We asked two members of The Movement to present the case for and against “basic income”, an important issue that has recently generated considerable heat on the forum. Each produced a draft to which the other was allowed to respond. However, neither had the opportunity to respond to the final draft, otherwise the process would have kept dragging on.
So, here is the case for Basic Income (the thesis) followed by the case against it (the antithesis).
be truthfully said that in our current system money is the indicator of your
human value. The fulfilment of your basic needs is completely dependent on
owning money. Without money, you lose most of your basic human rights, because
you can't afford them: food, water, housing and so on. What is the point in
making a long list of human rights if one can attain those things only by using
money? Even in the so called "modern" nations we have people who are starving
and don't have running water or electricity, just because they don't have
enough "human value points" called "dollars" and
"euros" to buy them. Shouldn't we therefore make money a basic
solution to poverty is an astonishingly simple one: we just make sure that
everyone always has enough money to afford the basic necessities of life, no matter
what the circumstances. This can be achieved by implementing a concept called
basic income. Every citizen gets an unconditional monthly payment guaranteed by
the state, which is enough to live on. It wouldn't matter whether you are rich
or poor, have a job or not, or if you're even willing to accept a job or not.
Everyone would get basic income, no matter what. With this simple gesture,
poverty and all negative phenomena caused by it would to cease to exist.
definition of basic income
Income Earth Network (BIEN) defines basic income with the following words: "a
basic income is an income unconditionally granted to all on an individual
basis, without means test or work requirement." The only requirement for basic
income is citizenship. Therefore one could describe it as a citizen's wage; you
get paid just for being a citizen.
four points make basic income unique when compared to existing welfare systems:
1. It is paid to individuals, rather
2. It is paid irrespective of any income
from other sources.
3. It is paid without requiring the
performance of any work or the willingness to accept a job if offered.
4. The size of basic income is
comparable to minimum wage, which means it's high enough to live on.
phrase "comparable to minimum wage" means that basic income must in
all cases be high enough to cover at least the following:
cost of all basic necessities of life, such as food, water, hygiene products,
Housing costs, such as rent and electricity bills.
cost of basic communication devices and methods, such as cellphones, computers
and internet connections.
does it work in practice?
get a certain amount of money every month, no matter what your life situation
is. Whether you are employed, unemployed, a student or a pensioner, it doesn't
matter, basic income flows all the time. Also, the level of your salary has no
effect on the amount of basic income you receive.
person = Gets basic income.
with a job = Gets basic income + the salary from his job.
= Gets basic income + "student bonus".
= Gets basic income + pension.
the level of basic income be increased or decreased in any cases?
the increase above the normal level, yes.
income can be increased above the minimum wage level in some cases, such as:
Having dependents while being unemployed.
Being a student or having dependents while being a student.
Having many dependents while having a low paid job.
would be "minimum income limits" for different family configurations,
and if all your sources of income (basic income + salaries) fail to meet these
limits, then your basic income would be increased to meet the minimum limit.
basic income can be increased as an incentive to encourage unemployed persons
to take part in:
Approved voluntary work or training.
Caring for young or elderly persons.
for the decrease below the normal level, the answer is no. Basic income can
never be reduced below the "basic" level.
there is one special case in which basic income is not paid: if you are
sentenced to prison. After the prison sentence is over, one regains his right
to basic income. This will ensure that "crime does not pay", as we'll
do we fund the basic income system?
Normal funding methods
different funding methods have been suggested to fund basic income. Some of
Capital gains taxes
Profit accrued from state-owned enterprises
Elimination of current income support programs
meritocracy there will of course be a 100% inheritance tax, which will boost
the governments wallet quite a lot, although this source of funding is somewhat
unstable, as the amount of tax money it provides depends on the number/wealth
of the persons who have died that year.
and far more reliable source of income provided by meritocracy is this: when
all banks and corporations are nationalized, their revenues will go directly to
the State instead of to the pockets of private owners. This is a stable form of
funding, and together with the 100% inheritance tax, it ensures that the state
budget will be much larger than it is now. These two things assure that there
will be enough money to fund basic income, and other things too, like free
healthcare and free education.
also exists a far more radical way of funding: money creation. This idea isn't
necessarily as crazy as it sounds.
you never wondered why the banks are so eagerly marketing loans to us? Just
pause for a moment, think about how the banking system actually works, and
you'll soon realize that all money is created out of thin air. You see, when
banks give loans to the people, the loan money is literally created out of
nothing. When you spend that loan money, it eventually returns to the bank(s)
as "real money", making them and their owners richer. This process is
called "economic growth". This is a well-hidden secret, and if the
people became aware of it, there would be a revolution the day after tomorrow.
nation's GDP rises, it actually just means that the amount of money in
circulation gets higher. Money creation is what makes economic growth possible.
If there were no money creation, the amount of money in circulation would
always be the same, and no growth could take place. Both the amount of
consumption and production would always be constant. The same would be true for
the amount of work the system produces. So to sum it up: economic growth causes
more work and more debt for the people, and yields more money for the rich.
the ordinary people can't see this continuous increase in money for four
Over 95 % of all money is digital (invisible).
Most transactions are digital (invisible).
When the economy grows, salaries don't rise that much (except for those on the
top of the pyramid).
Because of reason number 3, the people own only small amounts of money at a
of course, because of reason number 4, people are forced to take loans!)
can't see the money because most of the time it's literally invisible. Ordinary
people can experience economic growth only in the sense that they're
continuously forced to do more work and take on more loans. In addition to
this, the money created in the loan process is totally worthless. The only
reason why people think money has actual value is that they never own too much
of it, hence always want more, and this is what causes money to have "value"
in people's minds.
what if the banks actually gave real money to the people instead of loans?
Would it really make any difference from an economic viewpoint? The people would
still use the money, just as they use their loans. The economy would still grow
just as before. The only difference is that the bank owners would no longer get
richer at the expense of the people. And of course in this model there would be
no private bank owners at all, because all banks would be owned by the state
(private bankers would never give money to the people for free).
are the benefits of the basic income system?
1. No poverty ***
as we know it would cease to exist. Everyone can always afford the basic
necessities of life and pay their bills and rent.
in turn will cause:
Significantly lower crime rate.
will no longer seem so attractive, when all your basic needs have been
fulfilled. There will no longer be any need to steal in order to make a living.
importantly, because inmates will lose their right to basic income while they
are in prison, the potential criminals will think twice before breaking the
law, and most of them will choose not to. Committing crimes will no longer earn
you money in the same way it used to, since you now stand the chance to lose
you basic income if you get caught. As a result, criminal gangs will have a lot
harder time recruiting new members, and in time they might disappear
altogether. Crime will no longer pay in the literal sense.
now, many countries have an opposing system where you actually receive a small
sum of money for every day you sit in prison. Plus your daily needs are taken
care of while you're behind bars. This has caused the prison system to become a
form of social security. If you're poor enough, you may end up in a situation
where you have no alternative other than going to prison. In a twisted sense,
prison provides a person with a form of "basic income": you get
housing, food, water, shower etc. coupled with a small daily allowance. No one
can take these things away from you while you are in prison. They are guaranteed
by the state, no matter what. The only requirement to get these benefits is to
commit a crime that is serious enough to put you in prison. No wonder the
prisons are full!
when your prison sentence is over, you go back into your previous situation of
uncertain income (and in some cases, back to the streets). If you can't get a
job soon after your release, and chances are that you won't, then you must rely
on unemployment benefits, which are a more uncertain form of income when
compared to the benefits you got while in prison. The employment agency now
controls your life. You are forced to apply for jobs that you aren't
necessarily interested in, and to participate in "activation
programs", otherwise you lose your only source of income. After a while,
you'll start to wish that you were back in prison, where you could just sit.
Soon committing crimes feels like a reasonable alternative because you really
don't have that much to lose. Of course you would lose your "freedom"
again, but on the other hand you would receive a guaranteed income and upkeep
while in prison. So why not? And then you start wondering if some of your
"old buddies" still live in the area... And then the circle starts
from the beginning once again.
have a very low-income level or no income at all, it's logical to commit crimes
in order to get a prison sentence, which will both increase your income and
guarantee your basic needs. This creates an insane situation: if you commit
crimes, the state pays you. And don't forget that while in prison you may have
the opportunity to study or perform some kind of work (simple, low paid part
time work, which the "normal" labor market can't offer). So by
committing a crime, you might actually get a job of sorts, in addition to the
other benefits. No wonder that the "battle against crime" has lasted
forever. Crime can never disappear from a society that rewards crime.
you always had an unconditional, guaranteed source of stable income, which
would be taken away from you only in the case that you commit crimes, then
these problems would be solved. Ending up in prison would be the last thing you
want. You would just lose both your freedom and your income. Crime would no
longer pay anything at all.
good to remember that most people sitting behind bars are small time criminals
who ended up in prison because of two reasons: 1) The lack of money and 2) All
things caused by it. But if we rewarded people with a basic income for just
being a citizen, then both of these two problems would be solved.
current system, only good behaviour (seeking or having a job) is rewarded,
while both neutral (not seeking or not having a job) and bad behaviour
(criminal activity) are punished. So it's quite easy for one to move from
neutral behaviour to bad behaviour, because both are punished. And, as we
demonstrated, the guaranteed upkeep that the prisons offer to inmates makes it
seem like bad behaviour is in some ways punished less than neutral behaviour.
This causes a prison sentence to be an option, rather than a punishment.
basic income system, both good and neutral behaviour will be rewarded, while
only bad behaviour will be punished. And of course good behaviour will still be
rewarded more than neutral behaviour, because you get basic income in addition
to your salary from work. So the better you behave, the higher the reward. If
you decide to just hang around for whatever reason, as long as you don't cause
any trouble, you will still be rewarded in a small way i.e. you'll be given enough
money to survive. But if you start causing trouble, you'll be punished.
income will therefore remove all exterior reasons (problems caused by poverty)
from criminal activity. Only interior reasons (free will choices) would remain.
And how many people are there who would willingly start a criminal career in a
system which genuinely cares for its citizens? Not many. It's important to
realize that most criminals aren't inherently evil. Most of them choose to
commit crimes because of exterior reasons (which make them feel that they have
no other choice), not because they really want to.
Significantly reduced homelessness problem.
would have money to pay their rent, so fewer people end up on the streets.
people end up homeless because they lose their job and start drinking. Drinking
causes a divorce, and then comes the street. Unemployment is a "social
shame", which many can't handle properly. Some people would rather live on
the streets than beg for their benefits every month. But if you had a
guaranteed basic income then there would be no begging, and the fear of
unemployment would be much lower. This way, if you lose your job, it won't
strike you so hard.
so, you could still find yourself in the position of being unable to pay your
rent. For example if you lived in a big house and then suddenly lost your high
paid job, basic income might not be enough to pay the rent. The solution to
this problem is conventional social security aid; it will still exist alongside
the basic income system for emergencies. (But ordinary income support programs
would not exist, because basic income replaces them.)
Significantly reduced prostitution.
income = No need to sell your body.
sum it up, poverty and crime will be greatly lessened. However, depending on
the cost of education and healthcare, poverty might not totally disappear with
basic income alone. But if basic income is combined with free education and
free healthcare then poverty would truly exist no more.
More jobs, more sensible labor markets and a motivated workforce
the most striking features of basic income is that it's paid to all citizens
regardless of whether or not they have a job. This allows the creation of
simple, low paid, part time jobs, which would otherwise be impossible to create
because the salaries of those jobs would be too low. But when you
simultaneously receive both basic income and the salary from your job, this makes
it possible for people to accept low paid, few-hours-a-day jobs. This way
people with little or no education would have more job opportunities. Also, one
of the biggest problems concerning the low paid jobs would be no more: right
now many don't want to accept a job that has a salary not much higher than
one's unemployment benefit.
to their unconditional basic income, the workers can turn down any job that's
offered to them, so the employers cannot create just anything that comes to
their mind. The created jobs must be meaningful, otherwise no one will accept
them. On the other hand, the best of such jobs would always attract workers.
This creates a real and a more sensible "labor market". The employers
can now easily create new jobs, but at the same time they must actually think
what they're offering, because the workers can now freely choose what they want
now, we have many jobs that the people hate to do. The employers can
comfortably offer these jobs, because they know that someone always accepts
them. The job seekers on the other hand are forced to accept these jobs because
if they don't they might lose their unemployment benefits. This creates shitty
jobs, performed by poor, unmotivated people.
basic income ensures that there will be no shitty jobs. They will become
extinct because people will refuse to do them. The future labor market will
work like a voting system of sorts. Good jobs will attract more workers - this
votes them "in" - while bad jobs attract nobody, so they'll be voted
"out". The future labor market will "know" what it wants to
do and what it doesn't.
comparison, our current labor market is "dumb". People accept jobs
because they're forced to, and that's why the employers don't really have to
care whether the jobs offered are "meant for humans" or not. In a
dumb labor market, productivity is all that matters. The well-being of the
workers means almost nothing. If they resign, there's always someone else to
take their place. This makes the workers mere resources that can be pushed
around in any way you like. They have no autonomy or real choice in anything.
income is the only way if we want to create a real, just and smart labor
market. It will ensure that all workers are motivated, because working will be
a free choice. Employees will be able to trust their employers, and vice versa.
Co-operation and mutual agreement between the bosses and the employees is
always required. Bad bosses would soon find out that nobody wants to work for
them anymore, while good bosses would never have a shortage of employees. If
some company treats its employees unfairly, the word would spread quickly, and
after a while nobody would want to work for that company anymore, forcing its
leadership to resign and shut down the business. (Although if all companies
were owned by the state, the bad leader would simply be fired and replaced with
a new one, but the company itself would remain intact, unless there are other
problems too in addition to bad leadership.)
More freedom and autonomy
income allows people to develop independently and autonomously. Your life would
no longer be dictated by money. Instead you can freely choose what to do with
income gives you the following freedoms:
Freedom to choose whether to work or not.
Freedom to choose whether to accept a job or not when offered.
Freedom from conditional social- and unemployment benefits, which now allow
various government agencies to dictate your life. (Basic income will replace most
of these benefits.)
dependency of wives on husbands. (Such as in the case of a couple where one is
unemployed while the other one has a job. This can cause the employed person to
become the "economic leader" of the relationship.)
Increased autonomy from families. (Such as in the case where some family
members have a job and others don't, making the jobless members economically
dependent on the others.)
Increased autonomy from criminal gangs. (When you have a guaranteed income, you
won't be so dependent on gangs i.e. you will have a realistic chance to start
building a life that is outside the gang.)
addition, you'll have more free time, since now you don't have to devote your
whole life to work. More free time means increased creativity. There will be
more time for art, music, literature, sports, meditation, spirituality, and so
on. This will create a new renaissance, when people start paying attention to
their "forgotten abilities" again.
Increased psychological well-being
As a result
of the elimination of poverty, creation of a sensible labor market, reduced
crime rates and increased freedom, the psychological well-being of the entire
nation will improve.
people today are mostly worried about money. It dominates their lives. Almost
all fights between couples are about money. But thanks to basic income, there
will be less stress and worrying about it. You can always be sure that you can
afford to pay your bills in time and that you'll always have enough money to
live, no matter what your life situation is. This makes you feel comfortable at
all times, leaving more time for other thoughts.
the social stigma and shame that is today associated with being poor or
unemployed will disappear. There will be no more begging for your benefits.
Every citizen receives basic income at all times, so "living on basic
income" won't be such a shame as "living on social security".
Right now, the poor are humiliated on a regular basis because they have to ask
and beg for their benefits, and organizations such as the employment agency can
dictate their lives. This quickly breaks anyone's self-esteem and makes them
consider themselves as second-class citizens (which is indeed what they are in
the current system). This in turn lowers their motivation, and causes many to
give up all their ambitions and plans for life. The current "social
security system" should be called "social despair system",
because it causes depression in previously healthy people.
basic income means that having a job will be a choice of free will. This will
have a profound effect on the nature of work. Working will no longer be slavery
but something that you choose to do voluntarily. Both work ethics and
motivation will therefore be improved. The mantra "forced to work"
will be replaced by "joy of service".
current system, many children grow up in stressed families, listening to their
parents arguing about money. They hear their parents saying things like
"we can't afford it" and "how on earth can we pay for this?"
Many marriages break up because of one reason only: the lack of money. When a
child grows up in an environment like this, he/she becomes stressed at a young
age. But if both parents had a guaranteed basic income then a lot of problems
would be solved. Remember: broken people generally come from broken families,
and stable people from stable families.
mental problems have their roots in poverty. Depression is one of the most
common mental disorders in the modern society. But why do you think people
become depressed in the first place? The answer is poverty, and all the things
caused by it: lack of security, lack of self-esteem, stress, and so on. Of
course not all mental problems are caused by money, but it's safe to say that
at least half of them are related to the patient's economic situation. And
psychiatrists of course cannot heal your economic situation, so even if they
succeed in helping you out in some ways, the basis of your problems is still
psychological well-being also means that there will be fewer "bad
habits", such as alcoholism and drug use. This will cause the people to be
healthier both physically and mentally and this will further decrease the crime
rates. (Many "crimes" that take up enormous amounts of police time
are alcohol related disturbances, quarrels and fights.)
income will also create an honest society. No one will be faking it anymore.
Everything that you do with your life will be a decision of free will.
Government saves money
basic income solves many problems of the society, the government will save
money in the following areas:
Crime rates will be significantly lower = Big savings in law enforcement and in
the "prison industry".
Homelessness rates will be significantly lower = Savings in various aid
people will be psychologically healthier = Lower mental health costs.
alcoholism and less drugs = Savings in rehab programs, less "public
disturbance crimes" that eat police resources, etc.
addition, most of the existing income support programs and other aid systems
can be abolished, because basic income will replace them. The existing welfare
programs also have huge, ineffective and expensive agencies formed around them.
We have amazing numbers of people working in these agencies, and what is their
primary purpose? To decide who is entitled to receive the various benefits, and
who is not. What a joke. And loads of unnecessary red tape of course accompany
all decision processes. When basic income is implemented, these "paper
factories" will become mostly obsolete.
are some common arguments against basic income, and responses to them.
It will create a society full of lazy people.
critics of unconditional basic income argue that it will create a society which
will be full of lazy people and free loaders.
reasons why this would happen, according to the critics, are these:
Basic income is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the
willingness to accept a job if offered.
size of basic income is comparable to minimum wage, which means it's high
enough to live on.
one is not required to do anything at all to get it, surely this would cause
laziness, especially so because it's high enough to live on? Motivation to work
would be zero, right? And then the whole of society would collapse, because no
one would maintain it.
core issue here is motivation.
understand this issue better, think about what motivates the people right now.
What makes them work? The bottom line is of course that they're forced to do
it: if they didn't, they would run out of money and die (well, almost). But
there are other reasons too, such as achieving something in your life, caring
for your family, and benefiting the society in general. Also, many people have
identified themselves with their jobs, so that their profession is a part of
their identity (this is why some people collapse mentally when they lose their
job). So, there are plenty of other reasons. Now, if we add basic income to
this formula, only the first reason, the threat of total poverty, would
disappear. All the other reasons would still be there.
one could of course always argue that the first reason, the threat to lose all
your income, is the biggest reason why people go to work. It's the ultimate
punishment, and that makes it the biggest reason. And this is true. That reason
threatens your very survival and therefore it's the single most important
reason why people go to work.
what if we remove that reason, and replace it with a new one? Right now, the
reason to do work is the threat to lose your income. So what happens when basic
income comes to the scene? It replaces the threat with an unconditional reward.
The negative threat disappears and is replaced with the extreme positive
opposite: an unconditional reward. So the change here is total.
think about the motivation issue. In our current system, the motivation to work
is based on a threat. In the basic income system, the motivation will be based
on an unconditional reward. So how could the people's motivation to work be
lower than in our current system?
soon demonstrate this motivation issue better, but first let's take a look at
the other arguments.
Contributing to the society won't pay off, because you gain the same reward if
you do nothing.
critics of basic income have also pointed out that it would create a situation
where you stand the chance to "lose" if you decide to contribute to
the society. If everyone gets the same amount of money from the state no matter
what they do, this means that you stand to gain the most if you do nothing. In
the case where you choose to contribute, but others choose not to, you
"lose" your contribution because the system will crash and therefore
you are left without the money you were supposed to gain as your universal
example similar to this one has been used to demonstrate this problem:
community has 100 members.
decide to give every member an unconditional universal benefit of some kind.
this service costs 1000$.
value of the benefit gained by every member is therefore 10$.
member is then asked to participate in the funding, by making a small
contribution of 1$.
are the four possible outcomes of this arrangement:
1. I work and others also work: 10 - 1 =
gained the universal benefit of 10$, and lost my contribution of 1$, leaving me
with a gain of 9 $.
