TVP Teamspeak Q&A Seminar - 2012-04-22 - Law And Justice

Jacque and Roxanne are not available today Jacque is got an award that they are going to get to what say, so he asked me to do a Q&A so today's talk is going to be on "Law and justice." Sometimes people ask what are you going to do with the criminals. Well, i don't recognize a criminal, i think they are produced by society. I think that people brought up in great disadvantage, economic disadvantage. And there are some people who start out with economically disadvantage, make a lot of money, and then steal more money, to add to their security. I would say they were over-stressed prior to becoming very wealthy. And they figured if a man is a sucker enough to lose his wealth of take it away from. They have a lot of statements like that too. A sucker is born every minute, and have other statements, like a fool will be parted with his money very shortly. Did you ever hear that? They have all kinds of statements. But justice is a word made up by people which really comes from religion. If somebody hurts you, and they killed in an accident, you say "See? that's justice in nature taking care of the problem." But most people that are killed in accidents, people say "it is terrible what happened to George." They don't say, "well, that is the way he lived in the past, he is being paid off of it." Or in India they might say it’s karma. But all of that is made by man. All laws, all “right-wrong”, “good-bad”, is made by man. In the early days, a king, would have as many wifes as he wanted. But that was not considered wrong it was considered within the framework of that culture. So, it seems to me that all man-made laws come from the elite. And the laws was to protect the elitists. You shall not steal; and the only people you can steal from was those that had more than you, and that if everybody were wealthy, I would see, unless they known scarcity in the past, they still might steal, they still might do corrupt things, like most bankers lend money at interest. And that is considered lawful, who made the law? The banks. So, all the laws made by man are artificial. I see a society that could be designed where people are brought up to want to learn certain things that they interested in. Of course, when I say they are interested in, society pushes. Society pushes things that would serve society as a whole, rather than the individual. So I would say it would be wiser for people to learn things useful to everybody, rather than just personal. They are people that sailboats that enjoy bucking the wind, and moving fast, and they like the challenge. But that is a nothing challenge, unless you instruct people in how to sail a boat. Just challenging... They say "people need challenging things." Well, good health would be challenging, good nutrition would be challenging, but if you can run faster than other person in might make you feel good, if you are brought up in that kind of culture. But, when I meet somebody they can run faster than me, i say fine, I have no need to want to beat him and if a person can play a musical instrument better than I can, good, I enjoy listening to it, but I don't have to say 'gosh I wish i could play like that'. People have ambitions there are totally senseless like some people want to win the beauty contest, or they want a solve problems and crossword puzzles, that's sort of a nothing thing and I would say winning a chess game has to do a strategy about nothing. If you play chess great deal, and you practice great deal, and read books on appropriate moves you can become a better chess player, but being a good chess player is a nothing thing. I don't see what it does. It doesn't make a man more inventive only better at strategy in chess. And if you build the(?) fastest airplane and people have air races, you know? And they want to win. They want to win because they have a low self-sufficiency, but I see no reason to want to race an automobile if people could cut in front of you and cut your speed (?) down. So isn't really testing a car unless you ran a car around in a track with one person at a time and then that person that(?) faster would be more accurate that just a bunch of cars that want to cut one in front of other. I would say that it would be socially offensive in the future, but I would say that driving a car would be socially offensive, wanting to win would be socially offensive. I think that that is based on earlier conditioning, receiving little approval and once you win, everybody pats you on the back, but if you die, they say "it's a shame." If you are in an auto race and you hit the wall and the car bursts into flames and the driver dies that's the price you pay for adventure. I don't consider that healthy adventure anymore than a team in a boat rowing to beat another team in a (?)boat. I don't think it proves anything I don't think it... it might show that if you put a motor on, just put one person in a boat, you can beat them all. But nobody is interested in sanity, they're interested in beating another fellow and that's what prize fights are about. If you can punch the guy enough he may become punch drunk; punch drunk is a form of unsane behaviour. I see nothing in that, I see nothing in a wrestling match. I see no reason to study self-defense if you're brought up in a sane society nobody is going to attack you, so you don't have to be a strategist, when he comes at you with his fist, you grab his fist and pull him over, take advantage of the motion he's in. But that would be in an unsane society, you make laws like that. All kind of societies have different laws. If your gay in one society, that's considered an unforgivable crime. In fact it was considered that way in most countries that accept marriages now. So who makes the laws, and are there need for laws? I don't think so, if you create an abundance and you give people security, I don't think you need laws. I can't conceive of a need for laws of any kind except in technology. If a person builds an experimental aircraft I would rather they we would fly it over water rather than over cities since it hasn't been tested yet. I would say things like that might exist in the future. but they are not arbitrary laws, they're designed to to protect people and if you want to build an experimental boat, you can't take a crew on it, but you might be able to operate it by radio control to see if it works. But if it flips over the crew might drown. And boats, ocean liners or vacation liners, I should say, where people take a cruise for three months The cruiser ship is built very high with a high center of gravity to get as many people on as you can. Safety is not the prime factor there's not enough lifeboats on most liners to take care of all the people and it depends on the catastrophe. If the boat breaks in half due to the weight, there's no time to get on a lifeboat, do you know what I mean? So I would say a lifeboat in a monetary system, where profit is the bottom line I would say that our cruise ships are not sufficiently safe. I would say the aircraft that carries a hundred and fifty passagers is a maximum of what that plane can carry, but if the FAA, the Federal Aviation Autorithy decides how many passagers a plane can carry, if you put too much weight in the airplane you can't take off. I remember when I was a kid I didn't remember the name(?). The guy's name was de Pinedo, who flew a Bellanca aircraft. He was going to fly it across the ocean but he filled it up with more gasoline than the plane could carry, that is he put up extra gas tanks in it, and at Floyd Bennett Field, Long Island, this is also many many years ago, he tried to get off the ground, he kept bouncing coming back to the ground, he was overloaded and he hit the fence and he burst into flames and de Pinedo died. About two weeks later a japanese pilot was going to fly from Floyd Bennett Field to Japan, non-stop, (?), that was his name and he did the same thing with the Bellanca he loaded with fuel and he couldn't get off the ground he kept going up and down hitting the ground and he crashed into a wall, because he wanted to secure his position with extra gas, but he didn't secure the flight characteristics of his airplane, so security in one area did not provide security that would save his life. So when people talk about security they think in terms of the insurance, they think in terms of good brake job on the car. If you have the best brake job in the world and she has a need for a break job but can't afford it if her brakes fail you would die even though you got good brakes. So I don't understand how you can develop security for all people when some people have differential advantage? I don't understand that. Now, if you could afford a better brake job you might have a tendency to feel more secure, but if a poor man drives an old car that isn't sufficiently serviced you could be killed even though you have a belt, a safety belt. And sometimes men that service aircraft and they're working on an airplane and there's a phone call for them at the airport and they