V-50 Session 7

Well, good evening ladies and gentlemen.  Good evening and welcome to the seventh session of the V-50 Lectures.  I’ll begin this lecture by asking you the following question.  Namely, how many of you would like to have a broken arm?  Now be honest.  Alright, maybe you didn’t like the question.  How many of you would like to have a broken leg?  I warned you earlier.  You’re going to have to come to a decision.  Now which is it going to be, a broken arm or a broken leg?  Make up your mind.

The only fair thing to do is vote on it.  This is a serious question for purposes of demonstration.  If you were given a choice between having your arm broken or your leg broken, one or the other, which would you choose?  Alright.  How many of you would rather have a broken arm?  Let me see a show of hands.  Alright.  Thank you.  Alright.  How many of you would rather have a broken leg?  Alright.  Thank you.  I noticed some of you didn’t even raise your hand.  Aren’t you voting?  Alright, all of you who raised your hands and voted for either a broken arm or a broken leg, we will call the responsible good citizens of the community.  Those of you who didn’t even bother to vote, we will call the irresponsible bad citizens of the community.

I will now give you the results of our election.  Congratulations, those voting for a broken arm have the majority vote, clearly.  Everyone gets his arm broken.  Now, those of you who wanted your leg broken, you had your chance.  You didn’t campaign hard enough.  Don’t be discouraged.  You have, perhaps, four years to build your organization with hard work, greater dedication, more organization.  In four years, the leg-breaker party could be victorious.  Those of you who failed to vote at all, it’s your own fault if you prefer, let’s say, a broken leg instead of a broken arm.  Your vote could have made the difference.  In other words, if you would have given your support to the leg-breaker party, they might have been victorious and everyone could have had his leg broken.

I’m sure some of you are probably thinking, some troublemaker in the room is probably thinking, wait a minute, wait a minute.  They have to choose between the leg-breaker party and the arm-breaker party.  That’s not a choice.  The only real choice is a third party, the back-breaker party.  Well, I’m going to demonstrate, ladies and gentlemen, in this lecture this evening, that you are offered exactly two choices by your so-called political leadership.  Choice one, I will demonstrate, is called communism.  Choice two, however, is called fascism.  That’s it.  I will demonstrate this evening that’s the only alternative you’re presented with.

Alright, how many of you would like to live in a communist state?  You don’t like the question?  Alright.  How many then would like to live in a fascist state?  That’s it.  Take your choice.  As incredible as it may seem, this is the alternative we’re offered today by our political so-called leadership.  Well, I have this question for you.  Was this the alternative offered by the founders of this nation?  Was this the alternative offered by the founder of the American republic, Thomas Paine?  Let’s put a picture of Paine on the screen.  Was this the alternative offered by George Washington?  Thomas Jefferson?  James Madison?  John Adams?

Alright, I have this question for you.  How did our culture degenerate to a level in which the only remaining alternative is communism or fascism?  How did this happen?  It’s important to understand how this has happened.

The entire lecture this evening will be on the subject of false alternatives.  A false alternative involves any situation in which you’re offered a choice between two alternatives, both of which will prove to be in the end highly unprofitable to you.  As you will see, the American revolution got off to a very good start.  The question is what went wrong?  Now, before I take the time to identify what went wrong, another question is, is it useful to identify what went wrong in the first place?  Is it negative to identify what went wrong?  What do you think?

Many people assume, a very common posture is, well, I don’t want to know what’s wrong.  I don’t want to think anything’s wrong.  I only want to think positive.  I don’t want to think negative.  I only want to think that everything is good.  That’s a very common position.  I would say, outside of this theory, there has not been articulated a clear distinction between positive thought versus negative thought, positive action versus negative action.  Now let’s put some precision into our thinking as to what constitutes a negative action versus what constitutes a positive action.

A negative action is any volitional action that diminishes property or destroys property.  For example, murder is a negative action.  It destroys primordial property.  Murder is a theft of primordial property.   Arson is a negative action.  It destroys primordial, primary, and secondary property.  All taxes involve negative action.  The tax diminishes the property of the producer.  The tax destroys the property of the producer.  And so, all theft of property diminishes the incentive of the producer of property to generate more property and to acquire more property.

In contrast, a positive action is any action that augments, increases property, builds property.  The innovation of the product called steel is a positive action.  As you know, steel does not exist in nature.  You do not mine steel.  You do not walk into a forest and find steel girders hanging from a steel girder tree.  Once steel is innovated, once a method of how to produce steel on an efficient basis is innovated, that is clearly a positive action.  And so, the production of steel is a positive action.

Let me ask you this question.  What if there’s a particular flaw in a given bridge design?  Let’s say there’s an error in the design that produces, let’s say, a stress that will cause the bridge to collapse within, let’s say, five to ten years.  Is it a positive action or a negative action to attempt to identify the source of the error?  Is that positive or negative?  Is it a positive or a negative action to discover the solution to the problem?  Well, that’s positive, isn’t it?  Is it a positive action or a negative action to correct the error?  Or is the answer to all of these questions is these are positive actions?

Alright, is there a difference in principle between attempting to first identify and then correct the cause, the very cause that creates a situation where all of these various bridges collapse versus identifying the cause and correcting the cause of what is causing every civilization to collapse?  Is there a difference in principle?  No difference in principle.  However there is a difference in the amount of property affected by the collapse of a bridge versus the amount of property affected by the collapse of an entire civilization.

Well now, if you understand the lecture this evening, I’m giving a few basic concepts that will explain a great deal.  And you should be looking for generalizations that increase your knowledge in this lecture and in every lecture.  And when you increase your knowledge, if it is what is called right knowledge, then you have accomplished a very large, significant addition to what is called your wealth because your right knowledge is the most important wealth that you possess.  And let’s again look at the definition of importance.  Importance is the measure of the total amount of property affected.  You cannot possess property more important than right knowledge.  And when you add to your right knowledge, you have added to your primary property.  When you add to your primary property in this way, you have added to your primary wealth.  Remember the first postulate, of course, says all volitional beings live to pursue happiness.  The first corollary says all volitional beings live to acquire one thing, property. And so, when you acquire property that means you are acquiring happiness.  The means to greater happiness is greater property acquisition, of both the primary and the secondary variety of property or concept of property, but most important the primary property acquisition.  Hence the primary wealth.

Alright, what went wrong with the American experiment with liberty?  The American revolution got off to a tremendous start.  What went wrong?  How did it get sidetracked?  I discussed in an earlier lecture, in particular Lecture #4, I pointed out that all civilizations have perished as a direct result of one thing, coercive interference with the individual and his property through what are called political institutions.  The demand for security is met with a political supply of plans.  All of this results in greater attacks upon property, the destruction of incentive, etcetera, etcetera, lower and lower production.  Coercion was defined as any attempted and intentional interference with property.  I pointed out that there are two forms of coercion.  They’re called force and fraud.  Force being interference with property by physical means; fraud, interference with property by so-called intellectual means.  These forms of coercion have existed in every civilization in history.  They still exist today.

However, I’d like to point out, that in earlier periods of history, coercion largely took the form of force.  Prior to the American revolution, the tribal chief was essentially in full control.  The only question really was which tribal chief will prevail?  Will it be tribal chief A or tribal chief B or perhaps tribal chief C?  Let me ask you this question.  Why was Julius Cesar assassinated in the year 44 B.C.?  Why was he assassinated?  First of all, was he assassinated by common thugs?  Ruffians?  No.  He was assassinated by the leading citizens of Rome, wasn’t he?  The members of the most prestigious Roman Senate.

There were members of the Senate who feared it was Cesar’s intention to overthrow the republican form of government and establish a monarchy in Rome.  And so, a committee of senators, claiming that Cesar would bring tyranny through despotic rulership, they stabbed him to death on the floor of the Senate.  Well, did this act of murder bring freedom to Rome?  Did it preserve the Roman Republic?  Well, as many of you know, the death of Cesar was followed by a committee of rulers; three rulers, in fact, called a triumvirate.  And this coalition of three rulers gave way finally to the very thing the Roman Senate claimed they feared the most, the absolute rulership, a total dictatorship, of Augustus Cesar, the strongest of the three and he prevailed.  And he was the first Roman emperor.  And so, they got the very thing they feared the most.  And that was the justification for the murder of Cesar.  They wanted to preserve the Roman republic.

Well, the pre-American revolution period, prior to the American revolution, it was really only necessary for the tribal chief to have some alliance with the witchdoctor in order to make his reign palatable, acceptable to the people.  I’ve already given you the outstanding historical example of tribal chief reliance upon the witchdoctor which occurred in the Egyptian civilization.  The witchdoctor, in the role of high priest, simply convinced the Egyptian people that their future welfare depended upon the welfare of the pharaoh after his death.  And the welfare of the pharaoh after his death depended upon the welfare of the pharaoh prior to his death.  And, of course, when the pharaoh died, since he was going to be buried with all of his great wealth, the gold and the silver and the fine raiments and the art treasures and so forth, there had to be a mechanism to protect his property.  One means of protecting it was called the construction of a giant safe called a pyramid.   A pyramid was nothing more than a giant safe, among the largest safes ever built.

As I may or may not have pointed out, when the pyramid was completed, if the architect was still living, did I mention he would be executed?  Did I mention this?  And then the people who worked on the internal parts of the most secret chambers and so forth, they would be executed.  Commonly, the executioners would be executed and even the executioners of the executioners would be executed and so forth.  And as I pointed out, eventually you have to put an end to this because you quickly run out of Egyptians.  And, of course, none of this was effective in protecting this great wealth.

In any event, as I pointed out, the whole thing was fraud.  The whole structure went on for thousands and thousands of years.  And, again, the demand for security on the part of the Egyptian people, the slaves and everyone else, was met with a political supply of plans.  The plan was you take care of the pharaoh in this world and in the next world he will take care of you.  But if you don’t take care of the pharaoh in this world, too bad.  To use a popular expression today, you lose.  You don’t get anything at all in the next world.  So you better take care of the pharaoh in this world.  Okay?  You got it?  We got it chief.  And they got it for thousands and thousands of years.  You know what they got.

The second outstanding historical example of witchdoctoring or fraud was a concept called the divine right of kings.  It was said, by the witchdoctors of course, that the king rules by the direct authority of God.  Now why do you suppose it’s necessary to conjure up this particular bit of fraud?  To say that the king was a specially appointed representative of God, the source of the entire universe, that the king and his family have been chosen to rule, that when the king dies, even though he’s sired a total imbecile and idiot for a son, God has chosen this idiot to rule.  This is God’s handpicked representative here, this imbecile.

Well, the divine right concept essentially does this.  It gives the king a new ally, a very powerful ally, namely the source of the entire universe, the deity.  You see, if you simply have a man on the throne who is a mere mortal, why, someone might come along and say, “Well, wait a minute. You know, I’m not so sure that this King John or King George or King James ought to run my life, steal my property, and then have the audacity to tell me what to do with what he hasn’t stolen yet.  I’m not so sure that I like this”.

On the other hand, if this King John or King George, if he happens to be a divine right ruler, if he’s handpicked by God himself, then it’s unlikely that any God-fearing man is going to challenge his authority.  And even if, let’s say, an occasional fellow comes along and sees through the entire fraud, he’ll probably have considerable difficulty convincing anyone of the true situation.  And so, these early tribal chiefs and witchdoctors simply made use of the technique that Adolph Hitler later made famous. It’s a technique, in fact, that all tyrants have used with great effectiveness.  It goes this way: the bigger the lie, the more often it is repeated, the more likely it is to be believed.   That’s still the principal technology used today by tyrants and I’ll come back to it later.  This certainly was a whopper of a lie, to say that a given individual who calls himself king got his authority to rule directly from God.  I can assure you the source of the universe did not choose Henry XVIII or Charles I or Richard III to rule anyone but if you say it long enough, loud enough, and strong enough, you can get almost everyone to believe this.  Both classes: those who went to school and those who didn’t.  And it was the witchdoctors that built this mechanism for the kings.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, this concept of the divine right of kings was completely shattered by one man.  His name, Thomas Paine.  Now when Thomas Paine arrives in America from England, the myth of the king as the only head of state, the myth of the monarchy, is still the prevailing view.  At the time of Paine’s arrival, the popular slogan is one you may remember from even elementary school.  I remember this from around the fourth or fifth grade, a very powerful slogan that the colonists had.  You may remember the slogan:  No taxation without representation.  I remember in the fifth grade or so, thinking at the time, boy, these colonists were men of strength and character.  Boy, they really told the king.  No taxation without representation.