2. I don't work, but others do: 10 - 0 =
don't contribute, so I don't lose the 1$, but I still get the universal benefit
of 10$, leaving me with a gain of 10$. So I gain more if I don't contribute.
3. I work, but a large enough number of
others don't: 0 - 1 = -1
the universal benefit system crashes, because enough people have chosen not to
contribute. But I still contributed, losing 1$, and leaving me with a loss of
4. I don't work, and a large enough
number of others also don't work: 0 - 0 = 0
the system also crashes, but this time I didn't contribute, so I lost nothing,
leaving me with neither a gain nor a loss. Once again, I stand to gain more if
I don't contribute. Had I chosen to contribute, I might have lost 1$.
formula would be true if everyone really gained the same amount of money,
regardless of what they did. But this is not the case with basic income,
because you get your salary from work in addition to the basic income. Also,
the above formula assumes that you get no salary at all from your
contributions; instead you just lose money.
reminder, basic income works like this:
person = gets basic income.
person = gets basic income + salary.
of this, you always stand to gain more if you choose to contribute. By not
contributing, you always gain less.
see how that above formula looks like when we start paying salary to the
contributors. Let's assume that the salary is at least of the same size as the
universal benefit (basic income): 10$.
are the four outcomes:
1. I work, and others also work: 10 + 10
10$ as salary, and 10$ from the universal benefit system, so I gain 20$.
2. I don't work, but the others do: 10 +
0 = 10
no salary, but I get 10$ from the universal benefit system, so I gain 10$.
However, should I choose to work, I would gain more.
3. I work, but a large enough number of
others don't: 0 + 10 = 10
the universal benefit system crashes, but I still get salary from my job, so I
4. I don't work, and a large enough
group of others also don't work: 0 + 0 = 0
the universal benefit system crashes, and I get no salary, so I gain nothing.
However, should I choose to work, I would gain 10$.
every case one stands to gain more if one chooses to contribute. Working is
rewarded more than not working.
Basic income rewards you if you do nothing, thus feeding passivity and
nothing is rewarded just a little bit: with an amount that will keep you alive
and which prevents you from becoming a criminal. If one wishes to be rewarded
more then one must start contributing. The more you achieve, the higher reward
you get. This creates the incentive to start contributing.
doing nothing is punished, as it is now, this causes the problem we described
earlier: it's very easy to move from neutral behaviour into bad behaviour,
since both are punished and bad behaviour may seem like it's punished less. But
if neutral behaviour is rewarded in a small way (you get basic income), while
bad behaviour is clearly punished (you lose your basic income), then moving
into bad behaviour will be much more unlikely. And the other way, when neutral
behaviour is rewarded in a small way, and good behaviour is rewarded in a
bigger way, this makes it likely that one always tries to behave as well as one
Nobody would do shitty jobs anymore, if working is a choice of free will.
they would, when those jobs are made more attractive by decreasing the work hours,
raising the salary, or both.
Basic income would create "social immobility" if people are just
allowed to sit at home without doing a thing.
wouldn't. Instead, it gives you a real chance to do anything you want. Although
you could of course just sit if that is what you really want to do. In a basic
income society, there will be no faking anymore. If you do something, you do it
because you really want to, not because someone forced you to. Everything will
is not to say that the society couldn't offer activation opportunities to the
people. Of course it can offer them, and it should. The people can then decide
if they want to take these opportunities, but they should never be forced.
Instead, an incentive should be offered; one gets a small increase to one's
basic income if one decides to take part in community projects, learning new
will create real and motivated social mobility, done on your own initiative,
instead of fake mobility, where someone else "moves your feet".
But what about the social bums?
indeed, what about the long-term social bums who have been living on welfare
for tens of years? In some cases, this continues from one generation to the
other. And what about people who refuse to accept work, no matter what?
all of these people are acting in this way because they feel that our current
system is not worth serving. Abusing a system that abuses you is a normal thing
to do. These people were not born lazy. When they grew up and realized that the
system is rigged against them, they decided to give up and became "social
bums". It's a logical thing to do. Your conscience won't punish you for
that since there is nothing wrong in biting the hand that tries to control your
basic income is implemented, most of these people will stay as social bums,
because it's hard to give up a habit that you have had for ten years or more.
However, as time passes, some of them might change their habits, but not all.
They'll stay freeloaders for the rest of their lives, and this can't be helped.
Laziness and resistance to work is hard-wired in them. But these people are a
minority, so it really doesn't matter. They haven't been able to crash this
system with their laziness, so they won't be able to do that in the basic
income system either.
village with two employers
is a parable that demonstrates how basic income works:
that you live in a small medieval village. You have just moved into the village
a few days ago, and you don't have a job yet. Living there costs approximately
10 gold coins per day. You're running out of money, so you decide to get a job.
are two employers in the village and the first one is a nasty baron. All his
employees are forced to do everything he orders them to do, because if they
don't, he'll fire them on the spot. However, as long as they serve him, he'll
pay them 20 gold coins a day, and provide housing to them. But if they decide
not to serve him, he simply kicks them out onto the streets.
second employer is a benevolent lord. His employees are always given a choice
whether to serve him or not. Those who decide to serve him are paid 20 gold
coins a day, and he provides housing to them. Those who decide not to serve him
get 10 gold coins a day, and to them too he provides housing. The reason for
this arrangement is that he believes every human being has a right to receive
something he calls "basic income", which ensures that your basic
needs are always taken care of, no matter what the circumstances.
which one of these two employers will you choose to serve? The nasty baron? You
must be joking. Everyone in that village would of course want to serve the
benevolent lord rather than the nasty baron. Okay, so you decide to offer your
services to the benevolent lord first. It turns out that it's your lucky day,
one of his employees had just moved away, so there's one vacant spot. After a
short interview, the benevolent lord decides to hire you. Then he tells you the
rules of the house, which you already knew, since almost everyone you had met
in the village had told you how good this man was.
so now you're faced with those two options. You can either decide to serve this
man, and receive 20 gold coins a day plus housing from him. Or you can decide
not to serve him, and receive 10 gold coins a day plus housing from him. So
what will it be?
you feel motivated to serve him, knowing how generous and good he is? Or would
you rather start abusing him by becoming a freeloader? Which option feels more
"right"? If you had any self-respect, you would choose to serve him.
Doing otherwise would mean that you're just a lazy bum. You would of course be
allowed to become a freeloader, but how long could your conscience take it? All
the other employees most likely decided to serve the lord too, so you would
immediately stand out from the crowd, should you choose to just "hang
around". Therefore most likely you too would decide to serve your
parable shows us why basic income works. You see, there is a law of nature,
which goes like this: "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."
intelligent beings obey this rule. To disobey equals madness. If you decide to
bite the hand that feeds you then you'll be left without food, and this
decreases your chances of survival. In our parable, choosing not to serve the
benevolent lord equals biting his hand. One freeloader alone couldn't of course
ruin his economy, but should enough of his employees become freeloaders, then
he would become bankrupt. This in turn would mean that every villager now has
only one option left: they must accept the nasty baron as their master.
is the difference, you might now ask. Both guys pay you 20 gold coins, right?
The difference is this: under the benevolent lord you had a guaranteed,
unconditional income waiting for you, should you become unable to work for some
reason. Under the nasty baron, you have no safety nets at all. Should you
become unable to work while serving him, you'll just be fired and left with
nothing. So all those who decided to serve the benevolent lord had a good
reason to do so. By serving him they maintained a "system", that
genuinely cared for them. If they wouldn't serve him, that system would be
destroyed, and replaced with the nasty barons system, which treats them
inhumanely. Their motivation to serve the good lord could be defined as
"joy of service", because they are happy to serve a master that
serves them back.
short, in a basic income society the people want to make sure that it stays
intact. They know that if they don't contribute enough, it's all over and the
old system based on slavery will return. And also, if someone cares about you
unconditionally then your instincts tell you to show similar care towards that
here you have the reason why basic income won't create a "lazy
society". In fact, motivation to work will be higher than in our current
society. Just think it through for yourselves. Which one of these two reasons
would you choose as your prime motivator: "forced to work" or
"joy of service"? The answer should be obvious.
imagine that the people hold elections in that village, to decide which one of
those two employers should be the supreme leader of the village. Who do you
think would win? Only an insane person would vote for the nasty baron. So they
elect the benevolent lord as their leader with a unanimous decision. Now the
benevolent lord controls the village and all of its businesses and resources.
Soon he decides to implement his basic income system on a larger scale. Every
citizen in that town will now receive 10 gold coins per day as an unconditional
basic income, which is enough to cover their basic needs. And again, there is
no work requirement; you get 10 gold coins for just being a citizen. However,
if people decide to do work then they will receive 20 gold coins per day.
every citizen in that village is facing these two options: they can choose to
contribute to the community that cares for them, or they can choose not to, and
just hang around with their daily 10 gold coins. Would the decision be any
different from the previous one? Once again, the same instinct would kick in:
don't bite the hand that feeds. Everyone knows that if they don't contribute
enough, their utopian system will crash and it will be replaced with the old
one. Therefore most villagers would definitely choose to contribute.
imagine that one day their wise leader announces to them that he plans to
implement a 100% inheritance tax. This law would guarantee that everyone will
have equal starting positions in life, no matter what their surname is, and
also all super rich family dynasties, like that of the nasty baron, will be
destroyed. Also, this tax would ensure that the basic income system will have enough
funding in the future, and everyone would get free education and free
healthcare too. Then the citizens are allowed to vote on the issue. Again, who
in their right mind would vote against it? The nasty baron and his friends
perhaps. But all ordinary citizens would definitely vote for this tax to be
implemented. The nasty baron would be destroyed at last, and the society would
be even better than what it was before.
let's go backwards in time a little bit. Imagine the village election again.
What if the nasty baron had somehow won, through a fixed election perhaps? In
that case the village would be led in the same way as our current society.
Everyone is forced to contribute, because if they don't, they'll lose their
only decent source of income and their lives would basically end there. Most
villagers would therefore choose to contribute, but there would also be many
who would try to do their best to avoid serving the nasty baron. As a result,
there would be crime, tax evasion, gambling and general laziness. Everyone
would just drag along because they're forced to, but there would be no real
motivation behind their actions.
a few months in the office, the nasty baron finds out that some of his people
are planning to overthrow him. He then asks his advisor why it's so, and the
advisor answers: "Because many villagers are extremely poor, crime rates
are high, and nobody really wants to serve you, because they think you're a
cruel dictator". The baron then asks his advisor what to do. And the advisor
replies: "Create a welfare system of some sort, which will give something
to the poor and unemployed. But make these benefits conditional, so that if
someone is without a job, he must continuously seek one, and if he doesn't, his
benefits are taken away from him. Create an office that will watch after the
unemployed at all times. And if they don't seek jobs, or refuse to accept one
when offered, then we'll take their benefits away from them. In addition, there
could also be a second system, which would give something to those who refuse
to seek a job, because otherwise they would be left without any income, and
this would cause them to turn into rebels. We could call this second system
"social security". But let's make this benefit so small, that one can
barely stay alive with it. Also let's make it so that they have to beg for it
regularly. This will cause them to turn into beggars and social bums, rather
than into rebels." And after hearing this, the baron calls his advisor a
genius, and quickly creates this "welfare system" he described.
now the village has a welfare system very similar to the modern equivalent. But
the people's motivation to work is still the same as it was before the welfare
system: they're forced to do it. However, this time they won't lose their whole
income should they lose or quit their jobs. Instead they'll immediately get
another "job", which could be described as a "job seeker".
And if they're "fired" from this job for one reason or another, then
they end up as "state sponsored beggars", who are forced to beg in
order to get their meagre income. Previously they begged on the streets, but
now they have to do that in an office, which was founded by the state just for
this purpose. This ensures that even the beggars stay "inside the
system", making them less likely to rebel.
welfare system ensures that the nasty baron no longer has to worry that much
about being overthrown by the people. Most poor people have lost their
willingness to fight, because they now have enough money for at least food and
water. And they of course know that this money comes from the state, so they're
not so sure anymore whether the current leaders really are their enemy or not.
So they give up their rebellious ideas and become relatively obedient workers,
hangarounds and loafers, who gradually lose all their interest in radical
thinking and politics. In time, their children will inherit this attitude. The
"I don't care" generation has been born.
then that the benevolent lord appears to this new "I don't care" generation,
and started explaining how things could be so much better if his basic income system
could replace the current rat race. Would they even bother to listen to him? They
would just think: "He talks about politics and we don't care about that
because it's boring." And should he mention the 100% inheritance tax as a
possible solution, he would probably be stoned to death.
is exactly where we are today. Most people are too lazy, ignorant and sedated
to rise up thanks to the various welfare programs. The elite has turned welfare
into a mind control method. But it doesn't need to be like this. The tale about
that village described the two ways to use welfare:
the positive and liberating way as an unconditional reward.
the negative and controlling way as a conditional reward.
is why it's important to have an unconditional basic income. If there
are any conditions, the whole idea gets diluted, and we end up with the old
work = more well-being?
critics also say that the people's work effort will decrease under a basic
income system. And in this they're right. When basic income is implemented, a
small decrease in the people's general work effort is to be expected. Because
basic income gives people more free time, they'll of course use it. This means
that the people won't be working as regularly as they now do. There would be
"gaps" in the person's work history, as they would periodically just
enjoy their free time. Also, it's expected that more people will choose
"non-productive jobs", such as becoming a writer, musician or an
artist. These could be called "soft jobs", as opposed to "hard
jobs", such as producing more consumer items to the world.
have been some experiments and pilot projects on basic income, and in all cases
work effort decreased by 1 to 5%. In the Mincome experiment conducted in
Dauphin, Canada between 1974 and 1977, work effort decreased 1% by men and 3%
by women. But this isn't as horrible as it sounds. These figures simply mean
that people have more free time. When you're enjoying your free time, you don't
work, so your work effort decreases to zero. When the whole population is
enjoying more free time, this can be seen as a general decrease of work effort
in the statistics.
compare those figures with some other examples. Assume that you are forced to
have two jobs in order to survive. Then your economical situation gets better,
and you quit one of those jobs. Doing this, your work effort decreases by 50%.
Here is another example: Imagine if the standard 8-hour workday were shortened
by 1 hour. That would mean a 12.5% decrease in the nation's work effort. So a
few percentage points' decrease in work effort doesn't mean a thing. Even if it
decreased by 10%, we would still have 90% remaining.
most important question here is: does more work really mean the same thing as
think about what many jobs in our current system actually are about: producing,
delivering and selling more stuff to the consumers. Supermarkets are full of
useless junk that people buy with their fiat money. After a while, the things they
bought become obsolete, causing them to discard them and buy new ones. And so
the circle goes on. Is this really what brings us well-being? Making and
consuming new stuff as fast as we can? What well-being is this? We are just
destroying our planet with our consumer/producer mania.
really need new "versions" of various items every year or every month?
Think about cars for example. A car model made in 2011 gets you from place
"A" to place "B". But a year 2004 model does the same
thing. Or think about toothbrushes. Have you ever wondered when the perfect
toothbrush will finally arrive to the market? Well, it'll never do that because
we already have it. Toothbrushes are such simple items that you can't really
improve them from what they now are. But still we keep "inventing"
the same thing all over again, and sell them as "new". And we
advertise them too like they were something amazing. Normal TV programs are
halted on a regular basis so that people can see these ads. An emergency stop
so that you can stare at the latest toothbrush? Give me a break. The
same goes for toothpastes, not to mention everything else.
think about how much unnecessary work we are doing in order to keep the
capitalistic consumer mania going. Terrible amounts of construction, producing,
transportation, advertising and selling, just to keep the insane
this unnecessary work were eliminated then we of course would have mass
unemployment. But that doesn't have to be a bad thing. It would mean more free
time for everyone. That's what we really want, right? More free time to be with
your family and friends and to do all the things you always wanted to do. This
is what creates real well-being, rather than working your life away.
it's good to remember that we'll face mass unemployment in the future for
another reason too: increasing automation. For this reason, unemployment will
become commonplace. But the solution is simple: we just create a new
"job" called "citizen". Everyone gets paid for being a
citizen and that's it, problem solved.
income and meritocracy
basic income compatible with meritocracy?
definition of meritocracy goes like this:
Everyone starts from the same line. No privileges of any kind.
better you perform, the higher rewards you'll receive.
important positions in society will be held by the most talented and most meritorious
hard to see how an unconditional basic income would conflict with any of these.
Because basic income is paid to all, rich and poor alike, and the only
requirement to get it is to have a citizenship. This means that it's not a
privilege. Also, there is no conflict with the Number 2 since basic income
won't affect normal salaries in any way. Performing well still earns you higher
been said of meritocracy that it is not "any kind of woolly, soft,
liberal, caring, sharing ideology. It is radical, tough, hard, ambitious,
demanding and it has the greatest expectations of people, which they are
expected to fulfil. The lazy, snivelling and inept won't be able to hide in a meritocracy."
This statement contradicts with the idea of basic income, which could be
defined as "unconditional caring and sharing". But it all depends on
how one defines meritocracy itself. It can be seen as a hard ideology, which
despises all those who are lazy or without talent. Or it can be seen as a more
"soft" ideology, which while expecting a lot from you, will still
care about you if you fail to meet these expectations.
our task to decide what meritocracy will mean, and what kind of a future we want
to build for ourselves. Communism failed because it was too
"sharing"; everyone got the same rewards, no matter how much they
contributed. Similarly, meritocracy could fail if it starts to overemphasize
merit and talent, rendering all those without these qualities as second-class
citizens, who are then left with nothing. Therefore, it's important to include
the "caring factor" in meritocracy; otherwise it will be unable to
bring salvation to the world.
meritocracy and basic income as a perfect pair, which complete each other.
Together they ensure that our message will be heard by the masses. Money is the
thing the people want most. If we promise to give them just that in the form of
unconditional basic income then the masses will hear all the other things too
what we have to say. Most people reject outright concepts such as 100%
inheritance tax and the nationalization of all privately owned businesses
because they don't see how these things would benefit them at all. They suspect
that this would mean a dictatorship of some sorts. But if you say to them that
this is to ensure that each citizen will get 1000 dollars or euros per month as
an unconditional basic income then they'll accept our message more easily.
frankly, the masses don't want to study the teachings of Nietzsche or Hegel or
hear scientific theories about the nature of the universe. Instead, they want
money. Money is their prime motivator, so we should concentrate our efforts on
it. Imagine huge crowds holding up signs with the red M-logo in them and
shouting time after time: "We want money! We want money!" What an
exciting vision! And it can be transformed into a reality. It has been
truthfully said that the people can be bought, so let's buy them.
it up, unconditional basic income ensures the following:
Reduced crime rates, less homelessness, less prostitution, etc.
alcoholism and less drug use.
Allows people to develop independently and autonomously.
free time and less stress: increased psychological well-being.
Increased work motivation.
sensible labor markets and more jobs.
Employees will have more power, so employers must provide good working
conditions and sensible jobs.
Government saves money in many areas, such as in crime fighting and maintaining
vote for the unconditional basic income and meritocracy!
more money? Join the Movement!
want money, we want money, we want money...
now for the contrary case:
Antithesis by HighWeirdness
Basic Income proposal makes some good points, but also offers a number of
suggestions that do not appear to be sufficiently analysed in terms of
long-term viability and sustainability.
goal of Basic Income is to end poverty and that is certainly a worthwhile and
necessary goal. In order to make this goal a reality, I think it is imperative
that any proposal designed to meet this goal be vetted rigorously in order to
ascertain any potential negative outcomes, unintended consequences or
unsustainable features so that any such problems may be resolved before
attempting to implement the program.
such a program have to be brought to a halt because of a lack of sufficient
funding or because it has generated too many undesirable outcomes, such an
ending could well create far more havoc on society than our existing poverty
the thesis states that the removal of poverty via the Basic Income would also
cause all "negative phenomena caused by it" to cease to exist, we need to
remain aware of the fact that there is not always a straight-line correlation
between poverty and all the ills of society. Last fall, statistics showed that
15% of Americans were at the poverty level, yet the violent crime rates as
reported by the FBI for the same measured period were actually dropping and
have been throughout the last three years, a period that roughly overlaps the
recession. From this, we can see that the lack of money is not the only cause
of crime, because if poverty had a direct causal effect on crime, the crime rates should
have been on the increase. Though the removal of poverty may well alleviate a
large amount of the incentive for crime, we cannot afford to believe that it
will serve as a cure-all. We'll come back to this in a bit.
thesis suggests that the Basic Income should be paid to individuals (except for
criminals in prison) not households, but then muddies that definition by
suggesting that "minimum income limits" would be applied to "different family
configurations" or under certain cases, such as having dependents while a
student or while working in a low-paid job. If, as stated, ALL INDIVIDUALS are
paid a Basic Income benefit, then the amount being paid into any particular
household would be the number of individuals in the house multiplied by the
amount of the Basic Income. If there is some difference between a child and an
adult in the benefits offered in this program, that difference needs to be very
clearly explained, as, under the current thesis, it is not clear.
