Could the Earth Explode?

Tom J. Chalko, MSc, PhD

Imagine a gigantic object of 1220 km radius that slowly becomes smaller, lighter and gives off heat for millions of years. What could it be? It can only be an object that generates heat by nuclear decay.

The main consequence of the above is that all heat generated inside Earth is of radionic origin. In other words, Earth in its entirety can be considered a nuclear reactor fuelled by spontaneous fission of various isotopes in the super-heavy inner core, as well as their daughter products of decay in the mantle and in the crust.

Life on Earth is possible only because of the efficient cooling of this reactor – a process that is controlled primarily by the atmosphere. Currently this cooling is responsible for a fine thermal balance between the heat from the core reactor, the heat from the Sun and the radiation of heat into space, so that the average temperature on Earth is about 13 deg C.

Since the radionic heat is generated in the entire volume of nuclear fuel (the entire Earth) and cooling can occur only at the surface, the hottest point of the planet should be in its very center.

This article examines the possibility of the “meltdown” of the central part of the inner core due to the reduced cooling capacity of the atmosphere, which traps progressively more solar heat due to the so-called greenhouse effect. Factors that can accelerate the meltdown process, such as an increased solar activity coinciding with increased emissions of greenhouse gasses are discussed.

The most serious consequence of such a “meltdown” could be a gravity-buoyancy based segregation of  unstable isotopes in the molten inner core. Such a segregation can “enrich” the nuclear fuel in the core to the point of creating conditions for a chain reaction and a gigantic atomic explosion. Can Earth become another “asteroid belt” in the Solar system?

Read the full article

Fighting Civilization

Interview with Derrick Jensen

“The salmon are dying. We’re changing the climate. Earthworm populations in the Midwest are disappearing. I picture people coming 20, 30 years later, after civilization collapses, and they’ll be reading some old book anywhere in this region, up the coast, and they’ll say, “there were so many salmon that people were afraid to put their boats in the water for fear they’d capsize… and I’m fucking starving to death”.

What do you think is going to happen in the next 40 or 50 years ?

“An increase in grinding away at whatever natural and human diversity is left. People will lead increasingly  miserable lives, not paying attention as long as they’ve got a television. I think about all of these people who sit in front of their TVs: they might as well be in SHU (isolation unit at Pelican Bay). Their world consists of the space between the couch and the TV. I do not see us having a transformation to a sustainable way of living that is either voluntary or that maintains capitalism or industrialism. I see the next 100 years being pretty nasty, no matter how you look at it.

Thanks to Scott Meredith of Alas Babylon for the link. Derrik Jensen is the author of “A language older than words”, his interview appears in Nov/Dec 2001 issue of Clamor Magazine.

 

Russia Finally Prevails in Afghanistan

Robert Fox

On the day that the (Afghanistan) capital was liberated, it was Russian-made T-55 tanks that paraded through the streets of the devastated city.

While the British and Americans have concentrated on providing aerial support for the alliance, Mr Putin has gone out of his way to ensure that Russian military hardware has been available on the ground in Afghanistan.

At least 50 T-55 series tanks and 30 armoured personnel carriers were supplied by the Russians to the alliance a few weeks ago. With them came tons of tank and heavy machine-gun ammunition, spares for tanks and trucks, and fuel and lubricants for tanks and helicopters.

The equipment was accompanied by teams of Russian military advisers and trainers, who are believed to have drawn up the alliance’s rudimentary assault plans for its successful assaults on the towns of Mazar-i-Sharif and Pul-i-Khumri.

There are even reports that some of the leading tanks and attack helicopters may have been crewed by Russian mercenaries.

The Russian advisers were matched by a few dozen United States and British special forces acting as forward aircraft controllers for the American air attacks.

By backing the alliance covertly and overtly, Mr Putin appears to have succeeded where his five predecessors, from Leonid Brezhnev to Boris Yeltsin, failed in establishing Moscow’s influence across Afghanistan – and all this without a Russian life lost.

Read the full article

Thirteen Predictions

G. Edward Griffin

It is always dangerous to make predictions – especially if they are put into print. If they prove to be wrong, they can haunt you for the rest of your life. Nevertheless, here are thirteen predictions that I fervently hope will be wrong. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that most if not all of them will come to pass.

1. The first prediction is that we will not be given genuine options regarding the war on terrorism. We will have only two choices, both of which are disastrous. It will be similar to the Vietnam War in which Americans were expected to be either hawks or doves. Either they supported the no-win war or they opposed it. They were not given the option of victory. Their choice was between pulling out of the war and turning the country over to the Vietcong quickly or doggedly staying in the war and turning the country over to the Vietcong slowly – which is the way it turned out. Likewise, in the war on terrorism, we will be asked simply to choose sides. Either we are for freedom or for terrorism. The wisdom of U.S. interventionism will not be allowed as a topic for public debate.