Would any of you like a free translation of this quotation?  I’ll give it to you anyhow.  It says, essentially this says we refuse to be taxed unless we can send some of our boys over to the Parliament to vote on these taxes.  In other words, it’s alright for the king to tax us as long as we can have our own people participate in the plunder.  In other words, we want in on the stealing.  That’s a statement of principle?  No taxation without representation or no theft without representation?  It doesn’t sound quite as impressive that way, does it?

When Paine arrives in America, the cry, the common view, is let’s accomplish reconciliation with the king.  Let’s kiss the king and make up.  At the time, this view is shared by almost everyone in the colonies including people you’ve heard of like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington.  And while everyone was trying to make up with the king, this man, Thomas Paine, singlehandedly launches the American revolution, completely shattering the deification of the king and the entire concept of monarchy.

How many of you, without any influence from Professor Galambos, have read Common Sense?  Let’s see a show of hands.  Alright.  There appears to be maybe less than a dozen in this room.  Alright, again, not to insult you, but just to make a point, when I mention a work favorably or an individual favorably and ask how many have heard of Such and Such a work or have you heard of So and So, and only a few people raise their hands, or no one raises his hand, what does that mean?  This must be one of the greatest, most important, significant works ever written.  This must be one of the greatest men who ever lived.  And this is not to insult you.  If it will make you feel any better, I did not read Common Sense before I took this course myself.  So those of you who did, you certainly did more than I did prior to this course.  And the only reference I even recall of Thomas Paine, for example, and that’s taking two semesters of college level American History, in those days, I don’t know what they call it days, it was called, I think, History 7A and 7B.  Do they still give this course?  Anyhow.  The only reference I can recall of Thomas Paine was he was a pamphleteer during the Revolution.  A pamphleteer who had written Common Sense and a few other things.

Alright, let me read to you from, especially since Thomas Paine has been one of the most viciously slandered and maligned people who have ever walked this planet.  In that connection I would like to point out something else.  If you want to clearly understand an individual, the most important thing you can do, in terms of acquiring that understanding, is read what the man himself had to say and not what others had to say about him.  That’s especially true in the case of a man such as Paine who has been viciously maligned and slandered.  I will now read a few quotes from Common Sense.

And also, I ‘d like to point out he has a very powerful style of writing.  If you read the works of men such as Washington, Jefferson, and other people, Adams, at the time, you’ll find that they have a very cumbersome writing style.  They have long, rambling sentences, almost paragraph sentences, modifiers upon modifiers that go on and on and on.  Very difficult to read.  And Thomas Paine is the first man in history who was able to reach through writing the two classes.  It was very important.  He’s the first person to reach the two classes.  Most of the people at this time, of course, are illiterate.  Maybe at best, 10% of the colonists know how to read.  So those who did know how to read would read Common Sense to the masses, to the people on the steps of the general store, on the stairs of the courthouse.  And the people would gather around while those who were literate would read this and they would be in rapt attention.  The officers would read this to the soldiers in the Continental Army when they were drawn up at formation at attention.  And they would stand at attention while Common Sense was read.  In general, only the officers were literate in the army in those days.  Alright.  This is Thomas Paine.  He says:

“But where say some is the king of America?  I’ll tell you friend.  He reigns above and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Britain”.  Now maybe I better comment here.  Thomas Paine is referring to His Highness, the king of England as the royal brute of Britain.  He’s essentially saying this fellow is a thug.  This is not how you speak of the king.  And it’s difficult for us to appreciate this today but the attitude the people had with respect to the king, when the king comes into the room, oh, the king, oh, the king.  And people groveling on the ground and it’s nauseating.  Kissing his hand and his feet.  Unbelievable.  And so, Paine continues.  I point out you do not refer to the king this way, but he does anyhow.  He continues:

“Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter.  Let it be brought forth, placed on the divine law, the word of God.  Let a crown be placed thereon by which the world may know that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king”.

What does he mean by that?  Natural law, the laws of nature, should reign and that’s all.  He continues:

“For as in absolute governments, the king is law, so in free countries, the law ought to be king and there ought to be no other.  But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the Crown, at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is”.

What is he saying?  The entire concept of monarchy should be demolished.  It has no utility.  This represents a complete total break with all past tradition.  I’ll read you two more quotes from Mr. Paine.  And note the humor in his style as well.  He says:

“For monarchy in every instance is the popery of government.  To the evil of  monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession.  As the first is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a matter of right, is an insult and imposition on posterity.  For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others forever.  Though himself might deserve some decent honors of his contemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them”.

And then he concludes, “One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of the hereditary right of kings is that nature disapproves it.  Otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion”.

Or, in other words, the lion representing the king, an ass for a king.  Of course, if the shoe fits….

Anyhow, one last quote from Paine although this doesn’t begin to do this work justice at all but I’ll give you one more.  He says, “In England, a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places which, in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears.  A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed 800,000 sterling a year for and worshipped in the bargain.  Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived”.

Let me repeat that last part again.  That is a giant concept ladies and gentlemen.  That is one of the largest concepts ever conceived, a total break with all past tradition.  He says, listen carefully, “Of more worth [more worth] is one honest man [What’s an honest man?  A man that doesn’t cheat you, swindle you, attack your property, a man who respects property, he’s not a liar or a cheat.  Of more worth is one honest man] to society and in the sight of God than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived”.

What’s he saying?  One honest producer – an honest man is also someone who does not want something for nothing.  One honest producer is worth more than all of the monarchs, all of the crowned thugs that have ever lived throughout all history combined. That’s difficult to appreciate today.  Why?  We’ve known this now for two hundred years.  At the time this is written, this was not known except by one man, Thomas Paine.  He made the knowledge available to others through Common Sense.  And so, in Common Sense, Paine clearly demonstrates the country can exist without a king.  It will not fall apart.  In fact, the country will prosper without a king.  And so, the true significance of the American revolution stems from the fact that the entire subject of monarchy is rendered impotent in the greater part of the western world.  Remember, Paine’s major antecedent, he has two major antecedents: Isaac Newton and John Locke.  Paine eliminated the most common form of witch doctoring at that time, the divine right of kings.  Paine essentially eliminates the tribal chief state in the greater part of the western world.

Unfortunately, what Paine did not eliminate, was the witchdoctor state in the western world.  At the very time that the divine right of kings concept is on its way out, a new and even greater fraud is beginning to take its place. The man who’s behind this new fraud certainly will go down in history as a man who has had few equals in terms of the destructive effect of his ideas.  His name is Karl Marx.  Now Karl Marx was not alone, but he does represent the singular most important figure who achieved the establishment of a social structure based upon fraud and another social structure based upon force.  As a matter of fact, Marx developed two different tactical programs which are called in V-50, Marx I and Marx II.  Marx I is the tactical program set forth in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, written in 1848.  The basic concept involves fraud.  Marx II is a tactical program set forth in a work called Das Kapital written in 1867; the basis of this is force.  Das Kapital is called Marx II simply because it chronologically came some nineteen years after the Manifesto of the Communist Party.

Now Marx I is usually identified with what is called national socialism or fascism.  Marx II is identified with what is called communism.  For example, the type of communism that exists today, let’s say, on mainland China.  The strategic goals of both programs, the goals are identical.   The goal is to control the individual through the control of his property.  As a matter of fact, in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Karl Marx gives a very fine statement, a definition of communism which sometimes appears in Session 1 of this course.  I don’t think we got it in in the first session here in Orange County.  In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx does the best job of defining communism I’ve ever seen.  He says, “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in a single sentence: abolition of private property”.

Oh, I’ve had people say, “That’s not what communism is”.  Well, first of all, this is not my definition of communism.  It’s not Galambos’ definition of communism.  It’s Karl Marx’s.  Although someone says, well, that’s not what communism is, take your complaint to Marx.  That’s what he says it is.  If Marx is not an authority on communism, I would be hard pressed to know who is.  And please note that Marx’s definition of communism, how is that related…did I discuss this here in Orange County?  Did I give you this definition?  I don’t think I did.   Please note that Marx’s definition of communism is 180° out of phase with Galambos’ definition of freedom which involves the total protection of property.  And essentially communism involves the theft of property.

And, essentially, all you need to know about communism, communism is nothing more than an entire social structure based on stealing.  Once you recognize that, then the only other thing you have to make is some qualitative judgment on the subject of communism.  One, communism is always right.  Two, communism is always wrong.  Three, communism is sometimes right, sometimes wrong.  Once you make that qualitative statement, then you can evaluate it.  Well, what else do you have to know?  Not much.  Is stealing always right?  Is stealing always wrong?  And so forth.

Well, as you know, Marx hated the concept of private property.  He wanted to eliminate all private ownership of property.  It’s interesting to note that Marx, in the 19th century, is essentially saying freedom is a derivative of the theft of property.  A century earlier, in the 18th century, the liberals, libre meaning free, the liberals said freedom depends upon the protection of property.  Marx says, no, it depends upon the theft of property.

Well, the Marx I program is put forth in the communist manifesto.  However, by today’s standards, it’s not really even a communist document in the sense of at least communism typified by, let’s say, mainland China today.  The Communist Manifesto would today best be titled the Welfare State Manifesto or the Fascist Manifesto because it states the program of the welfare state and not the program of communism, let’s say, known in the 20th century, let’s say, in China or other parts of the world.

Alright, let’s examine the distinction between Marx I and Marx II, the Marx I program based upon fraud, the Marx II program based upon principally force.  Let’s take a moment to look at the Manifesto of the Communist Party.  How many of you have read that?  The Manifesto of the Communist Party?  Less than a dozen.  Incidentally, the Manifesto of the Communist Party is one of the most important works written.  Has it had a large effect upon property?  Importance is defined as what?  A measure of the effect upon property.  That is an important work.  However, its importance is called negative importance because it involves the destruction of property.

Alright, let’s look at the fairly well known ten point program that Karl Marx outlines.  I’m quoting from the Manifesto of the Communist Party, written in 1848 by both Marx and Engels, Friedrich Engels.  And they say:

“We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. [Of course, to rule implies there are people being ruled.  You cannot have rulers without those being ruled, alright?] The proletariat [that is the workers, working class] will use its political supremacy. [Political always means a mechanism of coercion.  So the workers will use coercion, or coercive supremacy, to wrest by degrees [in other words, to take away gradually] all capital from the bourgeoisie.  [Capital in terms of factories and machines and so forth.  And the bourgeoisie being the upper middle class producers, the professional people and the principal generators of property.  Alright, in other words, they’re going to take away property gradually from this class]   to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state [and so forth].  Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property.  [What is he saying?  Clearly stating what?  The only way we can accomplish this is to steal the property, or a despotic inroad, which means a coercive seizure of property.]  These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.  Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.  [Now by the most advanced countries, he means those countries that are the most technologically advanced at this time.  And he would be referring to, for example, England, France, Germany, the United States, the most technologically advanced countries].

Alright, this is Karl Marx’s program for the United States of America in 1848.  Let’s see to what extent he has been successful.  Has he been successful or has he failed with his ten point program here in America?  Alright, I’ll read you the ten:

  1. Abolition of property and land, an application of all rents of land to public purposes.

How many of you are aware that somewhere in the magnitude of 40% of the land mass of this country is directly controlled by the federal state?  How many know this?  I’m sure it’s at least half if you throw in the local states and the counties in the various 50 states and the cities, the amount they own in addition to this.  For example, if you can see this picture of the United States with a bar going through the center, everything to the left of that bar shows the total amount of land mass controlled by the federal state in total.  They even give a breakdown by various states: 97% of Alaska, 44% of California, 44% of the state is directly controlled by the federal government in terms of military reservations, national forests, etcetera, etcetera, Colorado 36%, Idaho 64%, Montana 30%, Nevada 86%, New Mexico 34%, Oregon 52%, Utah 66%, Washington 30%, Wyoming 47% and so forth.

  1. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Need I say more?  As you know, they can confiscate up to, what, 70%  of your income through the progressive income tax.

  1. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

The last time I checked on the figures, they can confiscate up to 77% of an estate through inheritance tax.  There have been heirs who have wound up owing.  The entire estate is confiscated and they wind up owing.  As I pointed out, if they overlook any of your property while you are alive and producing, like vultures and carrion birds, they immediately swoop down to plunder the rest as soon as you die.  That’s called vulture technology.  That’s what a vulture does.  They attack when you can’t fight back.  You can’t do anything about it at all.

  1. Confiscation of the property of all immigrants and rebels.
  2. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Well, we have organizations like the Federal Reserve System and Reconstruction Finance Corporation and various other boondoggle agencies to accomplish this.

  1. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Various organizations, the Federal Communication Commission, the FAA, Interstate Commerce Commissions, Federal Trade Commission, these various alphabet soup agencies essentially accomplish much of this.

