Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

Richard’s Selected Correspondence

On the Social Identity (sub-section: Peasant Mentality)


Re: Moral cap and Authority

RESPONDENT No. 00: Unscrewing the moral cap, which divides the complete set of emotions into the goods and bads, means instead of fighting the ‘bad’ or unwanted emotions i realise they are me, and therefore not scary, the whole spectrum of ‘me’ opens up, and I can look at them and there’s no barrier to understanding them then, also with out fighting myself it’s much easier (of course) to simply choose to feel good again. Also, sometimes there’s reluctance, which is just me feeling important, ie. more important than being happy and harmless. Also, there’s definitely an eerie feeling like i’m being watched when I choose to be happy, a sense of anxiety, like I’m doing something naughty by being happy, which is the belief in an authority, and the fear of punishment.

JONATHAN: (...). You mention authority and the fear of punishment. This is only the flip side of feeling important. Who but an important person has the right to claim authority and to mete out punishment? Who but a person who feels quite justifiably important would even consider telling someone else what to do let alone mete out punishment? As I think this over, I think that autonomy plays a big part in dismantling these things. Richard, in particular, was so adept at getting me to begin thinking for myself. It started towards the end of the first trip when he sat down and poked a hole in my superiority complex. And it continued to the very last night of the final trip when he talked about a peasant mentality. (...).

RESPONDENT No. 32: Hey Jon..really enjoyed your post. Can you elaborate a bit more on that ‘peasant mentality’ which Richard discussed with you ?

CLAUDIU: Oh I found the concept of the peasant mentality really awesome actuality. I hadn’t heard anybody else put it that way before. Let me try to formulate it properly.

The idea is that sometime before today, it wasn’t the case that everything was owned. Like when America was uncolonized, you could just get in a wagon, ride west for however long, then stake out a territory and start farming it. But nowadays, everything is already owned. Everything is walled-off and fenced-off. When you are born you own nothing, and everything else is already owned. Those owners want to make you work for it, like you have to earn your keep, earn your right to live. If you do, then they give you some of the stuff they already own. If you work really hard, you get more stuff. If you are really corrupt then you can become an owner too, but still only by playing their game.

This is the ‘peasant mentality’ – that you have to work to earn the right to live. That because you work, you deserve something. But really in a state of nature nothing is owned, you can just go wherever and do whatever you want. So the fact that everything is owned is artificial. Maybe uncolonized America was a bad example, maybe a better example is before civilization.

I think that’s what Richard meant by peasant mentality, and he said how a while back he recognized this and decided not to play into it anymore, not to play the game that the owners have set up before you were even born.

I’m afraid this didn’t come off too eloquently, anyone else want to give it a shot?

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu,

Yes, the better example is indeed ‘before civilisation’ as to ‘stake out a territory and start farming it’ marks the shift from a ‘free-range’ life-style to the ‘property-rights’ way of life (and, thereby, to the arising of a ‘peasant-mentality’).

To explain: for a hunter-gatherer, the free-range life-style was epitomised by, basically, just helping oneself to whatever was available. With the advent of the property-rights way of life, however, any such ‘helping oneself’ transmogrified into being theft, larceny, stealing, despoliation, direption, and etcetera. Millennia later, all of this results in feeling-beings atavistically harbouring a deep, primordial *feeling* of being somehow disfranchised – the instinctual passions, being primeval, are still ‘wired’ for hunter-gathering – from some ancient ‘golden age’, wherein life was in some ill-defined way ‘free’ (e.g., ‘The Garden of Eden’), such as to affectively underpin all the class-wars (between the ‘haves and have-nots’) down through the ages.

Unless this rudimentary *feeling* of disfranchisement – of *feeling* somehow deprived of a fundamental franchise (franchise = the territory or limits within which immunity, privileges, rights, powers, etcetera may be exercised) – is primarily understood (to the point of being viscerally felt, even) any explanation of ‘peasant-mentality’ will be of superficial use only.

A footnote appended to a 2005 online response of mine is as good a place to start as any.

Viz.:

February 07 2005

• [Co-Respondent]: Another issue, related to this one [the issue of filial/ tribal duty], is my choice of career. I was considering teaching physics at the HS level, because I understand there is a shortage of science teachers in California. Is this also a part of the instinctual duty to fulfil the needs of society?

• [Richard]: Not necessarily, no ... one does need to put food/ water into the belly, and a roof over the head/ clothes on the back (if the weather be inclement), and in this day and age[1] the main way of obtaining the necessary wherewithal is through the covert slavery euphemistically known as ‘earning a living’.

[1]in this day and age:

As one emerges, at birth, into a world where more than a few of the peoples born earlier have staked-out claims/ inherited prior claims – gained and maintained at the point of a spear/ a gun – on most of the arable land/ fecund water it soon becomes obvious that as, by and large, the era of the hunter-gatherer is over one is going to have to give of one’s time and labour (to the claimants) so as to be given in return (by the claimants) a portion of what one has produced (for the claimants) ... the term ‘wage-slave’ is not a misnomer and the word ‘salary’ is but a fancy way of referring to the wage slaved for by the middle and upper-middle ... um ... socio-economic careerists.

Or, as Mr. John Lennon (a person who got his snout into the trough big-time) put it, in the lyrics of ‘Working Class Hero’:

When they’ve tortured and scared you for twenty-odd years ...

Then they expect you to pick a career ...

When you can’t really function you’re so full of fear.

(...)

Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV ...

And you think you are so clever and classless and free ...

But you are still fucking peasants as far as I can see. (.../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf83.htm#07Feb05).

The following day another respondent queried me on my above response; in my clarification I referred to the term ‘wage-slave’ as being, perhaps more correctly, ‘modern-day serfdom’.

Viz.:

February 08 2005

• [Respondent No. 83]: Another issue, related to this one [the issue of filial/tribal duty], is my choice of career. I was considering teaching physics at the HS level, because I understand there is a shortage of science teachers in California. Is this also a part of the instinctual duty to fulfil the needs of society?

• [Richard]: Not necessarily, no ... one does need to put food/water into the belly, and a roof over the head/clothes on the back (if the weather be inclement), and in this day and age the main way of obtaining the necessary wherewithal is through the covert slavery euphemistically known as ‘earning a living’.

• [Co-Respondent]: Can it be that No. 83 wants to educate people to better enable them to contribute to humanity’s ease and quality of life?

• [Richard]: I responded to an explicit question as asked – whether a career as a science teacher is part of an instinctual duty to fulfil societal needs – couched in a related framework of both filial and tribal duty (born out of the instinctual passion of nurture, the religio-spiritual feeling of compassion, and particular cultural mores) plus a stated interest in obliterating same and my context-specific response (no, a career as a science teacher is not necessarily part of an instinctual duty to fulfil societal needs) and my pragmatic explication of the very least one needs to ‘earn a living’ for (the basic necessities of life) and how those essential requirements are chiefly obtained these days (via modern-day serfdom) and, in a footnote, why they cannot be obtained directly (the era of the hunter-gatherer is virtually over because of enforced exclusive property-rights claims) is to that query and that query alone. (www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf78b.htm#08Feb05).

Although, for persons taking out a house-mortgage – typically, these days, over a 30-35 year period (whereafter they find they have paid for three-four houses, whilst only being allocated one, per favour usurious banking guilds having usurped, several centuries ago[†], the sovereign power of a nation-state to emit debt-free monies) – the term ‘indentured servitude’ may be even more appropriate.

[†]Mr. Alexander Del Mar, in his engaging 1899 book ‘Barbara Villiers or A History of Monetary Crimes’, details how the ‘exclusive prerogative of the State’ to emit money was usurped, during the reign of Charles II (and due, in no small part, to his infatuation with a notorious married woman), with the ‘surreptitious mint legislation of 1666-7’ whereby ‘the most powerful instrument by which a State can influence the happiness of its subjects, was surrendered or sold for a song to a class of usurers, in whose hands it has remained ever since’. A 1983 reprint can be read online here:

https://archive.org/stream/AlexanderDelMar/AlexanderDelMar-AHistoryOfMonetaryCrimes18991983Reprint#page/n3/mode/1up

If anything is a classic case of ‘read it and weep’ then this is it in spades. The role played by Ms. Barbara Villiers – a.k.a., Mrs. Barbara Palmers, Countess of Castlemaine, Duchess of Cleveland, Baroness Nonsuch – or, rather, the allure her feminine charms had for the profligate Charles II, starts properly on Page 26. Were her story better-known she may very well become celebrated as the patron-saint of banksters world-wide (if not already, albeit secretly, that is).

Even more to the point: the fact that modern-day women demanded the legal right to enter into such ‘indentured servitude’ alongside the traditional male ‘bread-winner’ – most family-households these days are double-income households (hence necessitating publicly-subsidised childcare facilities) – and thus further enriching that already obscenely-rich ‘class of usurers’ amply demonstrates how the ‘peasant-mentality’ is not a male-only trait.

*

Also, something I wrote in 1998 will help set the scene for what else the term ‘peasant-mentality’ meant to the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1978-1988 (a ‘turning-point’ decade in which ‘he’ sussed-out much of what has been going down for millennia).

Viz.:

November 11 1998

• [Konrad]: Most people are completely ignorant about ethics, and questions pertaining to the distinction between good and evil. Not everybody is aware of the fact, that Ayn Rand has given an objective basis to ethics, and therefore for an objective distinction between good and evil. I connect an explanation of her ethics which basically shows clearly that the difference between good and evil is grounded in the objectively existing difference between life and death. Life and death also connect ‘Is’ and ‘Ought’. Read it, and you will receive an introduction to questions pertaining to human conditioning.

• [Richard]: I have eliminated the need for conditioning. I have no need for ethics whatsoever.

• [Konrad]: Ayn Rand was also a novelist. Her two best books are ‘The Fountainhead’, and ‘Atlas Shrugged’. Especially ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is a very fascinating, although rather thick novel.

