid of human dignity. All this needless killing
of animals for the pleasure of shooting, the dumping of living animals in boiling water, the exploitation of their own
kiddies. Happiness stands or falls with absolute dignity.
And dignity is: giving all due rights, except for the natural need of the belly. What do the boffins say about the
subject?"

"Most of them come to the same conclusion. There is very
little harm if we do nothing, and very much when we do.
These patches of heather that will be extinguished appear to
be not even so special qua genus. There have been found
plenty more places on Earth were it florishes abundantly.
The proposal was apparently from some crank, suffering from
local blindness."

In the evening, at the appointed hour, Adeevee, entered his
cubicle and set down behind the desk. A red light flashed
on and off, indicating that he had forgotten to shut his
door. This was always necessary because, in the rare cases
of a decision to vote, all the locks, on all the thousand
cubicles over the globe, would be locked electronically, not
to be opened until the complete decision was made. The computer therefore counted you as present when your door was
shut. Adeevee, shut his door and the counter just over the
time display, should now jump one number further, but, seeing the time was so near, there were plenty of others coming
in so that the display could not be read. It stopped for a
split second at 873 and then went wild again. There you
are, 995 was the stop now, still five short therefore.
Still three minutes to go. It seldom happened that one of
the thousand governors did not attend in time. Absence by
illness was not known, and accidents very few in that new
world (section \ref{65}). In his surroundings then, on absence, a tremendous noise of sirens would set off, a sound hardly ever to
be heard at all normally, in this rational, relaxed, happy
world. Yes, one minute to go, and the number is complete ...
thousand.

Adeevee, settled at ease in his chair, while the notice
board announced: 'choose your number please'. Adeevee,
reached over to the keyboard and typed in 4. That was the
number of saplings the inspector had to remove to safer soil
that day. The counting display almost seemed to buzz with
the efforts to keep up the thousand different numbers typed
in all over the globe. Adeevee, knew that the computer
would subtract all 1000's from the total so that a number
remained that was a governor, the chairman of this session.
Out came the result and it was 68, Adeevee's own government
number, the number of his station too, etc. Adeevee,
acknowledged with the button, and hastily tried to adjust
himself to the idea that he now, was responsible for the
organization of the session. Yes, he even was the only one
able to decide to a voting. He pressed the button 'speech'
(on the outcome of the chair number, that particular cubicle
was switched on to speech to all other centers) and said:
"We all know by now what is the matter in hand. I suppose
there will be not many of us to decide in favour of
'change'. I suggest that one who is, will take the word."
Another counting display showed 4. There were four people
who wanted entrance into the speaking system. Number 391
flickered, and he was heard over the speaker.

"I say, I was in favour last session, but too hasty,
apparently. I changed my mind, there is clearly no occasion
to go and destroy these animals at all. I was advised that
nothing serious can happen if we do nothing. For my part,
we can vote now, and be done with."
His flickering went out and number 45 started. In the same
moment, the number on 'waiting' was reduced by one.

"Thank you number 391, go on number 45." said Adeevee.

"Look, I was advised by a psychologist of some sort that
we, governors rapidly acquire a tendency to decide always in
a 'no change' manner, it is far easier that way. But what
are we supposed to decide anyway if we always decide in letting things as they are? We are governors aren't we, we are
supposed to control, not to leave things alone!"
At that moment, the counter for speech, started racing like
mad, and ended up on 807.

"Now," said Adeevee?"this clearly is a protest against
you, 45. We cannot possible hope to give this number of you
lot speaking time. It seems far more logical to vote at
once, let's simply see how the cards are on the table. We
might end this business soon that way. Is there anyone
among you 807 speakers who wants to make use of the number
10 priority?" (section \ref{66})
The screen remained empty except for a 45.

"Right then," said Adeevee?"we will vote 'now'," while
pressing a button marked 'no', his voting knob. Immediately
he could hear the automatic lock on his door click. On his
screen appeared the notation: 'for' and 'against'. It was
clear that the against was active, it counted 896, while the
for's were only 3.

"You see?" said Adeevee?"amply enough for not taking
any action." (For taking action, a change in the natural
order of things, unanimity was needed, i.e. 999 votes. For
not taking action, 750 votes were enough). At the same
time, he could hear his door being unlocked, a decision was
made.

"You, dissenters, are free to think things over again,
search for advice, and when it should turn out to be serious, we could
always bring the question in again. Next on
the agenda as I see it is the question about this line from
Moskow to Peking. The works have been stopped in waiting
for a decision about whether to tunnel that lake, or to make
a dam across it (section \ref{67}). It is quite recent though, and most
of us will have had no time to investigate. There is no
time pressure, (as usual), so let's postpone it for the time
being."

It was then that the speaking counter jumped to 2, and
then back to 1, while the governing number 18 flashed up.

"Go ahead number 18."

"I am in favour of such a dam, with a tunnel on top naturally, since we always have these transport-lines in tun-
nels, would it not be best to do the same here? We could
make the dam wide enough for the planting of ample vegetation. But should we not provide concrete tubes in it for
the natural fish trekking and the evening-out of the water
level? The eastern part of the lake, as I am told, is
favoured by the fish for breeding. We don't want to make
two lakes out of one surely?"

"Right number 18, let's take a week off. In the mean
time, the nearest of us might go and take a look. Who is
nearest anyway, number 60 or 830?"
Number 830 came in and said?"we have some specialised
boffins in this sort of technology over here, I can take
them along."

"Right, I hereby set the next session for 10 days from
now, but not at this ungodly hour for me, let's make it noon
in this place, i.e. 8. 6. 6. world time (section \ref{68})."
What are You to Do?

Let us take a problem at random. Acid rain. The solution, very basically is (always) : a) No more children! and
then b), c), etc. I hope I have made this clear by now. The
first solution, the A1, for all problems is always depopulation, diminish capita (not de-capitation).

Our true nationality, says Wells, is mankind (Outline).
With this, he actually meant to shift the normal (!) groupconsciousness of nationality (making for acid rain, war and
extermination) towards a healthier group-consciousness of
world-citizenship in which acid rain, and war is not possible. This is practically the only recipe one can give for a
better world namely: make yourself (to feel) a worldcitizen! (solution b). But there are other things of some
importance too.

This last chapter for well-thinking people should consist
of two main parts. One about what we all should aim at,
another as recipe for your own personal actions, your life.

This first part should stress that, although on this
planet, we all live under illegal governments (section \ref{69}), this is
no excuse for violence, crime, for rioting or blackmailing
by taking hostages, nor for planting bombs or shooting people. We cannot start on a new world by means of bloodshed,
as was customary in all revolutions we know of. We should
remember, the French revolution, Nazidom, U. S. S. R., etc.,
bear in mind that 'destruction first', makes building anew
the more impossible (first lesson from history (section \ref{70}) ). You
live in an illegal government, one that decides only over
part of the globe, and over part of the citizens, but, for
the time being, let it remain so until world-government is
established. Let the (very, very last) revolution come by
itself, gently, fromout 'intelligentsia', the group that was
the first to be murdered in every other revolution. Let it
spread thoroughly and fast, to still lower levels of
mankind, from teacher's teachers, to the teachers, from
them, to neighbours, family, pupils and the like. It is
only when these pupils, (properly instructed and mentally of
the class: 'world-citizen') become professionally involved
in the media, when they start having jobs therein, that we
may expect co-operation from these media, accellerating the
evolution, to faster and faster, and world-a-spreading.
Right now, trying to get the media, the most powerful force
in our world, interested in world-problems is premature.
Whether they have children or not, the interesse of the
news-makers, lies solely in making money, in competing with
fellow news-makers. They will always like to speak about
world-problems, the misery, the violence, the signs on the
walls, but, a solution would rob them of these problems.
(When one writes to an asthma-patients fund, telling the
truth, the curative possibility in an afternoon's time, by
verbals, it similarly would finish the fund for good, therefore they accept it under no condition).

When the strictly personal idea of world-co- operation,
of all being world-citizens, the realisation of the stupidity that causes extinction, war, and torture, i.e. 'national-
ism', could be made flashing over the globe, when there are
plenty of persons 'feeling' to be world-citizen, then, we
can start organizing these. It must be the absolute minimum
of organization, certainly NOT maintained by secrecy, but
nevertheless, 'some' form. It could start as gathering citizens administratively (computer), later, a 'shadow' world-
government could be appointed (random from the list), and
this latter could hold finance, for which there is a need
(for the time being). This group of world-citizens, protempore as governors, could make for fast spread over the
globe by showing that it works (i.e. deciding without bickering). Very, very much later, when more and more property
of the citizens (earth and its riches) has become under theoretical control, it would become time to pay tax, no longer
to one's own (?) government, but to the world-government.
This is the last stage in sanity. It becomes possible for
the government to gain control, the remaining illegal governments simply wither away. Naturally, this is continuous-
ly helped along with propaganda for sanity, for the abolishment of the S. D. A, the self-destroying-ape. The problem of
the Iron curtain, would require special care and elasticity,
but, there 'must' be people there too, with a spark of sanity.

With regard to the second part of the recipe, the job for
the reader himself, is it necessary still to point out the
need for, him becoming world-citizen in mind?
Let him see the need, the possibility, the actuality in e.g.
one sphere of our lives. Is it not known that with regard
to work and cost of our postal functions, there seem to be
perfect co-operation. It would only need a standardised
world-stamp to have it really 'mondial'. The result is
practically so. (One can send a card from Denmark to Sicily,
with only one stamp, no stamp for Germany, Austria, Italy is
required). Practically the only thing required for the person
as non-S.D.A., as world-citizen is in himself, just to
be, or not to be one.

Naturally he should convince people in his little world
too, like a chess enthousiast who 'would' like others to be
so too. It is only idea, ideational change, that is necessary, the result follows automatically. Nobody would remain
stupid long when he experiences Democritical smiles from
everybody else. A religious person would become very
resistent when one tries to persuade him to give up his
superstition, his stupidity. Use then, the gentle way. Let
him become aware of you yourself being a rational, sane,
well-willing person, who just smiles at all stupidity.
But, for cry-sake, be not fooled by mathematical persuasion!
When from today onwards, we would have 5 million instead of
5 billion, true, our problems would be practically over
(although still needing world-government), but, in my country where there are 10,000 heart victims per year, it would
not be reduced to 10 per year. Far more obvious would be 2
or 3 per year, but probably one in the 5 years if not 50
years is more likely. There would not be 1 kilogram of
tobacco produced, shipped, bought and sold, for every ton
(1000 kilograms) today, but none. Similarly with tea and
coffee and ... admirably ... chewing gum, by far the most
stupid product in the history of mankind.
Beware of deliberate swindle-theories telling you that the
planet can sustain even 10 billion, given the proper
distribution of food. Just grin at them, they are beyond
rationality. Everybody wants to belong, life is unbearable
in isolation. By showing how, we can make everybody want to
belong to the world-companionship, no longer to a crazy
notion of 'nationality'. This is all that is required,
although we certainly want many sane scientists to develop
our world-citizenship, our grasp over reality, further and
further. All, however, 'IS' idea, ideational. Physical
means, Earth's riches, there is still plenty of. Animals
and plants, we and our children have rights. With only 5
million of us, and rational ones as well, we need not slave
animals but live in peace with them.

When you, dear reader, are by now familiar with world governmental issues, AND willing to be a world-saver by 'be-
ing' world-citizen, I must greet you as such, and take my
leave.

Being a world-citizen virtually asks nothing from you,
save things that are good for you in general. When English
speaker, it means no more than showing the right path all
about you, convincing others, make them aware and rational
too. This, needless to say, only when it does not endanger
your life. In the meantime, do yourself the favour of the
joys of studying stupidity. You can use anything, it is all
about you. News media, government, organization (lack of
it), behaviour of passers by, of customers, parents, teachers, religious cranks, and so on. Do, enjoy stupidology,
and study stupidogenesis!

What happens next?

Well, I for one, have done my duty to society, as 'mind'
scientist and world-citizen. I cannot do more. I am living
in very poor circumstances, although extremely happy, and
that is that. If you, reader would come into some money,
you could start and multiply this little book. Needless to
say that it should not be translated into other vernaculars.
We cannot work for world-organization by favouring non-world
languages (nationalisms). In fact, the group of readers
aimed at by me, just 'are' those who are already halfway on
the world-organizational pathway by knowing the language.
Others will follow when we induce them to do so. There are
absolutely NO copyrights attached this book, only the normal
criterion of truth. (Copyrights, secrecy, pay, are the
death of science, of all progress (section \ref{71}) ). This is to say
that when you would alter the text, or write a new (better)
one, you put 'your' name under it, when you use the original
text, you might put my name under it. In this way, all
readers would know whom to ask questions. You can simply go
to some printer, give him this text, (pay, ...) and have it
printed. But with regard to (me) answering questions, it
must be said that, say, two or three letters would cost me
roughly the equivalence of a daily meal, through the paper,
envelope and postage. I simply cannot do this.
With many adherents, we could start straight away with the
formation of a world-citizen's adminstrative content, from
which we could draw a number of governing citizens, as
World-Government in statu nascendi. This latter, then,
could change over smoothly into the real thing, when there
are sufficient numbers of world-citizens all over the planet. They then should decide, over the use of the capital,
the laws with regard to world-citizenship, the spending of
money (which by then will be normal tax), the change in our
society from money society to one for essentials, into 'one
daily meal for every Earth citizen', and first of all, the
rescue of Earth, our climate, our very air and water. Absolutely NO bloodshed is required, no obstruction, destruc-
tion. We all work together with the illegal governments and
theirselves police forces in order to prevent bloody revolutions.

In general, a large, and growing movement, a movement
that has only the barest traces of 'organization' in it, is
necessary in order to gather sufficiently large numbers of
sane world-citizens, to provide for the random choice of a
computer. The necessity of total absence of secrecy (which
is synonymous with group-consciousness, conceit, arms, war,
and total industrial extinction), cannot be more stressed by
every good-willing citizen, i.e. me, you.