  1. The extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state to bring it into cultivation wastelands and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We have, for example, the various Department of Agriculture boondoggle programs, etcetera.

  1. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We haven’t gotten around quite yet to a conscription of labor directly although they started such projects, as you know, during America’s so-called Great Depression.  The military draft, of course, accomplishes this.  And I presume you do recognize we have not seen the last of the military draft.  It has only been temporarily suspended.  It will be back.  And there’s always been talking of drafting those people also who are not fit for military duty and they can do various forms of labor.  For that matter, there’s even talk of drafting women.  That’s fair anyhow.  If a woman, for example, wants to be equal with a man, it’s only fair that she should get to fight in a foxhole too.  Is that right?  Why should just the men have to be in foxholes?  What’s fair is fair.  Right, men?  I resent that.  Why should I just have to be in a foxhole?  I want some companionship.

  1. A combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries. Gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

And last, but not least, my favorite of the ten:

  1. Free education for all children in the public schools.

Although I disagree with Marx on that one.  I would make that number one.  As a matter of fact, if my goal were to be tyrant, I may have mentioned this, I may not have, if my goal were to be tyrant or dictator, I would absolutely insist that everyone go to school.  I would demand 100% literacy.  As a matter of fact, if I were running the show, if anyone didn’t know how to read by the sixth grade, I would have them shot.  I mean that.  If I were going to optimize tyranny, I would not allow any illiterates.  And I could build a tyranny like the world has never seen, but in order to do that I must have total literacy.  Everyone must know how to read.  Incidentally, that would improve the incentive to learn how to read.  Shoot everyone if they can’t pass a certain reading test by the sixth grade.  Alright, eighth grade.  This guy is pretty hard nose.

Please note that all of these ten points have been adopted in the United States, either in part or in total.  They are the law of the land.  They represent the political philosophy of both of the major parties in this country as well as the independents.  Alright, how successful has Karl Marx been since 1848?  Do we have, for example, a heavy, progressive, graduated income tax in 1848?  Did we have any income tax on any basis in 1848?  No.  There was none.  Did we have these extensive inheritance taxes in 1848?  No.  Did we have, for example, a Federal Reserve System?  Did we have the Federal Trade Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission?  Did we have any of these various boondoggle…Department of Agriculture hand out subsidy boondoggles, etcetera?  Tennessee Valley Authority?  Did we have any of this in 1848?  No.  Did we have an extensive public school system in 1848?  No.  There were hardly any public schools in 1848.  Almost every college and university in 1848 was private.  There may have, by that time, a few state schools may have crept in by 1848.  But if there were any at all, by then, they were few.  It’s easy to look up if you want to do the research on it.  But they were few, if any at all.

As a matter of fact, the one room schoolhouse was not what we would today call the public school system because that, in most instances, was voluntarily supported.  A school marm was given a stipend and she would be given by the people in the town and the surrounding area would bring her food and various things and provide her with a place to live and so forth.  And it wasn’t even tax supported.  And I might also point out, with few resources, the school marm was able to teach in general her students how to read and to write and to even do some elementary mathematics like adding up a column of figures and come out with the right answer.  And even more complicated things like long division and multiplication of fractions.  She did a very effective job on that on a miniscule budget.  Does that tell you anything?

Now we sink hundreds of millions of dollars down the rat hole and there’s a good probability that you go to school for thirteen years, that’s including Kindergarten, and you are illiterate.  And even those who do manage to learn how to read, can they evaluate the intellectual thought content of what is written and determine what is right so they won’t be swindled all their life by every witchdoctor and swindler that comes onto the scene?  Can they do that?  Good luck.  As a matter of fact, if you cannot think, you’d be better off not knowing how to read because once you learn how to read and cannot evaluate, your acceptance of that can destroy you.  That’s what’s happening right now.  Notice that the emphasis here is upon….oh, I was going to ask you this.  How many of these did we have in 1848?  I just want to finish that thought.  Virtually none.  Today we have almost all of them.  Karl Marx has been very successful, hasn’t he?

And yet, if you were to call any of these programs Marxian, or you were to say, hey, I got this great idea out of the Communist Manifesto about this extensive public school system, you couldn’t get it through.  If you labeled yourself a Marxist or a Communist, and that was your political affiliation, you could hardly get a vote.  Well, it isn’t necessary.  You introduce the same thing and call yourself a Republican or a Democrat and you can get it through easily.  Who do you think introduced all this communist legislation?  They’re called Republicans and Democrats.  Look at the history of the two….

The Republicans, incidentally, generally having the image of the friend of private enterprise, it was the Republican party that gave you the income tax, first through Abraham Lincoln, later through Teddy Roosevelt.  It was the Republican Party that gave you the Federal Reserve System which paved the way for America’s Great Depression and also now our inflation and much other forms of destruction.  It was the Republican Party that gave you the strengthening of the anti-trust laws.  I already mentioned this earlier.  This came through Teddy Roosevelt.  Did I mention that; 1913 – the worst year for freedom in America.

As a matter of fact, in comparing the two parties, this is a little premature to even discuss this now, but comparing the two parties, Republicans and Democrats, traditionally the Republicans have introduced the most coercive and destructive legislation in our history; anti-production, anti-business legislation.  That has come from the Republican Party.  Did you know that?  And yet, the Republican Party is supposed to be the friend of business.  That is total nonsense.

But, although the Republicans have introduced the most destructive legislation, they haven’t done much with it.  It’s the Democratic Party that has really put the coercive Republican legislation into effect.  In other words, Republicans introduce it, the Democrats make it work.  That has essentially been the history of the two political parties in this country.

Notice that the emphasis here has been upon gradualism.  The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by degrees all capitol from the bourgeoisie.  In other words, the strategy in Marx I fraud is this: don’t rock the boat.  What was the extent of the graduated income tax, the percentages, in 1913?  How many of you know what it was?  It went from 1% to a maximum of 6%.  But most people weren’t even paying 1% because you had to be in a very high income bracket to be paying anything at all.  I’ve seen the statistics long ago, I don’t remember them exactly, but essentially in 1913, when they first put this into effect, essentially no one was paying tax at all.  But what if in 1913 they had introduced a 70% income tax?  Or what we have today?  They’d have a hard time getting that one through.  As a matter of fact, Cabot Lodge, one of the earlier Lodge members at the time, that was not intended to be a pun if it sounded like one, although I guess you call the Senate a lodge, anyhow, he was arguing on the floor of the Senate against the income tax.  His argument was I believe if the Senate passes this legislation that someday Congress may take as much as 10% of a man’s income.  And he was laughed off the floor of the Senate.  Why the American people would be in open revolt before they’d ever allow 10% of their earnings to be confiscated.

So what they do is gradually, they will increase the percentage a little bit here.  As a matter of fact, what they’ve done, if you look at the pattern of this, they have alternated between two things.  They announce one year we are not increasing the percentage of the tax at all.  Good news.  No increase in the tax.  All we’re going to do is lower the base.  In other words, they lower the amount.  So you’re now paying tax on dollars before you weren’t when they had a higher base.  And then the next time, they don’t fool with the base.  They just increase the percentage.  And they alternate back and forth.  And they say, “Oh, we’re not going to increase the percentage.  We’re just going to lower the base now again”.  And the do it slowly, stealthily.

It’s the old clichéd story you’ve heard, I’m sure, many times about the frog sitting in a pot of water on the stove.  And you know the story.  You turn on the stove, turn on the fire and gradually the water gets warmer and warmer and warmer and warmer and then hotter and hotter and hotter.  In the meantime, the frog is getting more and more lethargic and listless and so forth and in a state of stupor.  And before the frog realizes what has happened, he is boiled.  He is frog’s legs.  On the other hand, what if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water?  The frog is gone.  It’s not going to stick around to get boiled.  Am I right?  Interesting technology, isn’t it?

Please note we have applied this frog technology on the entire American public.  And the basis of this is, the average guy is such a dodo and a dullard, such a dimwit, so totally insensitive clod, that you just slowly increase the coercion and he will never know what the hell is going on.  He will never figure it out.  Has this technology been effective in this country?  Has it been effective with the two classes? Yes.

Other names for this system: Fabian socialism, creeping socialism.  You don’t just seize all the property in one fell swoop.  You just gradually seize it, gradually increase the taxes, gradually regulate the producer, extend the regulations, extend the controls until finally everything is controlled which means, of course, everyone is controlled.  And to show you how far we’ve also come since 1848, can you name one Republican, one Democrat, one Independent who could get elected to any major office in this country, ladies and gentlemen, if he were to run on a platform in opposition to the Communist Manifesto?  Who could get elected?

Well, the best thing for the nation would be to do away with the income tax.  Also do away with the corporation tax because the corporation tax is also an income tax.  In other words, it’s a tax on the income of the corporation.  Do away with income taxes, personal income taxes. Do away with corporation taxes.  Do away with, for example, these inheritance taxes.  Do away with the Federal Reserve System, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Tennessee Valley Authority, Federal Communications Commission and so forth.  Do away with all public schools.  Now what Republican or Democrat you think could get elected on that platform?  You couldn’t get elected dog catcher.  Am I right?  Even any one of these probably, by itself, would be enough to prevent you from getting elected.  Have your platform do away with the income tax.  You’re not going to get elected to any major office if that’s part of your platform.  Not likely.  And especially if you throw in any of these others.  There’s no chance.  Again, that shows you how far we’ve come since 1848.  Karl Marx has been very successful.

This is also called fascism.  Marx I is the foundation of fascism.  What is this fascism?  What is this Nazism?  What’s it all about?  People generally have a total misunderstanding of fascism, of Nazism, and so forth.  Let me just read to you a few excerpts from a very well-known book, probably the most popular book ever written on the subject of Nazism, and that’s the book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer.  I’m only quoting from this book simply because it’s the most popular book on the subject and a number of you probably own the book.  It’s sold it’s sold millions of copies probably.  There are any number of books you can get this information from.  I’m just reading about some of the economic conditions that existed in Germany under Hitler.  And I’m quoting randomly from pages 259-266 in the hardback edition, if you happen to own it.  Let me just read you some of this:

“For the first year, Nazi economic policies were devoted to putting the unemployed back to work by means of greatly expanded public works.  In September, 1936, the Four Year Plan was inaugurated under the iron control of Hermann Goering.   Severe price and wage controls were introduced.  Businessmen, buried under mountains of red tape, directed by the state as to what they could produce, how much and at what price, burdened by increasing taxation, milked by steep and never ending special contributions to the party, the businessmen who had welcomed Hitler’s regime became greatly disillusioned.  The take home pay of the German worker shrank. Besides stiff income taxes, compulsory contributions to sickness, unemployment and disability insurance, and Labor Front dues, [does any of this sound familiar?] the manual worker, like everyone else in Nazi Germany was constantly pressured to make increasingly large gifts to an assortment of Nazi charities.  Many a workman lost his job because he failed to contribute or his contribution was considered too small.  In February, 1935, the workbook was introduced.  No worker could be hired unless he possessed one.  In June, 1936, labor conscription was instituted.  It obliged every German to work what the state assigned him.  Workers who were absent without an acceptable excuse were fined or imprisoned”.

I don’t want you to get the impression from this that everything was negative and bad in Nazi Germany.  Here was something that was good.  Continuing this quote:

“A worker who had been drafted or conscripted could not be fired by his employer without the consent of the government employment office”.

He had job security.  So I didn’t want you to think everything was negative. There, you have job security.  Of course, come to think about it, you can have job security in any prison.  There is no unemployment in a prison.  That’s how Hitler dealt with unemployment.  You draft people into the military, conscript them into forced labor camps, and shoot them by the hundreds of thousands, others that aren’t cooperating, you can deal effectively with unemployment.  In a slave state, there is no unemployment.  And the basis of Nazism, the principal foundation of it was price control.  In other words, you dictate the terms of all transactions.  That’s called price control.

Well, that gives you some statement on the subject of fascism and Nazism.  I’d like to point out that Adolf Hitler, I may or may not have mentioned this, Adolf Hitler had, as his principal intellectual antecedent, Karl Marx because the Manifesto of the Communist Party, essentially, that is the outline of Hitler’s fascism.  And yet, Hitler was one of the great anti-communists of all time.  Did you know that?  Did you know that Adolf Hitler, perhaps, is the greatest anti-communists in history?  Did you know that?  Why, Hitler, he shot communists like they were going out of style.  I mean, if somebody was suspected of being a communist, the gestapo would round him up and shoot him fast.  And the Marx I thug, Adolf Hitler, did he not attack the Marx II thug, Josef Stalin?  But there wasn’t any dispute over ideology.  The only dispute between these two was which thug will rule?  And there is only room for one thug at the top.

