6.9.13: Human Right #3. Safety and Security for every Child

3. An Equal Right of Safety and Security for every Child, so that a life free of fear, insecurity and trauma is assured, a life in which parental guidance is balanced with freedom of expression and lived within an environment of creativity and joy so that every Child grows into his or her utmost potential as a unique expression of Life Itself.

It is a commonly held belief, that “all men are created equal.” There is also a counter-argument that cuts against the former: people have differing strengths and weaknesses, talents and deficiencies, thus any talk about “equality” must be utter foolishness. There is, however, one point of equality that cannot be denied. All human beings come into this world with a legacy of dependence. Babies cannot care for themselves, and are completely helpless beings immediately after ending our world. Doesn’t matter if you are a dumpster-diving commoner or a blue-blooded aristocrat, infants depend on others to keep it alive.

It is in this state of innocence and dependency that most parents can appreciate. However, not all parents can offer their children the protection and support they need to grow into effective beings free from fear, sickness or abuse. These unfortunate babes are destined to never reach or discover their potential in this world. They have been cut off. Truly, their births were in vain, wasted and dishonored simply because of the black hearts of too many adults are filled with too much hate to ever get along with others. So wars are fought with child soldiers. Mass starvation on a criminal scale decimating poor countries because of investor greed, trickery and fraud. Intentional maiming and disfiguring of a population’s gene pool  with depleted uranium to keep certain nations weak and unable to stand up for themselves. It appears that adults, who know how to take care of themselves, are forever attempting to destroy other beings who can’t fend for themselves. In the pages of history one can read about the extensive use of child sacrifice as a religious sacrament and ritual in ancient cultures. In more recent news, it seems that reports of child sacrifice are increasing.

Human Right #3 demands that it should be obvious that the safety and security of each child is right, proper and just. Since children are innocent and weak, they become targets of the strong and cruelest of beings. Not recognizing that the right of children to be sheltered and protected from those that would love to destroy them means that these beings are enjoying the right to destroy everyone in their way. Has it really come down to this? It is the 21st Century. We no longer have to act like superstitious barbarians who sacrifice the innocent for our sins. The time to stop allowing the potential of children to be erased from existence is now. The Equal Life Foundation has been convened to end this assault on the innocents.

 

6.7.13. Human Right #2: Right to Physical and Mental Health

2. An Equal Health Right that provides all essentials to building strong physical embodiments, insuring vitality and well-being along with clarity of intellect, emotional balance and physical stability.

Anti-Abortion activists often refer themselves as members of the “Right-To-Life” campaign. It’s a bit of a misnomer, since they really should be called the party of the “Right-to-be-Born.” I don’t have a problem with considering the right of a fetus to allowed to be born, IF the world they are going to be born into the jaws of a nightmare that we laughingly call “civilization.” The fact is that the “right-to-life” movement cares way too much what happens to the fetus before birth than to what happens to it after it’s born. For most fetuses that will be born into this world, birth  is probably the worst thing that can happen to an incipient life-form. Most infants – many millions of them – will be born into an impoverished hell that they will never be able to recover from. Many will have nothing but pain, starvation, war, a wrecked environment and insane human beings to deal with before they die an undignified death, never knowing a single comfort that we in the First World take for granted every day. The “Right-To-Lifers” really couldn’t care less; many have told me that it isn’t God’s Will that so many suffer, but that it’s due to Satanic influences and Mankind’s “fallen nature” that so much suffering exists for these little ones. If that is the case (and I’m kind of in agreement with the “fallen nature” aspect – humanity has forever been a pretty brutal and vicious piece of work on this planet), if such suffering and pain is awaiting so many new beings coming into this world and you realize how fucked up things are, why would you campaign for the “right” of these future persons to be born on such a world?

Wouldn’t it make more sense to be all about standing up for the unborn if the world was first a proper place to begin a life? Has anyone ever interviewed a fetus before it was born and asked if it’s okay being born in a dirty hovel in a Darfur refugee camp where it can expect of life filled with no education to speak of, no access to healthcare, nothing but violence, water and food shortages, abuse and exploitation to look forward to? Put yourself in those shoes. Does that sound like an entrée  you’d want to order from the Menu of Life? Does that sound like the kind of fate you would want for your child? People who wring their hands about the shame and desolation of abortion (which may very well be a mercy considering what is in store for most children coming into this world) are so involved with their own minds and inner conflicts that they fail to see what they are really advocating. It is unfortunate for them that they never considered what would be in the best interests of newborn beings would align with the best interests of everybody else. That means providing a decent place for children to be born into – a place where they can grow in strength and honor, within a potential just waiting to burst forth onto this plane of existence, freed from crippling psychological issues that maim and destroys their character before they even have a chance in this world. What greater sin could there be to be given the gift of life and have that gift of a newborn turned to such a shameful thing just because we refused to rise above our disgraceful, paranoid natures, where the “right-to-life” is merely a “right-to-wrong” the truly innocent. Human Right #2 would be so easy to give to all of us, and it would finally bring forth a world that would be an honored destination for any newborn.

6.6.13. Human Right #1: Right to a Healthy and Fulfilling Life

1. An Equal Economic Right that insures that all financial needs are accessible and available to ensure that the fundamental requirements of a healthy and fulfilling life can be realized and manifested.

There has been countless words devoted to Human Rights over the centuries. Some writers have even taken seriously the concept of  a human right as something that belongs  justifiably to every person. Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense which gathered Yankee support for the war against the Crown before the Revolutionary War, wrote another book that was nearly as influential for its defense of the French Revolution called, Rights of Man. In Rights of Man, Paine takes 31 points in outlining the justification for revolution against the government when the government fails to safeguards the “natural rights” of its citizens. Among other points under consideration, Paine claims that “rights” cannot be conferred through the political process for a reason:

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few… They… consequently are instruments of injustice … The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

In our view, and with the benefit of hindsight, there are a few problems with this type of analysis.

Laws are created all the time that makes the populace more dependent on government and more dependent on making money to survive. Rights are not so much “given and taken away” as much as they are “bought and sold.” Yes, even in Paine’s day was the recognition of economic and political power concentrated in the hands of the elite, be it the newer and developing merchant class or the old aristocracy. What Paine fails to understand, or maybe didn’t notice, is that governments are not formed by people entering into voluntary contracts with each other. This is a Classical Liberal Romanticist fantasy meant to legitimize all kinds of political and economical deceptions that always seem to end up justifying the status quo for “Individuals” who are doing quite swell, thank you. And it doesn’t even begin to discuss the most glaring and intractable problem defenders of “liberty” never seem to ask themselves: how can a “right” exist when it can be overridden and invalidated so easily by another? Countries have always been formed, managed and maintained through deadly force. I need only to give the example of the United States of America to back up my assertion, born and nurtured under war, holocaust and slavery as it was. All the Liberal Political Scientists at  the time of America’s dawning era were paid to spread beguiling stories and narratives about “We the People,” and “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Yes, they meant every single word of it… if you were a landowning White Male.