When you are non-English speaker, dear reader, not fluent
enough in English, you should start teaching yourself
(nobody else can do the learning for you) now. When you do
it all in your own time, it needs hardly any effort at all,
to become, as I am, an artificial native English speaker,
one who thinks easily in the language, one, who might even
help correct the stupidities in it. Let the reader know how
easy it is, how I learned Spanish (the second world language)
simply from an English book and newspapers, (Turkish
the same, etc.). For all these things, learning, feeling
world-citizen, teaching to the kids, etc. it always is the
same ideational law:
\begin{quote}
Only you yourself can do it, nobody else.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Fare Well Reader}
%\end{description}xx
I must say 'good bye' to you now, must wish you a safe
future, a happiness learned from the old wise men of ancient
times, as I have, and send an imaginary postcard from:
L. Le\'on in Batavudurum.
Help yourself! Only you can do that. And remember, from 5
billion to 5 million is not THE solution for long. It MUST
be accompanied by:
\begin{quote}
The same rights \& duties for every citizen,
i.e. a World-Government, a happy life.
\end{quote}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{References}
%\end{description}xx
The following titles are not solely scientific or sociological works. Many a good novel or sc. fic. would be excellent
help to the average reader or the beginning sociologist.
Since a book like Voigt's 'Unto Caesar' may look like a novel though
is in reality sociological, I have marked the novels
and sc. fic. as such. It is obvious that works of, say,
Freud are not incorporated, these being pure ridicule.
Also, Russell's 'Human Knowledge' has been ommitted because
the reader would learn too many nonsense theories from it
(72).
\begin{description}
\item
Alexander, F.M. (1943). Man's Supreme Inheritance. London:
Chaterson.
\item
Ambler, E. (1950). The Dark Frontier. (novel) London: Hodder
\& Stoughton.
\item
Ambrose, G. (1925). Hypnotherapy with Children. London: Staples.
\item
Andreski, S. (1972). Social Science as Sorcery. London:
Deutsch.
\item
Angell, N. (1938). The Great Illusion Now. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books.
\item
Aristotle, (1962).The Politics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics.
\item
Aristotle, (1977).Ethics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics.
\item
Baudouin, C. (1920). Suggestion and Autosuggestion. London:
Allen \& Unwin.
\item
Beadnell, C.M. (1942). The Origin of the Kiss and Other Scientific Diversions. London: Watts.
\item
Bogardus, E.S. (1947). The Development of Social Thought. New
York: Longmans Green.
\item
Brandis J. D. (1815). Ueber Psychische Heilmittel u. Magnetismus. Kopenhagen: Gyldendal.
\item
Bromfield, L. (1954). A New Pattern for a Tired World. London: Cassell.
\item
Brooks, C.H. (1922). The Practise of Autosuggestion. London:
Allen \& Unwin.
\item
Bullock, A. (1962). Hitler, a Study in Tyranny. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
\item
Carnegie, D. (1950). Public Speaking and Influencing Men in
Business. Kingswood: The World's Work.
\item
Churchill, W.H. S. (1947). The Second World War. London: Cassell.
\item
Cicero, M.T. (1971). On the Good Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Classics.
\item
Cou\'e, E. (1922). Selfmastery Through Autosuggestion. London:
Allen \& Unwin.
\item
DeBono, E. (1967). The Use of Lateral Thinking. London:
Jonath. Cape.
\item
Deeping, W. (1938). Sorrell and Son. London: Cassell.
\item
Epictetus, (1937).Moral Discourses. London: Dent.
\item
Erickson, M.V. (1967). Advanced Techniques of Hypnosis and
Therapy. New York: Grune \& Stratton.
\item
Fest, J.C. (1973). Hitler, Eine Biographie. Darmstadt: Verlag
Ulstein.
\item
Forester, C.S. (1963). The Sky and the Forest. (novel) London: N.E.L. Books.
\item
Forester, C.S. (1962). The Earthly Paradise. (novel) London:
N.E.L. Books.
\item
Forester, C.S. (1928). The Daughter of the Hawk. (novel) New
York: Popular Library.
\item
Gald's, B.P. (1977). Do~a Perfecta. (novel) Madrid: Hernando.
\item
Galsworthy, J. (1915). The Freelands. (novel) London: Heinemann.
\item
Gibbon E. (1769). The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
London: Warne.
\item
Gibbon E. \& Ockley S. (undated). The Saracens. London: Warne.
\item
Gunther, J. (1940). Inside Europe. New York: Harpers \& Brothers.
\item
Hackett, J. (1980). Der Dritte Welt Krieg. (sc. fic.)
Muenchen: Wilhelm Gold Verlag.
\item
Haeckel, E. (1911). The Riddle of the Universe. London:
Watts.
\item
Harris, S.Hutchinson (1935). The Doctrine of Personal Right.
Barcelona: Alt's.
\item
Hastings, M. (1985). Overlord. London: Pan Books.
\item
Herodotus, (1972).The Histories. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Classics.
\item
Hitler, A. (1939). Mein Kampf. London: Hurst \& Blackett.
\item
Howe, E.G. (1931). Motives and Mechanisms of the Mind. London: The Lancet Ltd.
\item
Hoyle, A. (1960). The Black Cloud. (sc. fic.) Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books.
\item
Huxley, A. (1938). Ends and Means. London: Chatto \& Windus.
\item
Huxley, A. (1932). Brave New World. (sc. fic.) New York: Bantam Books.
\item
Jacobson, E. (1938). Progressive Relaxation. Chicago: Univ.
Press.
\item
James W. (1892). Psychology, Brief Course. London: Macmillan.
\item
Kline, M.V. (1955). Hypnodynamic Psychology. New York: Julian
Press.
\item
Kogon, E. (1974). Die S. S. Staat. Muenchen: Wilhelm Keyne.
\item
Ladd, G.T. (1907). Outlines of Descriptive Pychology. New
York: Scribners.
\item
LeBon, G. (1924). The World Unbalanced. London: Fischer
Unwin.
\item
Lewis, S. (1949). The God-Seeker. (novel) London: Heinnemann.
\item
Lewis, S. (1935). Martin Arrowsmith. (novel) Hamburg: Albatross.
\item
Locke, J. (1947). Essay on Human Understanding. London: Dent.
\item
Loon,, H.W. van (1926). The Liberation of Mankind. London:
George G. Harrap.
\item
Lucretius, C. (1979). The Nature of the Universe. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics.
\item
Malthus, T.R. (1970). An Essay on the Principles of Population. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics.
\item
Marsh, L. (1981). Time to End the Tyranny of the Closed Shop.
Reader's Digest, 1981, 119, 33-37.
\item
Maugham, W.S. (1934). Rain.
(novel). In: Altogether, a Collection of Stories. London:
William Heinemann.
\item
McDougall, W. (1908). Social Psychology. London: Methuen.
\item
Mikesell, W.H. (1950). Modern Abnormal Psychology. New York:
Philos. Library.
\item
Mill, J.S. (1912). Three Essays. Oxford: Frowde.
\item
Monsarrat, N. (1951). The Cruel Sea. (novel) New York: Bantam
books.
\item
Mosley, L. (1975). G\"oring. M\"unchen: Kurt Desch.
\item
Mowrer, E.A. (1938). Germany Puts the Clock Back. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
\item
Ortega, y Gasset J. (1976). La Rebelion de las Masas. Madrid:
Espasa Calpe.
\item
Orton, J.L. (1943). Hypnotism Made Practical. London: Thorson's.
\item
Orwell, G. (1954). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
\item
Parkinson, C.N. (1960). The Law and the Profits. London: John
Murray.
\item
Peter, L.J. \& Hull R. (1969). The Peter Principle. New York:
Bantam Books.
\item
Plato, (1970).The Laws. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics.
\item
Plato (1892). The Republic. London: MacMillan.
\item
Polybius, (1974).The Rise of the Roman Empire. Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics.
\item
Rose, W. (1931). Outline of Modern Knowledge. London: Gollancz.
\item
Rousseau, J.J. (1911). Emile or Education. London: Dent \&
Sons.
\item
Russell, B. (1960). Sceptical Essays. London: George Allen \&
Unwin.
\item
Russell, B. (1932). Education and the Social Order. London:
George Allen \& Unwin.
\item
Russell, B. (1930). The Conquest of Happiness. London: George
Allen \& Unwin.
\item
Ryan, C. (1977). A Bridge Too Far. London: Hodder \& Stoughton.
\item
Salter, A. (1972). The Case Against Psycho Analysis. New
York: Perennial.
\item
Satow, L. (1923). Hypnotism and Suggestion. London: Allen \&
Unwin.
\item
Schofield A. T. (1898). The Unconscious Mind. New York: Funk
\& Wagnals.
\item
Schwarzschild, L. (1943). World in Trance. New York: Funk \&
Wagnals.
\item
Seneca, (1974).Letters from a Stoic. (bungled edition) Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics.
\item
Sherwood, R.E. (1948). The White House Papers of Harry Hopkins. (2 Vols.). London: Eyre \& Spottiswoode.
\item
Shirer, W.L. (1972). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich London: Redwood Press.
\item
Snow, A.J. (1926). Psychology in Personal Selling. Chicago:
Shaw Comp.
\item
Speer, A. (1971). Inside the Third Reich. London: Sphere
Books.
\item
Spencer H. (1897). The Study of Sociology. London: Kegan,
Paul, Trench \& Truebner.
\item
Spencer, H. (1907). Facts And Comments. London: Williams \&
Northgate.
\item
Spencer, H. (1911). Essays. London: Dent.
\item
Spencer, H. (1907). The Data of Ethics. London: Williams \&
Northgate.
\item
Spencer, H. (1940). The Man Versus the State. London: Watts \&
Co.
\item
Spring, H. (1943). Fame is the Spur. (two vols.) (novel)
Stockholm: Continental Book Comp.
\item
Spring, H. (1938). My Son, My Son. (novel) London: Collins.
\item
Streit, C.K. (1949). Union Now. New York: Harper \& Brothers.
\item
Tart, C.T. (1969). Altered States of Consciousness. New York:
Wiley.
\item
Tietjens, E. (1931). Desuggestion. London: George Allen \&
Unwin.
\item
Toland, J. (1977). Adolf Hitler. (2 Vols) Bergisch Gladbach:
Bastei Luebbe.
\item
Voigt, F.A. (1939). Unto Caesar. London: Constable.
\item
Waln, N. (1939). Reaching for the Stars. London: Cresset.
\item
Wells, H.G. (1937). The Outline of History. London: Cassell.
\item
Wells H.G. (undated except MCMXXXIII). A Short History of the
World. London: Waterlow \& Sons.
\item
Wells, H.G. (1932). The Work Wealth and Happiness of Mankind.
London: William Heinemann.
\item
Wells, H.G. (1932). First and Last Things. London: Watts.
\item
Wells, H.G. (1931). What Are We To Do With Our Lives. London:
Heinemann.
\item
Wells, H.G. (1942). The Outlook for Homo Sapiens. London:
Readers Union.
\item
Wells, H.G. (1939). The Holy Terror. (novel) London: Michael
Joseph.
\item
Wells, H.G. (1942). Phoenix London: Secker \& Warburg
\item
Wells H.G. (undated). A Modern Utopia London: Collins
\item
Wells, H.G. (1914). The World Set Free. (sc. fic.) London:
MacMillan.
\item
Wells, H.G. (1967). The Country of the Blind. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
\item
Wells, H.G. (1918). Joan and Peter, The Story of an Education.
(novel). London: Cassell.
\item
Wilder, Th. (1967). The Eighth Day. (novel) New York: Harper
\& Row.
\item
Wyndham, J. (1962). The Crysalids. (sc. fic.) Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books.
\item
Wyndham, J. (1954). The Wheel. (in: 'Jizzle', sc. fic.) London: N.E.L. Books.
\item
Wyndham, J. (1969). Exiles on Asperus. (in: 'A Sense of Wonder' sc. fic.). London: N.E.L.
\item
Wyndham, J. (1951). The Day of the Triffids. (sc. fic.) Harmondsworth: Penguin.
\item
Wyndham, J. (1953). The Kraken Wakes. (sc. fic.) Harmondsworth: Penguin.
\item
Wyndham, J. (1970). Chocky. (sc. fic.) Harmondsworth: Penguin.
\item
Wyndham, J. (1957). The Midwich Cuckoos. (sc. fic.) Harmondsworth: Penguin.
\item
Wyndham, J. (1969). The Seeds of Time. (sc. fic.) Harmondsworth: Penguin.
\item
Wyndham, J. (1964). Trouble with Lichen. (sc. fic.) Harmondsworth: Penguin.
\end{description}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Index}
%\end{description}xx
The symbol: (R) behind a name shows it to be in the reference list.
\begin{description}
\item[Acid rain,] 
\item[Action,] 
active,
need for action, definition of action, synonym for life,
\item[Acupuncture,] 
\item[Addition,] 
law of addition,
\item[Advertising,] 
advertising in air, advertising in space,
advertising paid for by the customer, advertising paid for by the
taxpayer,
\item[Advice,] 
governmental advice,
\item[Aeschylus,] 
\item[After effects,] 
after effect of nuclear war, after effects of drugs,
after effects of placebo,
\item[Agreement(s),] 
not workable agreements, agreement versus integration,
agreement versus unionism,
\item[Aids,] 
\item[Alexander The Great,] 
\item[Alexander,] F.M. (R),
\item[Altruism is egoism,] 
\item[Ambler,] E. (R),
\item[Ambrose,] G. (R),
\item[American Declaration,] 
\item[Amnesia,] 
hypnotic amnesia,
\item[Analog,] 
analogization,
nature is analogization, digitalization of analogization,
analogization is a process
\item[Andreski,] S. (R),
\item[Angell,] N. (R),
\item[Animals,] 
freedom of animals, animals superior to man, rights of animals,
attitudes towards animals, animals have no foresight,
\item[Anorexia Ideata,] 
\item[Appeal,] 
higher court appeal,
\item[Applause,] 
applause and control,
\item[Archbishop of Canterbury,] 
\item[Architecture,] 
architecture as art, architecture should be physics,
\item[Aristotle,] (R),
\item[Armistice,] 
our peace is,
\item[Arms,] definition of arms,
\item[Art,] 
\item[Ascribed authority,] 
\item[Asoka,] 
\item[Asthma,] 
\item[Astronomers,] 
\item[Athens,] 
\item[Avignon child,] 
\item[Aurelius,] M. Ant.
\item[Authority,]
ascribed,
\item[Automutilation,] 
\item[Auto-, Hetero-,]
\item[Baldwin,] 
\item[Baudouin,] C. (R),
\item[B.B.C.,] 
\item[Beadnell,] C.M. (R),
\item[Behaviourism,] 
\item[Belly,]
versus applause,
\item[Big Bang theory,] 
\item[Binary Code,] 
\item[Binary,] 
see Digitalization.
\item[Bogardus,] E.S. (R),
\item[Bomb-,] 
bombs, bombing,
\item[Booby-trap,] 
nuclear booby-trap,
\item[Border,] 
\item[Brandis,] J.D. (R),
\item[Bromfield,] L. (R),
\item[Brooks,] C.H. (R),
\item[Bullock,] A. (R),
\item[Burning,] Fire, Energy,
caused by man, of waste, of corpses, of forests,
in cooking, disposables, of all oxygen in nuclear war,
overcrowding.
\item[Caesar,] 
\item[Calendar,] 
superstition, is one with time-reckoning,
\item[Cancer,] 
\item[Carnegie,] D. (R),
\item[Cartesian Knot,] 
\item[Catastrophe or Education,] 
\item[Censure,] 
need for in media, self-inflicted in media, solves
Mill's paradox,
\item[Chamberlain,] 
\item[Chemo-anaesthesis,] 
obsolete before
invention.
\item[Child-,] 
ren, ish,
reward for having, solutions, produced as chance,
are takers, as tax on population, know what is fair,
know what is logical, made crazy, punish inanimate
objects, Falklands, (opinion),
\item[Choice,]
is life-typical,
\item[Chosen,]
people, groups, select
club,
\item[Christian Science,] 
\item[Churchill,] W.L.S. (R),
\item[Cicero,] M.T. (R),
\item[Civilis,] Julius,
\item[Classification,] 
is name for idea, is defining, is standardization,
is comparison, is ideation,
\item[Clemenceau,] 
\item[Climate,] 
extremes, regulated by forests, drought and floods,
C-significant dimension,
\item[Code or Law,] 
\item[Common sense,] 
\item[Competition,] 
in publication, in media, in economics, in advertising, between nations,
\item[Compulsion,] 
\item[Confusius,] 
\item[Conscience,] 
necessity, in governing,
\item[Conscripts,] 
governors as,
\item[Consumers,] 
\item[Contempt,] 
for own public, basic for group-consciousness, signal
of control,
\item[Control,] 
of environment, of others, handing-out food, need
of, showing of, is contempt, basic rule of, Gods,
State, Fashion as,
\item[Control Mechanisms,] 
purpose, balance principle, feed-back principle,
\item[Conventions,]
for war-sports,
\item[Cooking alive of animals,] 
\item[Co-operation,] 
world-, advantageous for herds, necessity in socio,
\item[Copy-rights kill science,] 
\item[Cou\'e,] E. (R),
\item[Criterion for World-craziness,] 
\item[Curat-,] 
ion, ive,
hypnodynamic, is ideative, effected, without knowing cause, is life synonymous,
\item[Customs,] 
is blackmail, cost of, control,
\item[Darwin,] 
\item[Data,]
(fiddling of),
\item[Date-line,]
absurdity,
\item[Day-rest,]
(dreams),
\item[Death,] 
attitude towards,
\item[DeBono,] E. (R),
\item[Decide,]
through chance,
\item[Decor,]
before usefulness,
\item[Deeping,] W. (R),
\item[Definition,] 
of, must exclude and include,
\item[Deforestation,] 
\item[Democra(c)(z)y,] 
is superstition, impossible, inhuman, unethical,
in family, majority rule, referendum, as punishment
for enemies, not in Athens,
\item[Democritus,] 
\item[Democritical fun,] 
\item[Demonstration as proof,] 
\item[Descartes,] 
\item[Desuggestion (Tietjens),] 
\item[Dewy,] 
\item[Diplom-,] 
acy, ats,
\item[Disarmament,] 
is childish, is impossible, caused W.W.2, is lost
cause,
\item[Discipline,] 
basic for socio, social contract, Rousseau,
\item[Discrimination,] 
\item[Dispensation,]
dis-enforces rules,
\item[Disposables,] 
cancer of economics,
\item[Dreams,] 
\item[Earth,] 
possession of everybody,
\item[Economics,] 
commerce, (bestiality),
\item[Educat-,] 
tion, ting,
non-education, mis-E, re-E, deciding needs, is
ideation, is auto-,
\item[E.E.C.absurdity,] 
\item[Ego,] 
\item[Eisenhower,] 
general,
\item[Electro-hypnosis,] 
\item[Emotion,] 
basic synonym for idea, emphasis taken as proof, not
desirable in justice,
\item[Epictetus,] (R),
\item[Epilepsy,] 
\item[Erickson,] M.V. (R),
\item[Essentials,] 
semi-E, as I, to have, versus luxuries,
\item[Ethics,] 
mondial, national, fundamental,
\item[Euripides,] 
\item[Europe,] 
see E.E.C.
\item[Euthansia,] 
superfluity,
\item[Evolution,] 
Spencer's law of, versus creation,
\item[Family,] 
basic unit,
\item[Fairness,] 
\item[Feed-back,] 
\item[Fest,] J.C. (R),
\item[Filmer Sir,] 
\item[Flags,] 
anthems, etc.,
\item[Fleming,] 
\item[Flowers,] 
grown in hothouses, sign of stupidity,
\item[Foresight,] 
\item[Forestation,] 
re-F, de-F., all soil not in use,
\item[Forester,] C.S. (R),
\item[Freedom,] 
from superstition, definition, degree of F,
J.S.Mill, for animals, F- to live everywhere, of
press is unethical,
\item[Free Think,] 
\item[Free Will,]
is non-existent,
\item[Freud,] 
\item[Frontiers,] 
and customhouses, blackmail of, not known to animals,
water,
\item[Gald's,] B.P. (R),
\item[Galileo,] 
\item[Galsworthy,] J. (R),
\item[Gambling,] 
\item[Gauss,] 
\item[Gautama,] 
\item[Genesis,] 
of stupidity, phylo-G is onto-G,
\item[Geneva,] 
\item[George,] 
Lloyd,
\item[Gibbon,] E. (R),
\item[G.M.T.,]
(Greenwich Mean Time),
\item[Goebbels,] 
\item[Goering,] 
\item[Government,] 
mondial, national is illegal, Democratic, referenda,
bi-cameral absurdity, scientific, proper, is fundamental right,
\item[Group,] etc.,
in government, consciousness, family, rights \&
duties,
\item[Gunther,] J. (R),
\item[Hackett,] J. (R),
\item[Haeckel,] E. (R),
\item[Hammurabi,] 
\item[Happiness,] 
in human dignity, free think, is self-made, not in
circumstances,
\item[Harris,] S.H. (R),
\item[Hastings,] M. (R),
\item[Hearnshaw,] 
\item[Hegel,] 
\item[Heliolithic Culture,] 
\item[Helsinki,] 
\item[Herodotus,] (R)
\item[Hesiod,] 
\item[Hindenburg,] 
\item[Hiroshima,] 
\item[Historians,] 
Herodotus, Xenophon, Thucydides, Polybius, Caesar, Tacitus, Wells, Russell, use present tense,
\item[History,] 
to learn from, is ideation,
\item[Hitler,] A. (R),
started W.W.2, artist in ideational influence, conscious of ecology,
\item[Homer,] 
\item[Hopkins,] H,
\item[Howe,] E.G. (R),
\item[Hoyle,] A. (R),
\item[Human dignity,] 
and justice, and happiness, and animals, definition,
\item[Huxley,] A. (R),
\item[Hypatia,] 
\item[Hypno-,] 
sis, dynamics, logy,
name hypnodynamic, H- amnesia, H-investigation,
H-restoration, H- criminality, electro-H, trafficaccidents (Orton), commands and logic,
\item[Icarus,] 
\item[Idea-,] 
tion, tional, tive,
not in books, letters, films, all problems are,
degree of freedom in, dimensions of, is memory, history, is
inquisitiveness, is non-physicum, atoms of
idea, idea-analgesis, as digitalizing, as ordering
agent, imitation, pairing, as pair-, binary principle,
term used by, as synonym for,
\item[Ideation Theory,] 
\item[Iliad,] 
\item[Imitation,] 
\item[Impossible,] 
only in physics,
\item[Indoctrination,] 
is ideation, is education, etc.,
\item[Infanticide,] 
\item[Inquisition,]
is still rife,
\item[Insomnia,] 
\item[Insurance,] 
\item[Integration,]
versus union,
\item[Intelligence,] 
not in groups, as 3rd degree, is ideational,
\item[International,] 
see nationalism.
\item[Jacobson,] E. (R),
\item[James,] W. (R),
\item[Janet,] 
brothers,
\item[Jastrow,] 
\item[Jury-system,]
bungled,
\item[Justice,] 
based on revenge, (inter) national, jurisprudence,
binary absurdity, is non-emotional, appeal, higher
court, repair of damage is,
\item[Justicia,] 
goddess,
\item[Kidder,] 
professor,
\item[Kline,] M.V. (R),
\item[Knowledge,] 
necess.for action, synonym for ideation, requisite
for prediction, about ideation,
\item[Kogon,] E. (R),
\item[Kohl,] H.,
\item[Kraus K,] 
\item[Ku Klux Klan,] 
\item[Ladd,] G.T. (R),
\item[Language,] 
mondial L- in existence, secondary, Spanish, of
nature, as standardization, as tool for thinking,
extra L-, stupidity in, internal L-,
\item[Law,] 
confused with rights, taken in own hands, or Code,
different per state, binary system,
\item[League of Nations,] 
see United,
\item[Learning,] 
is auto, is ideation, from sc.fic., is using history, past,
\item[LeBon,] G. (R),
\item[(Il)legality of governments,] 
\item[Lenin,] 
\item[Lewis,] S. (R),
\item[Literature,] 
pulp and trash, contemporary social scientific,
\item[Light,] 
-second, -minute, -hour, -year,
\item[Live,] 
alive,
is Control, is 'I, to Have', psychosomatic is synonym
for, is ideational,
\item[Livy,] 
\item[Locke,] J. (R),
\item[Long John Silver,] 
\item[Loon,] H.W. van (R),
\item[Lot,] 
appointed by lot, is not deciding, is not democracy,
in judicature,
\item[Lottocracy,] 
in government, in jury-system,
\item[Lucretius,] C. (R),
\item[Luminous paint experiment,] 
\item[Luxuries,] 
criterion for, became semi-essentials, absurd level
of,
\item[Lynching,] 
\item[Majority rule,] 
is unethical, called democracy, means majority consent,
\item[Malthus,] T.R. (R),
\item[Mankind,]
 inferior to beasts,
\item[Marryat,] 
\item[Marsh,] L. (R),
\item[Maugham,] W.S. (R),
\item[McDougall,] W. (R),
\item[Man,] 
 nature's only enemy,
\item[Media,] 
most powerful force, no concern for people,
\item[Medicine,] 
contemporary, basic nature is ideation, placebo,
\item[Mein Kampf,] 
\item[Migraine,] 
\item[Mikesell,] W.H. (R),
\item[Mill,] J.S. (R),
\item[Mill's Paradox,] 
\item[Mind,] Mental,
is Control, must be studied, is ideation, is time
structure, is subject to time, is non-physicum,
science of, mental tricks,
\item[Mob behaviour,] 
\item[Mondial,] 
problems are, solutions should be, sociologists,
opposite to national, ethics is, government, language, postal system,
\item[Monsarrat,] N. (R),
\item[Mosley,] L. (R),
\item[Mosley,] 
Sir Oswald, Brittish Nazi,
\item[Mowrer,] E.A. (R),
\item[Multiple sclerosis,] 
\item[Mussolini,] 
\item[Nancy School,] 
\item[(Inter) Nationalism,] 
\item[Nature's Method,] 
never wrong, is simple, un-N and dangers,
\item[Nazi,] 
\item[Neisser,] 
\item[Neandertal,] 
comparable with child, N-arrest,
\item[Newton,] 
\item[Night sky,] 
\item[Nonius,] 
\item[Normality,] 
loss of individuality, opposite to superiority,
\item[Nuclear,] 
powerstations, war, booby-traps, terrorism,
\item[Number dependend,] 
starvation is, all problems are,
\item[Nuremberg trial,] 
\item[Obligation (to act),] 
\item[Odyssey,] 
\item[Olympian games,]
not in Olympia,
\item[One-Pro-Mille,]
of population,
\item[Opposition parties,] 
make ruling impossible, in jury-system,
\item[Oram,] H.K.
\item[Ordening,] 
organization,
Theory, basic for all science \& ideation, principles,
studied by Plato, Aristotle, need for handbook of,
\item[Ortega y Gasset,] J. (R),
\item[Orton,] J.L. (R),
\item[Orwell,] G. (R),
\item[Overabundancy.,] 
of commodities, of man,
\item[Overlord,] 
\item[Outline,] (Wells),
\item[Pair,] Compare,
\item[Paradox,] 
of J.S.Mill, of applause, of democracy in Athens,
\item[Paralysis,] 
\item[Parents,] 
duty to study their job, experts in Ideation Theory,
should realise overpopulation,
\item[Parkinson,] C.N. (R),
\item[Parsec,] 
Parallax secunde,
\item[Pasteur,] 
\item[Patton,] 
general,
\item[Pearl Harbour,] 
\item[Pericles,] 
\item[Peter,] L.J. (R)
\item[Phobia,] 
\item[Phylo-,] 
Onto-, genesis,
\item[Physics,] 
is non-mental, incommensurate with mind, is ordering,
not the problem,
\item[Placebo,] swindle,
\item[Plague,] 
the, Thucydides,
\item[Plato,] (R),
\item[Plutarch,] 
\item[Politics,] 
ends with world-governm, is childlike,
\item[Polybius,] (R),
\item[Pooling,] 
taxation is, police, ambulance, insurance is, of
Allied armies,
\item[Pop-syndicate,] 
extortion of billions, get royal distinctions, mutilation of minds,
\item[Population,] 
overpopulation, estimates for,
\item[Possession,]
is control,
\item[Possibility,] 
not number-dependent, attribute of structure,
\item[Powerstations,] 
nuclear, as boobytrap,
\item[Present,] 
does not exist, used by historians,
\item[Press,] 
Media,
need for censure, no interesse in rights \& duties,
\item[Privacy,] right of,
\item[Problem (s),] 
are ideational, knowledge of, anorexia ideata,
asthma, compulsions, concentration, epilepsy,
insomnia, migraine, paralyses, phobias,
acid rain, alcohol, cadmium, crime, deforestation, drugs,
euthansia, famine, groundwater,
hooliganism, labour, nuclear, overcrowding, ozone
layer, pollution, pooling, superstition, species,
terrorism, war,
\item[Propaganda,] 
is ideational influence, necessity for this book,
\item[Proximity,] 
\item[Pseudology,]
studies not essentials, other name for psychology,
\item[Psychology,]
see Pseudology,
\item[Publication,] 
early hypnodynamic, Baudouin, Brandis, Brooks,
Cou\'e, Satow, Tietjens, compulsion of scientists,
competition in,
\item[Pythagoras,] 
\item[Pythagorize,]
time as length,
\item[Questions,]
contain statements,
\item[Racism,] 
\item[Rationality,] 
\item[Re-,] 
-circulation, -education, -forestation, -pair, versus new,
-storation of criminals,
\item[Reader,] 
the,
\item[R\&D's,] 
\item[Reality,] 
division in only two parts, knowledge of, control of,
-dimension of idea, demonstration,
\item[Referendum,] 
\item[Revenge,] 
justice based on,
\item[Ridicule,]
against superstition,
\item[Rights,] 
confused with law,
\item[Rose,] W. (R),
\item[Rousseau,] J.J. (R),
\item[R.P.English,] 
\item[Rumour (s),] 
taken as facts, not truer through numbers,
\item[Russell,] B. (R),
\item[Ryan,] C. (R),
\item[Rythm,] 
pulse, identical with tone,
\item[Salter,] R. (R),
\item[Satow,] L. (R),
\item[Schopenhauer,] 
\item[Schofield,] A.T. (R),
\item[Schwarzschild,] L. (R),
\item[Scien-,] 
ce, tific,
non-superstitional, use of, approach to, definition
of, fiction as sociology,
\item[Secrecy banned,] 
\item[Self Destroying Ape,] 
\item[Semmelweis,] 
\item[Seneca,] (R),
\item[Shaw,] G.B.,
\item[Sherwood,] R.E. (R),
\item[Side-efects,]
of drugs, of placebo,
\item[Slave-,]
s, ery,
only to machines, use for Nazi strategy, in Athens,
of passion, luxury, superstition, self-imposed,
\item[Sleep,] 
see insomnia.
\item[Smoking,] 
ethics of,
\item[Snow,] A.J. (R),
\item[Socio-,] 
logy, logist,
mondial, definition of, logists are nationalists,
\item[Socrates,] 
world-citizen,
\item[Solution(s),] 
postponement is not, childish, fundamental, partial, of: not do it,
\item[Space,] 
\item[Spanish,] 
2nd world-language,
\item[Speer,] A. (R),
\item[Spencer,] H. (R),
\item[Spring,] H. (R),
\item[Stalin,] 
\item[Standardisation,] 
is classification, is intelligent act, language is,
is ideation, internal S,
\item[Stoics,] 
\item[Streit,] C.K. (R),
\item[Structure,]
(see also Order),
synonym for idea, attributes of,
\item[Stupidity,] 
is the normal, genesis, cause of problems, in war,
in education, in parenthood, in government, in
the news media, in building customs, has no limits,
\item[Sub-liminal,] 
all education is, principle of, opposite placebo,
\item[Suetonius,] 
\item[Suggestion,]
see ideation.
\item[Suicide,] 
right to, mankind's,
\item[Summum Bonum,] 
my definition,
\item[Superstition,] 
costs lives, wastes efforts, kills trees, standards
as facts, democracy, frontiers, media, calendar,
nationalism, Ufo's, romantic love, pseudoananlysis,
\item[Swastica,] 
\item[Tacitus,] 
\item[Talk-anaesthesia,] 
\item[Tart,] C.T. (R),
\item[Tax-payer,] 
same rights as criminals, pays for advertising, punished for saving,
\item[Teach-,] 
er, ing,
\item[Tegart,] 
\item[Theognis,] 
\item[Therapy,] 
so called,
\item[Thinking,]
is ideation, lateral T, fixed path, tool is language, DeBono,
\item[Thucydides,] 
\item[Tietjens,] E. (R),
\item[Time,] 
shared by non-phys.and phys.one directionness, universe is structure in, all ideas and language is,
\item[Titanic,] 
\item[Tocqueville De,] 
\item[Toland,] J. (R),
\item[Trance,] 
\item[Trial and Error,] 
\item[Trotsky,] 
\item[Truth,] 
knowable truth, different kinds of, independend from
numbers, table of,
\item[Tyranny,] 
of Wilson, of the majority, of the masses, governments, endurable as necessity,
\item[Unanimity,]
and voting,
\item[Unemployment,] 
beneficial,
\item[Union(s),] 
opposite integration, majority rule, are unethical,
social contract,
\item[United Nations,] 
also, League of,
imply nations intact, is debating club,
\item[Unwarranted statements,] 
\item[Vernier,] 
\item[Veto,]
and unanimity,
\item[Vitalism,] 
opposed to mechanism, anti-V,
\item[Voigt,] F.A. (R),
\item[Vote,] 
dependency, gathering, determine decisions,
\item[Vultures of society,] 
\item[Wallace,] A.Russell,
\item[Waln,] N. (R),
\item[War,] 
W.W.1, W.W.2, W.W.3, cause of, study of, and
peace, Falklands, prevention of, made into sport,
\item[Wast-,] 
e, ing,
dumping of, in effort and time,
\item[Waterloo,] 
\item[Well-being,] 
imply ego, of population, not in group,
\item[Wells,] H.G. (R),
mondial sociologist, study of war-peace, teachers
bungling, either education or catastrophe, blackmail
of frontiers, breeding storm, at war or preparing for
war, on bi-camerality, our laws dangerous, about voting,
about criminal potential, about mind mutilation,
about distortion of knowledge, defines true nationality,
code of behaviour, inventions not uninventable,
limited about ethics,
\item[Wilder,] Th. (R),
\item[Wilson,] Woodrow,
\item[Wise,] 
wisdom,
\item[Wood,] 
forest,
production and transport, use of per capita,
\item[World,] 
citizen, citizen Socrates, problems, solution,
language, brotherhood, postal service, police
force, Government, State,
\item[Wyndham,] J. (R),
\item[You are but bits of other people,] 
\item[Xenophon,] 
\item[Xerxes,] 
\end{description}
%\begin{description}xx
\section{Elaborations}
%\end{description}xx
\section{Elaboration 1}\label{1}
When you are Earthling, when you want to remain so, Earth
is YOUR business. This letter concerns you! Man is an
S.D.A., a self-destroying ape. You reader, by taking interest in this book,
appear to have higher aspirations. You,
then, are taken seriously by me, should be taken seriously
by others, by all others.
\section{Elaboration 2}\label{2}
A word about science is desirable here. In general,
there is a battle of words going on everywhere in efforts to
classify some idea, theory, packet of knowledge as-, or as
not-, belonging to a science. First of all, science, a science, is not to be found in our reality except in a mind, a
human mind too. Therefore it is strictly NON-physical, is
but mental, ideational in class. Ideation Theory (see e.g.
Ladd 1907), then, is that branch of ideas, that can define
and elucidate the term (is name of idea), science.
'Science is a construct of related ideas, capable of
being a whole (idea) ' is not so much untrue but too wide. A
whole personality would fit it, and so would art. Huxley
(T. H.) said "By science I understand all knowledge that
rests upon evidence and reasoning". Again, it fits every
individual (plant, animal, man), it is another word for
'mind'. F. J. Tegart defines science as merely
"the systematic investigation of the processes manifested in
phenomena". It means not simply wanting to know, but, (first)
developing a system, a program, for tackling the job.
Somewhat better is the formulation of F. J. C. Hearnshaw who
maintains that science i?"systematised, organised, formulated
knowledge". All this, then, does not go for primitive man
or a child, or does it?
On the other hand, we would not be ashamed to call the
activities of a little boy or girl, who is experimenting
with a trickle of water, in damming it up, scratch a canal
in it, see pool formation, etc. a form of (primitive) science.
We know from ideation theory (section \ref{2.1}) that it is a
necessity in nature that phylogenesis is identical with
ontogenesis, that the development of an individual must be a
(fast) replica of the development of mankind (Haeckel).
Ordening theory says that onto-genesis is the structural
memory of phylo-genesis (Mijling). This, as Spencer admits
freely, does not stop at birth. The same phylo = onto, goes
for the little baby = savage, or the child = primitive man.
Naturally, the teaching of a science by following the natural
historical development of that science is obvious (the
only method is nature's method). The child's experimenting
and wanting to understand, is no more than a stage, an early
stage in its scientific development.
We all are in a reality. We always and solely, want to
know about this reality, i.e. we ideate, we have ideas, we
manipulate them and so do we with reality itself. This, we
usually do not call science, it is simply knowing that water
makes wet, and that we seek shelter for the rain. It is
ideation in its broadest sense, common sense. Science then,
is not just a whole that we want to know about, this is true
for all ideation, is typical for life. A general practitioner
is not so much a scientist though, but he uses his
acquired science for his first aid. But, as in a story by
Cronin, when such a practitioner becomes interested in a
certain field or viewpoint of his job, and investigates special
occasions or relations in order to add to the general
knowledge, he certainly is a scientist. But Hoyle's concept
of science being pure prediction is not complete either.
Prediction comes only after one has some knowledge in order
to know what to predict. The early tinkers with glass rods,
fur, rubber, magnets, sparks, etc. did not guess that this
would lead to electric engines, heaters and light, silicon
chips and space-flight. Yet, they were scientists as well
as investigators.
Because a definition, like a Vennian circle, must typefy
a class (i.e. including and excluding), a name for the idea,
a word, is the shortest definition possible. A more extensive
definition, then, should be used for those ideas that
are too complex for one word or, for mere explanation of an
idea or group of ideas. Science, being practically a translation
of (human) ideation, should be somewhat vaguely
defined, excluding all superstitions, but including these
electronic scientists of Edison's time, whose latter, for
many of their contemporaries were merely playing about.
If I would try my hand on a definition: Science is specialised
(human) involvement in a systematised whole of
ideas that are demonstrable to-, or likely to-, reflect
reality in some measure, without direct promise for pay-off
in the reality. In this way, it is not found in books,
films, magazines, but only in those who attend to them. The
letters are there but the ideas not.
Nowadays, unfortunately, the bulk of scientific publications
are merely heaps of letters and punctuations on piles
of sheet-paper. The reason is the duty, the compulsion, in
the scientific workers to publish. They are under a real
threat of dismissal when they do not publish enough. They,
therefore, have a tendency to repeat others, to invent data
even fuddle them, develop meaningless theories, become
infatuated by these, and they publish and publish. This
compulsion, like copyrights, is the guillotine of true, new,
fresh, invigorating science.
The only scientific department in which triviality writing
and data bungling, nonsense theorising is not in the least
subject to self-punishment, self-correction, is the mindscience
department (except unheeded, unread ones like
Spencer, Wells, Andreski, etc.). The monthly tons of paper
added to the library of a social science department of a
university consist merely of their purely physical properties.
Tons of printed paper, no progress, no newness, no
healthy ideas, no incentive for the students or workers to
become attached (section \ref{2.2}). The accompanying
industries have contrived to screen-off any attempt of a
real mind-science to be published. Like all products of
industries, books and journals no longer are made because of
a need for them in mankind, but are made because of the survival
of the industry itself, its sales-department. Compe-
tition then, of a product that is badly needed, that lasts
for all ages, with those products that are not needed but
have been made to wear fast, to be renewed, resold, reproduced,
proves fruitless. Every motorcar producer could
easily make a car that can be kept running with little cost
for 50 years (as the model T and A Ford suggested) but this
would break his own windows. As it is, there is no sense in
trying to publish real social scientific-, i.e. mindscientific work.
There is a necessity for handbooks on 'Ordening', on 'ideation,
trance, ethics, the process of digitalisation, analogisation,
the essence of curation, binary
code as meaning, etc. ', but nobody would publish them. It has