Alright, let’s take a look at Das Kapital, Marx II.  The strategy is different because in Marx II the growth of capitalism is encouraged whereas in Marx I, it’s interfered with.  The second concept encourages the growth of capitalism to prepare the way for the ultimate revolt of the masses.  Marx says you should not interfere with the growth of capitalism in a primitive country.  Marx believed that, at least in Das Kapital, he says you cannot go directly from feudalism to communism.  There must be a transitional stage and that’s called capitalism.  You encourage capitalism in order to create, ultimately, its own destruction.

I will read to you a brief passage from Das Kapital.  How many of you have read Das Kapital?  A surprisingly large number for this class, probably half a dozen or so.  Incidentally, the amazing thing about reading Marx, this fellow Marx is so dull, it is a struggle to read a sentence of Karl Marx.  He is so dull.  The amazing thing about Marx is that anyone has read anything he has ever written.  Anyhow.  In the Modern Library edition, it’s almost 900, close to 900 pages, with the index.  I’ll read to you just a few sentences and that’s all you need to know.  You don’t have to waste your time reading this book.  I’ll spare you the misery.  And I’ll just read you a few sentences and you can get the drift.  That, incidentally, is called intellectual leverage.  Less and less and less explains more and more and more.  That’s it.  What else do you need to know about communism?  It’s an entire social structure based on stealing.  What else do you need to know?  Why waste your time?  Read something worth reading. This is Marx now in Das Kapital:

“Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, [that is the big producers] who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, rose a massive misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation, [in other words, he’s saying that the capitalists are the exploiters and they create all the misery] but with this too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself.  The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production which has sprung up and flourished along with and under it.  Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument.  [Integument – a fancy word for covering]

And then he concludes:

“This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. [Knell, of course, referring to the bells signifying death]  The knell or death of capitalist private property sounds”.  And then he concludes, “The expropriators are expropriated”.

In other words, these capitalistic plunderers are plundered.  And we will then have, voila, freedom.  That is the basis of Das Kapital.  In other words, don’t mess around, none of this gradual stuff, like I said in Marx I.  He didn’t say that but….he’s saying, essentially, immediate, violent overthrow of the existing order through outright force.  And that’s the basis of Das Kapital. 

And so, the strategies are different.  But I’d like to point out that the Marxian position in Das Kapital, you must first establish capitalism before you can have communism, is, of course, dead wrong.  You see, in the very countries that Marx thought would produce communism, it is the partial capitalistic countries where there is partial protection of secondary property where the American revolution had made a major impact.  In these advanced countries, communism never materialized in a Marx II sense.  Those countries that had been influenced by the American revolution, where the tribal chief concept had been greatly reduced and therefore capitalism began to take root, – capitalism taking root means what?  Capital in the form of tools, the tools are increasing in both quality and quantity.  And it’s only with the tools that you can get the leverage to have high production which ultimately obsoletes poverty.  Poverty has one alternative.  It’s called high production. And that can only come with high capitalism.

Underdeveloped means simply undercapitalized.  Under primary capitalized, they don’t own anything and under secondary property capitalized, they don’t have anything.  The reason they don’t have anything is they don’t know anything.  The result is called famine.  Wherever you have famine you have wall to wall ignoramus-ism. You can add that word to your vocabulary.  You probably won’t find it in a dictionary.

Communism, in a Marx II force sense, did develop in the very countries Karl Marx predicted it would not happen.  And these were the countries that had not been influenced by the American revolution, where the tribal chief concept remained rigidly intact and therefore capitalism did not take root.  For example, Russia, was an absolute monarchy, a feudal state under the czars.  Did you see any transition of capitalism to communism in Russia?  Obviously not.  It went directly from a feudal state to a communist state.  The same thing happened in Cuba.  Under Juan Batista, you had essentially a feudal tribal chief state.  It went directly from the tribal chief state of feudalism to communism of the Marx II variety.  China was a feudal state.  It went from feudalism to a communist Marx II state under Mao Tse Tung, Zhou Enlai and others.  Ditto India; never developed capitalism.  India is a Marxist state.  You know, freedom loving India where they have forced sterilization.  That’s right out of Nazi Germany.  I mentioned this, I think, and you may have already known about it.  It’s been mentioned in many articles and so forth.

Well, Marx predicted that the highly industrialized, highly capitalized countries such as Great Britain, Germany, France, the United States would be the first to go communistic in a Marx II sense.  They did not.  It’s unlikely they ever will because these countries are not susceptible to Marx II communism.  However, these countries are all highly susceptible to guess what?  The Marx I program of national socialism, the welfare state.  The United States of America has become a victim of the worst form of tyranny.  We have fallen victim to the Marx I program.  It’s the same as Nazism, fascism, the welfare state, it’s all the same.  This is what Rome had, the welfare state.  Rome had a Marx I fascist state which should tell you what?  Karl Marx is not the inventor of Marx I.  All he did was put in some mystical mumbo-jumbo calling the same old thing we’ve had for a long time scientific.  Because science was popular and winning at this time, everybody said, well, it’s about time we put some science into the social structure.  Let’s be socialists or communists.  The problem is they didn’t know what science is.  I already pointed out in Session 1, the number of swindles today in the name of science.  The number is large.

And so, the basis of our social structure is swindle, fraud.  The witchdoctor is able to convince the people that it is in their own interest to participate in their own plunder.  I might point out the man who is deceived by the witchdoctor is even more enslaved than the man who is held in chains by a whip holder.  Because a man who has been victimized by a tribal chief, he is only enslaved on a physical basis.  He retains the integrity of his mind.  He doesn’t have to love being enslaved.  He can hope and plot for the day when he can liberate himself.  He knows that he is enslaved and he doesn’t like it.  And he doesn’t kiss the hand of the slave master.

But a man who is convinced that it is in his own interest to be robbed will hold not the slightest resentment towards the very people who enslave him.  As a matter of fact, his resentment is directed toward the very people who wish to liberate him.  In fact, he will refer to his would be liberators as reactionaries and enslavers.  Such a person has been internally destroyed.  He’s lost the will to resist. In fact, he will fight to the death for slavery, calling it freedom.  That’s a pretty effective swindle, isn’t it?  And, of course, one of the tricks I gave you earlier is never put a chain around the neck of a slave because the dimmest dimwit, when you try to tell him he’s free, the dimmest dimwit will have difficulty getting it. If you want to optimize the production of property by slaves, never chain them up.  In fact, don’t even whip them with a cat-o-nine tails.  The trick is convince them that they are all free and they will produce more property for you.  Does this work?

Today the present enslavers are called liberals. They’re called progressives, humanitarians, the promoters of justice. Well this promotion of the general welfare racket, among other things, has grown out of a failure to include a glossary of terms in the constitution of the United States, You see, even the simplest insurance contract contains a glossary that tells who the insured is, who the insurance company is, what the property is that is being insured.  Any well worded contract will contain a glossary.  The present welfare state is built upon fraud.  The victim not only cooperates with his enslavers but he praises the slave master with the slave master’s generosity with his property.  That’s effective. We can’t thank you enough for stealing our property.  You’re one of the truly finest thieves that’s ever run a country.

The entire concept of freedom went astray after the American revolution, due to the fact that the revolution was an effective deterrent to the tribal chief, but at the same time, it gave a big shot in the arm to the witchdoctor program.  You see, the American revolution made it necessary to deceive people on a more sophisticated level.  Before the American revolution, they were more easily fooled. Today, the witchdoctor is in full control.  It’s only on a special occasion that the tribal chief is called in to handle the fellow who sees through the entire fraud and refuses to shut up about it.  But in this country, we almost do not even require a tribal chief.  Most people in the most docile manner pay their taxes. They obey the regulations. And worse than this, they say, “All of this is the right thing to do. Why, after all, how could we get along without the federal government protecting us?  If Uncle Sam is not there to take care of us, how could we possibly get along”?  What they’re essentially saying is this…or who will protect you from the Russkies, the Russians, if we don’t?  In other words, if we don’t enslave you, the Russians will.  And God help you if the slave master speaks a foreign tongue.

Well, the basis of this fraud, much of it, is the four letter word need.  Now I told you the fallacy that has been accepted almost hook, line and sinker by almost everyone in this country.  In one form or another they believe that one man’s need represents a rightful claim upon the property of another.  Almost everyone in one form or another will believe this.  For example, remember the illustration I gave you about the woman that was lying out in the street?  I stopped my car….did I discuss that here?  I had to make a decision.  What do I do?  Drive on?  Or stop the car and try to help her out?  She obviously is in need.

What if I were to just drive on and ignore her?  Would that be moral or immoral?  Most people would say, if you were to question them on this, that’s immoral.  In fact, they would say you have a moral obligation to help this woman.  I must help her.  What are they saying?  Her need for assistance is a claim upon my property which includes my actions.  Isn’t that what’s being said?  Is it?  If her need is a claim upon me, if I must serve her, then I’m serving her involuntarily.  That’s involuntary servitude.  That’s slavery, ladies and gentlemen.

Her need for assistance is not a claim upon me.  Alright.  I did assist her.  Why?  And I assisted her knowing the risk.  I could have been hit by a car trying to rescue her from the street.  It could have been a setup.  I could have been murdered.  I could have been sued, claiming that….she claims that I injured her in some way. Do these things happen, all of these things happen?  I was taking a great risk.  Well, why did I do it?  I was seeking happiness.  The thought of just driving off – I wonder what happened to that little old lady in the street.  I’d be worried about it.  Maybe she had just fallen and the next car ran over her.  So I’d be worried about it.  So. But I didn’t have any obligation to help her.  I just did it for my own selfish satisfaction.

Well, Karl Marx, of course, put forth this well, commonly quoted phrase or statement, namely, “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”.  What does that mean?  It means that each man should be compensated, not according to his ability to generate and produce property, but each man should be compensated according to what he claims he needs.  And this is the part of Marx that has been accepted today, hook, line and sinker in this country.  “Each according to his need” is the basis of all this welfare malarkey.  Well, now, if you accept the positon that one man’s needs is, indeed, a rightful claim upon the property of another, where do you draw the line?

There are many things I’m willing to say that I need that I do not own at this time.  For example, one of the things that I’ve been in need of for a long time is an eighty foot yacht.  As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, I probably could use a hundred foot yacht.  Alright. I’m serious about this.  It’s something I truly need in the worst way.  Does anyone in this class have the audacity to suggest I do not need this hundred foot yacht?  Anyone? Let me see a show of hands.  Alright, hold them up, hold them up.  Alright, get these names.  You have the audacity to tell me what I need?  Of course, the end result is that’s what it comes down because, you see, the fact of the matter is, ladies and gentlemen, if each individual is the supreme and soul judge of what his needs are, do you realize there isn’t that much property in the entire universe?  If every man is the arbiter of his own need, there isn’t that much property that’s ever been generated.

Alright, what does that mean then?  Well, if each man will need more property than could possibly exist, if he is the sole judge of his needs, isn’t that what would happen?  Do all of you see this is what would happen? Alright. That means somebody else must be the judge of what his needs are and that’s where the head commissar comes in.  It’s the ruler’s job, then, to tell you what you need because there just isn’t enough property to go around if everybody determines it on his own.  And that, of course, the whole concept of “each according to his need”, well, one man’s need is a rightful claim upon the property of another is the foundation of what is called slavery.

Regardless of what my needs may be, I do not have a claim upon your property and you do not have a claim upon mine.  A man only has a rational and a moral claim upon property from one source.  Do you know what that is?  What source?  It was stated in the definition of property.  You have a moral and rational claim upon property that has one source, a property that you produce with your own hands and your own mind.  Because, if the property comes from some place else, that means you got it from one of two ways.  One you mooched it, you begged for it.  Or two, you stole it.  That covers all possibilities.  Property has three origins: one, you can produce it; two, you can mooch it; three, you can steal it.  As far as this theory is concerned, one of those three is acceptable.  I will discuss even the subject of mooching later in this course.  I’ve had already a few things to say about stealing.

If you’re concerned about those who are in need, those who are the so called poverty types, and remember the secondary poverty begins with the primary poverty anyhow.  Most of the poverty on the planet is not secondary poverty anyhow, but it’s primary poverty.  By that I mean, the individual has virtually no knowledge.  His mind is cluttered with wrong concepts.  He does not know how to think.  Everything is fuzzy and foggy because there’s no semantic precision.  His entire life is one endless fog.  And that’s primary poverty.  That’s a worldwide disease.  But it only has one origin, incidentally, learning how to think which means what?  By this time, you’ve heard it many times but that’s to increase your sensitivity on it.  That simply means you can test the premises for truth.  You can test the thought processes for validity.  Come up with the right conclusion.  You can marry that to the four steps of the scientific method.  And before that, you have a foundation of semantic precision.  And then you can apply it to everything around you.  If you can’t do that, then you’re in a state of intellectual poverty.  I just describe most of the four billion, didn’t I?

