Survival Marketing II


(First publication: October 2001)

6 years ago we distributed an article entitled "Survival Marketing". There were about 30 positive responses, congratulating us on our courage, and two or three responses threatening the "mocker" with divine punishment, with the aid of quotations from Scripture. There was a good deal of incomprehension, and criticism, mostly derivative, putting us in the same category as Scientology and castigating us for being misogynist and hostile to religion.

Rightly interpreted, no contradictions were identified, and the logic of what we had written was not followed through consequently at all.

"Is that what you really believe?", I am asked when giving a talk to budding entrepreneurs. This is not belief, it is mathematics – logic according to the law of the calculation of probabilities and set theory.

In our last newsletter we had announced that we intended to establish a professional team. At that stage we had planned to make available 100,000 euros annually for this purpose. The whole project fell through simply because we could not find people who would be prepared to contradict the hypotheses set out in the article according to Karl Popper's philosophy: "It is the creative task of science to erect general hypotheses and then test them in experiments; for hypotheses cannot be confirmed, but can be contradicted or falsified." By excluding more and more theories, the verisimilitude of the surviving theory is increased.

I myself have repeatedly tested Kiss' hypotheses over the last 6 years and have found no contradictions. On this basis the hypotheses were extended to other fields, in order to find explanations for certain states of affairs which had not been enquired into.

For each new finding, we have erected theses or hypotheses to be confirmed or refuted.

KELLER AG for Pressure Metrology hereby offers
(Editor's note: Registration deadline is over)

---------------------------------------------------------
10 Kiss prizes, each of 10'000 euros
---------------------------------------------------------

for the best work confirming or refuting a thesis or group of theses.

(M. Quine has objected to Popper's arguments on the grounds that the results of empirical observation cannot be deduced from individual hypotheses, but only from complexes of hypotheses. This is a cogent point. Each thesis should be evaluated in association with the whole interpretative approach).

In this article, therefore, several theses are erected. The ten best contributions dealing with a thesis or complex of theses will be awarded a prize of 10,000 euros. As already mentioned, the theses should be confirmed or refuted according to Popper's methodology. The ten best contributions will be published on the Internet, maybe even collected in book form. The prizewinners will cede the copyright to KELLER. Any proceeds will be devoted to further prizes for the same purpose or to publications.

As many will perhaps not venture to tackle such complexes of ideas, a few competition questions are also scattered in the text, with the correct answers drawn by lot. I was motivated to do this by the words of an engineer, who said of the competition in which the aim was to identify the author of the lines "Only he who knows longing knows what I suffer": "You will not believe this, Mr Keller, but my daughter caused a commotion throughout her school with your question".

This also makes clear who this offensive is directed at – the young! They should be even more open and impatient in their search for "truth".

And it is directed also at the children of engineers. For engineers and researchers are the heroes of the nation. They have completed a course of study which most other academics simply could not cope with, subsequently to earn only about half as much as a doctor or lawyer. And they are the ones who ensure our prosperity. Do not complain! You have the luxury of freedom of thought! As it has been so well said, "Nothing is as expensive as money". If a lawyer earns millions for a lawsuit, because the sums in dispute run into hundreds of millions, that is a gift from the system at the expense of the community as a whole. And gifts, as is well known, make the recipient blind. And lawyers do everything to keep this system intact.

I am also aware that I could never afford to write these newsletters if it were not for the engineers who decide how my technology should be used, and without whom the managers, who understand nothing of the matter, would be helpless.

Incidentally, we lost an order worth over half a million francs a year after the first newsletter appeared "because one doesn't write things like that about the competition". I was touched to see how these people felt sympathy with the great chief "Big Sun" and gave the order to one of its hundred companies.

And it is not a question of obstinacy if KELLER withdraws from a project immediately if it is indicated that undeclared cash payments are involved, or that KELLER has not accepted a single franc in subsidies and does not become unduly agitated if the competition receives half a million from the State to develop a process which we already mastered 10 years ago. These are gifts, and gifts make people blind. It is all a question of intelligence, as Socrates expressed it when he said that "Justice, prudence and bravery can only be achieved on the basis of knowledge". In other words, there is no such thing as good or evil people, only stupid or intelligent ones. The stupid person, the deceiver, harms himself most of all by his actions, more than those whom he deceives. Or as we express it: "The competition presses its nose to the window-pane, not because we are intelligent, but because it is stupid".