The Bill of Rights by the Equal Life Foundation represents the reality of what Human Rights can and ought to be… for EVERYONE, not just the few who believe that since they have access to wealth, only they have access to life. Since Governments have proven that they can create money and wealth using computers, paper and printing presses, our first Bill or Humans sees no reason everyone should not be entitled to what a few has allowed only themselves to enjoy. What we propose calls for a different social contract, and a different perspective, but it is not unintelligible or incoherent. Since money has become the lynchpin for gaining and possessing value in the system, let all in the system be valued. Thus we call for enactment and recognition of the basic Human Right for all persons to have their basic financial, educational and health needs met, equally and without delay.

 

Fear of Equal Money, Part 2. 03/24/2013

Photo: Carolyn Cole

10 years ago, I recall working in a Kinko’s in Whitehall, Ohio when the war began with the news of rockets raining down in Iraq. I heard it first on the radio that we had turned on behind the counter. For months I felt uneasy about the prospect of war with Iraq, and when there was news about an anti-war protest being held in Columbus, I went down only to find nobody had bothered to show up. Some of my work colleagues accused me of “protecting the terrorists.” When I talked with my teen-aged son about the illegality of the war, he dismissed me as “giving in to the terrorists.” I kept to myself and studied the news that confirmed my suspicions that “Bush’s War” (as I called it) was being conducted for stealing Iraq’s oil. Others were saying this at the time, and I felt it was probably true. And at the same time, I experienced a gaping disconnect from my fellow citizens who were parading their “patriotism” by slapping American flag decals on their cars and whooping and hollering as if they were cheering the OSU football team in their rival match against Michigan. I felt a disgust and even a hatred against these stupid, easily – duped people, purportedly my countrymen, and wished that there could be something that would happen that would change their collective minds.

The war dragged on. The Patriot Act. Abu Ghraib. Depleted uranium. [1] WMDs that never were found. “Freedom Fries.” Blackwater. Guantanamo. Extraordinary renditions. And what “good” came out of it? Depends on what you would call, “good.”

Saddam was deposed and the invading nations colluded with the biggest oil companies to shares the spoils of Iraq’s oil reserves, namely, BP and Shell. It certainly was a “good” outcome for them.

Looking back on it now, it seems my memories about the start of Bush’s War has cooled and hardened into a dull mass of regret and shame, and the horror of what America is accountable for is difficult to hold in the mind. Some of these memories are recollections of truly the most, absurdly existential bullshit. Some of them reflect a shocking, sinister and murderous malevolence that exists somewhere within the being of every American. Its fury was born in the perceived mass humiliation of 9/11 and was artfully misdirected and manipulated into being unleashed upon 116,000 Iraqi civilians who never asked to be “liberated,” let alone liberated from their precious resources and their lives.

Will anyone accuse the American Capitalist system of illegally “confiscating” the wealth of another sovereign nation? Will anyone question the morality or justification of a course of action that was nothing if not naked fury of greedy, blood-stained hands? Will anybody ask where the trillions of dollars that exchanged hands in the war went?

I forgive myself that I have accepted and allowed myself to blame others for not doing more to stop this shameful war  from happening. But I didn’t know how to deal with it. I didn’t know how to stop it. I didn’t realize until it was far too late that there was another way, a way that was paved within a society  that was honorable and just, not interested in doing the most good for the largest amount of people, but what is best for all.

I went through all that to set up this question: could something like the War in Iraq happen in an Equal Money System? This is going to sound “scary” to some folks, but when one realizes the decisions to invade another country almost never happens because of a purely politically interest. It’s a business. It’s a racket. The profit motive is front and center. The goal of EMS is to remove Capitalism’s profit motive, and replace it with a principle that is truly life - affirming and supportive to all beings, as this quest for profit is both  unnecessary and the single greatest cause of poverty and fear in the world.

NOTE

[1] A 2010 health study of Fallujah, Iraq reveals the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied. Residents have high rates of cancer, birth defects and sterility from U.S. bombs that used depleted uranium and white phosphorus. Other areas of Iraq face similar health problems.

Fear of Equal Money, Part 1. 03/22/2013

Would the Equal Money System confiscate personal wealth?

If history shows anything, it is that there’s no better way to justify relations founded on violence, to make such relations seem moral, than by reframing them in the language of debt – above all, because it immediately makes it seem that it’s the victim who’s doing something wrong.

-David Graeber

This question appeared on the Quora board and I was asked to answer it.  It was asked by “anon user,” the now – infamous paid internet troll who suffered a massive literary beatdown at the hands of Sunette Spies (see previous post). I wasn’t going to answer it at first, but upon reflection, why the hell not? Others (without an axe to grind or a paycheck to collect) probably ask the same question. So I won’t acknowledge the p.i.t. on Quora, but I will answer it here (and dare anon user to play his game in my back yard).

Pretending that this question comes from genuine curiosity, I will say that I do not know everything that will happen with the installation of an Equal Money System. I do foresee it being installed in successive stages, over a period of many years, maybe decades, I don’t know. The current system would not accept such a shock if EMS were to be delivered all at once. But I want to discuss the overarching concern embedded within the question: “what will happen to my personal wealth?”

 This is part and parcel of the fear of loss attached to a change from the current economic system. A system where the winner takes all, and is perfectly represented in the image below:

Within this equation the question must be asked, what if your personal wealth directly contributed to the suffering of countless others? I won’t even apply any rationality or morality to the question, because it’s been exploited to death. And the cheap trick about morality and rationality is that one can set up a premise based on any foundation along a causal chain of events and attach any moral or rational “cover” or significance that can prove or justify anything, no matter cruel or unjust. “MY personal wealth is to be considered the most important thing in my life because I have given it so much value that it justifies everything I had to do to get it and keep it. I’ve given so much to this that I have identified this value as myself. So the fear of my wealth being “confiscated” is really the existential fear of having my valued personality taken away from me.”