• [Richard]: Back in 1985 I read every book that I could lay my hands on that Ms. Ayn Rand had written. I started with ‘Atlas Shrugged’. Her hero, Mr. John Galt, was personified as the archetype industrialist/ capitalist and Ms. Ayn Rand’s personal dislike of welfare recipients (possibly from her experience in the USSR) was patently obvious. She exemplified what is nowadays called an ‘economic rationalist’ of the ‘user pays’ ilk. With personal prejudices like that it would be difficult for her to think clearly ... as is evidenced by her complete ignorance of the fact that Mr. John Galt’s money to fund his community comes from a pool of millions of consumers desiring his invention. That is, not all of the 5.8 billion people in the world can invent something so desirable that other peoples buy it to the extent that vast amounts of money pours into their coffers. Capitalism is based upon some people being rich at other people’s expense. Her bigotry is particularly evident towards the end of the book in the fanciful scenes of the parasitical nature of welfare recipients. The book was an emotional appeal to what is currently evident in the world as ‘white male supremacy’ ... but only of the favoured few. It is an elitist position. Hence I have little regard for her further philosophising as you present it below.

• [Konrad]: [Ms. Ayn Rand]: ‘The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: does man need values at all – and why?’ [endquote]. I see from your mail that this is exactly what you do and defend. You do not ask this question. Neither did I in the past, by the way. It is exactly this point that was so revolutionary about the understanding of the term ‘ethics’ as brought forward by Ayn Rand. I think that she was the first who had a clear understanding of the concept of ‘ethics’ in general. At least, she was the first who distinguished ‘ethics’ from ‘an ethics’.

• [Richard]: This is because she needs ethics. Like you, she would presumably still get infuriated and have to have emotion-backed principles in order to manage to operate and function in a socially acceptable manner even when driven by the instinctual animal urges of fear and aggression that blind nature endows all sentient beings with. In other words: her writing shows that she is still a victim of the human condition ... like you she is encumbered by an affective ‘being’ that needs to be controlled.

(...snip...).

• [Konrad]: [Ms. Ayn Rand]: ‘If some men attempt to survive by means of brute force or fraud, by looting, robbing, cheating or enslaving the men who produce, it still remains true that their survival is made possible only by their victims, only by the men who choose to think and to produce the goods which they, the looters, are seizing. Such looters are parasites incapable of survival, who exist by destroying those who are capable, those who are pursuing a course of action proper to man’. [endquote]. In other words, if that what is looted is not produced first, there is nothing to loot. Therefore the possibility of looting depends on the possibility of producing, but not the other way around. Since production is the product of our mind in the form of knowledge and action, this is more important, more fundamental than any question about what to do with it. This is also why social structures as such are not enough to solve the problems of scarcity.

• [Richard]: Of course this completely ignores the ‘hunter/ gatherer’ lifestyles of so many peoples in the past ... they produced nothing. Yet there were still territorial wars for the food supplies that grew in the wild. This is also seen in those detailed National Geographic documentaries on chimpanzees in Africa, for example. Her use of the word ‘parasites’ here reinforces what I observed in her book ‘Atlas Shrugged’. She is simply down on welfare recipients ... whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that those recipients would have been working for a living if it were not for technology in the form of machines, computers and robots taking over their jobs. When industrialists talk of ‘down-sizing’ and ‘rationalising’ their work-force, they mean that they are going to throw their workers onto the welfare list ... and then criticise them for being ‘parasites’. The industrialists continue to get rich, of course, due to technology. It is such an elitist position ... and speaks volumes for their lack of egalitarianism. In Australia, such dispossessed workers are called by the rich the epithet ‘dole-bludgers’. (.../richard/konradcorrespondence/pagefifteen.htm).

The main point to get about the mechanisation/ robotisation/ computerisation of productive work (as in ‘machines, computers and robots taking over their jobs’ above) is the work which the now-made-redundant workers once carried out still gets done – indeed productivity increases many-fold due solely to such ingenious ‘labour-saving’ devices – yet the dispossessed workers are castigated just as the peasants of yore were (way back when peasants not working meant the work did not get done).

The made-redundant person (or a person unable to gain paid employment in the first place) who buys into such epithets a ‘dole-bludger’ and the ilk – and dutifully self-castigates – is thus another example of a person with a ‘peasant-mentality’.

The following is a paragraph from ‘Richard’s Journal’ (in Article 20) wherein I make the point that social welfare is not a moral (aka ethical) issue.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: A good example of this [of the community acting not for the good of an abstract ‘whole’ but, in actuality, for the benefit of each and every individual] is the social welfare system. Because of the Agrarian Revolution, the Industrial Revolution and the more recent Technological Revolution, people can no longer pursue a subsistence life-style as hunter-gatherers. The land is no longer free-range; it is all either publicly or privately owned. As this situation prevailed when one was born, it is incumbent upon the community at large to provide one with the means to obtain the necessities of life. The predominating system has been the provision of money – acquired by working – with which to buy food, clothing, shelter, etcetera. If the community cannot sustain full employment, it must provide an alternate means for one to purchase one’s goods. A social welfare system is not a luxury supplied by an affluent society; it is an essential requisite that the community must readily furnish. This is not a moral issue – as the ‘whole’ smugly feels it to be – for welfare is not charity. Because, regardless of the ‘whole’s self-endowed compassionate nature, the disenfranchised must be fed and housed. If the community did not do this, there would be a rebellion from the hungry and homeless millions. The preservation of the orderly fabric of society is the guiding principle at play here, not moral duty, obligation and responsibility on the part of the community.

(from Article 20; The Survival Of The Community Depends Upon Its Absolute Selfishness).

(I will append the bulk of ‘Article 20’ below my signature/sign-off so as to make it available on-line, hereafter, for those without a copy of ‘Richard’s Journal’).

*

Another example lies in the area of public education – compulsory schooling that is – inasmuch parents are compelled to submit to the ‘peasant-mentality’ being inculcated into their children during their formative years. The identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1978-1988 (that ‘turning-point’ decade) first took ‘his’ two oldest children out of the standard Public School and enrolled them in an ‘alternate school’. Upon discovering that such schools similarly imparted said ‘peasant-mentality’, albeit in a different guise, ‘he’ embarked upon what is known as ‘home schooling’ when ‘his’ two youngest children came of school-age.

Viz.:

February 04 2003

• [Co-Respondent]: Another question: I have the charge of a good part of the education of my grand daughter, 11 years old, and now to be home schooled. I realize we won’t see these ideas taught in school for the foreseeable future, but what would you teach to a child if you could teach him/her whatever you wanted?

• [Richard]: Back when I was a parent I adopted the ‘home-schooling’ approach with my then children – until the state’s child welfare department intervened and enforced academic schooling at the point of a gun – and found it most rewarding for all concerned (...). (.../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf41.htm#04Feb03).

‘Twas all in vain, of course, and these days I advise enrolling one’s children in regular schools as they are going to be inculcated (a.k.a., ‘socialised’), anyway, by all the influences of society in general.

Which neatly brings me to the point of detailing these above examples: understanding the ‘whys and wherefores’ of peasant-mentality is not about effecting social change but being free of it in oneself.

In the seventh paragraph of ‘Article 20’ (appended further below) I have highlighted the relevant sentence.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: Astonishingly, I find that *social change is unnecessary*; I can live freely in the community as-it-is. [endquote].

In other words, one is then free to conform with the legal laws and observe the social protocols – to ‘go along with’, to ‘pay lip-service to’ – whilst no longer believing in them.

‘Tis a remarkable freedom in itself – with no need to rebel at all – as all rebellion stems, primarily, from that deeply-held primordial *feeling* of disfranchisement (and its associated feelings of resentment, envy, cynicism, and so on and so forth).

Regards,

Richard.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

P.S.: What follows is the bulk of ‘Article 20’ from ‘Richard’s Journal’. Incidentally, the ‘invisible social contract’ mentioned in the opening paragraph refers to the gist of Part Six of the book ‘Of The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right’ (‘Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique’; 1762) by Mr. Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Viz.:

• [Mr. Jean-Jacques Rousseau]: ‘(...). The clauses of this contract are so determined by the nature of the act that the slightest modification would make them vain and ineffective; so that, although they have perhaps never been formally set forth, they are everywhere the same and everywhere tacitly admitted and recognised (...). These clauses, properly understood, may be reduced to one – the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community; for, in the first place, as each gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all (...). If then we discard from the social compact what is not of its essence, we shall find that it reduces itself to the following terms: ‘Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole’. At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body (...)’. (www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm#006).

Article 20; The Survival Of The Community Depends Upon Its Absolute Selfishness.

• [Richard]: (...). I am passing through a crowd of people thronging the area encompassed by boutiques and cafés and the like ... and I am wondering if they are fully aware of the psychological implications of having morally ‘signed’ that invisible social contract.

I think not. No one I have spoken to yet, or read about in the many articles available, has been able to profoundly understand what is implied when an individual is accused, by the community, of being selfish. The community itself is beyond reproach in regards to its own self-centredness. The survival of the community depends upon its absolute selfishness. Although professing to hold the interests of the individual to heart, when push comes to shove, the individual is unhesitatingly sacrificed without compunction ... even though there is an official wringing of hands, a lamenting of the necessity, a praising of the patriotic duty so willingly performed ... and so on. The basic premise lying behind the legality of the existence of ‘the community’ is its designated role of acting ‘for the good of the whole’. Instinctually believing one’s well-being to be assured, nobody calls the community to account. Has anyone fully realised that the community does not exist for the good of the individual?