One more warning to teachers concerning how to proceed when young people approach them to discuss the issues raised in this contribution. I know how difficult it is for you! An article published recently in the Stuttgarter Zeitung of 24.2.01 describes the clinic on the Chiemsee where overburdened and exhausted teachers are treated. "I dream of students wanting to learn" is the title of the article. Perhaps this article will be of use to you. I understand why young people of both sexes no longer want to learn the rubbish which we were required to learn. The article several times mentions the fact that the system is to blame. If the system is to blame, then it must be analysed. That is for you to do. The article is intended to motivate you to do so.

On paper, freedom of thought exists. In practice, you can be exposed to repression if you promote these ideas among your students! You will be considered as hostile to the system. And if you are attacked, argue that these theses could not possibly be true and that students are encouraged to refute them.

You should also look over the edge of your plate a little. I have read that teachers in Romania earn a quarter of what their counterparts do in Germany and that school-leavers there are far more advanced in mathematics than in Germany. Set students the task of determining how long it will be before Romania has overtaken Germany technologically. You will then perhaps have to consider, yourselves, whether you have not allowed yourselves to be tied into the system with your pay demands, sacrificing your idealism to Mammon.

One other event provided the impetus for this article: the Swiss National Fund has announced 14 research projects totalling 90 million euros – 13 in the natural sciences and one in the social sciences. The humanities were left empty-handed, as there were no suitable projects. This is a mockery! We have more than enough technologies. The intention is that they should continue to be supported so that we among the industrialized nations can continue to play in the first division. Of necessity, the gap separating us from the Third World countries is becoming greater. That is something which just has to be accepted.

But now it appears that our own bubble is bursting. The consequences of the catastrophe of world climate change are incalculable. The forest is being destroyed and with it the world. We are fighting AIDS and BSE. The young are disoriented, teachers are frustrated and becoming depressed – but none of this is any reason to conduct research into causes. With 90 million euros' worth of research, however, something useful could be done.

Here we are making an attempt with a modest 100,000 euros, and no-one is required to produce their credentials for taking part in the project.


Survival Marketing II

Let us summarize the content of the first article once again briefly in theses.

Thesis 1:
Man is the product of an unhealthy impulse, a drug which has raised the capacity of his brain to a higher level. Man has a sick brain.

Thesis 2:
Language is not the product of a higher intelligence but a necessary substitute for the loss of the capacity to communicate by thought transfer.

These theses are formulated in the Oskar Kiss' book "The beginning was the end".

Thesis 3:
Man is neither good nor bad. He is programmed to ensure his own survival and that of his brood and chooses the tactics which will achieve this. (For further details see 1st article – 'Survival Marketing' – at www.keller-druck.ch).

At the end of the article we formulated, along with Kiss, the thesis that only one thing can save us:

Thinking, thinking, thinking...

and in this article we would like to deal primarily with the subjects of thinking and intelligence.

At this point I would like to relate a story which is familiar to many Swiss: that of Hans A. Pestalozzi. He had a typical successful career in Swiss terms – university study with a doctorate in business management, the rank of major in the Swiss militia army, screened for left-wing ideology on special courses such as SKU, at 45 directing the renowned Centre for Management and New Concepts run by Migros, the largest Swiss food distributor, in Rüschlikon on Lake Zürich.

In a talk given at a provincial middle school Hans A. Pestalozzi calculated the energy contained in a pot of yogurt bought in the supermarket and compared it with the energy consumed if the housewife buys the milk from the farmer or the milkman and cultivates the yogurt herself in a pot. It goes without saying that MIGROS did not want alternative ideas to be developed in this direction and reminded Pestalozzi which side his bread was buttered on. Pestalozzi did not prove responsive to this but went for head-on confrontation and was fired within 6 months. His institute had been transformed in this period from an impeccably organized one to a centre of "chaos" and Pestalozzi himself became the No. 1 left-wing enemy of the system, who presented theses, in books and television appearances, such as "All managers should be fired", among others. When asked in interviews about his position in the army and other typical attributes of Swiss success stories, he dismissed it as the follies of youth. I personally invited Mr Pestalozzi to reflect on why such a highly intelligent man as he was able to go through life so blindly up to the mature age of 45 and was actually awakened only by the proverbial acorn accidentally found by the blind sow. That did not interest him. Confrontation with the system and the sense of injustice left room only for thoughts of revenge and not for any other calm thought.