Has our questioner ever considered to what extent the personal wealth of those who have to be stripped of all worth, economic or otherwise, to line the pockets of those in command of the system? [1] I really doubt anyone has. Because if one had even first considered the inner dimensions of such a question, it would have failed to leap from one’s mind. Then again, it could be the rank ignorance of an appalling nature. In America we have wealth “confiscated” by others every day in the form of banking fees, interest and other charges and subsidies commonly known as “corporate welfare.” That last item “confiscated” the wealth of US Citizens to the tune of $100 billion dollars in 2012. [2] The questioner may not be aware of such confiscations of wealth currently at work in Capitalism, but more likely, the question was merely a cynical trap to engage in pointless troll dickholery, which I mean to say, it may be a good question, but considering the source, it is only a question presented with a dubious malice submerged within a veneer of civility.

Critics uniformly draw lazy comparisons between Equal Money  and Communism, and often with a weak command of either subject. Of course, we have already diagramed that fear of Equality will cause one to succumb to unreasonableness – and even hostility – when presented with the notion of economic egalitarianism, and at the same time, fall into silent denial over the fact that the current system has taken so much more than Equality ever could.

Fear of Equal Money is a fear that radiates from a center of unenlightened self-interest, a sense of entitlement and a perverse need to justify the unjustifiable. Remember, it was less than a century and a half ago that human slavery  - the legal, religious and economic confiscation of a colonized people’s treasure of blood, labor and tears was abolished. And it took a bloody civil war and a 150 years of lynchings and disenfranchisement since then to nearly settle the question. Nor does the question even begin to explain,  acknowledge or bemoan the attempted extermination and confiscation of land of the Indigenous Peoples in the United States. Yet, any talk of “reparations” sends these Randian Individualists into paroxysms of rage. They will archly reply that they shouldn’t be held accountable for the sins committed in past centuries, yet they will be slow – or unwilling – to forswear any wealth or advantage gained by those same sins. This is what I meant by the “cheap trick of rationality.”

So, back to the question – I simply do not know the answer, because that chapter in human affairs is still to be written. Whatever happens will be agreed upon democratically, which would be the best method to set up the EMS. There will undoubtedly be a transition phase – and many people will be surprised how relatively easy it all could be done. But any discussion about the redistribution of wealth should not be made within cynical, jaded and lazy comparisons of what has happened in the past, but with due consideration of what is best for all. Which leaves me with a question for the critics of Equal Money: What would be better for everyone than having everyone’s basic needs in the world taken care of?

NOTES

[1]  For some perspective how the US government has colluded with the US banking system in taking public money to give to the banks, please read Ellen Brown’s excellent Internet article for Global Research, “Financial Meltdown: The Greatest Transfer of Wealth in History; How to Reverse the Tide and Democratize the US Monetary System.“

[2] From the Libertarian Cato Institute report, a think tank as neoliberal as they come; Corporate Welfare in the Federal Budget .

How to Deal with a Paid Internet Troll. 03/20/2013

Illustration: Darryl Thomas

Did you know that there exists on the Internet people who are paid to invade social networking sites like Yahoo, Facebook and others, and try to influence others with premeditated trolling. I myself ran in dozens of trolls when I moderated the Desteni Forums a few years ago. Actually, trolls were instrumental in my Internet education when I began participating on bulletin boards many, many years ago. There was a soccer fan site called Matchnight that was full of them. Don’t look for it now, it’s defunct, but it was literally the Wild, Wild West of online male dickholery. At times even the moderators would troll their own threads. I formed a thick skin learning the tricks of word games and emotional manipulations trolls love to play, and by the time I became a moderator, when I spotted a troll, I mercilessly mocked, irritated and banned the hell out them. Eventually, I read on another board that one shouldn’t mess around on the Desteni board because it was tightly moderated. Damn right it was.

But I didn’t dream that there were fools who were actually paid to write crap that is meant to piss people off. Not when so many of them are willing to do it for free.

But they are out there. And they follow the members of Desteni around the Net like a wretched, ghostly  hyena spreading misinfo, disinfo, slander and outright lies in order to… I don’t know what they want to do because they should realize by now that we’re not going to “crumble under the pressure” of their pathetic, futile, libelous bullshit. (And I say “they” as if they are more than a handful of them – you probably could count them on one hand).

So it is with great pleasure and gratification that I post the following exchange between an “anonymous” troll who had pestered a bulletin board for several days (in a manner a la Rick Ross’ Cult Infotainment Forum) and Sunette Spies. I could say that it was truly a Master Class of Advanced Internet Beat-down of a faceless Anonymous Coward, but that wouldn’t be fair to most cowards. Please carefully read the anonymous user’s “question” – it’s classic Trollery. And carefully read Sunette’s answer as she strips away the bullshit to get inside the troll’s head just using the troll’s own words. It brought a tear to this jaded, crusty eye. Well played, madame. It will be a loooooooong day before this anonymous coward will want a second helping.

Enjoy!

Anon User

Sunette Spies.Lets open up a rational dialogue here. I am firmly convinced that if you answer some of the questions I have about you and your group- we can all come to a better understanding of the truth.1. If the Rick Ross forums have spread mis-information about your group, then why don’t you point me to a specific list of facts that are incorrect. Without giving me some examples of incorrect facts that I can verify myself I can only conclude that THEY must be telling the truth and you are only upset about it and calling them liars. I need empirical proof of lies or falsehoods.2. The fact that I am anonymous is to protect my identity. We have already been over this several times. Users who submit answers that you don’t like, even if they are FACTUALLY CORRECT get their answers downvoted just because you don’t like them. That is wrong. You and EMS should not do that. I do not want my answers downvoted and so I REMAIN anonymous.A further point. WHAT WOULD CHANGE if I was no long anonymous? What WOULD you do if you knew my name? Would you try to go and try to make up some lie about me so that what I have to say seems less important?I am surprised that you don’t understand this yourself. You used to be a waitress am I right? You used to be a nobody, someone whose name didn’t mean a thing to people who had not met you. Just because you were not someone people knew didn’t mean what you had to say was not (in your and other’s opinion) potentially important.I am a nobody, but that doesn’t mean that what I have to say about your group is not important, just like you. If all people are equal, don’t I deserve the same dignity and respect as you? Don’t I deserve to be heard out regardless of who I am?A final question that I have for you, is the Destonian group a non-profit religious organization or is it considered a private enterprise?

Sunette Spies 19 votes (show)

Ah, very interesting opening line “rational dialogue” – which would lead an individual to from that premise believe that the rest of your statements/questions would be “rational”, when it is in fact irrational. Such as your irrational fear to remain anonymous just because of fear of down voting – I mean, can you not even stand by your own name/words out of a silly fear/reaction to being ‘down voted’ – you should be able to stand by your name and words whether being down voted or not. Thus, showing that you determine who you are and the words you speak based on how others would react, which would basically then come to question everything about you in your life with regards to how much of who you are is determined by others/what others think/how others may react – such as something as simple as down voting and how much of you is in fact standing for anything? You should be able to stand, no matter what – which is saying, here, much about who you are.

