Dacia Iluministă

There is no task more difficult than attempting to reform a berserk, irrational religion such as Islam. Anyone who has the guts to try immediately takes their own life in 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. How can you have a debate about anything when one group immediately sentences the opposing group to death?

Hasan was compelled to retract his claims, and he posted a wretched note on the door of his mosque saying, “I seek Allah’s forgiveness for my mistakes and apologise for my mistakes.” So, 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!

At 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.” Hasan’s views were described at his mosque as a “source of antagonism in the Muslim community.” He was dismissed from his role as imam. He 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.” In 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.

Islam is the religion for retards, the religion forever stuck in the Arabian desert of 1,400 years ago. Islam is not part of the dialectic of freedom and progress. It’s a permanent antithesis. The 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. It’s not Muslims themselves who are the problem, but Islam as an ideology. It lends itself to mania. It encourages and demands fanaticism and intolerance.

All 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. The 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, Al Qaeda, (ISIL, IS).

Islam 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 out-breeding the Westerners and, if the present trends persist, first Europe and then America will fall to Islam.

Before 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, and 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.

You 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.

Europe 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 might 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. Now the same outcome may happen via immigration and higher birth rate rather than force of arms.

The 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 under which the Gnostic Cathars. They were subjected to the first Inquisition and then a holy crusade to exterminate them.

That’s 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. Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iran 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’s the most important issue of all.

Only reason can save us. Otherwise we will be plunged into the ultimate Endarkenment.
__________

Wes Penre:

There 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. Economist John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Surprisingly 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% wrong.

As 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.

Could you devote yourself to a major undertaking for a decade? Wes’ current projects are at:

http://battleofearth.wordpress.com/
http://wespenre.com/

Check them out and support Wes’ work.
__________

Tsunami and Kamikaze:

Humanity 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. But, of course, these events are not always regarded as 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.

The “karmists” will believe that the Japanese who died were paying their karmic dues for past crimes. As 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. But nature is just nature and does what nature does. Moreover, a cataclysmic event that kills vast numbers can sometimes be seen as a sign of divine favour rather than Godly malevolence. The 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.

When 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. Catastrophes can often be double-sided. Disaster is often accompanied by triumph. The 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.

******

THERE 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 CONFIDENCE 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 YOU HAPPINESS.

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 GIVE.

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 SIDE.

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.

REMEMBER KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, BUT IT ONLY BECOMES WISDOM WHEN IT IS APPLIED. SO LIVE, LOVE, APPLY LOGIC AND REASON, AND LEARN TO PRACTICE WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED SO THE TRUE ESSENCE OF YOUR BEING CAN ASCEND.
__________

The Symbol:

“GW” sent us the following message:

Having 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. 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 life spark wasn’t there any more. My friend had become a corpse, nothing more, and it was the weirdest experience ever.

The 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.)

When 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.

Later 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 🙂. It 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!

I 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.

I 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.

PS: I have attached the reverse symbol in case my explanation wasn’t clear enough.

Our Comment:

“GW” 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.

In 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 to us. It’s 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”.

Many “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. Society 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.
__________

The Ecstasy and the Agony:

“LW” sent us this message.

I 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). The 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.

But, 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. We 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.

In 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.

Here’s 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.

Even 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.

I 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.

Do 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.

I 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 completely internalized.

I 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.

I 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.

Our Comment:

What 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 promising beginnings. All 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 them.
__________

The Poem:

Phantom sent us the following message and poem:

******

Tonight I was pondering The Art of War, a favourite text of mine, and from it I drew inspiration for a poem I hope will find its way into one of your books.

This poem is dedicated to all our friends and allies,
To every seeker, knower and illuminator
That brings to this world a shining beacon
To guide every soul and show them
That they are the brightest stars!
The poem is called The Brightest Deed, The Sunlit Seed.
In the Hearts of Men,
A Fire dwindles,
In the Night’s black fen, our Spirit kindles
The soul, the spirit of man,
Our goal, to unleash it again.
Into this world we plunge,
Upon the face of uncertainty and Lunge
A bright Spear, a flaming Arrow
Seizing victory from defeat’s jaws
So Narrow.
The clock strikes in this final hour,
As we rise against the tyrant’s power
And cast down the yokes of shame,
Taking up our swords & cloaks of flame
And shine so brightly into the night, freeing our brethren of their darkest plight.
To look upon a new world rising,
Like the bright Morning star shining, heralding the end of night and the new day surmising,
A bright new future, crying
Alight! Alight! The night she falls,
The Sun gleams, into the sky striding!
__________

Denial of Service

“Look at what my lunch money bought ya – a ticket to the Guillotine.” –Pho’

******

And finally…

Amanda’s Corner

“Feelfelt” provides the female vocal on the song The Black Sun by Pho’, the visionary Hip Hop artist.