*

The phrase ‘good of the whole’ seems to imply this, but closer examination reveals that ‘the whole’ exists only in bombast and blather ... it is a concept, an ideology. Only an individual person – a flesh-and-blood body – actually exists. Where people have no integrity – which is the case in order for the ‘whole’ to exist – they have no genuine individuality. They are invisible ... as if a non-person, a statistic, a number. They may complain about the ‘dehumanisation’ process, little realising that they are but a social identity ... a fictitious entity having only psychological existence. This social identity has taken up residence in the body and rules the roost in an autocratic manner. Nevertheless, it is itself subject to the commands of the community, for it is a loyal member, having been created by the community – the ‘whole’ – in the first place. This loyalty thrives on the moral investment that the social identity has made in the community; one’s very ‘well-being’ depends upon receiving a continuous supply of moral dividends.

One’s psychological existence is so precarious that one needs constant endorsement, so as to feel that ‘I’ am alive, that ‘I’ still exist. When the ‘whole’ accuses one of being selfish – which it relentlessly does by extolling the virtues of duty, obligation and responsibility – one can then chastise oneself, thus maintaining one’s sense of being a social identity. With suitable remorse, one has then been coerced, cajoled and shamed into having one’s usefulness to the community restored ... and one feels needed again. Nonetheless, one is actually crazy to chastise oneself because ‘I’ am selfish by ‘my’ very created nature ... and ‘I’ will always be self-centred. Self-castigation only serves to crystallise ‘me’. It is essential to the community’s ‘well-being’ that ‘I’ remain selfish. Because the ‘whole’, having created ‘me’ so as to perpetuate its own existence – and being utterly selfish itself – desperately needs self-centred members. ‘I’ readily invest, morally, in the community for there one recognises one’s ilk ... ‘I’ am a lonely soul and it is essential that ‘I’ have a sense of belonging to the like-minded ‘whole’. It is an illusion of togetherness designed to assuage the feeling of aloneness that both oneself and the community experiences ... ‘I’ and ‘humanity’ feel lost and lonely in what is perceived to be the vast reaches of space and time that make up an empty universe. The search for extra-terrestrial life is but one outcome of this feeling of separation.

This desolate coping-mechanism also has the unfortunate result of creating resentful citizens. The ‘whole’, being bigger and more selfish than ‘me’, has its own – perceived to be serious – communal needs that take precedence over ‘my’ – perceived to be insignificant – personal needs. Because of a continuous supply of citizens, the ‘whole’ does not need ‘me’ as much as ‘I’ need it. Thus the community always has the upper hand and can do with ‘me’, virtually, whatever it wants. There is a constant power-battle going on between ‘me’ and the ‘whole’ ... which one must invariably lose, in order to cultivate and nurture one’s invisible Spirit. The community dangerously wants one to have a Spirit, for it requires a consistent reserve of supplicating selves prepared to sacrifice themselves in the name of the ‘Good of the whole’. The community coopts the word ‘we’ and turns it back into the ‘whole’ to serve its own nefarious purposes.

*

Not surprisingly none of these shenanigans, deemed necessary by everyone, are essential when ‘I’ realise who ‘we’ actually are ... and then see what I am. I am this body only; bereft of any identity as Spirit ... of any entity at all. There is no-one inside of this body to be lost, lonely, frightened or cunning. There is an innate purity in being me as-I-am, for this universe is already always perfect. There is a magnanimity and a beneficence everywhere all at once and I find that I am benign in character. It therefore follows that all my thoughts and deeds are automatically benevolent and beneficial – I do not do it, it happens of itself – and communal service is no longer a duty, an obligation, a responsibility. I can readily enjoy a free association with other – flesh and blood – individuals to form a loose-knit affiliation that acts for the good of each individual ... for when ‘I’ expire, the ‘whole’ also ceases to exist. The ‘whole’, which created ‘me’, was being re-affirmed and perpetuated by one’s very ‘being’.

All human beings are born into an already existing community which takes itself as being real, as being a ‘whole’. Each baby is born with a biological ‘instinct for survival’ which the ‘whole’ transforms into a psychological ‘will to survive’ ... to survive as a social identity. This newest recruit to ‘humanity’ at large submits, rather unwillingly, to the demands of the ‘whole’, for it is mesmerised into thinking and feeling that its own needs will be best met by subsuming itself into the ‘whole’. Since one is selfish by one’s created nature, ‘I’ will sustain the community – the ‘whole’ – which is more selfish than ‘me’, in conjunction with all the other similarly afflicted bodies. This process is inevitable so long as ‘I’ exist. Consequently, the conundrum which all citizens are faced with is dissolved with ‘my’ demise. Astonishingly, I find that *social change is unnecessary*; I can live freely in the community as-it-is. I do not subscribe to that ridiculous hyperbole that the community acts ‘for the good of the whole’ for I see directly and with clarity. I know that there is no ‘whole’ outside of passionate ‘human’ imagination. The community actually exists for the good of me – and for the good of all other individuals – without ever realising it. [emphasis added].

A good example of this is the social welfare system. Because of the Agrarian Revolution, the Industrial Revolution and the more recent Technological Revolution, people can no longer pursue a subsistence life-style as hunter-gatherers. The land is no longer free-range; it is all either publicly or privately owned. As this situation prevailed when one was born, it is incumbent upon the community at large to provide one with the means to obtain the necessities of life. The predominating system has been the provision of money – acquired by working – with which to buy food, clothing, shelter, etcetera. If the community cannot sustain full employment, it must provide an alternate means for one to purchase one’s goods. A social welfare system is not a luxury supplied by an affluent society; it is an essential requisite that the community must readily furnish. This is not a moral issue – as the ‘whole’ smugly feels it to be – for welfare is not charity. Because, regardless of the ‘whole’s self-endowed compassionate nature, the disenfranchised must be fed and housed. If the community did not do this, there would be a rebellion from the hungry and homeless millions. The preservation of the orderly fabric of society is the guiding principle at play here, not moral duty, obligation and responsibility on the part of the community.

*

Accordingly, in the actual world the community is never selfish. It acts for the good of the individual – which is why it exists – and in doing so it preserves itself in order to serve the individual. Only in the real world is it self-centred, acting ‘for the good of the whole’ and preserving itself – at the expense of the individual – for the sake of preserving itself. A person who sees all this clearly and completely, who understands all this deeply and comprehensively, who knows all this actually and absolutely, will never make the mistake of thinking and feeling that one must ‘die for one’s country’ as a moral duty, obligation and responsibility. The choice to risk one’s life – or not – to repel an invasion is a freely made decision; it is not the result of coercion, cajolery or shame. The same applies for conscription – that abominable forced induction into military service – for one will not succumb to a situation where one is compelled to kill or be killed. One realises that conscription is a ‘crime against humanity’ and that a country will decide whether to allow itself to be invaded or not by ‘voting with its feet’. If voluntary enlistment is not sufficient to counter the attack, then the country has democratically voted for surrender.

The same pure rationale applies to having babies; one is not coerced, cajoled or shamed into ‘doing one’s bit for society’ by risking one’s life in child-birth in order to populate and perpetuate the country. One makes a freely considered decision whether to conceive or not; the country thus ‘votes with its feet’ on the issue of continuing the species or letting it die out. One will never commit the error of thinking and feeling that society owns one’s body; it is not one’s duty, obligation and responsibility to procreate. Contraception and abortion are not moral issues; they are the means to sustain one’s salubrity. One does not ‘owe a debt to society’, for society exists only for the good of the individual. And this has been the case all along. ‘I’ blamed society for ‘my’ woes ... with ‘me’ extirpated there are no woes. There is nothing and no-one to need any blame, for nothing is going wrong. It was all a play in emotive imaginative thought ... an errant and vainglorious brain-pattern. Nothing more needs to be done now, except to freely assist another person to actualise this vital break-through for themselves. When that person is also free they can similarly facilitate the freedom of another person ... and another ... and another ... and so on.

By operating in this manner, on a one-to-one basis, freedom from being an identity could spread throughout the entire population of this planet. A truly evolutionary change will have taken place; a mutation of human consciousness. The much longed-for golden age will have finally been ushered in ... and by the peoples concerned. There was no need for a Supernatural Agency all along. The ‘Human Condition’ is such that it can readily respond to the do-it-yourself method; the ability is within the human character to fix things up for itself. The intervention of some Supernatural Outsider is never going to happen anyway, for there is no such creature. Human beings are on their own, free to manage their own affairs as they see fit. Whenever one thinks about it, would one have it any other way? If that fictitious Almighty Creature were to come sweeping in on a cloud, waving a magic wand and putting everything to rights, would not one feel cheated? Would not one question why human beings had to wait so long upon the capricious whim of some self-righteous God who could have acted long ago? It is all nonsense, upon sober reflection!

*

With freedom spread like a chain-letter, in the due course of time, global freedom would revolutionise the concept of ‘humanity’. It would be a free association of peoples world-wide; a utopian-like loose-knit affiliation of like-minded individuals. One would be a citizen of the world, not of a sovereign state. Countries, with their artificial borders would vanish along with the need for the military. As nationalism would expire, so too would patriotism with all its heroic evils. No police force would be needed anywhere on earth; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows. Gaols, judges and juries would become a thing of the dreadful past. People would live together in peace and harmony, happiness and delight. Pollution and its cause – over-population – would be set to rights without effort, as competition would be replaced by cooperation. It would indeed be the stuff of pipe-dreams come true, here-on-earth ... if one wants it.

But none of this matters much when one is already living in the actual world. In actual freedom, life is experienced as being perfect as-it-is. One knows that one is living in a beneficent universe ... and that is what actually counts. The self-imposed iniquities that ail the people who stubbornly wish to remain denizens of the real world, fail to impinge upon the blitheness and gaiety of one who lives the vast scheme of things. The universe does not force anyone to be happy and harmless, to live in peace and ease, to be free of sorrow and malice. It is a matter of personal choice as to which way one will travel. Humans, being as they are, will probably continue to tread the ‘Tried and True’ paths, little realising that they are the tried and failed ways. There is none so contumacious as a self-righteous soul who is convinced that they know the way to live ... as revealed in their ancient and revered moralistic scriptures or ethicalistic secular philosophies. So be it.