What would change with not being Anonymous – understand, this is not about us, but about you and what it says about you with remaining anonymous and how little of what you say can be trusted with remaining anonymous, with reacting to something as simple as ‘fear of being down voted’ ‘fear of exposing your identity’. I mean, here we stand, here I stand, with my name, process, information walked Openly as who I am and what I stand for –and even despite ALL the deliberate attempts to spread / provoke the contrary to what we’re saying/showing: we Stand. And, even with the Point of Portalling – which, for me, being something Natural, with having walked it consistently for 7 Years now with a massive amount of information available from various beings, on a daily basis, walking the One Principle of showing the process of how human nature can change and with individuals walking their processes to prove this with regards to how they changed themselves and their lives and to show the potential that there exist more in this existence than just Human Consciousness, and how everything aware: it is unfortunate that Human Consciousness wants to believe that all that exist is ‘human intelligence’ and that nothing else in existence has an awareness/intelligence, because human beings are the only apparent ‘dominant force’ in existence. So, I mean – I understand why human beings may find it difficult to conceive that there’s more to existence than only Human Consciousness, that one can communicate with animals, nature, the environment that is in fact aware, but not on a level of consciousness that the human is existing within. In and through the Portal, we explain the different levels of consciousness –the conscious, subconscious, unconscious, quantum mind and quantum physical, and where human beings’ awareness is now only on the conscious/subconscious mind level. And this we explain in absolute detail for the individual to see, realise and understand how little awareness of the human in fact exist – even in relationship to our own thoughts, memories, emotions and feelings and how they in fact operate and function.

So, with this – this is all we’re doing/showing: that there’s more to existence than human consciousness, and we’re reaching to those who are willing, in this life to consider this, and to re-align our relationships/considerations to only the self-interest of our own Lives and dedicate our lives/living to considering/regarding/realising that there is an ENTIRE physical existence/humanity that is here that we haven’t been taking responsibility for, individually and collectively and simply expanding this awareness to dedicating our lives to better ourselves and this world/humanity as a whole with the potential that does exist for this to manifest.

Therefore, if you’re not able to consider, in this lifetime, that there is more to us humans/this physical existence than the intelligence we believe we are, and that with expanding our awareness in understanding ourselves, our relationship to the mind, the physical and this existence as a whole – that we came become more/make more of our lives for ourselves AND for all in this physical existence: then don’t. We’re going to walk this, whether you do or don’t. So, within this – if you don’t want to consider this, then – why “attack”? I mean, it’s not like we’re going to each individual human in this existence and knocking down their doors/minds and interfering in their forums/blogs etc. and attacking/provoking like you are now. Your reaction would imply that you actually in fact do see the potential of something like this existing/manifesting- but you’d rather in your life preserve your interests, than consider dedicating yourself/your life to something greater/more/better. Because if you didn’t ‘personally react to try and preserve interests that you feel are being challenged’ – you would have simply looked at the information and walked away.  And simply because we’re challenging held beliefs/acceptances and allowances such as “this world is the way it is because it’s always been that way” and showing that, hey – by accepting/allowing such a statement we’re keeping it all this way, by not standing up for change within ourselves and this world – everyone goes into immediate “reaction”. All we’re ‘challenging’ at the base of it all, is – there’s more to this existence than only human consciousness and what we now accept/allow life on earth to be. So, if you react to being challenged to consider something MORE, then that’s your personal process. We’re here to stand with those who are willing to move beyond their own reactions, challenge themselves to consider something more to self and what life on earth is/has become. If we remain in the ‘lesser’ version and definition of ourselves, without challenging ourselves to consider more – how are we ever going to change ourselves or anything in this existence to something better, because our acceptances/allowances/definitions is what is keeping ourselves/this world limited, therefore to expand, to change, we have to expand how we see/view/interact and consider things.

With this, getting now to the question regarding Dignity and Respect: I would argue the following with how we at Desteni look at things and how I also have looked at my relationship to humanity/this World and asked myself a question: Can I stand in self-respect, in dignity – with having a look at my life on earth that I have walked in relationship to humanity/this physical existence as especially for example this current World System/Money System and say that I have lived in respect/dignity to my fellow man, to the animal kingdom, the nature/environment, the earth? No. Why? Because – how can we say, that we have lived a “dignified life” when the very life that we do live, in relationship to what Money provides – that Money that provided the ‘life’ I had lived, for me to have the money I have – was at the sacrifice/cost/expense of other human beings lives, animals, nature, the environment, the earth. That, for me to have a ‘life’ – that opportunity of ‘life’ had to be taken away from other human beings/other life forms; which is how this Current world system is set up in terms of catering to only a minority of human beings, while the majority struggle to survive with the amount of money available to them and the “cost” of living in this world is rising more and more and more, and more human beings are being filtered out of the World System to live/survive in this world/reality. I would also suggest watching the documentary the Power Principle – showing the process of how this current World System came into being with deliberate interventions with populations/peoples who have proven that self-governing is possible, to exist in harmony and equality where everyone works together for the betterment of all of the society/environment and deliberately taken over by the World System frontrunners to have control. Then, to the point of Respect – how can we claim respect, when we cannot even respect/consider/regard LIFE-itself, that is existent in each human being, each child that is born, each life form that birth within this physical existence – with regards to how this current World System/Money System blatantly disrespect the opportunity for life/living for humanity within this physical existence? I mean, you can do your research with regards to the extent of abuse/violence and even to the consequence of extinction of species is existing simply for profit, for greed, for money, for self-interest – and then we support/participate in such a System that so deliberately disrespect the life of such beings: what does it then say about us?
So, what we suggest considering is a “Dignified Life” and “Respect” – with regards to presenting such an opportunity for humanity, where each child born is ensured/secured a future in this world/reality, where we can assist/support ourselves to actually co-exist for ourselves and for all, and stand within/as Respect with regards to looking at/investigating alternatives / solutions to our current relationship to nature, the animal kingdom, the environment and the Earth. I mean, it’s fascinating that human beings alone is being blamed for this earth’s slow but sure destruction – when it’s the current World System/Money System and our accepted and allowed relationship to it, that is governing/managing all the relationships in this Physical Existence and so: all we’re showing is that we change this Entire System, re-align the Relationships to real consideration/regard in relation to Respect and Dignity that is Physically Visible within this Existence.