Born on that most auspicious of days – 14 July, Bastille Day – Feelfelt is a natural rebel and revolutionary.

We are particular fans of her vocal 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 the face of a diamond?

*bling!*

Now, 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.

Before 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.

Feelfelt’s 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.

Musical 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 “colours” conveying every possible emotion. In 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.

“Amanda World” can be further explored here:

http://www.myspace.com/amandajarosz

http://www.feelfelt.com/

Here’s a sample of Amanda in action:

http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/56158533#pm_cmp=vid_OEV_P_P

Check out the girls who arrive late and natter through the song. How rude!

And check out the rather interesting spanking scene depicted on the poster at the left of the shot.

Keep your ears peeled for the Music of the Spheres. The Feelfelt experience is not to be missed.

Art, music, and the esoteric – it’s all going on.
__________

The Gnostic Legion:

“The Age of Aquarius, the promised Age of Reason, has been born into a Dark Age of Reason. Scientific materialism fights tooth and nail to have no god, and to do so it has resorted to denying life, mind, and free will. Human life is reduced to a mere mechanism. This dehumanization forces the mind to resign itself from the world and from looking for anything more, and plays perfectly into the hands of decadence. Materialism reigns, and its adherents strangle life and mind just to turn a profit. Countless millions are asked to swallow austerity so that the few can carry on business as usual. The biosphere is being destroyed for the sake of a bank balance. Religion today stands opposed to rationality. Spirituality is sold for rocks and it worships obscurantism. Faith is promoted as a means to secure unjustified and manifestly false beliefs just so that you can have the feeling of being right. Monotheism poisons the minds of a myriad. Our world is dying, and instead of being revived by an Enlightenment, it is being choked by an Endarkenment. It doesn’t have to be this way.

“Gnosticism has always been a radical and revolutionary religion and world-view, but it’s rarely stepped out of the shadows to assert its place in the world. Gnosticism rarely presents itself in the form of activism, but we’re flouting esoteric tradition because the world needs a tangible alternative to scientific materialism and faith-based religion. Science and religion are complementary within the mathematical idealism espoused by the Illuminati, and all of the insights of Gnosticism are preserved and extended through the emphasis on mathematical intuition. The fourfold virtue ethics of Aristotle are a sine qua non of the Gnostic life. Environmental devastation is inexcusable, and so is austerity and decadence. Moderation, fairness, and justice are all essential to Illuminism. Illuminism is the world-view that undoes the twisted falsehoods promoted by popular religions, by misled scientific materialism, and by cynical politicians and businessmen. It is mathematical Gnosticism, expressed through ontological mathematics. It’s time to begin the Luciferian Rebellion, and in the name of humanity, we shall set the world aright.

“The Gnostic Legion is the radical activism wing of Illuminism, and is run by radical Illuminists. The Egyptian god Set was once portrayed as a heroic warrior in service of Ra, and would spear the great serpent Apophis every night. We are Set, and materialism and monotheism is our Apophis. We will raise a grass-roots, popular movement across all four corners of the world. This movement is to spread Gnosticism and Meritocracy, and resist monotheism and capitalism. We will ensure fairness and secure justice, and resist the tyranny of greed and faith-based religion. We insist on a world of free-thinking and autonomous individuals. We will protect the vulnerable and bring exploiters to justice. We are the front line of the Second Enlightenment.

“The Gnostic Legion is dedicated to finding activists around the world who have read and engaged with the entirety of the Illuminati’s material. Those who have read and broadly agree with the thoughts espoused on the Armageddon Conspiracy website are free to apply. Knowledge, however, is not enough. Acting upon the will on its own, too, is not enough. Knowing and doing together constitute the power of the revolutionary. Joining us entails that you will be trained and built up for successful activism work. Provided that you pass our tests and show your worth, the successful applicant will be entrusted with roles in their respective division and with specific tasks.”