Unfortunately, by providing a net increase to the household's Basic Income for
each child in that household, whether as a dependent of an adult or as an individual,
the unintended consequence could well be to essentially encourage having
additional children brought into the world under less than optimal situations.
a person is not employed and is dependent upon the State for subsistence, do we
really want to create a situation that could encourage that person to create
another life that will also need the assistance of the State to survive?
Perhaps it would be better to seek alternate homes for these children born to
non-working parents. I realize that such an option would be repugnant to many,
but so too is the thought of another generation being raised by parents who are
not sufficiently motivated to attempt to support themselves prior to starting a
family. If society as a whole were made up of nothing but truly enlightened
individuals then nobody would consciously choose to have children until such
time as they could support them fully, both emotionally and financially, but
we're a long way from that point. To believe that some people would not take
advantage of this particular "strategy" of having more children to increase the
household's income is naive. How long could the State reasonably support a
potentially ever-expanding base of benefit recipients?
Basic Income as proposed would provide benefits as follows:
person = Gets basic income.
with a job = Gets basic income + the salary from his job.
= Gets basic income + "student bonus".
= Gets basic income + pension.
could also receive bonuses for various volunteer or community activities. Essentially,
this breaks recipients into four groups, which we'll look at
further later. For the moment, let's just note that only one of the four groups
brings us to funding for the program. The thesis first suggests a selection of
'normal' funding methods, with which I have no real problem, other than the
wealth tax which is not explained. It then goes on to suggest that "when all
banks and corporations are nationalized, their revenues will go to the
state..." Whether full nationalization is truly a viable way to run an economy
is best left for another discussion, but one point should be made in this
regard. When a company is nationalized, the burden of the wages of its
employees shifts to the state and any potential income tax revenue from those
employees merely washes against the higher expense of their wage. If a
particular company is not operating steadily at a profit, the overall
operations of the company will result in a net loss and an increased demand on
the coffers of the State.
next method of funding offered up is that of "Money Creation". There are some
very real problems in this section of the thesis that may indicate a lack of
understanding of some basics of economics and banking. The thesis makes the
following statement: "Just pause for a moment, think about how the banking
system actually works, and you'll soon realize that all money is created out of
thin air. You see, when banks give loans to the people, the loan money is
literally created out of nothing. When you spend that loan money, it eventually
returns to the bank(s) as 'real money', making them and their owners richer.
This process is called 'economic growth'." Even though many banks may be poorly
run today and their regulation not what it should be, banks are still required to
maintain certain financial standards in order to continue operation. They are
required to maintain a balance in their account at the Central Bank, a portion
of which is required reserves.
reserve rate is set at a particular percentage of the deposit accounts of the
bank and must be maintained in order for the bank to remain solvent. A bank's
reserves are the total of the money it holds in its vaults and the funds in its
Central Bank account. All checks drawn on a bank are paid through its Central
Bank account, so that account must always maintain a balance high enough to
cover both in-clearing checks as well as the required reserves.
reality of modern banking is that banks create and destroy debt not money. When
a customer makes a cash deposit of $100 into a bank, that $100 cash is an asset
and is offset by the liability of the $100 deposit in the customer's name. The
money held in the checking account is a debt now owed to the customer who can
return at any time and ask to have that debt paid by collecting his $100. When
a loan is made by a bank for $1000, the $1000 in cash is given to the customer,
the bank's asset balance is reduced by $1000 and its loan receivable increased
by $1000. The money creation aspect of this transaction is simply that the
physical paper asset was transformed on the books of the bank to a receivable
in the form of the loan. When the loan is repaid by the customer, the bank's asset
account increases by $1000 and the loan receivable decreases by $1000, thus
destroying the debt. In terms of the actual money supply, that is, the currency
actually in circulation plus the demand deposits at banks, it increases when
the loan is made and decreases when it is paid. There is no thin air in the
process at all, merely a transformation of the asset form.Since the reserves must remain above the set
percentage of the bank's total demand deposits, the bank is strictly limited in
the amount of lending they can actually do. When a large loan is made, it may
reduce significantly the amount of subsequent lending that can be done, since
the funds to make the loan are pulled from the bank's account at the Central
thesis makes a suggestion that "economic growth causes more work and more debt
to the people and more money to the rich", which seems to be deduced from the
earlier statement that economic growth happens as a result of creating money
out of thin air by making loans. It would be more correct to say that economic
growth creates more debt to the businesses that are growing, a decrease in the
reserves of the banks involved, and little to no effect on anyone else, other
than any potential new hires by the growing company. Provided the loan for the economic
growth does not default, the bank will only receive income in the form of the
interest paid on the loan, as the repayment of the principal merely replaces
the reserves that were used at the time that the loan was granted.
what if the banks would actually give real money to the people instead of
loans? Would it really make any difference from an economical viewpoint",
suggests the writer. What, indeed? Well, let's see, instant receivership for
the banks for starters as their reserves are decimated. Since the writer seems
to feel that the money is just created out of thin air, perhaps we could just
hand out balloons to everyone with dollar signs written on them. Or maybe we
should just ask the Mints to print a whole bunch of bills and we can all look
forward to enjoying economic freedom Zimbabwe-style.
then, back to reality.
the revenues to support this program are to come from the public, there must be
a sufficient labor pool at work to generate those revenues, either through a
tax base or through the sales of products and services. Because the Basic
Income model does not require anything beyond citizenship, it essentially
'rewards' those who do nothing at all, a situation that could ultimately
undermine the viability of the program. The proponents of the plan have
stressed that all citizens should have the right to work only as they choose
without any necessity for service of any kind. Such a program was attempted for
three years in Canada during the 1970's and though it did not instantly create
a huge class of 'couch potatoes', there was a loss of work effort of 1% for males
and 3% for females over the three years that the program ran. Over time, I feel
that this nearly inevitable erosion of the work force will create an
unsustainable position. Some of the proponents of the plan seem to feel that
non-workers would not abuse the system and that everyone would want to
contribute to the system because they are treated so much better. I find this
rather naive - as we know from Plato, a perfect society does not guarantee
I feel we must take human nature into account, I'll draw a bit on the Steal vs.
Split debate that has been presented elsewhere, updated to reflect the Basic
say that we have an initiative to provide some basic services to all members of
a community of 1000 members for a period of time. Let the amount needed to
provide these services be $10000. Let the value of the benefit to each member
be set at $100. Each member is given the option of either providing $10
to the initiative (through their work or service) or to not contribute.
are the possible outcomes and the net to the participants in terms of benefits
minus cost equals net position:
work and 999 others also work: 100 - 10 = 90
don't work, but 999 others do: 100 - 0 = 100
this should make it obvious why many would choose not to work - their
self-interest will dictate that they stand to gain the most if they do nothing.
The worker, on the other hand, stands to only gain $90. Faced with this
reality, he may soon choose to not work, as that way, he gets more net benefit.
we add in the provision that nobody gets a benefit if the initiative is not
fully funded, two additional outcomes emerge:
work but any number of others don't: 0 - 10 = -10
don't work and any number of others don't work: 0 - 0 = 0
these two outcomes to the scenario makes it clear then that the non-worker
would get either $100 or nothing at all, leaving him, at worst, where he
started, but the worker would end up with either $90 or $10 in the hole, thus
facing a potential loss if he works.
optimize the system, therefore, it is necessary that everyone works, as that
way there is equally shared cost and benefit for all, with losses to no one.
many pages later, the thesis says: "In short, in a basic income society the
people will want to make sure that it stays intact. They know that if they
don't contribute enough, it's all over, and the old system based on slavery
will return." So, apparently, there is some acknowledgement that the system
must generate enough revenue to support itself, tacit as it may be.
mentioned poverty's relationship to crime earlier, but let's take a closer look
now. The thesis states that the cessation of poverty would result in a
significantly lower crime rate. To reiterate my earlier statement regarding the
crime rate and poverty, despite increasing poverty levels over the past several
years, the crime rates, as reported by the FBI, have been decreasing for the
last three years in a row. So, while we can probably all agree that poverty and
crime have a relationship of some sort, it is not completely clear what that relationship
is, so we can't really assume that eliminating poverty will significantly lower
crime rates as well. It is likely that there would be a reduction of some sort,
particularly in the area of property crime. Roughly half of all violent crimes
are perpetrated by persons known to the victim and though the offenders are
more likely to come from impoverished homes, the fact that the offenders
performing these crimes appear at all income levels means that poverty alone is
not the only factor.
formation is largely driven by poverty, but also by boredom and peer
pressure, so removing poverty is only part of the answer; we also need to work
on the other factors at the same time.
thesis has stipulated that criminals in prison would not be eligible to receive
the Basic Income, stating that this would be a strong incentive for potential
criminals to resist criminal activity for fear of losing their Basic Income
benefits. I would hope that the loss of their personal freedom would be enough
of a deterrent to crime, but since all their basic needs would be met under
either case, it might be well worth the effort to make prison life even less
next look at the situation of the homeless. In most cases, freedom from poverty
would probably get most of the homeless off the streets, assuming that it was
economic lack that drove them to live on the streets. At this point, the writer
mentions that someone who had a big house and lost their job might not be able
to pay their rent and suggests that a form of "social security aid" (note to US
readers, this is not Social Security as we understand it) could be provided to
help this poor soul stay in his over-priced house. The writer states that this
form of aid would still exist in the Basic Income plan, but Basic Income would
replace ordinary income support programs. I'll get back to this type of
on in the proposal, the writer suggests that alcoholism and drug use would be
lessened, along with prostitution. While I can agree that prostitution would
most likely be lessened, alcohol and drug use could be a very different matter.
Alcoholism and drug abuse are not respecters of any type of societal class and
recovery rooms are filled with people from all walks of life and all income
levels. Removal of poverty could well reduce the perceived attraction of going
into business as a drug dealer, but its effect on the addicted population cannot
be as readily assessed. In the case of a full-blown alcoholic, it could well
simply act to further enable their self-destructive behaviour.
next section talks about the idea of the Basic Income allowing people to take
on low-paid, reduced hours jobs that they would not have considered without
having Basic Income, stating that this would ultimately cause employers to create
better, more meaningful jobs because the ability of people to only have to work
if they wanted to would mean that nobody would ever want to do those
unappealing jobs. Bad jobs would just go away, apparently, dying of neglect.
Much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, there are certain types of work
that will need to be done to maintain society and the vast majority of them
will probably never appeal to anyone as being 'meaningful' in any way, but the
fact remains, those types of work will still need to be done.
thesis discusses the idea that the program will increase psychological
well-being. While it is certainly true that the stress issues related to lack
of money would largely be removed, the writer also suggests that the root of
depression lies in poverty, caused by "lack of security, lack of self-esteem,
stress, and so on." If these 'causes' only occurred in impoverished households,
then rich downtown psych docs would have gone broke years ago, instead of
having their waiting rooms filled with depressed people well above the poverty level.
of the major complaints I have about this proposed program is its overly
idealistic position on human nature. One of its basic, though unstated, tenets
appear to be that everyone will be happy because they all have at least their
basic needs met. There is no effort made to discuss how the working people
might feel about the non-workers, but I feel that to think that there would be
no resentment there is simply naive.
of the four groups of recipients mentioned earlier get the same basic income
(if they can stay out of prison), but the guy who works gets the added pleasure
of watching the three other groups not work. He probably wouldn't mind students
having their needs covered but that added bonus paid just for being a student
might irk him a bit. And if that pension is anything other than retirement
savings generated by the pensioner's own prior income, that could be rather
annoying as well. But that poor guy who lost his job and gets extra support so
he can stay in his house will probably send the poor worker around the bend,
because he will probably have a real hard time seeing that as anything other
than a reward for failure. How could that sort of behaviour ever be justified
in a merit-based society? What makes him so special that he gets to stay in his
over-priced house instead of simply finding more affordable housing?
of the main criticisms of this program has been that it encourages idleness as
it requires no duty or service of any kind in order to receive the benefits.
The writer answers this criticism with his story about the Good Baron and the
Bad Baron and suggests that all would choose to serve the Good Baron because he
is generous and good. Here's part of the story that I find particularly
you feel motivated to serve him, knowing how generous and good he is? Or would
you rather start abusing him by becoming a freeloader? Which option feels more
"right"? If you had any self-respect, you would choose to serve him. Doing
otherwise would mean that you're just a lazy bum. You would of course be
allowed to become a freeloader, but how long could your conscience take it? All
the other employees most likely decided to serve the lord too, so you would
immediately stand out from the crowd, should you choose to just 'hang around'.
Therefore most likely you too would decide to serve your benefactor."
reason I found this passage interesting is because, for the first time, the
writer seems to be acknowledging that the non-worker is, in fact, a freeloader.
All rational beings would of course choose to work for the Good Baron rather
than taking advantage of him, because at the end of the day they do actually
have a bit of fear hanging over their head - they know that if enough people do
not contribute to the effort, the wonderful benefits will stop. Boom! But, wait
a minute, isn't that a bit of stress again, having to wonder if at some point
the whole system might come crashing down because there might not be enough
folks helping to keep the system afloat? The writer is apparently convinced
that even though there will always be freeloaders, that's OK because they will only ever be a minority. Considering that many members of
our current society view those that they consider freeloaders in a very dim
light and harbor resentment toward them for getting what they feel is a 'free
ride', why deliberately create a system that allows freeloading to be an option
are several very easy ways the freeloader option could be removed from the
start. Either a set number of service hours of some sort could be set as a
requirement, or a time limit for the benefits could be set after which point
they would be lessened unless the person begins some type of service. No doubt
there are many ways to structure the plan in such a way as to eliminate the
parasitic freeloader aspect - the above are merely suggestions as a starting
point for further discussion. As was demonstrated very clearly in the Split vs.
Steal debate, it is patently obvious that parasites can and will destroy the
community we seek to build, and if we deliberately build a system that does not
prevent that behaviour, we are essentially condoning it. What is permitted is
would regard it as part of the responsibility of the community (or state or
whatever the governing body behind the basic income) to make sufficient opportunities
available for all members to be able to provide some level of service back to
the community as a civic duty.
ideas incorporated into the Basic Income seem to promote that all work must be
stimulating and freely chosen, but there are clearly some types of work that
need to be done, no matter how much they may lack stimulating aspects or
appeal. Do I relish the time I spend spreading cow manure on my garden? Hardly,
but I certainly do enjoy the results of my labor's outcome! If all work is
supposedly motivating to us, who's going to clean out the clogged sewer drains?
Why not determine what those really unappealing jobs are and have everyone take
turns doing them?Not just the otherwise
non-working people, but everyone, the doctors, the lawyers, the philosophers,
the musicians, etc. No one should be above getting their hands dirty for the
benefit of all.
my own experience, I know that there is an immense amount of self-worth and
self-esteem that comes from building competencies through our own work efforts
and from setting and reaching goals. Having grown up on a small homestead where
our efforts were focused on living as independently as possible, my brother and
I were given many, many opportunities to learn new skills. Those opportunities
were not necessarily by choice, in that we did not always get to pick and
choose which jobs to do. We knew that they all had to be done and so they were accepted
without complaint. We had a very stimulating environment above and beyond our
responsibilities helping to run the homestead, though - my mother was a
classical pianist and my father an engineer with a profound love for
mathematics and philosophy - and we thrived under their tutelage. We had
wonderful meals from the foods we grew ourselves and dinner table conversations
ranged across an amazing variety of topics, as might be expected from a family
of Rationals. We were given opportunities to give our input into any number of
projects and to see them to fruition through our own efforts.
give an example, I was ten years old when we decided as a family to build an
in-ground pool in the backyard. As the engineer, Dad drew up the plans and
provided guidance and supervision, but I and my brother (13 at the time) did
the bulk of the work, including laying the block walls for the sides. It took
several weeks as our progress had to be carefully monitored, and I won't deny
that it was hard work at times, but the satisfaction at the end was well worth
every bit of our effort. I'm sure that there are some who would be horrified at
the thought of a pair of kids doing such physical labor, but I can think of few
more satisfying experiences in my life.
since my father was well paid for his work as an engineer, he could have simply
hired people to do any number of the major renovation projects that we
undertook as kids, but he knew that it would be beneficial for us to know how
to do things for ourselves. No, we didn't usually have much choice about the
work, but there is no doubting the benefit I have gained from being 'forced' to
gain those competencies. Had my parents not given us the opportunity to share
in the work of our home, they would not have had the time or energy to provide
us with the stimulating environment that we experienced. As kids, my brother
and I did as we were asked because we understood clearly that our efforts were
necessary in order for us to continue to enjoy the benefits of our lifestyle. Should
not a citizen's relationship to the State be regarded in a similar fashion?
illustrate a bit further, we could say that the State is to its citizens what
parents are to their children, given that both the State and parents are
charged with the well-being of the citizens and children, respectively. Would
any sane person (who wishes to remain so) let their children do whatever they
wanted whenever they wanted? As a parent of a young child, would you allow that
child to choose only the foods they liked to eat, would you require that they
eat everything you choose for them and put on their plate, or figure out a
position somewhere between these two extremes? As a teenager, would you let
them stay out as long as they wanted or would you set a limit? Parenting theory
over the years has run the gamut between the purely authoritarian and the
purely permissive, and therapists make good money treating the personality
problems resulting from either extreme. Somewhere in between the two lies a
synthesis resulting in a viable process, if we but allow ourselves to consider
family is a microcosmic society and, ideally, provides an environment that
encourages the development of healthy human beings. The family unit provides a
training ground for learning about the interactions between its various members
in that small inner world in preparation for interaction within the larger
outer world of society as a whole. An overly authoritative parenting strategy
could very easily produce offspring that are frozen in fear and despair or openly
rebellious, while an overly permissive structure might well produce hedonists continually
in search of their own gratification. In many families, children are given
certain minor jobs to do to help around the house, with these chores generally
evolving into more advanced responsibilities as they get older. In most
households, failure to do the chores requested results in a negative outcome of
some sort, in many cases a removal of a privilege. Children thus learn that
cooperating in the work of the household produces favorable consequences, while
not completing their duties in the household generates unfavorable outcomes. As
parents, we are expected to provide for our children the basic necessities,
keep them in good health, encourage their education and help them to develop
into functioning members of society. In return, parents generally ask that
their children respect their authority and perform minor duties pertaining to
the household, with greater cooperation within the household generally
producing a more enriching environment. When the children are carrying some of
the responsibility for household duties, the parents have more time and energy
to invest in providing more enjoyable and/or stimulating activities for the
the higher level, the State and its citizens, a similar type of relationship
might be expected to exist. Just as parents can expect their children to help
out with household duties in return for the care they provide, should not the
State have a right to expect certain duties or services to be performed by its
the end of the thesis is a long discussion about the many types of jobs in our
current markets and the absurdity of most of them, going on to point out that
advanced technology will at some point eliminate the vast majority of jobs. It
is stated, however, that the mass unemployment is not a problem, since then
everyone will have more time to do all the things they really want and spend
time with family and friends, suggesting that's what "creates real well-being,
rather than working your life away". The writer then suggests that everyone
will have a new job called citizen and, of course, get paid just for being a citizen.
At that point, I have to wonder where the revenue will be coming from to pay
all those parasites, er, citizens.
a deeper level, what happens to the person who gets to do whatever they want
whenever they want? The recent article entitled The New World Order included the
following extremely important ideas that address that very question:
Freud's tripartite model of the human psyche involving the id, the ego and the
superego, we see the rudiments of a dialectical system. The id, obsessed with
its own pleasure and selfish drives, demands instant gratification of any of
its desires, no matter how socially unacceptable. If we call this the thesis
then it is opposed by the antithesis of the superego, which is concerned with
morality, community, altruism, conscience, the rules of society, parental
prohibitions etc. The ego, the pragmatic, rational agent that obeys the reality
principle provides a synthesis of the conflicting demands of the id and
childhood and early adulthood, the ego may not be too good at its job, but as
life experience and knowledge grows, it gets dialectically better and better.