This universe has arranged itself so that the one who dares to go all the way is instantly living in universal peace ... irrespective of what other peoples are believing and doing. One is free to act in a way beneficial to all. This is a measure of how perfect life is in the actual.

I have not signed any social contract. (pp. 141-146, ‘Richard’s Journal’, 2nd Ed. ©The Actual Freedom Trust 2004).

▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪

Just for the record, here is the quote in full from Page 7 of that 1899 book ‘Barbara Villiers or A History of Monetary Crimes’ (with emphases added).

Viz.:

• [Mr. Alexander Del Mar]: From the remotest time to the seventeenth century of our aera, the right to coin money and to regulate its value (by giving it denominations) and by limiting or increasing the quantity of it in circulation, *was the exclusive prerogative of the State*. In 1604, in the celebrated case of the Mixed Moneys, this prerogative was affirmed under such extraordinary circumstances and with such an overwhelming array of judicial and forensic authority as to occasion alarm to the moneyed classes of England, who at once sought the means to overthrow it. These they found in the demands of the East India Company, the corruption of Parliament the profligacy of Charles II., and the influence of Barbara Villiers. The result was the surreptitious mint legislation of 1666-7: and thus a prerogative, which, next to the right of peace or war, is *the most powerful instrument by which a State can influence the happiness of its subjects*, was surrendered or sold for a song to a class of usurers, in whose hands it has remained ever since. In framing the American mint-laws of 1790-2, Mr. Hamilton, a young man (then 33 years of age), and wholly unaware of the character or bearings of this English legislation, innocently copied it and caused it to be incorporated in the laws of the United States, where it still remains, *an obstacle to the equitable distribution of wealth and a menace to public prosperity*. (...).

▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪▪


Re: Moral cap and Authority

RICHARD to Claudiu: (...). Also, something I wrote in 1998 will help set the scene for what else the term ‘peasant-mentality’ meant to the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1978-1988 (a ‘turning-point’ decade in which ‘he’ sussed-out much of what has been going down for millennia). Viz.: [...snip discussion about Ms. Ayn Rand’s use of the word ‘parasites’ (as in her ‘parasites incapable of survival’ phrasing) to depict any people who ‘attempt to survive’ by defrauding/ looting/ robbing/ cheating/ enslaving the ‘men who produce’ – specifically, those who ‘choose to think and to produce the goods’, that is – whom she otherwise characterises as those ‘who are capable’ and who pursue ‘a course of action proper to man’ in an essay on Objectivist Ethics...].

The main point to get about the mechanisation/ robotisation/ computerisation of productive work is the work which the now-made-redundant workers once carried out still gets done – indeed productivity increases many-fold due solely to such ingenious ‘labour-saving’ devices – yet the dispossessed workers are castigated just as the peasants of yore were (way back when peasants not working meant the work did not get done). The made-redundant person (or a person unable to gain paid employment in the first place) who buys into such epithets a ‘dole-bludger’ and the ilk – and dutifully self-castigates – is thus another example of a person with a ‘peasant-mentality’. (...).

ANDREW: Hi Richard, that’s a great read indeed! Thanks for taking the time to put it together. It helps to hear also of the work you did during the late 70s through to mid 80s looking into these issues.

RICHARD: G’day Andrew,

Yes, the resolution of the above issue (the implications and ramifications of the mechanisation/ robotisation/ computerisation of productive work) came to a head in the late 1970’s whilst listening to a Parliamentary Broadcast, on the National Radio, of the then-Prime Minister’s speech about the necessity of importing the latest electronics technology – despite it putting tens of thousands of current and future employees out of work – in order for the nation to remain competitive on the world market.

In other words, it was a deliberate Government Policy to add even more hapless citizens to the rising double-digit pool of unemployed – the days of full employment, in developed countries, had ended during the early 1970’s world-wide economic crises – and yet, despite this remarkably frank public admission, disparaging epithets such as ‘dole-bludgers’ and similar continued unabated.

Obviously, for him and his ilk such ingenious labour-saving devices were not designed to release peoples from having to ‘earn their (daily) bread by the sweat of the brow’ – even though productive work not only still got done but productivity increased many-fold as well – but were avariciously arrogated to serve as saving-labour costs instead and, thus, increase their profits many-fold.

Howsoever, those words from that wealthy pastoralist – a man infamous for forcing the nation into a constitutional crisis, so he could gain such political power he was then liberally exercising, and notorious for saying that ‘life wasn’t meant to be easy’ (despite a privileged Grammar School education and an Oxford degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics) – were the final straw in regards the hallowed ‘Protestant Work-Ethic’ which had been thoroughly inculcated, from early childhood onward, into the identity then-inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body, such as to occasion ‘him’ to work 12-14 hours a day 6-7 days a week.

Now, whilst ‘he’ did not have an Economics Degree (let alone from a prestigious university) ‘his’ egalitarian far-sightedness enabled ‘him’ to see that unless productive workers – including those displaced by the ingenious mechanisation, robotisation, and computerisation of productive work – receive monies sufficient enough to purchase those goods produced then any such increased productivity decreases accordingly, with the economy correspondingly going into slow-down, whereupon workers are laid-off, and the economy goes into melt-down.

Evidentially, however, avaritia leads to short-sightedness.

ANDREW: In retrospect, the work of breaking down the social identity preceded your recall of a pure consciousness experience ...

RICHARD: As the remembrance of numerous pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) occurred in the winter of 1980 then the major part of that circa 1978-1988 ‘turning-point’ decade – in which the identity then inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body sussed-out much of what has been going down for millennia – came afterwards.

In fact, the bulk of the sussing-out took place whilst ‘he’ was egoless – and especially so during the years whilst single, celibate, itinerant and homeless (in what I have earlier reported as being ‘his’ puritan period) – as ‘his’ release from being ego-centric enabled considerable insight to take place.

ANDREW: ... which helps put in perspective my own efforts. Something you wrote about struck me the other day and that was the process of realization to actualization. Actualizing insights into practical ways of behaving, in this case, working for a living, has seen me stuck many times. At the moment I liken my efforts to a pilot pulling out of a steep dive, there is only so much one can do, and only time will tell if is enough, financially speaking! I mentioned on this list a few weeks ago that it seemed to me that I was daring myself to go broke. Not by choice as such, more so in a rebellious, almost automatic way. I have read about ‘peasant resistance’ before, the universal ‘go slow’ that is the only resort of dispossessed.

RICHARD: Ha ... that which you read about is a classic example of the ‘peasant-mentality’ in action (you obviously missed my final words – ‘no need to rebel at all’ – written just above my signature/sign-off).


Re: Moral cap and Authority

RICHARD: (...) the better example is indeed ‘before civilisation’ as to ‘stake out a territory and start farming it’ marks the shift from a ‘free-range’ life-style to the ‘property-rights’ way of life (and, thereby, to the arising of a ‘peasant-mentality’). To explain: for a hunter-gatherer, the free-range life-style was epitomised by, basically, just helping oneself to whatever was available. With the advent of the property-rights way of life, however, any such ‘helping oneself’ transmogrified into being theft, larceny, stealing, despoliation, direption, and etcetera. Millennia later, all of this results in feeling-beings atavistically harbouring a deep, primordial *feeling* of being somehow disfranchised – the instinctual passions, being primeval, are still ‘wired’ for hunter-gathering – from some ancient ‘golden age’, wherein life was in some ill-defined way ‘free’ (e.g., ‘The Garden of Eden’), such as to affectively underpin all the class-wars (between the ‘haves and have-nots’) down through the ages.

CLAUDIU: Hi Richard, thanks for that in-depth reply and for setting the record straight! I definitely didn’t have the salient points down of what you meant by peasant mentality.

RICHARD: G’day Claudiu,

That would be because I did not fully flesh-out what it meant, on that last-night riverside foregathering earlier this year, as the conversation moved onto other matters.

CLAUDIU: It’s going to take me some time to process your reply, as per usual. I think this may always be the case when one comes in contact with original thinking.

RICHARD: My current aim is to continue with my explication of this topic here on this forum, responding in chronological order to the replies to my initial post, until it is fully comprehensible – it being such an integral part of life in the ‘real-world’ – so that a connected record of it exists on The Actual Freedom Trust website for both present and future reference.

CLAUDIU: The main take-away for me for now is this:

• [Richard]: ‘Unless this rudimentary *feeling* of disfranchisement – of *feeling* somehow deprived of a fundamental franchise (franchise = the territory or limits within which immunity, privileges, rights, powers, etcetera may be exercised) – is primarily understood (to the point of being viscerally felt, even) any explanation of ‘peasant-mentality’ will be of superficial use only’. [endquote].

That is, the best way to benefit from the concept of peasant-mentality is to locate this feeling of disfranchisement in myself. I am unable to do so, currently. I wonder if it is in the direction of a feeling I’ve had in the past which can be expressed with phrases like ‘Wouldn’t it be so nice to not have to work’, or ‘Wouldn’t it be great to just make millions of dollars in a start-up and then be able to retire forever’ or ‘Wouldn’t it be great if I got a salary but didn’t have to actually go to work for it’. And then that could naturally lead to being jealous of people who already have those millions and don’t have to work, although I don’t think I have strongly felt that jealousy myself. I am not sure if that’s quite the feeling of disfranchisement you’re referring to, though. Again, it will take some time for this to filter through.

RICHARD: Going by those ways of expressing it then that feeling you have had, in the past, may very well be in the direction of that deep and primordial feeling referred to, further above, of being somehow disfranchised from just helping yourself to whatever was available (per favour the ‘free-range’ life-style of a hunter-gatherer) and, thereby, being subject to the arising of a ‘peasant-mentality’ (via enforced-employment under the ‘property-rights’ way of life).