2. Most American political leaders are now committed to world government, so the second prediction is that they will crow about how America will not tolerate terrorism, but they will not act as Americans. Instead, they will act as internationalists. They will turn to the UN to lead a global war against terrorism. They will seek to expand the capacity of NATO. and UN military forces. Although American troops will provide the backbone of military action, they will operate under UN authority.

3. The third prediction is that the drive for national disarmament will be intensified. This will not lead to the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, but merely to the transfer of those weapons to UN control. It will be popularized as a means of getting nuclear and bio-chemical weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The internationalists promoting this move will not seem to care that many of the world´s most notorious terrorists now hold seats of power at the UN and that the worst of them will actually control these weapons.

4. The fourth prediction is that, if any terrorists are captured, they will be brought before the UN World Court and tried as international criminals. This will create popular support for the Court and will go a long way toward legitimizing it as the ultimate high tribunal. The public will not realize the fateful precedent that is being established – a precedent that will eventually be used to justify bringing citizens of any country to trial based on charges made by their adversaries in other countries. Anyone who seriously opposes the New World Order could then be transported to The Hague in the Netherlands and face charges of polluting the planet or committing hate crimes or participating in social genocide or supporting terrorism.

5. The fifth prediction is that the FBI will be heavily criticized for failing to detect an attack as extensive and well coordinated as this. In reply, we will be told that the FBI was hampered by lack of funding, low manpower, and too little authority. Naturally, that will be followed by an increase in funding, additional manpower, and greatly expanded authority.

6. The sixth prediction is that, eventually, it will be discovered that the FBI and other intelligence agencies had prior warning and, possibly, specific knowledge of Tuesday´s attack; yet they did nothing to prevent it or to warn the victims. This will be a repeat of what happened at the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City six years previously.

7. The seventh prediction is that much of the war on terrorism will be waged against Americans inside their own country. New laws, international treaties, and executive orders will severely restrict travel, speech, privacy, and the possession of firearms. Americans have consistently rejected these measures in the past, but there will be much less opposition when they are presented in the name of fighting terrorism. Government agencies will demand to know everything about us, from our school records, our psychological profiles, our buying habits, our political views, our medical histories, our religious beliefs, the balances in our savings accounts, our social patterns, a list of our friends – everything. This will not be unique to America. The same program will be carried out in every nation in what is left of the free world.

8. The eighth prediction is that those who speak out against these measures will be branded as right-wing extremists, anti-government kooks, or paranoid militiamen. The object will be to isolate all dissidents from the mainstream and frighten everyone else into remaining silent. It is always possible to find a few genuine crackpots; and, even though they will constitute less than one percent of the movement, they will be the ones selected by the media to represent the dissident view point. A little bit of garbage can stink up the whole basket. In spite of that, responsible dissenters will still be heard. If they begin to attract a following, they will be arrested on charges of hindering the war effort, committing hate crimes, terrorism, tax evasion, investment fraud, credit-card fraud, child molestation, illegal possession of firearms, drug trafficking, money laundering, or anything else that will demonize them in the public mind. The mass media will uncritically report these charges, and the public will assume they are true. There is nothing quite so dramatic as watching someone on the evening news being thrown against the wall by a SWAT team and hauled off in handcuffs. TV viewers will assume that, surely, he must be guilty of something. His neighbors will shake their heads and say ìÖ and he seemed like such a nice person.”

9. One of the few remaining obstacles to the New World Order is the Internet, because it allows the public to bypass the mass media and have access to unfiltered information and opinion. Therefore, the ninth prediction is that laws will be enacted to restrict the use of the Internet. Child pornography has long been the rallying cry to justify government control. Now, the specter of terrorism and money laundering will be added to the list. The real object will be to eliminate the voices of dissent.

10. The tenth prediction is that the war on terrorism will be dragged out over many years or decades. Like the war on drugs after which it is patterned, there will be no victory. That is because both of these wars are designed, not to be won, but to be waged. Their function is to sensitize the population with fear and indignation, to provide credible justification for the gradual expansion of government power and the consolidation of that power into the UN.