And those who are in need, ladies and gentlemen, if they are in need of poverty, if they are poverty types, there’s one solution.  There’s one end to poverty.  Produce more property.  And there will never be any other alternative because of the first law of thermodynamics which says you cannot get something for nothing.  You cannot get property for nothing.  Property does not even exist in nature.  You have to build it.

The second half of this lecture, I will give more specific examples of false alternatives.  We will get into subjects in the second half like racial problems and how to deal with them.  I’ll discuss subjects like friendship, foreign aid, many other specific examples of false alternatives in the second half.  Before we have a break, I have a few important announcements and we also have some books available for you this evening.

 

Continuing now with the second part of Lecture #7.  I’d like to point out that, I would say much of the socialism in the United States is supported by well-intentioned people who are genuinely, from their frame of reference at least, seeking to do what they think is good.  But they have accepted these false alternatives based on false premises.  They’ve accepted the philosophy of altruism which is, of course, a false concept.  People have been taught through indoctrination to accept the fallacy that one man’s need is a rightful claim upon the property of another.  I think you would find that most people are advocates of coercion but not necessarily with malicious intent.  They advocate coercion and compromise of principle simply because they have failed to observe all of the available choices.  I’ll give you another illustration.  A popular slogan you’ve heard is “Why I’d rather be red than dead”.  “Better red than dead”, I think that was attributed originally to Bertrand Russell.  I’m not sure of that.  You’ve heard this expression, I presume.  Is that still….

Alright, what’s the alternative here?  Well, we must surrender to the communists are be obliterated in a nuclear war.  And so the alternative we are offered is surrender or die.  Well, in other words, we must learn to coexist with the communists or we will have a war.  And so, the choice we’re offered is war or surrender.  Well, these do not represent alternatives.  They represent the same thing because in both instances the results will be identical.  Namely, your property is eradicated.  But quite obviously, if there is a nuclear war, your property would be eradicated.  More accurately, I would say, it would be vaporized if you’re anywhere near ground zero.  If you happen to be some farther distance away, the shock wave may kill you.  Of if you’re still farther away, the fallout may do you in.

And so, everyone knows that wars kill people, especially a modern war will kill a major portion of the population.  And so, war is looked upon as the very worst of all possible alternatives.  It is on this basis that people say, “We must do anything to avert war”.  As it so happens, the very thing that these people believe will avert war, namely appeasement, will insure a war because a show of weakness will always encourage the attacker of property to become bolder. And this is exactly what such things as negotiation, appeasement, attempts to placate the would-be aggressor accomplish or other such forms of insanity such as détente and other totally naïve concepts.

The aggressor wants to see just how far he can go.  And as you allow him to proceed unchallenged, then step by step he will eliminate all of your property.  If this nation ultimately surrenders in a last ditch effort to appease the aggressor, you end up under the foreign totalitarian dictatorship instead of your homegrown variety.  And this is the alternative that is being offered: the total loss of your property and the retention of your biological existence temporarily because you can die biologically.  Since communism produces starvation, you may ultimately die of malnutrition instead of a H bomb attack.  So the choice or alternative that you’re actually given is not an alternative at all. In other words, would you rather die from war or from starvation?  Not much of a choice.

What, in fact, is the alternative here?  Well, you do not have to choose between being red or dead.  Your true choice is between what I have already defined as total capitalism, a total capitalistic mode of production and everything else because everything else does not protect property.  Remember capitalism, that mechanism which protects all forms of property completely.  And then what else is there?  Everything else.  You name it: communism, socialism, fascism, feudalism.  They all have one thing in common.  They do not protect property but they attack it.  I’ll come to the subject of national defense in Lecture #11.

Let’s go on to another false alternative.  How about this one?  Integration versus segregation.  As you know, there have been segregation laws in the southern states by coercive state decrees called political laws.  The Negro race and the Caucasian race have been required to be separated in public spaces  And you have such things as separate restrooms, separate restaurants, separate portions of public conveyances, separate parks, separate schools, separate churches.  Negros and Caucasians cannot marry and so forth.  So these state laws require a separation of the races.  It’s called a violation of the law to have a mixing of the races.  At least this was the status or the condition when these laws prevailed in the south.  Many people outside of the south did not like this type of what might be called racial bigotry or prejudice.  Certainly a rational position would condemn this.

Nevertheless, a question does arise.  Can you end this racial segregation properly?  Can you end bigotry by passing a set of federal laws compelling the mixing of the races?  Federal integration laws or coercive laws forcing integration.  In other words, the state segregation law forbids the mixing of the races and the federal integration law compels the mixing of the races.  The question that a person with a mind might ask is, well, what business is it of the local, state or the federal state who you, as an individual, wish to voluntarily associate with?  The so-called humanitarian goal of eliminating bigotry, of course, is not accomplished.  Actually it compounds the problem.  If a law is passed that says that you must associate with someone or else be guilty of a crime, and then acting only out of fear, will acquire an even higher level of resentment than they previously held.  For example, let’s say you’re a businessman and you’re told you must hire this particular individual representing a given race even though this person may not be qualified.  He may be totally incompetent to do this job or, perhaps, any job but you must hire him anyhow.  How many of you think this might generate resentment where previously there was none or little?  It’s a forgone conclusion.

Now what about, for example, the fellow, let’s say, who’s laid off or fired to make room for someone else in order that they can meet some quota or a certain percentage of the people working here have been given rights?  Do you think the man who is fired over this, do you think he will be resentful?  What about his fellow workers?  Do they think they will resent this, especially if the fellow can’t do as good a job as the one who got fired?  Do you think this will generate resentment?  You’re damn right it will.    Why is it so difficult to understand that you cannot legislate tolerance or love or respect?  These things cannot be compelled with a gun.  You can command fear with a gun but you cannot command respect.

You remember, I’m sure some of you remember, if not at the time, you remember certainly reading about the Volstead Act.  The Volstead Act, that was the act that gave us the era called the Prohibition or the prohibition of the distribution of alcoholic beverages.  I’m not sure whether or not you could manufacture it.  I know they did have a certain dispensation where you could have a bottle of booze if it was for medicinal purposes. I’ve even seen bottles from this period that said by prescription only, a bottle of 100 proof something, by prescription only, for medicinal use.  And you could get it from the druggist.

Well, how do we get such laws?  And what is the effect of this?  People were worried, why, the American people, we’re becoming a nation of lushes.  We’ve got to do something.  There ought to be a law.  And first thing you know, guess what?  Somebody says, “I appoint you A.  If C doesn’t stop producing booze, shoot him”.  Or if he doesn’t stop distributing it or selling or whatever the case is, shoot him.  Is that how we got that?  Is that how it came about?  Of course.  Behind every political law is a gun.  Same thing I’ve been saying since the beginning.

Here is another classic example of the law of bureaucracy because what is the goal here?  We’ve got to cut down the consumption of alcoholic beverages.  Is that what happened with the Volstead Act in the Prohibition era?  Hardly.  Consumption of alcoholic beverages shot straight up and we became a nation of the very thing they didn’t want.  It was worse than that because, along with the prohibition period, we got organized crime.  The mafia really came into its own during this period.  And the mafia, these people are out, in spite of the pleasant image we have of the mafia types by seeing these outrageous catastrophes like The Godfather and they had some sequel too, The Son of Godfather or was it Godfather Returns?  What was it called, the other one?  Oh, Godfather II. I might discuss these later when we get to Lecture 15 but these films are total catastrophes in terms of what they project.  You know, the mafia, nice, friendly, when you get to know them, you know, they’re really nice people.  You know, they have nice family parties and marriages and they love everybody, nice folks when you get to know them.

Well, we got these thugs, mafia type thugs. And if you really want to popularize something, one of the most effective things you can do is make it illegal.  If you want to get a lot of young people smoking cigarettes, one of the most effective things you can do is make it illegal to smoke until you’re 18.  To a young, immature mind, wow, that’s got to be one of the great things.  They’re trying so hard to keep it from us, we’ve got to figure out how to get this.  The rule of bureaucracy.  You notice how effective all of the writing on the labels, you know, the Surgeon General says if you smoke this, you’re going to die sooner or however they read it. It’s not exactly that.  It may be dangerous to your health or whatever it says.  Has cigarette consumption gone up or down?  Sales are better than ever, aren’t they?  The rule of bureaucracy.

And so, all of these attempts to legislate morality and tolerance, they all backfire.  Censorship, it does the same thing.  It used to be, if you really wanted to increase book sales of some so-called racy novel, one of the most effective things you could do is get it banned in Boston.  And then you see it show up in the bookstore with a big red bold title on front “Banned in Boston”.  Wow.  Banned in Boston.  We got to read this.  And that could be good for a million sales right there.  Well. Segregation and integration have this in common.  They both represent compulsion.  In the first case, you must not associate with the Negro and, in the second case, you must associate with him.  But the property concept in both instances is completely violated because who you wish to associate with is a property right.

Well, it just so happens the solution to this problem of bigotry is in the market place.  The solution is called laissez-faire.  Butt out.  Anyone can associate with whomever he wishes.  Now if I choose not to associate with a particular individual, that’s my business.  If that individual chooses not to associate with me, that’s his business.  The reason is immaterial.  The reason may be due to bigotry.  It may be for other reasons.  It might be because of race, color, religion.  It might be because of halitosis, you name it.  The reason may be rational or irrational.  The question is what eliminates bigotry?  Can you eliminate bigotry with a gun?  What if every bigot were lined up against the wall and shot?  Do you think that would eliminate bigotry?  Nonsense.

Alright, let’s assume, for the sake of illustration, you have a restaurant owner who does not like Negroes.  So he puts up a sign, “No Negroes”.  Alright.  Can he morally do this?  Is it moral to put up a sign that says no Negroes will be admitted?  How do we answer this question?  The universal can opener. Whose property is it?  Who owns the restaurant? Alright.  The owner of the restaurant determines the ground rules for usage. Alright.  So he can put up such a sign.

You say, well, how does that combat bigotry?  Well, there might be a man across the street who also owns a restaurant and he admits anyone, at least who pays for the food.  He might exclude bums who want it for nothing.  He might have other standards.  He might insist that everyone wears a shirt, pants or dress.  We do not accept naked people.  Well, that’s discrimination against naked customers, isn’t it?  We’d like you to wear shoes.  And the only people he excludes, let’s say, are those who won’t pay, naked people and what have you.  But it is not an exclusion based on ethnic origin or religious preference or non-preference or sex or age or what have you.

In the long run, who is likely to have the most customers?  The one who does not restrict the size of his market.  He has more potential customers because he does not exclude the Negroes.  That is, of course, all other things being equal.  In other words, if the food is just as good, the service is just as good, the atmosphere is just as good.

On the other hand, what if he has better food, lower prices, better service, more interesting atmosphere, but he also caters to Negroes, let’s say, in an area where people, in general, might prefer to not eat in the same restaurant as a Negro?  Do you know what will happen?  I claim, in particular, let’s say, he’s got the best restaurant in town.  How many of you think there will be people who will eat there in spite of the fact, in general, their attitude might be they prefer not to eat in a restaurant where Negroes are eating?  How many think they might go there anyhow?  That’s right.  As a matter of fact, I know people that might drive 75 miles just to go to a good restaurant.  Have any of you done something like this or comparable to it or know people who have done such things?  Sure.  I’ve gone thousands of miles just to go to a restaurant.  I’m not joking.  That’s one of the reasons I went to Europe.  I wanted to find out if the cuisine in a French restaurant in France is anything like a French restaurant in Orange County.  Ditto Italian restaurants in Italy.  A lot of Italian restaurants in Italy.  Seriously.  They’re not all Italian, but there’s a lot of them.  Mostly Italian owned.  That’s not the main reason I went to Europe but it was a reason.  I wanted to sample some of the local cuisine.  And I know people that will drive long distances if they find an outstanding restaurant and go out of your way to do this.