to wait for a change in these stupid circumstances. When is
the science of Ordening going to be aimed at progress, at
addition to knowledge, at improvement in theory?
\subsection{Elaboration 2.1}\label{2.1}
Since the study of mind-science by Ladd, around the turn
of the century, the professional name for it, 'Psychology'
has become a by-word for pseudo-science and triviality
knowledge. The normal term of 'Ideation' (that what is
going on in a mind) thereafter, became banned because it
would necessitate serious study in idea, in mind. As every
'real' mind-scientist knows, when there is a mind, there is
that what mind consists of, namely ideas. Then, these ideas
are not like objects, not motionless, not still, but are
hectic activities. They wriggle and squirm, they fiddle and
jostle, they vibrate and resonate, in short they are, what
we call alive, active. It is therefore also normal to speak
of the verb: to ideate, of ideation, of idealogy, of ideagenesis,
idea-pathic, idea-syncracy (a 'black raven' expression),
and so forth. In the secondary world-language, Spanish, the
verb 'idear', to ideate, is freely in use in
literature (see Gald's for instance).
None of the terms, now, are acceptable to the pseudologists
because the mere acceptance would make them vulnerable
to fundamental critics from college boys, those who studied
ideas, when they ask for definitions, ask questions. It
would mean that plants and animals, nay, every living cell
in them, in us, had a mind, would ideate and this is contradictory
to their mechanistic beliefs. They'd rather have
our cells as being little machines, automata, robotic sections
of robots. Psychology developed from mind-science,
into a pseudology, a mechanistic view on life. It is like
studying motorcars, their engines, fuel, steering, etc. in
order to know where the drivers want to go. Instead of
grasping that life USES mechanisms (physics) they think that
alive MEANS mechanism, physics, and laboratories, mathematical
trickery, etc.
Indeed, many writers have concluded that what is alive,
has mind, ideas. Haeckel clearly speaks of the consciousness
(the mind, ideation) of the single cell, although the
term consciousness is very confusing. It is, alas, true
that we find the term ideation, only very sparsely in Snow,
Tart, Schofield, Kline (who also coined the term 'Hypnodynamics'),
James, Ladd, McDougall, Mikesell, etc. Yet, Plato
and Aristotle were already studying ideation theory and general
'Ordening Theory'. (The science of Ordening is fundamental
for EVERY other science and knowledge and idea.
Ideas being that what understands order (meaning), and that
what changes order (action) ). There is a very urgent need
for a contemporary handbook of ideation theory. I would
like to write it, but ..., how to get it printed? For the
time being, we must do with e.g. Spencer. His genius
enabled him to deduct from his (first law of Spencer) notion
that: 'all causes have more than one effect', and from: 'all
effects are causes', that necessarily, complexity in any
structure (ordering) must increase (with time). This second
law of Spencer, is a law of: necessity of evolution (of all
structures). Lamarck, Darwin, Wallace, etc. only added to
this in demonstrating that it was valid for living beings
(ordering) too. BUT, let us beware of thinking that order,
structure, is physical. It is non-physical ('that what is
more than the sum of its parts'), therefore mental, life,
ideational.
Ordening is idea. Ordening Theory is the idea of it.
Ideation Theory is that part of ordering theory that contemplates
the non-physical ordening, the mental, the life, and
... itself.
\subsection{Elaboration 2.2}\label{2.2}
Some decades ago, some twit or nitwit invented a new
strategy for education and for science. Under the motto of
'anything is better than study', he proposed the 'discussion
method'. It means something like discussing the profound
unhappiness of the neighbour because of the damaged windscreen
of his car, with your 4 year old son and, upon seeing
him understand it, hope he will not do it again. It smacks
of Marryat's 'Midshipman Easy'. Humourous, traces of truth
in it, but absolutely unworkable. In physical science not
so much, because there is little discussion possible about
clearcut facts, but the more so in so-called social science,
the discussion method was an admirable excuse for not studying mind,
yet look very busy, and it soon became the trade.
Today, still, at universities, we can see the strategy at
work. Groups of students, sometimes under the leadership of
one, a year advanced, 'discuss' things. They have not, sorry to say,
as yet abandoned the learning by heart or the
counting in pages or books though. Russell, in his History,
says?"To answer this question, a very long discussion would
be necessary." It is not clear from the context whether he
means 'I, to answer this question', or, 'science to answer',
but the nonsensical part remains. No discussion, whatever
its length, will answer a question. It is (a) single person(s) who
answer questions, just as it is (a) single person(s) who ask them.
Then, the difficulty (complexity) of a
problem (question) is not dependent of the number of persons
discussing it, nor is the length of time they do so. The
sentence probably was aiming to mean: 'To explain to you MY
answer (yes, no, middle, etc.), I would have to report at
length umpteen prominents ... '
What is the ideational truth, the mind-scientific reality of
discussion? First, as Wells pointed out, the number of
thinkers, indeed has no relationship with the scientific
effect. Then, discussion between comparable scientists is
indeed solely and only meaningful between like levels of
knowledge. Discussion between comparable scientists remains
very fruitful and very necessary, even when from different
disciplines. Not that there is more knowledge in greater
numbers, but certainly because hearing the other's ideas may
trigger-off fruitful ideas in oneself, leading to improvement,
newness, progress, which is science. Hoyle says in
his 'Black Cloud'?"New ideas, the impetus of all development,
come from individual people, not from corporations or
states."
Discussions between non-knowers, students, novices, remain
what they of necessity can only be, empty talk. True, some
student in such a 'thema-group', may be taught something he
had not previously grasped, but, with less effort and much
more effectively, he could have mastered it by himself. The
basis for this statement lies, obviously, in the mindscientific
truth that, since all ideation is auto-ideation,
is self-ideation, therefore, all learning is self-learning,
all teaching is self-teaching, etc. Assistance, aid, outside
influence, consist mainly of books and teachers in which
clumsy paths of reaching conclusions in ideation, may have
been straightened by someone who walked and conquered the
path himself. Groups of students, therefore, without a
teacher but with the same books (for self-teaching), have no
advantage over a simple quiet room by oneself. What they
may discuss with some benefit however, is the weather, the
sort of pen they use, what additional books they can study,
where to find the toilets, etc.
In general, when there is a group of people together to
work, there are three possibilities.
\begin{itemize}
\item All of them are
experts on a comparative level, discussion is highly effective,
\item all of them are just as non-expert, a session of
mere talk and talk,
\item one of them is standing out, being an
expert, the rest not.
\end{itemize}
In this last case, discussion is
absolutely impossible, only teaching is. When nevertheless
they insist on discussion, the only teacher among them may
go home or read a book which is a far better pass-time for
him.
Our pseudology, today, thrives admirably on the discussion
method. It is an excellent replacement for rationality, for
work, for study, for first and last things. The discussion
method for teaching is simply balderdash, not a mere fallacy
but utter stupidity.
\section{Elaboration 3}\label{3}
What, now, is the difference between a mondial sociologist and
other sociologists? The difference is not one of
degree, but one of kind. Today's (1985) sociologists like
to work exactly as the physical scientist, thereby overlooking
the fundamental difference (in kind, not in degree)
between life and the inanimate. They, then, describe socio
as 'how it is' not 'how it would better be'. This is why
science fiction, can be so important for the study in sociology.
The serious sort, fantasize expertly how things
could be. In physics, it is meaningless to study e.g. gravitation
laws, or gas behaviour, as we would like them to be.
In a sociology, however, the same limitation is funest, and
cannot master the problem of man extinguishing all life on
the planet. For this, contra-physically, we must study how
it would better be. We should not only study things as they
are, history in other words, but futures. A future leading
to disaster, and a future leading to a safe and happy existence.
Wells, in his Outline of History (and Holy Terror,
Joan, World Set Free, The Work, Outlook, etc.), shows this
clearly. He shows how things were, how things could better
have been, how things should be in future in order to avoid
disaster. His study, naturally, forced him into realising
that all big problems are mondial problems, that hence, only
a mondial way of thinking, a mondial sort of solution was
necessary. The difference with other sociologists and historians
is precisely this. They are nationalist in
everyday-life AND in their studies, theories, publications
etc. (One shudders at the thought of them becoming socialist too,
the combination of national socialism being some-
what bestial). This then leads to false notions of internationalisms,
of international agreements, co-operations that
are per se impossible and so on. They try the impossible in
science. Wells realised the possibilities, that are ever so
much needed, i.e. a mondial integrate (versus an international
agreement). Wells, so much is clear, cannot be
missed in a proper sociology, a sociology that tells how
things should be, and how this could be achieved, nor could
Schwarzschild, Spencer, Malthus and others.
Wells, the only one who was scientific enough to remind
us that NO Utopia is of any help UNLESS it is one on a mondial
organisatory scale, (see: 'Modern Utopia') also implies
that Utopia's can, as sc. fic. be very helpful in working out
how things should and could be. The man of science immediately
asks whether the story is just one of those islands
'as if' there is nobody else on Earth. But Wells remained a
unionist (instead of integrationist) and a democratist. He
therefore makes mistakes with regard to the Rights \& Duties
of man. In his 'Phoenix' he choses the wrong part of Mill's
paradox. Indigestible to integrationists, he holds that
every man has a right to the utmost freedom of expression,
discussion, association and worship (Sankey Declaration).
It was how the Nazis came to power, it was how e.g. a Ku
Klux Klan cannot be forbidden, how there still is a monky
war going on between 'creationists' allowed to teach superstition,
and 'evolutionists' wanting to teach a likely scientific concept,
it is why religious shots and bombs are
still fired in anger all over the world.
\section{Elaboration 4}\label{4}
Absurdities due to fixed-path thinking in which the path
itself is not wholly sensible appear in all sciences. They
remain obscure just because this fixed-path thinking is generally
accepted, is thought to be applause promoting, under
the severe jungle-like pressure to publish, the absurdity of
copyrights, etc. Is the opposite to fixed-path, now, the
'free-think' (lateral think (DeBono) ), the complexities of
life, soon leads to 'double-think' or 'treble-think'
(Orwell) (room 101). Then, A becomes Not-A as well as A,
everything outside A will be A, and B for that matter;
double think indeed, but also: 'we like efficiently ordered
ways, therefore we use clumsy ways'. An example in astronomy e.g.
is the p. s. or parsec (to distinguish it from Pferde
Starke). Naturally, in that science, the meter or kilometer is too
small and therefore would need gigantic numbers
for measurements of galaxies. It is not unthinkable that
for these distances, one uses a unit that is sufficiently
large, the light-year. This is roughly a distance that the
light travels in a year i.e. 300,000 x 3600 x 24 x 365 kilometers,
and nobody would notice it when one takes 365. 25
instead of 365. Even this gigantic unit of distance is
sometimes far too small, hence large numbers to write down.
Now, they invented a new unit to remedy that, the parallax
second, i.e. the distance over which one sees half the
earth's orbit as one second of arc. Now is this not absurd?
This parsec is only 3. 2 times the light year. A great help
indeed! What is wrong in taking the powers of ten anyway,
like light decade, light century, etc. or, more scientifically,
use the existing deca, hecto-, kilo-, even giga-, light
years. Astronomers seem not to like this although an occasional
kilo-parsec can be found. Hoyle even uses negative
powers of parsecs for distances within the solar system
where light seconds (Moon) light minutes (Sun) and light
hours (planets) would be more adequate. (But then, the
clock, our time-calculation, is already a stupid system of
24 digit and 60 digit, calculated in ten digit).
Some 50 or so year ago, one could read in physical study
books that the English speaking kids would be delighted when
the decimal system came to replace the usual non-system.
Away with all fathoms, yards, feet, inches, miles, nautical
miles, gallons, knots, degrees Fahrenheit, etc., etc. that have
all their own peculiar ratios for conversion. How easy it
would be for the children to use the liter of water that
equals a kilogram, to convert tons per cubic kilometer that
gives a rise of a temperature of degrees centigrade per liter
times the square centimeter, an operation solely by
scrapping or adding zeros! The reader can easily calculate
in his head how much liter (or kilogram) of rain would be a
rainfall of 5 mm over a square meter of roof. Simply make
it in dm's, then 0. 05 x 10 x 10 is 5 liter. Compare this
with 0. 22 inch, in square yards and pounds, a system which
seem to be here to stay. What about scientists using a tendigit
system to calculate in an angular system of one revolution
being 360 degrees, ... without protest? True, 10
degrees and 100 degrees (centigrade) for a full circle is
akward, but this is all the more reason to advocate some 12
(or 18, 16, 8) digital system for BOTH aritmethic and geometry,
and, of course, for the clock, calendar, zodiac, etc.
All science is suffering from this absurd fixed-path
thinking, if only for the costly teaching time in the
schools. But the outstanding example of stubborn fixed-path
thinking, of allowing no new ideas, is to be found in medical
science, social science, and so-called psychology.
Through the workings of anti-vitalists, of thinkers who
believe that all living phenomena are explainable in physical
terms, this must become pseudology indeed. When one
denies life as life, i.e. as absolutely non-physical, one
has to blabber words and theories with the factor life or
mind inconspicuously inserted. After all, one has to show
how knowing twice is impossible, that one can think twice
but these are not two ideas. Giving (?) an idea away, one
loses not but gains, which is unthinkable in physics. For a
phenomenon like mind, that is solely time-dependent, not,
like physics, time- AND space- dependent, every explanation
in the latter's language, for the former, must be nonsense.
Time is on the outside of the physical reality, and is
therefore a characteristic of the whole universe (including
mind(s)) (section \ref{4.4}). Pythagorise it as a fourth
dimension, a length in time, just like calculating the sum
of red apples and green apples by their light frequencies,
is nice exercise, but seems not scientific. Denying life,
in a living phenomenon is like squaring a circle.
A Russell e.g. is such an anti-life, anti-vitalist
authority. By the use of sham words that harbour mind, but
look like physics, words like 'perception' (meaning idea
plus re-ception) and 'physiology' (meaning physical mechanics
BUT alive), 'meta-physics' (Aristotle) and so forth, it
was possible to write a book about human knowledge without
having a iota of insight in ideation (section \ref{4.3}).
It is obvious that it is full of utter absurdities. More
absurd and wholly un-ethical is the use of the word 'psychosomatic'.
Doctors use it to give the patients the absolutely false idea
that they know what is wrong with them. In
cold reality, it is a synonym for alive, is a name, a definition
of life.
Yet another absurdity taken from physical thinking, is
the idea that, in order to cure or help one, it is necessary
to know the cause. It is called anamnesis or diagnosis and
so forth. While the complainer only wants to be free from
his asthma, allergy, migraine, compulsions, multiple personality, etc.
the person he goes to for help, is interested
solely in what caused it. His professional voyeurism not
only digs up the most absurd dirt, but he actually induces
it in the unfortunate sufferer (Salter). He simply cannot
understand that it is perfectly possible, (therefore his
duty) to help without knowing what the causes are, as he is
used to in first aid. It is typical for the non-physicum,
the idea, that the cause need not be known in order to help,
nay, the sort of complaint itself, even, need not be known,
although the name of the person might be helpful. There is
plenty of evidence for this.
Social science simply cannot be divided into a physical
part and an ideational part, it is all and only, pure
ideation. This is one of the unique features of so-called
social science, when compared with the real mind-sciences.
Social science of today should be involved solely with
ideation because it is only in ideation that man differs
from objects, other animals and plants. Imagine a man who
studies motorbikes in order to get to know horses. Would
not a schoolboy demand first that he explains exactly how
the two are related? Ask any pseudologist how his beloved
rats and pigeons are (ideationally) related to humans, and
he will be unable to do so. Studying rats in order to know
humans without knowing their fundamental ideasyncracies, is
a million times more stupid than studying tulips in order to
know rats. Secondly, socio means not the mere existence of
other (living) humans, but their influence upon these others,
their interactions (section \ref{4.4}). This too, is
solely a question of ideation (physical interaction, i.e.
influence by blows and kicks are out). No other science
than social science ever avoids studying its subject matter,
that what it IS about, so vehemently. This is unique, a
social science without idea, without influence, without man
as man. Aristotle, Tacitus, Cicero, but also Locke,
Malthus, or even Goebbels wrote more about ideation 'in
socio' than the highly sophisticated looking contemporary
literature.
Another uniqueness is that an invention in it, in medicine
(chemo-anaesthesis), was already obsolete 25 years BEFORE
its invention. When chemo-anaesthesis was invented, it was
unnessary save for animal narcosis, because animals cannot
understand our ideational commands and directions in order
to induce a natural analgesic state of the body. In humans,
since pain is ideational, the not feeling of pain is naturally
done by speech, not by poisons, or even swindleric
placebo's (section \ref{4.1}).
\subsection{Elaboration 4.1}\label{4.1}
I should not withold from the reader (the reader of these
elaborations), something more about the placebo-effect. The
name, like most pseudological terms, is not very appropriate,
meaning something like: 'I will please you'. In fact,
it remains pure ideation, i.e. auto-suggestion. This latter
term, in its turn, may look somewhat deficient to the casual
reader, since the drug is administered by others, therefore
hetero-. In reality, there 'is' no drug at all, and the
mechanism, like all ideation, is strictly auto-. Between
auto-, and hetero-, stands the unavoidable barrier of
physics (the physical medium). Or is it, as the parapseudologists
and mystics believe, possible that: 'one can
'think' somebody else better (or worse) '? There is absolutely no
evidence for that (praise be). One can only
'talk' somebody else better or painless, or even dead, the
thinking he does himself and this is the ONLY agent that
causes the effect. Scientifically (!!), it has been named
ADT. (for 'any damned thing'), orG.O.K. (god only knows),
according to Orton, and it shows the swindleric attitude of
doctors who use it. They prescribe mixtures of 'aqua sequana,
aqua bi-destillata, illa repetita, eadem, oxydised
hydrogenium, natrium chloride, etc.', all the while KNOWING
what they are doing.
Placebo, now, is not so much striking by its unashamed
exposure of (professional) trickery, it is far more striking
in the casual way it is noted and published in medicine,
though not studied at all. This would, of course necessitate
a study in ideation.
Every scientist worth his salt would immediately grasp the
paramount importance of studying placebo (ideation theory,
mind-science) when told that people get cured of the most
serious complaints by the mere fact that they 'think' they
have a powerful drug, which in reality is not different from
the daily intake of food. All the efforts and time-waste by
all workers who study and investigate rats, flamingo's,
worms, pigeons, even bacteria and virusses, fall into
insignificance, when compared to one man (like L.) who
investigates mind (placebo, indoctrination, suggestion, etc.).
This is obvious, because everything they can conclude for
'humans', reasoned fromout animals, MUST be dominated by an
unstudied, unknown, very powerful effect. Quite unique;
must the total lack of fixed-path thinking seem here. It is
after all a more or less fixed rule to study the most important
and least known first. With the placebo effect this is
not done. But, another fixed-path has taken precedence, the
one that says: 'we study physics and therefore let's leave
the un-physics alone'.
But I must show the reader the utter hilarity of the
officially approved placebo-effect. It is found in Meyler's
'Side Effects of Drugs', volume VIII (!) (1100 pages!)
(Dukes M. N. G. (1975) Amsterdam: Exerpta Medica). As such,
placebo does not belong there, because they 'are' not drugs
at all. It says on page 852: (as side-effects of a contraceptive
(!!) placebo)
\begin{table}[ht]\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{rr}
\hline
Decreased libido & 29.5\% \\
Headache & 15.6\% \\
Pain and Bloating in lower abdomen & 13.7\% \\
Dizziness & 11.1\% \\
Lumbar pain & 8.0\% \\
Nervousness & 6.4\% \\
Dysmenorrhoa & 6.1\% \\
Etc. Etc. & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\noindent
When the laughter has subsided somewhat, we may reflect upon
the poor victims of such pseudological experimentation, the
actual induction of headaches, dizziness, pain, etc. by
placebo. Would not every sensible scientist be too much
ashamed to put the procedure into print, in serious (?) medical
literature?
\subsection{Elaboration 4.2}\label{4.2}
Although virtually nothing is known about time itself, it
might be useful to explore some theories, especially when
derived from 'merely' manifestations of time. Just as we
have no knowledge of what exactly gravitation is, but we can
do a lot of calculations with regard to the manifestations
of gravity that are known, just so, can we say things about,
for instance the (our) subjectivity to time. Time, like
gravitation, is always there, it cannot be screened-off. We
are continuously subject to it, but, ... unlike gravitation,
we cannot even-it away as weightless astronauts do, nor is
time strictly limited to physics, as gravitation is. We are
constantly aware of time, the very idea of existence is
merely a synonym for extention in time, to be or not to be,
is time, the words 'is' and 'are' denote time (existence),
and 'follow' is, and so are all verbs, and we can not even
observe a simple object save for the mental trick to make it
into an event. Nouns, therefore, are time too.
Yet we know not what time is.
Mind too, is subject to time and extended in time, but it is
absolutely a NON-physicum. This latter statement forces us
to decide that time stands somewhat outside the whole universe, that is to say, outside the whole of our physical and
non-physical reality. Both are subject to time. Spencer's
law of evolution demands that: All structures increase in
complexity with time. It is the natural conclusion from a)
all causes have more than one effect and b) all effects are
causes (Essay on Progress). Thermodynamic laws seem in
contradiction with this. They expect a de-crease in Order.
Yet, the latter are based upon the universe being a closed
system (including time). When time is added continuously,
from outside, a closed system cannot exist whatever the
scale we take. Therefore, evolution (increase) is more
basic. But what is the analog factor in the idea of a dead
cat and the dead cat (physics) itself? Both are extended in
time. Between two absolute incomparables, like physics and
non-physics, there can be no other form of relation than,
that one is the representation of the other. An idea has no
form-, no likeness-, no equivalent (as T. H. Huxley thought)
in common with that, what it is the idea of. The two then
only share time (-structure) with each other. The two are
incommensurate for the rest.
There is a theory about the genesis of our universe,
known as the Big Bang theory, a superdense point somewhere
in space (often thought to be all space). Although there is
more likelihood of such a B. B. occurring in a sequence, a
pulsating universe, it does not seem necessary to suppose
that before this B. B. there was no time. Time could well
have been before B. B. , only matter and energy then found
their existence, had a beginning. There is probably one
thing we know about time, and that is its one-directionness,
the arrow likeness. Never was there an effect before
its cause. In fact, we are only aware of time, we measure
time, just because of-, and through-, these cause-effect
relations, of events. The B. B. may very well have been a
point on this arrow, of which the tip represents the
present, the now. In reality there is no such precise
point, the arrow has no present, only a past on the line,
and a future in front of the arrow. The present is only an
ideational trick in order to understand this flabbergasting
phenomenon, time. It is no more than a name for a thing not
actually in reality. A slice of a process, a digit (idea).
There is only the binary, the pair of 'in-class', and 'outclass'.
Every hour that we call now because we are somewhere in it,
has a future part and a past part. No matter
when we make the arrow-tip as sharp as we can, in seconds,
milli-seconds or nano-seconds, the phenomenon itself is not
there, we only call it so. Students in fundamental ideascience
soon come to surmise that an idea is basically binary
(a long string of plusses and minusses). They reason as
follows: Clearly, idea, knowledge, is as well classification
as it is comparison. For both, a pair is needed.
Comparison of X and Y is out of the question, no common factor.
Only comparison between X and Not-X is possible. This 'is'
classification in an in-class and an out-class. The string
of the ultimate 'atoms' of idea, in 'Yesses and No's', is
itself a time principle (adding 'sequence').
Ideation, now, does exactly this, it compa(i)res the two
parts of the pair past - future, or past - not (yet) past,
with each other and calls the result 'now'. In order to be
able to do this, it has to take slices and pretend that they
are internally unchangeable, digits, amorph parts of an ever
changing process, (analog). Only after digitalisation, can
mind start to compare two digits, two seconds or two hours,
and call them past or future. Mind has learned the trick of
taking such a digit as long as is convenient. The year for
the growth of trees, the seasons when blooming or leaves
dropping is interesting, seconds when we drive our car into
it, etc. There is the duration of a lecture, the accademic
year, the 15 minutes pause and so on, all on the principle
that they are amorph slices of a real changing process, a
continuous process of adding and adding.
It is usual to divide our reality in two strictly distinguished parts,
the binary of physics and non-physics (mind).
We cannot put time itself IN one of these two because
physics as well as ideation are just as time dependent.
Reality thus consists of one whole; time, which is divided
in two digits, physical (existence) and mental (existence).
Mind, ideation, always works in binary form, making pairs
and compare them."In a lifeless universe", said Russell,
"there is no 'here' and 'now'." True, here and now are
structures, descriptions of structures, i.e. ideas, and a
lifeless universe contains no ideas (minds, beings, opinions,
appearances, forms), contains therefore no structures.
To give away an idea, and idea being identical with structure,
means to give away a physical, shaped into a structure
(sound, ink on paper, clay tablet, etc.). A structure that
the other would make (give away), when he wanted to induce
that idea.
Since many philosophers after Descartes are Cartesians,
the problem they tinkered with could be called the Cartesian
Knot. It consists of the following two (pair of) statements:
\begin{quote}
Ideas (can) represent physical entities.
\end{quote}
and
\begin{quote}
In order to represent, the two must have some aspect in common.
\end{quote}
It would mean more or less that an idea of very large buildings
or many of them, would contain so many spores of concrete
and brick that the mind cannot hold it. Or, what have
ideas in common with what they represent, if it is not matter or
energy? This, it was thought, must be structure,
ordering, or, as the old classics said: form. It now seems
a perfect way to hack at the Cartesian Knot, but it still
leaves a question. Structure, indeed, is in physical reality.
But, this only when there is mind, otherwise not. The
common factor for both, i.e. structure, thus, is a false
one. It is there, it is not the same in, but common to,
both reality and ideas about reality, yet it is not the crucial
factor for making ideas represent (physical) reality.
As I remember doing, the proof of Pythagoras' theorem, in
which unobtrusively I had used the same theorema, a circular
proof, not true. We must have a factor in common that
leaves BOTH parties, physics and non-physics, strictly separate,
as Plato's mind/matter, or as Zeno's active/passive.
We can think of nothing but time, subjection to time. It is
another way of saying that ideation is solely an operation
in time, nothing else. But then, structures in idea (mind)
themselves MUST be structures IN time. There is no other
(known) possibility. Physical structure only seems (to the
mind) to be like the mental structure, in common is only
time. So we have arrived at the statement that the whole
universe consists of time-structures in the form of matter,
energy, space (physics) and as ideas. They all are structures in time.
There are then, two time-appearances, an amorph type,
duration, to which all in the universe is subject, and a
highly structured time, called matter, energy space, and ...
mind. One may even speculate further upon where all matter,
energy, and space goes to when it enters a black hole. The
answer then is that they merely become UN-structured, they
are converted into amorph time, into duration.
What is obvious however, is that in our (wild) speculation,
time is so far outside the universe that it seems fruitless
to Pythagoras it as 'the square of time-space equals the sum
of the x, y, z, and time squares'. It seems merely mathematical
exercise. We can square the frequency of some
colour but because this is only an operation of a ratio, we
get not the square of say, green. In the same manner can we
summate the number of apples, but multiplied by their colour
frequencies first. Merely exercises.
\subsection{Elaboration 4.3}\label{4.3}
In the case of one of Russell's absurdities, the reader
is reminded of his schooldays. As schoolboy, doing an exam,
one has to answer a question naming the two divisions of a
subject. Due to nervousness or bad preparation, one knows
only one of them, and makes up the second in such a way that
it seems not, but is exactly the first. Asked: 'What are
the two functions of language?' it is then as if Russell
answers?"Language has two primary purposes, expression and
communication".
It is obvious, that communication is exactly the same as
expressing one's mind (feelings, ideas, opinions, notions
and other synonyms). The correct answer, the one that the
teacher would have given, should be: 'The two purposes of
language (in man) are a) a tool for thinking, and b) a tool
for communication. The first one is by far the most utter
important one. In a (theoretical) Avignon or Aveyron child,
one that has been reared by wolves, outside a glimmer of
external intelligence, it is without doubt that it would
have formed thought-symbols for the objects and activities
in its environment. They would be clumsy symbols, true, but
without it he could not think. In the same way have born
blind and born deaf people totally different internal
ideation, though, they learn to use standardised speech
sounds or letters. The secondary function, communication,
came into being and was steadily improved only AFTER an
internal language had developed. Phylogenetically then,
there was first an internal, personal, idea-syncratic (idea
is idio) language in use for thinking. Then, the early
invention of man was developed, the first standardisation,
the first intelligent act (co-operation). It was found that
alongside the idea-syncratic systems, there was a possibility
to standardise sounds and gestures (physical entities) as
an intelligent extension of the naturally grown standards of
crying, laughing, growling, the baring of teeth, etc. Of
course, the system was based on the pair, on the pulse, on
sound/no-sound, i.e. on a steady rythm of repeated pairs, of
marking time, and on tone, which is also pulse, rythm. (The
difference between tone and rythm is solely in the frequency,
like the radio/light waves are only in frequency different).
When this lingual system became more and more complex
(is refined), it came as a shock to the mind that thinking
in that language was a considerable improvement of the former
clumsy method of thinking. Man, then, as we do still,
started thinking in words. There, unfortunately, it
stopped, just one step over random. Today, there is little
serious effort to improve the primitive, inconsistent,
stupid system, and certainly there is little enthusiasm for
improvement. G. B. Shaw, it is said, instituted a reward for
persons who did significant work in merely a tiny facet of
cleaning up (rationalise) language, namely the phonetic
writing of the spoken sounds. I do not know if ever the
reward was given out.
The two functions of language remain however, first to work
with ideas, and second to communicate ideas. As honest scientist
I would say: it need not be the truth about language,
it is only a better theory.
\subsection{Elaboration 4.4}\label{4.4}
As we shall see later, total lack of understanding of the
difference between human ideation by itself, and ideation in
socio, can cause much confusion in social science or mindscience.
Also becomes philosophy often a set of over-theorised garbles,
and the real meaning, i.e. loving knowledge,
liking to know, becomes lost. For example, in ethics
(nationalist ethics and superstitious ethics) there was the
notion of the intrinsic good IN a purely physical thing.
The Stoics allready knew that the qualification 'good' is
not in the thing but is solely ascribed to the thing BY the
mind. This, of course, apart from the fundamental fact that
the only correct ethics is mondial. There also was the
notion of the so-called 'Summum Bonum' and it was usual to
define (?) it as the supreme good, whatever that may mean,
but always without further elucidation. The term summum,
now means indeed the supreme, but also, and the more so, the
sum-total. The highest is after all the sum of all parts,
is more than any other configuration of some of the parts.
Supreme good is practically meaningless, and why should not
philosophy, wisdom, be utterly practical? Is simultaneous
sexual orgasm with eating, drinking, smoking, urinating, and
adding to one's bank-account the summum of happiness, of
bonum? On the other hand, there is a notion that we need
it, in order to teach its ethical value, and that IS a sum,
a total of good, but then for the group, the socio. While
we cannot summate the good (s) in a person, we can easily
summate the number of persons in a group that have A good,
therefore summate the total of the good for the group.
I stick to the term 'Summum Bonum' as meaning the latter
notion, the good for all. As such, it is possible to discuss
the ethical principles with regard to this notion. It