11. The eleventh prediction is that it will take a long time to locate Osama bin Laden. A TV reporter can casually interview him at his mountain stronghold, but the U.S. military and CIA – with legions of spies and Delta forces and high-tech orbiting satellites – they cannot find him. Why not? Because they do not want to find him. His image as a mastermind terrorist is necessary as a focus for American anger and patriotic fervor. If we are to wage war, there must be someone to personify the enemy. Bin Laden is useful in that role. Of course, if his continued evasion becomes too embarrassing, he will be killed in military action or captured – if he doesn´t take his own life first. Either way, that will not put the matter to rest, because bin Laden is not the cause of terrorism, he is the icon of terrorism. If he were to be eliminated, someone else would only have to be found to take his place. So it is best to give each of them as much longevity as possible. That is why terrorists like Arrafat, Hussein, Qadhafi and Khomeini, not only are allowed to remain in power, but receive funding and military aid from the U.S. government. They are the best enemies money can buy.

12. The twelfth prediction is that, when the Taliban is toppled in Afghanistan, a new government will be established by the UN. Like Kosovo before it, the UN military will remain behind, and the country will not be independent. There will be talk about how it will represent the Afghan people, but it will serve the agendas of the internationalists who will create it. The sad country will become just another pin on the map showing the location of yet one more UN province.

13. The thirteenth prediction is that, while all this is going on, politicians will continue waving the American flag and giving lip service to traditional American sentiments in order to placate their constituency who must never be allowed to know that they are being delivered into slavery.

Read the full article

Thanksgiving, Socialism, Geoism & More

I came across a very interesting thread this past week that should interest many of our readers. It started with the posting of an article related to Thanksgiving.

The Great Thanksgiving Hoax

by Richard J. Marbury

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving’s real meaning.

The official story has the Pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his ‘History of Plymouth Plantation,’ the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with “corruption,” and with “confusion and discontent.” The crops were small because “much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable.”

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, “all had their hungry bellies filled,” but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first Thanksgiving was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changed. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, established in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from five hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was “plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure.” He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, “we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now.”

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for the same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is:
Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.

Our conclusion from reading Richard J. Marbury’s article is that socialism doesn’t work and the fair market is the source of bounty and prosperity. However, Alan a member of Alas Babylon Yahoo Group doesn’t agree that Richard has the true story. He writes:

Close, but no cigar, Richard.

“The Pilgrims set up a communist system in which they owned the land in common and would also share the harvests in common. By 1623, it became clear this system was not working out well… The Pilgrims changed their economic system FROM COMMUNISM TO GEOISM [aka Georgism, Geolibertarianism]; the land was still owned in common and could not be sold or inherited, but each family was allotted a portion, and they could keep whatever they grew… Their new geoist economic system was a great success…  The Pilgrims recognized that THE LAND ITSELF was and should be their common community property, but that it is proper for THE FRUITS OF THE LABOR of each person and family to belong to those who produced them. This was the great economics lesson the Pilgrims learned, a lesson that so impressed them that they commemorated it every year thereafter… This bitter lesson would be learned all over again by the people of the Soviet Union, where socialism and communalism of production failed again. Fortunately the Pilgrims, a smaller community in simpler times, were able to switch quickly and realize the great prosperity that comes from applying the geoist principle of THE COMMON OWNERSHIP OF LAND AND THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF LABOR.”

Alan refers us to another article for a significantly different point of view.

Thanksgiving Day – the True Story

by Fred E. Foldvary

The Thanksgiving Day that millions of Americans celebrate, with turkey and stuffing, is a myth. The true history was forgotten long ago, and even most of the history books have it wrong.

The myth goes like this: The Pilgrims landed in 1620 and founded the Colony of New Plymouth. They had a difficult first winter, but survived with the help of the Indians. In the fall of 1621, the grateful Pilgrims held their first Thanksgiving Day and invited the Indians to a big Thanksgiving-Day feast with turkey and pumpkins.

There was indeed a big feast in 1621, but it was not a Thanksgiving Day. This three-day feast was described in a letter by the colonist Edward Winslow. It was a shooting party with the Indians, but there was no Thanksgiving Day proclamation, nor any mention of a thanksgiving in 1621 in any historical record.

The history of the colony was chronicled by Governor William Bradford in his book, Of Plimouth Plantation, available at many libraries. Bradford relates how the Pilgrims set up a communist system in which they owned the land in common and would also share the harvests in common. By 1623, it became clear this system was not working out well. The men were not eager to work in the fields, since if they worked hard, they would have to share their produce with everyone else. The colonists faced another year of poor harvests. They held a meeting to decide what to do.