With this, all of us are not yet equal – at all, equality would be where we’re able to Co-Exist, as Equals, as Human Beings and work-together for the betterment of ourselves, each other and this world as a whole. Yes, we most certainly understand this process we’re Undertaking is a Massive Task and will be a Process to walk – but, despite all the odds and individual such as yourself who just cannot at this stage conceive of such a Solution – we know the potential exist, and so we walk it. You’re equal-to and one-with what you accept and allow in our mind and your life – at the moment, everyone is accepting/allowing themselves to be equal to only consciousness, only this current world-system/money system and so in that definition, are in fact limiting ourselves to considering the potential that exist for ourselves and life on earth. So, for those that are ready to step beyond such limitation, acceptance and allowance in the Mind and this World/Money System – we’re walking ourselves beyond such limitation to/as considering more.

Now to the point of defining me as a ‘nobody’ in your question/statement – this in fact does not define me, but defines you. I did not see myself as a ‘nobody’, nor did I define myself as that. I was simply living my life, unaware of anything/anyone – but my own mind, my own survival: exactly like most of humanity are existing/living now. Completely caught up in our minds, our personal lives and especially survival/money. I have been there myself. However, this process – had made me Aware, that – there’s most certainly more existing in this existence than JUST me, made me Aware that – I am currently living in, accepting and allowing a World / Money System that is causing unimaginable harm/abuse/consequence to the rest of humanity/this physical existence, which in this also brought me to the question “where was I my whole life that I had lived to ignorantly in relation to money, the world/money system, other human beings” – I mean, it was not even registering/being considered in my consciousness/mind, so closed-minded I was. So, now – I am more aware of my responsibility to me, how my mind shape/create/manifest me/my life/living, how to change me to become the directive principle of who I am, and so my responsibility to what I accept/allow in this world/reality with regards to our current accepted and allowed relationship to this World System/Money System. So, my process has not been from a “nobody to somebody” – more from ignorance to awareness. Your reference to ‘being a nobody’ is unfortunately how you are seeing yourself, which if you continue to do so – is how you will remain in your own mind/life. You are already a ‘somebody’ in terms of ‘individuality’ and what you accept/allow to live in thought, word and deed – so, no one is a ‘nobody’ in fact.

With regards to the Rick Ross Forums – as we’ve said: We’ve been walking for 7 Years, all the information / videos and writings are available on the Forums in which the individual can walk the time / reading within and as their own Process. Thus, the responsibility to Ask and Cross-reference information is in fact the Individual that accept and allow themselves to believe the Rick Ross Forums – which have put together bits/pieces of information from material/videos/forums we have walked for 7 Years and framed it in a way to define it according to their own intentions/definitions/beliefs.
Thus, individuals that are genuine and have consideration/regard and awareness – would ask questions/cross-reference/read/check from/of the actual source of information, which is ourselves. Everything is open and available.

And lastly, we’re a Non-Profit Organisation – Non-Religious.

With this – we have now, with various individuals walking / sharing / showing Desteni / Equal Money expressed what we stand for and as. All the links to the REAL information: Desteni – Group of people exploring Equality & Oneness principles,Equal Money System,http://www.desteniiprocess.org. Because, clearly – all you’re going to deliberately continue with is attempt/try to harass/provoke and misinform; but we have now spent sufficient time in standing/showing/directing to/as the real information and context that we stand for and as.

So, we’re going to continue walking our process with those who are ready to consider more to self/life, and for those who do read this – to again, consider, and see – how this individual, anonymous, is simply constantly, continuously finding little things to draw out of ALL that we say to continue provoking/harassing and misinform. And that we have now been clarifying/showing/revealing much – all this individual doing is spamming the Forums with questions/answers of hidden intentions and we’re rather, on the Quora Forums going to interact with individuals serious about / genuine about considering more to self and life.

So, all the relevant/real information is available on our sites  – also our Facebook page/Groups that we share our processes, and welcome to in your own time – research, investigate and walk.

Fear of Equality, Part 7. 03/17/2013

The Value of Inequality

Equality is not truly understood because its significance is caught up within  destructive definitions which renders the definition of Equality incoherent. When people see the word, “Equality” – pictures of being corralled into internment camps, loss of individuality and having their money taken away and given to the homeless arise like hideous black goblins within their minds.

This is a fantastic example how effective of producing a mind-controlling narrative built upon the crippling definition of commonly – held beliefs leads to ignorance, resistance, self-deception and fear.

This is a curious psychological reaction based on the deep dilemmas, conflicts and contradictions that is inherent within what we call the “Human Condition.”

There have been many differing views of what the Human Condition consists of; the worldwide systems of the Social, political, economic, environmental… these are outward and external factors that help shape our identities, while the internal factors are psychological, suffused with emotions, feelings, thoughts about self and the external world – and the values we place upon these things.

When it comes to a subject like Equality, it appears that the principle is undervalued, especially within the paradigm of Capitalism. This is because Equality is seen as antithetical to Capitalism (and its perceived qualities of Liberty, Freedom and Individuality), the value of Capitalism is based on certain assumptions – and since people have become the essence of Capitalism within their minds, they are willing to defend that position no matter what.

These assumptions are based on culturally – transmitted ideas of high – minded principles that look good on paper and appear grandiose in the mind, and we have gone through many of them in this series already. But it must be understood that these ideas are but a front that stands as a buttress against these existential fears of Equality.

Nestled within the mind is the impulse that self-preservation must always come first, whether it is the identity or the body. There exists a psychological resistance to change, to question, to investigate, to excavate or examine the layers of being – and it doesn’t matter if something, like Capitalism, actually compromises the self or doesn’t ultimately makes sense. What is important and valued above everything is validating the point one has become.

So the calculus, the equation is that we have all become the fear of Equality and the value of Capitalism. To exist as Equality then one must become Equality which would cause a partial deletion of one’s accepted identity, which is terrifying to the mind, which we have also become. The fear is that in the best case scenario, Equality will fail, and in the worst case the world (and the self) would effectively cease to exist.

It appears to be a vicious circle, where one is forced to accept what one has always known, until one chooses to step outside the circle, which takes a great amount of self – belief that there exists an identity outside that circle.

A helpful analogy… Take the laptop that I am banging these messages out on. It consists of hardware and software. Used together – very effective means of communication and purpose. But without the software, without the programs – the laptop is just a hunk of metal, circuits, glass and plastic. When I’m using this word processor, I can communicate and become the program – using the computer as an interface to the outside world. But without the hardware, there is nothing to give shape and form to the medium, and I end up in the same position of uselessness.

Point: people become the programs that they have invested in and have been broadcasted to – and do not see any other way of existing. Not only that, we must value what we become, because the key programs we value are self-preservation (hardware) and identity (software). And even if we hate ourselves and wish to destroy ourselves (or others), we still act in a way that values the negation of life, the nihilistic purpose to erase our being (or others) from existence, and the problem with that is we do not (or care) that we are in danger of erasing all life from this planet.

This reveals the pathological nature of the human mind – that it can place so much value, significance and  importance in a world system that is purportedly a means to ensure our survival – but in reality is actively working towards the ends of our destruction. It is like we are sailing and steering our planet into the jaws of a nightmare without any consideration or consciousness of the consequences. Not only that, but be careful if you point out these murderous, suicidal tendencies of human consciousness to others; you will be called “suicidal cult member.” And yet, we are all one collective suicidal cult members of the Church of Conscious Consumer Capitalism that is busily destroying our people, animals, plants, air and water. But if one brings that up, you’ll be labeled a “communist.” We don’t need Equality because we have the Next Big Thing that we value even more; another bright, shiny product that promises to make our lives even better! The media completely understands how to program and brainwash the human mind into accepting a cheap imitation of life while promulgating “liberty,” “lifestyles” and “freedom.”

Of course, the critics of Equality fear Equality and do not give a shit about anything else but what they can get out of their lives, which is money and the things money can buy. Oh, and making sure to defend this murderous, suicidal system against any criticism because they do not want to hear criticism of what they have in fact become. Everybody and everything else can go screw. Multiply that mindset several billion times and you should be able to see why the world is in the state it is today.

To them I say, take a breath and consider what Equal Money  and an Equal Money System offers. A way out of the box.

Fear of Equality, Part 6. 03/15/2013

The Natural Law Argument Against Equality

When we speak of the Fear of Equality, we notice that most opponents of Equality will use various arguments to contradict or invalidate the benefits and rewards of Equality. The most popular is the  Natural Law argument, due to its claims of representing the best features of human nature and best represents the ideals of human freedom. Above all else, Natural Law has been appealed to justify and legitimize and promote Capitalism. But does the Natural Law argument against Equality succeed in overturning the basic tenets of an egalitarian – based society?

“God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature; the individual life is good when it is in harmony with Nature. In one sense, every life is in harmony with Nature, since it is such as Nature’s laws have caused it to be; but in another sense a human life is only in harmony with Nature when the individual will is directed to ends which are among those of Nature. Virtue consists in “living in agreement with Nature.” (Zeno, 4th Century, BCE).

It was the Stoics who are credited in formalizing the theory of Natural Law, where they believed that certain insights existed behind the natural order that could be ascertained through the application of reason and logic. This ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno (c. 300 BCE). According to Zeno’s teaching, the Universe is based on laws of the fiery mind of God. The Universe actually IS “God.”  It is the highest virtue (or moral good) that is based on knowledge, and that the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason that governs nature (because “God” IS Nature), and since life on Earth can cause various, detrimental episodes, to be indifferent to the reversal of fortunes that result in success and failure is “virtue.”

Principles of Natural Law have been embedded into Western philosophical thought accorded a special universal significance, since it has been viewed as a basis for ethical human interaction. Natural law is seen as a “special” branch of  the legal system, especially in the Western tradition  because of its reductive relationship to the natural world from which these universal principles were derived. In other words, it was believed that there was some kind of rational, comprehensible system that existed behind the natural world.

Darwin, Hebert Spencer and others used the Natural Law conceptual framework to build their systems of evolutionary change in biology and sociology. Over time Natural Selection came to be equated with “survival of the fittest,” the Capitalist Law of the Jungle where the only morality could be found in competition, adaptability to the environment and specialization.

During the Middle Ages Thomas Aquinas, the great Christian Church theologian, appealed to Natural Law principles when he proposed that proof of the existence of God did not require faith or belief, but only through the  rational exercise of the reasoning mind.

In the 16th Century, the Dutch jurist, Hugo Grotius, asserted that nations and individuals were subject to natural law principles. Grotius wrote that laws of men should be in accordance to natural law principles. Grotius and other writers and philosophers of the period in the 16th and 17th Centuries, used natural law propositions that helped topple the feudal system in Europe by pointing out that the feudal system was in opposition to the universal principles of Nature (and by extension, “God.”) Natural Law precepts helped shape important historical events and documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Rights of Man documents of te French Revolution, and formed a major stream of thought within the philosophy of Classical Liberalism, Capitalism and religion and science.

By the time we get to Herbert Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” and Charles Darwin’s “natural selection” memes in the 19th Century, natural law had become the theological system of Capitalism. The Law of the Jungle and the law of  laissez-faire Capitalism where the winner takes all are one and the same. There was nothing “immoral” about a lion killing and eating a gazelle as it was just fulfilling its role as part of the natural world of survival within a certain environment. Same with letting the poor starve and die; no immorality there, for if the weak are unfit to survive the law will remove them from this reality. It is simply science.

It has been the theories of Natural Law that has legitimized the structure of Capitalism and helped give it shape and direction. But is this linkage of Natural Law and Natural Selection able to accurately describe a rational order in this world or is it merely a theory based on a false impression of reality? What is the argument of those who fear Equality goes against the principles of Natural Law?

Orders of Equality and the Limits Imposed by “Liberty”

For example, justice is considered to mean equality, It does mean equality, but equality for those who are equal, and not for all. (Aristotle)

Since nature does not endow all men with equal beauty or equal intelligence, and the faculty of volition leads men to make different choices, the egalitarians propose to abolish the “unfairness” of nature and of volition, and to establish universal equality in fact—in defiance of facts. Since the Law of Identity is impervious to human manipulation, it is the Law of Causality that they struggle to abrogate. Since personal attributes or virtues cannot be “redistributed,” they seek to deprive men of their consequences—of the rewards, the benefits, the achievements created by personal attributes and virtues. It is not equality before the law that they seek, but inequality: the establishment of an inverted social pyramid, with a new aristocracy on top—the aristocracy of non-value. (Ayn Rand, The Return of the Primitive)

The arguments against Equality are based in essentialism [1] and limitation. The first argument goes like this: people are inherently un-equal, blessed or cursed with different strengths and weaknesses that yield different results of success and failure in life. To award Equality to all is to reward failure. It is against the Law of the Jungle, Natural Selection and “survival of the fittest.” The Natural Law argument is also one that is embedded through the Classical Liberalism conceits of “Individualism,” “free will” and “Liberty,” not to mention the biggest conceit of all: competition. While the other items are vague, shapeless and subject to multiple interpretations, everyone understands competition.[2] And everyone understands that a Capitalism without competition ceases to be Capitalism. Removing competition removes motivation to participate in Capitalism (so it is believed). And what is feared is the collapse of the entire system due to non – participation. Equality in this way is seen as a subversion to the Natural Order, which leads to the next point.

The Limitation argument is also based on Classical Liberal philosophy, economics and even science. As we have seen in the previous blogs, there’s an inherent, irrational fear that (1) Equality is impossible due to the evil, selfish nature of humanity, and (2) Equality can only be imposed through Draconian, authoritarian means. It is believed that your money must be taken away from you and redistributed to others “who don’t deserve it.” In Capitalism, and this is a point Capitalists are loathe to admit on moral grounds, it is acceptable for a person or group of people to exploit others for profit. The initial economic surge of Capitalism was generated by the harnessing of slave labor and exploitation of the working class. People actually died for the right of working a 40 hour week (Less than 100 years ago, it was common for a factory worker to toil 16 hours a day in dangerous, life – threatening conditions. One can see how Capitalism would have liked to treat its workers). The Limitation of Liberty is the limitation of the liberal’s right to choose to exploit another for profit. (When speaking of “liberal” in this context, I’m referring to the classical economic dimension of the term, not the political definition. Thus, all Capitalists are ‘liberal’ in that Capitalism is a liberal economic system).

So if you mine this equation for any logic, you can only come up with this: at least within Capitalism, Liberty sets limits on equality because Liberty is inherently inequitable, the argument being, “Surely one wouldn’t allow everyone to study at Harvard, would they? It wouldn’t be fair to those who actually can afford it or have the educational level to study there.” There has to be obstacles and impediments in place (like access to money and connections) or else the value of Harvard is rendered spoiled. This value is tied to what we cherish and despise – the life and death principles of success and failure.

We are now moving into another murky territory. The value of a Harvard education is analogous to the value of Capitalism.

NEXT: The Value of Inequality

NOTES

[1] Essentialism is the philosophical belief that things have a set of characteristics that make them what they are (their essence), and that the task of science and philosophy is their discovery and expression; the doctrine that essence is prior to existence.

[2] This is why a result of a tie or draw in a soccer match infuriates American sports fans. There should always be a winner who takes all.

Fear of Equality, Part 5. 03/12/2013

THE impression forces itself upon one that men measure by false standards, that everyone seeks power, success, riches for himself and admires others who attain them, while undervaluing the truly precious things in life.

Thus begins Freud in his book, Civilization and its Discontents. We can speculate some other time about what the “truly precious things in life” may be, since such things are wholly subjective and would prevent us from cleaving to the matter at hand. But Freud does reveal a tendency or a trait within human beings, that we are often given to measure our relationships, environment and thoughts by false standards, through manipulation, ignorance and wishful thinking.

This has been my thesis so far: people fear Equality because differing groups of people fear the domination or misuse by other Groups.

There can be no vast accumulation of wealth within a system of relationships of equal cooperation. There is no rational explanation of how massive social inequality could exist within cooperative relationships within the Group. Thus, the idea of Competition, rather than cooperation, was used  to justify and protect the wealth and property of the haves from the have-nots; a framework that makes sense only within the paradigm of Capitalism.

This fear of the Group is channeled and misdirected into elevated, metaphysical conceptions as values of competition, liberty, free will and Individualism. Of these, liberty, free will and the Classical Liberal deification of the Individual are thought experiments that can only be measured and compared through the signification of vocabulary or artful terminology. Of these, only competition can be considered an event taking place in reality, since competition has very real consequences and effects that can be measured, seen and experienced. The others are mental projections that are used to justify the means and ends of competition.

Managing the Trinity of Fears

There is a Trinity of great Fears that predominately exist within human beings, and they are:

(1) knowledge that each one of us has needs that must be met in order to survive.

(2) Nobody can be trusted, and,

(3) Survival is wholly dependant on access to money or those with money.

To deal with these fears, and more importantly, matters of survival, it is believed by social scientists that early social Groups were formed within relationships of cooperation to deal collectively with the issues of survival. As Society grew more complex and advanced, competition was introduced. How did this occur? The easiest answer has to do with man’s capacity for greed and desire for power over other groups and the environment. Wars and establishing controls over groups became the accepted standards for managing people and resources. There is even a saying about the realities of war that confirms this: to the victor goes the spoils. [1] Capitalism provides the incentive to compete, survival is the motivator, the point between life and death, as well as the attainment of value through the fulfillment of desire via “winning” (acquiring property, sex or fame).  The “loser” is accorded the loss of value, since the loser’s value must be extinguished and consumed by the winner.

It was a very neat and fiendishly clever trick to convince the Group that an existential “winner – take – all” competition for survival was the best and most efficient mode of living. Yet for over 500 years, modern Capitalism has reigned as the winner over all other economic systems. But it required a lot of help from the philosophers, economists and science to do so.

Conceptions of Society

Philosophers, scientists and churchmen have all had their own ideas about forming the perfect society; The major thinkers include Plato, Augustine, Marx, Lenin, etc.. In Plato’s Republic, the cornerstone of society would be “justice.”  Plato’s perspectives were informed by his aristocratic status in Athenian society, and he had a suspicious and disapproving view of democracy, preferring his utopia to be ruled by elite philosophers.

Augustine believed that the ideal society would be one entirely devoted to Christian principles in order to gain entrance into the City of God in the hereafter. Augustine believed that if the State followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, justice and peace would ensue.

By the 18th Century, philosophers like Jean – Jacque Rousseau and others proposed that a perfect utopian state existed before being debased by European culture. Rousseau envisioned a future community that linked political “freedom” with education, but at the same time was pessimistic that self-interest could be overcome to a point that would allow such a reality to unfold.

Karl Marx proposed that “true freedom” could not be found through individual means, but only through the community. Marx’s ideal community would be a classless one of equally shared property and resources, which would only emerge after the conflicts that will cause the collapse of Capitalism.

Amazingly, small – scaled experiments of egalitarian communities were formed in Europe and America in the 19th Century by Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Étienne Cabet and others.

Despite the failure of these communities to survive, the common notions of economic and political equality would never completely be lost, although these principles would live on in diluted and distorted forms within the various stripes of socialism (which has never escaped the gravity of market capitalism, thus keeping the social inequalities in place).

The fear of Equality is based on a false, mental reality that has produced severe material and physical consequences for humanity and the environment. These consequences are fast approaching the line of no return that will endanger our civilization in ways that are scarcely imaginable, most likely in permanent, unpleasant ways. We need to find a way out of this date with a dystopian destiny before that line is crossed. Perhaps, if we could finally see and understand how a community based on common sense and Equality could become a workable, comprehensible reality, we can begin to fashion an alternative that will be to the benefit of all.

NEXT:The Natural Law Argument Against Equality

NOTE

[1] A peculiarly American political idiom that arose in the mid – 1800′s to describe a rewards – system that benefitted the winning candidate’s supporters with government jobs.

Fear of Equality, Part 4 03/10/2013

The United States is the Darwinist capital of the capitalist world. A head afraid is a head haunted. A head haunted is a head hunted. Run for your life. Run from the guillotine to a head hunter who saves your head and raises your salary—so you’ll be caught in the red of the fishmarket buying gadgets to distract your fragile imagination that is cut in the red market of blood—running and escaping—running again—changing your resume to update the fear you feel of being unemployed tomorrow—in the streets—and from there to welfare—and from there to begging. - Giannina Braschi, “United States of Banana,” AmazonCrossing, 2011.

Survival of the Fittest

There is one error in Braschi’s otherwise excellent undressing of the Capitalist system in the USA, and that is the allusion that Darwin and the term “survival of the fittest” are connected. The two items are, but more through myth and misconception than in reality. The term, “survival of the fittest” actually originated with a Liberal philosopher named Herbert Spencer in a work he published as “Principles of Biology” in 1864 after he read Darwin’s “On the Origin of the Species.” [1] Since the mid – 1860′s, opponents and proponents of Capitalism have used the terms “Darwinism” and “survival of the fittest” as simple metaphoric codes to express complicated, intertwined  sociological, political and economical realities. In the process, their meanings has been defaced and distorted, producing further misconceptions are misunderstandings that have darkened and fudged any kind of  accurate analysis of our current problems.

But how was “survival of the fittest” originally used, what has it become to signify and is there anything that can be learned from a correct and clear understanding of the concept.

The Original Conception

As I’ve just mentioned, the phrase “Survival of the Fittest” was coined by Herbert Spencer in 1864 after reading Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species. Spencer was a social scientist  with a liberal utilitarian bent who was influenced by the social evolutionary theories of Auguste Comte. The popular belief among these early social scientists was that societies tended to evolved from simple, primitive, superstitious states into more complex, sophisticated, enlightened civilizations. It should be remembered that the md-1800′s saw the Industrial Revolution bring rapid social, technological and economic changes to the developing countries in Europe and America. In the eyes of everyone, society was changing. The mechanical, much more efficient and robust, was replacing the natural, and this was seen as progress.

Different social theories on the significance of this “progression” abounded. Spencer was concerned with moral aspects of society which informed his utilitarian theories. A liberal first and a utilitarian second, Spencer believed that the greatest good for the greatest amount of people in society was subservient to the moral superiority of the rights of the Individual, for society exists for the benefit of the Individual, not the Individual for Society and the Individual should not be restricted or regulated by social institutions. It is somewhat surprising to read what Spencer had to say about what “survival of the fittest.” As a good liberal, he had a basic mistrust of government intervention:

“Thus by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society becomes characterized by profound confidence in the governing power, joined with a loyalty causing submission to it in all matters whatever.” [2]

What this sounds like is Spencer predicting that the more complex society becomes, the more dependent it becomes upon government which will be more concerned with maintaining than the best interests of the people, which becomes reliant on whatever their governments give them. This sounds quite different from the common understanding of this phrase (which we will get to momentarily).

However, Spencer was not above heartlessness when it came to the plight of the poor. The great industrialist Andrew Carnegie who was an ardent follower of Spencer’s works, was reportedly appalled at Spencer’s perspective that there was no moral difficulty in allowing the poor to die since, according to Spencer, they were ill-equipped to compete in the ruthless Capitalist arena (Carnegie was born into terrible poverty). And competition, according to Spencer, was a “Law” of the Natural World, thus it was neither good or bad, just a reality in existence. So much for the so-called “morality” and altruism of the Spencer’s Liberal Enlightenment.

The Evolution of a Theory

Not surprisingly, the two theories which were conceived by Spencer and Darwin eventually borrowed from and fed each other until most people took them to mean virtually the same thing. We know that Spencer published his social evolutionary theories years before Darwin’s Origin of the Species appeared, and that Spencer was intrigued by Darwin’s theory of natural selection, seeing it as a confirmation of his thesis of social evolution through struggle and competition. Darwin’s natural selection theory did not have the benefit of being informed by genetics, the significance s of which would only be discovered at the beginning of the 20th Century. Natural selection proposed that it was the adaptive nature of an organism to its environment that allowed it to survive and produce offspring. While Spencer took Darwin’s “natural selection” as vindication of his thesis that social evolution evolved from struggle, conflict and competition, he seemingly ignored Darwin’s point of the adaptable relationship the organism maintains throughout its evolutionary path, and was content to be a leading light that allowed the Victorian – era Capitalists to rest assuredly that if the Law of Nature was with them, who or what could be against them?

As a good Liberal philosopher, Spencer parrots the official Liberal line:

“Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.”

Which would be a fantastic thing if freedom actually existed between men. However, with the emphasis on competition, struggle and conflict, the Capitalist system of economic Darwinism (where the wealthy dominate, subjugate and demonize the poor) guarantees to never, ever allow any type of freedom in the relationships between men to exist, mainly because of the Fear of Equality, which is in essence, the fear of the Group.

The war against the Group is based on fear, and the weapon used against the Group is fantasy. It is the worse kind of fantasy to assert one can speak intelligently of rights and freedom out of one side of their mouth while speaking of social Darwinism of survival of the fittest out of the other. It suggests a mental instability. There is no balance in the scales nor is there an acknowledgement of what everybody knows; the playing field is uneven and most of us will never have a chance to live like the very wealthy lives. While most people accept this as a fact of life, we also accept that survival of the fittest is much like a rigged game in a casino. Or the stock market. The only “freedom” available to people is the amount of freedom that can be bought. If everyone truly had “equal freedom,” human relationships would change and competition between groups would no longer exist. Talk of “freedom” would no longer exist because in its place would stand Equality. A lot of fear must be removed from the definition of Equality first. One way of releasing the fear of Equality is to understand how little we know about principles of “freedom” and other values in our lives and how that ignorance has allowed us to be controlled and manipulated into mistaking falsehood for something real.

NEXT: The Trinity of Fears

NOTES

[1]  Spencer wrote: “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection,’ or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” HERBERT SPENCER, THE PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGY 444 (Univ. Press of the Pac. 2002).

[2] Herbert Spencer; Truxton Beale (1916), The Man Versus the State: A Collection of Essays,