becomes very obvious then, that the good for all may never
be decided upon when it implies the violation of the rights
of one member of the group, of socio. It all is fundamental
ethics and only to be mentioned here, not taught in extenso.
\section{Elaboration 5}\label{5}
Forest-fires are under such absurd investigations, for
post nuclear-war life (!). We are familiar with them as a
front of burning trees a-moving. But what when all the
trees spring into flames simultaneously? What when all over
the city, all wood (floorboards, roofs, furniture, etc.)
ignite together with trees in the parks, fuel in the cars,
the bedding in the hospitals, the tankers in the harbour?
Why study the effects of war, of a war without survivors,
but not the prevention of war, which is mondial sociology?
I did this latter, you reader, are doing so by reading this.
\section{Elaboration 6}\label{6}
This tempering does not mean: no rain or always rain, no
sun or always sun, (wind, frost, ice, etc.) but just taking
off the sharp edges. When e.g. forests are destroyed, as
was already known to the ancient Chinese, (see N. Waln), the
amount of water need not be altered (per year or per five
years or so) at all, but now it comes all in one go, causing
floods, washing away the fertile soil, making landslides, etc.
Tempering no more, means also, causing it to come in the
wrong places, or on the wrong times. We therefore observe
places where there never was a flood, suddenly become
extraordinary flooded, places (or seasons) in which there
never was more wind than 80 km/h now, all of a sudden
experience a 180 km/h wind, etc. When normally, there is 10
mm of rain every month, the statistics remain in order when
120 mm come down in one day during the year. The statisticians
satisfied, vegetation dead. In so far, de-forestation
not so much alters the climate, statistically, it nullifies
the tempering effect of life, the only ordering agent.
Caused by the killing of life, it starts killing life in its
turn, a snow-ball effect. It only needs to be triggeredoff.
\section{Elaboration 7}\label{7}
The principle of feed-back, of controlling a process by
effecting a change in it in accordance to the desired
result, via a different route (channel), cannot be found in
physical nature. It is an ordering principle, therefore,
because idea, mind, alive, is the only ordering agent known
in nature, it belongs to living nature. Ordening implies
purpose, and this, by implying an ego and well-being is
absolutely non-physical. There is confusion though, when
feed-back systems are found, made by man (computers,
controlling systems, etc.). They are ordering systems as tools
for man. When they order things about, they do so on
instigation of man, his 'orders'. We may find ordering, but no
purpose, no ego or well-being. The problem is like finding
what one has put in first, as pseudo-analysis does (Salter).
Feed-back also, should not be mistaken to be equilibrium,
balance, of which inanimate nature is full, nay, is existent
by. The level of a lake may be kept at a certain maximum
because all the water that tends to rise it, would flow over
the rim and vanish. The position of stars and planets too,
are always in an equilibrium, though, no feed-back there.
Feed-back is purpose, is control, is ordering, is therefore
life-typical, is ideational. Balancing is a phenomenon in
all nature, though the first to be USED by life, feed-back
certainly is the second trick of balancing used by life, but
it is only possible in the complexities of life. Just
because of this 'different route' in the definition of feedback.
\section{Elaboration 8}\label{8}
The ancient Chinese were aware of the fact that trees
produce and regulate their own climate. A fact not even
known today in Iran, Nepal, etc. It is written by Nora Waln
in connection with the same awareness in Germany, before
there was awareness of acid rain, in 1937. Speaking already
of a past, she remarked on the awareness of the Germans for
their backfiring policy of clearing (?) forest for arable
soil.
"Instead of an increase in the food supply, they had
less. Seasons of flood and seasons of drought were successive.
Wind blew away soil and seed. Even the rain
changed its behaviour. Clouds floated by without dropping their moisture or else let it down in torrents, to
run away as fast as it fell."
Nowadays, in the same Germany, the writing on the wall (the
'Waelder') is unmistakable. Waln however, has not told how
Hitler around the 20ties, was already concerned with industrial
pollution, long before there was such general awareness
as there is today. The man who simply picks-off the
fruit of the trees (as the animals do), does not harm nature
very much, unless he is overabundant. It is the invention
of implements (saw, axe, fire, etc.) that makes for massive
destruction, at first unnoticed (Athens), now becoming
lethal. It shows clearly what these old sages knew (Stoics
e.g.) that essentials are easy to come by (food, shelter
etc.) and this does not disturb nature, but for luxuries, we
need craftsmen, implements, industry, advertising, selling
competition, and ... the end is lost.
\section{Elaboration 9}\label{9}
The United Nations is not an organ that controls. It is
a debating club (as Voigt says) because it lacks precisely
that what the late League of Nations was lacking, the controlling
capacity. Schwarzschild shows this as the only
particular that it should have had, but was lacking and
therefore caused World War 2. When one wants to control something
and one has not the power to do it (effective sanctions),
one might as well go home and grow beans, not, as the diplomats
did in the League, and are still doing in the U.N.,
talk and talk and sign resolutions. Schwarzschild is a must
for those stupidologists who want to know about the ultimates
of stupid diplomatic bungling. The U. N. certainly
does not resemble a world government, nor is it a forerunner
of it. When you say unite, paradoxically, you mean divide.
Only when you say integrate you mean anti-, or nonnationalism,
i.e. the total absence of diplomats. A world
without nations does not know diplomats, nor foreign policy,
war, treaties, conventions, and other papers of armistice,
of armed peace. When one says 'you are a jew' he is racist,
when one says 'I am a jew' he too is a racist. Both are
first steps to gas-chambers, to torture, experiments on this
lower race, contempt for human dignity. The one who says:
'You are a Jew (American, Catholic, Hindu, Corsican, etc.) is
discriminating, disdaining, some millions of others, the one
who says: 'I am a Jew (American, etc.) ', holds billions of
others in contempt.
\section{Elaboration 10}\label{10}
There is only one natural grouping and that is the family.
We wholly agree with Rousseau here, whatever his absurdities
(section \ref{10.1}). The tribe may then be regarded
as a large family or a conglomerate of some families and has
the natural equivalent in the herd. But with the tribe, or
the herd, as Spencer explains excellently, a new element
appeared. No longer was the individual need (hunger, etc.)
determining behaviour, now, it became the control of the
individual, the chief and his inferiors, the mob and its
members, that made behaviour. In the herd, the animal
world, where irrationality is meaningless, this worked well,
but in the case of the human animal, who had an extra degree
of freedom in ideation, it became stupidity in individuals,
in groups, in the chiefs, the whole organization of society.
In both groupings, tribes and herds, war remains possible
when factions can split off. It is therefore that we can
only allow the simplest form of family, parents, and children,
to exist officially, and have the right of seclusiveness.
We cannot do away with the rights of the kids. All
larger groupings though, must be open, i.e. no membership
restrictions, no closed doors in meetings, no secrecy
(section \ref{10.2}). In this way, it remains possible for a
pigeon- or tennis- enthousiast, to meet his likes, but contempt (is war) dies a natural death.
\subsection{Elaboration 10.1}\label{10.1}
Rousseau was absurd. He was the most utter disciplinarian, yet he did not know it. Every pupil of highschool who
would typefy him as a 'disciplinarian' would not pass his
exam, yet he was one. In his 'Emile', Rousseau states very
clearly that he would not even start on the boy if he did
not obey unconditionally. In other words, he would start
when the work was already half finished, ... discipline.
More about discipline than obeyance, one cannot say. Further on in his book, he not so much states it again and
again, as imply it repeatedly. In his 'Social Contract', he
simply 'must' assume discipline. A contract without it,
simply would not work. We know, of course, that contracts,
agreements, resolutions, never work, but this is precisely
through the absence of sanctions, i.e. and THEREFORE of discipline. In fact, every sharing of sounds or letters for
ideas, i.e. words, language, can exist only by a standardisation
which, in its turn, hinges on discipline. But in daily life
we recognise two sorts. Obeyance of others because
of sanctions, and obeyance as an innerly-felt rational thing
to do, a code. The New World State, will not so much be
based on discipline (hetero-sanctional), but more on a
rational being, a self-discipline (auto-restraintive), as
code of behaviour. No contract but automatic, a code.
\subsection{Elaboration 10.2}\label{10.2}
With the family, in our (so-called) civilised society,
yet another new element appeared. It was the need for-, the
right of-, privacy, the security of one's own place. It
starts in childhood (phylogenetically pre-Neandertal) with
having one's own room in the house, even a cupboard or treasure box, the sacrosanctity of the diary, etc. The mature
civilised, person experiences human dignity by the basic
sanctity of his front-door. Behind it, he can (if so wanted) be as stupid as he think best, and, be free from the
general stupidity of the world, when he is common sensical.
While the animal world labours continuously under a general
feeling of insecurity, during life, the animal that reached
one step higher, man, because of this step, because of his
extra degree of freedom in ideation, cannot live long in
perpetual awareness of danger. It will destroy him soon.
The cave-men survived not only by the use of their intelligence (3 rd degree of ideation), but also because they
enjoyed periods of almost absolute security inside their
holes, or encircled by fires. It gave way to time, leisuretime, for unhurried 'thinking', reflexion. This privacy is
the most utter necessity for happiness, and, in the newworld government, it need be established by law, not by
rules. (A mondial law, akin to natural laws, should have no
exceptions, no dispensations, nor should it differ in times
or places. When the latter are necessary they should be
rules, not laws. World-government would enforce only very
few of these laws, and only with regard to rights \& duties
of man.)
It is absolutely necessary that everybody knows that he
need not admit anybody into his domein, under no circumstances of law except clearcut crime against other citizens. He
must have the absolute right even to be incommunicado, i.e.
not answering the door-bell or telephone. This is so fundamental, when the rights of others are not at stake, that
violation can only be decided by the law-giver, i.e. the
world-government. Even a man who does not pay his tax, or
debts, should be free from being arrested when indoors, a
thief with his loot, etc. On knowing that he will be
arrested when he comes out, he will not stay more then a
couple of weeks before giving up. That relatives hand in
food plays no role whatsoever. But HIS is the choice of
staying imprisoned or giving in, not a law officer.
Naturally, when a man starts producing cyanide gas, or explosives,
an atomic bomb even, his rights as citizen stop, the
rules for dangerous animals then apply.
\section{Elaboration 11}\label{11}
The precise number of 10 degrees here, means only a large
patch of Earth, not a disputable figure complete with decimals, it may be 5 degrees easily. Besides, the degrees of
latitude are always on a large circle, i.e. invariable,
while the degrees longitude vary till they are virtually
nothing on the poles, where there is no East or West. The
10 is only taken because it is roughly the size of Egypt, in
which the significant distance of Alexandria - Assuan is to
be found. This latter, (an 8 degrees) might well be the
absolute minimum for effective reforestation. It means that
some trees by themselves can do nothing in the way of altering their climate, in causing rain. Only large patches,
very, very large patches, will do so. In the Sahara (that
was once green and lush with vegetation), the Mediterranean
(that was already turning brown in Plato's time), in Russia,
North- and South- America, India, China, Iran, etc., etc. many
of such, sufficiently large patches of new forest are needed
in order to make the climate on the whole Earth temperate,
survival promoting, in an effective way. For most of these
patches, a prohibition for MAN, nature's only enemy, should
be installed by the world-government. When a desert has
been replanted, the plants watered until they are strong and
numerous enough to promote rain by theirselves, we should
then, let nature alone.
\section{Elaboration 12}\label{12}
Of this, so ample a literature is available that the
absence of knowledge about it is stunning. Not only has
chemo-anaesthesis been obsolete 25 years BEFORE its invention (1821-1845) though still in use everywhere, the writ-
ings of Cou\'e, Baudouin, Tietjens, Brooks, Satow, etc. have
been confirmed and improved upon ever since. With regard to
the rights and duties of doctors and patients, the 'not'
helping of people that come for help, by ignoring the techniques and science necessary to do so, ... there is a term
for this, that is; crime. After all, doctors are paid
tremendous salaries for their bungling, they could easily do
good work on 1920 level. If a doctor just did what Cou\'e
did, he would be 65 years out of date, but he also would
have 40,000 satisfied clients per year. There is proof
a-plenty, even in 'The Lancet, the Brit. Med. Journ., etc. ' that
e.g. asthma is easily dealt with (i.e. cured!) by words (not
poisons) in one or two sittings. But for this, one has to
study hypnodynamics, the knowledge of ideation in trances.
Right now, there are absurd and horrible discussions at work
about euthanasia, the killing of a person on his request.
What is the truth (unknown to judicature, pseudology and
medicine alike) about it? The patient may indeed request to
stop his life, when it has become unbearable in its suffering, but ... he is under the FALSE impression that there is
nothing else to do against this. Should he know that it is
wholly possible to be painless, without being pumped full of
poisons, but by mere talk, he certainly would not ask to be
killed, but HELPED from this pain. Physicists know nothing
of pain, as long as they do not realise that physical
objects never suffer it. Like all other life-typical subjects,
pain too is ideational. Since it is that, the obvious way
to handle it is ideation, the control of physics.
Talk-anaesthesis is hundreds of years old. A crack as e.g.
Erickson showed it for terminal cancer patients. They could
sit up in bed without pain, as humans instead of insensitive
bags of protoplasm. Any discussion about euthanasia, MUST
begin with the known facts of life, so that the patients ask
for adequate help, instead of death by a help-ignorant
physicist. Euthanasia, then, becomes a meaningless term, no
subject for discussion. Judges should know this in order to
force the doctors to study AND practise what has been in the
books for hundreds of years. These are the rights and
duties of man!
\section{Elaboration 13}\label{13}
Let us be clear about this subject of superstition (s) and
rumours. This with regard to common sense. Wells too, says
clearly:
"There is no evidence of any magic or supernatural
guidance in human affairs. That can be dismissed from
the discussion". (Phoenix)
In general daily life, as well as in science, a theory (is
idea, is concept, is notion, is knowledge, etc.) we hold as
true, we let it dictate our behaviour, as long as it seems
the only one and the best one. But this criterion also
decides what is superstitious and what not.
Superstition is the adherence to-, and the practising
of-, a false belief (idea). This criterion then says that:
when it is possible to take a different idea as guide for
our behaviour and in so doing we eliminate a lot of effort,
energy, murder, waste, time (even teaching time),
the original idea must have been a false one. It is the old
principle of natural parsimony of Occam. Not for nothing did the
old sages stress the keen observance of nature (reality) all
about us, in order to be able to form the correct ideas,
live therefore in accordance with nature, and ... live happy. Life, ideation, is a continuous struggle for control of
structures in reality, and for control, one has to 'know',
not believe in rumours.
The false belief, now, can be caused by spontaneous
deduction, the way all sciences have started and are doing
still, but also, by wrong standards in the community taken
over criticlessly. Compare e.g. the absurd inch, ounce,
Fahrenheit, with an even absurd ten-digital calculation system, the 60 digital planimetrical or geometrical systems for
calculation in decimal, etc. What effort and unhappiness (in
children) is it!
Some false beliefs are internally contradictious, e.g.
the one part is incompatible with the other, though they
both taste so nice. Accepting the whole then, would imply
accepting at least one false idea. The paradox of J. S. Mill
for instance is such a one. It says that: a) one should be
free to form his own opinions and b) one should be free to
express one's own opinions (i.e. to others). The a) and b)
are incompatible, they are 'either-or' forms taken into one.
When a) is true, then b) must be impossible otherwise one's
ideas are formed by others. Similarly, when b) is true, it
is impossible to form one's own ideas which is the a). When
a) is true, it implies that there be no influence (ideational influence, suggestion, communication, indoctrination,
(all synonyms for idea) ). Hence there can be no free
expression by others. I still have to meet with a sociologist who recognises this fact clearly, although Mill himself
had some doubts which he reasoned away because the whole, a)
plus b) is such a nice concept. At Mill's paradox, there is
the superstition of the free will as the base. Mill is
careful to avoid this subject, as he explains in the very
first sentence. Naturally it would put him out, having no
knowledge about ideation. Will does not exist (what happens
is what the ideas decide), free will is therefore nonexistent too.
It is possible that baseless rumours are taken as real
facts. They are ideas about what was in reality while there
was no such thing. They are often taught from baby-hood
onwards. Such a one was e.g. the theory of slaves as nonhumans,
or women being un-MAN-kind like. Today, the actual
slavery of religions, theologies, theogonies, the beliefs in
mermaids who don't like fishing, film-bandits that are bandits (it is known that one got a beating while shopping in a
supermarket), etc. are all wrong ideas, based upon mere
rumours. Because daily life is brimful of these false
beliefs, enormous effort and waste, unhappiness, energy,
time, and war, could be saved by simply doing away with them
(education). While, e.g. earth has only one time, like all
objects, we could save enormously by making one standard of
time, like the G. M. T. When such a time is generally accepted and all other local times be done away with, the saving
in all factors that destroy earth is enormous. A duration
of 14 hours, whether in flight or at rest, would always make
it 14 hours later. Not only would paper be saved, all those
conversion tables, but actual desk-time work by personnel,
possibly a tenth or twentieth of the world organizations.
Since the hour is only a name for an idea, a real-, global-,
time-fixed idea would make it possible to have a man in Hamburg who has to rise and shine at 3, and go to his office at
3. 30, whereas a man in Boston does so at respectively 9 and
9. 30. It would do away with all the stupid bi-annually meddling with the hands of the clocks that has to be published
in papers as well. Only by the deception of putting the
clock forward or back, the false idea must be induced that
it is later or earlier, and ... it gives a real gain in the
yearly energy consumption. Telling the people to start an
hour earlier or later would have precisely the same effect
(energetically, physically) since the idea would do it, and
clever people would not suffer under the clear fact that
they are being stupidly manipulated. As it is now, in
Europe the police force is compelled to make up their
reports in G. M. T for two days per year because they could
not be correct otherwise, there being two 02. 15's one day,
and no 02. 15 on the other. And ... one gets pardoned when
there is a mistake in the protocol of charge.
The belief of a Sunday or weekend, shared by all as
necessity, too, is energy- and time consuming without
ideational necessity. It is based upon a stupid religious
rumour, and an absurd standardisation of Caesarian, Georgian
or Justinian flabbergastery.
When we look at our clocks themselves, a simple analog or
model for the earth's position with regard to the sun, we
see that it runs twice as fast. It is almost un-usable as
working model. While we count and calculate in a tendigital system, the worst system thinkable, why not divide
the day also in ten's, or, when we use the far easier 12
digital system, why not make a clock's face that is divided
in 12 and turns once a day? My pocket watch with its 4 cm
dial, is readable from a distance of five meters, while I
use it at a tenth of that distance. On the same dial, running half as fast, a single hand could easily do, at reading
distance. With a Nonius or Vernier scale, it would even be
possible to know the time up to a few minutes, amply enough
for daily use. Far better, of course would be a revolving
disc inside a ring instead of a hand. Children then, would
no longer need lessons in clock reading. Simply telling
them that the disc rotates precisely as the earth does with
regard to the sun, would make them understand. When thereby, we skip the date line on the globe, but have it Monday
over the whole globe when midnight or zenith has passed the
Greenwich meridian, it would even be possible to shade the
dark part of the earth on the equator and the diverse
degrees of longitude, on the dials. What stupidity has the
child to learn as date-line! On one side it is yesterday,
on the other, it is tomorrow (section \ref{13.1}).
In general, when we develop a social standard and cannot
see that it is a stupid one, when we begin to regard this
standard as a physical fact (instead of merely a name, an
idea), we are superstitious at the cost of much energy,
effort and unhappiness. It is on a par with taking a rumour
for physical fact (gods, sperrits, etc.), and let our lives
be ruled by it. Look at the superstition of money (as physical fact). As soon as we all refuse to believe in it any
longer, it becomes without any value (over the paper or metal), at the spot. It would be inconvenient, true, we would
invent some different money, but it remains an idea, an
agreement, and, when regarded as physical fact, a superstition. The proper division of social science (mondial social
science naturally), is first in a personal ideative one and
in a co-operative one. This latter is divided again into a
rational and irrational one, or, in intelligence and stupidity. This latter is almost taken up by the superstitions,
divided into wrong standards and rumours, etc. Since idea,
ideation, knowledge of our selves and environment always is
binary, is in pairs, (the second pair is I - not I) it seems
logical to make all divisions as much in pairs as possible.
This would be valuable for e.g. the division of information,
for libraries and the like. Not a decimal system like Dewy
proposed, or an alphabetical 26 digital one, but a binary
one.
\subsection{Elaboration 13.1}\label{13.1}
Just as it is almost impossible to read the time from a
model, an analog, that runs twice as fast, is it almost
impossible to make a working model of the earth's revolution
when there are two different parts of the earth, one part
has it Monday, the other part has it Tuesday. What waste of
energy and effort is this, all over the world! Let H. K. Oram
speak:
"A fortnight after leaving harbour we crossed the
International (!!!!) Date Line. Throughout our voyage
from west to east round the world the ship's clocks had
been put forward day by day and now, on reaching 180
degrees East longitude, we had to adjust by adding an
extra day to our calendar. This, of course, was normal
practice when making easting across the Pacific".
('Ready for Sea', Future books, 1974)
This was in the last days of sail and one would expect for
the days of nuclear bombs, we could do better. We could
keep the hands off the clocks and calendars, just as we keep
away from the standard meter or kilogram. Where are we when
we have to change our standard when traveling? Even in
1940, it was possible to have a powerful transmitter on
roughly zero longit. -latit. bleeping away happily the
world-time, 24 hours a day. Because time determination is
calendar and clock, why not have BOTH in one system like
1985. 08. 09. 03. 20., etc. Why, there is a huge university computer that informs the operator of the time of day AND of
the time of year. Due to normal stupidity, unfortunately,
the system (structure, organization) is somewhat lost. The
h, min, sec, first, followed by month (!), day, year. What
intelligence! With a little organization we need not print
and calculate new calendars every year.
Without date line then, it would be easy to compile a
table of sunrise-sunset for all longitudes per latitude.
Longitude calculation, then, would be as easy as latitude
calculation, nay, even less so, because we would not need a
sextant. Shooting the sun at midday, and looking at the sun
at set or rise would give one the longitude and latitude.
Of course we should incalculate the deviations for north and
south for the calendar days. In this way we could easily
check our compass needle. (On all latitudes the sun sets or
rises pure east and west, only on two days per year
(equinoxes) for the rest, dependable on the latitude, the
positions move north or south every day.) Indeed, today, we
have navigation satelites that enable us to just read off
the position by the push of a button, but ... the stupid
date-line still remains.
What stupidity, in science-fictional language, would be
revealed to an alien being who gets hold of a digital watch
(blown into space from an exploded capsule) ? He, she, it,
would study it, watch it (after all it is a watch), and
observe soon that the most active window (the seconds) is on
a decimal basis. But the next one, the deca-seconds, uses
the same symbols: 0,1,2, etc. but only up to 5, i.e. a six
digital system. Then, 'its madness but there's method
in't', the following again is on a ten digital system followed by a six digital one. The next then, the single
hours, is very peculiar. It moves twice in a row according
to a decimal system, 10 digits, follows it with a 4 digital
spell after which the 10 digital resumes, etc. The very first
one, then, uses only a 3 digital system. They would wonder
why a range of six windows, capable of counting 999,999
bits, (11 days in seconds) is used to count only up to
86,400, less than 10 \%. The reader might think (wrongly)
that they would soon hit on a 60 digital system. No way.
First, when using such a system, one uses 60 symbols, a sort
of improved alphabet. Secondly, the very first pair does
not fit (as 24 digital) in a 60 digit system. The 24 is not
even a whole part of 60, is less than a half, more than one
quarter. With a 60 digital system, only 3 windows would be
sufficient to count more than twice the 86,400. Six of them
would count more than 46 billion, i.e. 9 times the earth's
population, or 500,000 days in seconds, 1400 years. Suppose
now, that these aliens would push a button which gives them
the calendar. They would become 'really' betwattled by
this. The use of a twelve digital system, it is true, would
be an improvement over a decimal one, (though they themselves
would use a 16-digit system, this being, like our
compass-rose, excellently convertible into the scientific
binary one), but why use three different digits (28 days,
30, and 31) none of which dividable by 12 and in obviously a
random order? They would be familiar with the leap-year
though since it is to be expected that the seasons do not
fit in a whole and useful number. But why not having all
months the same, and put 'intercalaries' in, like the Egyptians used to do (Herodotus) ? They would not be able to see
that our new years do NOT start at all at significant points
in the seasons, solstices, equinoxes, but at a random point
after such a solstice.
We certainly would soon be the laughing stock of the galaxy. They would come crowding over here in their UFO's to
see how stupid we are. They would find that it surpasses
their most exorbitant expectations. All this from alphabet
and geometry, via self-preservation up till the very governmenting and rights \& duties of man.
\section{Elaboration 14}\label{14}
The chapter itself, nay, the entire book, gives plenty of
evidence for the notion that the normal (!) reader, given
the task to invent a totally stupid society on a planet, a
science fiction, would not be able to hit on one as crazy as
ours.
The beginning sociologist (ideationist, stupidologist
etc.) will undoubtedly want to know: why? Why stupidity when
rationality could be possible, or even would be far more
favourable? For him, we need an explanation. Obviously
too, it lies in the history of man, it is the phylogenesis
of stupidity. First, then, it is necessary for him to know
that, because phylogenesis = (equals) ontogenesis, i.e. the
development of any individual until death, is, as Haeckel
formulated it, a rapid recapitulation of phylogenesis, the
development of the race. It is therefore perfectly possible
to look at the race history and deduct behaviour in individual history and vice versa. The phylogenetics of stupidity,
hence, indicate the why of stupidity of today.
Second, the two, phylogenesis and ontogenesis, are not by
any means physical, as the anti-vitalists, the deniers of
mind-science, of life, would have it. Physical phylo-, or
onto-, genesis is ideational, is done or effected on purpose, is life, is progress (progress is an attribute of
structure, i.e. non-physical (mental) ). The physical qualities are therefore merely a manifestation of ideational
change.
Third, the natural phylogenesis of first-degree ideation
(the vegetative) to the first plus second degree,
(vegetative plus animal), and then to a first-, plus second-, plus
third-degree (intelligence), can be explanatory for the same
stages in ontogeny (cell, cells in matrix, mature adult).
When one looks at a baby, as Spencer was able to note, one
sees the face, (nose openings, forehead, etc.) of a preNeandertal man, and, its mind too is in that state. The
development (mentally) in the individual from two or three
years after birth of the individual, is comparable with the
mental (ideational) primitive man of roughly the Neandertal
quality. It will finally end in the calm, scientific,
rational, clever, non-attached mind (like Epictetus, etc.), in
the true human, but found only in so very few happy individuals.
The stupidity as we know and experience it every day, is
a stage in individual development, comparable with the phylogenetic period after, or about, the Neandertal period.
Further progress, further development, has stopped.
Spencer's Essays on Education, on Fashion, on Progress, on
the Genesis of Science, etc. cannot be missed by the serious
mind-student, the sociologist. They explain more in full
what of necessity has to be perfunctory here.
Very Early man lived in quite small families. It must
have been so, because we exist, hence there was procreation,
survival up till procreation. The needs of the individual,
the only drive behind behaviour, then, must have been limited to practically the absolute essentials (food first, the
rest (shelter, security), a long way second). Men, in those
days, had hardly any intelligent ideas (3 rd degree of freedom over ideas), and were almost clever animals. Like in
the animal world, there was a tendency for larger groups
than families (swarms, packs, herds, etc.), and the advantages of
co-operation. Unlike the animals in large groups
or in families, that remained rational (as seen from the
human standpoint) up to this very day, the tribe of man, the
large group now gained so much efficiency in the acquirement
of their essentials (food, etc.) that a new need took the
place of the original one, the BELLY one. The belly one,
the one for essentials became somewhat superfluous. When
the third degree of freedom in ideation, intelligence, made
efficient weaponry, traps, fishing techniques, and agriculture
possible (fore-sight), the essential (food) became too
easy to acquire (hence overpopulation). The original need
then, shifted to a need for organization. It changed its
place with the new need, the control of the individual.
This, from small beginnings onwards, meant a shift from
rationality (animal-like) to ir-rationality, from natural
logic to stark stupidity. Spencer's Essay on Education,
starts with this very fact of life, namely that usefulness
became subject to decoration, to fashion.
The CHIEF, and later the divine chief that passed away,
the ghost, god, sperrit, in order to make co-operation at
all possible, had to control the individuals. There were
therefore three main principles of this control, namely: the
Law, the Gods, and the Customs (fashion). They are still in
full force today, but in their later specialisations: The
State, the Church, and the Fashion (s). At first embodied in
one man, the chief, there was a development into a priesthood, that was careful to comply with the chief's wishes.
It is thus that we understand the erstwhile mysterious stupidity,
still about us in undiminished strength, e.g. automutilation,
the willful deformation of heads, necks, feet,
the holes in earlobes or noses or lips, the tattooing or
scarring, to be found today (even in students of pseudology).
It is decor over usability, ornament over rational
behaviour, stupidity over sanity (that much we understand
from Spencer's studies). Thus we became infatuated,
obsessed by applause, instead of the former need to fill our
belly. A simple return to the belly problem or to stark
survival, does not, as a rule, mean a return to sanity,
although much of the decor is skipped easily. See e.g.
shipping-disasters (Titanic), fires in cinemas, hotels,
ships, concentration camp life, etc. Starving people in
Africa seem to have little patience with decor, ornament,
but on the other hand, there are starving peoples that do
not slaughter and eat cattle because of (religious) superstition.
They rather let the brutes graze the green away,
the little that is left. Superstition seems so strong a
commanding force, that man readily accepts the right to be
exterminated, instead of preserve his life. Applause means
that we are (want to be) best, in being controlled, yet in
control. We all are controlled by Law and Church, but by
the fashion first, by having to be as the others. It is the
genesis of contempt. We have contempt for what we (think)
we control, we are in awe for what or whom we think controls
us. (We can observe this well in e.g. Hitler, Goebbels, in
the advertisers, the show-business, etc. Applause decides
who has contempt for who, who controls who). (Nobody had
more contempt for the German people, for the Nazis, than ...
Hitler and Goebbels. Nobody has more contempt for an audience
than ... the performer, the show-man. Nobody has more
contempt for the customer, the buyer, than ... the advertisement
designer, nobody, more contempt for the readers
than ... the newspaper makers, etc.).
Was the satisfaction to still our hunger a necessity of the
primitive (beast), we now need the satisfaction of belonging
first, PLUS being the best in this belonging, ... applause.
Hunger being satisfied by rational actions, its replacement,
the need or drive, is satisfied by applause.
While rationality, rational behaviour is practically
always singular (there being only one best solution for
every problem), irrationality is unlimited, no logic
involved. A woman who is stoned to death because she is not
veiled in public (Law \& Church \& Fashion) in one part of the
earth, might be quite safe in London, although there, she is
not to ... In order to cut a long and extensive course in
basic sociology short, let the sociologist in spe, be aware
of the possibility to compare the two historical developments,