The question which engaged the attention of the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago went something like this: ‘Where is it carved in stone that the very earth beneath our feet – the source and nourishment of life itself – is to be alienated, from the vast majority of the peoples it engenders and sustains, by a minority of those persons for the maximum enrichment of that commandeering minority’?

(For that is the essence of the famed ‘rule of law’ which lies at the heart of many National Constitutions world-wide).

It is nowhere ‘carved in stone’ (of course) as the famed ‘rule of law’ is nothing other than an invention of the various warlords desirous of establishing an ideological system with which to continuously enrich themselves, and their idle off-spring, at the expense of the disfranchised majority.

Furthermore: ‘How come that vast majority of peoples supplicate themselves at the feet of this commandeering minority, for the sake of ‘a few crumbs from their table’ (laden with the suppliants’ produce), and defend those alienators unto death, even, when attacked in force by another alienator’s suppliants bent upon enlarging their commandeering minority’s alienated territory for the sake of those very-same crumbs’?

(Please bear in mind that the identity within had directed this flesh-and-blood body to go to war as a gilded youth – thereby risking ‘life and limb’ for the perpetuation of privately-owned capitalistic economic enterprise, as exemplified in the near-defunct USA system, over publicly-owned capitalistic economic enterprise, as exemplified in the now-defunct USSR system – in order to comprehend the context in which such questions arose).

Moreover: ‘Who suffers the most – as in, who faces the greater loss – when the commandeering minority’s dominion, over a land they alienated from the common weal, is threatened via an invasion from without ... the suppliants or the dominators’?

It is the strangest of incongruities that peasant will fight peasant en masse – for the further enrichment of their respective dominators – when the end result no matter the outcome either way is but ‘a few crumbs’ from their dominator’s table (laden with the peasants’ produce) just as before.

Hence the term ‘peasant-mentality’.

To add insult to injury, as it were, the peasants are told that, by partaking of those ‘few crumbs’, they have thereby ‘signed’ an invisible ‘social contract’ wherein – to paraphrase the words of Mr. Jean-Jacques Rousseau – each person and all their power has been put in common under the supreme direction of the general will where, at once and in place of the individual personality of each contractor, this very act of association has created a moral and collective body.

The end result of all this is the current situation where the vast majority – upwards of at least 98% or more – of the peoples alive today have to give of their physical or mental labour and time (to that commandeering minority) so as to be grudgingly granted in return (by that commandeering minority) a portion of the total ascribed value of what they produced (for that commandeering minority) so as to be able to purchase (from that commandeering minority) sufficient liquids, comestibles, shelter, raiment, medicaments, and any other such essential matériel, for everyday survival purposes.

‘Tis truly a rigged system ... rigged to ever-enrich an already obscenely rich elite.

In effect it is a system of disguised slavery – a lugubrious legacy which everyone alive today has unwittingly inherited from long-dead peoples of long-ago eras – wherein the only way to escape subservient compliance (inasmuch all the ‘free-range’ was long-ago commandeered by ‘privateers’, so to speak, or otherwise alienated from the common weal) is to try to become one of the elite few and similarly exploit one’s fellow human beings.

In this country where I currently reside a minor version of such a pursuit is called ‘The Great Australian Dream’. I have written about it, earlier, in another context.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘(...) by age 33 ‘he’ [the identity then-inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body] had arrived at the summon bonum of the materialist/ humanist aspirations ... to wit: ‘he’ had a wife (who was just as randy as ‘he’ was), ‘he’ was the father of four young children (who were a delight to ‘him’ and fun to be with), ‘he’ owned a farmhouse (on a couple of acres in a rather picturesque rural landscape), ‘he’ owned a car (and all the typical accoutrements of successful living such as bed-room, lounge-room and dining-room suites plus a quadraphonic sound system, refrigerator, freezer, washing machine and all the rest); ‘he’ ran his own business (the dream of many a worker) and, moreover, ran it from home; furthermore, the business ‘he’ ran was as a practicing artist (and totally supported ‘himself’, ‘his’ wife, ‘his’ four children and all the above from sales of ‘his’ art, both locally and via public exhibitions). And then, one fine afternoon relaxing at ease in a brick-paved patio ‘he’ had built outside the opening glass doors of ‘his’ kitchen, under the shade of luxuriant passionfruit vines on a pagoda ‘he’ had also built, ‘he’ sat musing upon where ‘he’ had come from, where ‘he’ was at, and where ‘he’ was thus likely to be heading for. Basically, ‘he’ had arrived and all what remained was to finish renovating the farmhouse, buy a new car, and continue climbing the artistic ladder of success which ‘he’ was already firmly on the lower rungs of (...)’. (Richard, List D, Rick, 10 December 2009)

Fortunately, for yours truly and any body whose resident identity is taking notice of these words, ‘he’ had absorbed the hard-won revelations of one of the peasants who, having sought fame and fortune to escape a working-class childhood, had achieved a considerable degree of success in that enterprise (becoming a member of the world’s pecuniary super-elite, those 200,000-odd persons known to be of $30 million net-worth and above, who constitute something like 0.003% of the population by some accounts).

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘As for your query about the identity who used to inhabit this flesh and blood body all those years ago: the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) had a brief flirtation with ‘illusions of grandeur’ whilst a practising artist in the late 70’s until ‘he’ read an interview with Mr. John Lennon who, to put it as briefly as possible, reported that there was nothing ‘at the top’ and that fame [and fortune] *had no intrinsic worth* (...)’. [emphasis added]. (../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf53c.htm#30Mar04).

The peculiar aspect of this ‘disguised slavery’ system is, then, the vacuity of the peasant-mentality which dumbly perpetuates it.

In a nutshell: what the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1978-79 began calling a ‘peasant mentality’ was exemplified by that vast majority of peoples not only just dumbly accepting and perpetuating this undeniably-rigged socio-economic system (known to hipsters as ‘The Establishment’) as being ‘just the way it is’ but being fiercely loyal to it, into the bargain, and defensive of it amongst themselves (to the point of defending it unto death, even, in shooting wars against other peasants similarly defending their elite few).

I kid you not; on many an occasion back then, when that identity would share ‘his’ insights with ‘his’ fellow-peasants, they would object most strenuously – especially the salaried peasants (those ‘white-collar workers’ who fondly imagined themselves to be a cut above peasant-hood) – and would vigorously defend the status-quo in a manner not all that dissimilar to what is known in psychological/ psychiatric terms as ‘capture-bonding’ (popularly known as ‘The Stockholm Syndrome’, when localised, and ‘The Oslo Syndrome’, when communalised).

Interestingly enough, some symptoms of ‘capture-bonding’ have been identified, in regards to criminal hostage situations, prisoners of war/ concentration camp internees, controlling/ intimidating relationships (battered wives/ hen-pecked husbands/ abused children), cult members, incest victims, and the like, as follows:

1. Positive feelings toward the controller;

2. Negative feelings toward the rescuer;

3. Supportive behaviour utile to the controller;

4. Absence of interest/ engagement in being rescued.

Viz:

http://counsellingresource.com/lib/therapy/self-help/stockholm/

www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22447726

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

The hallmark of ‘peasant-mentality’ is, in a word, loyalty.

CLAUDIU: The secondary take-away for me now is this:

• [Richard]: ‘Which neatly brings me to the point of detailing these above examples: understanding the ‘whys and wherefores’ of peasant-mentality is not about effecting social change but being free of it in oneself. [...]. In other words, one is then free to conform with the legal laws and observe the social protocols – to ‘go along with’, to ‘pay lip-service to’ – whilst no longer believing in them. ‘Tis a remarkable freedom in itself – with no need to rebel at all – as all rebellion stems, primarily, from that deeply-held primordial *feeling* of disfranchisement (and its associated feelings of resentment, envy, cynicism, and so on and so forth)’. [endquote].

That is, freedom from peasant-mentality and from that feeling of disfranchisement requires no social change in order to be enjoyed, which is truly wonderful.

RICHARD: Indeed so. All what is required is to see-through the whole sick-and-sorry system and, thus, cease believing in it.

CLAUDIU: That certainly makes it much easier! I definitely find myself shedding my previously-held (and strongly at that) notions as to what capitalism is and how an ideal society would function.

RICHARD: Good ... of course, any such ‘ideal society’ has no chance of functioning as idealised whilst the human condition prevails (the 7.0+ billion versions of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – presently in control of 7.0+ billion bodies would corrupt it tout de suite, were they ever to even concur in having it be established in the first place, that is).

Needless is it to add that, once there is a global spread of individual peace-on-earth then that which can currently only ever be an ‘ideal society’ will function even better than idealised (given that any such idealisation is self-centric by its very nature)?

CLAUDIU: I actually find it much easier to converse with my friends about things such as economics and politics now as I am much more able both to allow for the possibility that I am wrong, and also to take a different approach to the conversation where it’s more about sharing our ideas than one of us ‘winning’. Actually, that ability that you and Vineeto and Peter have to converse with people with contrary opinions without getting emotionally involved (obviously) or without you guys trying to ‘win’ or you trying to be ‘right’ and prove the others ‘wrong’ (as Peter in particular mentioned on a few occasions) was really something to witness, and really appealing to me as well.

RICHARD: Hmm ... it would appear that what you are referring to is the complete absence of any engagement in either winning or losing an ego-battle (which is what most trying-to-be-right-and-prove-the-other-wrong exchanges devolve into) as participating in the elucidation of the factual rights and wrongs of contrary opinions, in and of themselves, is a major feature of my words and writings.

(Of course, there is more to it than not being ego-centric – as in, not being soul-centric, either – but there is no term, corresponding to ‘ego-battle’, which conveys the inability to engage in those deeper-level type of ‘battles’ that various awakened/ enlightened ones are on record as engaging in).