leave, their wife was in an auto accident and they go to the hospital, but they leave the job half done you don't know what's done and what isn't done, so no one would leave service in the future. And no one will answer phone calls even though it is an emergency, you have to finish the job, finish the(?) checklist: the landing gear, the wings, the fuel. If you finish the checklist, do you know what I mean? People can be called away today from a very very important job Or if an airplane pilot, I've read about this I never seen it his wife left him and he was shattered, so he crashed the plane into the ground, he committed suicide with other passagers in (?)there. Apparently, he did not concern himself with that. and when i was a kid, those of you that know what a Ford Tri-Motor is they used to charge people by their weight at Newark airport; if a person weighed three hundred pounds, he paid more to travel by air because weight consumes fuel. But, no I thought that was a pretty ethical system at the time, but really, but really you just pay a certain amount no matter what you weigh; so you're paying for fuel consumption of heavier people and that might give a person a reason to not weigh as much. But I say, all these laws, some of them are really ridiculous, but if you brought up in a lawless society that's in scarcity, there's a great deal of trouble. When you live in scarcity you have to make laws teach people not to steal, because you upset the culture when you steal. A man works harder than you, then you steal his car and his hubcaps And so he says it's no sense in that, so he makes a law: don't take anything doesn't belong to you or don't take anything from another person without their permission. so they make all kinds of definitions and the definitions will disappear, all those definitions when you surpass the economic system that requires such definition, do you understand what I'm saying? Law is not necessarily a good thing, it's good for the established system but an emergent system would try to deal with the problems that make the law necessary to try to eliminate the conditions that make laws necessary when you sit in the court of law and you sit in judgment of another person knowing nothing about the background, but if you would see a movie of what shaped their values you might feel someone somewhat ashamed to judge them You say "Gee, for the background that person had, he turned out pretty good. He only killed one person, do you know what I mean? He could have kill twenty people and some people are like that. So if you don't know that condition that generate the behavior, your judgement is imoral or amoral; you have no basis for making judgments. I don't know what it means in the Bible when it says "Judge not, less you be judged." I really don't know if the author of that statement knew what he was talking about, I don't think he meant what I'm talking about. So, how do you prevent crime? First of all what is crime? Crime is (?) when a person really taking advantage of other people would be considered a crime using them or their labors for your own advantage only, might be considered a crime therefore all people that own factories are criminals, they exploit people, child labor, pay women less. So I don't know what crime means. I really don't. In wartime when one soldier shoots fifteen soldiers he is not considered a criminal you say (?) that is considered just under those conditions I'm sure in the Holy Wars the people were sincere, they killed people that weren't christians, because they were motivated by Satan, ask any christian. And so christian behavior is criminal to the non-christian. Where do you start, where do you stop, everybody wants to work within the laws that they know, and those laws are conditioned and they're senseless, That's why I say we have to reexamine society no one can reexamine society, actually they have to be taught a set of values that correspond to the nature of the world. but people can't think it over, they have nothing to think it over with. If they feel that you did the wrong thing your concept of right and wrong is culture bound. therefore "use your head, think it over", that's not possible. Do you understand? So all laws are made for the advantaged group. The disadvantaged never make laws. They write music and they say "if I had the governor or the governer had me, I let both the governor and the jailer go free." That's written by people in jail. Because people in jail, if somebody takes something from another prisoner he gets mad at him, he will beat him up, and you say(?) "look were all criminals here, that's normal to the environment." But if you are in jail and someone removes your wrist watch when you are asleep, you say, that damn bastard he stole my watch. Well even in jail they still have carryovers even though they are there for robbery, breaking in, taking things that didn't belong to them, they still feel (?) injust has been committed. Do you understand that? They can't think at it in any other way. And sometimes, if they spend a lot of time in jail, they say "I guess I'm just a common criminal." They even believe that and if you believe that then you say "look, nobody respects me", they say "where were you the last three years?" "I was in jail." Why should the guy take a chance and hire him? You know? Why should he? So if he doesn't get hired he says, "ah, I guess I'll go back jail, I'll try one more break in, maybe I'll get away with it, get away with it, maybe go to another country", whatever it is he tries. Everybody tries to ease their condition, and a criminal is a person usually that that's trying to ease his condition. Now a person that makes the laws, makes laws that serve their interest. Is that clear? Not the interest of the poor. If they are poor people, they would like air conditioning but they can afford it and in the winter I remember during the depression, my parents used to bang on the pipes, did you ever experience that? They banged on the pipes because the landlord wouldn't turn up the heat, because coal cost money during the depression and I remember another guy that owned an apartment house and most people couldn't pay the rent so he let them live there but he did try to sell it, and during the depression he couldn't sell it so he was starving, because he didn't collect much money. So he tried to get on relief, they said "you own an apartment house." He said "I can't sell it, and nobody can pay the rent." He was right but you couldn't get relief if you owned an apartment house So he used to say "I starving..." He was a foreigner, he said "I starving I have apartment house but I have no money." And people had cars and they couldn't afford, they couldn't sell them during the depression. Now there were economically advantaged people who bought things from people who were up to here in debt, and a pawn shop was great bussines during the depression. And another great business was, I mentioned the pawn shop, people would bring their jewelry, their wares, but when a pawn shop can't even sell the stuff they got, they won't take in more stuff. When a bank repossesses cars, if they get a thousand cars, they but them at auction. Because they can't sell them in a depression. So depression was a sad situation, most people that lived in tin shacks in empty lots, they were about (?)even. But if you found some corrugated aluminum, you made a better roof than a guy that used leaves. So there were advantaged disadvantaged, do you understand? He was somewhat technical. And there were many wealthy people that really believed that if you wanted a job you could get it, do anything, you didn't have to be unemployed, you could go out there and get a job but the pay was so little, you could hardly live. But they never tought of (?)that, "Well, that is the way it is, you lazy damn reliefer, you know, you live on relief and you want me to support you?" "Go get a job, any kind of job", and people did seek any kind of job. Some people did, they felt ashamed that they couldn't find a job. So in hitchhiking across the country I used to knock on the door of a fairly established house, and then I say "Can I mow your lawn for a sandwich?" But some kids used to break the window, sneak in and take food out of the refrigerator. didn't know that you can probably get more food that way by knocking at the door and say "can I mow your lawn, clean your windows, or do anything?" I had better tools for getting through. A lot of kids were picked up for vagrancy. I don't know what it was exactly, I think you have to had twenty five dollars in your purse, and the police couldn't pick you up for vagrancy; vagrancy was thirty days, if you behaved yourself. If you didn't behave well you might get sixty days and a criminal record. And so when you had a criminal record it was hard to get a job and people (?) pictured: "I guess I'm a common criminal." he had a low self-sufficiency, a low self-esteem and in prison they say: "What are you in for?" "You're worse than I am." They had status even in prison. And the wealthy people that were in prison were in the drug business when they were picked up the government could not confiscate their bank account; they had an indirect deposit. And so people used to bring them things: wrist watch, TV set, whatever they wanted. So in jail, there was special privilege. They paid off some of the police wardens in jail, they payed them off to get special treatment. They'd get drugs or whatever they wanted. but they have enough money you could pay off people. If you had enough money they had one case where a helicopter landed in jail and took the (?)top prisoners out. Did you ever hear that? Yes, in jail, and (?) a lot of the wardens and a lot of the guards were paid off. Do you understand? To permit that landing, because they would be shot (?)up if they didn't. And most judges in the early days were paid off. If Al Capone or someother gangster, wealthy guys I mean, worth millions, they paid off a judge, and (?)a lot of witnesses that said that never happened, and the guy would get off, if you could afford all these witnesses. So they had laminated protection, but a guy named Dewey who was a lawyer said "If i'm elected, I would arrest the criminals", and he arrested them, top criminals. Now, Dewey did it because he get elected that way so he just ordered people to do that, arrest them, pick them up, although it was ilegal to do so, unless you had a warrant for his arrest. and you couldn't do that, so the law could be bent by governors if it suits their purpose, do you understand? So I found that all the lawyers, in fact(?) many judges were paid off during the depression. They needed money, so there were judges that were honest, but the mafia got rid of them. Do you know what I mean? If there were judges that you couldn't pay off, you got rid of them, arrange an automobile accident, they didn't always shoot the guy they didn't like, they arranged accidents. "It was an accident." And that some stool pidgeon in your group would confess that it wasn't an accident, it was pre-planned, before the final came up in court they had him knocked off, the witness. Do you understand? So he could not witness against (?)people so the court would say "Damn it, we lost our best witness." That's to be expected in a money system. So when you use the word justice, I don't know what the person is talking about. Justice for whom and why do you need justice, why do people need justice? If a man rapes your daughter, he's a deprivated of sex, you should provide sex for him. In Mexico they do allow wifes to come to prison and satisfy their husbands. But if you don't do that you're going to have aberrated sexual behavior especially if a young boy is been in prison, if he doesn't conform, they would fix his wagon. so the laws that prisoners make are different than the laws that nonprisoners make. Prisoners that they don't make laws, there are hidden laws, they are not on paper, but they know what the law is. When you go into prison and you don't submit, they make it very tough on you, do you understand? So either you obey that unwritten law, and that's what we have today. I see no basis for any social system today that has laws. It means that there's scarcity, there's need, there are wants that are not met, that are needs that are not met, that's what the law is. The law is an attempt to pick out those people who violate the laws made by those who can afford to make laws. Now I would say that if a doctor gets a job in a prison, and he has no compassion he treats the sick prisoners not like he would treat pain outside the prison. So there are many prison doctors that really don't care, and many (?) prison psychiatrists (?) think they're dealing with criminals, they want to understand the criminal mind and the criminal mind is forced by scarcity. And that would be a criminal offence being a psychiatrist examining the criminal mind, to me that criminal mind, to me, the man would be a criminal, doing that, compared to some future society. So, I have no compassion at all for this system I see soldiers as killing machines, because unless they say "I will not kill anybody" then they will be discharged to begin a dishonorable discharge from the army. But a dishonorable discharge, to me, is better than killing people to me according to my laws. Well, who the hell am I when the whole of society makes laws that's good for people, they do not respect individual laws they cannot respect it and maintain their society. If they don't put people in prison they have to hire more policemen, just recently some state, I forgot which state it was, has cut their police force in half, and sometimes a man that can't get a job says "I'll try to commit a robbery, and if I'm caught at least I'll be fed and given medical care even though it's limited, it's better than nothing, it's better than being a street person sleeping over a grating where heat comes up at the winter, I've seen that. And I've seen hobo camps, where the hobos were very fine people, very good natured, shared what little they had and they had nothing to share. And I remember older people sleeping on top of a freight train an when the train went through a tunnel, sometimes they were injured and they died, and the hobos buried them, fallen off the train(?) and it was just to me, it was a horrible(?) the great depression because I have seen so many things I never had a chance to really talk about but I may have told you that I was hitchhiking with a boy my age around seventeen in the old days, and a guy drove up in a car and said "would you like to make a buck?" And this kid(?) said yes. He said "I want you to my girlfriend a note, tell her that I can't see her this weekend." That's what the note(?) said. So he gave the guy fifty cents and fifty cents when he got the(?)receipt from the girlfriend. Well, the girlfriend was a cashier at a movie theatre and the note said: "if you don't give the kid all the money you've got, I got a gun aimed at your head." so she screamed and the police came and took the kid away, the kid had no idea why he was arrested but he had a criminal record now. Do you understand? That's why the word "justice" has no meaning to me. I was riding a freight train and everybody was jumping off the freight train, And I said "what's going on?" They said railroad dicks up ahead. Railroad dicks are people that take people that ride freight trains which is ilegal, put them in jail, so I stayed on the train anyway. I stayed on, I was the only one, everybody else jumped off, and the railroad dick hit me with the flashlight and said "what are you doing on the train? I'm trying to get to Key West, I have no job, and I may get a job in Key West." He said "all right, lay low." And that's rare, but, you know I don't know what would have happened to me and sometimes at a chain gang they lease out ten members of chain gang to a certain farm for thirty bucks, and they work them free on the farm. To me that's captured slavery, Do you understand? That used to happen a lot during the depression so if you understand(?), the depression itself generates the condition that people make laws. So come if you say "Well, where do laws come from?" That's where they come from. There are laws to protect the in-group they are never made to protect the out-group or the minorities. when a black man says "I have been beaten up by three white men", the police officer doesn't even make a record of it, most of them. They don't seek it out either. So there's no justice for many of the minorities during the depression. So I've seen so much of that condition, that's why we got the ideas that there's no such thing as justice. If I hadn't lived at that time I would have been normal, normal means loused up, aberrated. But the depression changed a lot of the values I (?)was given. which I thought made sense. And to me they made sense because I've known no other values until I was hitchhiking across the country. I've learned a great deal, but what I've learned didn't do me any good, do you understand? I was never put in jail, I always voluntarily went to a police or prison and said "I'd like to sleep overnight, I have no place to sleep." They said "we have to fingerprint you and photograph you, to make sure you're not wanted for anything." I said "Sure", but I didn't want to sleep out in the cold. and since I did that they had a slightly different attitude but the jail was terrible, it was a filthy toilet bowl with fecal matter all around and the bedsheets were dirty and stained, a little(?) red light, terrible, and it smelled in there. So I just sat in the corner of the cell, it was better than sleeping outside. But anyway they were prisoners that were there for four-five years and since they had to behave themselves if they wanted to get out in four or five years, they were called trustees. And there were prisoners that went around with flashlights checking the other prisoners. and there (?) were called stool pidgeons by the other prisoners, "stoolies". (?) "you god damn stoolie" and they tried to kill him because they worked with the police, they snitched on everybody else so they broke the code of the majority of prisoners. Stoolies didn't live too long in big (?)prisons, So there were very few stoolies, but all they need was one, to tell the police what's going on, "there is a prison break planned for this sunday" this(?) is a stoolie, so the police was prepared for it, you know with tear gas and all that, but they got that stoolie. They broke his neck or they cut his throat, whatever weapons they had, do you understand? The prisoners had developed a set of ethics that served their needs. Do you understand that? There was never a prison that I read about where no code of ethics existed, there's always a code of ethics. and there's always laws in prison, although they're silent, they are not written in the diary or paper, it's an unwritten law, it comes about of necessity. So do you respect the law? I have no use for it. Will I violate the law? No, because the price is too high. I cannot live according to the law because it does make sense. No law ever made sense to me, human behavior never made much sense. So I didn't even know whether, when I was a kid, I didn't know if people were alive or not, because they lived in accordance with the law, they lived in accordance with the values of the culture and that isn't Billy James, it's somebody else that they grabed when he was young and taught him the law. And they taught him a profession. That isn't you, if you're an American, that isn't you if you're a German. That isn't you if you're a Sweed, a professional Sweed, do you know what I mean? You are what they want in Sweeden. So when a person says "is there a place for individuality?" Yes, it is called prison and being ostracized that is the place for you. So nobody's really free, they're victims of culture. I am a victim of culture but I've come to a set of patterns of behavior which will enable me to survive in a aberrated society. I think most people do that to some extent but they still feel that society knows best that the laws are made to protect people. And there's nothing I can say about that but I am putting this out so that you might understand something of what I'm talking about. The society you live in cannot be just, it cannot be fair, it can only carry out the standards of the society you live in which is determined to a large extent by scarcity. And that is a real (?)meaning and mechanism that shapes human behavior. If a person says no there are only (?)decency, laws are made to uphold common decency. There's no such thing as common decency, all those are man made, all concepts of decency are man made. "Don't take anything that doesn't belong to you from me without my permission." Or when you go to work for a company they don't ask you what you want to do they order you to do certain things, so it seemed to me, every corporation I went to work for, whenever I've punched that time clock I entered a dictatorship which they dictated what I do for eight hours a day. I filled perfume bottles, or I stuffed dolls, or I grinned(?) off dolls legs, that is a dictatorship. Even when I left the parking lot, it said "No left turn". So, I didn't know what freedom meant when I went to work for that company, because I've never worked for a company that said "do what you'd like to do, pick whatever you'd want to pick and how much do you want a week, what would meet your needs?" They never asked me that they said "you get 10 bucks a week, or three dollars a week." It was all a dictatorship, to me, but to normal people, normal means those people that were brought up as up as victims of culture accepted that, they said "well at least I got a job." To me it was a dictatorship where they never asked me "how many days a week we'd like to work what would you feel it would be adequate for you as a decent free american?" No company ever talked that way to me. If they say "look Jacque, you got poor health, why don't you take a week off, we'll give you pay anyway, because you're still a good person in our factory." Well, very few industrialist were like that, because there was always a list of people they had wanting your job. And they picked up the phone the minute you got sick and tell the next guy to come in. It's easier than paying you, but if there was a small company like a law firm, sometimes they did give you three days off or a week off if you brought in a lot of money, if you were important. But no company I ever worked for asked me what I would like to do. when a person bought a married couple a home and a car they gave them a damn good start. If you have wealthy folks and they could send you to college which increases your earning capacity, you might even want to uphold the law. A lawyer feels that he's upholding the law, some of them(?), and very few lawyers except guys like Clarence Darrow were lawyers that worked against themselves and their profession. (?)Very few people write books on the insufficiencies of society because the book would not sell. Do you understand that? "Why I'm a businessman and how I through the depression"; that's what they want to know. Businessmen want to know "how can I survive hard times?" They don't want a book out saying what's the matter with the businessman they don't want those books. And if a publisher publishes your book and if it doesn't sell he gets a brunt, but if (?)you "how to be succesful in hard times", that book will sell. And the professions that were successful during the depression I'm talking about, were sign business, selling out, going out of business. Those sign (?) pages made money until people pre-printed those signs and you could go and buy a sign in any hardware store "house for sale", nobody had to paint it anymore. And I told you another business that was successful. This guy wore a strap around his neck with a big coffee pot and he walked down the street and for fifteen cents he gave you a cup of coffee, a sandwich, one cigarette, and a piece of chocolate. That was successful business until a lot of people bought the coffee pot, (?) they were wiped out. Whenever you do anything succesful, when the ballpoint pen came out, (?) that's a rolling pen it was better than dipping into ink and it sold for fifteen to ten dollars (?)to fifteen dollars, sold a lot of those pens, so one company infringed on the patent. And the guy tried to sue him. While he was sueing them ten other companies infringed so he let go, then fifty companies you can't fight that, you don't have the money to fight them. So there are many patent infringements and lawsuits continuously. China does a lot of that it picks up ideas and doesn't pay for them, it doesn't have too, why should they? You can maintain the competitive edge if you fringe on other patents. Do you understand? Okay. So don't keep asking me if they are ethical laws in The Venus Project? There aren't laws in The Venus Project, because it doesn't have to be laws. People do what they been trained to do to help everybody advance including themselves. The longer society exists that's sane, the higher the standard of living. You don't need laws, you don't need presidents, you don't need congress, you don't need a governor, and you don't need police, if your society is saner. The transition, I always said will be painful because you're moving from one system to another system, and there will be those that had been so indoctrinated by the old system give you a hard time, and so the transition will not be easy because I don't see people saying "Sure, let's help one another". I can't see everybody doing that because they say "What's the bottom line in that society, what's the catch?" Do you know what I mean? "Are you trying to enslaves us, work for nothing? What do you get out of it?" You know people are very suspicious of anything that promises a saner world. In fact the more you promise, the more suspicious(?) they'll be against you by people who been brought up to suspect people that promise good things. If it sounds too good to be true, reject it. They've got all kinds of statements prefabricated ready-made, that's why all transitions met with a great many (?)problem: ethics and the future, seeking law and justice, the seeking of law and justice. I'm just saying the way the setup is it leads certain people of disadvantage such as education, not having had enough education or not being able to read or write, they get disadvantaged jobs. Even if a black man graduated from high school they had him clean the toilet, do you understand what I mean? They did not give him a job right away; in the old days they gave their priority people like themselves, the whites, the (?)best first choice. Now, I remember in a court of law in the South I remember a man getting up saying if the black man was treated unjustly and he explained that in a court of law, the white man would say: "are you going to take a nigger's word for a white man's word?" in a court of law in the South. And the black man had no chance even tough he told the truth. Telling the truth didn't get you anywhere. So the law was not necessarily rigid and protected people although they were few judges that were ethical, but very few. They had their(?) notions. And whenever they saw a mexican, they look at with suspicion, when they saw a black man they looked at with suspicion, when they saw a peasant of another country with a thick dialect they looked upon him with suspicion because most underprivileged people were not as ethical as privileged people, meaning they didn't carry out the law entirely. If they spoke with a dialect they were looked upon with suspicion, they were foreigners, and damn foreigners wanting to take over this country and bring their foreign ideologies here. "We don't want any ideas we got our own ideas." This is the way they talked. So I would say that the depression really exposed to a large extent the rigidity of our culture, the artificiality of our culture. My father used to carry plants on a wagon and this guy drove up and he said "Mr. Fresco you need protection." And he said "what's that?" "I want ten bucks a week from you and we will protect you." He said "I don't need protection, everybody likes my work." So they wrecked his wagon and broked his plants and everything else. Do you understand? These guys used to go to (?)all stores and say "I want five dollars a week from you".The guy said "I hardly earn seven dollars a week." They said "Either you pay it or we'll throw acid on your clothing." If you had a tailorshop or something like that. There were gangs on every block that went around and got their pay from (?) a fruit stand. They've say "we'll break the legs of the fruit stand, your fruit will go all over, we'll have guys wreck your place, or you pay us three dollars a week. The smaller the gang, the newer the gang, the lower the price. But when one gang moved in another gang's territory then there were gang wars. if you broke things because you didn't pay three dollars a week, and I charge ten dollars a week, then there were(?) gang wars. Do you understand? Gang wars were not just gang wars, one gang did the same job you did for less. And they were in your territory so you say "I don't care where you work, don't work in my territory, okay?" So gang wars were legitimate, they had their own laws, they beat up people who didn't obey their laws. I don't know if it's too heavy or too direct, and the guy says "he's rationalizing crime", you know. There are people who say that. - "(?)You are justifing crime." - And they miss the whole point of the lecture. Yes, they would. But I can't afford "a sunny day in May" before the lecture. I'll just tell them what happened. And there are some people and commit crimes every day and never get caught, They're (?)called the perfect crime. (?) A mechanic telling a woman how much it cost to fix the car which he knows very few women know enough about mechanics. There are people that are foolproofed, like banks. They can charge you certain amount of interest which may be heavy for you and you wind up owing twice as much as you paid for the house. If you buy a house with a thirty year loan they lap on all kinds of (?)clauses, which to me is criminal. The reason that religious people fight one another is because if they can convert everbody to a Lutheran, it's easier to manage, and so when a Lutheran moves into a Catholic neighbourhood they become a threat to some standards. - What about an atheist? - Atheist is a threat to all standards. So an atheist couldn't be hired because his be apt to be imoral, they figure, because he doesn't believe in the law. And religion is loaded with the law, to protect the wealthy. That's (?)where Hammurabi code was invented a long time ago. It was invented so long time ago that if you designed a building and it cave in, the architect had to pay with his life. And if two children would die they would kill two of his children. So the architect became very well aware of structure and how thick a beam ought to be. Do you know what I mean? Because the codes in the old days when they designed bridges and a family drowned, the bridge broke, they then made standards before you design a bridge. That's where the standards came from, that's where (?) came from, because things didn't work, it killed people. It's so much easier for a psychiatrist to say "the guy is just justifying aberrant behavior, the man is evil." It's so much easier to understand, it really is much easier to understand the law than to re-examine the law. I'm not asking people do criminal things I'm just saying that's the way it is. Okay, so that's "Justice and law" by Jacque (?)like I said unfortunately they aren't available today to answer your questions, so myself, Shawn and anyone else who feels that they are (?) answer questions can have a go. We'll get started on those now. Do you want to start with the first one, Shawn? The person you're trying to talk with gets very loud and emotional, do you just stop and try again later? Remaing calm seems to lead them to get more upset. All right this is just a question about, like, how do you approach people in different manners and then this one is specifically about what happens when they get emotional? All right, okay, so what do you do when a person is talking and gets very loud and emotional? Do you stop and try again later? Basically you got to understand when somebody is getting emotional it's because you're talking about something that is outside of their values or outside of what they consider to be right and just or whatever. So, yes, you have to try and aproach people from an angle they don't feel threaten by. So, for example, you know, a good example Jacque gives when talking to someone about (?)religion, and how science (?)are more relevant to the world we live in. You can't just attack someone on religion and say "well, religion...you just believe in a guy in the sky who looks down and judges on people and answers your prayers and stuff like this, it's not relevant to the world we live in." They can't understand that, they will see that as an attack. So you need to come at them from a different angle and try and approach them from a side where values that they hold true into their religion are parallel with the values that we hold within The Venus Project. So it is really a case of trying to understand where that person is coming from, why are they getting upset, what is that your saying what part of what it is you are saying is causing a (?) in that person, and then try to find a (?) way around, getting (?) to that person on that level. Also something that Jacque would say was essentially speaking to their values but also don't spend so much time on them. Give them a tool, a tool or two if you can and there's many possible tools, we can go into that later, but give them a tool and send them on their way and hopefully down the line, they will utilise that tool and begin to utilise other tools which will then allow them to understand and comprehend these concepts. One of the places you see this, sort of everyday (?)play is on Facebook, for example where you see people going hugely long debates lasting days and even weeks with the same person and just hitting a brick wall with (?) that. And whilst you might feel that this is good for, you know, your communication skills and how are you explain The Venus Project and the values that we are sort of promoting, your time would be so much better spent instead on just one person spending a week on that person, to spend one day on one person, (?) you could get seven people in a week, that are actually inquisitive towards this direction. or at least on their way to this direction. You just really weigh out the pros and cons how much time your are spending on a specific person and if that's really working in the long run. Okay, so, next question. What about animal rights, what will be made in The Venus Project in that way? Animals in the current system, animals really don't have very many rights when you actually look at the causation, (?)of what causes things like animal cruelty. Animal cruelty is caused by what we would (?)class as aberrant values of that person. So someone kicking a dog or drowning a cat or something like that we would consider that to be an aberrant behavior. The problem is that no matter how many laws you implement for the protection of the animals none of laws actually stop the animal being hurt in the first place. What they do is they actually punish the person for the the act after the act has been done. So, in The Venus Project the idea is to get people's values to a more saner state that we have now. Once people start to change their values, to a much more egalitarianian, sort of more caring set of values, both towards other human beings and towards animals and the environment itself, we believe that you see a lot less damage done by those people with the aberrant behavior because there will be (?)a lot less of them. For example, I would say an aberrant behavior in this system might be the chopping down of rain forrests. That's something that would stop or would be greatly minimized by the changing of the values of the people that don't understand the damage that were're doing in the ecology. You've got the same situation with animals, that if you change the values of people so the values are no longer aberrated in that sense you won't have to make the laws to implement, to look after the state and welfare of animals. I don't have much to say on this but I do remember Jacque's response being somewhere along the lines of when people usually ask these questions is based on current issues with animal rights and that is animal cruelty doing using them as test subjects and Jacque has said that basically, you know, provide an alternative when we need to test a chemical or well whatever a human might be exposed to we might actually, you know, sometimes use animals. If you can provide alternatives then that would be a good focus to put your work towards. What is the status of the big movie project, is there a web page that shows full transparency of what is going on? Last I heard there were a hundred and ten thousand US dollars donated, which a hundred thousand US dollars will be spent on a script writer. Any further information that are we missing? Okay, so the current status is as what's on the website, the main TVP website. The initial one hundred thousand dollars was to be raised so that we can hire a script writer to start laying out the scripts and to actually develop (?) that we can take to production houses or to different studios etc. to promote the idea of the film and try to get funding for it. As you probably know to get a big blockbuster movie done normally it's the studio itself that will take on the full costs of developing the film for the director themselves, (?)also we don't have millions to spend on a movie, so that's probably the (?) route will have to go down, and to do that you'll need a script which is got to be written by a professional script writer it's not something anybody can do. So at the moment there is obviouslly a ten thousand exces or I think(?) at the moment. Any money that is put into Future by Design which is the non-profit is basically held it in a (?)trust if you like or in a non profit bank account and will be used against the movie itself so, if we can start developing up things like trailers and you know (?)shorts to show studios you know, what would the movie would might be like etc. That's where that funding would go towards so promotional (?) things to get this going, that's basically it really. (?) Right, there are still at this stage of finding a proper script writer, correct? Yes, I think they're been working with several script writers trying to see if anyone of them are suitable. Obviously not any writer is going to understand these ideas fully, (?) not every person that you meet and talk to understands them fully. Then (?)just make sure they're happy with the person's understanding of The Venus Project, a Resource Based Economy and the (?)tenents that we are talking about. The person(?) needs to have a good vision, a good comunication with Jacque as to (?) they are trying different script writers at the moment to see if they can find the right one. So the money hasn't been spent in the sense they haven't actually selected a (?) a definite script writer at this stage. What is your opinion on the idea of a one world government and can it prepare the grounds for transition to the global Resource Based Economy? (?) Well, I can't obviously answer for Jacque on this one. I would say that the problem that you've got with one world government in this system is that it's bad enough to accept our governments being corrupt, just think of them all of them getting together to be one massive corrupt government I don't think it's going to get anywhere. You only have to look at things like the United Nations, it's corrupt on so many levels, it's not even funny. I personally can't see politics being any solution to any of the problems that we've got and I can't see it personally being a transition towards a global Resource Based Economy, but then I could be wrong. Will we stop raising cows and pigs to use as food or will we create alternatives so that we won't need to enslave animals anymore? I've definitely heard discussions about using alternatives and actually creating protein such as meats and, you know, to help sustain ourselves if we so need it. But most of the focus is on vertical agriculture and therefore a stronger vegetarian diet. Something to add to that really basically to think that we're going to have massive changes in the way all human beings on this planet are going to eat and behave instantly, it's not realistic. What' going to happen is we're going to have a gradual transition of people's values and people's behaviors of the sistem's itself into what we call a Resource Based Economy. So, in the sort term I can't see really all of the world just suddenly stop eating meat and that we're not going to continue pig farming, and not going to continue cow farming. and all the rest of it. In the long term, obviously, as far as animal rights are concern it's certainly not the perfect ideal solution, to carry on killing animals for consumption. There are technologies at the moment in development such as as research going into developing lab grown meats which you can find which you can find on the tvpmagazine.com website; there's an article there called "Lab grown meat" by (?). this is something that's the case very very early studies but (?) definitely (?) within the next few years within the next decade or so that lab grown meats could be a complete replacement for our current practice of killing animals for food, so I think in the long term it's not something that will be continued. Right, whithout monetary incentive there will be less likely that there will be factory farming of cows and chickens and pigs which is really where a lot of the outrage comes from because those conditions are just horrible. So removing that incentive alone would likely lead to just regular farming where there will be free range and that's a much more quote on quote humane style of raising cattle and... Okay, next one. Americans value freedom, privacy and individuality. What would be the best way to promote TVP to americans? The same thing as before, it's apealing to their value system, but also not using to much of your time, and in my opinion America will likely be one of the slowest countries to come around to this type of mindset. But there is still a possibility. Absolutely and, you know, if you take those three things, freedom, privacy and individuality, all those things we advocate in The Venus Project if we look at it from the right angle. So, freedom...Freedom to do what? Freedom to kill people? No. Freedom to enjoy your life? Freedom to have access to a home? Freedom to travel the world? All of those things we do advocate, so there are a lot of things we do talk about in The Venus Project and they are all beneficial. Freedoms that aren't beneficial obviously would not be acceptable and this is something that we would try to drive out (?) through a the value system, rather through laws. And something to bear in mind that in the transition we will still require laws. People's values are still aberrated (?)in most of the world. Even once you start getting some cities up and running when you've got people living in those cities that have got a different set of values what are currently globally accepted you are still going to get a certain level of that aberrancy showing (?) in those people until they have been in their environment long enough for those values to be fully substantiated and for those behaviors to really set in. So it's a long term thing, (?). Things like privacy and individuality, again, the more you give people access to the things they need, the more education you give people access to. The more individual they become, the more (?) things that they become interested in. So, you know, all those sort of things, you can approach americans with just coming at a slightly different angle to what (?)they are used to. Right and a statement like you are only as free only as your purchasing power whould appeal to this type of culture and then also what Roxanne says along the lines of a standard of living in the future in something like a Resource Based Economy would be better, or (?) you will have more access than the richest person on Earth today So i think these would be really good statements to be using on this type of demographic. All right, next one, I talked about how all behavior is learned from the environment and the environment is something you don't always have control over. How do you define when somebody is responsible for their actions? Oh, that's a semantic piece of (?) work, that one, isn't it? Right, okay, responsible for their actions again this really comes down to the environment that you live in and the values that you hold. Is someone that steals food because they're hungry responsible for their effect? No, not at all, they've got no control over the fact that they can't(?)have acces to food and the only way they can have acces to food would be to steal. So I think the whole idea of responsibility has to be really looked at as to what does that word even mean? is a child (?), is a killer responsibile for what they do? Not at all, you have to look at the background of what caused that person to become the way that were, what was in their environment that drove them that way(?) to move away from being responsible and towards working out what it is we need to change within the environment and how we need to support people within the environment to change those behaviors, so that we don't have to deal with that responsible (?) whether someone has done(?) what they shouldn't have done. Yes, can I add something to that, please? Yes. Yes, the idea of responsibility, responsible to what? Responsible to autorithy or responsible to law? And what Andrew said we will have to focus first on education and understanding of the behavior of the person and make the person understand what drives his behavior to do that and if it's the environment it doesn't matter... In a sense I feel nobody's responsible for their behavior, as long as they don't understand... well, period but (?)it helps if a person tries to understand what drives his or hers behavior (?)at first. Just saw there (?) in the chat from Sarah (?): you talk about changing the cultural triggers for that behavior, but what about dealing with that person right now? Something we and Jacque sort of discussed a couple of weeks ago, (?)the same kind of question came up and that's what we're saying was that to understand that were in a transitionary period and you cannot go from the state we are at now, with laws, police, prisons etc. to a state of to a state of no laws, no prisons and no police. It would be absolute chaos for the value systems that are in place, it would be absolute chaos for the behaviors that are currently in place. And this goes for all levels, from the high level corruption of politicians and bankers and bussinesmen all the way down to pety thefts or the in-betweens, murders etc. During the transition we would still need to have incarceration of people that are considered to be socially problematic: people that kill, people that rape people that molest children, (?)all these people would have to be incarcerated to protect people in the society during the transition. But we feel that as you educate people(?) It's going to be a generation thing if you educate each generation the level of aberrancies the level of aberrancy, the level of aberrant behavior, the level of problems that you will see in the environment that you've got, will become less and less every time for each generation as they grow up in the new system. So eventually the idea is that you get to a stage where (?)those behaviors are no longer part of your social or cultural makeup. Where's it at the moment almost every human being brought into this current system is going to be aberrated to a certain degree depending on their particular environment. Did that answer your question (?) sir? Yes. Cool, okay, next one. How do you see a transition from a law (?) society where people need an authority to satisfy their need for justice to a society where the law, I believe it's supposed to be law, will be common sense and a similarity with natural law? We've pretty much covered that one with the whole education and generational education, something that's pretty much covered. Yes I think so, just to answer into one word that will be the education and then just time. You know, unfortunately it will take some time for people to adjust. Some estimate few generations for us to adjust completely out of some of these aberrencies. Absolutely if you look at the values of people (?)that's say four-five hundred years ago, thankfully, through generations of people dying off those values tend to get, you know, get lost over time. We don't go around burning (?) out neighbors on stakes anymore, thankfully those people have died out, and their young came up and were brought up in slighter different environment that was slightly more sane than what it was previously, although that's debatable. You know, that's a natural progression over time, that the old values die off with the people who die off, so, and I think you'll see a different kind of thing during the transition towards a Resource Based Economy, that some of the older folks with their really screwed up values as they die off the newer generations come through with different education, different environment different understanding of the world they live in you get a different set of values. May I add something there, please? Sure. Thank you. Just to say I think that also when we get rid of things such as publicity and marketing and all these things that twist (?) our perception of who we are, what we are and what we need. I think this will speed up a great deal the process, once we get rid of those negative influences I think it will help greatly in the improvement in how we behave and so on. Yes, (?) thanks for that, cheers! Does Jacque think that a competent democracy could be a positive step forward towards an RBE? And I wish I had a recording of him just saying: "No". Yes, I think about that pretty much covers it, no... (?) no more need to be said. Is the need for an identity a necessity for man? It might be something to have to do with individuality... I cannot answer this question very well but I could say that something like me needing to be me you needing to have this and that I could argue that that was a learned behavior. Yes, I'm assuming and this is only an assumption, is the need for identity of man (?) I'm wondering whether this applies to what kind of social identity (?) i.e., "I'm a policeman", "I'm a doctor", "I'm an ingineer", or whatever, no, I don't think that's something that's innate and required by human beings, I think it's something that's generated within an environment or within a culture. If you look at sort of tribal life in Africa, or, you know, like when Jacque visited the South Pacific you don't get that social identity, you know, "I'm a specific type of person within my society." So it's definitely very cultural in (?)its background Yes, and we are not born with identity, this is learned, completely learned because, the example of it can be kids who were left in the forest that were abducted, by apes and with the wolfes(?), even with dogs we've got some have this examples, like the recent example in Ukraine, where a little girl was abandoned by her parents and she was raised by a dog. And almost eight or seven years, she was completely behaving as a dog and she got through a very painful process to adopt human values and she's way behind her peers in development but if the identity, or what we mean by identity in this culture and what the parents told us, and what the authorities told us we are, "you're a boy, you're a girl, you belong to this group, you belong to that group." In my point of view maybe in the future we can identify ourselves with different values with the (?)project's we do for the advance of humanity in general. Absolutely. Yes, thanks. I just put a link actually in the chat there so (?) that Oksana Malaya, the girl that you've been talking about (?). Yes, absolutely. Roxanne mentioned at a lecture that you listen to tapes in the car and never stop learning. What are you listening to at the moment? Obviously we can't answer this because they're not here, but make sure and add this back to next week but essentially their daily routine is: wake up, begin working, Jacque still reads, he watches news, he reads books constantly, he is constantly still thinking and drawing. Roxanne wakes up and answers emails answers phone, works on the movie day and night, so there's nothing but learn or work. That's kind of the whole point of what she was covering with that, but you can ask her specifically next weekend maybe. I've read that Jacque loves his brown muffins, please, can you tell us the recipe? Same thing with this one (?) or just email them [email protected] All right, (?) I haven't found a proper answer to this question can you help me please... How we will determine in The Venus Project, what percentage of our resources will be allocated towards making musical instruments, for example, instead of researching cures for ilnesses? We have to do the first steps first and the first steps is to accurately measure what we have and then accurately, I don't know if the word distribute for it is correct, but take care of the (?)basic needs of everybody on earth and that's food, housing, shelter, safety, education and air. After that, obviously, the intent is there to be leftover resources and that will be then be used for these extras. Absolutely, I mean the distribution of resources will be based on a priority system, but will be based on the values that we advocate within The Venus Project, so like Shawn said, it would be based on covering for the needs of people first, and then for the wants of people. It's an aberrancy of your values if you feel that you know, that resources should be spent on your own (?)private ship that you want built, rather than (?)divert resources that are needed to be used for a hospital to heal the sick. So it really comes down to what values do we agree on. Do we agree on the fact that people need our basic needs met and if so that's the priority for where our resources get spent. It's really as simple as that. What is a good way to communicate to a sports fan that watching and supporting sports is a waste of time and detrimental to them? You have to let them know that something exists outside of TV. But the thing is you're not going to reason with them, you can say to someone who enjoys football that is a nothing thing how (?) you can't say to them, it's a nothing thing you won't need it in the future, people cannot accept that, that's not where they're coming from. They either have been brought up with footbal or they've been brought up in competitive sports whatever they are etc. And that's within their values, that's something that they feel it's important to their values (?)set. So again you have to win (?) and replace it with something. It's like trying to take one religion from someone and not replacing...and not giving anything back to replace it with. It just doesn't work. So we can't get rid of these (?)toughts, you can't just say "that's it we're going to ban (?)them in the future, therefore you cannot do them." You just create animosity and hatred towards (?). What you can do is start to implement systems, (?)games, etc. from an earlier age that teach cooperation, and the benefits of cooperation over competition. It's only through time and education that people will start to see the benefits of cooperating far outweighing the competition based idea or based toughts, or based, you know, work or anything else. I think that pretty much covers it. Generally, if you are speaking about things that are seemingly attacking of somebody's value system, a (?)one on one situation you're going to get direct response (?) and this person is going to feel it directly but if you must cover these subjects it's better to do it in groups or lectures of much larger groups and the individuals that might perceive this as an attack to them will kind of (?) this attack amongst the crowd and not take direct offense, so you can, in a sense you can get away with saying something like sports are irrelevant or covering aspects of why it is better in speaking to a large crowd that (?)might be(?) The results we better in a large crowd that it would be on a one-to-one individual basis. Unless they're all from (?)the same team. Next one. What help does Jacque need to come to UN Rio 2012 conference "The Future We Want" to present The Venus Project vision and solutions to the world through UN tools and and channels. I don't have any specific information on this but generally when and if you want them to come, you need to first have communication with them directly and then begin to administrate and manage how this goes about. And that means contacting whatever the venue is, making sure the proper people are (?) things and then actually they do need funding to come to places, for plane tickets, to fly a special class for Jacque to have his feet up, so anyway there's a lot of direct communication with Roxanne if you're going to be attempting to manage them coming(?). I would just like to add to that, actually, something we quite often get is that people would love Jacque and Roxanne to go over there and to their countries and do lectures etc. which is great, we're really looking forward things like that, but, at cost only, you know, we'll cover your hotel and your flight, but that's it. Unfortunately, we do live in a money system. I can't afford to go somewhere and just have my flights and hotel (?) costs. I still (?) have to go back to the UK, no matter where I am. I also have to take time of work and thus lose my wages. So, it's the same thing with Jacque and Roxanne (?) but they need to be paid a fee on top of covering the expenses for whatever event that is that you want them to do, so bear that in mind before contacting them about it. I believe I heard Roxanne actually say he can fly bussines class, but as time goes by, he just turned ninety six i think the overall (?)scheme of him flying it becomes less likely. So anyway a short answer to that question is to contact Roxanne directly if you have a strong plan and you're willing to put all a lot of work in getting that arranged. Why are crosswords a nothing thing? I enjoy them and consider they improve mental agility and vocabulary. Yeah, sure. It's not a competition, it's something to improve the person that does them. Would it be(?) the idea of entertainment in the future with TVP if everyone (?)accepts public work and there is not need for leisure time because of self-fulfillment (?) being realised during work, will people ever look to sports and video games for (?)downtime, or will the lack of need would wipe out the industry entirely? (?) lack of need wipe out the industry entirely? I think the type of entertainment will be very different in the future. When you think at entertainment in this system, generally it's either going out and getting drunk, or being indoors playing games, and watching television etc. And the problem is that most of those things includes aberrant values, or the teaching of aberrant values whithin their programing, hence why they call it programming. I think entertainment would be very different in The Venus Project in the sense of any soaps at television would be aimed at reinforcing the positive values that you want to see(?) in such culture. So rather than seeing things like(?) where people are either constantly fighting, shouting at each other or killing each other etc. I think that programs would very different in a Resource Based Economy as far as(?) things like entertainment, as in outside entertainment I think the avenues to having more entertainment would be much increased to what they are now. Bear in mind that you will have the ability to travel anywhere in the world at any time, without any restriction. You'll have access to any resources that you needed for leisure time things, for example that if you liked scuba diving, you wouldn't have to pay to go on holiday and spend a week scuba diving and pay for the act(?) and pay for the (?) dives. All of those things would be pre-available to you so I think the level of entertainment will be raised many times to what it is at the moment as far as your enjoyability of it. Okay, so you I wanted to do a quick announcement actually while I got a lot of you here in the room, I've made a couple announcements on the various Skype groups I'm not sure if all of you (?) or not. Basically, over the past two or three weeks people(?) (?)address bar on(?) a new email system, that will basically make my life a lot easier, in the sense of building an actually administration in for the emails, coming into The Venus Project with general enquiries and team enquiries etc. that are We are looking at building up four administration ins consisting in the global administration in which currently is me and Sven. You'll have the TVP Support administration in (?) enquiries to the TVP Support teams which you can find details on the The Venus Project website. You'll have a TVP core and a TVP design administration team again built in with all enquiries (?) forwarded from [email protected], and they'll give all those (?)enquiries and forward them to the relevant project coordinators etc. If you're interested in actually helping out with the emails and actually being part of the team dealing with that, bear in mind this is quite a big job and (?) you need to have a good understanding of The Venus Project, and the concepts that we talk about. And you need to have a good, you know, helping kind of attitude, because a lot of people and since we get various types of emails, you know, from general enquiries to people that are depressed and want to kill themselves, you know, and they look for some kind of hope it really does vary (?)the kind of emails that we get so you really need to be quite an understanding person, to deal with those and (?) at the time available to do that. we're looking at possibly building up teams anywhere up to six and seven people per team. And so it limits the time each person has to spend answering emails. So if you're interested in joining any one of these administration teams, please contact me at [email protected], and we'll get you started with that. One of the things that we will be doing it is a kind of test where you get a set of sample emails and then we'll see how you answer those and there will be a short interview, just to go over the sort of details of each of these teams before we have to accept anyone (?) again, if you're interested(?) it's [email protected] just say in which administration team will you be interested in joining and we'll get going on that. Thank you very much, I'm going to shoot out, I got my (?) call to Roxanne, and chat with you next week. Thanks for coming, Andrew. Thanks for you help, Shawn, and we'll see everybody next week which is April 29, 2012. Thanks, (?)Joe.