the phylo-, and onto- genesis, and remain aware of
this shift of individual needs (from hunger) to control of
the individual, as drive behind behaviour. He should know
that an early stage of development has become fixed for
practically all individuals he meet. As Spencer observed,
all scientists and scientific institutions, (rituals), all
philosophers and teachers, parents, diplomats, chairmen and
committees, all publishers, and authors (section \ref{14.1}),
they are all, not driven by the real concern for doing
the job as job but by the measure of applause it brings.
They are NOT driven by their essential well-being (simple
happiness), but by an irrational substitute, the hang for
applause, the irrational over the rational, by decor-,
appearance-, dress-, stupidity over usefulness
(section \ref{14.2}).
Spencer mentions captain Speke who found that
the clothes that were given to the primitives, the carriers
of the expedition, were not valuable as useful for bad
weather, but as ornament only. Compare it with absolute
stupid behaviour performed fully unconscious, by the command
of fashion. A man can be seen struggling in repeated tucking
up of his sleeves of jacket and shirt, against the natural fit,
in akward rucks (the charwomen syndrome). Should
you ask him, like the carriers of captain Speke, why this
craziness, he would answer that it feels nice, i.e. a, for
him, logical explanation. Hypnotists, know that you find
the same sham-logic, when you induce a man to, say, put the
waste paper basket on his head, throw the flowers out of the
window, and wrap the table cloth around him. The unconscious
hypnotic command, has to be based on a (for him) logical explanation.
In a similar way, let us not become
fooled by the thought that e.g. a parent or a teacher, does
his job because he is concerned with the pupil's preparedness for life,
but let us realise that he does so because a
good pupil, reflects it as applause for himself. The good
headmaster thus, is not so much interested in the quality of
the teachers, or the contents of the lessons, but by the
amount of applause to be gathered by many, by a high percentage,
of pupils that SEEM to be well-educated, that
brings him applause.
Let the beginning sociologist (after mastering at least
the Spencer Essays) visit a pub and observe that most illiterates
AND literates behave on a fixed level of the child,
or the primitive. Their humour, e.g. consist mainly of
laughing AT somebody else (Beadnell studied the phylogenesis
of laughter and its ontogenesis). He would recognise the
higher form of development in humour, past-childhood, pastNeandertal,
that is to laugh WITH somebody. This is the
great secret behind the so-called candid camera programs.
They make you laugh at people, like the child. Wells had
studied Spencer very well, but he had not extracted the
enormity of the basic deduction from it, namely that 99. 999
percent of the people we meet and deal with, are fundamentally stupid,
because the drive behind their behaviour,
behind every gossamer act, is not the belly, dear life, but
decor, stupidity (section \ref{14.4}).
The sociologist who reasons fromout the notion that man is
rational, is developing a (pseudo-) science for a totally
different planet. He would examine behaviour on the false
preposition that rationality is the drive while in reality
it is applause, stupidity. How on Earth are mindscientists,
sociologists to understand Tacitus, Plutarch,
Livy, Suetonius, etc., etc. in an effective-, up-to-date way,
without basic knowledge about control, the drive behind
behaviour? True, one can understand them the way their
contemporaries did, but that was some millenia ago, is, in
fact, stationary, a state, instead of progress, a-moving.
One may feel horror at the incident with Sejanus' daughter,
of Julius Civilis who gave his little son prisoners as
targets for arrow and spear practice, of Hypatia's bones being
scraped, of a Calif who dined on a floor of corpses of his
enemies and all that. But this is not more qua understanding
than the barber on the corner, the lift-boy, a film
mogul or film-star would achieve, mere pub-talk knowledge.
We should know WHY we have not learned more for thousands of
years, AND what we have missed that way, i.e. stupidogenesis,
man as potentially rational, de facto irrational.
An insane bastard for all we know.
\subsection{Elaboration 14.1}\label{14.1}
Since stupidology is so important for mind-scientists, so
necessary to even understand the most daily-life behaviour
(control by State, Church, and Fashion, or laws, religious
rituals, and applause) and ... so amusing and entertaining,
I cannot but add an extra Elaboration, describing something
from my notations during my study. The reader might accept
Spencer's explanation of how all behaviour, even of scientists,
scientific institutions, philosophers, teachers, parents,
officials, workers, etc. is solely dictated by
applause, by decor and ornament instead of usefulness, by
irrationality instead of rationality, but he might have
doubts about war. Surely, this ugly business of killing by
the mass, is too serious a thing to be dictated by applause,
surely only effect counts, rationality is the measure?
The reader would be wrong. War and things certainly are
insanities themselves, yet, they are glossed over by general
applause-gathering, thus, naked stupidity.
I, here, will suppose that the rational in war means that
we kill as many of the enemy as possible, with the least
loss of life on our side, nay, for each person, the overall
dictate is to do the work but stay alive as long as possible. This latter, the old Greeks new already, and, while it
was excusable to lose one's spear, it was inexcusable to
lose one's shield. In Sparta, a man was distinguished for
utter bravery in battle (defending Sparta), but at the same
time punished for doing so as he came out of his bed, naked.
The English officer who, on a cutting-out expedition,
encountered a Spanish officer without his sword, just waited
with his attack until the man had his sword with him, was
violating these principles (stupidity) because, he risked
his life unnecessarily. The Spanish sword could have killed
him. Due to the blood-sport game rules of war, even his
boss, the king, would not have taken it up as such. This
sort of sportmanship, the incompatibility of being humane
while being inhumane, of stupidity over necessity, has been
as old as war-history itself, yet remains what it is,
stupid. Has this an equivalent in modern warfare? Indeed,
when applause is the rule, stupidity should be the characteristic here too. It would go too far to mention
Schwarzschild's array of stupidities of after World War 1, of
preparing for World War 2, of diplomatic stupidity in general. I
did not even note them in my note-book on stupidology
because it would mean reproducing the entire work.
Look at World War 2. What is easier than repeat the first intelligent trick of our ancestors, the standardisation of
(speech) sounds for ideas? Simple standardisation. Like
all the wars one can find since Iliad, they are on a level
of intelligent organization, standardisation, only one step
above random. The. 303 rifle ammunition fitted most of the
. 303 rifles and that was that. It was all very well to have
utter confusion by diversity playing about in Britain, but
is was a different matter when, as in Overlord, the invasion
in Normandy, the poor soldiers had to go and face soldiers
that normally would take 2. 5 or 3 lives for one of their
own. Three different types of ammunitions for side-arms
(Lee Enfield, Garand, Carabine), and three for revolver, 9
mm pistol,. 45 pistol, etc. with all the confusion of shipping and unloading, distributing. Fifteen if not more sorts
of cars with all the different spare-parts, maintenance,
even driving problems. All indications beforehand, during
and after showed that it was to be a show, not serious business.
A show for world-opinion, a show for local newspapers,
a show for the war correspondents, etc. (see Hastings
(1985) 'Overlord') no concern for the lives of men.
When we take the (stupid) battle for the Arnhem bridge
for instance, let's look at Ryan's work 'One Bridge Too
Far'. We shall see that stupidity, silly gathering of
applause was the (almost) only drive. From the highest general, down to the simplest man in the field, quotations are
in my notes as stupidological items. There was a high officer, e.g. who was proud of not wearing a helmet. How is
such a man able to make his men understand that helmets save
lives? Again, the Greeks already knew that to kill an officer is far more effective than killing a peloton, company
even battallion. Officers should even take less superfluous
risks than men. Yet, another officer was so concerned about
his walking-stick, that upon landing (the whole operation
was by air transport) he first went and search for it under
murderous enemy fire, instead of starting 'being' an officer. The highest general, the one who planned it all
(stupidly), had a private applause-battle with the overall
commander (general Eisenhower) about his rival (Patton), and
had won. One of the earliest stupidities, if there is such
a thing in a battle stupidly planned and with a take-off
under a precious payload of life chicken, dancing-shoes, etc.
was the shooting down of a glider on the first day with the
full plans for the consecutive operation aboard. It allowed
the German command to form a complete picture of the state
of affairs, which would normally take painful intelligence
work and reconstruction. It also allowed them to verify the
genuineness of the plan by compairing it with the following
up. The German officer needed not be surprised by this stupidity, since, before the occupation of the lower countries,
a similar thing had happened with the German plans found in
a plane in Belgium. A general worth his salt, should know
Spencer's dictum that 'what can go wrong, will go wrong', he
should also know that even mice can decide a battle
(Herodotus) as an Italian general in Russia found to his
chagrin. The mice had eaten the insulation of the electric
wires in the tanks. All paperwork on the plans therefore,
should have been left at home. Life chickens and dancing
shoes? Indeed, it had all been taken on the flight, a
flight on which every inch and pound was to be paid for in
blood. There was also a man who had taken his hunting-gear.
Rational soldiers would instead have taken extra ammo clips
or emergency rations, sticking plaster or splints. There
was a total break down in radio contact with England and
with the relieving army in the south. Stupid of course, but
the poor sacrificees did not even know that all they had to
do was get to the nearest telephone. The Dutch underground
had fixed extra connections in the exchanges that proved
serviceable (too late). What with the need to be able to
cross the river, and a ferry extant but unknown to the
forces. The ferryman had little to do anyway! There was a
man who risked his life under fierce fire, to retrieve a
pannier dropped by air. They were being shot at by an enemy
who was feeding on their dropped rations, and by ammunition
also dropped for them. He opened the pannier and what was
in it, flown all the way from England? ... red barets.
(Compare this with a precious plane-flight into the German
enclosure before Stalingrad that consisted of ... condoms).
When they had to plan and make their escape over the Rhine
in the night, through enemy fire, what did they do to prepare for the moment? Exactly, they held a religious service
(superstition was just a rife as in Xenophon's time), and
some even had to shave, in order, as the saying was, to
arrive as soldiers on the other side. These stupidities,
the applause dictate, are to be found all over every war
that is known to us. The reader who has grasped this genesis and
workings of stupidity, of applause, should re-read
his very enjoyable literature again. The Herodotus,
Xenophon and Thucydides, the Cicero, Tacitus, Suetonius,
Polybius, etc., etc. and experience a whole new insight in the
people described. It really is all applause
(section \ref{14.3}) that is at the core of the most disastrous or
amusing instances (Apronia's defenestration too).
\subsection{Elaboration 14.2}\label{14.2}
A somewhat different approach towards 'applause' and
'control' should be made here. For convenience sake, the
term 'applause' is used preferably because the term 'control' does not seem to reflect the stupidologic essence so
well. The reality is that applause denotes the measure of
control, and is an indication for on what side one stands.
One is applauded by those being controlled, and one
applaudes the one who is in control. Truly, it is typical
that what one controls, one has contempt for, i.e. one does
not applaude. What we possess, we control, and the controller is more-,
better-, higher-, than what he controls. When
a rich man is heard to say that money is nothing important
to him, ask him to make it over to you there and then. He
will not do so of course, but you have seen through his contempt for what he controls, his possession. On the other
hand, why is a man in say, a train, so angry with the man
who is reading 'his' newspaper alongside with him? It is
not the sheer possession of the newspaper that he steals.
Anyway, he knows very well that the pages do not lose all
their letters by being read unauthorised. He knows too that
this particular paper is valued today as 100 cents but
tomorrow it will be worth 2 cents per ton. No, he is angry
because he loses some control, because another person shares
his reading, i.e. his control. Why would a dog owner become
angry with you when you are friendly to his dog and it shows
affection to you? Certainly not because he expects his dog
to go over to the other camp, but because it shows you as
having some control over what he ought to control. The
reader may safely substitute 'newspaper' or 'dog' for 'wife,
husband, mistress, friend, etc. '. and he will find it applies
too. I have seen a good (?) friendship wrecked, solely
because one party had other friends as well, simple jealousy.
Jealousy is not only with regard to the loss of property,
the missing of property, but also with regard to the
loss or miss of (part of) control. The normal 'attention'
of others to you, is control-indicative is applause. When
lovers hold hands, they practically get nothing out of it
except that it is a signal to others and themselves that
they possess, they control, and they have given up control,
possession. In the pure dog-world, that fellow who puts up
his tail, straight as a poker, indicates that he is in control.
This being not recognised as legitimate by other
dogs, there is nothing that makes them so angry and aggressive.
In nature, in the pack, only one dog has acquired the
status of leader, of controller, and this allows him to wear
his tail upright.
All ideation is a fight for the control of the environment, of reality.
It IS control and trying to control,
therefore, the human fight for applause (control) is natural.
Natural that is, when the other fight for control
(hunger, the belly) has become superfluous. Stupidity then,
is not unnatural, it is only the outcome of the fight for
control, applause. But the rational mind can have this very
same natural hankering for control, applause, but then on a
rational basis. With this, he thus also wants the applause
to come from likewise rational beings, not from stupids (see
M Aurelius A, Epictetus, Cicero, Seneca, etc.).
\subsection{Elaboration 14.3}\label{14.3}
Yet a more theoretical approach to applause \& control is
in the idea, the idea-dynamic notion of 'ascribed authority'. This is part of the (ideational) influencing process,
in particular of the reality dimension of idea. In effect,
it is the placebo-effect. When a 4 year old boy tells you
that it is going to rain next Tuesday, you take it just as
it is, a mere message with little certainty in it. When, on
the other hand, an official meteo-logist tells you the same,
you believe in it somewhat more (a meteoro-logist studies
meteors). His authority (not 'in' him but ascribed by you)
is greater. Should you know however, that the 4 year old
boy has the extraordinary powers to be 'always' correct in
weather predictions (history, ideation is history), you also
give his message a greater likelyhood. In the same manner
are we not likely to go to a butcher for an appendicitis but
to a doctor.
Ascribed authority, is the measure of truth or likelyhood we
automatically link up to an idea. Often, we are superstitious in
our ascriptions. We may think a man who uses difficult
words to be an expert, or one who speaks 'as if' he
knows what he is talking about, a mystery-based argument
about planet-positions, sperrits, an aura, etc. often causes
a high authority to be ascribed. There is an automatic gradation that has to do with numbers for instance. A teacher
in a classroom has a higher authority than e.g. the schoolporter. A lector in front of a university college hall is
yet higher. So is a man in front of a microphone who's
voice is carried over to thousands. Higher is a television
camera, a man on the film-screen, etc., they are gradations of
(ascribed) control capacity. Why should a costly worldradio station, at the cost of thousands of pounds per
minute, blab out names of people, known only to perhaps 10
or 20 other persons in the whole of the 5 billion, in these
so-called request programs? Sometimes for 10\% of the total
music time the absurd calling-of-names goes on. It is
applause-gratifying to know that so many ears all over the
world hear your name, out of the 5 billion. In showbusiness, the trick is to act on the stage just 'as if' you
are perfectly at ease, totally in control, i.e. lure the
audience into ascribing a high authority-rate to you.
Often, hypnodynamic techniques like 'idea-motor action' are
used. This is when the man on the stage or show-master,
just 'asks' for your applause, or he induces a verbal
response in you, by which 'participation', your state of
suggestibility is risen. Suggestibility (in you), is
another word for credulity, for ascribed authority (to him,
by you). Hitler and Goebbels were natural talents (fortunately not theoretically schooled) in this, and they often
used subconscious or sub-liminal trickery. It is known e.g.
that Goebbels, once, when speaking as introductory to the
fuehrer, observed that the clouds were about to break. He
then prolonged his speech so that ... when Hitler came up,
the sun broke through (Fest). This is sheer art. The art
of deception, of suggesting high authority, high control.
It is basic for all stage praxis, all campaigning for presidencies or popes, all marketing, teaching, parentation,
counseling, therapeutics, etc. In the animal world, to which
we belong as behaviourists tell us, this principle of 'conditioning' is the rule and we are not free from it. See
also the difference in speeches between proof which is science, and emphasis (see Dale Carnegie), which is rethorics,
control, applause, authority, suggestion. The animal too,
reacts stronger to the stronger signal (barking, shouting
etc.). Look at the screaming, 10 cm lettering on the frontpages of newspapers. Their voices are so loud (emphasis)
that, taking emphasis for proof, the message simply 'must'
be true (reality dimension). Once, an anti-alcoholism movement expressed its grave concern about the thousands of
times per day that on television, the drinking habit was
actually propagated (apart from the comercials). They,
wholly correct, supposed that it would add and add to the
serious social problem of alcoholism. But then, by the same
sort of subconscious and subliminal NEGATIVE education, the
viewer is also constantly taught to accept and practise,
violence, hatred, discrimination, stupidity, sexual perversities, etc.
You are taught to be a macho-man, a stallion or
breeding bull on wheels, screaming with the tyres, you are
taught to accept the anti-social racing on water or motors,
the mishandling of costly engines, the willful destruction
of earth's resources, its plants and animals, you are taught
the complete absence of rights in other people, the absence
of any duty in yourself, etc. You are taught, i.e. education!
In short, the media are in the hands of bastards. They are
never concerned about the good of their customers but only
about their own applause, their salaries, their status.
The beginning student of ideation, of mind-science, should
study all this ideation theory, all this genesis of stupidity, this phenomenon of ascribed authority, control, applause
etc. The first digit of idea, that is the reality dimension,
is not simply a binary notation in 'Yes - No', but it is in
itself already a whole range of plusses and minusses, Yesses
or No's, beginning with 'yes/no I', followed by 'yes/no
reality (i.e. truth) ', then 'yes/no good', etc.
\subsection{Elaboration 14.4}\label{14.4}
A still slightly altered approach is as follows. Let
one, (the reader) try to define 'emotion'. It seems impossible without being circular, without putting emotion in, in
some way (to like, want to, better, satisfaction, etc.), a
sort of homoiomereia, putting small things in that what we
want to explain and what is exactly these put in things.
But when prolonged and earnest thinking defines 'meaning',
lo ... we find 'emotion'. Emotion, from (Lat.) ex-movere,
from 'to move out of-, because of, ... ', readily translates
into 'being moved', and there is also the cause for moving,
i.e. 'motive'. Hence, the same thing happens when we define
'purpose', we end up in motivation, in emotion. Superficially,
nothing SEEMS more remote from 'meaning' than 'purpose',
yet they both (according to Ordening-Theory), are
virtually the same.
All life is driven by-, based on-, gaining (to have) control, of power over the structure of REALITY. Was life
identical with idea (ting), this also was identical with the
'I, to have' principle. Most basic, of course, is 'I, to
have control', in many cases a sort of control, a power over
reality that fills the belly, provides warmth, protection,
etc. In man, control (purpose, meaning, emotion, etc.) has
insignificantly to do with inanimate reality (physics)
compared with the main-spring, i.e. control over others,
control 'in socio', applause.
Idea is synonymous with, a) know structure of Reality (emotion, meaning, have grasp of, etc. and b) change the (known)
structure into a more desired one (purpose, meaning, motive
etc.). The two are inseparably interwoven. When we speak of
one (e.g. attitude, science, opinion, suggestion, honour,
strategy, fault, pain, image, sympathy, pair, digit, analog,
uneven, false, equilibrium, feed-back, aware, proximity,
macho, authority, base, square-root, etc., etc.) we imply the
other too. Idea knows ORDER, for changing ORDER, it changes
order (law of Baudouin) because it realises itself, the
(known) order being not good enough. When we are not hungry
(cold, etc.), we may try and invent a flying machine
(physics), but always is our applause (control) in first
place, prevalent, even just when we are inventing that
machine. Parents, teachers, scientists, technicians,
judges, philosophers, butchers, the man who clips your railway ticket,
they all want control over mankind first (possession)
(applause), their job in second or third place.
The filmstar has a personality, has poise, is seemingly a
top-ape instead of a mere nought, as she shows you.
How does she do that? What is the observable difference
between one who suggests (to you, the world) that she has
'a' personality, and one who does not suggest so (although
may have one) ?
Simply by showing to be in control.
But how does one show to be in control? Simply, again, by
showing 'contempt'. If possible, good-will (ing), plus contempt.
Thus it is, that one gets idolated by people (suckers)
for which one has-, and shows, the most utter contempt.
\section{Elaboration 15}\label{15}
Naturally, there must be build-in saveguards against having to waste the governor's time with all the balderdash
that mankind can provide. But the serious, and working
ideas and inventions definitely got no access to the higher
officials as is amply proved by history (see also Parkinson,
Spencer, Peter, etc.). Wholly alike, is the treatment of
reports from hypnodynamic experts to governments, patient
unions, the press, etc. Man's (needless) suffering counts not
a iota for them. While e.g. asthma is still regarded as
'incurable' by the physicians, the proof of one case cured
would be enough to wreck this false notion. When one single
case of curation is reported, the statement 'incurable' must
be a pertinent lie, a very potent lie too. I sent copies of
the 12 different pages out of 12 different books on hypnodynamics
(in two languages) in which actual curation was mentioned,
with my report to the Dutch Boer government in the
Nether countries. Since then (1980) the patients still have
to suffer from Seneca's disease, and their answer to me was
naked stupidity. In a decent government, the disease would,
by now, have been ousted from society, or I would have been
imprisoned for lying in so serious a matter as misery for
millions.
\section{Elaboration 16}\label{16}
The South-African Boer war was as much the result of
superstition (the idea that Britain had the right to ...) as
it is in the contemporary war of whites against the black
slaves. It is the result of the superstitious idea that
dark coloured people are inferior, have less rights than
whitish people. (Often with the bible in the hand).
It is virtually the same as the idea that some god has
commanded one to slaughter the infidel (Christians or
Moslems), that my god is far better than yours and so on.
It all is the belief in an irrationality 'as if true' in our
reality, a superstition. Certainly, apart from the colour,
other characteristics of peoples on the Earth may differ, as
the French e.g. seem most naturally the very very strongest
'nationalists' with the Germans in the second place. But
the simple rights and duties just cannot be different by
that. The French have a right to survive, a duty to assist
with this, and so do the Germans, and all black and other
coloured people as well.
\section{Elaboration 17}\label{17}
It seems part of our education from birth onwards, that
we like 'mystical' things. We would hate a life in which
all that happens is logically explainable. Especially so
with the 'gifts of the gods', i.e. illness and suffering, we
do not like simple explanations, but prefer mystic influences. This explains why, on the total failure of medicine
(a continuous IN-crease in illness, no sign of DE-crease)
people like to 'believe' in swindles like acupuncture,
Christian Science, pseudo-analysis, T. M. , weed-treatments,
magnets, prayer, magic pyramids, etc. rather than in a chap
telling you to close your eyes and think only of ..., and
succeeding in having your complaints go. It is naturally
inconceivable that a solution for a serious problem can also
be the easiest method, ... just talk. Sawing away at somebody's leg without him feeling pain, through mere talk, it
is thought, cannot be. Proved or not, nature cannot be that
simple, there must be sperrits. One could not believe this
stupidity in 1985 if it wasn't for Herodotus writing already
about these stupidities a 2500 years ago, and the fixation
in thinking established amply. Today, there still are lectures on mystics and mysticism at universities.
\section{Elaboration 18}\label{18}
Psycho-Analysis was known to be sham, a fraud, in 1930 or
so. It is a superstition dating back from Herodotus' time.
Analogue with psychology, I usually call it pseudo. Pseudoanalysis, then, is an illness of the mind itself, or, as
Karl Kraus put it, 'it is the disease it purports to cure'.
According to Salter, Jastrow said that:
"the historian of psychology in the future may well regard
the great mass of present day psychoanalytic literature as
one of the strangest anomalies and fantastic vagaries of the
early twentieth century." Since this was roughly 1930,
these future historians may still (1985) not be around.
What scientist would dream of putting something in first and
search for it later, being elated to find it then? Freud
himself showed us this sort of science.
"The mechanism of our curative method, is indeed quite easy
to understand. We give the patient the conscious idea of
what he may expect to find ...". Pseudoanalysis thus 'induces' the insanity, whether it is in a normal (?) person or
in a real patient. Indeed it is known that a normal person,
after being pseudoanalysed, appears with a neurosis. Not
for nothing, are all analysts agreed that one must have been
analysed himself first, in order to become a good analyst.
It means that one has to be made crazy first in order to
behave crazy, and induce crazy-ness. Freud was not wholly
sane, a drug addict, no scientist, although, his sexual theory
came at a very opportune moment in history, the aftermath
of the Victorian era. The term 'psycho (logical) analysis' is from one of the (three) brothers Janet, Pierre.
There is plenty of gay nonsense in Salter's excellent work
on it ('The Case Against Psycho-Analysis'). Repeatedly he
has to warn the reader that Freud was quite serious in the
following or the foregoing citation in his book.
The nonsense of dream interpretation has been man's hankering from
time immemorial. Naturally, everybody wants to know what
will happen in the future (especially with regard to football pools).
Herodotus is full of these dream
interpretations. He also, speaks of Xerxes' uncle Artabanus
who had a commonsensical view upon dream content. We
encounter a scientifical topic as 'day-rest' in it, the phenomenon that events from the past, preferably the day
before, are recognisable to some degree in the dream (all
ideation 'is' history). Why should only one dream, in a
multitude, the very last one in a night of perhaps thousands
of them, the one that one can remember (because one awakes
in its tail) be significant, the others not?
I did an experiment myself with 'interpretation'. From
literature, I dug up a report from a dream that the unhappy
subject had made after being shown an emotionally tinged
film (birth of child). (From Neisser's 'Cognitive Psychology',
page 159-160). The pseudological significance of dream
content (nay, reported content) with the prior experience
was then thought to be high. The report tallied, (it was
thought) perfectly with the experience, with the film. I
showed this report (verbatim) to several persons but,
telling a different story of the wretched film, an execution, a fall from a tower, etc. Most of the persons found
excellent agreement with the report of the dream! Freud
was?"An old man who believed in dreams." (Odyssey). While
he was discussing the question of whether a man could have
hysteria (lacking an uterus, a hysterus), in Nancy, people
where cured from illnesses completely beyond medicine of
today. He was the man who would deal mind-science the
severest blow, sanity being completely lost.
\section{Elaboration 19}\label{19}
I would hate to be called an 'atheist' meaning that I
would purport to know that there is no god. It is as
ridiculous as knowing that there is (are) god (s). 'Agnostic' too,
does not seem to fit a real 'free-thinker', he
then, would know nothing. The proper free-thinker would be
one who prefers to live according to influences that 'are'
known (as fact), not according to one of the two unwarranted
statements (god is, god is not). Call me then, either a
free-thinker, or, call me say, 'sintheist', or agnotheist,
when my non-involvement with regard to gods, ghosts, nymphs,
mermaids, etc. need be stressed.
In general, all science and all knowledge, for that matter, all ideation, starts off from a belief. Idea, opinion,
belief, etc. is a necessity for testing the same against reality. Even when this testing is not desired or possible
(like: 'it is a-raining in Tokio' (T. Hancock) ), ideas remain
essentially beliefs, only the accompanying notation of likelyhood differs. Science and scientists reject unlikely
beliefs AND beliefs that can never be tested or confirmed in
any way. Hence it is possible that one meets a scientist
who believes in a god, an influence or other ordering agent
(than life), and a scientist who believes there is no such
thing. As scientists, however, they are aware of the
untestability, the nonconfirmability of their beliefs
(section \ref{19.1}). One shall not find therefore, a
'real'
scientist who attempts the (impossible) next step as in
physics, namely to state what this god wants or what it is
like (the good, the harsh, the all loving, the time-less
etc.). They all know that all steps after the first belief,
of necessity belong to fantasy, fiction, art, to the stage,
the books, hearsay, etc. Zeuses and Heras, Christs and
Allahs, they all belong to that art, all are the next steps
after the first belief of existence, all are hearsay,
stories told by others, heard from others again and so on.
While beliefs are the start of science; fiction and art,
they know, belong to enjoyable recreation or entertainment.
A scientist (a real scientist), thus, may enjoy a Euripides
or Aeschylus, a Matthias Passion or Schoepfung, a Gothic
cathedral, a Greek tympanon, a Leonardo, he or she may even
enjoy playing an Achilles or Athene part on a stage, but
will not sacrifice or pour a libation of costly wine in the
intermission, a leg of a turkey at home or things like that.
Life, they know, should not be ruled by fantasies, rumours,
dreams.
\subsection{Elaboration 19.1}\label{19.1}
Indeed, at our universities (except maybe at those behind
the Iron Curtain), many scientists are to be found who are
superstitious in their daily lives. They certainly are
would-be scientists who think that science is only to happen
(!) in a certain building, not at home or on the street,
that often, their superstitions happen only in certain other
buildings the temples. They are on a par with many teachers
who think that influence (ideation, education, suggestion,
indoctrination, etc.) only happens when the children are properly seated in the school, or like the doctors who think
that suggestion (ideation, etc.) takes place only when they
start doing it, and so forth (Jacobson). (Jacobson teaches
you how to teach others deep relaxation, yet he stresses
most seriously NOT to use suggestion (!!!). It makes his
book both, valuable and ridiculous).
With a 'real' scientist, a person is meant who is a scientist through and through, in his whole mind, therefore in
all his actions and activity in life. Absurd questions that
follow from the superstitions (the difference between a
religion and superstition depends solely on the number, the
percentage, of acceptors of the belief as true, many makes a
superstition into a religion, few make a religion into a
superstition (Locke) ), become superfluous and non-existent
questions. Persons who first believe that a god 'is', second that it (or he, she, they), is the all loving, are
pestered by e.g. the logical paradox why there is so much
misery in the world. This question, naturally becomes meaningless
when no such absurd superstitions are held. With
Galsworthy we might say that birds, animals, insects, vegetable life,
they all eat each other more or less, but they
make no fuss about it (The Freelands).
We should always remain aware of the true cause for
behaviour, instead of the secondary or tertiary 'reasons' we
are so used to. Why does this professor or teacher teach?
The explanation (tertiary cause) of the pupil is: because he
wants me to know ... X. The teacher's own explanation (secondary cause) to himself is: that it makes a good living.
The real cause is: be-cause of his need for control,
applause, security. This thought is valid for everybody
that one encounters in civilised life, i.e. except under
stress, like famine, concentration camp, life-boat, cinemafire, etc.
survivalistic control. It is valid for the bus
conductor who clips one's ticket, the nurse, surgeon, artist, minister of health, etc. (Spencer). The real scientist
rejects the two fields of control, of being controlled, i.e.
the religion and the fashion. The remaining one, control by
laws, he accepts only. It is an obvious necessity, but
then, ... sanity first.
\section{Elaboration 20}\label{20}
When we imagine a small factory owner, who is faced with
the problem of enlarging his factory hall, the gain by simple change of idea becomes clear. Let us say that he wants
his building at least on tenth bigger, add ten percent of
personnel, and then he would be satisfied. The cost, however, is too much. It not only means building cost and
those for new machines, but also architect fee (only once),
insurance increase (for life), maintenance, interest on
loans, higher tax rates, etc. Probably, the new addition will
cost every 5 years its equivalent of building and installation cost. All this, could be done away with by simply
changing an idea. What businessman would not jump at the
possibility to increase his workplace with 2/7th without the
least cost? Yet, when the man simply takes on the extra
personel, changes nothing in the size of the building but
have them work at Saturdays and Sundays as well, the thing