On the other hand, it’s also a fact that a restaurant owner might exclude Negroes.  And it’s also a fact, in the short run, he could actually do better.  That is a fact.  I don’t deny it.  Nevertheless, the solution to the problem is leave people alone.  Why is that so difficult?  Just leave the other guy alone.  Why is it so tough?  So hard?  But, of course, some do-good so-called humanitarian will come along and say, “Well, in the short run, this fellow can practice bigotry”.  Well, it’s his property, isn’t it?  If he doesn’t wish to cater to a Negro, that’s his business.  The Negro may wish to exclude Caucasians.  The restaurant owner may wish to exclude people for any number of rational or totally irrational reasons.  He might exclude everyone who is not a college graduate.  He might exclude everyone who is a college graduate.  No college graduates.  Get out.  He might exclude those people who do not wear ties.

Nevertheless, when the state attempts to correct what it believes to be a problem, the law of bureaucracy, instead of diminishing the problem, it always somehow manages to augment it.  When the state attempts to eliminate hatred, they increase the hatred.  For example, before the federal state butted in, and I’m not condoning what the southern states did either, the local states, but it’s a fact that when they butted in, before they butted in, an organization you have heard of called the Ku Klux Klan, was virtually on its way out even in the south.  Membership was falling sharply.  As soon as the federal state butted in, the Ku Klux Klan membership started increasing rapidly.  Of course, the Ku Klux Klan is a typical, fascist type outfit, thriving on intimidation and what have you.  If for no other reason, you should always be suspicious of someone who wears a mask or a hood.  You know, that’s a form of cowardice.  A man who is a moral producing acting individual, for what reason would he want to wear a mask or a hood?  The only time you wear a hood is when you don’t want to be known for your actions.  Do you think these Klansmen, for example, do you think they get permission when they burn a cross on somebody’s lawn?  Do you think they have permission to do this in general?  That’s an attack upon property, isn’t it?  Put a burning cross on some man’s front lawn who doesn’t want it there, doesn’t solicit it?  That’s a crime, isn’t it?  To threaten people, intimidate them.  These are all crimes.  To attack them in any way.

There’s another false alternative connected with this thing and that’s bigotry versus love thy neighbor.  In other words, if you don’t love your neighbor, you’re a bigot.  Well, I’ve already gone on record as telling you I don’t love all my neighbors.  I don’t even know most of my neighbors.  I don’t have time to know most of my neighbors.  And most of my neighbors aren’t worth knowing.  Without even knowing them, I know they’re not worth knowing.  How do I know this?  If you deal with random samples of the population, most people are not worth knowing.  It’s a fact.  And the probability that you would have a neighbor who is a curious person, rational, intelligent, productive person of responsibility and capability and a person that acquires knowledge and so forth, the probability of this is remote.  Most of your neighbors are turnips.  However, if you would like to prove me wrong, Course V-50 will be starting in the spring.  And if your neighbors are not turnips and they are intellectually curious, bring them to V-50.  I have something to say to them.  I won’t feel too badly if you prove me wrong.  Anyhow.  I only know two of my neighbors vaguely and they’re both turnips.  I haven’t gone any further.  Anyhow.

What about bigotry versus discrimination?  I looked up the term bigot not long ago and the dictionary says, “Bigot: one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, belief or opinion”.

I couldn’t contain myself.  So I looked up the word obstinate.  You know, there is no end to this.  You finally read every definition in the dictionary. Incidentally, that’s one way to test the level of a person’s curiosity.  It’s a common problem if you’re highly curious.  Many of you, I’m sure, have experienced this.  A simple thing, you just want to look up a word in the dictionary, maybe to just look at the spelling, or you want to read the definition.  You start turning the pages and a word catches your attention, not even the one you’re looking up, and you read it.  Well, that’s interesting.  Or this can happen in an encyclopedia.  And then you start, I wonder these words are and you look up some of the words that were in the definition.  And maybe half an hour later, you can’t even remember the word you originally….anyhow.

And so, obstinate means, according to the dictionary, not yielding to reason; not yielding to rationality.  Alright.  Bigoted thinking is a derivative of irrational thought processes.  Now is bigotry peculiar to any one race, group or religion?  Are there Caucasian bigots?  Asian bigots?  Negro bigots?  Christian bigots?  Muslim bigots?  Are there bigots in the United States?  Those of you in tape land and did not hear the response, it was no.  But there sure a lot of foreign bigots, right?  Bigotry has a universal following.  There are bigots outside of the United States and also inside our borders.  We’re surrounded by bigots.  However, you do not have to join them.  As I said, bigotry is moral.  However, when a bigot attacks the property of another, due to his irrational bigotry, it is not the bigotry that is immoral, it is the attack upon property that is immoral.  Make the distinction.

Let’s look at the term discrimination.  It is  derived from a Latin word meaning divide.  It means to essentially, applied to society at least, it means to make a difference in treatment or favor of one as compared with others.  In other words, to show partiality.  Alright.  Is discrimination moral?  Yes.  Is discrimination rational?  Yes. Discrimination is one of the most rational concepts there is.  Therefore, discrimination is right.  In general, it’s called wrong.  It’s a right concept.

Is it rational to treat every person equally?  That’s insane.  Is it rational to respect all men equally?  That’s ridiculous.  For example, one man meets me in a dark alley, sticks a gun in my back and says, “Your money or your life”.   Another man might be a business associate and a friend from whom I derive much pleasure and profit.  I treat these two equally?  I have the same respect for one as the other?  That’s absurd.  I love them both?  I love the man who sticks a gun in my back? Well.

Alright.  What if I say I choose not to associate with most Negroes.  Is that bigotry?  I choose not to associate with most Asians. Is that bigotry?  I choose to not associate with most Jews. Is that bigotry?  I choose to not associate with most Catholics, most Christians, most Caucasians, most people.  Is this bigotry?  Alright, is it snobbery?

A snob is one who considers those people inferior to himself who possess less secondary wealth or less primary wealth.  A secondary snob would be one who feels that anyone with less money is inferior, like a multimillionaire would feel that a mere millionaire or less is inferior. There was a time when a million dollars was a lot of money but we’re approaching a time when a million dollars won’t buy a broken toothpick.  The federal state is working on this daily.  It’s called printing up bogus money, Federal Reserve notes, you know.  Anyhow, a primary snob would be one who feels that anyone with less intelligence or less so-called education is inferior, or so-called intellectual snob.

Alright.  Rational discrimination is not bigotry.  It is not snobbery.  I would be very pleased to disclose to you the type of people that I enjoy associating with.  First and foremost, I seek to associate with people who are intellectually curious, people who are excited about the acquisition of knowledge.  Because if they’re not, a man who is not intellectually curious is a dullard.  He is obtuse.  To put it bluntly, he is not, in general, worth talking to because he doesn’t have anything to say.  He talks about the weather.  That’s why most people talk about the weather.  They don’t have anything else to talk about.  They don’t have enough imagination to talk about anything else.  Talking about the weather, that’s essentially symbolic of any form of trivia: the latest football score or how did the team do, the latest trivia.  It’s all they know how to talk about.  They never talk about anything serious.  That’s most people.

Secondly, I wish to associate with people who base their conclusions on true premises, valid thought processes.  In other words, I prefer to associate with rational people.

Third, I wish to associate with people who are moral, people who respect my property and everyone else’s property.

Four, I wish to associate with people who are intellectually honest.  That makes me what?  One of the most discriminating individuals on the planet.  That excludes most of the four billion, doesn’t it?  Both classes?  I know you think I’m really hard on people who went to school, don’t you?  If it will make you feel any better, I think I mentioned this, but to reiterate again, some of my best friends have gone to school.

Ladies and gentlemen, show me an individual who is intellectually curious, rational, moral and honest, and that is the basis of what could become a durable relationship, a durable relationship founded upon mutual trust that can lead to a more lofty relationship called mutual friendship that could lead to a higher concept called mutual love.  Show me an individual who meets this criterion and that is the basis of what could become a durable and mutually profitable relationship.  And quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, I could not care less what the person’s age is, sex, race, ethnic origin.  What difference does it make?  And if for no other reason, on a purely practical basis, there are so few people who fall into this category, you can’t afford to be choosy based on ethnic origin or what have you.

And I might also point out, you know what the best protection from bigotry is?  It’s called high self-esteem. In other words, you have a high regard for yourself.  And that regard for yourself is based on rational inputs.  I mean, let’s say somebody puts up a sign that says:  Snelson, we don’t want you in our restaurant.

“You got to be kidding”.

“No, it’s true.  Get out”.

Now, do you really think I’m going to lose any sleep over this?  Now what is my attitude?  Well, that’s your loss Buster.  Are you cracked?  Anyhow, do you think I’m going to lose any sleep over that?  And are there other restaurants to go to?  I mean, in a place like southern California, I think you could probably go to a different restaurant every day of your life and never begin to cover all of them.  Am I right?  Well, let’s go on to …oh, just one other thing I should mention.

Because there is so much negative and phony propaganda on the whole racial situation.  You have heard of things, for example, like the black ghettos in this country; repeated references to the black ghettos and the poverty types that live in these areas and how abused they are, etcetera and so forth.

First of all, black is not a race.  White is not a race.  That’s one misconception.  Negro is a race.  Caucasian is a race.  There are Caucasians that are as black-skinned as any black-skinned Negro.  There are Negroes who are as white-skinned as white-skinned Caucasian.  So it doesn’t have anything directly to do with color in the first place.

Another misconception is there aren’t any ghettos in the United States, black or otherwise.  There are no Negro ghettos in this country.  That’s also part of the fraud.  What is a ghetto?  How many of you know what a ghetto is?  A few of you.  Well, that’s one thing we have not been plagued with yet in this country, is a ghetto.  They know what ghettos are in Europe, for example.  The Jews in Europe, in particular, can tell you what, they can tell you what a ghetto is. The ghetto is where the Jews lived; walled sections of cities.  Only Jews live there.  Any Jew, for example, who was not behind the locked wall of the ghetto by sundown, was shot.  We do not have such places here in this country.  To be certain, there are Negroes who have been victims of Caucasian coercion.  And there are Caucasians who have been victims of Negro coercion.  My question is how do you deal with any coercive act or any crime?  And that’s what we’ll deal with in Lecture 12, the lecture on justice.

Now let’s go on to another false alternative.  How about foreign aid versus the possible loss of our allies?  It is believed that every nation outside of the United States will either fall prey to or voluntarily go over to the communist side unless we provide them with a means to stay on our side.  Essentially, all we’re doing is bribing these people to maintain their loyalty.  We will give you so much aid provided you will be our friend.  Now what happens if you attempt this method of winning a friend on a personal basis?  You go out and you find some bum and you say, “Hey, bum.  I’ll give you $1000 if you’ll be my friend, come to my aid whenever I’m attacked”.

Alright, will this bum take your $1000?  Yes. Will he be there to render you assistance when you require some?  Good luck.  He’ll probably be the hardest person to find under these conditions.

Can you purchase friendship?  Well, nominally, the answer would be no, but, in fact, the answer is yes.  You can buy a friend.  However, the friend must be purchased with the right coin. And that coin is not secondary but primary.  Friendship is a primary property concept.  It comes from the exchange of ideas, the growth of mutual respect that results from the exchange of ideas.  It’s through primary property exchanges that friendships are purchased.  Anything other than a primary property concept of friendship is not a friendship at all.  In fact, what most people call friends are, in fact, acquaintances.  The man who’s always bragging, well, I have hundreds of friends, you can be certain he does not have one friend.  He may have hundreds of acquaintances, but it’s questionable whether he has any friends because he has such a shallow concept to begin with.

Friendships must be built.  This requires an investment.  Friendships are not built overnight.  Let’s put some precision into the concept of friendship.  The kind of friendship that will be the most rewarding is what is called a right friendship.  A right friendship will be built upon both moral and rational exchanges of primary and secondary property.  One of the principal building blocks of friendship is called mutual trust.  The person you trust is simply the one who always does what he says he will do.  If he fails in this, a possibility, he will always compensate the other for his failure.  A person you can trust is someone who always respects the property of others.  A person who will dishonor his words or contracts with others will, in time, dishonor his word or his contracts with you.  A person who will steal from others will, in time, steal from you.

And so, a true friend will never seek to build his property at your expense.  His gain will never be your loss.  You’ve heard the familiar expression, fair weather friend.  That’s a misnomer.  It’s not fair weather friend.  It should be fair weather acquaintance.  If he’s your true friend, he’s not on a fair weather basis.  Sometimes it’s difficult to know who your friends are until the going gets rough.

Well, what’s this got to do with foreign aid?  Everything.  People believe you can prevent a country from going communistic by giving foreign aid.  That is total nonsense or rubbish, squared.  It’s corruption and bribery on a grand scale.  It does not strengthen anyone.  It weakens everyone concerned.  It weakens the donor nation.  It weakens the recipient nation.  The concept of foreign aid weakens a donor nation by impoverishing the citizens who live in the donor nation.  For one thing, they’re not donors.  Have any of you donated to foreign aid?  Or does it come out of the amount of property they plunder from you?