You can find us here:

www.thegnosticlegion.com

www.facebook.com/gnostic.legion

******

The Pythagorean Illuminati:

Working with the Gnostic Legion will be a new cell of the Pythagorean Illuminati.

The Pythagorean Illuminati is a web archive and communications cell run by three Illuminati Mathematikoi. We officially represent the Order of the Illuminati and have played a supporting role to the AC team. We are taking over their communication role, with an enhanced emphasis on Logos. Our task is to present a rational and broad intellectual base for Pythagorean Illuminism. Our express purpose is to facilitate communication with world-renowned intellectuals with compatible ideas, and to set up real-world presentations of Illuminist thought to the public.

As an archival project, our task is to deliver a concise, publicly accessible archive for gifted people who have gaps in their education. As polymaths and lovers of learning, we will provide guidance towards learning the deeper aspects of ontological mathematics and Illuminist philosophy. Thus, we’re tasked with helping the best and brightest benefit from a centralized repository of Pythagorean knowledge.

You can find us here:

www.pythagoreanilluminati.com

www.facebook.com/pythagorean.illuminati

******

Adam Weishaupt, Michael Faust and Mike Hockney will not be involved with any of the content provided by the new communication cell. Very high calibre individuals are associated with the Gnostic Legion and Pythagorean Illuminati sites. They are ideal successors to Adam Weishaupt, Michael Faust and Mike Hockney. Don’t waste the talent of these individuals. Don’t waste their time. Contribute, or leave. We have no time for the endless debaters. We have no time for those who tolerate trolls, snipers, saboteurs, malcontents and Ignavi. All such people drag down everything with their negativity. If you don’t like our message, move on. Don’t hang around, trying to poison everyone with your toxic personality. Don’t you have any self-respect? Where are the constructive, positive things in your life? What is the healthy cause you’ve committed yourself to?

-AC

******

Tune in and don’t drop out!

The End

******

The Armageddon Conspiracy: The Plot To Kill God
__________

https://www.amazon.com/Voices-Movement-Anti-Elite-Book-2-ebook/dp/B0050VDBIC
__________

8/8

The 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.” If 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.

You 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.

As 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. Start 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.

Ask 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?

Ask 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 them.

Ask the stranger if he would like his children to have a fair chance in life, and not to have to compete in a system rigged against them.

Ask 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?

Ask 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.

You 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. It 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). It 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.

For the first time ever, it gives everyone an equal chance to go as far as their merit will carry them. Everyone 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. The 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.

There 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. Everyone 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.

100% inheritance tax unlocks the Bank of the Super Rich and lets the ordinary people enjoy its benefits.

100% 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.

Andrew Carnegie, once the richest man on earth, declared, “The man who dies rich dies disgraced.” That’s absolutely right!

So, 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.

Only the greedy, the immoral, the lazy, the mad, the stupid and the anti-meritocrats would oppose the Robin Hood Tax.

“So,” you say straight to the stranger, “Are you for or against 100% inheritance tax – are you moral or immoral?”

Rationally, the 100% inheritance tax cannot be contested. It is EASY to force any enemy of this tax into a corner where they look like an 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. You are taking next to nothing from them and giving them EVERYTHING. Far 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. The people who don’t “get it” are the irrational, the super-rich, the privileged, the anarchists and libertarians.

We 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. It addresses the fundamental problem of how to redistribute the excessive wealth of the greedy elite without resorting to communism. The 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.

******

We 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. We 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 endeavour – it is simply that the other person had more skills suited for that particular event.”

Meritocracy gives everyone the best possible chance. It doesn’t promise victory for everyone. Only the very best will win.

******

From 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.

Dialectical 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. So, 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.

We 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. Nor do we care. Any and all policy initiatives are welcome. The dialectical method will sort the wheat from the chaff. The 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 else.

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 privilege.

Basic 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 pro-meritocratic ingredient.

Society 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. If 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.

It’s 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.