is achieved. It only requires of the workmen not to think
along the irrational line that 'everybody' has to have weekend on the same two days, they all have varied weekends.
The rational idea, correct for our reality, says that Sunday
is only an agreed upon (standardised) name, the day itself
is precisely the same as every other day. The wastes caused
by our superstitious ideas in this respect are gigantic.
\section{Elaboration 21}\label{21}
Undoubtedly, the well-willing reader encounters such
'cannot' opponents. For this case, let his answer be: a)
What do you know about influencing people? and b) When you
oppose, when you fight our common-sense, you are directly
responsible for all that is going to happen, all that happens already in fact (Lebanon, etc.). When ridicule does not
work (ha, ha, stupid ass, you talk about things you don't
know a thing of), we must try the responsibility angle.
'You don't have kids as seems clear, you don't want them to
survive, do you, etc. ' Then accept rational ideas, do not
torpedo them by braying that it is all in vain, is impossible. You yourself then 'cause' the causes.
This is one principle at the base of the 'cannot' statement.
In social science it is known or ought to be known, that it
is typical for idea, to tend towards realising itself.
Thinking and advocating 'cannot', therefore actively causes
the very cannotness.
In general science it is not realised enough that one
should be careful with the 'cannots'. Science is the history of cannot
being made can-like. Besides, what is impossible one does not,
as a rule, investigate. Fundamentally,
cannot is only valid and of value in pure physical science
(section \ref{21.1}), where there is ample knowledge
available. Because pure physics is fully automatic, is for
100 \% predictable when all factors are known and calculable,
we can safely state that e.g. the mass and hardness of a pea
on the rails 'cannot' stop a 100 ton locomotive moving with
100 Km per hour. No such statement is possible when life is
involved.
When there is life, 'cannot' becomes a useless and meaningless term.
A python is usually fed on life-mice. How much
chance is there then, of the mouse killing the python? Yet,
it has happened. Stupidology also, shows how cannot and
impossible are meaningless. Rational behaviour often gives
no more than one or two 'solutions' for a problem. Irrational
behaviour has always thousands of different 'reactions' to a signal.
Today, scientists, medicine men, pseudologists and even
ministers of health do not know the difference between the
binary: 'It is dangerous' and 'It is not dangerous' for
health. They do not realise that the first can often be
demonstrated by somebody getting hurt by it (a clearcut
fact), but the second statement rests only on a (repeated)
absence of such proof, certainly not on the proof of the
opposite (clearcut fact). A minister of health was heard to
state officially that these anti-flea collars of dogs, and
anti-fly strips in the house, were not damaging for our
health. A real scientific and warranted statement would
have been that there is no solid evidence for harmful
effects. Toxologists and pharmaceutists, reckon the effects
of medicines (toxines) in units of body weight. A flea,
then, is a tiny promillage of the dog's weight, and minuscule to a human (baby) weight. Yet, when the toxines are
not broken-off and exsecreted in time, the addition simply
goes by time (almost a 9000 hours per year). One hour for
killing a fly, may result in the baby getting cancer when it
is 20 years of age. We may doubt this, but we don't 'know'.
A same minister wholly agreed to print on tobacco products
that they could impair your health, which is, of course,
true. He would recognise the social havoc, and personal
misery by gambling, yet, would welcome tax, paid over gambling, gambling institutes, gambling palaces, etc. Ministers,
again, are never competent, intelligent, nor, with any scruples where their ego is concerned. Doctors have the same
unscientific attitude towards their trade. 'You cannot get
veneral diseases or aids, from a toilet' is such an antiscientific statement. Again, it should have been put as 'we
have not (yet) found an instance ..., etc. ' It may be that a
toilet-seat is tested and found never to exceed a temperature of 25 degrees in praxis. Also may it be found that the
bacteria or virusses get killed when below 32 degrees. The
'ergo' however need not be valid for long. It works
admirably when pure physics is under discussion, but not
with life. Next day, a mutant may crop up that withstands
and undercooling to 10 degrees.
We pump our atmosphere full of radio waves of all sorts.
Everybody thinks that this is not dangerous because direct
evidence of harm is lacking (still). But it seems likely
that all unnatural environmental influences are bad and
radio waves of this sort, and on this level 'are' unnatural.
Harmful, thus, may be usable as truth, the opposite is not
so, nay often is unscientific nonsense. This, also, is an
aspect of the cannot syndrome, its un-scientificness. When
you think you cannot induce absence of pain in a patient on
which you are going to operate his leg away, by 'mere' talk
(idea-analgesis or hypno-analgesis), you 'make' it impossible first, and you don't even try second. Thirdly, you pump
him full of poisons, you induce an extra shock by intoxication, over the operational shock. One case in this respect
has to be stressed and stressed again. It is Aristotle's
dictum that 'what has happened, is therefore possible'.
This wipes away most of the stupid 'cannots' with regard to
science and medicine but, alas, a world-government has never
been, never even been tried, except in science-fiction.
This certainly is no proof for a 'cannot'.
With Wells we absolutely agree?"No existing government
can become a world government, and a world government cannot
be a large-scale imitation of any existing government."
(The Holy Terror).
\subsection{Elaboration 21.1}\label{21.1}
All this has to do with truth. In pure physics, there is
an absolute truth possible. 'Seneca was', is such a truth
and also 'water is burned hydrogen', etc. This truth concept
admirably suits pure physics, discussions and theorizing,
but not life-involved topics. When one is discussing truth
in an agent (idea) that itself makes truth, one should be
very careful. An idea now, is just that, it continually
tends to make itself true.
An example is the man who has sleep-troubles. Is it true
... ? He says so and besides we can observe it if necessary
as true. When we tell him it is not true, meaning that what
was, was, but that the future is different, he becomes
agressive. His complaint was that he was suffering from
sleep-troubles which means the future as well. 'You tell me
I am a liar?'. Yet, in hypnodynamic techniques, it is usual, when he is in a nice and comfortable state, and very
responsive, to tell him that he will always sleep very well,
without the least trouble, that, indeed, he 'might' have had
difficulties in the past but that these are over now. In
99\% of the cases, his mind will accept this truth (?) as a
newer and better truth (truth clearly being not singular but
plural, an impossibility in physics), and he will therefore
sleep untroubled for the rest of his life. He has 'made'
the statement untrue, because he was told to do so. Truth
and untruth are always more or less debatable when a mind
can effect a change from X into not-X, from X is true into X
is false. All that, of course, on literally the snap of a
finger.
Unlike in pure physics, truth then, solely consists of 'that
what has happened'. In physics, there are truths (expected)
that also imply 'that what is going to happen'. For the
hypnodynamic expert, it demands that in giving aid, he keeps
past and future very well distinguished.
\section{Elaboration 22}\label{22}
Dale Carnegie said that in advertising (group-ideation),
the masses could not distinguish between 'emphasis' and
'proof'. He had it from a candidate for the presidency
(Bryan). Indeed, as Hitler said (and showed, with Goebbels
etc.) pure propaganda without some form of proof (or ascribed
proof, (emphasis) ), is quite useless. True, Marxist systems
use the 'tell a lie often enough and it will be believed'
dictum, but the necessary effort then, is great, dissent by
common-sense remains. Repetition too, is a very usefull
strategy, but always, accompanied with demonstration remains
necessary. Hypnodynamic techniques always use such 'proofs'
by demonstrations from trance induction strategies to the
very curative suggestions (ideas). The (leg) paralytic is
demonstrated to himself that he can, first attain trance,
that he can think to lift his arm without willing it, and
then, that he can walk normally, and therefore, he 'shall'
walk normally for the rest of his life. Demonstration, the
showing of facts, has the highest order of truthfulness, far
higher than e.g. physical laws (that may stop tomorrow, for
all we know). They show a clearcut fact as happening, as
happened, (as history rather). The same goes for Seneca's
disease as well. Pity that he did not know about these
hypnodynamic techniques of 1920 iest Nancy.
\section{Elaboration 23}\label{23}
This book, dear reader, is by far the most important one
in the whole world. Should there be other books that
explain the world-solution for all world-problems, then they
too would be of equal- if not more- importance. The book,
this book, therefore should become common practice to students and scientists of all disciplines of today. It should
be found in all libraries, in all teaching rooms, in all
households and waiting rooms. It must be propagated by all
these thinking people that read the messages on the wall.
Thus, propaganda is needed. There is nothing wrong with
propaganda. It is solely another word for interhuman
ideation, for influence, for ... indoctrination, suggestion
etc., etc. As such, the distasteful smacking of such words as
propaganda and indoctrination, is caused only by the (history of the) wrong uses of ideational influences by a Hitler
or Goebbels or else. The teachings of Epictetus too, were
nothing but propaganda, ideational influence, indoctrination
etc. but ... in a wholesome way. It was Arrian who set them
on paper for us, but in our predicament, this 'Arrian Way'
seems of minor importance when compared with the 'be or not
be' of mankind, taught in the book here in hand. It is
therefore that I, and mankind in toto must rely, and insist
upon massive propaganda for this book, its ideas, by all
well-thinking people.
\section{Elaboration 24}\label{24}
This seems so contradictory to everything most people
have ever heard, that only a Spencer could form the correct
attitude in this regard, towards trade-unionism. Spencer
remarked that e.g. coal-miners on strike, increase the price
of coal, of which ... the poor are the victims, not the governors or the employers against whom the action is directed.
They punish the poor, for a rise in pay. 'No one', says
Tacitus, 'has ever made good use of powers evilly gained'.
Indeed, an organised-, closed-, group or union, is an evilly
gained power. While it is a basic law of ethics that when A
has a complaint against B, this gives him no right to violate the rights of C, D, or the whole nation, in my country
it is allowed to block all traffic on the roads and water
ways. The police force being not able to protect the fundamental
rights of the citizens, the free passage (section \ref{24.1}).
The rights of the citizen seems determined by
number. One chauffeur who willfully blocks the road, like
the one workman who breaks contract, is culpable, but when
he does the same in a group, he goes scot-free. In other
words, not the act (ion) is anti-social, as we would expect,
but the number of doers. The citizen or taxpayer, is the
victim of unionism, of employees with a grudge against, not
the citizen, but somebody, the employer, a minister, who is
himself not bothered by the action.
Mill's paradox consists of precisely this. The right of
every individual to form his own opinions AND the right of
every individual to express (indoctrinate, suggest, dictate,
extort, etc.) his own opinions. The two are incompatible.
You can be willed (commanded) to will, for instance, to
break contract with your employer. You can be taught to be
stark blind (Hitler could make you see black as white), for
the unemployed who would give their fingers for being
allowed to do the very job that you forsake.
All ethics based upon such a paradox MUST be anti-social!
There is only one solution, and that is the most strict censure for the second part of the paradox, a condition. Utter
censure for telling the truth, the whole truth, nothing
else. Such a school or course as Wells meant, simply cannot
teach human rights and duties. Naturally there have been,
and always will be, less scientifical people who are of the
same common sensical opinion about the fundamental rights
and duties of man. They, however, are even less heard (see
e.g. Lord Marsh). All right, you are a worker, you'd hate
to be whipped for remaining at work by some foreman or
employer. But you must also hate to be whipped away from
the factory gates when you just want to go and work while a
strike is called. Whipped by your fellow-workers that is.
\subsection{Elaboration 24.1}\label{24.1}
Although this is not a course in fundamental ethics, a
few basic laws should be mentioned. Laws they are, in that
there are no dispensations, only prevailances by other laws.
The rest, then, would be rules. These laws should be so
basic that they are naturally written on everybody's mental
skin. The first of these is:
\begin{description}
\item
All R\&D's shall be in harmony with reality, (nature).
Then follows:
\item
Earth is the possession of every living being, and
the possession plus responsibility of every healthy and
mature human. The law that was mentioned in section \ref{24}
and section \ref{4}, etc., was:
\item
Actions of others cannot alter the R\&D's of a person.
There are derivates or alternative ways of saying it like:
Actions are Right or Wrong by themselves, not by the number of doers.
Or again:
R\&D's cannot be altered by numbers or majorities.
Which is another way of saying:
All R\&D's are independent of time, place or other
circumstances.
In order to define R\&D's:
\item
All Rights are those that rational-wise, one grants
to others; all Duties are those that rational-wise, one
demands of others.
\end{description}
It is obvious that with solely these laws, life 'in socio',
is only possible on very primitive-, tribal level. For an
organised socio, they must be followed by additional rules.
Thus it is that the resultant R\&D's in praxis differ slightly,
for a surgeon, a traffic-warden, a captain of a ship, a
farmer and farmer's hand. They change when the person
enters a different (class of) occupation, level of responsibility (parenthood e.g.) and so on. These basics always
remain fundamental, no hargle bargle. When, as we see all
about us, there is active co-operation with terrorists,
blackmailers, hostage takers, we might be tempted to suppose
that the victim's wish, to negotiate is prevailant. Nothing
is less true. The future victims of like cases, CAUSED by
these negotiations will all demand a non-co-operative strategy, putting the criminals outside the law (of civilised
people). Co-operation with criminals IS always a crime.
The next R\&D's must all be derived from the above. Many
more ethical laws will be necessary in order to have a functioning society.
>From a) follows of course that the rights of A are the
duties of C,D,E, etc. to see to them. From c) comes the law
that when A has a grief against B, he shall not punish C, or
D-Z, which is the custom in the practises of the trade
unions.
\section{Elaboration 25}\label{25}
Some educational experts, maintain that children are fundamentally 'takers', not givers (like their parents). This
is a truth but ... only part of it. Everybody, all life,
all ideation, is fundamentally based upon 'taking' (I, to
have,). In all nature, parental care for the young is a
very temporary exception. The seemingly altruism (see
Spencer, Wells, Tietjens, etc.) which is in reality 'I, to
have' too, is necessary for enabling evolution at all. In
humans it should be in use to teach the child the selfdiscipline
necessary for the grown-up in a society, a tribe,
a family. The (human) principle is: starting off with downright enforced discipline (hetero), later, gradually to be
replaced by learned, taught, self-discipline. The properly
balanced world-citizen, the true member of society, should
remain a 'taker', but only in so far as is compatible with
the very existence, the rights of other citizens. They have
rights too. Look at the life-example, a life-cell in one's
body, say the liver. Its task is not simply to function as
liver. That comes a long way second. Its first task is to
remain alive (is: to take). The second task is indeed to do
liver work, and the third is to keep an eye on its neighbours. All three come down to control.
\section{Elaboration 26}\label{26}
In ideation theory, mind-science, (the science that our
so-called social science should consist of), the clear difference between vegetative, animal and human, is translated
in degrees of freedom in the ideational process, a choice
making capacity. Intelligent ideation then, the human type
of ideation, is the third degree of freedom, a freedom to
have (one's) ideas at one's disposal, a choice-making capacity that is the only one that extends the rights and duties
beyond those of the lower (?) forms. This extra degree
(over the animal type) also makes for irrationality, makes
stupidity possible, as well as perversity, cruelty, obscenity,
pity, but also art, beauty, etc. all of which are characteristics
not relatable to animals. The freedom enables us
to ask and answer 'how about my rights, your duties', or
'what is the relation between my rights and duties and
yours?' Scientifically it is sheer nonsense to declare that
so and so are my rights, such and such your duties. The
most simple answer then is that we have exactly those rights
that we allow to others, exactly those duties that we demand
from others.
\section{Elaboration 27}\label{27}
All living things can only do, and are always doing, that
what makes them different from the inanimate, i.e. ideation.
A social science that studies everything 'except' precisely
this idea and ideation, might correctly be called a pseudology, swindle, sham, by every commonsensical thinking person.
Mental science, ideation theory, is the only study of life,
'as' life. The named sociologists too, were contaminated by
this pseudology. Another matter is that this pseudology
apes physical science, in order to at least 'look' scientific.
They have slide-ruled it, they are computer, mathematics
enthusiasts, not knowing that social science is so fundamentally different from the inanimate science, that even,
knowing a thing twice is not possible. For the sake of our
(planetary) safety, we cannot leave important matters in
these pseudological hands. Real science is required, a real
science for physics, and a real science for sociology. This
latter can only start with extensive study in ideation theory, in mind.
\section{Elaboration 28}\label{28}
It is clear that governing by the use of chance, by the
lot, the coin or dice, is not really governing at all.
Obviously, the term 'Lottocracy' then, must not be understood to
mean that, the use of coins, only that the governing is done
(according to conscience), by persons appointed
by lot. It must be born in mind that such confusion occurs
sometimes, forgetting the fundamental difference between:
decide (rather 'find' decisions) by lot, and the deciding by
lot-appointed governors. In such a democrazy household,
there is the same difference. It is possible to appoint a
leader, governor, chief, for every 24 hours anew, by the
lot. Whether this is by eeny meeny miny mo, or by dice, the
result is the same namely that 2/5 ths are parents. The
parents, when in the chair, will decide that the kids go to
school, that there is proper food, clothing, sleep, entertainment, etc. This, roughly, happens every two days out of
the five. On the other three, the children will be in command (no school, only sweets, etc.). This is different when
all decisions themselves are taken by lot (go to school or
not, sweets or meals, etc.). Now a coin-spin can be used and
the chances of a beneficial regime improves from 2/5 ths or
4/10 ths, to 5/10 ths, but its time consuming element interferes with the running of a family. Absolute democrazy, on
the other hand, is incomparable with it (section \ref{28.1}).
There is NO chance of EVER having a healthy life. ALWAYS,
the children will win because they are in the majority, the
parents NEVER. Not even barter is possible as in: 'when you
decide today on proper food, I will decide tomorrow on not
going to school'.
But, perhaps, such an organization based on democrazy,
because of the risk of begetting a thrin, a three babies in
one go, may have an advantageous effect on the practice of
not getting pregnant. A solution for the overpopulation.
But democrazy remains crazy.
\subsection{Elaboration 28.1}\label{28.1}
There is plenty of confusion about what the term 'democracy' is, should be, might be, we translate, they call, etc.
Some people think that when you don't get shot immediately
you have critic on the government, others that it is the
right to strike (unions, contract-violation) might be democracy,
others that it is the abandonment of self-say and
choosing some 'representatives' as dictators, still others
think it is democratic when information is made available to
the public, etc., etc. The confusio in terminis is such that
most readers and students soon give up altogether and just
don't apply any definition any more at all. They just garble on.
Let us, for a change, just define it as its very name
already defines it. 'The rule or governing of the people,
by the people'. This is a sort of continuous plebiscite, an
unending referendum, which necessitates a majority rule.
Russell in his 'History of Western Philosophy' comes up with
the following, strange, statement:
"Athenian democracy, though it had the grave limitation of not including slaves or women, was in some
respects more democratic than any modern system".
This, clearly, is nonsense. Even when the rules and rulings
of these Athenians applied SOLELY to the 'chosen group', and
NOT to slaves and women, it certainly was not a democracy.
Slaves and women just 'had' to live there as well. When an
80\% of a people has not a deciding role, it cannot have been
much of a democracy. A mathematician like Russell should be
more careful with percentages. On the other hand, our proposed humane governmental system here, namely 'Lottocracy',
was thought to be democratic by him. His next sentence
reads:
"Judges and most executive officers were chosen by
lot, and served for short periods".
I would not call our lottocracy a democracy, but a dictatorship
by conscripts, appointed by lot (non-discriminatory).
Was Russell's mistake a slip of the printer, it being read
as 'aristocracy' instead? No ... ! He repeats it some sentences further on:
"Athens was rich and powerful, not much troubled by
wars, and possessed of a democratic constitution administered by aristocrats".
There is no mistake here. But, ... the Athenians themselves
might have called it so? Yes, but Russell wrote in 1947,
and should have been fully aware of the fact that those
slaves and women were just as human as we are, just as human
as that 'chosen group'. Moreover, other classics clearly
regarded this democracy as a fit punishment for their enemies. The best thing here, in order to make discussion at
all possible, is to stick to democracy as being: the power
to rule the people, to the people, i.e. quite inhumane
enough.
\section{Elaboration 29}\label{29}
This looks like an attack on our contemporary primeministers, presidents, commissars, etc, yet it is not meant
to be so. It is a simple statement about a social scientific topic,
a scientific statement that can never be interpreted as an insult.
Scientific truth is independable of
flattery or insult. Saying: 'You are an ass (pig, rat,
etc.) ' is an insult. Scientific truth says that you are not,
since you are a human. But declaring: 'You do speak
untruth', or, 'you speak of things unknown to you', 'you
speak of things as certainties that are unknowable for every
human being', or again, 'you decide over people's fate without competence, your acquired authority is illegal', etc., etc.
may be interpreted as an insult, but is in fact based upon
pure facts, science. If it is insultive, the facts are not
so, but those who are producing these facts. It is their
own doing. Whether the diplomats will like it, or whether
they themselves can help it that they are doing a job for
which they are not qualified nor capable, has nothing to do
with the adamant fact 'that' they are such. After all,
everybody knows that killing and torture goes on all the
time on the globe, that large areas are devastated and
deforested, that a huge number of citizens are hungry
while others eat three times what they need, and throw for
the pigs half that amount, that there is a butter-mountain,
a milk-lake, a wine-pond, a beef-pile, vegetable oil-streams
etc., that tulips are grown in costly hothouses, on prime
soil. They, the governing people of today, are the only
ones that 'can' govern so as to clean this up, are therefore
totally incapable persons. Except an Asoka, a Pericles or
other very long ago governors (when the problem was not yet
known, the solution very well known, e.g. to Socrates),
there has never been a proper prime-minister or president
who was capable to realise his job properly. This scientific
statement can easily be verified in reality. For the
sake of decency, taking the dead ones like Churchill and
Roosevelt during World War 2. They tried to create some
order for the future chaos (that we are in), but did they
ever realise that they were representing a fundamentally
'illegal' government? When the answer is no ... they were
not capable to govern at all, when yes, did they ever act
accordingly? At least the second answer is sufficient to
allow the scientific statement of they being not capable,
being in fact far worse than every child that knows these
things, knows that Earth is every citizen's possession, that
all governing should be done in the name of all these citizens, otherwise 'is' illegal. The reader applies the same
test to whatever governor of today, he wishes to. The outcome remains the same. Totally unqualified and incapable,
illegal persons, doing an illegal job of governing only
'part' of earth, part of its citizens, 'a' nation. Is not
your heart getting chilly when you hear the president of the
most powerful nation speak of Christian principles and democratic ways? Superstition as the rule, and democrazy!
\section{Elaboration 30}\label{30}
Doing what the electorate wants, whether on world-scale
or not, cannot be what is of necessity crucial or desired.
Each and every individual 'in' this electorate only wants to
use up Earth's riches for his own fancy. He does not care
about devastation, deforestation, lethal pollution, gigantic
famine as long as the place or the time (future) is pretty
remote. It is why he demands democrazy. He soon perceives
that the others want it so too. They also want to destroy
earth as soon as possible. To curb this lethal attitude,
when re-education (so that they alter it) does not work, the
world-government must 'enforce' the necessary rules to deal
with Earth and its riches. This is against the desires of
the population, against the electorate, and need only a
duty-bound, lot-appointed government. It is impossible by a
democrazically 'chosen' government. In the same manner,
will the writings in this book be contrary to-, hostile to-,
all casual readers who do not think. They will see all of
it as a danger to their pleasures, to their so-called happiness, which is the using up of earth's liveability. Like
the electorate, or the members of unions, all they want out
of life is more money for less work. This book, on the other hand, is written for naked survival. It will appear
then, that a properly organised (governed) world-society,
promises even less work, and far more (but different) happiness.
\section{Elaboration 31}\label{31}
The most careful study cannot result in finding a substancial
difference between the Nazis from 1933-1945, and
the U. S. S. R. system of today (Idi Amin, Khadaffi, etc.).
Difference in praxis that is, not in words. Apart from
insignificant differences in language and names (G. P. U. or
K. G. B. for GESTAPO, the original GESTAPA, etc.) the substancial similarities are those with regard to the rights and
duties of man. Hitler, Goebbels, Ribbentrop, etc. realised
very well that they were doing and thinking the same as
Stalin (see Fest, Bullock, Toland, etc.). That Hitler
attacked the Soviet Union was not because of a clash in ideologies, but because he wanted the 'Lebensraum' the living
space of it and the slave (Slav) workers for his economy
(Mein Kampf). During the Nazi election campains, the easy
and rapid switch of communists to the 'party' fooled nobody.
Ribbentrop reported that he felt among 'comrades' in Moskow.
It is also clear why so many Eastern peoples first thought
they were liberated from communism, yet soon found that they
were under the similar heel of the same boot. Marxism, and
Nazism, both are not theory, nor even hypothesis, but simple
superstitions, religions. F. A. Voigt is a must for those who
want to know more about the basic similarity of the two.
\section{Elaboration 32}\label{32}
The set up of both these institutions, the League and the
U. N. , could have been workable to some degree though, by the
aid of proper pooling of forces, armed forces. Had there
been a 'really' integrated army instead of a united one,
i.e. consisting of donated soldiers from all countries 'BUT'
properly mixed, this 'superpower' had been able to enforce
peace in the case of Mantshuria, Abbesynia, Germany, (and
today, Lebanon, Iracque, Shri-Lanka, Ireland, Punjab \&c,).
A single such integrated company of say 150 soldiers, could
have consisted of e.g. 20 Americans, 10 British, 10 Germans,
10 French, 1 Dutch, 20 Indian, 20 Chinese, etc. all mixed in
sergeants and captains and so on. Naturally this would have
lead to a necessesity for world-headquarters, although the
chances are that this would have been a diplomatic one, a
debating club. After all, the illegality of the national
governments would soon bring them to clash with this worldarmy,
this world-police-force.
What if the forces of, say, Operation 'Overlord', the invasion on the Normandy coast, had been by a cleverly organised
army, as fully 'integrated' as all that? Poles, Canadians,
British, Irish, French, etc. fully mixed up, thoroughly
integrated, using the 'same' weapons, tools, transport,
ammunition, uniforms, distinctives, signals, codes, etc., etc.
would certainly have not suffered half of the casualty
lists. Organisation always must start with standardisation.
This, of course, introduces the element of inflexibility,
inelasticity, rigidity, but this is only where rigidity is
of no consequence. Standardisation, making a habit of-, a
custom-, relieves one of thinking and deliberating efforts,
of searching for an answer to a problem. Once you have made
it a habit to have your keys always in the same pocket
(standard), you never have to think or search, in fact,
reaching for them follows fully automatic. When all rifles
are the same calibre, and so is the ammo, the cartridges fit
all, no searching for 'good' uns. This is only a first
step. The next would have been, 'only one type rifle for
Overlord, only one type a rifle ammo', and so through the
whole gamut.
A war or invasion, of necessity, needs very, very much flexibility
of course. But a flexibility based upon a rigid-,
strong-, standardisation in ALL tools for it, humans as well
as cannon, and preferably the best (the German Panzerfaust
for instance), gives the optimal scope for utter flexibility. When you have to put so many costly lives, against
superior soldiers, who are in the advantageous position of
defence (and on dry land), the organization of your army
should not stop at one step over random. On the contrary,
as many steps in standardisation as possible, should diminish the waste of lives. The first intelligent act of man
'in socio', in co-operation, was standardisation (sounds for
ideas), why not intelligise it further when so much is at
stake? See also, Hastings, Churchill, Ryan, etc.
\section{Elaboration 33}\label{33}
I have heard of an employee who monthly put up his payment envelope for a raffle. On payday, each member on his
list paid him 10 units, for the chance to win his envelope
containing roughly 300 units. He fared very well by this,
because the total payment he gathered often was more than
double the pay he lost. Naturally, somebody had to put a
stop to this, using some law or other. The nature of this
law, obviously is contradictory to the very basic fundamental rights of the individual. Nevertheless, there is some
need for such law, when living in a totally crazy society.
In the one here proposed, there will not be a need for such
rights-violating laws, nor will they exist.
\section{Elaboration 34}\label{34}
Naturally, all State-, County-, City-, services, like
firebrigade, waterboard, ambulance, etc. are fundamentally on
the principle of pooling. The citizens pool their money, in
that they pay tax for these services. 'The State' is not a
different body that 'provides', but the provisions 'are'
citizen's property. As Spencer frequently points out, the
state is often seen as a more or less unrelated body for the
citizens. It needs education to tell them that it is a mere
convenience of pooling. The state is not there for itself,
the citizen not for the state, but the state serves the citizency.
\section{Elaboration 35}\label{35}
For shame, that it was a pope who protested strongly
against deadly entertainments like motor-racing, mountaineering,
boxing, etc. He did it on grounds of a superstition,
the will of some god. We do object to it because they
risk other people's money, property, efforts, even life.
Besides they are stupid expressions of the empty heads, with
lots of money, the 'Golden Sheep', the unhappy because of
too much money. What is there against you not putting on a
safety belt while driving? Well, when you risk a brain damage unnecessarily, an expensive treatment in hospital,
whether insured or not, society pays for it. You are
allowed to take such risks when you (can) pay for it 'out of
your own pocket', AND provided that nobody else is risked
for your pleasure. In mountaneous countries, it is logical
that there should be a group of experienced men, available
on call, for those cases of people or children being lost.
But on no account should they risk their lives for tourists
or pleasure climbers.
\section{Elaboration 36}\label{36}
The basic workings of all life, of all ideation (which is
synonymous) are by the grace of an 'ego' that has a 'wellbeing'. By this, even the very cells of an individual
remain alive, therefore capable to function in the organ,
hence the body. Apart from a single-cell individual, as
said before, the cells in a body have three tasks. The very
first one is: 'staying alive' (is ego, is well-being, is
feeding, is 'I, to have'), the second is doing the specific
job it is designed for, the third is, keeping an eye on its
neighbouring cells, and report deficiencies thereof. The
principle of 'I, to have', only, is fundamental for everything that has to do with life. We have to look at Spencer
to explain how the seemingly inconsistence in e.g.
unselfish, altruistic, (looking) acts like e.g. a pilot who
does not abandon his machine because it would mean that it
crashes in a populous area, thereby losing his own life, is
in reality consistent with the 'I, to have' principle (see
also Tietjens, etc.).
There cannot be a doubt whatsoever that 'I, to have' is
definition of-, and synonymous with-: alive, mind, meaning,
idea. It also explains why 'love' does not exist in the
romantic form of our novels, newspapers, radioprograms and
other (mis-) educations. The superstition of an 'I, to
give', because 'I love you', is easily unmasked as a pure
'I, to have', by asking a simple question.
\section{Elaboration 37}\label{37}
Often, I have maintained that in our universities, the
required so-called handbooks for social science could well
be done away with. They teach only nonsense, trivialities,
at the most some insight in physics or biologic physics. I
would propagate for social scientists, the study of, first
of all, the old ones like Xenophon, Aristotle, Plato.
Herodotus, Tacitus, Polybius, Plutarch, etc., etc. but also
the 'good' science fictions that are written by clever
thinkers in social affairs. John Wyndham e.g. is such a one
(and Hoyle, Forester, Wells) (section \ref{37.1}). He
shows us society in ruins, and the normal nature of man coping with it. This is far more effective for learning social