Unfortunately, in the West, we live in an irrational society devoted to instant
gratification, so the ego is much more attuned to the id rather than offering a
proper balance between id and superego. If we could build into society healthy,
functioning dialectical institutions, we could transform the world."
we create a society or State that readily allows the citizens to follow their
own desires at all times, never requiring anything in return, will those
citizens truly develop into actualized beings or will they perhaps continue to
allow their egos to remain tied too tightly to their id? If the healthy person
is one who has learned to balance the opposing urges of the id and superego,
thus continually utilizing the dialectic process, does a program that appears
to strongly encourage the id over the superego really work in the best interest
of the individual?
thesis states that the Basic Income is fully compatible with meritocracy,
claiming no privileges of any kind, but if we recall, it also offered a bonus
just to students and a bail out to a guy living beyond his means. These both
appear to be rewards that are not based on better performance at all, and in
the case of the rent bailout, it is just the opposite.
thesis writer believes that meritocracy could fail if it "starts to overemphasize
merit and talent, rendering all those without these qualities as second-class
citizens". I can only say in response that meritocracy is not a pass-fail
system, but rather a system that allows each person to find their own highest attainment.
There is no shame in being less than first in a particular field or endeavor -
it is simply that the other person had more skills suited for that particular
event. Each of us has our set of skills and talents, though many have not yet found
them, but I would suggest that it is the dialectic process that remains the
best possible tool for revealing those hidden gems of our own worth. A life
without challenging aspects is one that may quickly stagnate for lack of
change, as it is the consideration of the opposing view and the integration of
the two that spurs advancement to the next level.
we accept that our governing body should be operating in the best interests of
its citizens, we must ask ourselves if those programs that we seek to create
are to the ultimate benefit of the society they serve. And if the society we
seek to create is to flourish, it is imperative that we look at not just its
duty to us as citizens, but also our duties to it in return - the relationship
cannot be just a one-way street. As a form of social contract, the relationship
between the citizen and the state should be mutually beneficial if it is to
eradication of poverty is a very worthy goal and I certainly agree that it is
one that we must meet, but we also need to make sure that our program is one that can endure and truly work for the benefit of all. I am not against the
idea of a Basic Income program per se, but rather would implement it as part of
a social contract, with both sides upholding their side of the agreement by
performing their duties to the other. It's simple and fair, mutually beneficial
to all parties, eliminates the potential for parasitic behaviour by spreading
the responsibility for at least a minimum contribution of effort equally, and
allows for appropriate action to be taken if the terms of the contract are
thank our two contributors for their well-argued cases and all of their hard
we provide our own analysis of this important issue, we need to clear up a few
misunderstandings. The thesis states: "when all banks and corporations are
nationalized". That, of course, is the definition of socialism, not meritocracy.
The system we advocate may be called public or social capitalism. Its central
idea is that rather than capital being concentrated in the hands of a tiny
number of super rich, it is relatively evenly distributed throughout society.
Profits do not go exclusively to the privileged elite but instead to everyone -
or at least everyone who's willing to work hard.
banking system will be under public control but will nevertheless have
capitalist features. Competition is one of the essential drivers of capitalism,
and meritocracy will seek to identify the optimal ways of harnessing
competition (in current capitalism there's not just healthy competition but a great
deal of wasteful competition and inefficient replication). The new banking
system will be based on a large number of competing banks, all of which will
have the opportunity to adopt different banking strategies. No bank will be
allowed to be "too big to fail", but each bank will have significant autonomy
and the employees of the more successful banks will make more money than those
of the less successful.
the corporations of present-day capitalism - where the ownership class earn
inordinate amounts of money - will no longer exist. Corporate ownership, like
capital, will be much more evenly distributed.
have said all along that the system we advocate is a synthesis of socialist and
capitalist elements, and it should absolutely never be characterised as purely
socialist. No socialist would recognise our system as belonging to their
ideology. We are essentially capitalists who assert that the State should
dictate to private capital rather than private capital to the State. In the UK,
the banking leviathan HSBC has threatened to relocate its headquarters from
London to Hong Kong because it disapproves of what it sees as anti-banking
measures being taken by the government. It is utterly unacceptable for any
private institution of any kind to blackmail the State and demand preferential
treatment. Our version of capitalism would kill off arrogant institutions like
HSBC and replace them with capitalist institutions that owe their existence and
loyalty to the State rather than to the paradigm of "stateless Globalism".
capitalist multinational corporations have become extra-national i.e. they
operate beyond the reach of any State. This means that the OWO - the super rich
elite - can tell States all over the world what to do. This cannot be
tolerated. Groups of private individuals cannot be allowed to favour their
particular will over the General Will of the people. Our "State" version of
capitalism reins in capitalism and re-establishes who's in charge - the People,
not small, privileged elites. Public capitalism recognises its obligations to
the State. It does not immediately relocate to another part of the world if it
fails to get its own way. Public capitalism is about ensuring that the citizens
own the means of production. So, if American citizens are the owners of their
own companies, they won't be relocating to Mexico or China any time soon, will
they? A rich capitalist couldn't care less in what nation he chooses to locate
his sweatshop factories. He simply wants to maximise his profits and screw
everyone else. He has no commitment to his fellow citizens whatsoever. We seek
to eliminate that kind of international capitalism and replace it with national
capitalism, based on a nation's capital residing with its people and not with
an itinerant elite who have no national loyalty. German capital should remain
in Germany, British in Britain, American in America, Finnish in Finland, and so
on. We don't want any international playboys moving their money around at will
to maximise their personal profits regardless of the interests of their home
project is about reforming capitalism by removing the bulk of the capital and
power from a tiny elite and redistributing it amongst the people. To do so, we
need to introduce socialist elements, but these are simply to allow the State
to regain control of the economy from private individuals, not to start
nationalizing everything in sight and creating huge, inefficient, uncompetitive
State monopolies and bureaucracies that ignore markets. Given that we support
all of the essential features of capitalism other than that private individuals
should dictate to the State (as they do in contemporary capitalism), no one
could validly accuse us of being socialists.
Amschel Rothschild said, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care
not who makes her laws." What he ought to have said was: "Give me
control of a nation's money and I will make her laws." In other words, the
people with the money are the power behind the throne: the secret lawmakers who
make the world dance to their tune. But why do people let them? It's not as if
stopping them is hard - you simply prevent private individuals from controlling
the banks, hence the money. You put the banks and the economy under the control
of elected, accountable officials. What could be easier?
are the advocates of the truest form of capitalism - the version that operates
according to the General Will of the people and not the particular will of the
elite. Public capitalism is the only acceptable form of capitalism.
other walks of life, people can take pride in their world without expecting to
earn huge salaries. They feel good about themselves because of what they do,
not what they are paid. And they take satisfaction from contributing to the
public good as well as their employers' profits. None of that applies in
banking, which has been reduced to a narrow calculus of profit and bonus. It is
this blinkered view of the world that has made bankers unable to understand why
they have to change. They live in a parallel, self-perpetuating universe in
which they meet very few people outside their tiny circle. They work so hard
that they rarely have time to socialise, and, when they do, it is with other
stratospherically rich bankers and lawyers. Their views all reinforce each
other's. And the few outsiders they do encounter, they tend to disdain -
usually because they have less money. Bankers are used to getting their own
way, because they can wield a chequebook, and collectively, because of the
importance of their sector to the economy."
Mary Ann Sieghart, The
cannot allow the elite to dictate to us. We will dictate to them. If they don't
like it, they can leave, but they will then be declared enemies of the State
and never allowed back in. They will become pariahs. That's exactly what they
deserve and they have brought it on themselves.
thesis also states that people in luxury homes who fall on hard times should
have their rent or mortgage paid for them by the State. Well, the State
certainly isn't in the business of subsiding luxury lifestyles. Citizens must
cut their cloth appropriately.
thesis provides the parable of the benevolent lord and evil baron. It commits
the error of putting "good and evil" on equal terms. There have been benevolent
employers before - people like Robert Owen in Britain in the 19th century - but they manifestly failed to overcome the prevailing system. Why?
Because if there are 19 wicked barons to one benevolent lord then the latter
doesn't have a prayer. The evil cartel can put him out of business one way or
another. How do you imagine the Old World Order came to power in the first
Owen bought a chain of textile mills called "New Lanark", near Glasgow. He
created a village for his workers and provided a school, healthcare, childcare
and so on. His employees loved him. He wanted his workers to receive all their
needs as part of their working conditions, very much in the manner of the
benevolent lord described in the thesis. Although he has been described as one
of the founding fathers of socialism, he was really just a conscientious
capitalist. As soon as he died, his worker communes collapsed. No one else
supported his model. The benevolent lords always lose to the more numerous evil
barons. The only way to beat the barons is to make it impossible for them to
exist, by taking control of the levers of wealth.
thesis states: "Quite frankly, the masses don't want to study the teachings of
Nietzsche or Hegel or hear scientific theories about the nature of the
universe. Instead, they want money. Money is their prime motivator, so we should
concentrate our efforts on it. Imagine huge crowds holding up signs with the
red M-logo in them and shouting time after time: "We want money! We want
money!" What an exciting vision! And it can be transformed into a reality.
It has been truthfully said that the people can be bought, so let's buy them."
is in danger of being the most cynical and mercenary statement ever made. The
super rich have traditionally bought the people in one way or another. Now, our
response is supposedly to offer money on a much wider scale than ever before.
WANT MONEY! WE WANT MONEY! That sounds like the slogan of Wall Street, not of
any movement connected with meritocracy and the spiritual improvement of
humanity. Instead of creating a society where people DO want to study
Nietzsche, Hegel and science, we are simply to bribe the masses like the
not our ambition to pander to what is lowest in people. There are plenty of
others happy to do that. We are the party of excellence, of quality, of a
higher type of humanity. Our cause is utterly lost if we reject the highest
culture - as represented by the likes of Nietzsche, Hegel and science - and
spend our time dumbing down to the lowest common denominator.
true that the masses couldn't care less about the truth of their lives, the
world and the cosmos. It's true that many people would rather shop, watch TV
and gossip about celebrities than contemplate the fundamental nature of
existence. It's true that the masses are sheeple, not people.
it is not our place to join them in their desperate race for the bottom. We are
ascending to the top. We are not in freefall in the bottomless abyss of consumerism
and celebrity culture. We are the people of the summits, of the highest
heights. We are those who seek to see further than ever before. We look to the
stars and beyond. And we look inside. Because there we will find God.
do not have values then you have nothing.
have to resort to distributing money to the masses to gain their support - if
that is the sum and substance of our vision - then what's the point?
will appeal to the highest aspirations of people, not their basest instincts.
We seek to make all people into Gods, no matter how retarded, deluded and dumb
they may be at the moment. We will transform their consciousness. When we are
finished, it won't be Hegel and Nietzsche who are unknown amongst the masses,
but the vacuous celebrities.
will come a day when statues of Hegel and Nietzsche are in the centre of every
town and city, and there will be no celebrities and no super rich. In that sign
we shall triumph, or victory is not worth achieving.
thesis asserts: "Most people reject outright concepts such as 100% inheritance
tax and the nationalization of all privately owned businesses because they
don't see how these things would benefit them at all. They suspect that this
would mean a dictatorship of some sorts."
you were in a bar discussing 100% inheritance tax with a stranger and you said
that it was about taking all of his hard-earned money away from him at his
death and preventing him from leaving it to anyone of his choice, he would
indeed think you were a totalitarian nutcase.
NEVER try to persuade anyone of anything by highlighting what they may lose.
You always emphasize how they will gain. It has been said that everyone gains
from basic income, but since this income is far below what most people are
already earning, they would not perceive it as any kind of gain, and, rightly
or wrongly, they would invariably associate it with freeloaders and scroungers
- no average member of society wants to perceive themselves in that light.
People on welfare are generally held in contempt. And those on welfare often
try to take as much as they can from the State without thinking for a second of
how to give anything back. It becomes a way of life for them and, since it's
reasonably tolerable, there's no incentive for them to change anything,
especially since they know they lack the qualities that conventional society
requires. Their "consciousness" becomes that of the lazy scrounger, and they
even start to take a defiant pride in it, and are always talking about their
"entitlements", never about their duties and responsibilities. The UK has a
huge underclass of people who have spent their entire lives on benefits and
never contributed anything to society. NOTHING AT ALL! Would basic income be
music to their ears? You bet it would. They would vote for it in a flash. And
everyone who hates them and regards them as parasites would vote against basic
income. It would be dead in the water.
for 100% inheritance tax, it has to be sold as a benefit, not a loss, and it
has to be sold as a moral and righteous measure that any good and decent person
would support and any evil person oppose.
the debate with the stranger in the bar by discussing Robin Hood (a person
loathed by Ayn Rand, the supreme apologist for the super rich). Ask the
stranger if he would have supported Robin Hood's campaign to take the wealth of
the rapacious, greedy, cruel and unjust king, nobles and barons and give it to
the needy sick and the hardworking ordinary people. If he says he's on Robin
Hood's side then you're in business. If he says he's not then call him an evil,
greedy bastard to his face and walk away.
the stranger whether he's on the side of the Wall Street fat cats or the
ordinary people of Main Street. Who should be running the country - the people
or the bankers?
the stranger whether or not he supports a two-tier society with two classes of
citizens - the privileged elite on top and everyone else permanently beneath
the stranger if he would like his children to have a fair chance in life, and
not have to compete in a system rigged against them.
the stranger if he supports the obvious fact that the rich keep getting richer,
and many of the poor keep getting poorer. Does he think that leads to a
healthy, fair, meritocratic society?
the stranger if he supports people getting something for nothing - welfare.
When he says, "No", ask him what the difference is between those who inherit
wealth from others without doing any work themselves and those who take money
from the State without doing any work themselves. Aren't they morally
equivalent? They both want and expect something for nothing.
should then say to the stranger that you have a way to ensure that no one who
does no work will get something for nothing, and moreover your innovation will
release all of the money of the super rich to the hardworking ordinary people.
It will transfer the money of the Wall Street fat cats to Main Street.
is 100% inheritance tax, the bedrock of meritocracy. It ensures that
privileged, spoiled kids don't get to inherit lives of luxury just because they
are related to people who made lots of money (and by the same token that decent
kids are not forced to live in poverty because their parents didn't manage to
make any money).
creates an even playing field. It ensures that everyone sets out from the same
starting line. It brings to an end the rule of the dynastic elites that have
always ruled the world.
the first time ever, it gives everyone an equal chance to go as far as their
merit will carry them.
benefits other than the super rich and their parasitical offspring. Everyone
gains. It is morally, economically and socially right. It is the Robin Hood tax
that redistributes the wealth of the fat cats to the decent people.
wealthy can enjoy their riches during their lifetime. It is taken from them
only when they have no further need of it because they are dead. It is not any
sort of attack on people earning a good living. In fact, it's designed to give
everyone a good living.
will be far more wealth in circulation because there will be no reason for the
super rich to hoard their wealth. They will spend, spend, spend. And soon, 100%
tax will be irrelevant because everyone will make sure they have spent all of
their money before they die.
will enjoy a much higher standard of living thanks to all of the extra money
available. Inflation won't take off because there's no reason any longer for
the elite ownership class to always be seeking to increase their profits by
raising prices. The vast majority of people will join the ownership class.
inheritance tax unlocks the Bank of the Super Rich and lets the ordinary people
enjoy its benefits.
inheritance tax is on the side of nature since it restores the law of the
regression to the mean. In ultra capitalism, the rich keep getting richer in
defiance of the law of regression to the mean, and contrary to nature. Super
wealth is an unnatural phenomenon, a kind of disease that attacks the whole of
society. 100% inheritance tax is the natural remedy.
Carnegie, once the richest man on earth, declared, "The man who dies rich dies
disgraced." That's absolutely right!
100% inheritance tax is the Robin Hood tax, the Carnegie Tax, the Tax for
taking from Wall Street and giving to Main Street, the Tax that restores nature
via regression to the mean, the Tax that stops scroungers getting something for
nothing, the moral and egalitarian tax that allows everyone to set out from the
same starting line.
the greedy, the immoral, the lazy, the mad, the stupid, the
anti-meritocratswould oppose the Robin
you say straight to the stranger, "Are you for or against 100% inheritance tax
- are you moral or immoral?"
the 100% inheritance tax cannot be contested. It is EASY to force any enemy of
this tax into a corner where they look like a mad, immoral monster. If you
can't walk into a bar and persuade any stranger of its merits then you don't
understand it or you yourself are immoral.
are taking next to nothing from them and giving them EVERYTHING.
from being a hard sell, it should be the easiest sell imaginable. No member of
the Illuminati has ever voiced any opposition to it. We pride ourselves on
being rational, moral and meritocratic.
people who don't "get it" are the irrational, the super rich, the privileged,
the anarchists and libertarians.
understand that we are trying to overcome centuries of indoctrination, of
people with a false consciousness who live in bad faith. But we know for a fact
that any rational person who hears about the Robin Hood Tax immediately becomes
a fervent advocate of it.
addresses the fundamental problem of how to redistribute the excessive wealth
of the greedy elite without resorting to communism.
Robin Hood tax is the ONLY means for achieving non-socialist redistribution of
wealth, hence the only means of achieving a fairer, reformed version of
capitalism that gives everyone a realistic chance in life and allows the merit
of the people to flourish in an unprecedented way.
ought to be honest about where our sympathies lie in this debate and they are
unquestionably with the antithesis. The proponent of basic income has argued
his case as well as anyone could, and we applaud him for that, but we think the
stronger, more pragmatic and realistic points reside with the counter case. The
antithesis better reflects the tenor and spirit of the articles on our website.
We would certainly endorse the type of family upbringing and value system
described in the antithesis case.
completely endorse the statement: "Meritocracy is not a pass-fail system, but
rather a system that allows each person to find their own highest attainment.
There is no shame in being less than first in a particular field or endeavor -
it is simply that the other person had more skills suited for that particular
gives everyone the best possible chance. It doesn't promise victory for
everyone. Only the very best will win.
the perspective of dialectical meritocracy, we are in some sense committed to
being neutral in the basic income debate. Both sides have points for and
against, and the whole essence of the dialectic is not to reach any dogmatic
stance one way or another (there is no a priori means of showing one view to be
wholly wrong), but to test both scenarios in real life and compare and contrast
the data that is subsequently collected. If one method is clearly better than
the other, then we drop the loser. If both are comparable but one is cheaper
then we would adopt the cheaper.
meritocracy should avoid dogmatism and should not commit itself to any
particular policy stances other than those that relate fundamentally to
meritocracy. The two contestants in this debate have both done what dialectical
meritocracy demands: they have presented their cases articulately and
eloquently and demonstrated that there is a substantive issue here that demands
resolution. Both reflect radically different views of human nature, so it's
imperative that we reach a resolution of the debate. It cannot be achieved
rhetorically or theoretically. Only real-life evidence from a controlled
experiment would definitively decide the matter.
the meritocracy movement should not declare itself for or against basic income.
It can have the best of both worlds and say that this is the sort of idea that
would be tested out. We in the meritocracy movement will be bold and daring and
give all plausible ideas the fairest of hearings. But, equally, we will give
the counter case the same respect and same opportunities.
are committed to dialectical progress, not to any ideological stances. We have
no a priori certainty as to what will prove to be the best outcome. What we
have is the METHOD for resolving the impasse. The method is what we are promoting
as the greatest good, not the particular policies. We are emulating the
scientific method. At its strictest and best, science couldn't care less what
hypotheses are put forward since they are all dealt with in exactly the same
way: they are subjected to tests and they prove either successful or
unsuccessful in their ability to account for the data.
do we care. Any and all policy initiatives are welcome. The dialectical method
will sort the wheat from the chaff.
only elements of meritocratic implementation that are not up for grabs are
those that concern the defining principles of meritocracy, and there are only
five of these, all of which are closely related.
1)Everyone must be judged on their own
merits and not on those of others such as family, friends or colleagues.
2)No one should inherit wealth that
their parents or relatives generated since that is a fundamental contradiction
of the first rule of meritocracy.
3)All means of intentionally rigging the
system to give some people an inbuilt advantage over others are unacceptable.