The story encapsulates everything: how perfect our education system is and, when something breaks down, how easily the individual can be driven by the system into a state inviting ridicule – they need only be sufficiently goaded. What was positive about Pestalozzi was of course that he rebelled against the system, which, again, should not be over-valued: after all, he achieved a livelihood and fame with his books such as "Into the trees, you monkeys". If he had not had this opportunity, he would have given up the ghost much earlier, like millions of other unknown soldiers in the graveyard of rankling injustice and free expression of opinion.

"Hans A. Pestalozzi, the story of a Swiss education" can perhaps only be understood from a Swiss perspective. Here we will try to analyse our education system and determine how the system manages to enable us to run around so blindly.

The intellectual élite of every higher cultural milieu obtains the basis of its education between the 13th and 20th year of age in middle school. This is the time when early man was initiated into the art of hunting; we spent this time swotting Latin and Greek, 12 hours a week, for years. What did we retain from it? Nothing, except that one can sometimes say, as of Franz Josef Strauss, when his coffin was led past the Greek statues in front of the Pinakothek, "To think that the deceased read all these writers in the original".

The ancient languages with their sentence constructions were, almost like mathematics, a superb mental discipline, but it was from the study of German that we drew our understanding of culture. In order to discover the effect they had on our youth, one would have to read all the relevant works of Schiller, Lessing and Goethe again, 40 years later.

Apart from Goethe's Faust, everything seems fairly feeble. Goethe's idealised image of woman, and Schiller's division between good and evil seem naïve today. It would have been unthinkable to say anything of the kind in those days, since the company of dead poets was a homogeneous, watertight mass of liberal Protestant intellectual heritage. It was simply not called into question. And the same is true of the great epics such as the Iliad, the Odyssey or the song of the Nibelungen: if one reads them today, with their pointless butchery over the wronged honour of a woman, no-one would then have dared to question whether these were worth being proud of as our culture.

At the time I found French literature more interesting. From Catholic devotion to God directly into the atheism of a Camus or Sartre, it was an escape from Germanness and dogmas. "It is responsibility to suffering fellow-men which gives meaning to my life," as Camus said, identifying with the doctor in the novel "The Plague". Here a concept of social solidarity stood diametrically opposed to the egoistic religious purpose of life, that of being able to look upon God in the hereafter.

New points of view opened up in philosophy classes. The professor, a small man with a high, bare forehead over which the skin was tight as parchment, in a wing collar with a waistcoat, his left hand always in his trousers pocket, fumbled in the air with his right hand, as if trying to snatch something from the inexplicable, from metaphysics. This professor presented us with questions such as: "Does freedom of will exist? Schopenhauer says it does not."

Damn it, we Catholics had been indoctrinated by religion for years to believe that we had freedom to live life in such a way that we would go to Heaven or to Hell, and now this question. For Protestants the question cannot have been unfamiliar, as it was part of Calvin's theory of predestination, but we Catholics knew nothing of that. We differed only in recognizing the Pope and the minister's daughters.

We were not confronted at all with Darwinism, the theses concerning the origins of man, which had been put forward a hundred years earlier and which at that time had already been undisputed for 70 years.

The dissemination of Darwin's ideas was in the interests neither of the Protestants nor the Catholics. Instead, we were confronted in some detail with Mendel's attempts to cross varieties of bean, which as Catholics we felt was an unsuitable occupation for a monk, and, as this was presented by a liberal professor, we regarded it as an attack on our religious sentiments. But as the experiments had been conducted by a monk, our hands were tied.

In retrospect, this was simply the Protestant professors needling the Catholics – with the positive benefit that this stimulated us to think.

With my own history and Pestalozzi's, which were similar up to the age of twenty, I sought explanations for our blindness. I searched in educational texts in vain for guidelines as to what we wished to educate a person to be. In companies which spoke of models for their staff, I asked in vain how these models were defined.