******

In 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 moneyless society. Also, the arguments put forward are essentially a critique of contemporary capitalism, but in a meritocratic society, none of those features would be present.

In 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 tomorrow.

The 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.

Everyone 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?

The 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?
__________

Work versus Jobs:

The 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. A 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.

The 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’s 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 drop-outs. Marx, 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.

We 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. If 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. Everyone 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.

We 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. All 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. There will be no grim call centres full of drones reading out scripts.

International 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 is, in effect, a mechanism for preventing multinationals from ever coming into existence ever again. 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 State.

We will turn capitalism into something healthy, creative, productive and fulfilling rather than a monstrous sausage machine churning out bland gloop all over the globe. We 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, particular will.

No 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 business.

Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered by British economist E. F. Schumacher is a classic text opposing 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. He 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?

No 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.

Schumacher 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. Isn’t 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 super-rich?

Schumacher 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.”

The 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 their watchwords. Why 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 society. Marx 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.

Most 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. We 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.

The 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. One 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.

Therefore, 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 counter-productive for them. Anything that the elite do that seems to help the people is an illusion.

In 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 ordinary humanity.

Now, 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.

Why 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.

We 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.

The 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. We 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 workplace.

This 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.

******

Summary.

Basic 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. Capitalism 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.

The 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.

In 1789, the French revolutionaries issued the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. In 1793, a second and lengthier version was adopted.

The full text is provided here and still represents a triumph of sensible principles:

The French people, convinced that forgetfulness and contempt 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 rights.

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 defence; 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 labour and his skill.

17. No kind of labour, 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 him.

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 labour.

22. Education is needed by all. Society ought to favour with all its power the advancement of the public reason and to put education at the door of every citizen.

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 national sovereignty.

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 secured.

25. The sovereignty resides in the people; it is one and indivisible, imperceptible, 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 man.

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.

******

The modern Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clearly inspired by the original French Declaration.

Note 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).
__________

7/8

We asked two members of The Movement to present the case for and against “basic income” – involving whether or not everyone should receive a guaranteed income from the State for being a citizen. 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). This represents a suitable model for all political discussions, with everyone able to see the precise positions of both sides and their responses to each other.

Basic Income – The End of Poverty – by “Master484”

It can 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 human right?

The 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.

The definition of basic income.

Basic 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.

These four points make basic income unique when compared to existing welfare systems:

1. It is paid to individuals, rather than households.

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.

The phrase “comparable to minimum wage” means that basic income must in all cases be high enough to cover at least the following:

– The cost of all basic necessities of life, such as food, water, hygiene products, clothes etc.

– Housing costs, such as rent and electricity bills.

– The cost of basic communication devices and methods, such as cellphones, computers and internet connections.

How does it work in practice?

You 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.

To clarify:

Jobless person = Gets basic income. Person with a job = Gets basic income + the salary from his job. Student = Gets basic income + “student bonus”. Pensioner = Gets basic income + pension.

Can the level of basic income be increased or decreased in any cases? As for the increase above the normal level, yes. Basic 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.

There 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.

Also, 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.

– Community projects.

But as for the decrease below the normal level, the answer is no. Basic income can never be reduced below the “basic” level.

However, 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 soon see.

How do we fund the basic income system?

A) Normal funding methods

Many different funding methods have been suggested to fund basic income. Some of these include:

– Income taxes

– Sales taxes

– Capital gains taxes

– Inheritance taxes

– Wealth taxes

– Pollution taxes

– Land taxes

– Profit accrued from state-owned enterprises

– Elimination of current income support programs

In a 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. The other 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 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.

B) Money creation

There also exists a far more radical way of funding; money creation. This idea isn’t necessarily as crazy as it sounds. Have 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.

When a 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. However, the ordinary people can’t see this continuous increase in money for four reasons:

1. Over 95 % of all money is digital (invisible).
2. Most transactions are digital (invisible).
3. When the economy grows, salaries don’t rise that much (except for those on the top of the pyramid).
4. Because of reason number 3, the people own only small amounts of money at a time. (And of course, because of reason number 4, people are forced to take loans!)

So you 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. But 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). What are the benefits of the basic income system?

1. No poverty. Poverty as we know it would cease to exist. Everyone can always afford the basic necessities of life and pay their bills and rent. This in turn will cause:

1a) Significantly lower crime rate. Crime 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.

More 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 your 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. Right 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!

And 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.

If you 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” labour 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. But if 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.

It’s 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. In our 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.

In the 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. Basic 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.

1b) Significantly reduced homelessness problem. Everyone would have money to pay their rent, so fewer people end up to the streets.

Many 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. Even 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.)

1c) Significantly reduced prostitution. Guaranteed income = No need to sell your body.

******

So, to 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.

******

2. More jobs, more sensible labour markets and a motivated workforce One of 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.

Thanks 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 “labour 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 to do. Right 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.

But basic income ensures that there will be no shitty jobs. They will become extinct because people will refuse to do them. The future labour 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 labour market will “know” what it wants to do and what it doesn’t. In comparison, our current labour 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 labour market, productivity is all that matters. The wellbeing 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.

Basic 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.)

3. More freedom and autonomy. Basic 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 your life.

Basic 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.)

– Less 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.) In addition, you’ll have more free time, since now you don’t have to devote your whole life into 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.

4. Increased psychological well-being. As a result of the elimination of poverty, creation of a sensible labour market, reduced crime rates and increased freedom, the psychological well-being of the entire nation will improve.

The 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. Also, 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. Unconditional 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”.

In our 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.

Many 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 there – poverty.

Increased 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.) Basic 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.

5. Government saves money. Because 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 programs.

– The people will be psychologically healthier = Lower mental health costs.

– Less alcoholism and less drugs = Savings in rehab programs, less “public disturbance crimes” that eat police resources, etc.

In 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.

Criticism and responses.

Here are some common arguments against basic income, and responses to them.

A) It will create a society full of lazy people. The critics of unconditional basic income argue that it will create a society which will be full of lazy people and free loaders.

The 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.

– The size of basic income is comparable to minimum wage, which means it’s high enough to live on.

So, if 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. The core issue here is motivation.

To 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.

But 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. But 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: and unconditional reward. So the change here is total.

Now, 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? I’ll soon demonstrate this motivation issue better, but first let’s take a look at the other arguments.

B) Contributing to the society won’t pay off, because you gain the same reward if you do nothing.

The 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 right.

An example similar to this one has been used to demonstrate this problem:

A community has 100 members.

We decide to give every member an unconditional universal benefit of some kind.

Providing this service costs 1000$.

The value of the benefit gained by every member is therefore 10$. Each member is then asked to participate in the funding, by making a small contribution of 1$.

Here are the four possible outcomes of this arrangement:

1. I work and others also work: 10 – 1 = 9

So I 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 = 10

Here I 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 Here the universal benefit system crashes, because enough people have chosen not to contribute. But I still contributed, losing 1$, and leaving me with a loss of -1$.

4. I don’t work, and a large enough number of others also don’t work: 0 – 0 = 0

Here 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$.

The above 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.

As a reminder, basic income works like this:

Non-contributing person = gets basic income.

Contributing person = gets basic income + salary.

Because of this, you always stand to gain more if you choose to contribute. By not contributing, you always gain less.

Let’s 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$.

Here are the four outcomes:

1. I work, and others also work: 10 + 10 = 20

I get 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

I get 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

Here the universal benefit system crashes, but I still get salary from my job, so I gain 10$.

4. I don’t work, and a large enough group of others also don’t work: 0 + 0 = 0

Here the universal benefit system crashes, and I get no salary, so I gain nothing. However, should I choose to work, I would gain 10$.

So in every case one stands to gain more, if one chooses to contribute. Working is rewarded more than not working.

C) Basic income rewards you if you do nothing, thus feeding passivity and laziness.

Doing 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. If 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 can.

D) Nobody would do shitty jobs anymore, if working is a choice of free will.

Yes they would, when those jobs are made more attractive by decreasing the work hours, raising the salary, or both.

E) Basic income would create “social immobility” if people are just allowed to sit at home without doing a thing.

No it 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 be voluntary. This 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 skills, etc. This will create real and motivated social mobility, done on your own initiative, instead of fake mobility, where someone else “moves your feet”.

F) But what about the social bums?

Yes 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? Almost 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 life.

When 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 free-loaders 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.
__________

4/8