And who do you actually think gets the property that is confiscated from the donor nation citizens?  Do you think it’s really given as a handout to the individual citizen in the so-called needy nation?  In most instances, it is not.  Through 1969, we’d already spent $140 billion of the taxpayers’ money on foreign aid.  I don’t know what it’s been since then.  And where does it go?  Who does it help?

In most instances, it’s the state that is helped.  The state receives the plunder, not the people.  The state is strengthened and gains power from this plunder.  They use the money to build their armies, to build their road systems.  With a strong army, with a strong police force that we finance, they have little difficulty keeping their own victim citizens in line.  It’s the state, then, that gets most of the benefit from the stolen property.  But I might further point out that even if the individual does get some of the food, some of the clothing as a result of the so-called aid, this does not strengthen the people but rather it encourages them to become parasites.  They look upon the United States as Santa Claus.  Well, why work?  We’d have to be fools to work because Santa Claus will come through again next year.  Why produce anything?

To give you some idea of some of the stupidity of what our foreign aid has been used for, for example, in Portugal, your foreign aid money was used to build a super highway from Lisbon, the capitol, to a gambling casino in the suburbs.  In Norway, your foreign aid money was used, of all things, to reduce the Norwegian national debt.  What do you think of that?  In other words, we get to increase our national debt so that the Norwegians can reduce theirs.  Brilliant.  Somebody must have stayed awake nights dreaming that one up.  What a monument to stupidity.

A book that’s long since out of print, that I’m sure there are many others written on the subject, this one, American Might and Soviet Myth, it’s a whole book on the stupidity of foreign aid.  I’m sure there’s been even more since this was published back in 1960.  But just a few goodies.  I’ll read you from – the whole book is filled with stupidity.  I haven’t even picked out the worst part of it.

“There was an earthquake in Lebanon and our government offered to help villagers rebuild their shattered houses.  A program was started whereby the United States was to supply materials and technical help to show the Lebanese people how to rebuild their own dwellings.  When the money began to move, something happened.  Instead of rebuilding the simple village homes, a housing project was erected.  It was a splendid tribute to the vision of the building officials who truly followed the American precept of thinking big.  But no Lebanese live in it.  Why?  It is not close enough to the villages where the people work.  They cannot leave their jobs for homes so far away.  So the houses sit empty and the startled Lebanese have another monument to the peculiar character of the wealthy Americans”.

Here’s another one here.  Here’s a few quotes from the same work:

“Look at the world today.  Has the foreign aid program won us allies?  What new ones do we have?  Has it won us respect and gratitude?  Look at Bolivia where the United States has financed the nationalization of Bolivian tin mines”.   Nationalization.  Nationalization.  I wonder what that is.  That’s a nice word for theft.  But these dimwits in the journalistic profession – when do you ever see them call a spade a spade?  You know what a euphemism is?  That’s a nice word substituted for one that doesn’t so good. “Well, we don’t want to offend anyone.  So we’ll call it nationalization”.  That’s outright plunder.  We financed the plunder of Bolivian tin mines.

Brilliant.  We started with $12 million and six years later, we spent more than $152 million.  The state-owned mines operate with an annual deficit of $10 million which we make up.  In other words, you and I – the world’s number one suckers.  Production has fallen 50% since they were socialized.  I could have told them that.  They didn’t ask me.  The law of bureaucracy.  All socialism is wall-to-wall law of bureaucracy.  “Under Bolivian law, miners cannot be discharged”.  It’s right out of Marx I. “One mine with work for only 1200 miners has 3600 employees and loses $300,000 a year.  The labor force could be cut by 10,000 men and operate with more efficiency”.

“Nationalized railroads, a program we also helped to foster, could operate more efficiently, also with half their present employees.  The cost of living in Bolivia, due to these practices, increased 200% in 1956 alone, causing far more misery than the extra jobs in mines and railroads could possibly alleviate.  Last year, the Bolivians put on the most violent anti-American demonstration in South American history”.

“The truth is that we are to blame, just as the Bolivian people suspect.  We have subsidized inefficiency and made it unnecessary for the government to face up to the country’s economic problems.  By financing the stupidity and political ambition of Bolivia’s socialist masters, we have incurred the animosity of her people”.

And one more brief quote:

“Foreign aid is helping the socialist Indian government finance the collectivization of agriculture”.

Sounds to me like we are promoting Marx I all over the planet.  As a matter of fact, we have been.  The United States of America is probably the number one promulgator of communism.  Did you know that?  We promote communism, in particular Marx I, all over the planet.  “Foreign aid is helping the socialist Indian government finance the collectivization of agriculture”.  Strict socialist controls throttle business and industry.  As a result, according to Dr. Campaigne : “The Indian citizen, at the close of two years of the second plan, was poorer than he was at the close of the first plan”.  The law of bureaucracy.

And then the same fellow, I don’t know who he is but he has something intelligent to say, he said, “The greatest foreign aid you can give to India is the philosophy of economic freedom that has created America’s tremendous industrial and agricultural progress”.

In other words, if we’re going to give out any foreign aid, what we should be giving out is teaching people who are curious how to apply right concepts in order to increase production.  Then they can pay a royalty for the value received.  Well, alright, let’s not waste any more time on foreign aid.  Let’s go on to another false alternative.

Many people are arguing strongly that the United States of America is a republic and it is not a democracy.  Alright, what is it?  A republic or a democracy?  Well, I’ve talked about economic democracy.  What’s that?  Laissez-faire economics.  You vote for whatever product you want.  Universal suffrage.  Anybody can vote for the product of his choice.  It doesn’t matter what your age is, sex, or what have you.  That’s a right concept.  That’s economic democracy.

On the other hand, political democracy is a coercive, immoral, irrational concept; hence wrong.  Majority rule – we’ve discussed it.  What’s a republic?  A political republic establishes what?  A monopoly of coercion and therefore it is an irrational and immoral concept; hence wrong.  A right republic, which we are going to be discussing later, sometimes called a [not transcribed] republic, the right republic is based upon two things: rationality and morality; hence it’s right.   An economic democracy based on that is rational and moral; hence it is right.

Alright.  If you’re talking about a right republic and an economic democracy, there’s no conflict because they both are derivatives of total respect for property.  On the other hand, if you’re talking about a political republic and a political democracy, there’s no conflict because they’re both mechanisms based on irrationality and immorality – coercion.  Hence there’s no conflict.  Would you rather be ruled by a political democracy or a political republic?

Another current false alternative is religion in the public schools versus atheism in the public schools.  As a result of this, you have all kinds of spilled emotion over, for example, the prayer decision by the Supreme Court.  It is fantastic, the amount of acrimony, cross harangues, that are waged over this totally ludicrous issue.  Alright, ladies and gentlemen, I ask you, which is proper?  Should we compel prayers in the public schools or should we terminate them altogether?  False alternative.  First of all, any opinion that any individual has on the subject of God is a property right.  That’s your opinion.  That’s your primary property.  It’s proper then for an individual to hold any opinion of a religious nature that he wishes; at least it’s moral to do this.  It only becomes immoral and improper when you try to cram that opinion down somebody else’s throat which has been one of the principal historical problems.  Eat it.  It’s good for you attitude.  So whatever concepts of God you have is your business.

Incidentally, have I given you a definition of God yet?  Did I define God here?  Alright.  Would you like me to give you a definition of God?  You’re sure?  Alright.  God, as far as this theory is concerned, is defined as the source of all natural phenomena.  The source of all natural phenomena.  There are three basic postures you may assume on this subject.  One, there is no source.  That’s generally called atheism.  Two, I don’t want to think about it.  That’s generally called agnosticism.  Or the posture, well, we’ll never know this or we can’t know it or this is too much to cope with.  And the third position you can take is there is a source.  That essentially covers the principal three possibilities.

One of these three is weak and actually anti-progressive and anti-intellectual.  Another one of the three is scientifically untenable.  Only one of these three, I would say, is rational.  I won’t take the time to discuss it at this point but I’m just saying there are three essential positions you can take.

The mere fact that there is a definition of God offered in this course tells you something at least.  One thing it should tell you is the theory does not in any way advocate atheism.  Most people assume that if you’re a scientist and you’re rational, you’re an atheist.  Well, they’re totally erroneous.  There are many misconceptions in this whole domain.  I won’t take the time to discuss this now.  Incidentally, of course, the all-time sacred cow, you know, is theology.   More people will be more quickly alienated over this subject than any other subject you could put forth.  It is proper for an individual, to hold whatever religious opinion he wishes.

Alright, should there be or should there not be prayers in the public schools?  How do you solve this problem?  Alright, the first question you always ask is whose property is it?  Who owns the schools?  Alright, who owns the public schools? Does the state own the public schools?  How are the public schools financed?  Morally or immorally?  They’re financed with stolen property. Is this observable?  Yes.  Alright, the state does not own the schools because theft does not transfer ownership.  If your automobile is stolen by an automobile thief, does he own it?  No.  He controls it.  Theft transfers control but not ownership.  Actually the state schools are in a condition of non-ownership.  There’s no way to know really who owns them.  A condition of non-ownership.  The state does control them.

Alright, can you, for example, if you’re unhappy with the fact that they allow prayers in the public schools or they disallow prayers, is there any recourse?  Can you withdraw your financial support from the coercive school system?  Obviously not.  You will be taxed whether you like the method of instruction or not.  However, any private school, please note, it’s very easy to determine what to do about prayers.  This should be determined by whom?  The owner of the school.  The owner of one school may wish to have a prayer in the  morning, one before lunch, one before the children go home.  The owner of another school may wish to have prayers and devote an hour to theological instruction.  The owner of still another school may wish to have nothing to do with either prayers or theological instruction.  The market will determine the policies of the various schools.  Those people who want Catholic prayers, send your kid to a Catholic school. If you want Jewish prayer, send your kid to a Jewish school.  If you want no prayers, send your kid to a school where they don’t have prayers.  That is economic democracy in action.  When a prayer requests, on any basis, something for nothing, it is unavailable since that would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.  You cannot get something for nothing.

How about this false alternative: the United Nations, the last hope for peace on earth versus World War III.  Ladies and gentlemen, the amount of propaganda that is promulgated on behalf of the United Nations in this country is absolutely unbelievable.  Are any of you philatelists? How many philatelists are there?  Two?  That’s all?  Two philatelists?  How many of you are numismatists?  Four or five?   A philatelist, as some of you know, is a stamp collector.  If you collect stamps, you’ll be sensitive to the amount of stamps that are issued on behalf of the U.N..  The U.S. Post Office are blithering idiots about everything, including the stamps that they issue.  Occasionally, they do issue an intelligent stamp.  Like they recently came out with one commemorating a major innovation, namely the phonograph.  And these jackasses, they only omit the name of the man who invented it, namely Edison.  Well, do you think everybody knows this?  Hardly.  Anyhow.  They can’t get anything right.  I’ll deal with the Post Office in Lecture 9.  And they’re the least offensive branch of the state.

The United Nations is a principal promulgator of war.  There have been more wars since the United Nations’ existence.  If you compare, for example, the twenty year period between World War I and World War II and then the first twenty years after World War II, no comparison in the number of wars there’s been since the advent of the UN.  Look at all the police actions, brush fire wars, punitive actions we’ve had since the United Nations.  The structure of the UN is patterned upon violence and coercion.  This would be obvious to anyone who bothers to read the UN Charter.

Wars are caused by property attacks on a grand scale.  The cause of war, as Bastiat points out, can be largely eliminated through the concept of free trade.  Bastiat, I think he states it in the law which we made available this evening.  He said, “If goods do not cross frontiers, armies will”.  That’s one of the most intelligent statements ever made.

People who find it mutually profitable to trade with one another, will quickly recognize it is not profitable to murder one another.  In every instance, it’s the state that interferes with the opportunity to trade.  When there’s free trade, it’s not nations or states that trade with one another, but individuals or corporations that trade with one another.  If a company, for example, in one country wants to trade with a company in another country, what difference does it make if the people have a different ethnic background or they speak a different language or they have a different religious preference?  What difference does it make?  Zero.

When the state interferes with the flow of goods, with the exchange of ideas, with the flow of people, this is what creates the various factors that ultimately lead to war.  And these blockheads and ignoramuses that are camped down at the UN have no knowledge of this.  The United Nations is gradually becoming a super state as more and more national states transfer the coercive control that they have over their own people over to the UN.  If you think we’ve got a super headache with the federal bureaucracy in Washington, imagine what it will be like when there is one super giant state that runs everything, the UN.

Of course, the argument is, well, the United Nations will prevent war.  It will not prevent war.  The best it could do is change the name of the war from an international war to a local rebellion or a civil war.  It will be referred to as rebellions against the UN.  For example, you may recall some years ago, the secession of Katanga from the communist-controlled Central Congolese state.  The United Nations said Katanga cannot secede from the central government.  When they did, under the leadership of the Negro president there, Moise Tshombe, they were viciously attacked by the United Nations for rebelling against the UN.  How many remember, some years ago, reading about this?

As a matter of fact, it may be worthwhile just to read an excerpt from a statement made by Tshombe at the time this was happening.  A Californian Congressman named Jackson, some years ago, went to Africa to interview Tshombe.  I have what Tshombe said in this interview.  This was an extemporaneous delivery on the part of Tshombe.  He was speaking in French and explaining to Jackson what happened.  And I’ll read to you a translation in English of his extemporaneous remarks.  I think you will find this interesting.  This is the Negro president of Katanga explaining what happened.  He says:

“The important question is the survival of our beloved Katanga.  As you can see for yourself at this very hour, no effort is spared by the UN to utterly destroy us.  In this, it is being helped by your own State Department”.  He’s referring, of course, to the United States State Department.

“I’m sorry to have to say this but, tragically, it is true.  Why?  What have we done to your State Department?  What have we done to the UN?  What terrible crime have we committed that we should so deserve this”?

And then Tshombe answers his own question.  He says, “Well, it seems that our crime was that in an emerging Africa that is everywhere turning against the west and into the arms of the Soviet bloc, we Katangese asserted our loyalty to the west and our uncompromising hatred of communism.  In an emerging world of socialized and communized industry, [or what we would call Marx I and Marx II industry] and the seizure of private property, we have asserted our hatred of state-ism and our belief in and encouragement of private free enterprise”.  Are  you beginning to see Tshombe’s crime?

He continues: “In a world of anti-individualism, we have asserted our belief in the fundamental dignity of the individual man and his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  As you have seen for yourself,  here white and black live together as brothers of the human race with neither racial strife nor hatred.  Our people work towards the common goals of free men.  Are these the offenses?  Are these the crimes we are guilty of”?

And then he explains what happened:

“The United Nations, on the 28th day of August, 1961, surprised us by a lightening attack at 4 a.m. on the morning at the Post Office Square, at the railroad station, at the radio station.  Everywhere, innocent Katangese, men, women, and children, civilian and military personnel, were senselessly massacred”.  Incidentally, we paid for the bullets and the guns.  Congratulations.

“Next, they waged an all-out war on the economy.  Not only did they bomb our industrial plants, but our freight trains and our roads.  They paralyzed our farms, our water supplies.  But the one thing they did not count upon was the will of the Katangese to be free.  We are not so easily broken, even when the governments of the world seem to be against us.  Our enemies have the war-making tools and propaganda machine of vast empires.    We have only the simple truth of our beliefs and our desire to be free.  I do not know how much longer we can hold out against the limitless pressures but we shall not hesitate to spend our last drop of blood for our freedom if it is so required.  That, I believe, is what your own countrymen did at Bunker Hill.  Tell your people [he seems to know more about our history than the average American dodo]…tell your people that the Katangese want to be their friends but do not hide from them the fact that our people oppose the policies of your present Washington administration, policies that are laying certain ground for communism in the Congo and all Africa.  Thank you and may God be with you”.

Moise Tshombe.  Sometime after this, the poor man was murdered.  I’d say that’s pretty intelligent for a politician, isn’t it?  He has some rational concepts there.  And what is he saying?  We are promulgating communism in Africa.  I think, somehow, we managed to optimize blockhead-ism in our State Department.  One is hard pressed to even remember when there was even a half-wit in the State Department.  For most people, half-wit is a compliment, especially in the State Department.  You think I’m hard on these people?  They’re only destroying this country.

So the United Nations is nothing more than a world state in the brewing.  Now world state is not the same as world government.  We should have world government.  Next week I will explain what a government is.  It has one function.  Did I tell you what it is yet?  I think I did.  Government has one proper function, to protect property.  Period.  Alright, what if we had a world government and property is secure all over the world?  Is that desirable?  Of course.  I would like to go to China but not when it’s run by thugs and lunatics.

There are so many false alternatives.  I’m just giving you enough here.  Then you interpolate and generalize, fill in the blanks.  I’ll give you a few more.  State rights versus federal rights.  This is a big argument.  What’s that all about?  The whole states’ rights argument is nothing more than which thugs are going to run the people – the federal thugs or the state thugs or the sub-state thugs or what have you?

Or we have, for example, arguments like, a classic conservative argument is what a terrible thing if we ever have federal aid to education.  Let’s have local aid to education.  Or it’s nothing more brilliant than this.  Let’s say your automobile is going to be stolen by either a federal agent in Washington or a local agent in Sacramento or a sub-local agent here in Orange County or a sub-sub-local agent here in the city of Orange.  So here’s the whole argument, the so-called states’ rights/federal rights argument is oh what a terrible thing if my automobile is stolen by a

Washington agent.  I never get to Washington.  I can’t determine whether they’re properly taking care of my automobile, keeping it properly greased and maintained.  Better yet would be if my automobile was stolen by an agent here in Sacramento because once a month I go to Sacramento on business.  I can drop in and make sure they’re taking care of my automobile.  Better yet,  if somebody steals my automobile here in Orange County.  That’s even more convenient for me to check up on it and make sure that they’re properly….but best of all, if an agent from the city of Orange takes my automobile.  That’s Charlie, right up the street.  When he drives by in the morning, “Charlie, I notice you’re keeping it properly polished, but did you change the oil every 2000 miles”?

Charlie says, “Sure”.

“Oh, I’m glad to hear that”.

Keep track of things better here on a local basis.  But please recognize, ladies and gentlemen, whether your automobile is stolen by an agent in Washington or Sacramento or in Orange County or in Orange, in all four cases, you walk to work.  The whole schmeer is a false alternative.

How about this: left wing versus right wing?  At the extreme right wing, you supposedly have fascism.  At the left wing, you’ve got communism.  What’s middle of the road?  Well, communism in the Marx II sense is at one extreme, fascism in the Marx I sense at the other extreme and what’s middle of the road?  Marx III.  I and II makes III.  It’s a hybrid of force and fraud.  What is middle of the road?  The whole thing, the whole schmeer, is a false alternative.

I said in Session 1, we are not left wing. We are not right wing.  We are not middle of the road.  We ain’t even on that bird.  The whole concept is wrong.  If it’s political, it’s wrong.  There’s no exception.  That might be a hard pill to swallow because why?  From the time you left the womb, you were inundated and indoctrinated with the glory of politics and politicians.  That’s another swindle.  No different than the pharaoh slave, the slave of the pharaoh is indoctrinated with the glory of the pharaoh.  Same swindle.

The lesser of two evils is evil.  False alternative.  You’re going to vote for the lesser evil of the politician?  Whichever politician gets elected is the greatest evil because he’s the one doing the greatest harm.  You just elected the greatest evil.  Would you rather have a Republican stealing your property or a Democrat?

The grand false alternative we’re offered then today by our political masters, Marx I versus Marx II, these are generalizations I’ve given you concerning our present social structure.  Generalizations in science organize our random observations.  Your knowledge of what is wrong is a positive knowledge.  With a right understanding of what is wrong, you can then begin the construction of what is right.  Prior to this theory, there has not even been developed a clear and precise explanation of what is wrong, as I said.  Well, you have one now.  That is wrong which is either irrational or immoral or both.

I will close this lecture with an illustration.  Very important.  I will give you an illustration and then we will have completed Lecture 7 for the evening.  I’m going to demonstrate my view of the entire political spectrum.  It is a total false alternative but I would like you to see it from my view.  Hopefully, in time, as you augment your knowledge, you will see it from the same posture.  This story illustrates a tribe of savages who live in the jungle.  Now one of the things they are really concerned about is any moment they fear they will be attacked by their enemy, the Babylokians over the next hill.  And the way they’re going to acquire protection from these Babylokians is the way they’ve always done it and that is they’re going to make a sacrifice to the god of the forest.

And so, the elders of this tribe journey through the forest and they look for the tallest tree they can find.  And they hand pick and select twelve of the most beautiful virgins in the tribe.  And they tie these young women up.  They bind their hands and their feet and all twelve of them are stacked in a row up to the base of the tallest tree in the forest.  And the ceremony is to begin at sunrise.  And at sunrise, ten of the tribal elders conduct the ceremony.  And carrying their axes and hatchets, they start a tribal dance in a clockwise direction around the tallest tree in the forest.

And at the height of their frenzy, there’s a particular spot in the tree that has been marked and they start hacking away at this spot on the base of this tall tree.  And eventually the tree begins to weaken.  And the twelve are in this direction which is east.  And finally the tree begins to lean and fall and it collapses in an eastern direction, snuffing out the lives of these twelve young women.

Now to an external observer, it might appear that there is great harmony among this tribe, but if you look more deeply into the situation, you will find that there is much disagreement in regard to how they should acquire protection from their enemy, the Babylokians.  As a matter of fact, one of the very strong factions in this tribe are convinced that what they should be looking for is the second tallest tree.  And not only that, they are certain that it should not be twelve but ten of the most beautiful non-virgins.  And not only that, they’re absolutely convinced that the ceremony should start at sunset and not sunrise.  And furthermore, they believe there should be fifteen of the tribal elders taking part in the ceremony and not a mere ten.  And not only that, the tribal dance should be counter clockwise and the tree should fall north, not east.  We’re convinced of this.

Now can you generalize?  Politicians are always blabbering about how let’s stick to the issues.  Let’s stop this name calling and debate the issues.  What are the great issues here that these tribesmen are disputing?  Clockwise or counterclockwise?  Ten elders or fifteen elders?  Ceremony should start at sunrise or sundown?

Ladies and gentlemen, the totality of all political issues are no more intelligent than what I’ve just given you in terms of the disputes among these tribal political parties.  If you understand this theory, ultimately, you will see that they are no more intelligent.  That is the totality of all political issues.  There are only three political issues anyhow.  They can be reduced to three things:

  1. Who will do the stealing?
  2. From whom should we steal?
  3. How much shall be stolen?

That summarizes all political issues.

Alright, now let me wrap this up.  This is very important.  Let’s assume that you had been a member of this tribe.  Let’s assume you had the knowledge before you ever heard of V-50.  You had the knowledge prior to V-50 that you had and you suddenly knew as much as you knew before V-50 and you had been a member of this tribe.  And you go back to the tribe, your old tribe, and they’re just about to have another sacrifice to protect them from their enemy, the Babylokians.  And you come on the scene with a knowledge you possessed even before V-50 and you say, “Wait a minute!  Hey!  Stop!  I’ve got something I’ve got to tell you.  Stop the ceremony”. And you proceed to tell them that they don’t have the foggiest idea what they’re doing and everything they’re doing is both irrational and immoral.  And you clearly articulate this to them.

And just how well do you think your brilliant remarks will be received?  It is almost a foregone conclusion they are going to change the rules to admit you to be the next member of the big twelve.  Is that right?

Or imagine this.  You go back to the tribe and let’s say your wife is still a member of the tribe.  And you say, “My dear.  I have something I’ve got to tell you”.  And you proceed to tell all this to your beloved wife.  Hmm.  Do you expect there is a very high probability you completely alienate your wife and she will think you’re cracked?  Conversely, the wife who understands the right concept and then tries to go back to the tribe and explain this to her dear husband who is one of the tribal elders perhaps even.  How well will this be received?  Poorly.

Alright.  I’ve just explained to you what happens and what will happen when you try to explain this course to someone who has no understanding of it.  You will not convince them of one thing except you’ve suddenly turned into a raving lunatic.  We have a name for this.  It’s called promiscuous disclosure or universal blab forth.  And I’m stating it now. This is the last thing I’ll say this evening.  I’m warning you.  This is a strong admonition.  Don’t blow it.  If you ever wish to encourage someone else to enroll in this course, the less you say about the content of it, the more effective you will be.  And the more you try to tell people what’s in it, the more you will blow it.  And you will do no better than going back to the tribe and saying, “Hey, clockwise, counterclockwise, look, this doesn’t have a damn thing to do with it”.

So restrain yourself.  If you want to get somebody in this course, the best way to do it is on enthusiasm and say little.  Next week, in the second half of next week, I will give you a major strategy that will lead to the entire solution. Don’t get sick.  I bid you good evening.


© Sustainable Civilization Institute 2010