The Tree of Life

By Andras Veszelka

The first half of the book rewrites the history of industrial societies. The second half gives a new interpretation to the Judeo-Christian religion, and leads the reader back to the tree of life exactly as he or she was previously driven out from there.

'For only love', to the tune of Lali Puna

• Language: English
• Publisher: Andras Veszelka
• Release date: Jun 22, 2021
• ISBN: 9786150083766

Book preview

Blurb

It seems it's time for mankind to fight its battle for justice and for their rights, to walk up to the tree of life, and for good to triumph. The first half of the book rewrites the history of industrial societies. The second half gives a new interpretation to the Judeo-Christian religion, and leads the reader back to the tree of life exactly as he was previously driven out from there.

To the tune of Lali Puna's 'For only love'

The contents of this book can be freely shared, can be freely cited by indicating the source (name, title, publisher), but may not be changed without permission and is protected under copyright.

Copyright András Veszelka 2021

All rights reserved.

Published by Pellea Bt., Kecskemét, Hungary

ISBN-13: 978-615-00-8376-6

Scripture taken from the New King James Version.

Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Cover design by the author

Cover image (tree) by the author

Cover image (ribbon fragment) by pipicato/Shutterstock.com

Translation: assigned to a top translator and a renowned native editor, and then heavily edited by the author (it's still not perfect)

¹Blessed is the man

Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly,

Nor stands in the path of sinners,

Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;

² But his delight is in the law of the Lord,

And in His law he meditates day and night.

³ He shall be like a tree

Planted by the rivers of water,

That brings forth its fruit in its season,

Whose leaf also shall not wither;

And whatever he does shall prosper.

⁴ The ungodly are not so,

But are like the chaff

which the wind drives away.⁵

Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment

Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

⁶ For the Lord knows the way of the righteous,

But the way of the ungodly shall perish.

(Psalm 1)

The book mostly touches on three cultural areas;

therefore, it has three mottos:

Follow The Flow: Csak nélküled élem túl (I'll Only Survive Without You)

Sara Colangelo: The Kindergarten Teacher

David's Psalms

Bonus: Julio Torres: My Favorite Shapes

Contents

Preface

Introduction

I. The Past of the Vicious Circle

Chapter 1: The 420-Year History of Industrial Societies

Introduction

Revolution of Companies

Consolidation of Corporate Powers

A Little Vexillology – Whose Flag is Flying?

Freemasonry as the Front Office of the East India Company?

The Expansive Industrial Production of the United Kingdom and the United States

The History of Germany's Expansive Industrialization Until the Second World War

History of China's Lagging Industrialization Until the Second World War

History of Japan's Expansive Industrialization Until the Second World War

History of Russia's Industrialization Until the 1942 German Offensive

Alternative History of the Second World War

The World After the Second World War

Chinese Versus Western Democracy

The Golden Age of ‘Democracy’

Cold War Between Socialism and Capitalism

II. The Presence of the Vicious Circle

Chapter 2: Conscious Preparation of Climate Demolition

Environmental Deception in the European Union During and After the Cold War

Environmental Protection Defeated for at Least 40 Years

Conceptual Deceptions

Welcome in Our Ranks the Leading Plastic Manufacturer of the World, the European Union

Bright New Future – Let's Tell a Bigger Lie

The Austere, Simple Truth

Chapter 3: Preparations for Dictatorship

General Means of Oppression

Ideological Means of Oppression

Current Political Measures to Prepare Greater Dictatorship

Preparing the Third World War

The Vicious Circle of Western Societies

The Coronation of the Vicious circle

Chapter 4: King Motto's Court, or the Ideology of Industrial Societies

The Intellectual History of Industrialization

King Motto's Personality

King Motto's Court

King Motto's Takeover

King Motto's Court Jester

Culture, as the Free Citizenship of King Motto's Dominion

Ideas, as Assets

King Motto's Ring

Chapter 5: King Motto's Ideology Seeping into Human Society

King Motto, as a Social Norm

King Motto, as an Organizational Structure

King Motto on a Personal Level

III. The Future of the Vicious circle

Chapter 6: The Psychological/Spiritual Level of Judeo-Christian Societies

Introduction

Putting two arguments on the Beach

What Good is it to Know how to Badly Lay Mortar?

A Few Big Questions of the Judeo-Christian Religion

Genesis of the Earth

Confirmation and Falsification

Belief in Chance

Life on Earth, Along with the Creation of Man

Appearance of Sin in Judeo-Christian Culture

Man and His Potential Partner, the Vole

User Manual for the Game ‘Seeking the Truth’

Rolling up the Serpent

Retrial of Jesus’s Case

Minutes on the Hearing of Descartes's Book Titled ‘Discourse on the Method’

The Question of David

Hardcore Shepherding: the Biblical Encyclopedia of Large Animals

Chapter 7: Everybody’s Changing

The Word of the Lamb

No Problem

End notes

Literature

Preface

I began writing this book eight months ago, when the realization hit me that the Earth has come under the influence of a vicious cycle which is currently preparing the demolition of the climate. I wrote a one-page manifesto about it and showed it to a friend of mine whose opinion I greatly valued. My friend believed that I saw the vicious cycle correctly, but my presentation of its background was somewhat superficial. So, instead I wrote this book about the past, present, and future of this vicious circle.