It is this total lack of any self-centricity at all – of whichever type, kind, or nature whatsoever – which makes it all so easy here.


Re: Moral cap and Authority

RICHARD: (...), the better example is indeed ‘before civilisation’ as to ‘stake out a territory and start farming it’ marks the shift from a ‘free-range’ life-style to the ‘property-rights’ way of life (and, thereby, to the arising of a ‘peasant-mentality’).

To explain: for a hunter-gatherer, the free-range life-style was epitomised by, basically, just helping oneself to whatever was available. With the advent of the property-rights way of life, however, any such ‘helping oneself’ transmogrified into being theft, larceny, stealing, despoliation, direption, and etcetera. Millennia later, all of this results in feeling-beings atavistically harbouring a deep, primordial *feeling* of being somehow disfranchised – the instinctual passions, being primeval, are still ‘wired’ for hunter-gathering – from some ancient ‘golden age’, wherein life was in some ill-defined way ‘free’ (e.g., ‘The Garden of Eden’), such as to affectively underpin all the class-wars (between the ‘haves and have-nots’) down through the ages.

Unless this rudimentary *feeling* of disfranchisement – of *feeling* somehow deprived of a fundamental franchise (franchise = the territory or limits within which immunity, privileges, rights, powers, etcetera may be exercised) – is primarily understood (to the point of being viscerally felt, even) any explanation of ‘peasant-mentality’ will be of superficial use only.

A footnote appended to a 2005 online response of mine is as good a place to start as any. Viz.: [...snip query...].

• [Richard]: (...) one does need to put food/ water into the belly, and a roof over the head/ clothes on the back (if the weather be inclement), and in this day and age[1] the main way of obtaining the necessary wherewithal is through the covert slavery euphemistically known as ‘earning a living’.

[1]Footnote: As one emerges, at birth, into a world where more than a few of the peoples born earlier have staked-out claims/ inherited prior claims – gained and maintained at the point of a spear/ a gun – on most of the arable land/ fecund water it soon becomes obvious that as, by and large, the era of the hunter-gatherer is over one is going to have to give of one’s time and labour (to the claimants) so as to be given in return (by the claimants) a portion of what one has produced (for the claimants) ... the term ‘wage-slave’ is not a misnomer and the word ‘salary’ is but a fancy way of referring to the wage slaved for by the middle and upper-middle ... um ... socio-economic careerists.

Or, as Mr. John Lennon (a person who got his snout into the trough big-time) put it, in the lyrics of ‘Working Class Hero’: [quote] ‘When they’ve tortured and scared you for twenty-odd years ... Then they expect you to pick a career ... When you can’t really function you’re so full of fear. (...). Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV ... And you think you are so clever and classless and free ... But you are still fucking peasants as far as I can see’. (.../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf83.htm#07Feb05).

The following day another respondent queried me on my above response; in my clarification I referred to the term ‘wage-slave’ as being, perhaps more correctly, ‘modern-day serfdom’. Viz.: [...snip text...]. Although, for persons taking out a house-mortgage – typically, these days, over a 30-35 year period (whereafter they find they have paid for three-four houses, whilst only being allocated one, per favour usurious banking guilds having usurped, several centuries ago[†], the sovereign power of a nation-state to emit debt-free monies) – the term ‘indentured servitude’ may be even more appropriate. [†]Footnote: [...snip footnote...].

Even more to the point: the fact that modern-day women demanded the legal right to enter into such ‘indentured servitude’ alongside the traditional male ‘bread-winner’ – most family-households these days are double-income households (hence necessitating publicly-subsidised childcare facilities) – and thus further enriching that already obscenely-rich ‘class of usurers’ amply demonstrates how the ‘peasant-mentality’ is not a male-only trait.

[...snip remainder of post...]. (.../richard/listdcorrespondence/claudiu3.htm#18May15).

RESPONDENT: Hello, Richard, thanks for your post. It really helps me to understand the radical changes I’ve been through these years. What specifically comes to mind is the need for the peasant to derive from work not only food, clothing and shelter but also a secondary, but very powerful, layers of meaning, both as in individual and as a member of society.

RICHARD: G’day No. 38,

Yes, back in the 1970’s it took quite a while for ‘me’ as soul/ spirit – as in (according to the Oxford Dictionary), the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of the emotions, or sentiments, and character – to intuitively come to terms with what ‘I’ as ego had been thoughtfully contemplating for a number of years before finally intuiting, viscerally, that vocational/ occupational meaning or purpose (be it paid employment or voluntary work) had no such intrinsic value as ascribed, either personally or communally, and that any and all sentiments or judgements of that nature had been passed-on, affectively and psychically, from generation-to-generation over millennia.

In other words, long-dead ‘beings’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) from long-ago eras were dictating, affectively and psychically, how peoples alive today were to derive meaning and/or purpose despite the fact that the mechanisation/ robotisation/ computerisation of productive work demonstrated conclusively that no such intrinsic value could possibly subsist therein.

(The day when machines, robots and computers derive meaning and/or purpose – as in, dignity and redemption through a *feeling* of self-worth/ self-value/ self-esteem/ and etcetera/ ad nauseam – from their prodigious output of productive work is the day when the age of the porcine aviators must surely be upon us).

RESPONDENT: I’ll try to explain my past and current experience: The reason why I decided to study a humanities career is because the ‘rebel’ in me wanted to understand reality and break free from all their implicit chains. Therefore, once I got more conscious about the whole historical process and caught by the Marxist and anarchist fashions in college, the ideas of work, authority and the like become frowned upon. Indeed, me and my colleagues look resentfully at the millionaire and business crowd, only to acquire the belief that social change was the way to work against inequality.

With other, more traditional, friends and relatives, one takes said mentality aboard and put the meaning in ‘working hard to earn an honest life’. In other words, the meritocratic idea that the exit to the ‘peasant Matrix’ is dependent on oneself and one’s effort only, by reaching the higher levels of the hierarchy.

These and other ideas mean the bout of perpetuation and resentment of the idea of work, with the secondary layers as support/ result: the deeply felt necessity of being creative, of giving something to the world, of being of use, of being a good citizen, of being a good Christian, etc., but also of feeling special for the contrary: of being a rebel, of fighting for the rights of the vulnerable classes, of rearranging the world to return to the supposedly virginal and peaceful state of the world, etc.

The implicit error here is thinking that doing and changing something for society is actually doing something for its best interest, while it actually just means playing along within the same box, of pushing and pulling the strings of the same system.

Speaking again from a solutions perspective, I think that the most insidious influence of marxism/ postmodernism/ feminism is that everything is relative and comes only from social constructs. This influence just gives the illusion of change by activism and armchair philosophizing, when, in reality, it’s the same ol’ fight of the opposites (male vs. female, proletariat vs. bourgeois, and so on) ...

RICHARD: Speaking of ‘the illusion of change by activism’: what I have noticed, whilst pottering around the world-wide-web, is that those of a sinistral statist ideology (such as your ‘marxism/ postmodernism/ feminism’ wording is suggestive of) are apparently extracting meaning and/or purpose from busying themselves in the redressment of systemic cultural ‘wrongs’, via the heavy hand of state compulsion, through retaining tight control of ‘the public narrative’ – having long-ago seized the high moral ground of minority-group injustice (as per your ‘fighting for the rights of the vulnerable classes’ words) – on a yet-to-be-demonstrated premiss that an equitable society can be legislated into existence (i.e., imposed on all citizens at the point of state-owned/ state-controlled guns), in a ‘majority-rules’ society, on a ‘minorities-rule’ basis.

RESPONDENT: ... and being oblivious of the real solution, which is the releasing of the affective weapons and shields in the first place, and thus solving the problem of the human condition.

Returning to my personal point, nowadays it feels very different: I have a more individualistic approach to life; I have less attachment and, at the same time, less resentment towards the idea of work, I don’t think of it as special of meaningful or fulfilling; in fact, it shocks me when people tell me that they want to work practically forever, otherwise they would be bored.

RICHARD: Ha ... having lived through the 1960’s era, when a significant number of that generation were questioning and/or eschewing the entire ‘work ethic’ mentality, it is a particularly remarkable oddity how all the public discourse back then, about the increasing need for meaningful leisure-time activities in the then-foreseeable future (due to the mechanisation/ robotisation/ computerisation of productive work), has not only come to naught but how double-income households have become the new norm instead.

It is as if the succeeding generations lost the plot completely, in their rush to be ‘upwardly mobile’ – viz.: ‘advancing or likely to advance in economic and social standing’ (American Heritage Dictionary); ‘moving or aspiring to move to a higher social class or to a position of increased status or power’(Collins Dictionary) – so as to accrue evermore flashier lifestyles of ostentatious wealth consumption, to the point of condemning their forebears for (purportedly) being a burden on the economy.

By way of illustrating that latter point: in this country the worker-funded old-age pension – payments for which have been compulsorily deducted from worker’s pay-packets, at the rate of 7.5% of gross income, since the 1st of January 1946 – has all-of-a-sudden been arbitrarily declared ‘welfare payments’ and, under the catch-cry of ‘The Age of Entitlement is Over’, is no longer to be paid-out at age 65, as per that ... um ... that ‘social contract’ of 1946, and has been reset, by governmental fiat, to age 67 (on a graduated increase to age 70) along with a clearly-signalled intent to have it erode in monetary value, over time, via inflation.

Meanwhile, in other news, the number of known billionaires this country’s economy is supporting – in the midst of a much-publicised ‘global financial crisis’ such as to (supposedly) necessitate governmental ‘belt-tightening’ measures as above – has increased to 25-26 and counting.

Viz.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australians_by_net_worth

‘Tis a laugh-a-minute observing all this sanity in action, world-wide, on my computer-screen.