As Governor Bradford describes it,

“At last after much debate of things, the governor gave way that they should set corn everyman for his own particular… That had very good success for it made all hands very industrious, so much [more] corn was planted than otherwise would have been”. The Pilgrims changed their economic system from communism to geoism; the land was still owned in common and could not be sold or inherited, but each family was allotted a portion, and they could keep whatever they grew. The governor “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end.”

Bradford wrote that their experience taught them that communism, meaning sharing all the production, was vain and a failure:

“The experience that has had in this common course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst Godly and sober men, may well evince the Vanities of the conceit of Plato’s and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of propertie, and bringing into commone wealth, would make them happy and flourishing, as if they were wiser than God.”

Their new geoist economic system was a great success. It looked like they would have an abundant harvest this time. But then, during the summer, the rains stopped, threatening the crops. The Pilgrims held a “Day of Humiliation” and prayer. The rains came and the harvest was saved. It is logical to surmise that the Pilgrims saw this as a was a sign that God blessed their new economic system, because Governor Bradford proclaimed November 29, 1623, as a Day of Thanksgiving.

This was the first proclamation of thanksgiving found in Bradford’s chronicles or any other historical record. The first Thanksgiving Day was therefore in November 1623. Much later, this first Thanksgiving Day became confused and mixed up with the shooting party with the Indians of 1621. And in the mixup, the great economics lesson was forgotten and then discarded by the time the Plymouth Colony merged with the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1691.

The Pilgrims recognized that the land itself was and should be their common community property, but that it is proper for the fruits of the labor of each person and family to belong to those who produced them. This was the great economics lesson the Pilgrims learned, a lesson that so impressed them that they commemorated it every year thereafter. This should have been a day to remember their vital economics lesson, but this lesson was later forgotten in the mixup with the shooting party with the Indians!

This bitter lesson would be learned all over again by the people of the Soviet Union, where socialism and communalism of production failed again. Fortunately the Pilgrims, a smaller community in simpler times, were able to switch quickly and realize the great prosperity that comes from applying the geoist principle of the common ownership of land and the individual ownership of labor.

Thanksgiving Day should be remembered not just as a day when we give thanks for our abundance, but more deeply and historically when we recall why we have this abundance. In our Thanksgiving Day celebrations, let us therefore tell one another the true origins of the thanksgiving and the great economic lesson that it rightfully should remember.

Arthur Noll responds:

I’d heard the first story about how the Pilgrims switched to a market and succeeded, but not the second given by Alan here, where land was still kept in common.  Interesting. The rebuttal I had at the time, was to ask how the natives had been successful with their different systems.  They were using many different methods, I’m sure, the tribes were very diverse, but the market system was unknown, the results of very rich and poor in European communities was found repulsive to natives in everything I’ve read about it.  Yet  in spite of the diversity of the native tribes, there are common factors of similarity to the Pilgrim solution. Land was held in common by native tribes, and much was shared.    Yet there was also individual ownership of things, and it seemed to be decided on the matter of labor put in.

Some have scoffed at the organization of the native tribes, they couldn’t stand up to the European system of markets, indeed, the Pilgrim system was eventually swallowed up by it too. But consider this, consider two men fighting, one has steel tools and weapons, gunpowder, the other has stone tools and weapons, no gunpowder.  If you don’t consider this to be a factor, you might try some stone tools and weapons, and compare them with their steel counterparts.  Social organization is an important factor, but so is technology.

I think technology has allowed people to be very lax about the effectiveness of their social organization. With stone technology, you needed the most effective social organization to go with it, or you wouldn’t survive.  40,000 years or more of evolution had weeded out and said that this organization of the tribes was the best.   Now enter metals, and people feel like the technology made with them is so powerful that the former level of cooperation, once essential, was not needed anymore.  They feel they can safely indulge their lust for luxuries and power. Over the short term they were right.  Over the long term, it becomes clear that the waste and ignoring of the balance of nature, cannot be ignored.

In the stone age people had little need to worry about the balance of nature. Nature had always taken care of the matter, killing off people as fast as they reproduced, the technology could not take enough to threaten anything.  Technology and agriculture  in the late stone age started to disrupt this, stone age growth of population with tribes like the  Maya, the Mound Builders, started us on a boom and bust stage of history.  Metals have greatly magnified the problem.  Simply going back to old systems of social organization are not enough, this question of balance with nature has to be taken into account.  But systems based on cooperation and trust are going to be, as I’ve said several times before, inherently more efficient, and that was more the model of the stone age tribes.

Efficiency and sustainablility of that efficiency, will rule in the end. People who exploit nature and each other, are like the runner at the start of a marathon who starts off sprinting.  Of course they go far ahead of the pack to begin.  But in the end, they are likely to finish last, if at all.

Alan responds with another point:

Arthur, I also think we must address the issue of population density.  Two thousand years ago, the world population was approximately 100 million.  Today it is six billion.  Population has grown 60 fold, while the land surface of the earth has remained the same.

I think low population density “allowed people to be very lax about the effectiveness of their social organization”.  Today, your fair share of world agricultural land is 1.6 acres of thoroughly average land.  Two millenia ago, it was 96 acres.

Man is programmed to grow his numbers.  Our common genital destiny is to turn plenty into scarcity by making more of ourselves.  Technology has occasionally appeared that reduced scarcity, how have we responded?  With population growth.  Man acts to return himself to a situation of scarcity.

Co-Operation and Hierarchy 

Arthur Noll

My response to the following post at the Alas Babylon Yahoo group:

 ”Hierarchy is something that keeps society secure. Any society without a clean chain of command is an anarchy, which can be easily overcome by smaller but more organized groups.”

Partnerships, cooperative societies, have hierarchies.  The main difference, is that these hierarchies are more flexible.  For any given situation, you are likely to have a different set of masters and servants. These can be very clear lines, even though more flexible.  You don’t question what a doctor says about health issues,  or what an engineer has to say about engineering issues, unless you have very good reason to think they are wrong, like the patient gets sicker, the building falls apart. 

In a cooperative society, as I envision it, people also feel comfortable with the direction they are being pointed because there is more trust that the master of a given situation didn’t get there by cheating. They didn’t inherit the position, didn’t buy it.  They got it because they were competent to have it.  They are not there by cheating and they are not there to continue the cheating and give you false direction in order to further advance themselves at your expense.

Fixed hierarchies are often wasteful of human resources, which in turn makes them wasteful of natural resources.  Stalin, for example, deliberately went against engineering recommendations for energy efficiency in the manufacture of many things.  He had factories spread out in different cities, so that things had to be transported long distances for final assembly. Why?  He was holding power by force, by the army, by secret police. He couldn’t trust anyone, and if things were set up efficiently, people could revolt easier.  In effect, he put shackles of inefficiency on his people. He could control them easier that way.  That is a general principle of controlling people by force.  You put shackles on them, maybe real iron ones, maybe shackles of fear, maybe shackles of inefficient design. Maybe all of them. The shackles you forge to control, of whatever type, always cut into the efficiency of movement.

As a cooperative society gets bigger, with more specialists, it will find it needs some generalists to sit at the center of things, able to facilitate communications between the specialists, and with such a broad view,  generalists will more often than specialists be able to provide overall direction for the group when that is needed.  But such leadership is cooperative, if it is going to be efficient.  It listens to everyone, and doesn’t put shackles on the people to force them to behave easier.  If such generalists do their job properly, what they end up doing most of the time is lending a hand to whatever part of society needs a little extra help, and in that role, they act as servants to various specialist masters. 

One commonly sees this model with an orchestra.  The conductor is needed to coordinate everyone, especially at the beginning and learning a new piece. S/he must understand on a fairly high level all the instruments, the capabilities of the players, and can probably play many of them, but not as well as the people who have specialized.  Once the group is started playing, and is familiar with a piece, the conductor can do just as well to grab an instrument and play along.  In a well run society, central leaders might be found milking the goats or fixing a net, doing any number of common jobs, and taking direction about them, too.

“The meek will inherit the earth.”

Leading the World into Prosperity and Peace…

Paul Bacarte

The future will recognize that a terrible shock-wave attended the birth of the third millennium. A monstrous terrorist attack on the American World Trade Center and the Pentagon announced that some things were changing dramatically, and as a consequence, others would have to be changed as soon as possible. Retaliation and suppression, merciless eradication of the Evil, were, understandibly, the first emotional and sturdy exclamations to be heard ! Obedience to such barbarian tribal instigations and primitive mass instincts, without further considerations about psychological and societal causes of the despicable and grievous things that happened, and the rough consequences of the additional evil of ‘an eye for an eye´, is the very last the world is in need of. The world is vacillating dangerously at the parting of two roads, one ominous road tracing a diabolic spiral of aggression and blind destruction, the other, much more difficult, appealing to superior intellectual faculties, leading into generalized wealth and bliss everywhere. For the latter to realize, mankind has to take a high treshold, inducing some mutations in the worldwide ‘civilization´ as we have known it up to now. Happily enough, such mutations can take place within the frame of an adapted, much more humanized capitalism, which make them essentially less utopic to occur in the near future.

Read the full article