science, the core of man-typical mental science than biology. But the Reader beware of trash writers. This is why we
should not merely advise students to take to sc. fic. , but
we mention specific books and authors. I myself have some
of the pulp writers. They cannot paint reality, except by
means of military (low grade, lower deck) expressions,
always sexual. No such expressions are found in e.g. Wyndham or Forester, Wells, Hoyle. They need no vulgarity in
order to sham capability, to promote sales. Naturally there
are ideation experts, the 'real' social scientific eminents,
like Locke, etc. very much worth studying, but these are
decidedly not vital in contemporary social science (but
Seneca, Epictetus, Cicero, etc. are). Cou\'e, Baudouin, Satow,
Tietjens and the like, remain basic material for ideation.
Then, of course, there is the 'Utopia' form as method of
teaching how a 'socio' might be run. There are plenty of
them (from Plato onwards), most sc. fic. are such. I have
encountered only one, who seriously stated the scientific
truth, that a 'good' Utopia cannot but be a mondial one
(Wells' 'A Modern Utopia'). One is not in a very good
Utopiatic island when a hundred kilometers to windward,
people explode atomic bombs. Nor is one's Utopia very gratifying
when it uses to pollute the sea and air, damages the
Ozone layer, for us all.
\subsection{Elaboration 37.1}\label{37.1}
The mind-scientist encounters sheer art in, for instance
Wyndham. When studying digitalisation and the concept of
'now', (now being non-existent) he may find?"Duration is
nothing ... The importance of a point is in its existence;
it has no dimensions". And then?"For intelligent life is
the only thing that gives meaning to the universe". This is
admirable! Or see?"The passion for order is a manifestation for the deep desire for security." It is basic
ideation theory and 'Ordening Theory'. There is his:
"Nature is a process (analog) not a state (digit) - a continuous process". Then, there is?"Most people prefer to be
coaxed or wheedled, or even driven. That way they never
make a mistake: if there is one, it's always due to something or
somebody else. They have minds of their own -
mostly peasant minds, at their easiest when they are in the
familiar furrow". There is plenty more in Wyndham apart
from all that is already used in our text. Compare Wyndham's
"Vision is a poor word - all quantity and no
quali- ty." with Hoyle's?"Our appreciation of music has really
nothing to do with sound, although I know that at first
sight it seems otherwise". Forester shows us the 3 rd
degree in ideation, intelligent ideation?"But more than
that; he was making a bow not for instant use, but against a
future need, displaying that thought for the morrow which
enables man to rise superior to the animals about him".
This is in line with mind-science which expressed it as man
being not different in using tools (as most animals do), but
by his being a bag carrying ape (see Scientific American,
January 1970 page 52), indicating his preservating of tools,
is foresight, is intelligence. And is it not pure gold to
read in Wells' s. f. The Holy Terror, how?"Mrs. Whitlow was
a woman of some intelligence and she had had a good, modern,
education which had confused her mind considerably." No
mind-scientist, educator or sociologist, as said before, can
do without Spencer's Essays. But can he do without grasping
the quotation of Wyndham: 'there is no you, you are ... ?'
\section{Elaboration 38}\label{38}
This is the normal principle in living nature i.e.:
'hands off, let go, do not interfere', etc. All meddling with
living nature by man, is life destructive or damaging.
True, some things may improve by a manipulation of man, his
'making changes', but this 'changing' has to be very, very
carefully calculated before deciding on it. On the other
hand, to decide doing nothing, or vote against doing something, can never harm because it is in line with all nature.
Shall I pick this flower? Does it make a gain? No! Then
leave it alone! Shall I cut down this dead tree? Is there
gain in't? Yes, it threatens to fall on a children's playground. Then, do cut it, but in future, see to it that
trees in playgrounds remain healthy, are not damaged by the
children. Shall we put copper needles into Earth's orbit?
What is the gain? Improvement of radio communications.
What is the danger? We cannot calculate what the effects
would be (like in the first atomic bomb). Then, by all
means, don't do it, it is irrepairable! This rule of
nature, of 'let go', is so important that in the future
world-government, changes in nature must be decided on by
unanimity (minus one vote), but decisions NOT to do something need only 3/4 of the total.
\section{Elaboration 39}\label{39}
It is known that imitation is the fundamental principle
of ideation (is life). On very first sight it seems that
there are more principles involved which is very surprising
in so far that it is unlikely that nature should develop a
new phenomenon, (life, ideation, etc.) that consists of several new principles thrown together, instead of only one.
Nature always takes the simplest way. Life should be only
different from the inanimate in one aspect. Schopenhauer,
according to Schofield, said that
"The language of nature is not understood because it
is too simple."
But there is for instance the principle of ideation (life)
called feed-back, an 'ordering' principle, there is the
principle of digitalising an analog (process), there is the
principle of pairing the digits in order to form 'meaning',
there is the principle of representing reality, the principle of realising itself (an idea tends to realise itself)
etc., etc. Close observance reveals the fact that all these
principles are but so many (parts of) synonyms for idea, is
imitation, is meaning, is order, is digitalising, etc., etc.
Only the names are different. It is also where pseudology
went wrong. Attitude, memory, cognition and so forth are
studied (?) as different entities, in different college
halls, by different books, even in different floors or
buildings. In fact, they are all the very same thing under
different names. Ideation is memory, reaction time, personality,
is problem (solving), curation, anaesthesis, conditioning,
trial \& error (to name a misnomer (section \ref{39.1}),
sympathy, etc. Replace all these terms and divisions by
'ideation', study this latter, and pseudology becomes a true
'mind-science'. The principle of ideation is one and the
same thing, ... imitation. But imitation implies, a pair, a
comparison, that is to say a sequence which, in its turn
implies the past, or memory, but also knowledge, therefore
feed-back, purpose, etc. The lady in the shop who takes out a
sample of green, and holds it near to the dress, in order to
see whether they match, is not conscious that she does so in
order to diminish the 'memory' time, by shortening the distance, although the 'pair', the binary nature, does not
escape her. All that, is just going round in circles, finding the names of the parts of the circle again and again.
Imitation, is a fundamental principle, and is very potent in
learning (from experiences of others), in avoiding to deliberate over strategies (problem solving), etc. It often is
the easiest way out. In mob behaviour, it is practically
the only ideational principle. It is therefore suitable
solely for rough and ready ideas, no refinery here. The
intelligent person is fully aware of this, hence his
loathing of mobs, of robot-type humans, of habitually empty
minds, not alive, but being lived (Epictetus, Seneca, Tacitus, Theognis, Cicero, M. Aurelius A. , Gautama, Confusius
etc.). The thinking human would not act upon: 'There is the
bastard, kill him!', but would question the guilt, or the
necessity, the rights of man, the dignity of his genus. In
the mob it is always war conditions, and with Thornton Wilder:
"The great thing about war is that it makes murder
legitimate. It permits Mr. Jones and Mrs. Jones and little
Junior and dear little Arabella Jones to come out of the
bushes and yell 'Kill 'em!' It is called patriotism".
This patriotism of course, is group-consciousness, mobbehaviour. The mob would not be able to think, but would
act on the rough signal. There is no place for critical
consideration.
\subsection{Elaboration 39.1}\label{39.1}
Trial \& Error, is one of the clothes-pegs that is in use
for verbalisation without knowledge of what one is talking
about. 'To try' really means a purpose, a strategy to reach
a goal. When a dog, in chasing a cat, scratches at the
tree, barks against it, it is not trying to climb trees. It
only wants to reach the cat. When, in so doing, it should
'learn' to climb trees, this is not because it tried to do
so, but because it wanted the cat. Children playing about
in water, 'might' learn to swim. They just play, are not
trying to swim at all. In general, when you 'try' to do A,
and in so doing, you learn to do B, this is not trial \&
error. Only when you try to do A, and succeed (after failures) in learning A, is the term trial \& error applicable.
In many uses of the term, it is applied falsely (in pseudology that
is fond of putting on labels, and certainly of slogans).
\section{Elaboration 40}\label{40}
It is a misconception to think that one is only in a
group, and subject to group-consciousness, when the other
members are near, in visual and auditive contact. Since all
ideation can only take place 'inside' every individual,
never outside him, it is clear that to feel as a group-member,
one needs not the proximity of the group itself (i. e exterior to him). One can be suggested (idea) to belong to a
group alongside the suggestion of what he should do as such.
The consumer e.g. is a member of the group 'consumers' (virtually the same as 'electorate'), he knows this, and that is
enough. Advertising therefore also has the typical tuningin for
six-year old intelligence (see Dale Carnegie, Hitler etc.).
In close proximity, only, it is called 'mob', it is where
rationality may disappear entirely. One is swayed totally
by pure animal, emotional cues. Forester shows his knowledge of crowds in e.g. 'The Ship'.
"Panic can seize a crowd or individual, making men run
for no known reason in search of no known objective; in
panic men shake with fear, act without aim or purpose,
hear nothing, see nothing."
The individual is only so in panic, in crowd he is always
so. The Mob is different from the group-consciousness only
in being somewhat pronounced. The childlike quality of the
emotions and the overall-, general-, nature are admirably
put by Thornton Wilder again.
"Now mind you! I don't say that everybody wants
everybody dead. We all belong to little clubs. We want
the members of other clubs dead; we only want the members
of our own club STUNTED. A man wants his wife stunted
and vice versa; a father wants his son stunted and vice
versa".
The capitals are his. Such group-consciousness, as mob,
will un-man the individual, depersonalise him, and, typical
for herd animals that never stampede at half-speed, the
individual is in life-danger. Wyndham's keen insight in
depersonalisation, made him say that 'normality' goes always
with a loss in individuality. Indeed, the person in the
mob, simply 'must' be normal, i.e. be exactly like the rest,
i.e. imitation. Why was Hollard immediately imagined by the
crowd as spy, as the enemy? Because he was recognisable as
acting rationally. The only one, in that dreadful-,
panicky-, milling of fugitives from the Germans. (Hollard
came to the conclusion that in a panic situation (in mob),
the one man that shows being 'in control' of his mind, is
suspect. See Martelli's report of the story in 'Agent
Extraordinary', Collins 1960). The old and wise classics,
knew already that simply participation in a mob, endangered
one's very life (Seneca, Epictetus, etc.).
The consumer, on the other hand, would hardly become
aware of the (non-proximate) other members, but just through
sub-conscious and sub-liminal messages in advertising the
approach 'as if' he is a child, he becomes child-like. With
the suggested command to consume, you get also the suggested
command to belong to the consumers. You are actually commanded to refrain from thinking, you are to be a robot, an
empty mind. In our country, we have a sham committee that
purports to 'protect' the television viewers from being misused by the advertisers. It has concocted a set of rules
for advertising and the public is encouraged to enter their
critics. Naturally, they have not a iota of scientific
knowledge about ideation, (is suggestion, is indoctrination,
is deception, etc.), and they maintain e.g. the truth principle. You are not allowed to advertise that something is
good for your health, if it in fact is not so. But, then,
you are fully allowed to 'suggest' that you like people to
have the good things, that you have the people's welfare at
heart, while all you want in reality is to get their money.
A more fundamental deviation from the truth is hardly imaginable, nor is it in any way in the interest of the public.
Needless to say that the rules also forbid the use of subliminal
influence (section \ref{40.1}). There also, is no
mention of what to do in cases where the truth cannot be
known. Common sense commands that one is not allowed to put
these statements 'as if' true. What we know to be the
truth, we are allowed to say (via such powerful suggestive
medium), what we do not know for certain we may present as a
theory, a possibility. But what we cannot know, nor anybody
else, we'd better keep out of public discussions. What to
say of the advertisement for flowers, the message that:
'flowers love humans'? We might be correct in supposing
that our dog has a liking for us. We may deduct it from its
behaviour, besides, we give it food, a bone even.
With vegetative life, even this is impossible.
It is far more obvious that flowers hate the human's guts,
because they kill
and kill. Humans, the only enemies of nature, cut off the
flowers, thereby maiming them or kill the very plant. There
is nothing comparable in stupidity with the plucking of
flowers, putting them in a vase. If it was not the advertising that they love humans!
\subsection{Elaboration 40.1}\label{40.1}
Subliminal suggestion is somewhat the opposite of the
placebo-effect. In the latter, you are being told (consciously)
a half-truth ('this is a medicine, you get well
through it' (the first part is a lie, the second may be
true, be made true) ), in the former, the subliminal, you are
told (commanded) something, without knowing it consciously.
When, as I saw at a laboratory for pseudology, you see a
pseudiatrix trying to perform a telephone conversation at
the hall-desk, against the pure physical law of gravitation
that works on her sleeves, you know it is by subliminal command
to continually tuck-up her sleeves, because it is the
fashion. While blouse and jacket stubbornly fight to take
up the most comfortable position, i.e. right down to the
wrist, she fights back to each in turn by tucking and tugging. She saw (subconsciously) a filmstar doing it and that
was enough for her. Such, is the force of subliminal commands.
Subliminal suggestion (ideation, etc.) is even forbidden in
some countries, but, in line with general stupidity, it is
not possible to detect, save for the man who produces it.
In some cases, it 'may' be detected but only so by the aid
of costly aparatus. When in a shop e.g. it is used through
the loudspeaker system that for the normal ear produces
music (?), by sub-audible suggestion that 'you will not
steal' or 'you will always buy the best, the expensive' it
can only be detected by first take a taperecorder with you,
and later process it at home by filtering the music out.
Often then, you have to use different speeds, etc. How can
one detect a single frame in the film you watch at the cinema or on your television that is tampered with? When you
see a cowboy coming out of the pub, there is right over his
head the sign which says 'Beer, and Goils'. In the film,
(with 20 or 25 frames per second), some may have been
altered saying in reality 'What have we the BOMB for' or
whatever the filmmaker wants us to know subliminally. How
are we to-, or how is the law to-, detect this? It means
going through the whole film, frame for frame, and the
investigation time per frame is at least 5 seconds (25 x 5 =
125 times the film's exposure time). Subliminal suggestion
is there for all to know, only it is not detectable as such.
A law is therefore nonsense, the only way to the real freedom
over one's own ideation, and over what sort of suggestion
we allow to reach us, is to do away with all industrial
competition. A mental change is needed, into only producing
something nice and beautiful and good, for others, simply
because it 'is' good. Meanwhile, ... stay away from cinema's and advertisers, as far as possible.
\section{Elaboration 41}\label{41}
Because ideation (is purposive, is well-being, is 'to
have', etc.) must always be part of a process with regard to
an 'I', it can never compare with ideation in a group. 'To
have' without an I, is impossible. The comparison of a
group with an individual, his group of cells, that is often
made, holds no water here. Groups have no ego (as group)
but contain exactly as many (different and incomparable)
ego's as there are individuals in it. Indeed, in order to
understand ideation, in a person, in an individual body, the
cells of it, often the comparison with an army structure, as
group, clarifies many things. An individual consisting of
many cells, each of which is egoistic, but with one overall
ego, is not like a group of individuals each egoistic
without an overall ego. The one is a contesserate mind (Wyndham),
the other a loose mosaic of self-contained unique
minds. There is e.g. totally superfluous and unnecessary
knowledge about the whole reality of the person, that may
safely be barred from the several cells, even, organs. It
is better compared with soldiers and (a) general. There
too, is the non-necessity for the total to know specifically
how the various individual cells do their business, only the
total result is important for the general, etc. On the other
hand, the general need not be familiar with everything about
his soldiers, except they being fit for duty and they doing
their job. Mob behaviour then, in an army, is mutiny,
(called cancer in bodies).
\section{Elaboration 42}\label{42}
It sounds absolutely unbelievable for those who know
about World War 2 and its 60 million victims (i.e. those after
1945), that the so-called peace movements (better disarmers),
propagated re-armament of Germany, and disarmament of
the non-Nazi world. Schwarzschild paints the picture in all
its stupidities. The Archbishop of Canterbury, even headed
a delegation to the British government in order to plead FOR
re-armament of Germany. In the reality, the cold, disaster looming
reality, Germany had started re-armament and the
saving of gunbarrels for later war, even aeroplanes by Goering, the leader of the Richthoven squadron (see Mosley)
right after the last shot of World War 1 was fired. The first act
of war, was certainly the scuttling of the German fleet, but
even so, the re-militarisation of the Rhineland. At least
that was the occasion to have avoided World War 2 without a shot
being fired (see also Churchill, etc.).
\section{Elaboration 43}\label{43}
Learning, so much is obvious, is the incorporation of
past events into present (or future) behaviour. Less obvious but
equally fundamental is that all ideation is learning,
is therefore, knowing the past, and project it on the
operations at hand. One has to know, as cell even, that
there is an internal depletion (past event) in order to know
(present or future) to do something about it. When we
realise that the present does not exist, is merely a trick
of ideation, every idea, when it 'is' must be past, must be:
'just has happened'. The continuous state of unwell-being
then is a continuous reminder of the past, is simply called
hunger (nausea, pain, etc.). Ideation (life, mind, etc.) 'is'
memory, 'is' knowing history, 'is' learning.
\section{Elaboration 44}\label{44}
It is known that during the first open act of war by
Nazi-Germany, the Rhineland occupation, there were strict
orders to turn tail when a shot was fired by the (World War 1)
allies. This shot need not have killed a man at all. Had
it been fired however, Hitler would not have been able to
triumph over his generals who, for this very act of war,
shrank back. Instead, Hitler would have been either assasinated, or arrested, as we know now. By showing a stern
hand, the allies could easily have prevented World War 2, only,
... this was not to the liking of the disarmers, i.e. the
electorate. The governing persons in the allied camp, of
course, wanted to be re-elected so they took no risk of
upsetting the electorate, of becoming unpopular. Remember
..., 60 million deaths.
\section{Elaboration 45}\label{45}
While all over the world, it is clearly observable that
there 'is' a world-language in praxis, surprisingly, one
often hears resistance against this clear fact of English as
world-language and scientific language (and air-traffic,
transport, etc.). True, it is not an ideal language, but so
are probably all languages. English is very inconsistent
(i.e. damaging for our children's minds) in its writing, its
plural forms, etc. But so is the runner up, the number two,
the Spanish language with its absurdity of female lamps, and
male sun, etc. (Turkish is very, very consistent, but, apart
from additioned German and Dutch, I can not tell about the
other languages). An artificial language then? This would
be all-right, when all existing languages covered only very
small percentages of the whole.
As it is, there is no need for that. There is a lot of saving of
time and effort for a large part of Earth's population
that would be done away with when ALL citizens had to
learn an artificial language (section \ref{45.1}). Besides,
we can always and easily change an existing language into a
rational one. While Russian and even Turkish have numerical
superiority over French (a language often 'wanted' to be
world-language), we must look at numbers AND global spread.
Native English, roughly 450 million, Spanish 200 million,
the rest (with Chinese problematic) is far less. The natural resistors against English should take a large globe or
world-map (not the Mercator type) and some luminous paint.
Paint all native English speaking areas (Australia, Canada
etc.) over, and shade all areas where English is secondary,
the former colonies. Then, put dots in all places were
there are universities in which most scientists can readily
use English, turn off the light and see how much luminosity
remains on the globe AS A WHOLE.
If need be, the same can be done with other languages and
it will show the sheer stupidity of resistance against
English.
How do we improve the consistency of our English WorldLanguage? By simply 'doing' it. By refusing to comply with
crazy customs. We can learn from the kids too. When they
say: foots and tooths, comed, etc. instead of the usual, it is
high time that we used these forms too, instead of correcting the, far more logical, poor dears. When we write and
speak consistently in a consistent way, it is soon generally
accepted.
\subsection{Elaboration 45.1}\label{45.1}
Man's specific need in ideational trickery, because of
his (extra) freedom to have ideas at his disposal, he solved
by an internal language. A host of digits, of yesses and
no's, fixedly grouped together, under one symbol. It made
thinking easier (classification), but it also implied the
principle of 'standardisation'. This, it is clear, because
the classification also meant ALWAYS using the same major
symbol for the same string of digits (internal standardisation).
Always putting the tin-opener, the scissors, the
keys, etc. in the same place, saves a lot of un-necessary
searching, at, mostly akward moments. Intelligence is standardising all things and solutions (once well thought over)
for inessentialia, and therefore, gives more time for
essences. Classification means putting things in known
classes, but standardisation is to do this always in the
same way. A railway guide not only classifies, telling you
that H is on the line between K and V, but also standardises
it in so far that H will not be called O or A at some other
time.
It is well to remember however, that classification is not
identical with standardisation (both are parts, aspects of
the whole: 'ideation'). Man in socio, soon started a communicative standardisation for sounds linked to a class, an
idea. It was his first intelligent act. It opened up a
huge store of new possibilities. Classification became easier, but also, man could exchange ideas, speak. But for the
very importancy of 'sticking to the standard' my experience
with the taxi driver must be related. The first trafficlight namely, was red, and he went right through it. It
told him what he had done, but he answered in a jovial way:
'Don't you worry guvnr, I always do that, nothing will happen'. Indeed, the next light was red too, and again, he
went through it. I became slightly uncomfortable but fortunately the next light was green. But then, he slammed the
brakes. I cried out 'it is green man, why don't you go on?'
His answer was clear. 'You know, my brother is a taxi driver too,
and is just like me, he therefore could well be coming
out of that side street and ram me'. The point is that
when everybody did as the driver, the standardisation would
work out just as well. The paramount advantages of classification, for mankind, stand or fall with standardisation.
Yet, we seem not able to profit by this miraculous gift, in
more than some insignificant fields, or more than one step
over random. We have standardized the nuts and bolts, but
not pistons, cylinder heads, crankcases, whole engines,
whole frames, cars. It is like inventing electricity, but
using it only for making artificial sparks, lightning.
Standardisation of nuts and bolts only, is but one step from
random, intelligent behaviour should do further steps, and
still further steps, all the time saving effort, making man
more free, happier (potentially). In the same manner have
we not improved our first step in language, we have not
improved over the Neandertaloid custom. It is no longer
recognised that it is very, very, necessary that everybody
at least tries to speak clearly, and as much 'up to the
standard' as possible. It is no longer known that the
training for this, when done at an early age, is no effort
compared to the efforts for repairing damages, even loss of
life. From a survey about causes of air-disasters, it
appeared that the difficulties (causes) already start when
e.g. a Russian pilot, speaking the World-Language, English,
communicates with a control tower in Zambia, that also
replies in the World-Language. Both Englishes simply are
not good enough. When a Dutch minister speaks of 'udder',
meaning 'other', and the listener thinks (sinks) that udder
is the interest on money, there may be room for confusion.
Before and during World War 2, a lot of my primary school
training was taken up with clear and proper speaking. They
taught the roughly equivalent of English R. P. that is A. B.
Dutch. Nowadays, teachers do not seem to bother. They do
not train themselves in clear, and proper standard speech,
nor their pupils. One can see a protest march of teachers
with banners ON WHiCH THE TEXT iS in capitals except the i's
and j's, so the writing lessons share the same fate. Teachers,
today, triumphantly declare that the kids are entitled
to (keep) their own standardisation, slang, twang, mispronunciations,
grammatical errors. Hearing accademicians say
(in Dutch): 'Their are going home.', does not seem to surprise a soul
(at Batavudurum university). On the B.B.C.
programs (World-Service), there is no effort at all to
improve the abilities of the listener. They do not 'care'
about good speakers for ALL the programs. Often, in science
(thienth in akthion) programs, the listener is treated on a
professor, surgeon, or what not, speaking with a gutter
accent. When there is a reading of a story, written by a
contributor from India or Malaysia, they choose a speaker
who speaks almost pidgin English, in order to preserve the
atmosphere. A radio course for English speakers, apart from
feeding the listener on 'pop', paedagogical-pop (!!!), let
you be introduced to a professor Grammatica who rolls the
'r's like potatoes on an empty loft-floor. Imagine a WorldService
broadcast from a group of native, World-Language
speakers, that you switch on in order to hear, ... indeed,
French, German or crooked English! There was a man who triumphantly mentioned a letter from a listener, saying that 75
\% of the listeners were non-native English speakers, and
would he please slow down, and try to pronounce clearly (not
mumbling parts of every sentence in a hurry). Five seconds
afterwards, he speaks ... enfin.
When we have a World-Language already, we might as well
improve it (not programmes, metres, litres but programs,
meters, liters (even littel, Lester, etc.) ). Then we must
take 'a' standard for pronunciation, one that is achievable(able)
by all native- and other speakers, say,
R. P. This means that e.g. Americans must learn the letter (not
ledder) t, and so forth. Australians should then aim at not
saying rhine when they mean reign, rain, or rein.
\section{Elaboration 46}\label{46}
There are 'essentials' for life (food, shelter, oxygen
etc.) that, like in the primitive societies, should be shared
equally by every citizen, and there are luxuries that should
not. The old wise men, had a thumb-rule for distinguishing
the two. When it needs a craftsman, it belongs to the class
'luxuries'. Naturally, today, we must add a new class, the
semi-luxuries or the semi-essentials like bicycles, typewriters, pencils, lamps, some sorts of clothing, etc. The
private motor-yacht of course is impossible. It uses
common-good fuel. A private sailing yacht could be an
admissable luxury, but within boundaries of healthy, sober
recreation. It means a different system for reward, for,
say, money. Essentials are to be shared, (and gratis),
semi-luxuries are obtainable by services or even money.
There must be a limit against a man becoming 'stinking'
rich. This all needs scientific study still.
\section{Elaboration 47}\label{47}
Naturally, there are decisions that are absolutely 'local', and those that have 'mondial' consequences. The local
ones, cannot be about essentials since this is a mondial
subject. They mainly see to the observance of the mondial
rules and laws, and further to the specific organization of
the locality. They too should be on the form of lottocracy
because, when other forms are violations of man's basic
rights (diplomacy, politics, party-formation, vote buying
etc.), this is valid on small scale as well as on mondial
scale. Violation is violation, and is independent from numbers. It is exactly the misconception that numbers decide
whether an action is right or wrong, and not the nature of
the act itself, that makes democrazy what it is, a form flagrantly opposite man's dignity and rationality. Since large
conglomerations like cities with 100,000 inhabitants, will
cease to exist, brought back by 000 to 100, local government
can be simple indeed. For the city-counsellor, the mayor,
the same thing with regard to 'getting something out of it'
applies. They too, should NOT like it in order to be competent, legal, thus, ... Lottocracy.
\section{Elaboration 48}\label{48}
There is the case of a man who stood for the judge in a
suit for damages (money). He was accused of violently
yanking-off the sleeve of the coat of a woman and causing
bruises. It had appeared in broad daylight, in the middle
of a town, and the accused and victim were not acquainted
with each other. The man had to plead guilty because there
were plenty of witnesses. It was not till the defending
counsellor showed that the lady in question had slipped on
the side of the pavement and was certain to be crushed under
a heavy lorry, but for the violent action of the defendant,
that it was realized that justice is somewhat more complex
than simple guilty/not-guilty. The reader will, I am certain, be in favour of demanding damages from the lady for
trying to extract money from a man who saved her life.
\section{Elaboration 49}\label{49}
Our normal (!) social relations still resemble closely
the days of Hesiod and Herodotus. No improvement has taken
place in all these years. This is so in our 'help-sciences'
like medicine and pseudiatry, etc. it is also the case in our
re-education of the criminals. Hypno-Restoration, the specialised
part of hypno-education which latter would be the
normal improvement after Herodotean times (Democedes who
cured without instruments in Plutarch, Melampus who could
cure insane women, etc.), is virtually unknown still. Not
only is the bringing up of children into happy and integer
citizens, exactly being done like in classical days, not
improved at all, that is by a million year old thumb-rule:
do as our parents did, this is also the approach towards the
criminals in our society. It is the main reason for things
going bad, and for our looming self-destruction. When it is
so easy to make an asthma patient free from this complaint
in an afternoon's time, by simple VERBAL means, how equally
easy is it to make anti-social trends in behaviour fully
social, the person functioning perfectly in society. Only
this latter form of justice, is compatible with humanity, is
totally human qua dignity, and, solely by VERBAL-, hypnodynamic means.
When a humane approach is (easily) at our service,
but we remain barbarians, no wonder our end is in sight.
\section{Elaboration 50}\label{50}
A word about freedom here. First of all, it is impossible to discuss it with superstitious persons. Those who
believe in a god or sperrits, in influences that have never
been proved or demonstrated, in customs or standards that
are of our own making but thought to be physical facts and
so forth, will be unable to understand the very topic of
freedom. It is wholly like the study of stupidology that is
impossible for those who are not free from it. Rationality
and liberty are very closely related indeed. In order to
understand freedom, one must be utterly free in thought himself,
a free-thinker. An animal born in a zoo would never
understand a discussion about a free, open, wild country,
and its joys. In fact, it would think it a very dangerous
affair too. It would never know the joy of 'real' freedom.
A man who is a slave of a superstition, a custom, a drink or
a drug, of a passion, an idolisation of a person, object,
nation, or group, cannot imagine a freedom from that, freedom itself. Many indeed, have been the treatises on freedom
in literature, most of them of this typical inconsistency,
of not being free to think freely about freedom. Often they
lacked knowledge of the only drive (unfreedom) of all life
i.e. ideation, a lack in true mind-science.
Mill started his essay on liberty on exactly that basis.
His first sentence thus stresses that the essay is NOT on
the subject of free-will, that is, (will being not existent,
only ideas determine what happens) a total absence of vital
knowledge. Vital, life, indeed. About (Sir) Filmer, Darwin's
bull-dog Huxley, Locke, ... enfin.
As expected, most of the battles have been about words,
about definitions. 'Freedom is when you can do as you like,
can do what you want' is a nonsense definition. What one
wants results from ideas, besides, one may want the impossible (and be very unhappy by that), and one may entertain the
idea of the impossible (and be very happy while trying to
realise it (flying e.g.) ). One may want to jump 30 meters
high, or run through a brick wall. Adopting this definition
implies that freedom does not exist at all therefore the
discussion about it would be senseless. A wild turn may be
made by defining freedom as the absence of restrictions, of
restraints except those of inanimate nature (brick walls,
gravitation, etc.). Far better would it be to explain freedom
as a presence, a presence of choice. Freedom then, would
not be an absence (who would fight for an absence?) but a
presence, i.e. a real, substancial thing, a capacity.
Freedom is the presence of choice. By different degrees
of this CAPACITY, this choice-making, plants differ from the
inanimate that has no choice (strict passivity) by a choicemaking, animals differ from plants in having yet another
choice-making added, and humans differ from animals (while
still enjoying plant-like and animal-like capacities) in
another presence of choice added. The limitations of the
brick wall, or the gravitation, are NOT in the choice-making
capacity, but in the ways towards the goals. Aristotle
already knew that choice is never in the goals, (these being
fixed from conception onwards) but in the ways towards these
goals. Ways, so much is clear, already IMPLY restrictions
by physics. Finding the impossible yet possible (splitting
the unsplittable atom) does not alter our goals, but simply
add to the ways to choose from.
In human ideation, the not only most free in nature, but
also (therefore) the most complex in nature, it is obvious
that only the optimally free thinking mind can understand
this subject of freedom, choice, restriction, etc. to a certain depth. Equally obvious is it that it is nature's
stringent code, to use this ideational freedom to the utmost
level of perfection whereby happiness is guaranteed. Such a
man, one who thinks utterly free, as Lucretius teaches us,
has the right to walk with his head in upright position. He
is the correct challenge of inanimate nature, and he only,
is happy.
Imagine a man who is forced to only eat Brussels sprouts,
everyday. He would feel the restriction in ways (namely to
eat diversity in food), not in goal (being well). He might
even rebel and fight. Now, the same man, but he has been
induced (hypnotized) in always 'wanting' to eat Brussels
sprouts, nothing else. The factual restriction (in ways, to
achieve well-being) is still there, only, he now feels very
free in his choice-making. He is, what Wyndham called:
'willed to will' (Midwich Cuckoos), Brussels sprouts. It is
another word for 'ideated to ideate'. Like the animal, he
is quite happy, but the joy of utter freedom, of total
choice has escaped him. He would frown, when we tell him he
is not happy, because he always has to eat the same.
\section{Elaboration 51}\label{51}
Therapeutists, it is thought, have the trade to make
unhappy people happy again. For this calling, they are paid
very well indeed. But is it too much to ask that they
understand their job properly? Since unhappiness is decidedly not physical, they need not know much of the physics,
the 'somatic' part of life, but the more so about, first,
happiness itself, and secondly about the means, the
ideation, the psychic principles of teaching. True, all
happiness is self-happiness, all learning is self-learning,
and so on, yet, clearly, it is not enough to give unhappy
people a copy of Seneca or M. Aurelius A. in his hand, but
should not the therapeutor himself know enough of these
recipe-books to tell (teach) the story again, fitted more to
the unhappy complainer? My goodness! Cicero wrote about
The Good Life, is not that what we all are after? Should
not the one, one turns to when in need of help, be able to
at least say the same things as Cicero, FROM expertness, not
through rote learning?
When one wants to know about world-problems, their solution, one studies a book about it, this book e.g. When one
wants to know about solutions for his own unhappiness, one
studies an expert book about 'that'. But it just 'might' be
that it would be more effective when it is taught by a
present helper, a modern one, one that does such things in a
hypnodynamically optimal teaching situation. Is it so new,
what I ask, when the same thing was possible 2500 years ago?
True, in Epidaurus, and through other disciples of Crotonian
descent, there was much use of snakes and so on. But when a
therapeutor today leave all that out, doing exactly as these
(Democedes, Melampus, etc.) did, or, as the later Cou\'e and
Baudouin did, he would at least score 60 \% success (the figure of roughly all 'placebo' successes) instead of 3\% by
pseudo-analysis. Speaking of medical (?) ethics.
\section{Elaboration 52}\label{52}
All living nature is roughly dividable into three separate functions
qua ideation. The three are wholly integrated i.e.
one cannot have a more advanced one (later in phylogenesis), without also having the foregoing ones. The
differences are in the form of freedoms. Freedoms or capacities for choice. Plants, the lowest form, have one degree
of freedom, distinguishing them from the zero-degree inanimate.
The inanimate has no choice whatever, is fully automatic.
Animals, have an extra degree 'added' to their first
one, as improvement. It is the automatic-looking inquisitiveness that is in reality an extra freedom of choice. Man
too, has a (third) degree added to his vegetative and animal
ideational function. He has a freedom to have ideas at his
disposal. His functioning therefore has of necessity the
inquisitiveness that is possible by the grace of this third
degree, i.e. what the old philosophers (philosophy meaning
'searching for truth in our environment') showed, a search
for wisdom.
\section{Elaboration 53}\label{53}
I even knew of a 'physician' (in plain English a physicist) who had two boys suffering from asthma. It is quite
logical that no patient suffering from the same would have
to go to him. Clearly he can do nothing to help him, except
making things worse by poisoning. While the media, and even
asthma unions, maintained that it was incurable, my letter
to government, including 12 copies of pages from 12 different books, showing cases of actual curation, was ignored and
wiped from the table. All that when already Aristotle said
that what has happened, is therefore possible.
\section{Elaboration 54}\label{54}
Naturally, little boys and grown-ups in Homer's days must
have observed drops of water on their own skin (swimming,
bathing, etc.) and the magnification by them. Real interesse
also would soon lead to dissecting (sacrificial) animal's
eyes. In bright daylight, when one looks at another person's eye from the side on, one can clearly see what a lens is
like. Besides, coin makers even actually 'used' drops of
water to examine their products. A glassy substance was
amply possible in the days of Cicero. The same goes for
printing. Herodotus mentioned Croesus as having known
coinage, there were seals in existence, all of which 'is'
printing. Wells even wonders why in Alexandria nobody set
himself to invent a rolling mechanism for their clumsy
books, avoiding the sweaty fingers that had to roll on and
off in order to find a certain passage. A simple wooden
case with two axles could have done the trick. No wonder
Democritus had to laugh. Wells also paints accurately the
result of the absence of printing for tedious tasks in the
copying of books (by slaves). Even in the case of pictures
(maps, etc.) could they not have invented a wooden stamp of
some sort? Natural inquisitiveness was practically dead in
Herodotus' time. The two necessities for it, leisure time
and general absence of the pressure by overpopulation (war)
were either allocated to a few or not at all. Without continuous war,
war-threat or armistice, like we still suffer
from today, all persons could have been fed and clothed by
co-operative work of six months per year. The estimate for
today may be even four or three months. But then, we must
have (mentally) different humans.
\section{Elaboration 55}\label{55}
Foresight, is typically such a manifestation of man's
extra degree of freedom. While animals cannot 'ideate' for
more than a few seconds in their future, man can even fantasize all
possible futures, reason-out what would happen,
take measures for all cases, etc. This is beyond animal
ideation. It is why animals never go and put seeds in the
soil in order to have a harvest a season later. The seemingly contradiction in this, by animals that hoard nuts and
the like, is not a sign of fore-sight, of third degree of
freedom, but mere acquired instinct, i.e. they would remain
doing it when we tell them it is no longer necessary.
\section{Elaboration 56}\label{56}
The knowledge required for the first question is so absolutely simple that it shows up clearly. All that one has to
know is that New-Zealand is on the Southern hemisphere, that
when the (full) moon is low, the sun (in daytime) must be
high (summer). The simplest of children can do the reasoning with an absolute minimum of knowledge about things it
can see almost everyday and night in the sky. True, we
demand them to be taught astronomy sometimes, but then, seeing the compulsion, the child will lose all interesse when
the examination is over. At a so-called laboratory for psychology, I once was told to be stupid to read Tacitus,
because that was what the man had to do his exam in. He had
been robbed of the joys of Tacitus, Herodotus, Apuleius,
Hesiod, etc. by 'having' to translate parts of them. The socalled classical upbringing even has the opposite effect of
what its purpose should be. It only functions for growing
an aversion for classical wisdom. The child should not be
forced to study Greek and Latin, instead it should be made
interested in the (often perfect) English translations of
the wise (see Joan and Peter (Wells) ). True, extra languages, when made fluent (thinking in them), add even so
many 'intelligences' to one's capacities, but then one
should rather take living languages that, preferably, are
useful and very different qua logic. One can take the second
world-language Spanish, or, a very, very different but
logical language like Turkish. When a teacher has taken
control over a child's attention, time, and efforts, he is
held to use this as a grown-up, integer man. Except for the
case that the pupil wants to career in a dead language like
Greek, Latin or Sanskrit, his efforts should be of use to
him, not in creating a lifelong aversion for excellent wisdom because these sages wrote in inanimate language. The
child should love what is does, what it has to do (see
Spencer, Wells, etc.).
\section{Elaboration 57}\label{57}
Trance is the subject of the social scientist who studies
ideation not as such alone, but the different conditional
circumstances for ideation, i.e. states with a different
reality awareness, a different attentive dimension, a state
clearly distinctive from everyday normal conversational
activities. This latter is called the 'waking' state
although hypnodynamici are fully aware that in fact no such
state ever exists. Trance then, is simply a more clearly
perceived state in consciousness, the so-called waking state
only a group of intrusive trances, differing qua person, his
experience, and other circumstances. Trance states, as WE
observe them in others, simply mean that 'he is not wholly
there', his mind is folded up upon itself. Trance states
may occur from several 'pairs' of extremes in circumstances.
No sound/very much noise (beat, machines, waterfall), no
physical exertion/maximum physical exertion, maximum/minimum
concentration, blood-sugar, repetition (or monotony), fear,
etc., etc. What is called awake is always, only an inbetween
somewhere.
\section{Elaboration 58}\label{58}
In the U.S.A. , the measure for all people, for behaviour,
for social contacts is taken almost solely from the Hollywood
dream factories, the very cheapest sort of 'entertainments'.
It is ingrained by sub-liminal command, subliminal
suggestion. Simple expressions like: 'to go out with ...,
to have a friend, to date, etc. ' have lost their original
meanings and are understood as being copulative actions.
But had the film-producers earned millions by carefully
mass-producing what the simple-minded want, the later
gutter-syndicates gathered billions by another trick.
Hollywood produced for the cheap, the pop-syndicate eradicated
first (and permanently) all aesthetic feeling, and then,
they can sell everything for high prices. A simple command
to buy, (tell that it is top-pop-ten rate), is enough.
Then, also, one need no decades of wholehearted study in
order to reach a top, one can start straightaway in the
business.
All teaching, all learning, all ideation is almost wholly
'sub-liminal' meaning that there is hardly any conscious
knowledge involved. In order to understand sub-liminal
ideation, let there be a showing of a film of the normal (?)
Western type. Let the hero or the culprit step out of a pub
over which a signboard says for instance: the Bull. When in
the ribbon of pictures, one frame is altered so that the
sign reads: 'Bomb the Russians!', it moves too fast, is stationary too short a time, for it being read consciously.
Yet, as is expected in Hypno-dynamics, and proved in experiment, the message has influence upon the viewer. It is said
that in the U.S.A. there is a law against using this subliminal techniques, but ... who can ever hope to investigate
or inspect it? What is more, how about the subliminal
effect of all presented messages of the untampered version
of the film? What about agression proposed as virtue? of
cruelty for pleasure?, what about suggesting that women are,
as the Mormons say, heifers, beasts for 'use' only, what
about suggesting that police is always far more criminal
than the rogues themselves, of stupid fashion in behaviour?
Take the stupid women who are 'ordered' to buy some stupid
clothes, being commanded (suggestion) to belong. How about
the subliminal (real) command to 'like' the dirty, the worn,
the loud, the stupid, the infantile, the cretinous? Note
that all teaching is practically wholly subliminal, but, how
many teachers in a million are ideationally expert enough to
know this? Do, read Spencer again, about the 'control of
the individual' and understand that nowadays, we do it
wholesale, unscrupled, with unlimited profits.
\section{Elaboration 59}\label{59}
When, as in the irrational Hollywood products, a young
male 'wants' a certain female (to have), he will say to her:
I will do everything to make you happy (to give), or, I
would gladly die for you (to give), this obviously is a lie.
The test of our reality then is to let the lady say?"Is
this true, then, just go out of my life (your life), because
I love (to have) John." and we shall see. It appears that
the male will do everything indeed, but not to make her happy, no, in order to make himself happy (I, to have).
Naturally, for a well-thinking person, one with a shred
of common sense, orgasm has nothing to do with happiness,
nor has this superstitious, false romanticism.
\section{Elaboration 60}\label{60}
The reader should draw parallels of the ritual of walking
aimlessly in a circle, this stupid act by superstition, and
the same stupid act of driving in circles at the motor races
or car crosses. The rights and duties also are violated
therein. Why are 'they', the chosen people, allowed to burn
up your precious fuel, your costly tyres, in fact, use your
possessions in labour and material that are everybody's possession,
for nothing, for pleasing some semi-gods?
Possessions of everybody, the riches of our planet,
invoke the duty to use them sparingly, and only when the
good of all is involved, is served, or a necessity for emergency
crops up. Fire-, and police-engines, ambulances, etc.
'are' normal in a modern world, although, when they did not
exist, hand and horse carts did not destroy the world, they
only made survival somewhat more difficult.
\section{Elaboration 61}\label{61}
Thucydides remarked clearly that during the plague, the
pious were as much affected as the non-pious. His excellent
discription of the events, made it known to the world (2500
years ago) that not only should we refuse to take gods and
other superstitions into account with regard to our reality,
but also that the resistance against this horrible illness,
depended on ideational conditions, (non-physical means). We
may safely believe him, he was no Herodotus. Besides, ...
he survived while he was visited by the plague himself.
Although his description still finds a place in our (medical)
literature, this aspect, the absolute non-physical
(mental, ideational) nature of resistance against all diseases, cancer and multiple sclerosis included, is carefully
avoided. Even, should an article be submitted with regard
to these very serious illnesses, it would not be accepted by
the editor, it failing in ... physics (authentic experience).
\section{Elaboration 62}\label{62}
It is the great H.G. Wells who writes admirably about the
stupid obsession with 'blood' of all religious sects and
rituals. It is the 'My captains, Artemis must have blood'
of Aeschylus. Christianity is not less involved with it, as
token sacrifice (the lamb, blood in wine, etc.). Wells mentions also the insanity of the sacrifice of virgins and of
tearing out the still beating heart. When superstition
comes in, when influences never found in our reality, just
the whims of fanatics, are deciding our way of living, then,
bloody business takes over. An insanity that we have the
right and duty to escape.
\section{Elaboration 63}\label{63}
It is Lucretius again who demonstrates so vividly the
inhumanity, the violation of human dignity (and rights and
duties) that is caused by superstition, especially the irrational
belief in 'sperrits' (the term is from Long John Silver).
Such are the heights of wickedness to which men are driven by superstition, he said. We know of the Iphigenia's in
Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, etc. and of
modern man, blasted to bits by bombs in a marketplace, shot
like a pig in a hi-jacked train, plane, ship or bank.
These superstitions cannot change man's rights and
duties, they only can violate them by consent of the
(stupid) majority. (For these illegal rights, see also
Maugham's 'Rain', Wyndham's 'Wheels', his 'The Chrysalids',
Forester's 'The Sky and the Forest', ....., etc.).
\section{Elaboration 64}\label{64}
Animals, lacking the freedom of foresight, cannot build
their nests with the damage to environment and climate in
mind. Man could do so, therefore 'should' do so. Today, we
see all about us the results of building-design as ritual,
as fashionable, conforming to the rule: 'the least usable
volume by the most energy losing surface'
(see the University of Nijmegen). Buildings that are 'not' grown-over,
(and railway-lines, highways, etc.) damage the climate not only
because of occupying soil, they also damage by catching
radiation that is (as speedily as possible) passed on as
heat into the free air. Living in huge concrete hutments,
with the necessary artificial lighting and so on, only
'seems' illogical to many. A question, again, of merely
changing one's ideas, one's customary thinking. Naturally,
the artificial lighting will be converted into warmth, but
it all is far better controllable than in a glass sheettype,
a needle-type building, in which, after all, for many
hours a day, artificial lighting remains in use. When we
see a man walking the Moon and come back safely (on television), it should be impossible to also see the utter human
misery in collapsed buildings through an earthquake. We can
easily house everybody on earth in modern, up to date, subterranean buildings that are earthquake proof, or earthquake
resistent to a high degree. The soil-covered dome is the
form par excellence. It may crack, but the scales will not
come down easily. This, of course is the more easy when
three zero's are taken off the 5,000,000,000. The buildings
then, 'participate' in vegetative growth, instead of ruining
every green aspect we see about us. The (so called) Psychological Laboratory, in reality a laboratory for psychology
(pseudology), that I am in now, could have been built with
half the materials and a quarter of cost, as a half sphere.
Its cubic meters of volume could be trebbled or doubled by
using all the materials. Even in cubeform it would have
been cheaper and would save an enormous amount of surfacepotential for the energy to go out. Builders should know
that the surface-to-volume ratio is important for the use of
materials AND the continuous energy waste. Size automatically makes the ratio favourable, next comes form, (sphere,
half-sphere, short cylinder, half short cylinder, cube, ...)
and that is that. Sheets, boards, needles, pyramids, sieve
forms, etc. are purposeful wasters. From the very entrance
up till the merest nook and niche, the stupidity glares one
straight in the face here, in this laboratory.
\section{Elaboration 65}\label{65}
Illnesses are unknown and accidents very few, is it said
in the text. This is the 'normal' situation in a society of
higher beings than animals. We, with our improvements in
science, our extra degree of freedom in ideation, should be
doing far better in well-being, in absence of illness, than
mere animals, than even the Neandertali. Just now, I heard
of a large bus company that has 10 or 15 percent absentees
every day. The total may well surpass all animal illness on
the whole globe. Free animals (non-domesticated) are very
seldom ill, nor are they chronically unhappy and miserable
like we. A rational world-government, naturally would see
to it that, first, there would be a steady DE-crease in
unwell-being, instead of the steady IN-crease of now. It
would mean a rather acceptable minimum in five years' time,
and absolute miminum, a stark scarcity in ten or fifteen
years. Accidents too, are open to ideational influence
(suggestion) hence to prevention on large scale. Orton, in
1935, wrote to his government in order to do something about
the (then) large number of traffic-accidents. He proposed,
naturally, hypnodynamic means, by, ... the radio. Of
course, he was wiped from the table. Is there an easier way
thinkable than this, for making nationalist man, into integrationist
man, for changing empty-, robot-, crazy-, anti-social man,
into a happy intelligent human-, humane person?
Again, compared to the animal world, accidents should become
scarce. As Baudouin told, many accidents even are of autosuggestive causation. Cause of death also is often
ideationally (suggestively) determined by the person himself
(complete with date and means). Is not it sad that we have
to read about a method for real first aid in a car accident,
through a novel writer (Upton Sinclair) ? A method that
should be the 'normal' on the scene, the street, in the
ambulance and further, namely TALK THE VICTIM BACK TO
CONSCIOUSNESS and into a rapid and thorough recovery. And,
cannot we do even better than that (electro-hypnosis e.g.).
Coma patients all over the world, it is true, receive plenty
of physical help, but they are the ones that need expert
(idea-dynamic) help most. They are struggling to regain
consciousness or they may have given it up already. From
the very first moment, they should receive adequate assistance by trained hypnologists, around the clock. Nobody
should be allowed within hearing distance, who is not
trained in the scientific use of words. This, naturally,
goes for the operation theater and recovery rooms too. With
everybody, it should remembered, a sentence of a mere five
words, can cause vehement muscular action, changes in pulserate,
blood-pressure, internal secretion, pupilar changes etc.
\section{Elaboration 66}\label{66}
Urgency number 10 (i.e. 12 in our old-fashioned arithmetic system) meant the highest priority. It was derived
from the table of truth. In this latter, the highest form
of truth is facts (events that 'had' happened), the next and
lower one was 9 (11 in our system). This is incomparable in
truthfulness, and encompasses the natural laws. Things of
which we 'almost' know for certain that they will happen
(gravitation e.g. might stop being any moment) they are not
'after' the facts (like events) but before (future). By
putting 10 as urgency on an envelope, every citizen was certain that it came on the desk of a governor. Naturally,
there were sanctions for cranks using up costly time for
nonsense by the method of the 10 urgency. Before deciding
to vote, in government, it was always asked if a 10 was
present, meaning a totally new, 'and' serious omission in
former knowledge about the subject. Voting would be halted
thereby, more time and discussion made possible.
\section{Elaboration 67}\label{67}
All things, not specifically needing 'open air' (like
farming) should not occupy precious planetary surface space.
Look at say, a university building. Mark its size that
allows no growth, yet absorbs radiation without gain for a
living being. Even when, after the winter, we have to heat
artificially, the sunshades go down in order to keep the
gratis warmth out. Notice too, that, these buildings, on
top of which we cannot park our regiments of cars, of
(stupid) necessity have to be accompanied by large carparks,
stretches of sterile soil. When we know we have to use
every square centimeter of soil for: 'either food growing'
(not tea, flowers, or other stupid luxuries), or, 'reforestation', our ways of building are stark madness. The
same goes for our rail-tracks and highways. They would be
more expensive, it is true, when they were brought under in
tunnels, overgrown with small bushes, but then, we only need
a tenth or less of their vastness of today. Besides, they
would become more enduring and more comfortable, while on
their tops, there would be 'green', man's very existence.
On the same rational thinking, a lake might be tunneled, and
it might be dammed, on which latter such a tunnel might be
made for the transport-line. Dam and tunnel then, could be
used for growth.
\section{Elaboration 68}\label{68}
Our systems for calendar, time-keeping, place determination on the globe and so on, are just as primitive, and just
as 'only one step from random', as our arithmetics and geometrics, language and social organization that baffle our
children. One step further, logical organization (instead
of almost random agreement), would surprise and delight our
kids. Now, they have to start early in finding the illogical, the stupid, 'normal' (!), i.e. they are being made
stupid by us. What stupidity e.g. it is to have an imaginary line on the globe (maps), on one side of which it is
tomorrow, on the other side it is yesterday, a date-line!
Cannot we do better than that? When a man in Denmark speaks
over the telephone with a man in Mexico, he perceives clearly that both places (the whole planetary sphere) have the
same time. It shows by giving proper answers to questions
unforeseen, without a time-lag of more than a second. A
logical thinker would have a world time therefore (the
G. M. T. for instance), over the whole globe, but then without
a date-line, with Greenwich going East, from zero to 360,
i.e. Greenwich again. Still, it all is a question of silly
superstition to have each one's own time reckoning. When
the sun is amply risen, we have breakfast, and are going to
our work at the required time, does it matter whether this
time is called 11 or half past three? The superstition is
that the (named) time of day has something to do with sunrise and sunset. We can easily free ourselves (starting
with the more logical thinking kids) from such irrational
superstitions. Why should the zero large circle, the one of
Greenwich, not be 360 degrees as well, like the 12 on the
clock that is also zero? Nay, why have a sixty digit calculating system at all, when children have to learn to do
arithmetic in a ten digit system? They easily are being
made stupid by this.
\section{Elaboration 69}\label{69}
It seems well to give a handy argument here for the topic
of legality/illegality. So many people I meet do not seem
able to grasp the fundaments of it, (the rights and duties
of man). First of all, nay first of every system of thinking,
is that we all share the same reality. In this reality,
we all share the same planet. From this, it is easy to
see that all citizens have equal rights and equal duties
with regard to everything on that planet. Because all governments NOT on a mondial scale, have to make decisions with
regard to only part of the globe, and only part of the population, while they all concern everybody (5 billion, better
5 million), these decisions are made by an illegal body.
This illegality is easily shown by pointing to the laws that
are illegal too, (of necessity). The same act can be
against a law in one place, or with regard to one 'nationality', while the rights and duties of 'all' citizens are
equal and this means that all acts, on all places, and by
all persons should be judged by the same laws. Take the
fact that 'ideas' fall under strict law. Money, after all
is only an idea. When in country A they use the Obol as
unit, it is clear that the law cannot decide over the
Shekels of a neighbouring country B. With regard to counterfeit, it might be thought that an agreement is useful,
saying that, when you punish falsification of our money, we
would do so for your money. But how about a citizen of A
putting his money into the shekels of B and has interest, on
a B bank-account added to it (saving for a rainy day) ? The
law in A might stipulate that you pay tax upon the interest,
but certainly not on interest in shekels! In the same manner,
the language of a neighbouring country is not the lawfully
official one of the country, so, one can slander and
insult as long as it is in the other language. The socalled
sovereign governments have acquired their sham-legality by,
either a superstition, a god who has 'chosen'
the king, by stupid tradition, or, even worse, by the majority rule of a group of earth citizens, a majority of mental
cripples a-riot, as Wells put it. In order to be legal at
all, 'a' governing or ruling body 'must' have the backing,
the consent of all persons that are affected by this ruling,
these decisions. This determines not only what are the limits of ruling in local governing, but also exactly where all
jurisdiction stops. This is different from our own daily
experience. We often encounter absolute authorities that
are even apt to rule over life and death. No wonder our
children cannot think fundamentally (logically), when they
start life, and grow up in a totally crazy society.
\section{Elaboration 70}\label{70}
This statement may evoke discussion. It has been usual
for revolutions to smash up things first. But then, you are
stuck with the ruins. Building on ruins is far more difficult than
piece-meal improvement of intact buildings, as the
French revolution showed by the guillotination of the selfsame
revolutionaries. Wells and Spencer mentioned the disadvantages
of a fundamental change, in well-established
standards like the width of a railway e.g. Indeed, chosing
a wider one would be costly and could have been avoided by
thinking better the first time. But history shows that,
like the change in width of a railway that is cheaper than
destroying all first and 'then' build anew, in revolutions,
habitually, the integer, well-willing, intelligentsia were
always killed first, making the new dictatorship void of
capable persons and wise counsel. It is why in World War 2, the
Russians had such a bad time because the experienced generals and higher officers, had been exterminated. All this
can only lead to the conclusion that in order to establish a
(proper) world-government, we must NOT start shooting, raping, killing,
devastating. We must first of all stick-by,
and support fully, our own local (national) police force.
This goes for garbage collection and disposal as well as for
health services and even the illegal juridical system too.
We should regard those as preliminary social ordering, an
ordering just one step over random, over jungle law. We
want to go some more steps than that. First a world government, then,
by the inevitably improved (world) education,
we gradually get young citizens coming of age, that
are 'mentally' improved so that many of the laws still in
operation from older times (today) can be relaxed. In the
end, all citizens will be naturally rational, and the laws
and customs will get very, very, flimsy and transparant, yet
adamant of fundamentality, a natural code for everybody.
Enough blood has flown already, for man's sake. Sanity,
we shall achieve bloodlessly. No rape, slaughter, devastation is
required for that, only education, or ... propaganda.
\section{Elaboration 71}\label{71}
Copyrights and certainly our stigmatisatory systems of
science, not to forget the 'payola', the business characteristics of science and of the printing of science, it is all
the very death sentence for all progress, all decent scientific discussion. Nowadays, scientifical workers are judged
upon by their 'bosses' for the number of publications they
have produced (per year). When it is too meagre, they face
dismissal (too little applause for them, too little applause
thus for their professors). It is an incentive to fake
experiments, bungle data, plagiat, etc. This world too, has
to be changed. Science should be gratis, publication automatic when it is worth so for progress. Publication, in
order to satisfy a professor, hence, triviality, should
become impossible. It is, of course, at the cost of the
whole world-population (paper = forest). Publication only,
when it is 'new', valuable progress, and then, if necessary,
at the state's expense.
How many, or rather, what few, of the piles of dissertations,
by which people graduate every year, mean something
for progress (science) ? And then, those for 'promotions'.
Should it not be so that promotion MEANS a donation to progress,
i.e. valuable, read, studied, after publication? Why
should it not be possible for a totally unknown person, a
free-lance student-expert, to submit a paper which would be
examined on ITS merites and give to a scientific status?
\section{Elaboration 72}\label{72}
This book is perhaps unique in several respects. First
is that what it says is contradictory to the wishes
of practically everybody on the planet (5 billion). Secondly are
the contradictions with everyday opinion and knowledge, that
it contains as for instance: the fundamental IRrationality
of mankind as basis for sociology, the statement that most
complaints (asthma, epilepsy, etc.) are easily to be cured,
the rejection of all economics (especially world-economics),
the adoption of a fundamental general ethics, the right of
suicide which followed from this, the notion that science is
impossible when superstition is allowed, the statement that
copyrights are anti-scientific, that democrazy is antihuman,
that will is non-existent that ideas determine
behaviour (all behaviour), etc., etc. It is unique because
everybody may reprint every part any time, the book is
unique in that it contains so many novels and other sc. fic.
in its reference list, and, last but not least, it has an
elaboration on this reference list, in our case on Russell's
'Human Knowledge'. That book, as said before, contains so
many nonsense theories, but, it seems unique too, because it
also harbours one statement of the same author that is
absolutely correct and very fundamental for 'Ordening Theory'.
A statement that we seldom will find expressed in other
works. How is this possible? Why can the same writer, who
shows absolute ignorance of 'Ordening', who skips in our
ordering the whole non-physical part, all life, why can he
make a statement that says clearly that structure, ideation,
order, is non-physical? First he says:
"It is to be observed that 'here' and 'now' depend
upon perception; in a purely material universe there
would be no 'here' and 'now'."
It means that it is only (part of) perception that has to do
with structure (here, now, truth, etc. are attributes of
structure), and pure physics not, in other words, structure
is not IN the physical world, only in a mind, hence, is
synonymous with idea. Then, Russell contradict the same, very
true theorema by e.g.:
\begin{quote}
What an asserted sentence expresses is a 'belief';
what makes it true or false is a 'fact', which is in
general distinct from the belief.
\end{quote}
Since a fact is solely a statement about a structure (here,
now, true, etc.) it cannot be distinct in any sense from a
belief, both are fundamentally ideas. As a true antivitalist,
he maintains that facts and truth are physical
while in reality, they are pure ideation (the 'pure' even
can be omitted, in the pair: X / Not-X, the two are of
necessity pure). The reader may wonder why I do not make
any remarks like that on Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy'.
Well, in that work, it is hard to ascertain
whether a particular statement is Russell, or is indeed, a
report by Russell of somebody else (Plato, the Sophists,
Sceptics, etc.). See for instance (page 137):
\begin{quote}
 ... and ethical
disagreement can only be decided by emotional appeals,
or by force, ...
\end{quote}
Does Russell agree with the contents or
not? Clearly it is half nonsense, half true. True is it in
so far that ALL ideation is fundamentally emotive ('meaning'
is defined as emotional value), therefore ethics likewise.
Nonsense in so far that basic ethical science, without emotion, is possible, nay paramount (the rights you have are
those you grant to others, the duties you have ..., etc.).
Besides, our book here, is not so much concerned with who is
right, and who promises the most absurdities, but with what
we are going to do in order to save our lives, our kids, the
ants and rabbits, the very greenness of the planet.
When a work is in the reference list, it is not to indicate that
everything in it is true, and up-to-date knowledge.
It is only there because of some (partial) usability
for the reader. Even in good hypnodynamic works (like
Orton, Erickson, Kline, etc.) downright nonsense may be found.
For instance, with regard to hypno-criminality, it may be
maintaining that by hypnosis, one cannot make people do
things that go counter to their deepest convictions or feelings, whatever that means. It is a soothing theory but
wholly false. The reader himself who is by now familiar
with the Elaborations, knows it to be nonsense. Wyndham's
'Willed to will', ranges over ALL aspects of ideation. But
then, the reader is also familiar with the (later) phenomenon of Nazi
Germany, the S. S. , and the even later beat-syndicate
and its extortion of billions from-, the mutilation of-, the poor
kids.
\end{document}