While writing this book, I constantly felt that I was racing against time. On the one hand, I wanted to show how humanity lives in the most thorough and organized manner possible. On the other hand, however, I did not want to delay its publication any longer than absolutely necessary. I hope that I managed to find the golden mean.

I first published the book still as work in progress on January 1, 2020 on ResearchGate. Since then, the only sure change in environmental protection has been that the coronation campaign started to constantly hide the issue in plain sight. For this reason, the original introduction of the book remained as relevant today as it was eight months ago. However, I hope that people will be able to rise above the matters that are making their lives miserable and will once again find the things that are valuable to them.

Dated: 4/20/2020

*

In this book I would like to invite the reader on a little walk to the backcountry of environmental protection. Many people fight not for environmental protection but against shadows cast on the rock walls, which they therefore cannot defeat.

Instead of rock walls I would show, therefore, trees and bushes, heroes and victims, hundreds of millions dead in the battles against the shadows and among the trees, predators casting shadows and craving the ores of reason.

Consequently, I, too, tried to forge as many useful arguments as possible. But the book will also show the reader promising places for raw materials if he would like to engage in similar activities.

Occasionally, songs are included to create atmosphere when reading the book.

Since I dropped into environmental protection as a novice, I guess it is a typical phenomenon that it only occurred to me while writing this book that this project has a deadline. Initially, I only published this book as a draft on ResearchGate. Draft means a draft piece of writing and for shipping companies the submerging of the hull [1]; [2].

As they say in corporations: deadlines are sacrosanct.

(To the tune of Archive's Fuck U)

Dated: 01/01/2020

Introduction

It has become increasingly apparent in recent years that pollution has reached such levels that the Earth has begun to call in the tab. Self-aggravating processes have begun at increasingly accelerating rates. More and more often it could be heard that young people nowadays are not only terrified of the climate collapse but are actually living in climate grief. Meanwhile, after the several decades-long process of forming a global agreement on environmental protection, in 2018 humanity were still emitting more carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere than ever before [3]

The primary cause of excessive pollution is excessive industrial production.

An increasing number of researchers warned that humanity have a short time; according to some, only a very short time till global warming becomes unmanageably spiraling and irreversible. This would strike not only industrial production but primarily agriculture, too, the key element to humanity's survival.

Humanity's most simple products, for example, a wooden chair, can be locally manufactured essentially without environmental harm. That is not the case with electronic products that people often replace yearly, plastic appliances, fast airplanes, and all the products people use, and of which many are so proud in industrial societies.

The most trivial question of climate pollution therefore is—do humanity insist for a few more years on the plentiful supply of the above so that then:

people won't have enough food, and will still have to give up their products, too, presumably both at an increasingly faster rate; or

humanity start to thin out itself, so that the surviving few can have food and products for a little while longer;

Or else, as an alternative solution:

as smart entrepreneur, humanity immediately decreases to the lowest levels possible the industrial production causing the pollution and the activities of its supporting sectors, so that humantiy:

can have as much in reserve as possible, both in time and in resources, to find the appropriate technology for non-polluting production with sustainable raw material supply; and then

can continue to ensure its food reserves and the basic social services, so that after the difficulties that such a transition would entail and until it finds the right technology, it may live peacefully and at ease.

It seems paradoxical that mankind was seemingly unable to decide on such a simple issue. The citizens of the industrial societies who have pushed the entire Earth to the brink of disaster are frozen in indecision, despite the fact that they consider themselves the greatest proponents of human and civil rights. But the political decision makers of those countries which would be dragged down into the abyss by the industrial societies remained silent, too.

It is conceivable that the industrial production cutback, that started in the spring of 2020 due to the coronavirus campaign, will not be ramped up again by the industrial societies to its former extent. This is uncertain, however; the decision and future control of industrial production is completely obscure and, once again, those who suffer from the restrictions are primarily not the ones who caused the whole problem. Including the coronavirus itself.

*

The industrial societal system is the invention of the Judeo-Christian cultural area. Outside this cultural area, only Japan and China have been able to achieve significant, expansive industrialization. This book will often use the simpler term western instead of Judeo-Christian. This, therefore, does not refer to a geographical location. For example, physically, Russia spans between East and West, but it is essentially part of the Judeo-Christian cultural area.

Similarly, after the Scottish and English kingdoms united in 1707, the name of the hence formed United Kingdom changed several times due to Ireland's role in it. For simplicity, this book uses the country name United Kingdom throughout.

*

Looking at previous public discourses in western industrial societies on environmental protection, it seems that the majority of people living there are not even aware that pollution actually means industrial production.

While even fewer people might know that it has been demonstrably the result of decades-long political efforts that they think this way. By tracing back these efforts from the past up until the present, it will be also seen that the preparations targeted a future where the Earth's climate has been already collapsed.

Surely, the reason for this was that humanity has been entangled in a vicious circle with industrial pollution. For those responsible, it became an increasingly smaller sacrifice to thrust everyone into the climate catastrophe rather than to jump out of it together, but then taking responsibility for letting things deteriorate so far.

The first chapter of this book, which discusses major historical events of the world from the last 200-300 years, demonstrates in an even more revolting way that if filtering out the effects of corrupt historiography, the outlined world history is how much different from what can be learned from schoolbooks.

Also, when searching for information online, websites for example repeatedly emphasize that it is unscientific to determine a country's power by its raw industrial production and not, for example, based on its GDP. This book will demonstrate through numerous specific examples why this is not so. Consequently, this book will also address why, nevertheless, this is what can be read essentially everywhere. Because of this and similar things, this book can be perceived as presenting a sort of conspiracy theory. However, there are and have always been conspiracies and thus conspiracy-theories. The question is always whether these theories are well-founded or not. Table 1 may help in determining this.

Reasoning with adjectives is the first immediately recognizable sign that a reasoning is unreliable.

Reasoning with data and connections shapes a picture even without adjectives, but the opposite is also true.

Furthermore, if adjectives are used as arguments, they are hard to disprove, because it cannot be known exactly what the utterer meant under the given adjective.

As it will be seen in this book, reasoning with adjectives has long been the preferred tool of unfair governance, and the current global situation is no exception.

Naturally, it is inevitable to use adjectives in reasoning. Furthermore, the meaning of many adjectives is determined by societal agreement. Their meanings do not need to be redefined again and again. For example, an apple can be just about the same red, yellow or green to everyone. However, scary, not dangerous, artificial, crazy, smart, dishonest, negligible, fabricated, etc. can have different meanings as the case may be.

Therefore, if someone hears an adjective in political rhetoric, but do not know and cannot find out exactly what was meant by it, then he should not presume that there is an acceptable causal, factual relation behind the adjective.

When one begins to look at the world around him in this way, he will see that reasoning with adjectives is woven into the fabric of his life, from his most intimate relationships all the way to global world politics. Education should be responsible for raising people's awareness to this. In reality, however, precisely the opposite happens. In politics this linguistic loophole is used intentionally, deliberately to implant such relations into the human mind that do not actually exist.

The more a governance uses adjectives as reasoning, the more it is a dictatorship. Because dictatorships can also be seen as bending the perception of reality with empty adjectives that cannot be supported by data and causal relations, and then defending these adjectives with force, via instruments of power. Therefore, by simply expecting adjectives to be sufficiently substantiated, the manipulation of public opinion by politicians could be significantly prevented. But such thing, it seems, is not taught in schools, not even in the countries considered as the most democratic in the world.

One specific example of this mechanism is when at the end of September 2019, the minister heading the prime minister's office in Hungary, in a press conference in Hungary, addressed the approaching protest of Fridays for Future, an environmental protection movement. In this movement the youth tried desperately to fight for their own future, seeing the incapacity of the politicians.

The minister called the founder of the movement, the then almost 17-year-old Greta Thunberg, a sick little child, and then a few days later apologized for the adjective sick. Furthermore, the minister explained that some people were merely using Greta Thunberg for the global climate strike, which was a fad, and it showed the levelheadedness of Hungary that, apart from a few dozen [activists], basically no one cared about the whole thing [4]; [5].

The minister therefore used adjectives to argue against Greta Thunberg and against the causal arguments of Fridays for Future. At the same time, based on Table 1 above, his conspiracy theory on the environmental activists and people interested in environmental protection endangering Hungary's levelheadedness was also unfounded.

One of the Hungarian activists of Fridays for Future later noted that 3,000 people had already attended their previous protest [5], and finally, about 6,000 people attended this new one [6].

So, everything seemed to be in order. The minister apologized for at least one of his offensive adjectives, and his unfounded conspiracy theory was partially refuted.

However, it shows well the effects and dangers of using adjectives as arguments that none of this actually invalidated what the minister had said.

Firstly, simply from a legal point of view, if the minister cannot support at least one of his adjectives causally, with reliable data, then his sick little child phrase (and then a diagnostic label that he provided for at a reporter’s specific request) is defamation (Section 226 of the Hungarian Criminal Code, - HCC), and the adjectives he used to describe those interested in the protest of Fridays for Future is incitement (Section 332, HCC) [7]. Because instead of causal, objective arguments, the minister urged his audience to use empty, unanchored, and thus freely generalizing negative evaluations (meaning, hatred) against Greta Thunberg and two groups of the population (those interested in climate protest and the environmental protection activists).

The Hungarian Criminal Code does not indicate that defamation or incitement are invalidated by an apology or by partial or complete refutation by others, and this is no accident.

Because, regardless of his apology, after the minister's words many people started thinking, instead of the actual questions, about whether Greta Thunberg was indeed a sick little child. The social impacts of defamatory statements could be mitigated by open social discourse and freely criticizing press. However, under the Hungarian conditions already bordering on dictatorship, such adjectives were protected by narrowed communication channels. These narrowed communication channels showed toward people something that was only resembling to societal discourse, in which under the pretext of environmental protection only the diagnostic label affixed on Greta Thunberg was discussed [8]. As if they had sat down to eat their soup with only a fork.

Therefore, instead of examining the actual case, the healthy adult citizens thus being informed about the healthy adult minister's views could also determine that this little child is sick, indeed. While because of the inciting behavior of the government and the media portraying the image of a public service damaged by a criminal organization, the unhealthy adults were probably too frightened to get involved. And although it seems that there was no way to discuss data and causal relations in the national media regarding the approaching protest of Fridays for Future, a small online newspaper struggling to keep afloat, or at least, allegedly, not using corporate advertisements to finance their activities, still managed to do it [9]; [10].

When an organization provides the means for, or supports the engagement in criminal activities, it is called a criminal organization (Hungarian Criminal Code, Section 321). And if a criminal organization disrupts the constitutional order, for instance, by rendering the media unusable or by damaging it, it is an offence against the state (Section 257, HCC).

However, the broad consensus projected by the narrowed communication channels, and the sole journalist who, in the theme on environmental protection, only asked for the specific diagnostic label that can be affixed to Greta Thunberg [4], maybe just to imitate free press, fell no longer in the category of reasoning with adjectives. Rather, this could be already a case of a more serious, more obscure abusive influence; where the deceptive information is not communicated verbally but projected through contextual information to the other party.

The analyses made no mention of the social distribution of the various diagnostic labels. They also did not mention that these are independent of formulating opinions. If someone's opinion is incorrect, that is because of his causal arguments and not because of a diagnostic label.

Such contextual distortion of information is called gaslighting. In this case misleading information is not transmitted through open, conscious communication, but covertly, for example, through the contextual circumstances described above. In the case of the approaching protest of Fridays for Future in Hungary some people may have seen societal consensus and independent press, while others may have felt that merely a fabricated, artificial framework was used to evoke this image.

In the contextual influencing of people's minds, someone's perception become distorted either because they do not notice the manipulation, or because they know or suspect that something is not alright, but there is nothing they can do about it, and this makes them anxious. Therefore, those using contextual influencing against weaker people can easily achieve the goals. This could also explain why gaslighting is a favorite technique of psychopaths and abusive narcissists to break others' minds. This technique will be discussed a lot in this book, for it seems that it is not only used by individuals against other individuals, but also by smaller groups against much larger ones.

Another characteristic of unfair contextual influencing is creating and maintaining as much uncertainty as possible. Data about the environment were increasingly rare to find. Therefore, people's comprehension of their true situation diminished along with it. As will be discussed, this was also the case in the coronation (Covid) campaign, into which this deprivation of information has finally transformed.

To return specifically to the above statement of the Hungarian minister, not every government reasoning with empty adjectives is defamation or incitement. But they all violate peoples' right to self-determination in an illegitimate way. In the case above the minister has caused undue disadvantages to those in favor of the climate strike, in other words, in favor of taking a sterner approach than that of the government. Furthermore, it disadvantaged those who would have rather see a societal consultation on this topic based on data and causal relations. Whereas, in the meantime, causing such undue disadvantages was facilitated by those who, as a criminal organization, took care of continuously maintaining the narrowed communication channels.

In Hungary, senior high school student Blanka Nagy stood up with a determination similar to that of Greta Thunberg at the end of 2018 in favor of democracy and fair public life in general. Her character came under attack by a publicist and other journalists, also from the cover of narrowed communication channels. No matter that Blanka Nagy was winning the lawsuits over the verbal attacks (that is, over the un anchored adjectives) [11]; [12] and continued to speak bluntly for a short time [13]; it is not possible for a single person to stand up for millions for a long time if they cannot stand up for themselves. And if incitement and defamation become a fundamental part of a country's political life, then even lawsuits have no restraining power, since the lost court cases carry no political weight anymore, and by then, the defamation has long ago made its impact on its victims anyway. Thus, a court fine becomes a simple business investment.

Nonetheless, there was probably not much difference between the Hungarian and the Western European or US circumstances even in the Fall of 2019. The global climate crisis in and of itself clearly showed that people living in so-called developed democratic countries were just as helpless in asserting their will as their Hungarian counterparts.

The majority of people on Earth are probably not aware even today that they have been in a decision position about climate change for at least 40 years. They might become aware of this missed decision opportunity only after plunging into climate catastrophe. They are occupied by something else even today.

*

It is obvious, therefore, what is happening, but it is far from obvious why. This book deals with the latter. But this will require the reader to run through everything he thinks he knows about industrial societies. From historical processes to socio-political, economical, and spiritual-psychological correlations. Because once he understands what is happening, he will be able to act against it. Otherwise, he is left fighting shadows.

Although this book is relatively long, and it will address many difficult topics, the ultimate messages it conveys to the reader will be hopefully positive. At the end of the book, the reader may even find out why the supercomputer gave 42 as the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything in Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Given the story of Adams' book, contrary to the legend, he presumably knew that, too.

I. THE PAST OF THE VICIOUS CIRCLE

Remember, all I'm offering is the truth nothing more.

Morpheus, The Matrix, Part 1

CHAPTER 1: THE 420-YEAR HISTORY of INDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES

Introduction

Conditions For Successful Industrialization

Given that pollution is essentially caused by industry, first of all an understanding must be gained of industry itself and how it affects societies and mankind in general.

The first industrial revolution began around the mid-18th century in England. The second, from the mid-19th century, in the United States [14]. Although industrialization appeared to a certain extent in several other countries in Europe, there are four chief reasons why these two became the flagship industrial countries.

Industrialization requires investible capital, raw material, manpower, and market outlets. At the dawn of industrial revolutions, in certain countries there was insufficient raw materials. In others, the available capital was lacking. There may have been countries where locating market outlets would have been cumbersome, and the productivity of manpower was also influenced by numerous factors. On the springboard of the Enlightenment, the industry of the United Kingdom and the United States could gain suddenly so much strength because all of these four factors were uniquely available to them in abundance.

The belief is that industry is essentially an economic undertaking. Thus, its success is determined by its ability to generate profits:

For raw materials, profit is best increased by raw materials that are the easiest to exploit and the easiest to transport to the shortest distance.

However, manpower can also be the most profitable when it is also exploited to the best possible extent out of humanitarian ideas that diminish its efficiency.

It was soon learned in the industry that people produce the most in a sustainable manner if they are provided some degree of humanity for this. But already during the Age of Enlightenment, there were some differences in the degree of attention each country paid to regulate the companies—that is, how much respect the companies should have for humane ideas besides their raw interests in maximizing profits.

Additionally, industrial production can be directed within the borders, or across the borders, in an expansive way. For reasons of economies of scale, the greater the volume of industrial production, the greater the potential profit achieved. Therefore, the potential of the highest profit is inherent to expansive industrial production. The United Kingdom and the United States were not only the first countries in the world to industrialize; the economy of the United Kingdom had already been expansive even before the industrialization, and the United States, as soon as it was formed, immediately established its industry this way.

An expansive industrial country does not just sell its products abroad. Because its production far exceeding its own demands, it generally needs to involve foreign manpower and raw materials in its production, too. Therefore, for a country with expansive industrialization, the highest profit is achieved if:

It purchases the raw materials of an industrially underdeveloped country—which is thus unable to work with a significant profit multiplier and its raw materials are therefore inexpensive—and has them processed through its own industry.

It also has this processing done using the poor country’s manpower which is hence also inexpensive and unable to find work elsewhere. To this end, up until the early 20th century, the workers of poor countries had relocated to the factories of foreign countries, primarily to the United States. While after World War Two typically the factories of foreign countries relocated to the poor workers in their respective countries.

While continuing to keep its own highest possible profit in mind, the industry then resells the products manufactured this way to the population of the industrially underdeveloped country, too. They purchase as much of these as they can afford, and all the while they remain in poverty.

In essence, therefore, the expansive industry which, at first sight, operates entirely rationally and legally, in the interest of its own highest profit possible, takes the raw materials, manpower, and market from the poor countries to the greatest extent possible, and in return for all these, gives nothing but the processing technology, at the highest price possible. Thus, the poor countries continue to remain in poverty. While the expansively industrialized countries keep getting richer, and use part of their profits to further develop their processing technologies.

In expansive industrial societies, such solutions are referred to as the dog-eat-dog rules of the market, and in countries that have remained in poverty, despite their often abundant natural resources which are almost completely depleted by now, it is surely considered robbery.

Accordingly, the economic rationales might be violated in that the processing technology of a foreign industry often does not provide added value high enough to make it worthwhile for a poor country to dispossess its own economy. The poor country would surely be better off if it were to use its own technology, even if less developed, for processing its own raw materials, using its own manpower for its own market and for markets of other countries, and, from the profit thus generated, would keep developing its own processing technology itself. Perhaps even if patent rights prevent it from inventing the same thing that was invented before in other countries, regardless of how those other countries acquired their wealth to fund their previous research.

Furthermore, most of the poor countries had been colonies until World War Two. Therefore, they had no say in their own economic governance. In order to ensure their dependence, they were not even allowed to establish factories/plants on their territories. This way, they could be prevented to acquire the economic power that they could use to achieve independence.

However, under the auspices of an increased need for democracy after World War Two, these colonies were suddenly granted independence. Essentially, only Latin America, colonized by Spain and Portugal, was liberated from European oppression well before World War Two, between 1806 and 1826 [601] – when they came under the influence of the United States [602].

Nevertheless, the new colonies liberated after World War Two, despite their newly achieved independence, each still made the decision, one by one, to house the factories migrating to them from their previous colonists and its allies, instead of establishing their own industries. Therefore, their actual economic power still depended on the extent to which their former colonizers made them economically strong. In other words, on the level of profit that the industry located there left in the country. Thus, they only became independent on paper. In practice they remained the same colonies just like they had been before.

In the meantime, by migrating their factories, the expansive industrial societies were able to further increase their profits at the expense of the previously colonized countries. First of all, this way they were able to save on the transportation costs of raw materials. At the same time, they did not need to provide the cheap workforce with the wages and social benefits provided to their own population. Thirdly, the manufactured products became marketable regionally as well, without transportation. And by this time military technology had advanced to such a degree that industrial societies were able to protect their interests anywhere in their sphere of influence. Therefore, they no longer needed to keep their factories within their own borders.

Consequently, with this migration of their factories after World War Two, expansive industrial societies only stood to gain, and the former colonies still only lost. At least the ones whose economic advancement was not in the geopolitical interest of the expansive industrial societies. These countries, therefore, must have opened their borders to the factories of expansive industrial societies under duress, given that, due to their former colonial fate alone, they must have learned well the significance of having their own processing industry. Such duress could take form in many different ways, from deceit to corruption or internal military conflict, under the aegis of democratization taking place at the initiative of the UN [15]. At a time when, after the end of World War Two, citizens of the western world were celebrating the victory of democracy over the aggressively expanding Germany and Japan.

This can explain that, although even today only a few expansive industrial countries are responsible for about 70% of carbon dioxide emissions on Earth [16], and thus for the imminent demolition of the climate, along with them the poor countries are also about to silently plunge into the abyss, and in this respect the UN has no particular objection, either.

These few countries are China, the United States, the EU (primarily Germany), India, Russia, and Japan. In the 2000s the United States and the EU relocated a significant portion of their production to China. Therefore, production in China is also the production of the USA and the EU to a considerable extent. The situation with India is likely similar. And later in this book the reader is in for some serious surprises related to Germany and Japan, too. While in the rest of the countries of the world the companies and financial funds originating from these regions are likely to be responsible for another significant portion of industrial carbon dioxide emissions. It is conceivable that the number of companies is quite negligible on the Earth where production is independent of these few regions.

Personal Freedom, Freehand, Laissez-Faire

Humanist ideas of the Enlightenment and democratization were integral parts of industrial revolutions. Thus, during the social transformations that accompanied industrial revolutions in western societies, the former standards of the Catholic Church was also replaced by these new standards. And within this, the United States was in the lead on the Earth to stand up for personal freedom. This may be another reason why this country may be still believed by many as the primary custodian of freedom.

However, the United States granted utmost freedoms not only to private individuals but, similarly to the United Kingdom, corporates as well. And since during democratization the former rulers legally transferred their powers to residents of their respective country (to the resultant people powers), companies in these countries received the greatest possible freedom from these people powers.

This so-called freehand economic policy works essentially the same way as the laissez-faire technique in parenting. Children raised this way are not given any explanation why they should respect each other. Instead, they are allowed to do with others whatever they like. Thus, unless they rediscover on their own the values of human ideas, they will not respect these.

For humans, developmental psychologists generally do not recommend this parenting technique. And looking at the foreign policy of the United Kingdom and of the United States over the past few centuries, it will be apparent that this is not recommended when it comes to countries, either. And this was an understatement. While even just one sentence can paint the picture of the social relations prevailing within these countries. It suffices to merely imagine if both can use their tools with the utmost freedom against each other, then which one will be stronger: a painter or a multinational industrial company?

This is, therefore, the personal freedom at the forefront of which the United States stands, both in its domestic policy and in its foreign policy.

*

In the era of industrial revolutions, significant capital, and extensive foreign markets were available to the United Kingdom and and—through the United Kingdom— to the United States from the very beginnings.

Under the technical conditions at the time, the United Kingdom was unlikely to be able to transport any significant quantities of raw material, particularly heavy industrial raw materials, from its colonies to its own country. The newly established United States, however, possessed a vast amount of untapped light and heavy industrial raw material reserves even within its own territory.

Overall, therefore, these were likely the main reasons why the industries of these two countries could gain exceptionally great advantages extremely fast, both within and without their borders.

*

The main barrier to personal freedom is that it must not impede the personal freedom of others [17].

For painters, personal freedom is in what they paint on the canvas for the purpose of self-fulfillment. For factory owners, it is achieving the highest profit possible. For realizing their dreams, painters use paints and brushes, and factory managers use raw materials, economic and social infrastructure, human labor and purchasing power.

It is an uncertain legal issue that if someone is free to be employed by a company following a successful job interview and is free to leave his job, then is there anything in his working conditions that could be considered as limitation of his personal freedom. In industrial societies, the legal opinion is surely that, while otherwise being compliant with the laws, the employee's personal freedom is not harmed in such cases. At the social level, however, the free hand provided to companies for maximizing their profits also means that working at them will always be humane to the least possible extent; for humane, ethical companies are doomed to fail due to their lesser profit-making capacity. Both domestically and internationally. And this in itself does limit the employees' personal freedom. Because this way most of the people has not even the chance to choose working conditions to their liking.

Nowadays, in industrial societies, beyond the power of factories, it can be considered as the same dog-eat-dog rule that those who have the least interest in preventing the climate collapse have the most responsibility in causing it. On one hand, because those with interest in the industry possess the most financial resources, their survival would be secured for the longest. On the other hand, if the societies' other segments were able to stop them, their powers would likely be significantly reduced. With the appropriate regulation of industrial production, the industry would certainly not be able to gain such a significant advantage over the other segments of the societies. This is why factories in early 2020 could still produce as if everything had been in perfect order.

It is an interesting question, what could be causing the politicians' relative incompetence in this regard. However, before starting to investigate this, it is important to clarify that this is still not the most critical problem in the structural organization of industrial societies. For it is apparent that each profession pursues self-fulfillment for someone else, through someone else. A perfect painting is only perfect if others also perceive it as such. A perfect kindergarten teacher is only perfect if others also perceive her as such. It is only common understanding for economic actors that their self-fulfillment is primarily to serve their own interests.

This is no accident. Contrary to popular belief, corporate management is unlike any other profession. Company executives, in addition to performing their task of coordinating work, also perform wealth distribution. When it comes to coordinating the work, the average management of a company does not require higher intellectual abilities than painting an average painting. Since, as mentioned, both human performances are average. At least I am unaware of any psychological study that may have proved the opposite. And I am definitely unaware of one that would have demonstrated the same extreme mental differences between these two professions as it appears in their remunerations. So, the pronounced difference in wealth could be only caused by the fact that company executives, regardless of their actual work, also oversee the profit generated by the people working at the company. And then they take their cut as much as possible, without doing any further work for this. Therefore, company executives actually fulfill the same function in modern societies as the noblemen or even the king himself did in the Middle Ages. Probably, back in the day, the kings and noblemen were also striving to achieve maximum profit. However, the people who gave their lives during civil wars for human and civil rights therefore ended up in the same boat. There is only one single reason why company executives feel entitled to take the biggest cut possible for themselves from the jointly generated profit. Because of the dog-eat-dog rules of life.

Additionally, the more industrialized a society, the more of its segments have been industrialized. This is how people can hear today about music industry and entertainment industry, for example. Therefore, the more industrialized a society is, the more the distribution of social wealth produced is dictated by the dog-eat-dog rules of life.

Of course, economic activities of companies are, in theory, overseen by external supervisory authorities, which could ensure their balanced operation. However, the discovery of the first large oceanic garbage patch in the 80s [18] demonstrates well the effectiveness of this supervision. For decades, the environmental authorities of industrial countries have been quietly observing as the oceans filled up with plastic by 2020.

This book will examine over and over again which is more powerful in these so-called democratic industrial societies; democracy (people's power) or industry. It can be already suspected from the aforesaid what the answer will be.

At this point the notorious capitalists probably get cold feet this will be a communist book after all. There is, however, a difference between fair acknowledgement of exceptional work and when one decide on the value of someone's else work so that the only objective, openly advocated characteristic of his decision is that by taking advantage of his position, he want to pinch off the greatest profit possible from the renumeration for himself.

On the other hand, this book will also discuss in detail the development of this capitalist / socialist / communist differentiation. Because at its roots this conflict merely called into question whether industrial production could be more humane, more ethical. Yet, for more than a century, the dominant view on Earth is that that there is an irreconcilable conflict between enormous ideas here. Irreconcilable to a degree that instead of asking people in the humanities, who otherwise deal with such concepts, an industrial production competition had to be created that shook three quarters of the world for decades, with wars fought in so-called third world countries and with increasingly larger rockets. This book will try to make clear that this is not the way to create theories in the humanities.

Societal Ideas Versus Industrial Interests

With industrial revolutions, absolute monarchies were democratized and turned into constitutional monarchies or democracies. These transitions, however, were already only possible to occur because traders and factory owners were suddenly able to build up such a significant economic power for themselves, independent from the rulers, with which the rulers were unable to compete. This was the only reason why rulers were compelled to give up their political power—as it will be seen, in many respects, even in the French Revolution. If during such periods of transformation the ruler was able to mobilize many people ideologically, then he could retain this moral or symbolic power.

Given that democratic transitions were made possible only by capital that was independent of the governing courts, it is obvious that this capital also should have significant influence on the new power structures. Especially since for business organizations the expenditures are always business investments. Even the extent of this influence can be rather well-illustrated. All is needed is to imagine what would have happened to a thinker if he tried to convince the ruler merely by the power of his arguments to transfer his power.

This was, therefore, roughly the weight democratic ideas themselves could have had in democratic transformations. Therefore, this may be the value they have in the resulting new societies as well.

Even with ideas shared by many people, it is not specifically the causal relations but rather the strength of the people that make strong the given idea in the society. This is also why in dictatorships, too, it is customary to turn empty adjectives defying reality into societal ideas, and then defend these with instruments of power.

The fact that the power of the monarchs was not taken away by societal ideas but by the industry which was hidden behind them and gave them their strength, presupposes that the industry already acted in a coordinated and unified manner during the democratic transitions. Otherwise, the ruler could have divided the industry and could have retained his power. And if the industry already acted in a unified way during the so-called democratic transitions, then its unity probably remained even since.

Although there are power conflicts at business organizations just like in the Middle Ages between rulers and noblemen, the average people (meaning, people powers) knew nothing about most of these. Instead, they live their lives within the framework of ideas that were embraced for them by the industry for taking over and exercising power. Because if during democratic transitions the industry had openly stood before the rest of the segments of the society with its idea that its goal was to obtain the highest profit possible at the expense of everyone else, then, obviously, very few would have offered to be at their service, and this is probably putting it mildly. Therefore, it was always vital for the industry to embrace such ideas toward the society with which people could already identify. This book will discuss several specific examples of this later on.

It will be seen, for example, that even behind the first democratic transitions of the world, the English Civil Wars, only the first large business organizations of the world, the English colonizing companies settled their disagreements among themselves. After the end of World War One, from the feelings of confinement and humiliation, and from the desire to protect the German economy, the German industry created the national-socialist idea. After the fall of the CMEA, the leading social idea in China was socialism. Thus, the industry, abruptly striving to maximize its profits, could build up its power behind this.

The more convincing the reader will find the specific examples in this book the more likely he will arrive to the conclusion that he can't really expect the so-called democratic industrial societies to be democratic societies. Instead, more and more he will see that what he knew as successful fights for freedom against rulers were actually only the fights for freedom of the companies. At the expense of their own lives and that of their loved ones, people merely switched from one ruler to another.

This is why this issue has such a great significance from the perspective of preserving the Earth as well. Because if ideas that unite people in societies are essentially just folding screens placed around them by companies for the purpose of exercising their power, then by relying on these folding screens one can't expect citizens of western industrial societies to be able to rationalize their industrial production.

Naturally, the ideas embraced at a time do always have some impact on the social structure. For example, after World War Two, as it will be seen, the historic processes in western countries required a higher level of societal self-governance (democracy) in order to allow the industry to maintain its power. It will be also seen, however, that by now historic processes have radically turned in the opposite direction.

In industrial societies, the rest of the social segments could have defended themselves against the industry only if they would have been able to say no to corruption, and to refuse accepting the dog-eat-dog rules of life as natural.

However, by the age of industrial revolutions, the Judeo-Christian culture was already in a multiple moral crisis. The people, therefore, had no stable and rationally defendable moral ideology relying on which they could have said no to the ongoing attempts at social bribery inflicted upon them.

This is why the second half of this book will address in detail the reasons of this moral crisis in the Judeo-Christian culture. Particularly as these can be rather easily traced back and identified.

Moral Crisis

The morality of the Judeo-Christian cultural area has been fundamentally defined by the Bible. It is well known that in the Middle Ages the political and religious leaders in the Christian countries of Europe, when it came to their actions, had little regard to the Bible and to the teachings of Jesus. In the name of Jesus, by the active encouragement of the Church, and in exchange for the absolution it promised [19], masses of people were slayed in the Crusades. The Church also persecuted those by torture and death on the pyre who dared to think differently. It degraded Christian doctrines to murky dogmas. Chapter 6 will address all this, therefore, in detail. Although the states of the Judeo-Christian cultural area were organized based on the Bible in many aspects, people were not even able to read the Bible in their own languages until the 16th century, but in the dead Latin language at the most, which no one used in real life [20].

The greatest strength of the Christian cultural area, which could be sufficient to fight against even the current crisis, is still the fact that the majority of people could identify on a personal level with the humane ideas that were also conveyed by Jesus. But the dog-eat-dog rules of their own societies conveyed even the story of their religion's founder so that if people were to stand by their values it would inevitably bring about their breakdown or, should they uphold these principles, their destruction. In the Judeo-Christian societies Jesus's ideology was automatically linked to the information that the world (meaning: the Judeo-Christian cultural area) is inevitably ruled by money, by violence. While the Christian Church has been proclaiming for about 2000 years