RESPONDENT: My current preference and aspiration is to simply use work to exit the rat race by becoming financially independent and living a modest life, sooner rather than later. I guess that if these ideas are so controversial and appalling (to both the worried capitalist resented at you for not indulging in materialism and not feeding the economy, and the worried liberal resented for your egotism, your conformity to the economical status quo and your lack of social activism and care) is a good sign of progress and salubrity, haha.

RICHARD: This is an apt place to make it crystal-clear that I am apolitical – I have no position anywhere at all on the conservative-progressive political spectrum (such as your ‘worried capitalist’ and ‘worried liberal’ terms indicate) – as there are only a few brief references in this regard on my portion of The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

For instance:

March 29 2000

• [Richard]: About a quarter of a century ago, when I learned that the Australian National Parliament was being broadcast on AM Radio whilst it was sitting, I tuned in for the first time in my life (being somewhat apolitical as I was). I was amazed, shocked and alarmed, as the dawning realisation came over me whilst I listened, riveted, that these squabbling, bickering, arguing, point-scoring, duck-shoving, backstabbing and bootlicking human beings were authorised by the populace to run this country. They had the power (backed by the officially sanctioned guns) to make major life-or-death decisions regarding the subject citizens (bearing in mind I had just recently finished six years of voluntarily serving in the military) ... and this was staggering to contemplate. What a fool I had been to believe (...). (../richard/listbcorrespondence/listb42.htm#29Mar00).

*

March 28 1998

• [Co-Respondent]: Do you live a moral life? If so, why?

• [Richard]: Being free from malice and sorrow, I am automatically happy and harmless. Thus I have no need for morals whatsoever. Morals are designed to control the wayward self.

• [Co-Respondent]: Would you lie, cheat and steal?

• [Richard]: If the situation calls for it, yes indeed. Whilst some semblance of social order prevails, such actions as stealing are not necessary. The government bureaucracy however, being adversarial by nature, occasionally calls for some creative massaging of the truth regarding my life-style.

• [Co-Respondent]: Which morals are your own and which are seen to exist already?

• [Richard]: Whilst not having any morals of my own, living in this particular country and benefiting from human ingenuity and inventiveness as I do, I am more than happy to comply with the legal laws and follow the established social protocols ... except for those that are too trifling to conform to and that I cannot be bothered observing anyway.

For example: I do not vote ... even though voting is compulsory in this country. The unelected public servants actually run the country, so I could not care less which political party struts the stage. Mostly, their policies are knee-jerk reactions to public opinion polls anyway (...). (../richard/listbcorrespondence/listb21.htm#28Mar98).

*

March 21 2003

• [Richard]: I do not seek to advise anybody on what to do, or not do, and I have stated the reason why on many an occasion ... for example:

• [Richard]: ‘I have oft-times said that I have no solutions for life in the real-world ... the only solution is dissolution.

Which means I have no solutions for governments either ... as all human beings are driven by instinctual passions war is an essential facility for obtaining/ maintaining an imitation of peace – an uneasy truce called ‘law and order’ – at the point of a gun. Just as a police force is a necessary facility for obtaining/ maintaining an imitation of peace within a country so too is a military force necessary for obtaining/ maintaining an imitation of peace between countries ... and this will continue to be the situation for as long as peoples continue to nurse malice and sorrow to their bosom.

It does not make war any less ghastly ... but it is a fact that whilst humans are as they are, then war is here to stay.. (../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf18b.htm#21Mar03).

The reason for clarifying how completely apolitical I am is because the very process of discussing this subject matter – the ‘peasant-mentality’ – entails a degree of ‘social comment’ on my part which, as past experience has shown, some peoples can take to be indicative of a particular political leaning (which has no existence outside their skulls) such as to occasion them to be dismissive of the facts and actuality being pointed out.

RESPONDENT: Gotta put more thought and attention into the ‘peasant mentality’ aspects that remain unseen in ‘me’, which are many, I suspect.

RICHARD: Sure ... something [No. 32] recently posted is worth bearing in mind whilst you do so.

Viz.:

• [Respondent No. 32 ]: ‘The cherry on the top came yesterday – whilst watching television and having these thoughts running at the back of my head, all of a sudden it struck me, that not only is this earth a ‘free-range’ place in actuality but the entire universe is like this – that there is in actuality no *ownership* of anyone/ anything over anyone/ anything else – everything in this universe is literally free – as in, has no ownership..all ownership exists in the head in the ‘real’ world’. (Message № 195xx).

Although I will be commenting more fully when I respond to that email, in its chronological order, suffice is it to say for now that when the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body circa 1978-79 entered into a mortgage agreement for the purchase of a property – an ex-farmhouse on a couple of acres of land in the rural south-east of Australia – the question of ownership of the very earth beneath ‘his’ feet engaged ‘his’ attention to such a degree as to dynamically effect resolution somewhat along the above lines.

What ‘he’ had really purchased, ‘he’ realised, via that state-sanctioned organ called a ‘mortgage’, was the state-ordained right to exclusive use (within certain state-defined parameters) of that state-controlled land – specifically the legal right to call upon state-remunerated armed guards (state-trained personnel with state-issued guns on their hips) to enforce the state-determined ‘no trespassing’ law which applies to such state-issued ‘fee simple’ (a.k.a. ‘freehold’) titles – and that no land anywhere on earth was, or could ever be, owned by anyone at all.

Least of all by a ‘state’ (a legal fiction masquerading as a ‘body’).


Re: Moral cap and Authority

RESPONDENT No. 00: (...). Also, there’s definitely an eerie feeling like i’m being watched when I choose to be happy, a sense of anxiety, like I’m doing something naughty by being happy, which is the belief in an authority, and the fear of punishment. (Message № 194xx).

JONATHAN: You mention authority and the fear of punishment (...). I think that autonomy plays a big part in dismantling these things. Richard, in particular, was so adept at getting me to begin thinking for myself. It started towards the end of the first trip when he sat down and poked a hole in my superiority complex. And it continued to the very last night of the final trip when he talked about a peasant mentality. (...). (Message № 19410).

RESPONDENT No. 32: (...). Can you elaborate a bit more on that ‘peasant mentality’ which Richard discussed with you ? (Message № 194xx).

CLAUDIU: Oh I found the concept of the peasant mentality really awesome actuality. I hadn’t heard anybody else put it that way before. Let me try to formulate it properly. [...snip 254-word formulation...].

RICHARD: Yes, the better example is indeed [...snip example...].

To explain: [...snip 2479-word explanation plus examples...].

(I will append the bulk of ‘Article 20’ below my signature/sign-off so as to make it available on-line, hereafter, for those without a copy of ‘Richard’s Journal’).

Another example [...snip 370-word example plus explanation...].

P.S.: What follows is the bulk of ‘Article 20’ from ‘Richard’s Journal’. Incidentally, the ‘invisible social contract’ mentioned in the opening paragraph refers to the gist of Part Six of the book ‘Of The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right’ (‘Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique’; 1762) by Mr. Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Viz.: [...snip gist of ‘The Social Contract’...].

Article 20; The Survival Of The Community Depends Upon Its Absolute Selfishness. (pp. 141-146, ‘Richard’s Journal’, 2nd Ed. ©The Actual Freedom Trust 2004). [...snip appended bulk of article...].

JONATHAN: Thanks Richard, it was illuminating to have another read of article 20 again.

RICHARD: G’day Jon,

Whilst it is, of course, pleasing to know that having another read of a particular article from ‘Richard’s Journal’ was illuminating for you it has apparently escaped your notice, whilst doing so, that the topic under discussion is none other than the ‘peasant mentality’ you introduced to this forum (partly re-presented near the top of this page) such as to occasion another subscriber to enquire whether you could elaborate a bit more on that very subject (also partly re-presented near the top of this page).

Evidently your co-respondent’s report (partly re-presented at the top of this page) – of eerily feeling watched, when feeling happy, along with feeling anxious as if being happy is doing something naughty, which anxiety stems from a belief in an authority and the fear of punishment – had jogged your memory of Richard talking about ‘a peasant mentality’, on the very last night of your final trip, such as to occasion you to respond with that particular term (and not some other term already in usage) as being particularly fitted to that particular sequence of feelings, beliefs and fears described.

Of course, going by what you later wrote in Message № 19554 – which I will respond to in its chronological order – it might be that ‘a peasant mentality’ was not really a topic you thought worthy of elaborating on despite having introduced it.

I raise this ‘might be’ hypothesis because the following is how you finished-off that paragraph of yours to your co-respondent (partly re-presented near the top of this page).

Viz.:

• [Jonathan]: (...). There are so many things that Richard said, which I wasn’t even able to respond to because, to me, they were so far out in left field. But after many months, I find that he was just thinking for himself. And I can do that same thing. (Message № 19410).

Would it be impertinent of me to suggest that your ascription of that adverbial diminisher in your [quote] ‘he was *just* thinking for himself’ [emphasis added] explanatory note which, you add, you can do [quote] ‘that *same* thing’ [emphasis added] yourself, is an instance of your self-acknowledged ‘superiority complex’ in action?

(More on this much further below).

JONATHAN: I was able to relate to more of it [Article 20] this time around. I think the last time I read it, I was mainly just able to grasp that the community exists for the individual, which is an amazing insight because it’s 180 degrees from the accepted wisdom. As an example, one of our most famous presidents, JFK, said: ‘Don’t ask what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.’

RICHARD: Hmm ... it does appear that yet another read of Article 20 in ‘Richard’s Journal’ would be in order because chiastic rhetoric (the inversion of the order of words in the second of two parallel phrases) about unselfish USA citizens, as Mr. John Kennedy made popular with his version in his 1961 hortatory address, is not ‘180 degrees’ from what is conveyed in Article 20 but, rather, the obverse of similar rhetoric about selfish USA citizens.

By way of demonstration, here is the precise wording (of that example of the ‘accepted wisdom’ you provided):

• ‘Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country’.