Then I came across Emile Durkheim, who formulated the question at the beginning of the last century in these terms: "Each society creates a certain ideal of man. This ideal is the pivotal point of education. For each society education is the means by which it prepares in the heart of the child the essential conditions of its (society's) continued existence". Then he summarizes briefly: "Education is a socialization of the young generation".

We had actually had an insight, on the lines of Durkheim's theses, in middle school. When I was crossing swords with my Protestant schoolmate in discussions as to whether the Pope or the Bible was the highest authority, and he could not make any further headway, he used to say: "Hans, if you had been laid in a Protestant cradle, you would now be defending Luther and vice versa". I had to agree that he was right. Only we were far from formulating this as clearly as Durkheim, nor were we brought to reflect about the subject, nor were we ever confronted with Durkheim.

Let us conclude these considerations with the following theses:

Thesis 4:

4a Man is formed by education to defend and reinforce the social group into which he was born. On the one hand he is given a sense of belonging to a group – religion, class, or party, and mostly a combination of the three, which gives him identity and security. And secondly a collection of cultural values, writers, philosophers and thinkers, whom it would be almost crazy to call in question, and thirdly an image of the enemy.

4b Whereas in our highly-developed Central European culture the image of the enemy was defined by differences of religion, class and party, once one moved outside this area, the field of tension lay between capitalism and communism.

4c Between the fields of tension there are heavily mined no-go areas. People are wary of stepping onto these, that is, of reflecting about contradictions. As in Pestalozzi's case, doing so might jeopardize their existence.

 

A new type of human is being bred

In grammar school the following phenomenon preoccupied me greatly. A-grade students were mostly rather boring characters, uncoordinated in sports and highly unattractive to women. Mostly they spent their free afternoons in music lessons and practising, while we were belting footballs, which put them on a higher level culturally.

Although at the time I was upset that the piano experiment with my older sister was a complete disaster, so that it was not tried again with the younger children, I am thankful now that I did not occupy my brain synapses with combinations of notes which have to be transposed to the motor control of 10 fingers, but was able to keep my natural motor control and that the synapses remained free for thinking with.

Thesis 5:
We foster a kind of intelligence which is an obstacle to thinking. We support and admire those who function as walking dictionaries, who can store knowledge well and retrieve it at once, and who occupy their synapses with activities which bring them a high degree of recognition in society. But the more the mind is occupied, the less room is left for free thought.

Thesis 6:
Whereas, in the great epics and the age of chivalry, the heroes and leaders had to be distinguished by a high degree of courage, and physical and mental exceptionally well-formed – mens sana in corpore sano – in schools today the good student is held up as an example, who is usually compensating, with his performance, for a shortfall in physical qualities.

 

ntelligence is determined by training

In my day only about 5% of students attended a middle school, and from a village such as the one where I grew up, generally only the sons of the doctor or the minister. What was this proletarian, son of a commercial employee and a butcher's daughter, doing there? I bumped along the bottom in the first two years of grammar school, and when marks were awarded in subjects such as German and History I felt strongly disadvantaged because of my origins. When it subsequently came to higher mathematics and physics, which were an ordeal for most other people, I found it easy and logical. In these subjects there was only "right" and "wrong". And the teachers in these subjects, who came from similar social backgrounds, cynically humiliated the sons and daughters of better families, who had the greatest difficulties with mathematics. They were not "less intelligent" than me, they had simply occupied their synapses with the wrong things. And then I am grateful to the teachers who gave me bad marks, for otherwise I would perhaps have been glad to become one of their favourites. The mathematicians' cynicism also corresponded better to my inclinations.

Thesis 7:
Intelligence is determined by the way in which the mind is used and cultivated from youth onwards. The ruling class decried the humbler classes as stupid, which the latter accepted. Adopted children who grew up in academic families are as likely to cope with university study as the family's natural children.

Thesis 8:
Men's brains are only slightly larger than women's. This can easily be explained: in terms of developmental history, those men have imposed themselves who were cleverer. Among women this was not necessarily the case; they had other characteristics which ensured their survival.

Thesis 9:
"Blondes are dumb". Perhaps – they do not need to use their brains. They get everything they want without having to do much thinking. It is dumb, sex-driven men who make this so.

Thesis 10:
There are cultures, such as Judaism, which teach their children from the start that they must achieve something quite exceptional, as they cannot afford to be average. The Jews are not more intelligent than others; it is the pressure of education which drives their young people to achieve more.



Philosophy

I was astonished in middle school at what scant space was allocated to philosophy: 2 lessons a week for 3 semesters. For ancient languages alone we had ten times as many lessons. In Plato's writings, with Goethe's motto in mind - "Let everyone be a Greek - after his own fashion, but a Greek nonetheless." – we went back to the roots of our culture, in the original text, without much of it remaining.

If one now investigates the history of philosophy, the following immediately becomes apparent: the Greeks, who have influenced us most, had a wide variety of schools and philosophies. Whereas, in the natural sciences, all discoveries are the basis for further discoveries, in philosophy each new master decried and combated the previous one. And each culture has drawn from the "potpourri" of wisdoms what it found useful for its concept or for consolidating the influence of a class of society: the philosophy of the Spartans, the Stoics, the Sophists, the Platonists or the Epicureans. And it is not the case that the Greeks, the first democrats, prized freedom of thought or speech. Socrates had to drink the cup of hemlock because he was accused of leading youth astray. Freedom of thought and speech applied in ancient Greece only for so long as the interests of the ruling classes were not affected.

It is said that it was among the Greeks that the evolution from mythos to logos took place. They gave us argument, and that led to the disastrous influence of the sophists. Truth and a following belonged to whoever had the best arguments. Like motivational trainers today, people taught, for money, how to achieve influence in politics and society by talking and handling arguments.

The most famous of them was Protagoras. There is the famous story of his pupil Euathion, who had no money for the rhetoric course and agreed with Protagoras that he would pay him after the first case had been won. Euathion then preferred not to do anything more. Protagoras then accused him with the argument: "If I win, you must pay me, because I have won the case, and if I lose, you must pay because you have won the case".

"Quite the contrary," said Euathion, "if I lose, I will not have to pay because I have lost, and if I win I will not have to pay because I have won". It is as if one was in a court of law or a discussion between politicians. They are all talking about the same subject and yet not talking about the same thing. The "wise" public acclaims the one who can best knock the other for six.

There is no authority or group which stands above political points of view and analyses their content. Today's philosophers are, without realizing it, condemned to be bit-players who occupy the field without contributing in the slightest to the analysis of the system, and continue to hope, along with Plato and Aristotle, for a better world. And these were the prototypes of the classic neurotics who held only to their influence and used every means to combat any ideas which did not fit into the preferred concept.

Plato had Democritus, who taught the atomic theory, sent to a funny farm. Aristotle, who is held up for us as the greatest philosopher of all time, because he gave us logic, with his syllogism:

Premiss 1: "All men are mortal"

Premiss 2: "All kings are men"

Conclusion: "All kings are mortal"

was elevated as the most brilliant man in history.

Aristotle also framed the sentence: "Body is matter, soul is form" and then falls into the sexual emotional trap with his statement: "The female is as it were an amputated male and the menstrues as it were semen, only impure, for it is lacking one thing: the principle of the soul". Woman is matter, man soul. That he could have seen the light of day as a female child, born of the same parents, was beyond his powers of thought.

Luther expressed the same idea in these terms: "Women who are fertile and bear many children, are healthier, cleanlier and merrier, and if they wear themselves out and ultimately to death carrying and bearing children, that does not matter – let them do so: that is what they are there for." or in other words: woman is ennobled by semen, her life is meaningful only if she is pregnant, and therefore she should not spend her life fruitlessly.

Whereas for Aristotle and Luther, women's bodies could still be given a meaningful purpose by men's semen, for Goethe woman is simply evil. In his theory of light, which he was more proud of than his poetical works, he became emotionally involved to the point of making personal attacks on Newton and his spectral theory. According to Goethe white light is the pure and masculine. Through the prism evil, woman, is added, and destroys it. If even Plato had Democritus put in a funny-farm because of his atomic theory, one has to agree with the person who said: "The madmen are outside and the normal people inside".

And philosophers up to modern times have had their problems with women. Hegel grants them education, but does not consider them suited to the higher sciences. Schopenhauer's statement: "To call the sex which is short in stature, narrow-shouldered, broad at the hips and short-legged the 'fair sex' is something of which only the male intellect, clouded by the sexual drive, is capable", derives more from his homosexual inclinations than from a recognition that sexuality could be the motive force for many thoughts.

Darwin, the author of evolutionary theory, according to which every living creature has acquired the characteristics which ensure its survival, departs from the path of his logic – his judgment obviously clouded by the sexual drive – when he says: "Whether profound thoughts are called for, reason or imagination or simply the use of the senses and the hands, man will achieve a higher degree of pre-eminence than woman". That women, too, have adapted to the requirements of survival is a logical conclusion which he did not reach.

Nietsche, the tragic with a hyperactive brain and an uncontrolled sexuality, reverts to the remote Middle Ages when he says: "Everything about woman is an enigma, and everything about woman has one solution: it is called pregnancy".

Sigmund Freud, who uncovered sexuality as an actual motive force, expresses himself in the language of 'dumb blonde' jokes: "When a virgin falls, she falls on her back".

Otherwise, the philosophers have conveyed nothing to us in the way of wisdom. Even after Darwin's theories had been known for a considerable time, from which his pupil Hexley concluded: "There is no greater morphological difference between man and ape than between two different species of animals" – even beyond these Darwinian theories, modern philosophers have continued to chase the phantoms of idea, being, sense, perception and thought and have filled libraries and won thousands of followers.

That man is, or could be, a perverted ape is a thesis which no significant philosopher has wanted even to consider or else, as with Kiss, it is passed over in silence. This means, ultimately, that philosophy is governed not by the truth but by whether it is acceptable to men or fits into the system.

The madness is that we must regard Aristotelian logic as containing the origins of the war of the sexes and racism. If it is suggested to man that he should be proud of something for which he himself is not and could not be responsible, such as sex, race, beauty or noble blood, and he accepts this, he can be led as a consequence to consider people of other skin-colours, races or religions as inferior, although they are no more responsible for this than he is. That the black man could be in the white man's skin and vice versa – to think this and draw conclusions from it is something which no-one has managed.

But what has so obscured the judgment of these great minds? Fear of their own sexuality, fear of dependence on woman, which then turns into hatred and drives them into same-sex relationships like our great philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. And our great cultural icon Goethe also had his problems with his sexuality and his master Ispe, who completely ruled him and completely irritated him as well.

 

On this topic, here are two stories and the 3 competition questions:

A) Who was Master Ispe?

B) Goethe was invited by an elderly nobleman with a beautiful young wife to his estate on Lake Constance. The young woman worshipped Goethe. The nobleman, who loved his wife and wanted to grant her every wish, asked Goethe to satisfy her desires. This was too much for Goethe. He left the estate irritated. What was the name of the nobleman?

C) Goethe was enthused by the writings of an Austrian nobleman who had founded a religious community, who had an estate in Silesia where he took in people driven from their homeland and had the courage not to disavow his sexuality. He believed in social solidarity and was a homosexual. He formulated the saying: "Sexuality must not be hemmed in, otherwise it becomes perverted and explodes. But sexuality should only take place within Christian love and in respect for the partner".

Question: what was this Count's name?

 

Thesis 11:
Whereas in the Eastern religions there are many philosophies in which sexuality is regarded as a source of the highest happiness and discovery and a source of creativity, the West has adopted a philosophy absolutely hostile to pleasure and sexuality. Our cultural icons are sexually perverted beings.


The duality between emotions and intellect.

"The Universe and the stupidity of men are infinite. About the Universe I am not yet absolutely so sure"

Einstein is alleged to have said. Stupidity is generally understood to be the opposite of intelligence. Now mankind, which sends men to the moon and decodes genes, must be described as intelligent. Here it is clearly another kind of "unintelligence" which is meant, and it is this which we intend to investigate.

Life is a duality between emotions and intellect. The sexual emotions have clouded the greatest minds. Emotions are brought into play when it is a question of explaining or implementing something which is not logical. When we are then repeatedly led to illogical conclusions by emotions, we cease to be interested in logic, since it could only serve to expose our stupidity. Ultimately one can fool people in every field, even if no emotional motives are apparent.

An example was the assumption that the 20th century did not end until the end of the year 2000. The whole world fell for the elementary assumption that from 0 to 99 was only 99 years, and that the 100th year was the year 2000 and no-one knew what was what. I'll explain it to you, otherwise the whole discussion will start again in 100 years' time. Every year beginning with 16 and two digits is counted as part of the 17th century. The 17th century lasted from 1.1.1600 to 31.12.1699. Now one can count the months between the two dates and divide by 12 or deduce a pattern from the following consideration: the first year is the year 1600, the second year is 1601, the third 1602, the fourth 1603, and the hundredth the year? Competition question D.

Although no emotional reason for the confusion is apparent here, in technology emotions can certainly play a rôle. Emotions are triggered by people and H.W. Keller has done so to the full in our sector. "An idiot like that simply can't be right", people argued, and the most far-fetched products, such as Valvo's sheet metal technology, have been marketed with the daftest arguments. The more Keller made fun of this rubbish, the more emotions became inflamed. In Switzerland there was a State-subsidised programme for a new pressure sensor, which several renowned companies participated in, but not KELLER, although the company was already in the lead at the time. This was no problem for KELLER: the longer they ran in the wrong direction, the greater KELLER's advance over the competition became.

The way society is manipulated today by AIDS or BSE is already almost tragic for mankind in the 21st century. Hardly had sexual mores loosened a little than half a generation had their fun spoilt by AIDS. Researchers who pointed out that AIDS had always existed, who declared themselves willing to be injected with the blood of AIDS patients in front of the television cameras, even reports that apart from a handful of haemophiliacs no-one had been infected by the thousands of AIDS-contaminated blood products, no-one wants to know and no-one thinks about it.

When the whole affair began, "Der Spiegel" wrote an article about the immune system. That was 15 years ago. They quoted a homosexual who had already been infected with syphilis 17 times, caught gonorrhea 30 times and took antibiotics to treat the infection each time. It is clear that any virus which an intact immune system can destroy without difficulty can succeed under these conditions. And at a time of maximum hysteria, when the dentist worked only with rubber gloves and mouth protection, no-one would have understood the question as to whether he had already been treated 30 times with antibiotics.

With BSE it is even more grotesque. It infuriates me when a politician says that bone meal should not even be used as fertilizer. Our ancestors ate carrion too. They ate plants from places where carrion had been lying. Those who caught CJD as a result have long since been eliminated by natural selection.

Just because nature takes revenge on a few sexually perverted individuals, just because medicine keeps genetic material which would not naturally survive, such as premature babies, alive with every means at its disposal, when its capacity for resistance has already been destroyed in the isolation cells, and some of these will be infected with AIDS or BSE, whole herds of cows are slaughtered senselessly. An Indian pointed out to me: "I do not know which is worse for us, the images of the holocaust or the mass slaughter of cows, which are sacred to us. Human beings can become burdened with guilt, but cows cannot." Infinite guilt, indeed.

The fact that this medicine is causing a vertiginous decline in the quality of the genes is knowledge which today is withheld from the young or which they are not made aware of in school. And the knowledge would be so easy to obtain on the Internet.

Just read the article on child mortality and the decline in the quality of the genes, on http://www.ngfg.com/texte/ae015.htm.
It makes you shudder. And it also explains why medical costs and the costs of drugs consumed will continue to rise until our national substance is destroyed.

Do you remember the boy with eye cancer, whose parents, for religious reasons, tried to prevent an operation being carried out, and were driven halfway around the world by the system and who were finally given permission by their guru to hand their child over for the operation to be carried out? It surprised me very much and, as always when something cannot be explained, I looked for an explanation.
Some of the religious leaders must intuitively have felt that blood transfusions and operations represented interference with divine selection, that they pass on defects to the next generation and thus reduce the stock's fitness for survival, and consequently forbade such interventions. Highly intelligent survival marketing.

We presume to condemn them as primitive. Far from it! The guru gave his consent so that the West could not see his hand. As soon as the hue and cry is over, he will exclude the poor child from the religious community and hand it over to those who want to save it. There it will accelerate the pace of decline by disseminating genes which are unfit to survive.

And on top of it, we incur the reproach that we are not respecting human rights, i.e. religious freedom. And to opponents of abortion: the argument that we may not interfere in God's plan is one that you should apply to medicine. I will not formulate theses here. Everyone can come to their own conclusions about what Einstein said. It is a pity that with his intelligence he did not attempt to find explanations.

And although no theses have been formulated here, contributions on this subject will also be included in the Kiss prizes.





top of page
   

 
 


 


















 


D | E | F