4)Money and power can never be used as
weapons to secure the advantage of "chosen ones" at the expense of everyone
5)All forms of privilege as a means of
creating a two-tier society of the privileged and the non-privileged are
anathema. By "privilege" we mean an active programme for attempting to secure
the permanent advantage of "chosen ones" at the expense of the non-chosen; in
particular to buy a superior education unavailable to others, to buy influence,
to create networks of "top jobs" that will be allocated only to the privileged
elite, to create systems of signs based on status and snobbery that are
favourable to one group but not to others. We will identify, expose and punish
all people who attempt to subvert the meritocratic model through the use of
income is not a core meritocratic principle. It would be possible to argue that
it is both for and against meritocracy. It is for meritocracy insofar as it
provides an equal financial starting line for everyone. It is against
meritocracy insofar as it allows scope for people who do nothing to
parasitically live off the efforts of others. Even though we might have our
suspicions one way or the other, it is impossible to say definitively in
advance whether the anti-meritocratic ingredient would outweigh the
will be utterly transformed under a meritocratic government and education
system. The sorts of problematic behaviours that are in evidence in liberal
democracies may vanish completely once people are educated, raised and treated
properly and respectfully, and are given full encouragement and support to be
all they can be.
the proponent of basic income can find enough supporters to implement his
proposal then it's his and their right to give it their best shot…but it's up
to them to make it work. They, collectively, will be the State. Those who
consider it unworkable would sign up to a different Social Contract.
vital that everyone should be passionate about the State they choose. The
supporters of basic income might create a paradise if they all commit
themselves to it with the same passion as the proponent for the case. But they
cannot be allowed to impose their passions on those who don't share their
enthusiasm. That would be tyranny, and that's what we're trying to escape from.
some ways, the basic income debate is misconceived. The ultimate aim of
meritocracy is to deliver a resource-based, technology-driven economy that has
no need of money - so the concept of basic income would be rendered redundant.
All of the aims of the basic income advocates would be met in a money-less
the arguments put forward are essentially a critique of contemporary
capitalism, but in a meritocratic society, none of those features would be
our article about the New World Order, we described an entirely new education
system, the entire point of which is to identify what makes each person tick
and give them the best possible education in the areas in which they will shine
and be most fulfilled. The concept of people wanting a basic income so that
they don't have to be wage slaves in an oppressive capitalist system would not
apply. Nor would much of the rest of the analysis about crime and so on. These
undesirable aspects of society are the products of contemporary capitalism. In
a rational, meritocratic society, we would expect to eliminate virtually every
ill to which basic income is proposed as the solution. Basic income is the
answer to TODAY's miseries, but these won't exist in the meritocratic world of
whole point of the New World Order is to give everyone the chance to optimise
themselves. If that results in anyone at all being keen to accept a basic
income from the State then the project has failed. No "optimised" person should
be doing anything other than productive work and making a full contribution to
the State. In a meritocratic State, there will be zero unemployment. The idea
of anyone not doing productive work is anathema. In fact, the idea is that
people should find such fulfilment and self-respect through their work that we
can practically abolish the idea of retirement. Many authors never retire. Why
not? Because they are doing what they love - expressing themselves. When you
are in the right job, you wouldn't want to retire.
in the State will have to explicitly sign a Social Contract, which is, of
course, a two-way agreement. The State has duties and responsibilities and so
does each citizen. The idea that anyone could be paid for simply being a
citizen without offering anything at all in return would be incompatible with
any sensible Social Contract. Being a citizen is not a job; it is a contractual
status. Who would expect a State to survive if it had unilateral obligations,
but no guarantee of anything in return?
basic income proposal often looks dangerously like a communist policy: "From
each according to his abilities to each according to his needs". What you have
in Marxism is a flow of resources from the able to the needy - in what way is
that different from basic income? And we all know how Soviet communism turned
out. No able person wants to be breaking his back supporting other able-bodied
people who simply choose not to work because they don't find any job
satisfying. The able bodied would quickly leave that society, and who could
blame them? Then what will the others do?
basic income thesis accurately describes the many ills from which contemporary
society suffers. Basic income is proposed as the solution, but in fact the
answer lies in the total transformation of society that will be brought about
by the new meritocratic form of government.
central aim of the new society will be to eliminate every "wage slave" job
whereby people toil away at grim and unsatisfying jobs for a pittance in order
to make some super rich capitalist even richer. Can anyone seriously imagine
that the new hyper-educated, unsubmissive workforce that the new bespoke
meritocratic education system will produce will be content to work in call
centres, in factories and on assembly lines? It is IMPOSSIBLE.
new education system is designed to alter the consciousness of the people so
that they will no longer accept being second-class citizens and the puppets of
the wealthy. Marx said, "It is not the consciousness of men that determines
their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their
consciousness." In other words, the nature of the society we live in shapes our
consciousness. In a radically different society with radically different values,
we will have a radically altered consciousness. The whole world as it appears
to us now will we swept away. None of the things we routinely accept now
because it's the way the "system" works will be acceptable in the meritocratic
future. There won't be any monarchs, popes, super-rich elites, Abrahamist pressure
groups, junk consumerism, celebrity culture etc - all of these will vanish.
That why it's a New World Order! We will be producing a new type of human
being: enormously more educated, capable, self-confident, independent,
unwilling to kowtow. None of the ways of doing things that are possible now
because of our dumbed-down, docile, deferential, submissive society will be
possible when the people emerging from schools and colleges have none of these
negative traits. Basic income will be the last thing on their minds - they will
have the highest possible expectations and aspirations. Who in their right mind
would aspire to receiving "basic income"? No one in the new society will want
any sort of minimum wage or basic existence. The new society has failed utterly
if anyone thinks there is anything good about living at the "safety net" level.
We are trying to create a Community of Gods, not a hippie commune of
work-refuseniks and social dropouts.
following Hegel, emphasized the key concept of alienation. Marx said that
almost all of us are alienated from our jobs and derive no satisfaction from
them. The only people having a good time are the rich bosses with all of the
power who don't have to suffer the degrading treatment that everyone further
down the food chain must endure.
have to abolish this soul-destroying alienation. Hence all soulless, droid jobs
must be eliminated. Over time, through superior technology and design, all such
jobs will be automated.
we define a job as something you do to pay the bills then we aspire to live in
a jobless world. If we define work as something through which you express your
identity, exercise your creativity and attain fulfilment then we aspire to move
instead to a world of work.
should be doing work that makes them happy, and into which they can pour their
efforts and be in their element. We want to build the Society of Excellence.
will be moving away from the international capitalist model of mass production
(quantity) and constant consumerism - which serves no other function than to
make the super rich even richer - to national capitalism involving designer,
bespoke production (quality). There will be no inbuilt obsolescence, no new upgrade
every six months to keep the consumption machine moving.
of the multinational leviathans - McDonalds, Starbucks, Pizza Hut, Kentucky
Fried Chicken yada yada yada - that bestride the world will no longer be able
to set up shop. Instead, for example, there will be bespoke food outlets where
those who love making and serving food will be able to devise their own menus
and dishes and pour their own culinary creativity into the enterprise. We want huge
numbers of profitable, bespoke small businesses full of committed people who
love their work and make a good living rather than huge faceless corporations
with a formulaic approach that channel enormous profits back to a handful of
super wealthy individuals.
will be no grim call centres full of drones reading out scripts.
capitalism is about standardisation in order to lower costs and raise profits,
about having a consistent "brand" experience. Standardisation = Drone World,
Droid Land, Zombie Central. International capitalism proclaims that big is
beautiful. National capitalism is about the bespoke experience and promotes the
opposite message: small is beautiful. The idea of excess profits and constant
corporate growth will vanish because the State will cap the amount of money any
individual can make, and will of course apply 100% inheritance tax at death.
What we are implementing, in effect, is a mechanism for preventing
multinationals from ever coming into existence. National capitalism will be
based on small and medium-sized enterprises. There will be no leviathans, no
super rich private individuals using their money and power to dictate to the
will have turned capitalism into something healthy, creative, productive and
fulfilling rather than a monstrous sausage machine churning out bland gloop all
over the globe.
will be converting international capitalism of a few super rich global players
into national capitalism of many well-off players. Ours is true capitalism
rather than the out-of-control, super greedy contemporary version. Ours is
socially responsible and prevents any possibility of private individuals
opposing the General Will and dictating to the State to satisfy their selfish,
more Rothschild and Bush dynasties! No privileged elite. International
capitalism is hyper-capitalism for the sake of a tiny ownership class and we
will replace it with public capitalism for the sake of all the people. Everyone
will, more or less, be working for themselves rather than for a boss. Groups of
people can combine their capital and become group owners. We seek to massively
expand social ownership. At the moment, the multinational leviathans can
quickly put any small competitors out of business. This will become impossible
in the new society: it will instead be the multinationals that are put out of
Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered by British economist E. F. Schumacher
is a classic text opposing the contemporary capitalism, which Schumacher regarded
as dehumanising. He argued that the workplace should, first and foremost, be a
place of dignity and meaning. He advocated "smallness within
bigness", meaning that large companies should be decentralized and operate
as a related group of small organizations.
was keen to emphasize the importance of scale and the idea of "enoughness."
Western capitalism always aims for the biggest scale (lowest production costs),
no matter how much damage ensues. Why were banks allowed to become too big to
fail? Cui bono? Why did no one challenge the dangerous scale of the banking
leviathans, so big they dwarf entire economies?
one cares as long as the profits keep rolling in. The Profit Principle trumps
everything else. And when it comes to enough, nothing is ever enough. The super
rich have no concept of having enough. Like Oliver Twist, they always want
more, but Oliver was starving in a workhouse and they're not.
attacked the conventional economic wisdom that growth is always good and that
bigger is better. He asserted that society should aim to obtain "the maximum
amount of well-being with the minimum amount of consumption." Isn't that
eminently sensible? Schumacher's ideas were quite fashionable for a time but
were of course completely ignored by those in power.
it time for Schumacher's ideas to be back on the agenda? We would never have
suffered the Credit Crunch if his economic thinking had prevailed. It was
multinationals, global leviathans and banks too big to fail that brought us to
the brink of catastrophe. Are we the dumbest humans in history or will we
finally wise up and take action against all of the leviathans, monarchs and
said, "The less toil there is, the more time and strength is left for artistic
creativity. Modern economics, on the other hand, considers consumption to be
the sole end and purpose of all economic activity."
Other quotations by Schumacher are equally profound:
"Character…is formed primarily by a man's work. And work, properly
conducted in conditions of human dignity and freedom, blesses those who do it
and equally their products."
"Wisdom demands a new orientation of science and technology towards the
organic, the gentle, the non-violent, the elegant and beautiful."
"The most striking thing about modern industry is that it requires so
much and accomplishes so little. Modern industry seems to be inefficient to a
degree that surpasses one's ordinary powers of imagination. Its inefficiency
therefore remains unnoticed."
"The way in which we experience and interpret the world obviously
depends very much indeed on the kind of ideas that fill our minds. If they are
mainly small, weak, superficial, and incoherent, life will appear insipid,
uninteresting, petty, and chaotic."
human race has never lacked people with brilliant insight and wisdom. What it
has always lacked is leaders with insight and wisdom. It has been cursed by
greedy, selfish, self-interested leaders always looking out for themselves,
their friends and family. Nepotism, cronyism and privilege have always been
do ordinary people never stand up to power? Why do they never question the
legitimacy of monarchs and the super rich? Why are they cowards and slaves? Why
are they so docile and submissive? There is nothing rational about contemporary
said, "The real nature of man is the totality of social relations." It cannot
be stressed highly enough how important this statement is. If we create
unhealthy social relations, we create unhealthy men and women.
of us exist in various states of alienation. Abrahamists are alienated from
God. Employees are alienated from their jobs. Everyone is alienated from their
political masters. In a society that worships money, most people are alienated
from themselves and continually gaze enviously at those with enormous amounts
of money and total freedom.
have to address all of these different forms of alienation, and the primary
target is the super rich because they are the ones who control our world. The
existence of any class of super rich is simply unacceptable. The super rich
automatically cause society to fragment. It is impossible to maintain social
harmony and cohesion when some people are thousands of times wealthier than the
average. How can anyone talk of any kind of equality when such financial
disparities exist? As soon as unbridgeable inequalities are created, the world
becomes a pyramid rather than a round table. People start gauging themselves
with respect to others and they become obsessed with status. As soon as you
have status wars you no longer have a community. The essence of a community is
that its members have respect for each other. That mutual respect disintegrates
in deeply unequal societies. The happiest societies are those in which
inequalities are contained within a narrow range. Wide inequalities should be
regarded as fundamentally anti-social.
supreme problem for our society is that those who control it are profoundly
anti-social and anti-communitarian. They are doing fantastically well and want
nothing to change. They don't want to see their wealth or power being eroded in
any way. They can do whatever they like since no one has the guts to stand up
to them. They see people as nothing but means to their economic ends, and not
as ends in themselves.
simple fact ought to be patently obvious to everyone. Society works brilliantly
and does everything required of it for one group of people - those at the top.
They are the people with the power to change things yet they are also the ones
least motivated to change anything since they have everything they want.
the people must a) change themselves and b) change those at the top of society.
Any society is crazy if it doesn't ensure that the leaders of society care
about society and wish to serve its interests. Can anyone look at the leaders
in any part of the world and fail to conclude that they are in it for
themselves? They are GENIUSES at grabbing money and power for themselves. They
are hopeless at helping the people. In fact, improving the lot of the people in
any significant way would be counterproductive for them. Anything that the
elite do that seems to help the people is an illusion.
the 19th century, capitalism was about production - grim factories full of
people doing shit jobs for twelve hours a day seven days a week. The owners
wanted to squeeze out every penny of profit. They had no concern at all for the
welfare of the people. No one ordered them to be inconsiderate bastards
treating people like scum. They did it naturally. They had inbuilt contempt for
capitalism is about consumption - people shopping rather than producing.
Production is mostly automated, but someone needs to buy the goods. So we have
shopping malls full of zombie consumers! The capitalist ownership class still
hate the people, but their contempt is now expressed differently, and with the
utmost hypocrisy. The corporations spend all of their time flattering and
seducing the consumers, or filling them with fears and anxieties - the tactics
depend on the nature of the product being sold. Corporations wage psychological
war against ordinary people with a single aim: to get them to consume. They
couldn't care less about the welfare of the people. That just gets in the way
of the Profit Principle.
do we allow people who hate humanity to be the leaders of humanity? Why do we
allow psychopaths to become rich and powerful rather than putting them in
therapy? We have to stop letting the crazies dictate to us.
need an economy based on both production and consumption, but this time production
and consumption should revolve around creativity and quality. There is nothing
to stop us having an economy based on self-improvement, art, science,
mathematics, literature, philosophy, design, film-making, music-making,
psychology, and so on. The world would be full of self-employed people - acting
as their own bosses - or small ownership groups. People could come together on
a contractual basis to carry out projects of mutual benefit. The whole economy
should be based on Schumacher's principle that small is beautiful. We could have
endless diversity, a profusion of small, specialist, bespoke companies offering
unique products and services.
aim is to gradually eliminate all "wage slave" jobs via better design
and technology, and to get everyone involved in creative work in which they can
express themselves and feel proud and fulfilled.
want to switch from big is best to small is beautiful, from mass production to
bespoke production, from drone and droid jobs to creative and diverse work
portfolios. We need active, enthusiastic, productive workers, not passive
workers doing the bare minimum. Workers need to express who they are through
their work: not who someone else is. They should profit from their own
endeavours; not create profits for others. They should become their real selves
through their work. They shouldn't be faking it and wearing masks. They should
no longer be alienated from religion, education, politics, psychology or the
enlightened type of thinking has been held back by one force only - the Old
World Order who will not concede any of their power or wealth. The State must
have the guts to confront these monsters and lay down the law to them. Their
Age of Tyranny is over. It's time for the people to be authentically free.
income is a debate for today's society, not an issue for tomorrow's. The new
society is designed to address all of the ills detailed in the thesis, and the
concept of basic income will be superfluous in such a society.
is not evil per se. It is the particular implementation that is evil - the one
designed to cater for a small super rich elite who call all of the shots and create
global empires outwith the control of the State and the people. This model of
capitalism is not a servant of the people, but a Dictatorship of Mammon.
world can be free only when the controllers are removed from power. Only one
policy guarantees the end of the super rich - 100% inheritance tax.
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen
1789, the French revolutionaries issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man
and Citizen. In 1793, a second and lengthier version was adopted.
full text is provided here and still represents a triumph of sensible
The French people, convinced that forgetfulness and contempts of the
natural rights of man are the sole causes of the miseries of the world, have
resolved to set forth in a solemn declaration these sacred and inalienable
rights, in order that all the citizens, being able to compare unceasingly the
acts of the government with the aim of every social institution, may never
allow themselves to be oppressed and debased by tyranny; and in order that the
people may always have before their eyes the foundations of their liberty and
their welfare, the magistrate the rule of his duties, the legislator the
purpose of his commission.
In consequence, it proclaims in the presence of the supreme being the
following declaration of the rights of man and citizen.
1. The aim of society is the common welfare. Government is instituted in
order to guarantee to man the enjoyment of his natural and imprescriptible
2. These rights are equality, liberty, security, and property.
3. All men are equal by nature and before the law.
4. Law is the free and solemn expression of the general will; it is the
same for all, whether it protects or punishes; it can command only what is just
and useful to society; it can forbid only what is injurious to it.
5. All citizens are equally eligible to public employments. Free peoples
know no other grounds for preference in their elections than virtue and talent.
6. Liberty is the power that belongs to man to do whatever is not
injurious to the rights of others; it has nature for its principle, justice for
its rule, law for its defense; its moral limit is in this maxim: Do not do to
another that which you do not wish should be done to you.
7. The right to express one's thoughts and opinions by means of the
press or in any other manner, the right to assemble peaceably, the free pursuit
of religion, cannot be forbidden.
The necessity of enunciating these rights supposes either the presence
or the fresh recollection of despotism.
8. Security consists in the protection afforded by society to each of
its members for the preservation of his person, his rights, and his property.
9. The law ought to protect public and personal liberty against the
oppression of those who govern.
10. No one ought to be accused, arrested, or detained except in the cases
determined by law and according to the forms that it has prescribed. Any
citizen summoned or seized by the authority of the law, ought to obey
immediately; he makes himself guilty by resistance.
11. Any act done against man outside of the cases and without the forms
that the law determines is arbitrary and tyrannical; the one against whom it
may be intended to be executed by violence has the right to repel it by force.
12. Those who may incite, expedite, subscribe to, execute or cause to be
executed arbitrary legal instruments are guilty and ought to be punished.
13. Every man being presumed innocent until he has been pronounced
guilty, if it is thought indispensable to arrest him, all severity that may not
be necessary to secure his person ought to be strictly repressed by law.
14. No one ought to be tried and punished except after having been heard
or legally summoned, and except in virtue of a law promulgated prior to the
offense. The law which would punish offenses committed before it existed would
be a tyranny: the retroactive effect given to the law would be a crime.
15. The law ought to impose only penalties that are strictly and
obviously necessary: the punishments ought to be proportionate to the offense
and useful to society.
16. The right of property is that which belongs to every citizen to
enjoy, and to dispose at his pleasure of his goods, income, and of the fruits
of his labor and his skill.
17. No kind of labor, tillage, or commerce can be forbidden to the skill
of the citizens.
18. Every man can contract his services and his time, but he cannot sell
himself nor be sold: his person is not an alienable property. The law knows of
no such thing as the status of servant; there can exist only a contract for
services and compensation between the man who works and the one who employs
19. No one can be deprived of the least portion of his property without
his consent, unless a legally established public necessity requires it, and
upon condition of a just and prior compensation.
20. No tax can be imposed except for the general advantage. All citizens
have the right to participate in the establishment of taxes, to watch over the
employment of them, and to cause an account of them to be rendered.
21. Public relief is a sacred debt. Society owes maintenance to
unfortunate citizens, either procuring work for them or in providing the means
of existence for those who are unable to labor.
22. Education is needed by all. Society ought to favor with all its
power the advancement of the public reason and to put education at the door of
23. The social guarantee consists in the action of all to secure to each
the enjoyment and the maintenance of his rights: this guarantee rests upon the
24. It cannot exist if the limits of public functions are not clearly
determined by law and if the responsibility of all the functionaries is not
25. The sovereignty resides in the people; it is one and indivisible,
imprescriptible, and inalienable.
26. No portion of the people can exercise the power of the entire
people, but each section of the sovereign, in assembly, ought to enjoy the
right to express its will with entire freedom.
27. Let any person who may usurp the sovereignty be instantly put to
death by free men.
28. A people has always the right to review, to reform, and to alter its
constitution. One generation cannot subject to its law the future generations.
29. Each citizen has an equal right to participate in the formation of
the law and in the selection of his mandatories or his agents.
30. Public functions are necessarily temporary; they cannot be
considered as distinctions or rewards, but as duties.
31. The offenses of the representatives of the people and of its agents
ought never to go unpunished. No one has the right to claim for himself more
inviolability than other citizens.
32. The right to present petitions to the depositories of the public
authority cannot in any case be forbidden, suspended, nor limited.
33. Resistance to oppression is the consequence of the other rights of
34. There is oppression against the social body when a single one of its
members is oppressed: there is oppression against each member when the social
body is oppressed.
35. When the government violates the rights of the people, insurrection
is for the people and for each portion of the people the most sacred of rights
and the most indispensable of duties.
modern Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clearly inspired by the
original French Declaration.
that Islamic nations are opposed to the Declaration. They deny that people
should be free to change religion, they deny that women are men's equals, and they
deny that neutrality should be maintained when comparing religions (since Islam
is always to be favoured).
is no task more difficult than attempting to reform a berserk, utterly
irrational religion such as Islam. Anyone who has the guts to try immediately
takes their own life into their hands. Consider the case in the UK of imam Dr
Usuma Hasan, a physics lecturer at Middlesex University and a fellow of the
Royal Astronomical Society. When he made the claim that Darwin's theory of
evolution is compatible with Islam, he immediately received death threats from
Islamic fundamentalists who declared that Darwin's theory contradicted the
Koran's unambiguous statement that Adam and Eve were the first humans and were
directly created by Allah. Hasan's claims were deemed blasphemous and deserving
of the death penalty.
can you have a debate about anything when one group immediately sentences the
opposing group to death?
was compelled to retract his claims, and he posted a wretched note on his
mosque saying, "I seek Allah's forgiveness for my mistakes and apologise for my
there you have it - a practising British scientist has been compelled by
threats to declare the superiority of a bizarre book of desert revelations made
to an illiterate and brutal tribesman over Darwin's methodical 19th century research which has been accepted, in one form or another, by every
credible scientist on earth. If such things can happen in Britain, one of the most advanced nations on earth and not under Islamic rule, imagine what would happen if the Muslims were actually in charge!
the lecture he gave supporting his claim of compatibility between Islam and
Darwinism, Hasan said that he was interrupted by "fanatics" who handed out
leaflets declaring that Darwin was a blasphemer. One of the men said to Hasan,
"You are an apostate and should be killed."
views were described at his mosque as a "source of antagonism in the Muslim
community." He was dismissed from his role as imam.
had stated, "Darwinism is not a matter of iman
[belief] or kufr [disbelief], and
people are free to accept or reject a particular scientific theory."
Saudi Arabia, clerics still commonly teach that the Sun revolves around the
Earth, as it says in the Koran. So, don't expect any Islamic Enlightenment. The
fundamentalists have got their strategy perfectly worked out - just kill anyone
who disagrees with you, and say you're doing it in the name of Allah. Anyone
who challenges you is a blasphemer and apostate and must be killed. That's
lesson 101 in how to ensure you remain retarded for eternity.
is the religion for retards, the religion forever stuck in the Arabian desert
of 1400 years ago. Islam is not part of the dialectic of freedom and progress.
It is a permanent antithesis.
rational people of the world have no option but to pull up the drawbridge
against Islam. Muslims cannot be allowed to infect non-Muslims with their
irrationality and fanaticism.
is not Muslims themselves who are the problem, but Islam as an ideology. It
lends itself to mania. It encourages and demands fanaticism and intolerance.
three Abrahamist religions should be regarded as an illness, as an infectious
disease; a contagion. If you remain in contact with them, they will keep
re-infecting you and you will never be cured. But if just one generation were
freed from Abrahamism, this hateful religion would perish. All Muslims, Jews
and Christians could be cured if they were released from the relentless
brainwashing machine that grips them from the moment they are born.
sent us a link to a disturbing video. It's time to be very scared…
forces of irrationality are growing with astonishing rapidity. The time is
short for the rational amongst us to change the world. Within forty years, it
may be all over. The dialectic of freedom will grind to a halt, and even be
reversed, and we will end up living in a world groaning under the tyranny of
Sharia Law. Imagine the whole world ruled by the Taliban.
is the greatest threat the world has ever known. It is even more toxic than the
Old World Order. Don't kid yourself that liberal Muslims will triumph. Pakistan
was designed as a modern liberal democracy - look at it now. It's a failed
state full of Islamic extremists. All liberal societies, unless they take
explicit and severe countermeasures, invariably succumb to the more committed,
forceful and determined fanatics in their midst. In the West, the fanatical
capitalists of super greed swept the liberals aside. In Islamic nations,
lacking capitalism, the mad mullahs were the ones who grabbed power. Now the
Muslims are outbreeding the Westerners and, if the present trends persist,
first Europe and then America will fall to Islam.
long, Darwinists in the West will be executed for blasphemy. There will be
death camps for non-Muslims, or they will be made to serve as slaves for Islam
- as was done for many centuries in Islamic countries. There will be no drugs,
alcohol, rock 'n' roll, casual sex or bacon sandwiches. There will be no
freedom. All women will have to wear burqas. Science and philosophy will be
made illegal because they contradict the Koran. All food will be halal. "Moral" police will roam the
streets, strictly enforcing Sharia rules and regulations. Thieves will have
limbs amputated, and fornicators and adulterers will be flogged and even stoned
to death. There will be endless executions for the mildest transgressions.
think this is scare mongering? Then you have never heard what is being preached
in countless mosques all over the world. You just need to look at Afghanistan,
Yemen, Pakistan, Iran etc to see that this behaviour is already being carried
out day in and day out in Islamic nations. Many liberal Muslims will ridicule
such thinking, but they will not be the ones in charge when the Darkest Hour
comes. The fanatics - the dominant few willing to kill others and even
themselves - are the ones who will be running the show. Only the biggest fools
on earth cannot see what is coming. Nietzsche foresaw that the 20th and 21st centuries would be the most cataclysmic in history. There
can be no doubt what the defining issue of this century will be - ISLAM.
has several times in its history almost succumbed to the military power of
Islam. Desperate, last-ditch battles were fought several times to hold back the
Islamic tide. Had any of these battles been lost, Europe may well have fallen
to Islam. The key battles were Poitiers in 732, Vienna in 1529 and 1683, and
the naval battle of Lepanto in 1571.
the same outcome may happen via immigration and higher birth rate rather than
force of arms.
West was delivered from Christian tyranny thanks to the Renaissance, the
Reformation (which split Christianity into warring factions) and, especially,
the Enlightenment. What if these had never happened? We could be living under a
Roman Catholic dictatorship with the Pope at its head. Scientists would be
forbidden from contradicting the Bible and handed over, like Galileo, to the
Inquisition if they dared to challenge Scripture. It was such a tyranny that
the Gnostic Cathars lived under. They were subjected to the first Inquisition
and then a holy crusade to exterminate them.
the type of world that's coming our way if Islam is triumphant. There has been
no Islamic Renaissance, Reformation or Enlightenment and there will never be
one because the Islamic fundamentalists have demonstrated that they will kill
anyone who dares to disagree with them. It's the 21st Century and
Islam still refuses to modernize itself. In fact, it is more extreme and
intolerant now than it was fifty or a hundred years ago. It is going BACKWARDS.
and Afghanistan are a vision of the future of the world. Only if the
non-Islamic world acts now can the world be saved from Islamic hegemony. It is
the most important issue of all.
reason can save us. Otherwise we will be plunged into the ultimate
Endarkenment - Pho'
sent us the following hypothesis concerning the alchemical view of the world:
The goal of all authentic Religion (the word itself meaning to re-join) is to reunite one's self with
God; more specifically, with the shard of God hidden within/above/behind one's
This shard of God constitutes one's higher self, and has been called the Holy
Guardian Angel, the Genius, the Daemon, the Guiding Star and many other names.
The alchemists hid their knowledge and practise of this "true religion" in
symbol and the technical jargon of the day to avoid persecution.
They divided their techniques for achieving this unification with the Higher
Self into two distinct "paths": the "Wet" and the "Dry".
is called 'Wet' because it uses solvents and long incubation periods. This is
opposed to the 'Dry' path which uses higher heats and generally no solvents."
wet path used "long incubation periods" and a "solvent" (that which dissolves),
which meant that a) although the Work was safer, it took much longer to
complete, and b) the internal components of the lesser self were gently broken
up and dissolved into a "water" that could easily be recombined into new forms
dry path was usually considered more dangerous as it simply used high "heat" to
forcefully destroy and combine internal components, at the cost of safety but
in a much shorter span of time.
path I am detailing is the Wet Path. It involves the Mercury that alchemists
across the world refer to by a variety of names: Chi, Prana, Baraka, Mana,
Aether, Orgone etc. An accumulation of this substance in the Body attracts its
opposite, "Sulfur", or the Soul of the alchemist. Gradually that Soulfire purifies the alchemist until he
can withstand the indwelling of his own soul, now fully inhabiting the body. When
the "Sulfur" and the alchemist unite, the goal has been achieved, the disciple
has become the master, the lead has been purified and made into gold; the
alchemist is now ready to help others on the path.
Plato and the Higher Guardian Angel
you know how to spend less than you get, you have the philosopher's stone."
Franklin gives away several key secrets to the philosopher's stone and alchemy
in general. He speaks apparently of the acquisition of wealth; but in a higher
sense his statement is the key to obtaining contact with one's potential self,
one's guiding star.
a prelude, let us say that the goal of alchemy was the same as that of every
other initiatory and esoteric system of teaching since time immemorial; the
acquisition of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel.
alchemists were ever ready to wax poetical about their lovely Mercury, which
they declared was the secret and key to their Art, is abundantly clear from
even the most cursory glance at their writings. We here take their meaning, or
it should be said, one of their manifold meanings of that term, to refer to
what in primitive societies is called "Manna".
is Mana? This is a Polynesian word meaning the life force, associated with high
social status and ritual power. It might be equated with the ever-present
Quintessence, the Natural Soul, the "Anima Mundi", the Chi, Prana, Baraka,
Breath, Dew, or Heavenly Water. It is the "Aether", and just as in the fanciful
stories of Wizards and their machinations, it is and was the secret power
source for everything that the Alchemists wrought. When Abraham was asked to
shield his face, for it "shone too brightly" with the glory of God, it was this
that he was manifesting. When Christ stilled the tempestuous waters, it was
this which was the vehicle of his Will. The Polynesians saw it as imbuing
everything. Shamans effected their healing and divination through it. It is the
invisible yet very real connective tissue woven through everything.
is my hypothesis that the mystical Work undertaken by the Alchemists was
contact and gradual unification with one's Guiding Star, and further that this
"Mercury of the Wise" was the primary Agent and Faculty utilized to that end.
we may consequently state that this world is indeed a living being endowed with
a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other
living entities, which by their nature are all related."
human body utilizes this vital force just as the rest of the cosmos does, as
the buffer between Intelligence and Physicality. Because of its central
location, it is affected by aberrations from either end, and usually relays
these conflicts from one end of the Self to the other. Trouble in the Mind
often finds its way into the Body, and vice versa. Also, due to its central
importance, a superabundance of it equates with better health and functioning
for both Mind and Body. In was thus the focus of the Alchemists' Work.
better understand Franklin's statement, and the Quest for Unification with the
Genius, it's necessary to examine this energy from two perspectives; its
production or generation, and its expenditure or utilization. Some things which
produce this substance are: eating, sleeping, breathing, meaningful labor. Some
things which expend this substance are: sex, injury, sickness, frivolous labor.
the subtle meaning of Franklin's message may be interpreted as: Accrue the Mercury
of the Wise by favoring input of this substance and eschewing its output and
you will obtain the philosopher's stone. Now, the philosopher's stone was said
to provide aid and succor to all three aspects of the self i.e. the body, heart
(soul) and mind.
understand how this all relates to the quest for the Holy Guardian Angel, it is
necessary to posit the Mercury of the Wise in a new light, yet still congruent
with the preceding. Mapping the components of the self with the classical
Guardian Angel = Fire.
is placed in quotes because Mind was seen as simply the pattern of interference
created between the Aetheric Self (Water) and the "Spirit" Self (Fire); thus it
was, just as the element of Wind, merely a "placeholder" or stopgap element,
not really considered as "real" or pertinent as the remaining three, except in
its natural propensity as a sort of prismatic scaffolding or channelling rig
for the upper forces.
Water of the Wise really does act as a sort of internal, "spiritual" lubricant,
something which greases the wheels between upper and lower, an agent
facilitates contact and mediation. In this respect, it truly becomes the
keystone of the Work, the lesser portion of which was only ever intended to
cleanse, purify and ready oneself for the greater portion, that portion being
the actual contact and conversation.
the utilization of the Living Waters, one makes ready and fit the vessels both
corporeal and incorporeal to receive the celestial fire, which if placed in an
unprepared vessel would burn and crack that vessel.
TRANSMUTATION PROCEDURES OF THE WORK
Behavior: a type of behavior that is used to adjust to another type of behavior
or situation. This is often characterized by a kind of behavior that allows an
individual to change a non-constructive or disruptive behavior to something
more constructive. These behaviors are most often social or personal behaviors.
"Philosophical Mercury" or "Divine Water" symbolizes what is referred to as
"Prana" in the Eastern Systems (aka Baraka, Chi, Aether, Orgone etc), and is
considered ubiquitous throughout nature and the Universe. Different types of
matter and life collect and store more or less of this substance, but living
creatures more than anything act as huge batteries for it, storing it up.
Matter is said to be as porous to it as Earth is to Water. Entire systems of
Eastern medicine and philosophy have been developed around this sole concept.
In the West, traces of it can be found in our religious literature but largely
all evidence of it has succumbed to either the ravages of time or the editor's
pen, while in the East a knowledge and acceptance of it has been very much kept
alive. The only notable exception to this dearth of Western wisdom on the
subject must be attributed to Wilhelm Reich, a direct disciple of Freud. He
claimed to have discovered something very similar to the energy or radiation
which would go into the makeup of the Bio-Aetheric double, and indeed according
to his observations was present in all things. However, his experiments and
conclusions were vilified, his books burned and he died in prison.
this substance persists in a certain pattern, place or person for extended
periods of time, it can begin to take on the shape or characteristics of that
pattern. This phenomenon is responsible for the concept of the "Bioaetheric
Double", also known as the "Astral Body", the "Doppelganger", the "Twin", etc.
In sleep, it is said to become "loosened" from the body, and upon death it is
said to dissipate after a predetermined length of time.
seems appropriate to surmise that all the machinations of the Lesser or Vulgar
Waters (see below) take place within, through and by the direct agency of the
Greater or Philosophical Water, or the Divine Mercury. That being said, it becomes
appropriate, in a sense, to equate the one with the other, since the one cannot
work without the other. This seems to have implications in health, psychology
Doctrine of Adaptive Transmutation (Doctrine of the Self)
"There are 4 Principles
of Self; they are, in descending order: Soul, Mind, Spirit and Body."
on First Doctrine:
is taken as the general result of a vast collation, cross-reference and
comparison of every major esoteric and occult body, philosophy and teaching
over the course of the main activity of these bodies. As to the names and their
attendant concepts attributed to each thing; there seems oftentimes to be an
uncertainty as to whether Soul belongs (as given in this scheme) in place of
Spirit, and Spirit in Soul's place. To this I give merely the usages of these
words in their most colloquial sense, as in, "He has a lively Spirit," or, "The
horse was Spirited." It is never said, "This horse is very Souled," or, "This
horse has a lot of Soul," except in cases where a quality of depth or greatness
of time or character is meant, as in, "Old Soul." Properly situated, the four
components of the Self relate to things we have all experienced, to greater and
lesser degrees, and thus to things we can all readily agree to being part and
parcel of our beings.
"Soul" corresponds to that most ancient of things, the "Self" you were before
you were born, and the one you will return to after you die. In primal
cultures, these are dubbed "ancestors," for this same reason. It is the eternal
spark, embedded in the depths of your manifold self.
the Soul and "Lesser Self" become separated by the process of Incarnation, the
link between the two can never be severed, and it is the aim of the work of
Regeneration (Adaptive Transmutation) to reacquaint these two long lost friends
until the two become one.
esoteric circles, Air is never really regarded as an element proper, but rather
as a buffer or circumstantial intermediary between Fire and Water, and as such
the "Mind" can quite easily be regarded as simply the Interference Pattern
between the Eternal Soul (Fire) and the Temporal Spirit (Water). This can
perhaps explain some of the peculiarities of the Mind.
addresses the central components of the self, the sexual drive, willpower,
emotions, intellect and imagination; the things that make up in large part the core
of man's internal self. These things comprise a layer between the innermost
component (the Divine Spark/Mind), and the outermost extremities
(reality/Body). They are collectively grouped in systems like Alchemy and
Kabbalah (where they are referred to as "Zeir Anpin", meaning Lesser
Countenance or the Lesser Self) because they all rely for their health,
maintenance and development on the presence of the Divine or Celestial Waters,
the Heavenly Mercury; Aether. Together, they form a major portion of man's
psychological make-up, and bridge the gap between Inner and Outer. They're
tackled collectively, relative to one another, when cleansing them.
physical form is the receptacle of all other elements. It is the outermost
lying shell, the ultimate bound, the husk which contains all other things.
Every element has its representative in the body, whether it be through
electromagnetism, biochemistry or unknown yet scientifically real forces.
Alchemists spoke of the body as the dregs lying at the bottom of the Alembic,
but they were careful and quick to append that in them was contained the whole
of the work, and that they were invaluable and necessary to the latter stages
perversions of Gnostic teachings imply that the body and its larger
manifestation, the physical world, are things to be demonized; this is an
aberration of original, pure and authentic teachings.
comment: this statement is false. Authentic Gnosticism has always demonised the
physical world, defining it as the creation of the wicked Demiurge. The writer
is thinking of Hermeticism rather than Gnosticism. Whereas Gnosticism regards
the material world as evil, Hermeticism maintains that matter may be perfected.
Illuminism reflects both trains of thought by asserting that this is a fallen,
wicked world ruled by the worst kind of people, but it is capable of redemption
and salvation through the efforts of enlightened people.)
Stage: "ROTA ELEMENTIA"
Earth, Water, Wind, Fire
Basic Rotation of All Elements, Perception of Fire
Arrange External Environment for Minimal Rotational Infringement
Individual Rotation: Here the object is to get each Element rotating
individually. A natural overall cadence and rhythm of the system will emerge,
but it is negligible and not the goal here.
Embody the Self: Via Rotation a fuller sense of the Self inhabiting the Body is
obtained, which acts as the "gateway" for the 2nd Stage of the Work.
stage is often the most difficult as the aspirant struggles against the natural
inertia of bad habits acquired and often ingrained into the self by years of
self-neglect and abuse. Fire is included here as it acts as the signifier of
the successful rotation of all Elements; its presence or rotation, full or
partial, should be felt upon the accomplishment of at least minimal rotation of
all three of the lower elements.
the basic rotation of all four Elements has been achieved, and sight has been caught
of the Eternal Fire in the sky, that fire must be abandoned. For this 2nd stage
of the Work it is too much a distraction, in much the same way that "castles in
the sky" can distract a person from their more mundane, terrestrial chores and
tasks, so too does the majesty of the fire, the lure of its flame serve as too
great a nuisance for the more "terrestrial" earth and water based work. The
abandonment of this fire serves as the famous Hermetic Seal on the "Vase" at
2)Fountain of Youth:
the work is all about bringing Air (the Mind) and Earth (the Body) into
equilibrium with Water (Aether), in that both Air and Earth should be specially tailored
to bring about maximum production of the Water; that is this stages entire purpose.
the fire is tantamount to a Rotation of the Elemental Wheel as a whole, in that
the secondary qualities now put fire and earth at odds with one another, and
earth and water in close congruence.
it should be noted that a great many arcana can be divulged from a careful
study of the Elemental Wheel in light of the aforementioned knowledge.
Rotation is really a series of reversals in the highest-refined Aetheric Egg, the
nature of the relations between the four elements, and many other things.
Destruction of Air as Steward, Inception and Crowning of Fire, Refinement of
Purification of the Seven Metals by the Secret Fire
interference pattern that is the Mind is here slowly disassembled by the
gradual introduction of the Fire (Higher Self) to the Elementary Body, aka the
three lower elements. Through a process of bringing the Fire and Water into
closer and closer proximity, "impurities" in the Air are gradually eliminated
until it exists only as a scaffolding or "house" for the Celestial Fire.
this is done, and the Fire is in close enough proximity to the Lesser Elements
of Earth and Water, purification can take place. The same process employed to
perfect the Air is now repeated with Earth and Water. The Celestial Flame is
brought into closer and closer proximity with each of these agents, until they
become perfected, in the lesser and more general sense. When the Water and the
Earth, together with the Fire, are refined enough to be considered "new" or
reborn elements, they are referred to as the Tria Materia, or Salt, Mercury and
Sulfur, and the second stage of purification can begin.
the essential matrix of the Tria Materia is perfected, the system as a whole is
ready to be tackled. With the new forms of perception and understanding gained
via the general elimination of dross in the lower elements, the aspirant is
ready to begin the greater and more protracted work of purifying the seven-fold
body of man, depicted by the Seven Metals of the Alchemists. These too, just as
Air, are only in discordance with Fire insofar as they contain things which
contradict its edicts. These are unravelled and the Metals made complacent to
final level of the work is often referred to as Child's or Woman's Work, in
that so long as one "toes the line" or Law of this stage, keeps all things
within their proper bounds, the actual cleansing of each Metal is almost
level of the Work is the Red Stone.
PHASES OF THE ALCHEMICAL WORK
- Rotate / Wheel
the work is here called Rotation and Wheel in that basic rotation of the
wheels is essential and all encompassing.
every disease, internal or external, has as its basis a perversion of one or
more of the elements. This was basically the doctrine of Paracelsus, and how he
effected his miraculous cures, by administering to the latent, underlying
- Abandonment / Subtraction / Pathways
subtraction here means the subtraction of Fire from the equation of self, as a
sacrifice placed on the altar of Mercury, or towards the generation of the
Celestial Dew. By pathways is meant the "opening of the ways", as it is known
in the east; the profusion of water cleanses the subtle body of some of its
impurities. Abandonment here means something similar to Subtraction, in that a
purposeful turning away from Fire must be undertaken in order to exalt Water.
of Youth: the accumulation of heavenly dew does indeed give one both the inward
and outward appearance of youth. The ever-flowing fountain is also indicative of
both the mythical fountain as well as the goal of this 2nd degree, to create a
veritable wellspring of internal celestial waters.
- Law / Instruction / Revelation
here the byword is Law, because at this stage of the work the risk of committing
an error, taking a false step off the path, is enormous and the concomitant
retaliatory backlash from the forces in play being misused or improperly
handled can be dangerous or disastrous to the aspirant. To alleviate this
dangerous condition, Instruction is essential. Revelation refers to the
end-result and hopeful goal of this stage, but also to a possible form of
Stone: the thing of things, this stone is both the result of a successful
transmutation of the self, as well as being the tool used to transmute other
metals, external to the self, with the stone's "powder of projection". The
summum bonum of the whole of the work.
of all, we must thank SJ for his fascinating article and all of the hard work
he put in to prepare this material.
regarded alchemy as a projection of the collective unconscious onto the
external world, and the pursuit of the philosopher's stone and the
transmutation of base metal into gold as the process of individuation whereby
we transform the Ego into the Self.
once served as an excellent means of disguising heresy under a bewildering
jargon, impenetrable to any other than the initiates and adepts.
it began to take on a life of its own and develop into a crazy hybrid of
chemistry and mysticism. There is a specific type of alchemy that Illuminism
still holds in the highest regard and keeps extremely secret, but what usually passes
as alchemy is regarded as archaic and outmoded in relation to science,
mathematics, philosophy and psychology. What does a discussion of the four
ancient elements mean in an era of the Periodic Table, nuclear fusion and
fission (scientific transmutation of the elements!)?
supreme ability - controlling and manipulating matter with the mind - isn't
achieved through antique alchemy.
you find alchemical jargon stimulating and inspiring, by all means delve into
this arcane subject and try to discover its secrets. However, it must be said
that the alchemy you will find discussed in books is a bit like Latin - a fascinating
but dead language. The world has moved on. Mainstream alchemy was replaced by
something much more powerful - chemistry - and the highest alchemy is now based
on contemporary science and psychology, not on medieval manuscripts. Everything
evolves and it can be counterproductive to keep looking to the past when the
answers mostly lie in the present and the beyond.
respects the past, but it doesn't worship it. Humanity has much more knowledge
now than in the days of Pythagoras. Which is the more profitable use of your
time? - studying alchemy or quantum mechanics, the past or the future? Alchemy
is Mythos and quantum mechanics Logos.
past is seen as sexy and mysterious. Many people seriously believe that the
ancients knew much more than modern humanity; that if only we could discover
the greatest secrets of the ancients then we would know the Mind of God.
Illuminism, on the other hand, teaches the gospel of the dialectic. The past
provides necessary building blocks for the present, but the present is much
more dialectically advanced than the past, so why look backwards to a time of
greater ignorance rather than explore the incredible knowledge of the modern
world? Be future-oriented, not past-obsessed.
not Mythos, is the path to knowledge. Old alchemy tells the story of spiritual
transformation, but it does not actually deliver it. What is required is much
more advanced knowledge based on Logos.
sent us the following amazing tale:
discovery was made in 2004 on an island off the coast of Australia. I had
already read some material about crystal skulls and I was convinced that if
there were any more "genuine" ones on the Earth, the Aboriginal elders would
probably know about it.
was on Magnetic Island off the coast of Townsville (central North Queensland)
and I met a guy in a hostel. I found out that this guy was living on the island
with a friend and he had heard of the crystal skulls too and we got chatting.
said that he wanted to show me something very interesting in the bush but he
would need to ask permission from the Aboriginal elders before we went "off the
beaten track". He went away and said that he would meet me in the same place to
embark on this bush-walk.
enough the following day he turned up saying that it was OK. He gave me a brief
history of the island, how it is one of the last islands that the Aboriginals
have continued to "own" since "white fella" came along. The island is known as
Magnetic Island due to the fact that compasses cannot work properly anywhere
near or on the island; the island is granite and exhibits at least four
different types of this rock. There was an Australian Naval Artillery battery
built there in 1942/43 and it operated from July 1943 until the end of WWII.
Its forests are about 2,000 years old and it is one of the only remaining
places in Australia where there are wild koalas. There is also a large Tiger
shark breeding ground near the northeast coast of the island.
guide said that there were sacred sites for the Aboriginal people on the island
and that seeing as they trusted him, we were allowed to go exploring. So we
packed up our stuff and left early the following morning.
started on one of the main tracks up one of the many hills on the island; it
was a beautiful place to be. As we walked higher and higher, I noticed that
more and more rocks appeared. I then noticed something that seemed out of
place. There was a great piece of granite amongst vines, sporting a flat top
and two straight edges joined at a right angle. The more I looked around, it
was obviously a piece of something much larger that had broken off. I knew that
a fort had been built on the Island, however we were not in the right area and
this was not concrete! It was granite, and the perfect right angle with smooth
flat sides and edges. My friend said that if I thought that was cool, wait
until we got higher. I took a photo of this rock but it never turned out.
we kept walking up and up and I saw more and more scattered rocks and boulders
everywhere. We then came to an outcrop with an amazing view of the valley and
hills beyond. My friend said, "Why not take a seat on the Throne?" and motioned to the most amazing stone "bench" I had ever
seen. It comprised a large, flat-topped rock that was protruding out of the
ground and, behind it, creating the most amazing back/ shelter to the ground
rock, was a huge piece of flat granite slab sporting another obvious right
angle coming out of the ground. This big piece of granite looked like it had
been carved/ cut to be a perfect slab about a foot in depth but had obviously
been broken and was sticking out of the ground at an awkward angle, as if it
had fallen down the hill and got wedged by the other rock. It seemed to be
buried pretty deep (as with the flat stone that made the seat) and so much
vegetation was growing that it was hard to work anything out. However, I knew
this had nothing to do with any of the WWII installations, and it certainly didn't
look like Mother Nature had done it on her own.
sat on the "throne" and marvelled at the scenery. My friend bent down next to me
and pointed towards the smaller hills in the valley. He asked me if I noticed
anything about them. I strained hard and came to a slow realisation that all
the hills in the valley were roughly the same height and shape. I imagined
stripping the trees and there was no question that what would be left behind
would be pyramids! I looked at the big rolling hills behind them and saw the
beautiful curves of nature. I then looked back at the "hills" and saw straight
lines. If the trees weren't there, I would bet my life that there are pyramidal
stone structures under that 2,000-year-old forest. However, it's very unlikely
that anyone, including me, would want to burn away the forest, koalas,
wallabies and every other creature that lived there just to see if I am right!
counted the structures and there were 7 in total. My mind was buzzing. What had
been here before?
friend motioned that there was much more to see and that from now on we were
going off the track. We headed up behind the throne, and when I say "up", I
mean a 60-degree incline up!! We were climbing up through the bush in places
that no man has set foot in for a very long time. It was hard going because by
that point there were so many rocks and boulders to climb and we rarely had
"solid" ground under our feet. We then found ourselves on another path. It had
not been created like the tourist trails on the island. It seemed to be built
into the hill and it took a leisurely climb following the hill's contour. It
felt much older than WWII. I got the distinct impression that this path had
been very busy at some point in its history. I just had the "feeling" it had
seen a lot of feet.
we walked along this little path, slowly ascending until I looked up and
spotted something peculiar and awesome. It was a "tower" made of large
cuboid-shaped granite boulders plonked on top of each other. Imagine a little
set of wooden bricks piled up in a tower - this is what it looked like but on a
much grander scale. I would say it was at least 30ft high if not more; I had to
strain my neck and shield my eyes in order to see the top.
these people have cranes? I was starting to realise that I was seeing another
wonder of the world that seemed to defy our understanding of "primitive"
people; Stonehenge, pyramids, standing stones all have this same "wow" factor
that I experienced that day on seeing the "tower".
was another structure about four metres away, same principle but shorter and
there were granite rocks everywhere. I was compelled to keep pressing forward
and as we did so I started to think about my wooden brick analogy. You know
when you build a big tower and it collapses? Well there are always "foundation"
bricks left where the structure once stood and then there would be bricks lying
around, scattered. Most bricks land quite near to the foundations but there
would be a few bricks further away. Now put this brick tower in a steep hill.
When the tower collapses some of the bricks fall around the still visible
foundation and some bricks would spill out further down the hill. Put this in a
real situation with a stone structure on top of a hill and the effects would be
the same; whatever the nature of the structure's demise there would be remnants
of the foundations with much debris near the foundations and then there would
be scatterings down the hill. It appeared to me that we were nearing what could
be the foundation remains of a very big structure indeed.
we got closer to the very top of the hill, there was an amazing amount of giant
boulders towering over us, huge great things proudly dwarfing us and the only
thing dwarfing them were the trees. To refer back to my original observations
about 90-degree angles I was aware that granite has a way of cracking and
splitting that can create some amazing effects. It cracks and splits kind of
like a tree can split depending on its grain. Granite also has a grain so it
can shed great sheets off itself, break into big pieces, seemingly "sliced"
like onion layers. These granite boulders around us were showing signs of this,
many plunging gaps between pieces that had obviously been whole at one point,
slices that looked like onion layers slowly cracking off. However there was
still a "natural" air about it, there were no absolute straight lines and no 90-degree
angles. I looked further up to the top of the hill and saw that there were no
more trees, just great concentration of rocks and boulders; A "foundation"
of going up, my friend decided we should head a little way down the other side
of the hill and he pointed out something on the side of the neighbouring hill,
on the coast. There was another large stone formation facing out to sea and my
friend said "That is known as "The Sphinx" and when you're on the island the
only places you can view it are from where we are standing and from the nearby
not like this thing had any distinguishing features of being a sphinx, no head
or anything, but I did see two main rock formations that could have been
resting "front legs". What was going on? Aboriginals building pyramids, stone
towers and sphinxes??
pressed on downhill and I realised that we were heading down towards the coast.
We came upon a huge flat granite rock that protruded out of the hill, probably
about 20 square foot. You can walk out onto the rock and look down upon a sheer
drop off the edge. Balanced in the centre of this flat rock was a standing
stone probably about 8ft tall. Not something you see every day and it was an
interesting addition to my already crazy day!
final discoveries on the island were on the coast. We had descended down the
hill and arrived at the rocky shore and decided to head along the coast. I
noticed a big "rock" because there was something different about it compared to
the seemingly endless stretch of rocky coast. I got closer to it and the nearer
I got I thought "nature does not make perfect "s" shapes, does it?" I looked
all around this "rock" and found the head, and the carved eyes were still
visible even after water, wind and salt erosion. It was a stone snake, not a
doubt in my mind. There was something about it that said "human made" and not
"nature made". We kept walking and a bit further along the coast my friend
pointed over to a rock on the shoreline and I went to check it out. At first I
didn't see anything but then I tipped my head upside down and looked again. It
was a canine type head. It was lying with one eye out of the water and the
other side of the head looked eroded in the water. The structure of the head
was like that of a jackal or dingo: long snout, nostrils, a clear "mouth" line
and there were even stumps where the ears should have been but they had broken
off. One carved eye was still visible. However, the other side of the head in
the water had started to wash the features and head away.
friend motioned for me to look up and said that we were below the boulders on
the top of the hill that we had visited before. Sure enough I was looking up at
where we had been standing. Viewing it from down here made it look like the
formations had been something once. The fact that a "head of a canine type
creature" was directly below this formation and that another formation was
already known as "The Sphinx" really got me thinking.
this amazing bush walk, I went to the Townsville library and asked to see
everything they had about the island. The librarian was very helpful and was
interested in what I found. She found the geology reports from when the island
was first discovered by white men and it was an interesting read. It is one big
granite rock and has three other prominent types of granite on its surface. I
scanned the article trying to find any other findings like my own but to no
avail. According to geologists and scientists, all the granite formation are
natural. Normally I would accept that; there are many natural examples on the
island of granite rock splitting and shedding layers. However, there was no
mention of perfectly flat surfaces, straight lines and right angles in any of
I was studying the landscape on our trek up the hill I was looking closely at
the way the rocks were lying, the placement of the rocks, trying to work
backwards to work out how they came to be where they are. It looked like a lot
of these rock placements were debris, a real mess of rocks and chaos and many
pieces had fallen in such strange and awkward angles that it looked like a
disaster zone that had been taken over by forest. "The Throne" was a great
example because the only reason the "backrest" was in that position was because
it was jammed up against the "bench" rock. It reminded me of the aftermath of
9/11 with mountains of building debris piled up so high. Imagine if a disaster
zone like ground zero were to be left unattended for 2000 years… eventually
nature would take over and it would become a beautiful hilly forest and perhaps
only the tops of these "hills" would be open to the air. However only through
clearing and digging would the true nature of these hills be revealed.
fact is, the only way I or anybody could be sure is to clear away all the
greenery to reveal what's underneath. If there are skeleton/remnants of life,
they are well buried under an ancient forest and no one has ever dug to find
out. Hidden under those trees in the valley, there may be seven pyramids in a
similar formation to those in Egypt and Central America. However, the likelihood
is that nothing will ever be uncovered because it is a protected forest and my
observations are certainly not enough to instigate any sort of archaeological
expedition! But to this day I know I found something truly remarkable, and
although I may never be able to "prove" it, my intuition on the matter is far
more important to me and I look forward to my next visit to Magnetic Island.
Comment - if CS's intuition is right, it would imply that something like the
Mayan civilisation once existed in Australia.
fact, Magnetic Island is listed amongst a large number of sites in Australia
with puzzling features and artefacts that hint at an extraordinary, untold
history. See, for example:
has been speculated that the ancient Phoenicians may have established colonies
in ancient Australia, or even the lost tribes of Israel.
wrote to us with the following message:
don't know each other, but I trust you. You've changed my life. Every single
thing I believed before now makes sense.I haven't subscribed to The Movement yet because I need to be sure that
what I believe is not just a new "faith" and to think what I can do
for The Movement: that means for myself and all the others. You've said you
don't need someone with a blind faith and I agree. I'm still evaluating your
words because there's so much in my heart but I'm not strong enough with all
the stuff you say about science.
begun a letter for you, it was in my native language and I'm still translating
it, and it is because you were able to touch all my senses, not only my brain,
not only my heart. I've had the desire to join you, but I don't know if I'm
good enough. Even if you don't accept me, I'm feeling one of the Illuminati, because
you have told me the truth and because I can't help feeling part of this. In
the past, it has been so difficult for me because every time something new was
in front of me I asked myself: "Is it definitive? Is it the only
truth?" and I don't know how and why but it was so clear that it wasn't.
When I dropped in your website, I knew immediately it was the truth, and I
don't know to explain to you why. For me it is so self-evident. I've spent more
or less five months wondering even stupid things about you: how you have
recruitedpeople in the past, because
you speak during your meetings so that means you must have a common language,
and in the past maybe it was Latin, a lot of time thinking of the way I can
create my own religion, a lot of time using the brain to understandr >= 0and not only intuition;last year
I walked the Camino de Santiago for the first time because I was strong enough
to do it just for myself, without subscribing to any religion.
began to be interested in magic and esotericism, reading books of mythology and
magic, then moving to all that stuff that seems to be by chance and instead
there's a reason if you stumble into that stuff. The Templar Order has been so
fascinating for me in the past, but I didn't know the truth; now that I know
the truth I'm so much happier! I begun to be interested in the anthroposophy
because of the biodynamic agriculture and it's so obvious to go from Steiner to
Goethe. His theory (Goethe's) about colours fascinated me, and then I've found
out he was one of your Grand Masters! Now almost everything is clear! I'm
preparing to walk the Camino again in a month just to be alone with a rucksack
and the sky and all your words printed (please, don't delete the website, you
are the only person that explained to me these concepts so easily). It costs me
time and money, of course, I have to leave my job, but otherwise what's the
point to life if I don't feel alive? I moved to London in order to study
English because I need to apply for a Ph.D. in Anthropology of Food, and now
I'm not scared anymore because I know you really exist and you are still there.
it's difficult to be at work everyday because I understand that something is
even more wrong than what I thought before. Zeitgeist
Addendum and the Venus Project
are still in my mind and I talk of it with everyone, I read the Meritocracy
website slowly, writing my thoughts in order to ask or to communicate with the
guy in charge of it for everything I think could be helpful or if I'm in doubt.
I've written to my former Professor at University to get the name of some authors
of theories regarding Leadership that could be important in order to make people
understand who really is a leader, not just someone in charge of something.
I've even contacted Pho', thanking him for his music, because - as he said to
me quoting one of you - people need physical evidence of an idea to believe.
you've existed since the beginning of time; you are the witnesses of the truth.
I understand you can't reveal the secrets because if someone is not
"pure" or he is evil then he can use the same secret in order to
ensure the world is enslaved or maybe to kill God in the same way Solomon
wanted to kill Satan. I can only guess why Freemasonry is one of your biggest
regrets. You have taught part of the secrets for good reasons and thinking to
help humanity but people instead just decided to get even more power. I
understand that you say mind and matter are just two aspects of the same thing;
we are here made of matter and we have to act with the mind and knowledge. God
is pure mind and he is in the kingdom of the mind. That's why he can
communicate with us just with the mind and knowledge. My first step into this
was an Italian, Gustavo Rol. I've read a lot about him and what he used to say.
I don't know if he was honest or what, but there are a lot of things that made
me think of God, of matter and spirit, of desire without desire, of the
said there's a music that only God can hear. I understand this. I think it's
true, and I remember that Rol once said there's a link between the colour
green, warmth and a concept in music that I can't translate (la quinta musicale). I can't understand
what that means but the 3 "items" here look like possible. You can
see I'm quite poor with my reasons and my experience. I'm here naked in front
of you, trying to be quick, writing in the best way possible for me, saying
just a very little part of what is in my heart and my mind. I know I have a
long path to walk.
would prefer to have more time, and to tell you more of me and to have more
teachings from you, but because maybe you are disappearing forever I'm here
asking you to teach me. Teach me what you can teach me in order to understand.
I'm not rich and I need a guide to get to the point. Is there anything you can
suggest to me, a list of books for example (I've found a lot of books on your
website and I've written all the references) or any other suggestion?
will walk my path, but if there's a guide I can feel better. I'm passionate
about mountains, so the concept of a guide is so important to me: someone that
can help you, can warn you, can show you the way, but YOU have to walk it, you
have to see and to look around, you have to understand, otherwise once you're alone
you'll be lost.
hope you are not leaving at all, I hope you will leave a track somewhere, not
just in my heart and my mind; this is the most important, I know, but I hope I
can meet you again. Just tell me that The Movement website and the Meritocracy
website will be still there at least. Just 40 serious people, you said. No,
it's not correct, it's 41.
Comment: We thank "C" for her poignant and spirited comments, and we also
encourage everyone to emulate her example of going on a pilgrimage. You can
follow an existing route just as C did, or create one of your own.
Camino de Santiago - the Way of St James - is a collection of old European pilgrimage
routes that reach their end at Santiago de Compostela in northwest Spain.
Pilgrims have been walking these routes for over a thousand years. Catholicism,
no matter its faults, has produced wondrously beautiful cathedrals, churches
and art and even when Catholicism and Christianity have vanished, the artworks will
beautiful, spiritual places for your pilgrimage. Ancient ruins, natural beauty
spots, mountains, lakes, forests, cathedrals, picturesque villages, medieval
walled towns, poignant battlefields, places of romance, horror, history, magic,
delight: anything that heightens your feelings, senses, spirituality and
are only a small number of genuine truth seekers in this world of ours. One of
them is Wes Penre. For years, Wes attacked the global elite, calling them by
the conventional internet name of the "Illuminati". However, when he found out
about the authentic Illuminati, he immediately made sure his readers were given
corrected information i.e. he was one of those rare people who can break out of
an existing paradigm and embrace new ideas. That's the mark of someone
genuinely interested in the truth.
John Maynard Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
few people are capable of changing their opinions. They are locked in and they
will never be coming out of their mental jail. 99% of people born as Muslims, for example, will die as Muslims and not once will it cross their minds that they are 100%
for Wes Penre, he is one of the few who are capable of retaining an open mind.
He has laboured for years with little or no reward, often being abused and
ridiculed for his efforts. It takes a special kind of person to spend year
after year on a difficult and challenging enterprise. People typically give up
on things after days, weeks, or a few months at most. Only people with real
commitment and determination will make a difference in this world. It's the
rarest breed that perseveres without any conventional reward. The reward comes
in other ways, of course.
you devote yourself to a major undertaking for a decade?
always stands in awe of nature when events such as the Japanese tsunami occur.
Human beings suddenly seem so fragile, helpless and pathetic when nature flexes
its muscles. The control which we imagine we exert over our world is revealed
as nothing but shadow and illusion.
of course, these events are not always regarded as mere natural phenomena. For
many Abrahamists, they are the Will of God, hence there will be many malignant
Christians, Jews and Muslims wondering what evils the Japanese have done to
justify God's wrathful retaliation. The Japanese aren't Abrahamists, of course -
so there's a pretext straight away. They are being punished for being infidels,
because they refuse to kneel and bow to the tyrant Yahweh/Allah/Christ and
acknowledge Abraham, Moses and Mohammed.
karmists will believe that the Japanese who died were paying their karmic dues
for past crimes.
for ancient Gnosticism, it would regard this as another malevolent action of
the wicked king of the earth - the Demiurge - in his eternal campaign to
torture humanity in this hell.
nature is just nature and does what nature does.
a cataclysmic event that kills vast numbers can sometimes be seen as a sign of
Japanese word kamikaze means "divine
wind" and refers to the providential typhoons that destroyed Kublai Khan's two Mongol
invasion fleets that would surely have conquered Japan. In WWII, the Japanese kamikaze pilots
thought of themselves as a divine wind that would similarly destroy the
American invasion fleet.
the Spanish Armada was ravaged by terrible storms in 1588 as it attempted the invasion
of England, the event was proclaimed by Elizabeth I as God's divine
intervention on the side of the Protestant cause against Catholicism.
can often be double-sided. Disaster is often accompanied by triumph.
horrors the Japanese have suffered will be transformed in due course into new
ways to fight future disasters. One day, humanity will indeed enjoy the control
over nature that has hitherto been the province of the gods.
TIME MOR-ELS sent us the
following message about time:
WILL COME A TIME WHEN EVERYTHING THAT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO US WILL BECOME
INSIGNIFICANT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF CREATION.
THERE WILL COME A TIME WHEN ALL THAT WAS LOVED WILL BE LOST AND ALL THAT WAS
LOST WILL BE FOUND.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOUR EGO WILL NEED TO BE SHATTERED IN ORDER FOR YOU
TO TRULY EVOLVE. REMEMBER PRIDE COMES BEFORE THE FALL.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU WILL REALIZE THAT MONEY IS REALLY JUST PAPER AND
TRULY HAS NO VALUE.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN ALL WILL SEEM HOPELESS, AND AT THAT POINT YOU WILL
FIND RENEWED FAITH IN THE WILL OF MEN.
THERE WILL BE A TIME REGARDLESS OF YOUR "DIFFERENCES" YOU WILL
REALIZE THAT A HUMAN BEING IS A HUMAN BEING.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BUY
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU FINALLY SEE THAT INFINITE POTENTIAL IS THE BASIS
FOR ALL THERE IS, AND THAT EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST AN ILLUSION.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU THINK YOU CAN'T GIVE ANY MORE, AND SUDDENLY WILL
FIND THAT LITTLE BIT MORE TO GIVE.
THERE WILL BE A TIME THAT YOU FINALLY COME TO TERMS WITH YOUR LIKES AND
DISLIKES AND REALIZE THAT THEY ARE FOR THE MOST PART PETTY.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU GET A GRIP AND SEE THAT NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU
MAY THINK SO THE WORLD ACTUALLY DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU, AND YOUR EMOTIONS.
THERE WILL BE A TIME THAT YOU FIND OUT CONSUMERISM IS ACTUALLY SLAVERY, AND
THAT YOUR FREEDOM ONLY COMES THROUGH EXPRESSION OF UNIQUENESS.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU WILL SEE THAT ALL THE "THINGS" YOU HAVE
WORKED SO HARD FOR MEAN NOTHING WITHOUT THE PEOPLE YOU LOVE TO SHARE THEM WITH.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU REALIZE THE PEOPLE YOU LOVE ARE MORE IMPORTANT
THAN THE "THINGS" YOU WORKED SO HARD FOR.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU TRULY ARE AT LIBERTY TO BE YOUR SELF WITHOUT FEAR
OF RIDICULE OR CONDEMNATION.
THERE WILL BE A TIME THAT YOU REALIZE WISDOM IS APPLIED KNOWLEDGE, AND THAT
KNOWLEDGE IS USELESS IF IT IS NOT APPLIED.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU COME TO TERMS WITH THE FACT THAT YOU MUST BE THE
CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU BREAK THROUGH YOUR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS OF
"KARMA", AND YOU WILL LEARN FULL WELL THAT YOU TRULY GET WHAT YOU
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU FIND OUT THAT "TIME" IS MERELY AN
ILLUSION USED TO PLACE LIMITS ON THE HUMAN PSYCHE.
THERE WILL BE A TIME THAT YOU SEE THAT EVERYTHING IS NOT WHAT IT SEEMS.
THERE WILL BE A TIME YOU ACCEPT THAT YOUR FIVE SENSES DECEIVE YOU, AND THAT YOU
REALLY DON'T SEE WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU FIGURATIVELY, AND LITERALLY.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU WILL BREAK THROUGH THE BONDAGE OF MANIPULATION,
AND FIND OUT THAT "GOD" EXISTS WITHIN YOU NOT OUTSIDE OF YOU.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN ALL WILL BECOME CLEAR, AND THE VEIL OF CONFUSION
WHICH HAS BLINDED YOU FOR SO LONG WILL BE LIFTED.
THERE WILL BE A POINT AT WHICH YOU BREAK AND YOU WILL FEEL OVERWHELMED, AND
THEN YOU WILL GROUND YOURSELF AND YOUR EMOTIONS SO YOU CAN START ANEW.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN ALL MANKIND WILL SEE WE ARE ALL OF THE SAME ESSENCE,
OR ONE AND THE SAME. AND ALL OUR FRIVOLOUS DISAGREEMENTS WILL FALL BY THE WAY
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOUR PERSONAL SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION WILL BE FAR MORE
IMPORTANT TO YOU THAN LOVE, MONEY, OR EVEN LIFE ITSELF. BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT
EVOLVE FROM THE INSIDE OUT YOU DO NOT EVOLVE AT ALL.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN IRRELEVANT CONTRADICTION SUDDENLY BECOMES RELEVANT.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN THE DAYS BECOME NIGHTS AND THE NIGHTS BECOME DAYS.
THERE WILL BE A TIME WHEN YOU LOSE ALL SENSE OF TIME AND SPACE. AT THAT POINT
YOU HAVE FREED YOUR MIND AND SOUL FROM THE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS OF YOUR BODY.
THERE WILL BE A TIME FOR ALL THESE THINGS I ASSURE YOU THAT. BUT YOU MUST BE
PROACTIVE IN YOUR OWN EVOLUTION.
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, BUT IT ONLY BECOMES WISDOM WHEN IT IS APPLIED. SO LIVE,
LOVE, AND LEARN AND APPLY WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED SO THE TRUE ESSENCE OF YOUR
BEING CAN ASCEND.
sent us the following message:
just finished reading about the Celestial Human my jaw dropped and tears came
to my eyes upon seeing the Monad symbol by Pythagoras. Since childhood, I have
had frequent dreams/nightmares of this exact symbol: me seeing the black dot in
the middle surrounded by pure white. Feeling terribly lonely in these dreams to
the extent I felt I was annihilated by the whiteness around me, suffocating me.
Just when I feel I am going to die, the scene changes and I become a white dot
in the middle of darkness/black. The symbol actually turns inside out. It
becomes its reversed image and the loneliness strikes me even harder than
before. The darkness becomes people by whom I am completely surrounded but from
whom I am utterly separated, and that knowledge is suffocating me. I am fully
aware in my dream, entirely helpless and trying to escape it.
has been my most feared nightmare and I've been wondering why on earth it has
been haunting me for so long. I have explained to myself that I know at least
on some levels what the dream is about. But now reading about the celestial
human it strikes me that is has had so many implications that I have been too
scared to look at as it contradicts many of the morals and values with which I
was brought up; those being very strange since I was raised by an alcoholic,
semi-Christian mother. I have always KNOWN in my core that there is an energy
connecting all living beings: watching a flower grow from a seed to a blooming
blossom; the spark so evident in all children; simply observing humans, animals
and nature has told me this. Seeing a loved one dead was probably what totally
convinced me about this as I could SEE the lifespark wasn't there anymore. My
friend had become a corpse, nothing more, and it was the weirdest experience
thing is I have always fled from this core knowledge as it seemed to alienate
me from other normal human beings telling me or suggesting I had lost my
marbles. I was afraid I was insane. I remember clearly trying to explain to my
mother about both these dreams, my experiences of popping out of my body
unintentionally, or the experience that the world, on several occasions, seemed
to become jolted backwards, going out of tune and rhythm. (The only way I can
describe it best is as if someone took the whole fabric of the universe and
"scratched" it as a DJ does to a record.)
I tried to talk to my mother about these things, it scared the crap out of me
because she would look at me completely baffled (no wonder, I suppose), not
knowing what to say to me and also looking quite worried about my mental
health, which in turn made me feel even more afraid. These dreams and
experiences followed me continually till I was 18 and I became pregnant
carrying my daughter. I knew 3 days after intercourse that I was pregnant. I
had not gone over time. There was no way I could have known I was pregnant - a
pregnancy test wouldn't have been able to pick it up - but I felt this seed
inside me beaming like a light. It was like a tingling and the sweetest
sensation ever. I could feel the light inside me and see it in my mind. And yes
I was indeed pregnant. I gave birth to a beautiful daughter and she has kept me
sane and grounded since. Whenever I felt my soul trying to jump out I would
hold on to her little feet and it would keep me in place, so to speak. It might
seem like a huge responsibility to place on such a small child but it was the
only way to keep these things from happening which scared me so profoundly as I
didn't know what they where or how to control them.
I came across a book written by a Native American about how to think in words
and not images, so as not to pop out. Carlos Castaneda's books about the
teachings he received from Don Juan also helped me gain a better understanding
of what was going on and so I didn't have to cling on to my daughter's feet :).
is both a relief and a mind-boggling shock (in the good sense) that this symbol
has eluded me until today - a symbol which has been with me my whole life via
my dreams, a symbol which was devised by Pythagoras 2,500 years ago! A symbol
which describes the essence of the universe and the Image of God... I mean
wtf?! Had I not been so utterly afraid of being abnormal, I might have figured
it out sooner and it could have helped me conquer my fears of being abnormal,
alone, weird etc etc. how ironic is that? I am inclined to say EUREKA! I used to
utter those words as a small child, having picked it up from some comic book,
whenever I figured something out, not fully understanding its meaning other
than I GOT IT!
still have that dream, but very rarely now. Hopefully next time it occurs I'll
approach it differently and not be so afraid. There are so many thoughts
arising in regards to the explanations given in the article The Celestial
Human. The Universe is like an organism ever building ever declining, as is
life itself down to the smallest details. I know what this symbol means even if
I can't verbalise it. How beautiful.
wanted to thank you for posting this absolutely amazing material on your site.
It has day by day really helped me in accepting myself and to trust my inner
light, my brain and my eyes to guide me on my journey in life. I also wanted to
share this with someone who might understand and appreciate my experiences for
what they are and not for what they are not and hopefully create some
resonance. I have never really told anybody about these experiences as they
including myself have been rejected whenever I've tried to do so. So from a
personal point of view this is such a relief.
I have attached the reverse symbol in case my explanation wasn't clear enough.
is clearly highly intuitive and has the ability to access a set of perceptions
very different from those of ordinary people. Shouldn't we be cultivating
people with exceptional abilities and unusual ways of perceiving the world
rather than making them feel alienated and strange? There are many people in
this world with extraordinary gifts that we actively ignore because their gifts
don't fit with the prevailing paradigm.
the sort of new world we are advocating, all those people like GW who have
brains wired in exceptional ways will be nurtured and treasured. Through them,
the rest of us will be able to gain the profoundest insights currently denied
the prevailing one-size-fits-all, identikit view of humanity that prevents the
human race from appreciating those who fall outwith the ordinary parameters and
who can therefore perceive the world differently from others. They are a vital
resource; not people who should be shunned for being "abnormal".
"witches" who were burned at the stake in the Middle Ages were nothing other
than women with unusual abilities, which were taken to be Satanic powers. How
foolish their persecutors and killers were.
often labels unusual people as mad when it should be using these people to
unlock doors of perception that would otherwise be permanently locked to the
rest of us.
and the Agony
sent us this message:
belonged to a New Age religion; a fairly large movement stemming from Theosophy
in the late 1800s and the I AM Movement in the 1900s.It started in the 60s, originally named
Summit Lighthouse. It was started by Mark Prophet who was later joined by his
wife, Elizabeth Clare Prophet (she became infamous in the US because of the
nuclear war/bomb shelter stuff, and the fact that her husband and a staff
member were involved in an illegal gun-purchasing incident).
movement was based on what has been referred to as Teachings of the Ascended
Masters. Mark and Elizabeth were referred to as "Messengers" and
supposedly received teachings directly from these Ascended Masters. I think the
strength of the movement ultimately became its downfall and that was the
extremely strong personalities of Mark and Elizabeth.I also think a herd mentality developed in
its members, and these two became rather objects of worship, much like pop
culture celebrities.This, in turn,
caused their egos to become highly inflated resulting in all the problems that
come with complexes such as that.
in its heyday, Summit Lighthouse - which then morphed into Church Universal and
Triumphant after Mark died - really did accomplish quite a bit.They ultimately ended up in Montana on a huge
acreage, became self-sufficient as far as farming etc. for its staff.They created a community in a nearby town for
church members and staff.They published
many, many books, monthly lessons, videos, music.They held seminars worldwide, in particular
quarterly conferences at the headquarters in Montana, which were attended by
thousands.There were very many talented
and creative people who were movers and shakers in that movement.
had a dynamic form of "prayer" called decreeing. It was powerful,
especially when a whole mass of members were decreeing together.I once was on a hillside which overlooked the
large tent at one of the conferences which was high up in the mountains, and
when I heard the decreeing coming from that tent, it sounded like the most
beautiful music I had ever heard.
essence, the basic tenet of the movement was freedom: freedom from physical
incarnation, freedom to ascend spiritually higher in our evolution, and thus
pulling the entire planet up with us.As
I have said before, we believe that we have the spark of the Divine within us,
we are all destined to become Christs, and that those who attained their
ascension before us were helping us on our way (the Ascended Masters).We believe in the I AM Presence - that is,
the individualized Presence of God which was our true identity before we became
trapped in physical incarnation.
where it went wrong. It became extremely politically and religiously
conservative.What started as a
rebellious movement away from organized religion became that very same thing.It became dictatorial - what you can't wear,
what you can't eat, be careful about too much sex, decree, decree, decree.I noticed after some years that many people
on staff were automatons.It became a
culture based on fear. Elizabeth became the ultimate Dictator and the staff
that most closely surrounded her became very abusive and power hungry.Towards the late 90s, it became apparent that
something was not right with her, and then it was finally revealed that she had
Alzheimers.She died just last
year.The movement still goes on, but
is very much reduced.
though I now doubt a lot of the teachings we were given, I still carry with me
many of the beliefs from that movement, but I feel that I have moved on and
matured to a higher level of knowledge. I look at those years - for me about
twenty - as "glory days" because as I said, we were on fire for
freedom.It seemed for a long time that
we were unstoppable, and then it all crumbled.It imploded, really.It started
with corruption from within, loss of the strong leader, and a subsequent
distrust of the inner circle by the membership at large.
think my initial inspiration and that of the people who I know well in the
movement stemmed from the lack we felt and the emptiness of the current
religions - mainly the Christian ones.We were all searching for a deeper spirituality and a deeper knowledge
of self.That coupled with the idea that
we could "save the world," so to speak, made it very enticing.
I think its destruction could have been prevented?No.There were way too many factors that played into the final downfall,
most of which stemmed from idolatry - idolatry of the Messengers, idolatry of
the Ascended Masters, and idolatry of self, really.I cringed when I read the Last Bling King
when they anointed John Paul: it was so typical of what our movement went
through.As you have shown, all
religions stem from one person and that person ultimately becomes the God of
that religion, except in the case of the Jews where they have anointed
themselves the gods.It has never worked
to lift mankind and it never will.It is
within us to work out our own destiny.
just want to let you know that when I found the Teachings of the Ascended
Masters, I knew without a doubt that it's what I had been searching for.I now believe those teachings, at the very
least, served to open up my mind to be able to accept even higher teachings,
which I have found with the Illuminati and the AC website.I am now on fire to discover the truth of the
Mystery of the Holy Grail.(Btw, the
Arthurian stories were a very big part of the teachings of the Summit
Lighthouse; in fact, one of their headquarters was named Camelot).That is why I've begged you to at least
leave that website up, so all other seekers, like myself, can discover it and
learn the higher truths.The teachings
on the website need to be read and re-read over and over until they are
have said in the past that my biggest fear in life is that, in the end, I will
be found wanting; that I didn't do enough to accomplish whatever it was I
needed to in this lifetime.That
accomplishment is nothing less than discovering the true mystery of life and to
ultimately be reunited with the True God.
thank you for all the time and effort you all put into the website.I know you think you failed, but I'm inclined
to think otherwise.
a fascinating account from LW, and it provides a salutary lesson. We've come
across this religion before and it certainly has seductive features and
elements with which we sympathize. We can understand why LW was so
enthusiastic. It's a shame that such enterprises tend to go awry after
organizations have to be aware of the processes LW has described - the way
idealism turns to dogmatism and to the cult of the personality. But if people
are forewarned, they can see the danger signs developing and do something about
"Look at what my lunch money bought ya
- a ticket to the Guillotine."
we said we would include one of your contributions in one of our articles and
we have not yet done so, please send us a reminder. Thanks.
provides the female vocal on the song - The
Black Sun - that provides the introductory soundtrack to this page. Born on
that most auspicious of days - 14 July, Bastille Day - Feelfelt is a natural rebel
are particular fans of her delivery of the word "bling". Has there ever been a
more glorious sound? Has anyone better captured the imaginary sound that light
makes when it hits a diamond?
it has come to our attention that parties who shall remain anonymous have
nominated Feelfelt as "teacher's pet" for this month. Since
all teachers' pets must be treated with due deference, we have dedicated this
corner to a celebration of the factors which no doubt brought her to such an
elevated rank in teacher's estimation.
you enter Feelfelt's cyber abode, you should wipe your feet and remove your
shoes. We promised Feelfelt that we would arrange the furniture and plump the
cushions on her behalf. She insisted that we get the over-paid feng shui consultants and decorators
to provide a style that she dubs "Zen Chic" - minimal and functional, yet beautiful and comfortable. The energy is clean and direct, soothing and calming. One feels unfettered yet fancy in such an environment.
Of course, cyber apartments are states of mind, so breathe in
hard, clear the clutter from your mind and imagine the perfect place for
experiencing the sublime. For such is Amanda's apartment that we have conjured
for your delectation. It is the hippest, coolest place you have ever seen and
you will no doubt wish you could stay here forever. Alas, not even forever lasts forever.
natural habitat is Buffalo, New York. Here, she sculpts her aural delights. As
she says herself, she creates songs that combine euphonious chordal, rhythmic
guitar work with a distinctively powerful and emotive voice. She ventures
through epic musical landscapes, plunging into deep, silent valleys and
climbing great, snow-capped mountains.
notes fall from the blossoming trees like ripe fruit and are swept up by the wind to form
symphonic, dynamic, ever-changing walls of sound like musical kaleidoscopes,
full of aural "colors" conveying every possible emotion.
a Feelfelt performance, the audience encounters a spirit who fully engages their
senses and feelings and won't let go until every drop of the magic spell has
been drained. Never has the elixir sounded so good.