And here is what ‘180 degrees’ from that example of the ‘accepted wisdom’ looks like:

• ‘Ask not what you can do for your country – ask what your country can do for you’.

Article 20 is not about either selfish or unselfish citizens of any nation (a.k.a. ‘country’). It is about what ensues where a flesh-and-blood body is actually selfless – where ‘selfless’ means sans any identity whatsoever (just as ‘penniless’ means sans any money whatsoever) – which is where the community no longer acts for ‘the good of the whole’ (inasmuch ‘the whole’ has vanished along with ‘the self’) and thus acts as it has been acting all along, in actuality, for the good of each and every flesh-and-blood body.

(Please note well that last part: the reason why the community acts for the good of each and every flesh-and-blood body, here in this actual world, is because that very community *is* each and every flesh-and-blood body/ each and every flesh-and-blood body *is* that very community).

Furthermore, by being actually selfless – which means a total absence of both selfishness and its antidotal unselfishness – an actual intimacy prevails (due to an utter absence of any separative identity whatsoever); with no separation whatsoever fellowship regard is automatically the default condition (whereby it is impossible to not like one’s fellow human being); with that involuntary fellowship regard of an actual intimacy operating, come-what-may, acting in a mutually beneficial way is the status-in-quo (the complete absence of any self-centricity whichsoever ensures equity and parity be paramount).

Perhaps a down-to-earth example will illustrate: the current directors of The Actual Freedom Trust, being actually selfless, act for the good of the community (that is, each and every flesh-and-blood body, in toto) by making freely available online the millions of words and writings on The Actual Freedom Trust web site so that not only will all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, and so on and so forth, become bizarre artefacts of a dreadful past but also so that every man, woman and child (that is, the community, per singula) then selflessly living on this verdant and azure paradise called planet earth will be able to live a prosperous and fulfilling life.

Also, this may be an opportune moment to point out that the term ‘180 degrees’ has one application – and one application only – on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... to wit: to be seeking spiritual freedom is to be going 180 degrees in the wrong direction (i.e., away from the physical), or to be going 180 degrees in the other direction (i.e., from where an actual freedom lies), or to be differing 180 degrees in practice (i.e., withdrawing from one’s senses versus coming to one’s senses).

For example:

May 04 2000

• [Co-Respondent]:  I was quite successful in my spiritual endeavours, but I found I didn’t want to distance myself from being here, being this body, being a physical being.

• [Richard]: Yea verily, ‘distance oneself’ is the appropriate term: all religiosity, spirituality, mysticality and metaphysicality is 180 degrees in the wrong direction ... it is unequivocally a massive dissociation. (../richard/generalcorrespondence/page09.htm#04May00).

*

July 19 2003

• [Co-Respondent]:  I have trouble in understanding the difference between the words ‘sense’ and ‘direction’ when comparing the AF method with spiritual ones.

• [Richard]: The oft-repeated ‘180 degrees in the other direction’ phrase simply means coming to one’s senses rather than going further away (withdrawing from the senses) from the world as-it-is than one already is ... everyone is already detached and to practise detachment is to be twice-removed from actuality. (../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf25b.htm#19Jul03).

*

January 05 2006

• [Co-Respondent]:  Awareness is a factor in both [the actualism method and meditation practices], but what you do with that awareness is different in actualism, right?

• [Richard]: Yes ... it is, in fact, 180 degrees different as the actualism method is all about coming to one’s senses (both literally and metaphorically) whereas meditation practices are all about going away from same (both literally and metaphorically). (../richard/listafcorrespondence/listaf105.htm#05Jan06).

The main reason for pointing this out here is that, over the years, many more than just a few peoples have taken this context-specific ‘180 degrees’ term to have a general application – as in, ‘180 degrees opposite’, per se – whereas actualism/ actual freedom is the *third* alternative (to both materialism and spiritualism) and not merely the obverse of a normative.

JONATHAN: Even before my last trip, I had already caught on to how civilization isn’t demanding at all. I remember once saying to a guy. ‘Civilization is the gift that keeps on giving.’ He didn’t know what I was talking about but I did and it is fantastic to have such a grounded pov.

RICHARD: In view of the fact that, back then, you were ‘mainly just able to grasp’ something that is ‘an amazing insight’ and which is ‘180 degrees’ from what ‘one of our most famous presidents, JFK, said’ it is surely not all that surprising, upon a candid reappraisal, that he did not know what you were talking about, eh?

Moreover, it is not civilisation itself which ‘keeps on giving’ but the inventive outcome of the human creatures’ tool-making ability bequeathed, as a common heritage, to each succeeding generation over millennia by myriads of peoples whose names for the most part are forgotten – arcing all the way back to the first man to utilise a knobbly-branch as a club for game and the first woman to utilise a pointy-stick to dig for tuberous roots – whereby productive output, per capita, exceeds energetic input, per capita, such as to generate an excess for the general benefit/ for the common weal.

Golly, this is something I learned as a very young child at my then-father’s knee in the 1950’s – he had hired the owner of the very first bull-dozer to operate in the remote pioneer-farming district, which I was born and raised in, to excavate a large and deep pond for watering stock (known as a ‘farm dam’ locally) – when he informed me how one man on that machine could do in a day what a dozen men, with half-a-dozen teams of horses pulling hand-guided scoops, took a week or more to do.

(The topic of how the other eleven men, dispossessed of productive work, would henceforth ‘earn a living’ never came up, of course, as this was in the immediate post-WWII economic boom era which lasted until the early 1970’s economic crises).

JONATHAN: I also previously related slightly to the line about ‘self imposed iniquities that ail people who stubbornly resist [sic: wish] to remain denizens of the real world, fails to impinge on the blitheness and gaiety of one who lives the vast scheme of things.’ (pg 146) I related to it in that I saw how living in the vast scheme of things would be beneficial and saw that my stress was self-imposed. But you don’t write in the vast scheme of things; you write ‘lives the vast scheme of things.’ I find that interesting.

This time around I caught onto other things. Self-castigation only serves to crystalize ‘me’. pg 142. This is big for me at this time as I’m getting out of blaming myself and getting into being my own best friend. It will be interesting to sort out how self-castigation crystalizes yet being my own best friend doesn’t. Both take the self as a matter of fact even though it isn’t. It would seem that they would both crystalize. So I’ll have to pay attention and see if an answer comes to me. It’s probably not important anyway. Being my own best friend is so much more pleasant than the alternative that a theory as to why it works and self-castigation doesn’t isn’t necessary.

Going back to the 2nd paragraph and the line quoted from page 146, I find myself wanting to save people from their own ‘self-imposed iniquities’. I often imagine myself as a champion of common sense. And the feeling that such daydreams gives me is extremely pleasant. To be in a position where people are asking you questions or asking for your advice would feel great. And though I’d like that, I don’t want to do all that very demanding self promotion that community leaders have to do day in and day out. And even if I was in that position, I would be seen as a fraud unless I lived it myself. Moreover, if I was too bold I could easily put myself in physical danger.

RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well I did not have you advising me back in 1997 when feeling-being ‘Peter’ suggested I go public with my discovery, on-line, for all the world to potentially access – else these words would not be available for you to peruse and neither would actualism/ actual freedom have a world-wide footprint – as my tendency is to be so bold as to render being ‘as bold as brass’ to be but the faintest of hues on the boldness scale.

(Being arguably the most subversive man on the planet – for those who read with both eyes open – would surely make any feeling-being quail).

JONATHAN: You write on page 143. ‘Astonishingly, I find that social change is unnecessary; I can live freely in the community as-it-is.’ This is how I want to be. So far, it’s coming down to choosing to recognize what is best for this body and letting myself do that. Caring for this body as a true friend would do is my strategy going forward.

RICHARD: All the while you are engaging yourself in affectively-caring for that body you are parasitically inhabiting, as a true friend, despite its actuality being entirely invisible to you – via having had it coming down, so far, to choosing as your strategy going forward – you may be inclined to cast a glance over the context in which the above quote, which describes how you say you want to be, was advantageously couched (at the end of the now-snipped 370-word example, re-presented as such, towards the top of this page).

Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘Which neatly brings me to the point of detailing these above examples: understanding the ‘whys and wherefores’ of peasant-mentality is not about effecting social change but being free of it in oneself. In the seventh paragraph of ‘Article 20’ (appended further below) I have highlighted the relevant sentence. Viz.:

• [Richard]: Astonishingly, I find that *social change is unnecessary*; I can live freely in the community as-it-is. [emphasis added].

In other words, one is then free to conform with the legal laws and observe the social protocols – to ‘go along with’, to ‘pay lip-service to’ – whilst no longer believing in them. ‘Tis a remarkable freedom in itself – with no need to rebel at all – as all rebellion stems, primarily, from that deeply-held primordial feeling of disfranchisement (and its associated feelings of resentment, envy, cynicism, and so on and so forth)’. (Message №19435).

Even resorting to closely examining that 136-word block of text through an extra-large magnifying glass fails to reveal where affectively-caring for the body one is parasitically inhabiting, as a true friend, features as one’s strategy going forward on this issue.

Indeed, what sits there instead, in plain view, is how understanding the ‘whys and wherefores’ of peasant-mentality, so as to be free of it in oneself, is a field-tested way to then being free to conform with the legal laws and observe the social protocols whilst no longer believing in them – with no need to rebel at all – as all rebellion stems, primarily, from that deeply-held primordial feeling of disfranchisement (a primeval feeling of being somehow disfranchised from just helping oneself to whatever was available, per favour the ‘free-range’ life-style of a hunter-gatherer, and, thereby, being subject to the arising of a peasant-mentality, via enforced-employment under the ‘property-rights’ way of life).

*

I have in mind to provide more personal-life details when I respond to your Message No. 19554, in its chronological order, as it is an area I have some degree of lived-experience in.


SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON SOCIAL IDENTITY (Part Three)

RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-.  All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity