Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

The Green Book: Muammar Al Gaddafi

Discussion in 'International Forum' started by Phillemon Mikael, Jan 30, 2012.

  1. P

    Phillemon Mikael JF Gold Member

    Jan 30, 2012
    Joined: Nov 5, 2006
    Messages: 7,591
    Likes Received: 809
    Trophy Points: 280
    The Green Book by Muammar Al Gathafi (1975)
    Part 1: The solution to the problem of Democracy;
    Part 2: The solution to the Economic Problem;
    Part 3: The Social Basis of the third Universal Theory.
    Gaddafi asserts, "True democracy exists only through the direct participation of the people."

    [TABLE="align: center"]
    [TD] The solution to the problem of Democracy[/TD]

    The Instrument of Governing
    The Party
    Popular Congresses and People's Committees
    The Law of Society
    Who Supervises the Conduct of Society?
    How Does Society Readjust its Direction in Case of Deviation from its Law?
    The Press

    'The Instrument of Governing is the prime political problem which faces human communities.' Even the conflict within the family is, often, the result of this problem. 'This problem has become serious since the emergence of modern societies.'

    Peoples, nowadays, face this persistent problem and communities suffer from va rious risks and grave consequences to which it leads. They have not yet succeeded in solving it finally and democratically.

    The GREEN BOOK presents the final solution to the problem of the instrument of governing.

    All political systems in the world today are the product of the struggle for power between instruments of governing. The struggle may be peaceful or armed, such as the conflict of classes, sects, tribes, parties or individuals. The result is always the victory of an instrument of governing be it an individual, group, party or class and the defeat of the people, i.e. the defeat of genuine democracy.

    Political struggle that results in the vic tory of a candidate with 51 per cent of the votes leads to a dictatorial governing body disguised as a false democracy, since 49 per cent of the electorate is ruled by an instru ment of governing they did not vote for, but had imposed upon them.

    This is dictatorship. Besides, this political conflict may produce a governing body that represents only a minority, for when votes are distributed among several candidates, one of them polls more than any other candidate.

    But if the votes polled by those who received less are added up, they can constitute an over whelming majority. However, the candidate with fewer votes wins and his success is regarded as legitimate and democratic! In actual fact, dictatorship is established under the cover of false democracy.

    This is the reality of the political systems prevailing in the world today. They are dictatorial systems and it seems clear that they falsify genuine democracy.

    Parliaments are the backbone of traditional democracy as it exists to day. A parliament is a misrepresenta tion of the people and parliamentary governments are a misleading solution to the problem of democracy.

    A parliament is originally founded to represent the people, but this in itself, is undemocratic as democracy means the author ity of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere exist ence of a parliament means the abs ence of the people, but true democracy exists only through the participation of the people, not through the activity of their representatives.

    Parliaments have been a legal barrier between the peoples and the exercise of authority, excluding masses from power while usurping sovereignty in their place. Peoples are left with only false external appearance of democracy man ifested in long queues to cast their votes in the ballot boxes. To lay bare the character of the parliament, we have to look to the origin of such a parliament.

    The parliament is either elected from constituencies or a party or a coalition of parties, or is formed by some method of appointment. But all these proce dures are undemocratic, for dividing the population into constituencies means that one member of parliament represents thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of people, de pending on the size of population.

    It also means that the member keeps no popular organisational link with the electors since he, like other members, is looked upon as a representative of the whole people. This is what the prevailing traditional democracy re quires. The masses, therefore, are completely isolated from the represen tative and he, in turn, is totally sepa rated from them. For immediately after winning their votes he himself usurps their sovereignty and acts in stead of them.

    The prevailing traditional democracy endows the member of a parliament with a sacredness and immunity denied to other individual members of the people. That means that parliaments have become a means of plundering and usurping the people's authority. Hence the people have the right to struggle, through the popular revolution, to destroy instru ments which usurp democracy and sovereignty and take them away from the masses.

    They also have the right to utter the new principle, no representation in lieu of the peo ple. If, however, the parliament emerges from a party as a result of winning an election, it is a parliament of the party and not of the people. It represents the party and not the peo ple, and the executive power assigned by the parliament is that of the winning party and not of the people. The same is true of the parliament in which each party holds a number of seats.

    For the members of the parliament represent their party and not the people, and the power established by such a coalition is the power of the combined parties and not of the people. Under such systems the people are victims fooled and exploited by political bodies. The people stand silently in long queues to cast their votes in the ballot boxes the same way as they throw other papers into the dustbin. This is the traditional democracy prevalent in the whole world, whether the system is oneparty, twoparty, multiparty or nonparty. Thus it becomes clear that representation is fraud. Assemblies formed by a method of appointment or hereditary succession do not fall under any form of democracy. Moreover, since the system of elected parlia ments is based on propaganda to win votes, it is a demagogic system in the real sense of the word. and votes can be bought and falsified. Poor people fail to compete in the election cam paign and it is always the rich and only the rich who come out victo rious.

    Philosophers, thinkers and writers advocated the theory of representative government at a time when the peo ples, without realising it, were driven like sheep by kings, sultans and con querors. The ultimate aspiration of the people of those times was to have someone to represent them before such rulers. Even that aspiration was nulli fied. Peoples went through long and bitter struggles to attain what they aspired to. After the successful estab lishment of the era of the republics and the beginning of the era of the masses, it is unreasonable that democracy should mean the electing of only a few representatives to act on behalf of great masses. This is an obsolete theory and an outdated experience. The whole authority must be the peo ple's.

    The most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have existed under the shadow of parliaments.

    The party is the contemporary dicta torship. It is the modern dictatorial instrument of governing. The party is the rule of a part over the whole. It is the latest dictatorial instrument. As the party is not individual it exercises a sham democracy through estab lishing parliaments and committees and through the propaganda of its members. The party is not a democratic instrument at all because it is composed of people who have common interests, a common outlook or a com mon culture; or who belong to the same locality or have the same belief.

    They form a party to achieve their ends, impose their outlook or extend the hold of their belief on the society as a whole. A party's aim is to achieve power under the pretext of carrying out its programme. And yet, democra tically, none of these parties should govern the whole people because of the diversity of interests, ideas, tempera ments, localities and beliefs, which constitute the people's identity. The party is a dictatorial instrument of governing that enables those with one outlook and a common interest to rule the people as a whole. Compared with the people, the party is a minority.

    The purpose of forming a party is to create an instrument to rule the peo ple; namely to rule over nonmembers of the party. For the party is, fun damentally, based on an arbitrary authoritarian theory . . . i.e. the domi nation of the members of the party over the rest of individual members of the people. The party presupposes that its accession to power is the way to attain its ends, assuming that its objec tives are the objectives of the people. That is the theory of the justification of party dictatorship, which is the basis for any dictatorship. No matter how many parties there are, the theory remains one and the same. But the existence of many parties escalates the struggle for power and this results in the destruction of any achievements of the people and of any socially benefi cial plans. Such destruction is seized upon by the opposition party as a justification to undermine the position of the ruling party so that it may take over from them. The parties in their struggle resort, if not to arms, which rarely happens, then to denouncing and stultifying the actions of each other. This is a battle which is inevit ably waged at the expense of the high er and vital interests of the society.

    Some, if not all, of those higher in terests will be victims of the power struggle of instruments of governing. For the destruction of those interests supports the opposition party or par ties in their argument against the rul ing party.

    The opposition party, as an instrument of governing, has to oust the ruling body in order to have access to authority. To prove the unfitness of the instrument of governing, the oppo sition party has to destroy its achieve ments and to cast doubt on its plans, even if those plans are beneficial to the society. Consequently the interests and programmes of the society become victims of the parties' struggle for power. Such struggle is, therefore, politically, socially and economically destructive to the society, despite the fact that it creates political activity. Besides, the struggle results in the victory of another instrument of governing, i.e., the fall of one party and the rise of another. But it is a defeat for the people, a defeat for democracy.

    Furthermore, parties can be bought or bribed either from inside or outside. Originally, the party is formed to represent the people. Then the leading group of the party represents its mem bers and the supreme leader of the party represents the leading group. It becomes clear that the party game is a deceitful farce based on a sham form of democracy which has a selfish con tent based on manoeuvres, tricks and political games. All these emphasise that the partysystem is a dictatorial, yet modern, instrument.

    The party system is an overt, not a covert, dicta torship. The world has not yet passed beyond it and it is rightly called 'the dictatorship of the modern age'. The parliament of the winning party is indeed a parliament of the party, as the executive power assigned by this parliament is the power of the party over the people. Party power, which is supposed to be for the good of the whole people, is actually a bitter enemy of a part of the people, namely the opposi tion party or parties and their suppor ters. So the opposition is not a popular check on the ruling party, but is itself seeking a chance to replace the ruling party. According to modern democra cy, the legal check on the ruling party is the parliament, the majority of whose members are from that ruling party. That is to say, checking is in the hands of the ruling party and rule is in the hands of the checking party. Thus become clear the deceptiveness, falsi ty and invalidity of the political theories dominant in the world today, from which contemporary traditional democracy emerges.

    The party is only a part of the people, but the sovereignty of the people is indivisible. The party governs on behalf of the people, but the principle is no represen tation in lieu of the people.

    The party system is the modern tribal and sectarian system. The socie ty governed by one party is exactly like that which is governed by one tribe or one sect. The party, as stated above, represents the outlook of a certain group of people, or the interests of one group of the society, or one belief or one locality.

    Such a party must be a minority compared to the whole people just as the tribe and the sect are. The minority has common interests or a sectarian belief. From such interests or belief, the common outlook is formed. Only bloodrelationship dis tinguishes a tribe from a party and even at the foundation of a party there may be bloodrelationship. There is no difference between party struggles and tribal or sectarian struggles for power. And if tribal and sectarian rule is politically rejected and disavowed, then the party system must similarly be rejected and disavowed. Both of them tread the same path and lead to the same end. The negative and des tructive effect on the society of the tribal and sectarian struggles is iden tical to the negative and destructive effect of the party struggle.

    The class political system is the same as the party, the tribal, or secta rian system, i.e. a class dominates the society in the same way that a party, tribe or sect does. The class, like the party, sect and tribe, is a group of people from the society who share common interests. Common interests arise from the existence of a group of people bound together by blood relationship, belief, culture, locality or standard of living. Also class, party, sect and tribe emerge from similar factors leading to similar results, i.e. they emerge because blood relationship, belief, standard of living culture and locality create a common outlook to achieve a common end.

    Thus emerges the social structure in the forms of class, party, tribe or sect that eventually becomes a political concep tion directed toward realising the out look and ends of that group. In all cases the people are neither the class, the party, the tribe nor the sect; these are no more than a part of the people and constitute a minority. If a class, party, tribe or sect dominates a society, the whole system becomes a dictatorship.

    However, a class or tribal coalition is better than a party coalition because the people consist originally of a group of tribes. One seldom finds people who do not belong to a tribe, and all people belong to a certain class. But no party or parties embrace all the people and therefore the party or party coalition represents a minority compared to the masses outside its membership. Under genuine democracy there is no excuse for one class to crush other classes for its own benefit, no excuse for one party to crush other parties for its own in terests, no excuse for one tribe to crush other tribes for its own benefit and no excuse for one sect to crush other sects for its own interests.

    To allow such actions means aban doning the logic of democracy and resorting to the logic of force. Such an action is dictatorial, because it is not in the interest of the whole society, which does not consist of only one class or tribe or sect or the members of one party. There is no justification for such an action. The dictatorial justification is that the society is actually made up of various parts, and one of the parts undertakes the liquidation of other parts in order to stand solely in power. This action is then not in the interest of the whole society, but in the interest of a certain class, tribe, sect or party, i.e., it is in the interest of those who replace the society. The action of li quidation is originally directed against the members of the society who do not belong to the party, the class, the tribe or the sect which undertakes the li quidation.

    The society torn apart by party struggles is similar to one torn by tribal and sectarian struggles. The party that is formed in the name of a class automatically becomes a substitute for that class and continues until it becomes a replacement for the class hostile to it. Any class which becomes heir to a society, inherits, at the same time, its characteristics. That is to say that if the working class crushes all other classes, for instance, it becomes heir of the society, that is, it becomes the material and social base of the society. The heir bears the traits of the one he inherits from, though they may not be evident at once. As time passes, attri butes of other eliminated classes emerge in the very ranks of the work ing class. And the possessors of those characteristics take the attitudes and points of view appropriate to their characteristics. Thus the working class turns out to be a separate society, showing the same contradictions as the old society. The material and moral standards of the members of the socie ty are diverse at first but then there emerge the factions that automatically develop into classes, like those which had been eliminated. Thus the struggle for domination of the society starts again. Each group of people, then each faction and finally each new class, tries to become the instrument of gov erning.

    The material base of the society is not stable because it has a social aspect. The instrument of governing of the single material base of the society will, perhaps, be stable for some time, but it will pass away as soon as new material and social standards emerge out of the same single material base. Any society with class conflict was in the past a oneclass society but, due to inevitable evolution, the conflicting classes emerged from that one class. The class that expropriates the pos sessions of others in order to maintain the instrument of governing for its own interests, will find that material pos sessions have brought within that class what material possessions usually bring about within the society as a whole.

    In short, attempts to unify the mate rial base of the society to solve the problem of government or to put an end to the struggle in favour of party, class, sect or tribe, have failed, such as the efforts to satisfy the masses through the election of representatives or by organising plebiscites to discover their views. To go on with these efforts has become a waste of time and a mockery of the people.

    What road, then, must human groups take to get rid, once and for all, of the tyrannical and dictatorial ages? Since the intricate problem in the case of democracy is the instrument of governing, expressed by conflicts of classes, parties and individuals; and since the electoral and plebiscite methods were invented to cover the failure of those unsuccessful experi ments to solve this problem, the solu tion lies in finding an instrument of governing other than these which are subject to conflict and which represent only one side of the society. That is to say, an instrument of governing which is not a party, a class, a sect or a tribe, but an instrument of governing which is the people as a whole. It neither represents the people nor speaks in their name.

    No representation in lieu of the people and representation is fraud. If that instrument can be brought into being the problem will be solved, popular democracy will be realised, mankind will have put an end to tyrannical eras and dictatorial systems, and the au thority of the people will have taken their place.

    The Green Book presents the solution to the problem of the instrument of governing. It indicates for the people the way to pass from the eras of dictatorship to the eras of genuine democracy.

    This new theory is based on the authority of the people, without repre sentation or deputation. It realises direct democracy in an orderly and effective form. It differs from the older attempt at direct democracy, which could not be applied in practice and which was frivolous because it lacked popular organisation on the lower levels.

    [TABLE="align: center"]
    [TD]Authority of the people[/TD]
    Popular congresses are the only means to achieve popular democracy. Any system of government other than popular congresses is undemocratic. All the prevailing systems of govern ment in the world today are undemo cratic, unless they adopt this method. Popular congresses are the end of the journey of the masses' movement in its quest for democracy.

    Popular congresses and people's committees are the final fruit of the people's struggle for democracy. Popular congresses and people's com mittees are not creations of the imagi nation so much as they are the product of human thought which has absorbed all human experiments to achieve democracy. Direct democracy is the ideal method, which, if realised in practice, is indisputable and noncon troversial. The nations departed from direct democracy because, however small a people might be, it was impos sible to gather them all together at one time in order to discuss, study and decide on their policy.

    Direct democracy remained an Utopian idea far from reality. It has been replaced by various theories of government such as repre sentative assemblies, parties, coali tions, and plebiscites. All led to the isolation of the people from political activity and to the plundering of the sovereignty of the people and the assumption of their authority by the successive and conflicting instruments of governing beginning with the indi vidual, on through the class, the sect, the tribe, the parliament and the party.

    The Green Book announces to the people the happy discovery of the way to direct democracy, in a practical form. Since no two intelligent people can dispute the fact tbat direct demo cracy is the ideal but its method has been impossible to apply and since this Third Universal Theory provides us with a realistic experiment in direct democracy, the problem of democracy in the world is finally solved. All that the masses need do now is to struggle to put an end to all forms of dictatorial rule in the world today, to all forms of what is falsely called democracy from parliaments to the sect, the tribe, the class and to the oneparty, the twoparty and the multiparty sys tems.

    Democracy has but one method and one theory. The disparity and dissimi larity of the systems claiming to be democratic is evidence that they are not democratic in fact. The people's authority has only one face and it can be realised only by one method, name ly, popular congresses and people's committees. No democracy without popular congresses and committees everywhere.

    First, the people are divided into basic popular congresses. Each basic popular congress chooses its secretar iat. The secretariats together form popular congresses, which are other than the basic ones. Then the masses of those basic popular congresses choose administrative people's committees to replace government administration. Thus all public utilities are run by people's committees which will be re sponsible to the basic popular congres ses and these dictate the policy to be followed by the people's committees and supervise its execution. Thus, both the administration and the supervision become popular and the outdated de finition of democracy Democracy is the supervision of the government by the people comes to an end. It will be replaced by the right definition Demo cracy is the supervision of the people by people.

    All citizens who are members of those popular congresses belong, pro fessionally and functionally, to cate gories. They have, therefore, to estab lish their own unions and syndicates in addition to being, as citizens, members of the basic popular congresses or the people's committees. Subjects discus sed by basic popular congresses or the people's committees, syndicates and unions, will take their final shape in the General People's Congress, where the secretariats of popular congresses, people's committees, syndicates and unions meet. What is drafted by the General People's Congress, which meets annually or periodically, will, in turn, be submitted to popular congres ses, people's committees, syndicates and unions. The people's committees, responsible to the basic popular con gresses will, then, start executive ac tion. The General People's Congress is not a gathering of members or ordin ary persons as is the case with parlia ments. It is a gathering of the basic popular congresses, the people's com mittees, the unions, the syndicates and all professional associations. In this way, the problem of the in strument of governing is, as a matter of fact, solved and dictatorial instru ments will disappear. The people are the instrument of governing and the problem of democracy in the world is completely solved.

    Law is the other problem parallel to the problem of the instrument of gov erning. It has not yet been solved in the modern age although it has been solved at certain periods of history. It is invalid and undemocratic for a committee or a parliament to be enti tled to draft the law for the society. It is also invalid and undemocratic for an individual, a committee or a parlia ment to amend or abrogate the law of the society.

    What, then, is the law of the society? Who drafts it and what is its import ance to democracy?

    The natural law of any society is either tradition (custom) or religion. Any other attempt to draft law for any society, outside these two sources, is invalid and illogical.

    Constitutions are not the law of the society. A constitution is a basic manmade law. That basic manmade law should have a source for its justification. The prob lem of freedom in the modern age is that constitutions have become the law of society, and constitutions are based on nothing other than the views of the instruments of the dictatorial rule pre vailing in the world, ranging from the individual to the party. The proof of this is that there is a difference be tween constitutions although man's freedom is the same. The reason for the difference is the disparity in the conceptions of the instruments of gov erning. This is the point where freedom is vulnerable in the systems of the contemporary world. The method by which the instruments of governing seek to dominate the peoples is estab lished in the constitution and the peo ple are compelled to accept it under the force of laws derived from that constitution, which is itself the product of the temperament and outlook of the instrument of governing.

    The law of the dictatorial instruments of governing has replaced natu ral law. Because manmade law has replaced natural law, standards are lost. Man is the same everywhere. His physical constitution is the same and so is his instinct. For this reason natu ral law became a logical law for man as one and the same. Then the constitu tions, which are manmade laws, be gan to look at man as not one and the same. They have no justification for that conception other than the will of instruments of governing the indi vidual, the parliament, the tribe or the party to dominate the peoples. So we see that constitutions are usually changed when the instruments of gov erning change. This proves that the constitution is the product of the tem perament of the instruments of gov erning and exists to serve their in terests. It is not natural law. This is the impending danger to freedom latent wherever the genuine law of human society is absent and is replaced by manmade laws designed by the instru ment of governing to rule the masses. Properly the method of government should be in accordance with the laws of society, not vice versa.

    Therefore, the law of the society is not subject to drafting and codifica tion. The significance of law lies in the fact that it is the decisive factor which distinguishes between the true and false, the right and the wrong, and the individuals' rights and duties.

    Freedom is threatened unless society has a sacred law based on stable rules which are not subject to change or substitu tion by any instrument of governing. On the contrary, it is incumbent upon the instrument of governing to abide by the law of society. Nevertheless, peoples throughout the world are now being ruled by manmade laws that are liable to change and abrogation be cause of the struggle for power be tween instruments of governing. Ple biscites on constitutions are not enough because plebiscites in themselves are a sham democracy, permitting only yes or no. Under manmade laws, peo ples are compelled to accept plebis cites. A plebiscite on a constitution does not mean that it is the law of society, it means that it is only a constitution, or that 'thing' subject to plebiscite, nothing else.

    The law of the society is an eternal human heritage that is not the posses sion of the living only. Hence, the drafting of a constitution and holding a plebiscite by present voters are far cical.

    Encyclopedias of manmade laws derived from manmade constitutions are full of material penalties against man while traditional law seldom has these penalties. Traditional law im poses moral, not material penalties, that are appropriate for man. Religion embraces and absorbs tradition. Most material penalties in religion are post poned until the Day of Judgement. The major part of its rules are exhorta tions, instructions and answers to questions. This law shows proper re spect to man. Religion does not ack nowledge temporal penalties, except in extreme cases where these are neces sary to protect society.

    Religion embraces tradition, which is an expression of the natural life of the peoples. Thus, religion, embracing tradition, is an affirmation of natural law. Nonreligious, nontraditional laws are invented by one man for use against another. Therefore they are invalid because they are not built upon the natural source of tradition and religion.

    The question that arises is: who preserves the society from any devia tion from the law? Democratically, there is no group whatever that can claim the right of representative su pervision over the society. 'Society is its own supervisor.' Any pretension by any individual or group that it is re sponsible for law is dictatorship.
    Democracy means the responsibility of the whole society, and supervision should be carried out by the whole society. That is democracy and its proper implementation is through the democratic instrument of governing, resulting from the organization of soci ety itself in basic popular congresses and from the people's rule through the popular congresses and the General People's Congress (National Congress) in which come together the popular congresses, administrative people's committees, unions, syndicates and all other professional organizations.
    According to this theory, the people are the instrument of governing and in this case they are their own super visor. In this way selfsupervision of the society over its law is realized.


    If an instrument of governing is dictatorial, as in political systems in the world today, the society's vigilance towards deviation from law will have only one way to gain readjustment.

    That is violence, which means revolu tion against the instrument of gov erning. This violence or revolution, even if it is an expression of the feeling of the society against deviation, is not carried out by the whole society. It is undertaken only by those who have the initiative and boldness to proclaim the will of the society. However, this approach is the way to dictatorship, for this revolutionary initiative increases the opportunity for an instrument of governing, representative of the peo ple, to arise. This means that the instrument of governing is still dictato rial. Moreover, violence and change by force are themselves undemocratic, although they take place as a result of the existence of a previous undemocra tic situation. The society that is still entangled around this resultant is a backward society. What, then, is the solution?

    The solution is for the people to be the instrument of governing from basic popular congresses to the Gener al People's Congress. The government administration is abolished and re placed by people's committees. The General People's Congress should be a national congress where basic popular congresses, people's administrative committees, unions, syndicates and all professional associations come together. If a deviation from the socie ty's law takes place under this system, it should be dealt with through a demo cratic revision rather than by force. This is not a process of voluntary choice of the method of change or of treatment, rather it is an inevitable result of the nature of such a democra tic system. In such a case, there is no outside group against which violent action may be directed or which may be held responsible for deviation.

    The natural person has freedom to express himself even if, when he is mad, he behaves irrationally to express his madness. The corporate per son also is free to express his corporate identity. In these cases, the first repre sents only himself, and the second represents no more than the group of natural persons composing his corpo rate person. The society consists of many natural and many corporate per sons. Therefore, when a person, for instance, expresses himself in an irra tional manner, that does not mean that the other persons of the society also are mad. The expression of a natural person is only selfexpression, and that of a corporate person is only the ex pression of the interests or viewpoints of persons forming the corporate per son. For example, the company for the production and sale of tobacco only expresses the interests of the partici pants in that company, i.e. those who benefit from the production and sale of tobacco although it is harmful to the health of others.

    The press is a means of expression of the society and is not a means of expression of a natural or corporate person. Logically and democratically, the press, therefore, cannot be owned by either of these.

    Any newspaper owned by an indi vidual is his own and expresses only his point of view. Any claim that a newspaper represents public opinion is groundless because it actually ex presses the viewpoints of a natural person. Democratically, a natural per son should not be permitted to own any means of publication or information.

    However he has the natural right to express himself by any means, even if it is in an irrational manner to prove his madness. Any journal issued by a trading association or by a chamber of commerce is only a means of express ion for this particular social group. It presents its own point of view and not the viewpoint of public opinion. This applies to all other corporate and natu ral persons in society. The democratic press is that which is issued by a popular committee comprising all the various categories of society. In this case only, and not otherwise, will the press or any information medium be an expression of the whole society and a bearer of the viewpoint of its categor ies and thereby the press or informa tion medium will be indeed demo cratic.

    If the Medical Association issues a journal, it must be purely medical. Similarly this applies to other categor ies. The natural person has the right to express only himself and he is not entitled from the democratic point of view to express anybody else. In this way, what is called the problem of press freedom in the world will be solved radically and democratically. The continuing problem of press free dom in the world today is generally the product of the problem of democracy. It cannot be solved unless the entire crisis of democracy in the whole socie ty is solved. Only the Third Universal Theory can solve the intricate problem of democracy.

    According to this theory, the demo cratic system is a cohesive structure whose foundations are firmly laid on basic popular congresses, people's committees and professional associa tions. All these come together in the General People's Congress. Absolute ly, there is no other conception for a genuine democratic society.

    Finally, the era of the masses, which approaches us at a rapid pace follow ing the era of the republics, inflames the feelings and dazzles the eyes. As much as this era gladly announces the real freedom of the masses and their happy emancipation from the shackles of instruments of governing so much it warns of the approach of an age of anarchy and demagogy if the new democracy, which is the authority of the people, does not relapse and the authority of the individual, class, tribe, sect or party again comes to pre dominate.

    Theoretically, this is the genuine democracy. But realistically, the strong always rule, i.e., the stronger part in the society is the one that rules.

    [TABLE="align: center"]
    [TD]The solution to the Economic Problem[/TD]
    The Economic Basis of the Third Universal Theory
    Domestic Servants

    Important historical developments have taken place which contribute to solving the problem of work and wages, i.e. the relationship between the workers and the employers, be tween the producers and the owners. The developments include fixed work inghours, wages for additional work, different types of leave, minimum wages, profit sharing and participation in administration. In addition, arbit rary dismissal has been outlawed and social security has been guaranteed, along with the right to strike and whatever other provisions are found in almost all modern labour laws. Of no less significance are the changes in the field of ownership such as the emerg ence of systems limiting income or outlawing private ownership and transferring it to the state. Despite all these not inconsiderable developments in the history of the economic problem, nevertheless the problem still basically exists. The modifications, improvements, provi sions and other measures have made the problem less severe than it was in past centuries by gaining many advan tages for the workers. Yet, the economic problem has not been solved. All the attempts which have concentrated on ownership have not solved the prob lem of producers. They are still wage workers, even when ownership has been transferred from the extreme right to the extreme left or has been given various intermediate positions. Attempts to improve wages are as important as those which lead to the transference of ownership. The be nefits received by workers, guaran teed by legislation and protected by Trade Unions are all that have been achieved in tackling the problem of wages. Thus the hard conditions of the producers immediately after the In dustrial Revolution have been trans formed, and, in the course of time workers, technicians and administra tors have gained previously unattain able rights. However, the economic problem still, in fact, exists.

    This attempt confined to wages was certainly not a solution at all. It is an artificial attempt, aimed merely at reform, more of a charity than a recog nition of the right of workers. Why are the workers given wages? Because they carry out a production process for the benefit of others who hire them to produce a certain product. In this case, they have not consumed their produc tion, but have been obliged to surren der it for a wage. The sound rule is:

    'He who produces is the one who consumes.'

    Wageworkers are a type of slave, however improved their wages may be.

    The wageworker is like a slave to the master who hires him. He is even a temporary slave, since his slavery lasts as long as he works for wages from the employer, whether the latter is an individual or a state. The work ers' relationship with the owner of the productive establishment as regards their own interests is one and the same ... Under all conditions prevailing now in the world they are wageworkers, even though ownership varies . . . from the right to the left. The public econo mic establishment itself gives to its workers only wages and other social benefits; and these do not differ from the charity granted to the workers by the rich, the owners of private econo mic corporations.

    The argument that, in the case of public ownership, income reverts to society, including the workers, in con trast to the case of the private corpora tion where income reverts only to its owner, is valid. This is so provided that we take into consideration the general interests of the society rather than the particular interests of the workers, and provided that we assume that the political authority which monopolizes ownership is the authority of all the people, that is to say the authority of the people in their entirety, as prac tised through their popular congresses, people's committees and professional syndicates rather than the authority of one class, one party, group of parties, sect, family, tribe, individual or any other representative authority.

    However, what is received directly by the workers, as regards their own interests, in the form of wages, percen tage of the profit or social benefits, is the same as is received by the workers in the private corporation. That is to say, workers in both public and private establishments are equally wage workers though the owners differ. Thus the change in ownership from one type to another has not solved the problem of the workers' right in what has been produced directly by himself, and not by society or for wages. The proof is that the producers are still wageworkers despite the change in ownership.

    The ultimate solution is to abolish the wagesystem, emancipate man from its bondage and return to the natural law which defined relation ships before the emergence of classes, forms of government and manmade laws. The natural rules are the mea sure, the reference book and the sole course in human relations.

    Natural law has led to natural social ism based on equality among the eco nomic factors of production and has almost brought about, among indi viduals, consumption equal to nature's production. But the exploitation of man by man and the possession by some individuals of more of the general wealth than they need is a manifest departure from natural law and the beginning of distortion and corruption in the life of the human community. It is the beginning of the emergence of the society of exploitation.

    If we analyse the economic factors of production from ancient times till now we always find that they are composed of these essentials: raw materials, an instrument of production and a produc er. The natural rule of equality is that each of the factors has a share in this production, for if any of them is with drawn, there will be no production.

    Each factor has an essential role in the process of production and without it production comes to a halt. As long as each factor is essential and fundamen tal, they are all equal in their essential character within the process of produc tion. Therefore they all should be equal in their right to what is produced. The encroachment of one factor on another is opposed to the natural rule of equal ity, and is an attack on the right of others. Each factor, then, has a share regardless of the number of factors. If we find a process of production which can be performed by only two factors, each factor shall have half of the production. If it is carried out by three factors, each shall have a third of the production and so on ...

    Applying this natural rule to both ancient and modern situations we find the following:

    In the state of manual production the productive process involved raw mate rials, and man, the producer. Later, an instrument of production intervened between the two and man used it in the productive process. The animal may be considered as an example of the instrument as a power unit. It, then, developed and the machine replaced the animal. Raw materials increased in kind and quantity, from cheap sim ple materials to valuable complex ones. Likewise man developed from an ordinary worker into a technician and an engineer and a large number of workers began to be replaced by a few technicians. Although the factors of production have quantitatively and qualitatively changed, the essential role of each factor has not changed. For example, the ironore which is one of the factors of production, both past and present, was primitively manufac tured by the ironsmith to produce a knife, an axe or a spear ... etc. The same ironore is now manufactured in big furnaces, and from it engineers and technicians produce machines, en gines and all kinds of vehicles. The animal the horse, the mule or the camel and the like which was one of the factors of production has now been replaced by the vast factory and huge machines. The means of production which were formerly primitive tools have now become sophisticated tech nical equipment. The essential natural factors of production are basically stable despite their great develop ment. The essential stability of the factors of production makes the natu ral rule sound. It is inevitable, after the failure of all previous historical attempts, which disregarded natural law, to return to it in order, finally, to solve the economic problem.

    The previous historical theories tackled the economic problem either from the angle of the ownership of one of the factors of production only or from the angle of wages for production only. They have not solved the real problem, namely the problem of pro duction itself. Thus the most important characteristic of the economic systems prevailing in the world today is the wage system which deprives the work er of any right in his production whether it is produced for society or for a private establishment.

    The industrial establishment is based on raw materials, machines and workers. Production is the outcome of the workers' use of the machines in the factory to manufacture raw materials. In this way, the finished goods pass through a process of production which would have been impossible without the raw materials, the factory and the workers. So if we take away the raw materials, the factory cannot operate; if we take away the factory, the raw materials will not be manufactured and if we remove the producers, the factory comes to a halt.

    The three factors are equally essential in the process of production. Without these three factors there will be no produc tion. Any one factor cannot carry out this process by itself. Even two of these factors cannot carry it out. The natural rule in this case requires that the shares of the three factors in the pro duction be equal, i.e. the production of such a factory is divided into three shares, a share for each of the factors of production. It is not only the factory which is important, but also those who consume its production.

    The same is the case in the process of agricultural production. That which involves man and land without a third factor, the instrument, is exactly like the manual process of industrial pro duction. Here production is only di vided into two shares in accordance with the number of factors of produc tion. But if an agricultural machine or the like is used, production is divided into three shares: the land, the farmer and the instrument used in the process of agriculture.

    Thus a socialist system is estab lished to which all processes of produc tion are subjected, by analogy with this natural rule.

    The producers are the workers. We call them 'producers' because the words 'workers', 'employees' or 'toil ers' are no longer applicable. The reason is that workers, according to the traditional definition, are quantita tively and qualitatively changing. The working class is continually declining as science and machines develop.

    Strenuous tasks which previously had to be performed by a number of workers are now done by machines. To run a machine requires a smaller num ber of workers. This is the quantitative change in the labour force, while the qualitative change necessitated the re placement of a physical force by tech nical skill.

    Man's freedom is lacking if some body else controls what he needs. For need may result in man's enslavement of man. Need causes exploitation. Need is an intrinsic problem and con flict grows out of the domination of man's needs.

    The house is a basic need of both the individual and the family. Therefore, it should not be owned by others. There is no freedom for a man who lives in another's house, whether he pays rent or not. All attempts made by various countries to solve the problem of hous ing are not solutions at all. The reason is that those attempts do not aim at the radical and ultimate solution of man, which is the necessity of his owning his own house. The attempts have concen trated on the reduction or increase of rent and its standardization, whether at public or private expense. In the socialist society no one, including the society itself, is allowed to have control over man's need.

    No one has the right to build a house, additional to his own and that of his heirs, for the purpose of renting it, because the house represents another person's need, and building it for the purpose of rent is an attempt to have control over the need of that man and 'In Need Freedom is Latent'.

    The income is an imperative need for man. Thus the income of any man in the society should not be a wage from any source or a charity from anyone. For there are no wageworkers in the socialist society, only partners. Your income is a form of private ownership. You manage it by yourself either to meet your needs or to share in the production, where you are one of its main factors. Your share will not be used as a wage paid for any person in return for production.

    The vehicle is a necessity both to the individual and the family. Your vehicle should not be owned by others. In the socialist society no man or any other authority can possess private vehicles for the purpose of hiring them out, for this is domination of the needs of others.

    Land is no one's property. But every one has the right to use it, to benefit from it by working, farming or pastur ing. This would take place throughout a man's life and the lives of his heirs, and would be through his own effort without using others with or without wages, and only to the extent of satis fying his own needs. If possession of land is allowed, only those who are living there have a share in it. The land is permanently there, while, in the course of time, users change in profession, in capacity and in their presence.

    The purpose of the new socialist society is to create a society which is happy because it is free. This can be achieved through satisfying the mate rial and spiritual needs of man, and that, in turn, comes about through the liberation of these needs from outside domination and control.

    Satisfaction of these needs must be attained without exploiting or enslaving others, or else, it will contradict the purpose of the new socialist society.

    Man in the new society works for himself to guarantee his material needs, or works for a socialist corpora tion in whose production he is a part ner, or performs a public service to the society which provides his material needs.

    Economic activity in the new social ist society is productive activity for the satisfaction of material needs. It is not unproductive activity or an activity which seeks profit in order, after satis fying material needs, to save the sur plus. That is impossible under the rules of the new socialism.

    The legitimate purpose of the indi vidual's economic activity is solely to satisfy his needs. For the wealth of the world has limits at each stage as does the wealth of each individual society. Therefore no individual has the right to carry out economic activity in order to acquire more of that wealth than is necessary to satisfy his needs, because the excess amount belongs to other individuals. He has the right to save from his needs and from his own pro duction but not from the efforts of others nor at the expense of their needs. For if we allow economic activ ity to extend beyond the satisfaction of needs, one person will only have more than his needs by preventing another from obtaining his. The savings which are in excess of one's needs are another person's share of the wealth of society.

    To allow private production for the purpose of acquiring savings that ex ceed the satisfaction of needs is ex ploitation itself, as in permitting the use of others to satisfy your own needs or to get more than your own needs. This can be done by exploiting a person to satisfy the needs of others and making savings for others at the ex pense of his needs.

    Work for a wage is, in addition to being an enslavement of man as men tioned before, work without incentives because the producer is a wageworker rather than a partner.

    Whoever works for himself is cer tainly devoted to his productive work because his incentive to production lies in his dependence on his private work to satisfy his material needs. Also whoever works in a socialist corpora tion is a partner in its production. He is, undoubtedly, devoted to his produc tive work because the impetus for devotion to production is that he gets a satisfaction of his needs through pro duction. But whoever works for a wage has no incentive to work.

    Work for wages failed to solve the problem of increasing and developing production. Work, either in the form of services or production, is continually deteriorating because it rests on the shoulders of wageworkers.



    First Example:
    (a) A worker who produces ten apples for society. Society gives him one apple for his production. The apple fully satisfies his needs.
    (b) A worker who produces ten apples for society. Society gives him one apple for his production. The apple is not enough to satisfy his needs.
    Second Example: A worker who produces ten apples for another person and gets a wage of less than the price of one apple.
    Third Example: A worker who produces ten apples for himself.

    The first (a) will not increase his production for whatever the increase might be, he will only get an apple for himself. It is what satisfies his needs. Thus all those working for such a society are always psychologically apathetic.

    The first (b) has no incentive to production itself, for he produces for the society without obtaining satisfac tion of his needs. However he has to continue to work without incentive be cause he is forced to submit to the general conditions of work throughout the society. That is the case with mem bers of that society.

    The second does not initially work to produce. He works to get wages. Since his wages are not enough to satisfy his needs, he will either search for another master and sell him his work at a better price or he will be obliged to continue the same work just to survive.

    The third is the only one who produces without apathy and without coer cion. In the socialist society, there is no possibility for private production ex ceeding the satisfaction of individual needs, because satisfaction of needs at the expense of others is not allowed.

    As the socialist establishments work for the satisfaction of the needs of society, the third example explains the sound basis of economic production.

    However, in all conditions, even in bad ones, production continues for surviv al. The best proof is that in capitalist societies production accumulates and expands in the hands of a few owners who do not work but exploit the efforts of toilers who are obliged to produce in order to survive. However, The Green Book not only solves the problem of material production but also pre scribes the comprehensive solution of the problems of human society so that the individual may be materially and spiritually liberated ... a final libera tion to attain his happiness.

    Other Examples:
    If we assume that the wealth of society is ten units and its population is ten persons, the share of each in the wealth of society is 10/10 only one of the units per person. But if some mem bers of society possess more than one unit, then other members of the same society possess nothing.

    The reason is that their share of the units of wealth has been taken by others. Thus, there are poor and rich in the society where exploitation prevails.

    Suppose that five members of that society possess two units each. In this case the other five possess nothing, i.e., 50 per cent are deprived of their right to their own wealth because the additional unit possessed by each of the first five is the share of each of the second five.

    If an individual in that society needs only one of the units of the wealth of society to satisfy his needs then the individual possessing more than one unit is, in fact, expropriating the right of other members of the society. Since this share exceeds what is required to satisfy his needs, estimated at one of the units of wealth then he has seized it to hoard it. Such hoarding is only achieved at the expense of others' needs, i.e., through taking others' share in this wealth. That is why there are those who hoard and do not spend that is, they save what exceeds the satisfaction of their needs and there are those who beg and are deprived that is those who ask for their rights in the wealth of their society and do not find anything to consume. It is an act of plunder and theft, but open and legitimate under the unjust and exploitative rules which govern that society.

    Ultimately, all that is beyond the satisfaction of needs should remain the property of all the members of society. But individuals only have the right to save as much as they want from their own needs, because the hoarding of what exceeds their needs involves an encroachment on public wealth. The skilful and industrious have no right to take hold of the share of others as a result of their skill and industry. But they can benefit from these advan tages. Also if a person is disabled or lunatic, it does not mean that he does not have the same share as the healthy in the wealth of the society.

    The wealth of the society is like a corporation or a store of supply which daily provides a number of people with a quantity of supply of a definite amount which is enough to satisfy the needs of those people during that day. Each person has the right to save out of that quantity what he wants, i.e., he can consume or save what he likes from his share. In this he can use his own skill and talents. But he who uses his talents to take an additional amount for him self from the store of the public supply is undoubtedly a thief. Therefore, he who uses his skill to gain wealth that exceeds the satisfaction of his needs is, in fact, encroaching on a public right, namely, the wealth of the society which is like the store mentioned in this example.

    In the new socialist society differ ences in individual wealth are only permissible for those who render a public service. The society allocates for them a certain share of the wealth equivalent to that service.

    The share of individuals only differs according to the public service each of them renders, and as much as he produces. Thus, the experiments of history have produced a new experi ment, a final culmination of man's struggle to attain his freedom and to achieve happiness by satisfying his need, warding off the exploitation of others, putting an ultimate end to tyranny and finding a means for the just distribution of society's wealth. Under the new experiment you work for yourself to satisfy your needs rather than exploiting others to work for you, in order to satisfy yours at their expense; or working to plunder the needs of others. It is the theory of the liberation of needs in order to emancipate man. Thus the new socialist society is no more than a dialectical consequence of the unjust relations prevailing in this world. It has produced the natural solution, namely private ownership to satisfy the needs without using others, and socialist ownership, in which the producers are partners in production. The socialist ownership replaced a pri vate ownership based on the produc [26] tion of wageworkers who had no right in what they produced.

    Whoever possesses the house you dwell in, the vehicle you ride or the income you live on, takes hold of your freedom, or part of your freedom, and freedom is indivisible. For man to be happy, he must be free, and to be free, man must possess his own needs.

    Whoever possesses your needs con trols or exploits you. He may enslave you despite any legislation outlawing that.

    The material needs of man that are basic, necessary and personal, start with food, housing, clothing and trans port . . . These must be within his private and sacred ownership. They are not to be hired from any quarter.

    To obtain them through rent or hire allows the real owners, even society in general, to interfere in his private life, to have control over his basic needs, and then to dominate his freedom and to deprive him of his happiness. The owner of the costumes one has hired could interfere to remove them even in the street and leave one naked. The owner of the vehicle could interfere, leaving one in the middle of the road.

    Likewise, the owner of the house could interfere, leaving one without shelter.

    It is ironic that man's basic needs are treated by legal administrative or other measures. Fundamentally, soci ety must be founded on the application of the natural law to these needs. The purpose of the socialist society is the happiness of man which can only be realized through material and spir itual freedom. Attainment of such free dom depends on the extent of man's ownership of his needs; ownership that is personal and sacredly guaranteed, i.e., your need must neither be owned by somebody else, nor subject to plun der by any part of society. Otherwise, you will live in a state of anxiety which will take away your happiness and render you unfree, because you live under the apprehension of outside in terference in your basic needs.

    The overturning of contemporary societies, to change them from being societies of wageworkers to societies of partners is inevitable as a dialectic al result of the contradictory economic theses prevailing in the world today.

    And is the inevitable dialectical result of the injustice to relations based on the wage system, which have not been solved.

    The threatening power of the Trade Unions in the capitalist world is capable of overturning capitalist societies of wageworkers into societies of part ners.

    It is probable that the outbreak of the revolution to achieve socialism will start with the appropriation by the producers of their share in what they produce. The objective of the workers' strikes will shift from a demand for the increase of wages to a demand for sharing in the production. All that will, sooner or later, take place under the guidance of The Green Book.

    But the final step is when the new socialist society reaches the stage where profit and money disappear. It is through transforming society into a fully productive society and through reaching, in production, the level where the material needs of the members of society are satisfied. In that final stage profit will automatically disappear and there will be no need for money.

    The recognition of profit is an ack nowledgement of exploitation. The mere recognition of profit removes the possibility of limiting it. Measures taken to put a limit to it through various means are mere attempts at reform, which are not radical, in order to stop man's exploitation by man. The final solution is the abolition of profit. But as profit is the driving force of economic activity, its abolition is not a decision that can be taken lightly. It must result from the development of socialist production which will be achieved if the satisfaction of the material needs of society is realised.

    The endeavour to increase profit will ultimately lead to its disappearance.

    Domestic servants, paid or unpaid are a type of slave. Indeed they are the slaves of the modern age. But since the new socialist society is based on part nership in production rather than on wages, natural socialist law does not apply to them, because they render services rather than production. Ser vices have no physical production which is divisible into shares in accord ance with natural socialist law.
    Domestic servants, therefore, have no alternative but to work with or without wages under bad conditions. As wage workers are a type of slave and their slavery exists as long as they work for wages, so domestic servants are in a lower position than the wageworkers in the economic establishments and corporations outside the houses. They are, then, even more entitled to eman cipation from the slavery of the society than are wageworkers from their soci ety. Domestic servants form one of the social phenomena that stands next to that of slaves. The Third Universal Theory is a herald to the masses announcing the final salvation from all fetters of injustice, despotism, ex ploitation and economic and political hegemony. It has the purpose of estab lishing the society of all people, where all men are free and equal in authority, wealth and arms, so that freedom may gain the final and complete triumph. The Green Book, therefore, pre scribes the way of salvation to the masses of wageworkers and domestic servants in order to achieve the free dom of man. It is inevitable, then, to struggle to liberate domestic servants from their slave status and transform them into partners outside the houses, in places where there is material pro duction which is divisible into shares according to its factors. The house is to be served by its residents. But the solution to necessary house service should not be through servants, with or without wages, but through employees who can be promoted while performing their house jobs and can enjoy social and material safeguards like any em ployee in the public service.


    The Social Basis of the Third Universal Theory
    The Family
    The Tribe
    The Nation
    The Blacks
    Melodies and Arts
    Sport, Horsemanship and Shows

    [TABLE="align: center"]
    [TD]The Social Basis of the third Universal Theory[/TD]
    The social, i.e. national, factor is the driving force of human history. The social bond which binds together each human group, from the family through the tribe to the nation, is the basis for the movement of history.

    Heroes in history are persons who have made sacrifices for causes. But for what causes? They have made sacrifices for others. But which others? They are those who have a relationship with them. The relation ship between an individual and a group is a social relationship, i.e. the re lationship between the members of a nation. For nations are founded on nationalism. Those causes, therefore, are national causes and national re lationship is the social relationship.

    The social relationship is derived from society, i.e. the relationship between the members of a society, just as nationalism is derived from the nation, i.e. the relationship between the mem bers of a nation. The social relation ship is, accordingly, the national relationship and the national relationship is the social relationship. For the group is a nation and the nation is a group even if they differ in number, leaving aside the extended definition of the group which means the provisional group regardless of the national rela tions of its members. What is meant by the group here is the group which is permanent by virtue of its own nation al relations.

    Besides, historical movements are mass movements, i.e. group move ments for its own interests ... for its independence from a different group. Each group has its own social struc ture which binds it together. Group movements are always movements for independence in order that subjugated or oppressed groups may attain self realisation. As for the struggle for power, it occurs within the group itself down to the family level, as expounded in Part One of the Green Book, which deals with the Political Basis of the Third Universal Theory.
    A group movement is a nation's movement for its own interests. By virtue of its na tional structure, each group has com mon social needs which must be collec tively satisfied. These needs are in no way individualistic. They are collec tive needs, rights, demands, or objec tives of a nation which is bound by a single nationalism. That is why these movements are called national move ments. Contemporary national libera tion movements are themselves social movements.
    They will not come to an end before every group is liberated from the domination of another group, i.e. the world is now passing through one of the regular cycles of the move ment of history, namely, the national struggle in support of nationalism. In the world of man, this is the historical reality, as it is a social real ity.
    That means that the national strug gle the social struggle is the basis of the movement of history, because it is stronger than all other factors since it is the origin ... the basis ... it is in the nature of the human group ... the nature of the nation. It is the nature of life itself. Other animals, apart from man, live in groups. Indeed, the group is the basis for the survival of all groups within the animal kingdom. So nationalism is the basis for the surviv al of nations.

    Nations whose nationalism is des troyed are subject to ruin. Minorities, which are one of the main political problems in the world, are the outcome of a social cause. They are nations whose nationalism has been destroyed and torn apart. The social factor is, therefore, a factor of life ... a factor of survival. It is the nation's natural in nate momentum for survival.

    Nationalism in the world of man and group instinct in the animal kingdom are like gravity in the domain of min eral and celestial bodies. If the mass of the sun were smashed so that it lost its gravity, the gases would blow away and its unity would no longer exist. Accordingly, the unity is the basis for its survival. The factor of unity in any group is a social factor, i.e. national ism. For this reason a group struggles for its own national unity, because its survival lies in that.

    The national factor, which is the social bond, works automatically to impel the nation towards survival, in the same way that the gravity of an object works to keep it as one mass around the nucleus. The diffusion and dispersion of atoms in the atomic bomb are the result of the explosion of the nucleus which is the focus of gravita tion for the atoms around it. When the factor of unity in those components is broken into pieces and gravity is lost, every atom is dispersed.
    This is the nature of matter. It is an established law of nature. To disregard it or collide with it is damaging to life. Thus man's life is damaged when he begins to disregard nationalism ... the social factor ... the gravity of the group ... the secret of its survival. T
    here is no rival to the social factor in influencing the unity of one group except the reli gious factor, which may divide the national group or unite groups with different nationalisms. However, the social factor will eventually gain sway. This has been the case throughout the ages. Originally, each nation had one religion. This was harmony. In fact, however, differences arose which be came a genuine cause of conflict and instability in the life of the peoples throughout the ages.

    The sound rule is that every nation should have a religion. The contrary to that is the abnormal. Such an abnor mality creates an unsound situation which becomes a real cause for dis putes within a national group. There is no other solution but to be in harmony with the natural rule that each nation has one religion. When the social factor is compatible with the religious factor, harmony is achieved and the life of groups becomes stable and strong and develops soundly.

    Marriage is a process that exercises negative and positive effects on the social factor though both man and woman are free to accept whom they want and reject whom they do not want as a natural rule of freedom. Marriage within a group, by its very nature, strengthens its unity and brings about collective growth in conformity with the social factor.

    To the individual man the family is of more importance than the state. Mankind acknowledges the individual man and the individual man acknow ledges the family which is his cradle, his origin and his social 'umbrella'.

    Mankind, as a matter of fact, is the individual and the family, not the state. The state is an artificial econo mic and political system, sometimes a military system, with which mankind has no relationship and has nothing to do. The family is exactly like an in dividual plant in nature which is composed of branches, leaves and blossoms. However, adapting the natu ral environment with farms and gar dens, and the like is an artificial proce dure which has nothing to do with the actual nature of the plant. The fact is that political, economic or military factors have organized groups of fami lies into a state which has nothing to do with mankind.
    Equally any position, condition or measure resulting in the dispersal, decline or loss of the family is inhuman and unnatural. Indeed, it is an arbitrary condition, exactly like any action, condition or measure which leads to the destruction of the plant, the breaking of its branches, the fading of its blossoms and leaves. Societies in which the existence and unity of the family are threatened, in any circumstances, are similar to fields whose plants are in danger of being swept away or threatened by drought or fire, or of withering away. The blossoming garden or field is that whose plants grow, blossom, pollinate and root naturally. The same holds true for human society.

    The flourishing society is that in which the individual grows naturally within the family and the family itself flourishes in the society. The indi vidual is linked to the larger family of mankind like the leaf to the branch or the branch to the tree. They have no value or life if separated. The same is the case for the individual if he is separated from the family, i.e. the individual without a family has no value or social life. If human society reached the stage where man existed without a family, it would become a society of tramps, without roots, like artificial plants.

    A tribe is a family which has grown as a result of procreation. It follows that a tribe is a big family. Equally a nation is a tribe which has grown through procreation. The nation, then, is a big tribe. So the world is a nation which has been ramified into various nations. The world, then, is a big na tion. The relationship which binds the family is that which binds the tribe, the nation and the world. However, it weakens with the increase in number.
    The concept of man is that of the nation, the concept of nation is that of the tribe, and the concept of the tribe is that of the family. However, the degree of warmth involved diminishes as the relationship moves from the smaller level to the larger one. This is a social fact only denied by those who are ignorant of it.

    The social bond, cohesiveness, unity, intimacy and love are stronger at the family level than at the tribal level ... stronger at the tribal level than at that of the nation, and stronger at the level of the nation than at that of the world. The advantages, privileges, values and ideals, which are based on social bonds, exist where those bonds are natural and undoubtedly strong, i.e. they are stronger at the family level than at that of the tribe, stronger at the tribal level than that of the nation and stronger at nation's level than that of the world.
    Thus these social bonds and the benefits, advantages and ideals associated with them are lost where ver the family, the tribe, nation or mankind vanish or are lost. * It is, there fore, of great importance for human society to maintain the cohesiveness of the family, the tribe, the nation and the world in order to benefit from the advantages, privileges, values and ideals yielded by the solidarity, cohe siveness, unity, intimacy and love of the family, tribe, nation and humanity. * In social terms, the family society is better than that of the tribe, the tribal society is better than that of the nation and the society of the nation is better than world society as regards fellow ship, affection, solidarity and benefit.

    Since the tribe is a large family, it provides its members with the same material benefits and social advan tages the family provides for its mem bers. For the tribe is a secondary family. What needs to be emphasized is that the individual might sometimes act in a disgraceful manner which he would not dare to do in front of his family. But since the family is smaller in size he can escape from its supervi sion, unlike the tribe whose supervi sion is felt by all its members. In view of these considerations the tribe forms a behaviour pattern for its members which will be transformed into a social education which is better and more human than any school education. T
    he tribe is a social school where its mem bers are brought up from childhood to absorb high ideals which are trans formed into a behaviour pattern for life. These become automatically rooted as the human being grows, unlike education with its curricula, formally dictated and gradually lost with the growth of the individual. This is so because it is formal and ruled by tests and because the individual is aware of the fact that it is dictated to him.

    The tribe is a natural social 'umbrel la' for social security. By virtue of social tribal traditions, the tribe pro vides for its members collective pay ment of ransom, collective fines, col lective revenge and collective defence, i.e. social protection.

    Blood is the prime factor in the formation of the tribe but it is not the only factor because affiliation is also a factor in the formation of the tribe. With the passage of time the difference between the factors of blood and affi liation disappears, leaving the tribe as one social and physical unit. But it is a unit of blood and origin more than any other.

    The nation is the individual's nation al political 'umbrella' and it is wider than the social 'umbrella' provided by the tribe to its members. Tribalism damages nationalism because tribal allegiance weakens national loyalty and flourishes at its expense. In the same way loyalty to the family flourishes at the expense of tribal loyalty and weakens it. National fana ticism is essential to the nation but at the same time it is a threat to hu manity.

    The nation in the world community is similar to the family in the tribe. The more the families of one tribe quarrel and become fanatic, the more the tribe is threatened. Equally if the members of one family quarrel and each of them seeks only his personal interests, the family is threatened, and if the tribes of a nation quarrel and seek their own interests, that nation is threatened. National fanaticism, the use of nation al force against weak nations, or the national progress which is the outcome of plundering from other nations, are evil and harmful to humanity.
    However, the powerful individual who re spects himself and is aware of his own responsibilities is important and useful to the family, just as a strong respect able family, which is aware of its importance, is socially and materially useful to the tribe. Equally useful to the whole world is the progressive, productive and civilized nation. The national political structure is damaged when it descends to the lower social level, namely the family and tribe, and attempts to act in their manner and to adopt their views.

    The nation is a large family which has passed through the stage of the tribe and also through the ramifica tions of the tribes that have branched out of one origin; it includes as well those members who affiliated them selves with its destiny. The family, likewise, grows into a nation only after passing through the stages of the tribe and its ramifications, as well as through the stage of affiliation which comes about as a result of various types of a social mixture.
    Inevitably this is achieved over long periods of time. Although the passage of time creates nations, it also helps to frag ment old ones. However, the common origin and shared destiny through affi liation are two historic bases for any nation, though origin ranks first and affiliation second. A nation is not de fined only by origin, even though origin is its basis and beginning. In addition to that a nation is formed by human accumulations through the course of history which induce a group of people to live in one area of land, make a common history, form one heritage and face the same destiny. Finally, the nation, regardless of blood bond, is the sense of belonging and a common des tiny.

    But why has the map of the earth witnessed great nations that dis appeared to be replaced by other na tions and vice versa? Is the reason political only, without any relationship to the social aspect of the Third Uni versal Theory? Or is it social and properly the concern of this part of the Green Book? Let us see: The family is indisputably a social structure, rather than political. The same applies to the tribe because it is a family which has reproduced, procreated and become many families. Equally the nation is a tribe, after it has grown and its bran ches have multiplied and become transformed into clans, then into tribes.

    The nation is also a social structure whose bond is nationalism, the tribe is a social structure whose bond is tribal ism, the family is a social structure whose bond is family ties; and the nations of the world are social struc tures whose bond is humanity. These are self evident facts. Then there is the political structure of states which form the political map of the world. But why does the map of the world keep chang ing from one age to another? The reason is that the political structure may, or may not, be consistent with the social structure. When it is consistent in a nation, it lasts and does not change. If the change is forced by external colonialism or internal col lapse, it reappears under the emblem of national struggle, national revival or national unity. When the political structure embraces more than one na tion, its map will be torn up by each nation gaining independence under the emblem of nationalism.
    Thus, the maps of the empires, which the world has witnessed, have been torn up be cause they were made up of a number of nations. When every nation clings fanatically to its nationalism and seeks independence, the political empire is torn up and its components go back to their social origins. The evidence is crystal clear in the history of the world if we review all its ages.

    But why were those empires made up of different nations? The answer is that the state is not only a social structure like the family, the tribe and the nation, but rather a political entity created by several factors, the sim plest and foremost of which is national ism. The national state is the only political form which is consistent with the natural social structure. Its exist ence lasts, unless it becomes subject to the tyranny of another stronger nation alism, or unless its political structure, as a state, is affected by its social structure in the form of tribes, clans and families. It is damaging to the political structure if it is subjected to the family, tribal, or sectarian social structure and adopts its characteris tics.

    However, religious, economic and military factors also contribute to form a state which differs from the simple state, the national state. A common religion, the require ments of economics or military con quests may constitute a state embrac ing several nationalisms. Thus, in one age the world witnesses a state or an empire which it sees disappear in another age.
    When the spirit of nation alism emerges stronger than the reli gious spirit and conflict flares up be tween different nationalisms which were brought together, for example, by one religion, each nation becomes independent and recovers its social structure. That empire, then, dis appears. The role of religion reappears when the religious spirit emerges stronger than the spirit of nationalism. Consequently the various nationalisms are unified under the banner of religion until the national role appears once again and so on.

    All the states which are composed of several nationalisms for various reasons whether of religious, economics, military power or of manmade ideologies will be torn up by the national conflict until each nationalism is independent, i.e. the social factor will inevitably triumph over the political factor.

    Therefore, despite political factors which necessitate the establishment of the state, the basis for the life of individuals is the family, the tribe, then the nation, extending eventually to all humanity. The essential factor is the social factor. It is the permanent factor, namely nationalism. Stress should be laid on social reality and family care in order to bring up the integrated welleducated man. Care should then be given to the tribe as a social 'umbrella' and natural social school which brings up man at the postfamily stage. Then comes the na tion. T
    he individual learns social values only from the family and the tribe which form a natural social struc ture engineered by no particular indi vidual. Taking care of the family is for the sake of the individual just as the care of the tribe is in the interest of the family, the individual and the nation, i.e. nationalism. The social factor, namely the national factor, is the genuine and permanent driving force of history.

    To disregard the national bond of human groups and to establish a poli tical system contradictory to social reality sets up a temporary structure which will be destroyed by the movement of the social factor of those groups, i.e. the national movement of each nation.

    All these realities are innate in the life of man and are not rational con junctures. Every individual in the world should be aware of these reali ties and work accordingly, so that his action may be worthwhile. It is neces sary to know these proven realities in order to avoid deviation, disorder and damage in the life of human groups which are the result of a lack of under standing and respect for these principles of human life.

    [TABLE="width: 351"]
    It is an undisputed fact that both man and woman are human beings. It follows as a selfevident fact that woman and man are equal as human beings. Discrimination between man and woman is a flagrant act of oppres sion without any justification. For woman eats and drinks as man eats and drinks ... Woman loves and hates as man loves and hates ... Woman thinks, learns and understands as man thinks, learns and understands ... Woman, like man, needs shelter, clo thing and vehicles ... Woman feels hunger and thirst as man feels hunger and thirst ... Woman lives and dies as man lives and dies.

    But why are there man and woman? Indeed, human society is composed neither of man alone nor of woman alone. It is made up naturally of man and woman. Why were not only men created? Why were not only women created? After all, what is the differ ence between man and woman? Why was it necessary to create man and woman? There must be a natural necessity for the existence of man and woman, rather than man only or woman only.
    It follows that neither of them is exactly the other, and the fact that a natural difference exists be tween man and woman is proved by the created existence of man and woman. This means, as a matter of fact, that there is a role for each one of them, matching the difference be tween them. Accordingly, there must be different prevailing conditions for each one to live and perform their naturally different roles. To compre hend this role, we must understand the differences in the nature of man and woman, namely the natural differ ences between them:

    Woman is a female and man is a male. According to a gynaecologist, woman menstruates or suffers feeble ness every month, while man, being a male, does not menstruate and he is not subject to the monthly period which is a bleeding. A woman, being a female, is naturally subject to monthly bleeding. When a woman does not menstruate, she is pregnant.
    if she is pregnant she becomes, due to pregnancy, feeble for about a year, which means that all her natural activities are seriously reduced until she deliv ers her baby. When she delivers her baby or has had a miscarriage, she suffers puerperium, a feebleness attendant on delivery or miscarriage. As the man does not get pregnant, he is not liable to the feebleness which woman, being a female, suffers. After wards woman breastfeeds the baby she bore. Breastfeeding continues for about two years. Breastfeeding means that a woman is so inseparable from her baby that her activity is seriously reduced. She becomes directly respon sible for another person whom she helps to carry out his biological func tions, without which it would die. The man, on the other hand, neither con ceives nor breastfeeds.

    All these innate characteristics form differences because of which man and woman cannot be equal. These, in themselves, are the realities that necessitate the distinction between male and female, i.e. man and woman; they assign to each of them a different role or function in life. This means that man cannot replace woman in car ying out these functions. It is worthy of consideration that these biological functions are a heavy burden, causing woman great effort and suffering. However, without these functions which woman performs, human life would come to an end. It follows that it is a natural function which is neither voluntary nor compulsory. It is an essential function, whose sole alterna tive is that human life would come to a complete standstill.

    There is a deliberate intervention against conception which is the alter native to human life. In addition to that there is a partial deliberate interven tion against conception, as well as against breastfeeding. All these are links in a chain of actions against natural life, culminating in murder, i.e. for a woman to kill herself in order not to conceive, deliver and breast feed, is within the realm of deliberate interventions against the nature of life embodied in conception, breast feeding, maternity and marriage, though they differ only in degree.

    To dispense with the natural role of woman in maternity i.e. nurseries replacing mothers is a start in dispensing with the human society and transforming it into a biological socie ty with an artificial way of life. To separate children from their mothers and to cram them into nurseries is a process by which they are transformed into something very close to chicks, for nurseries are similar to poultry farms in which chicks are crammed after they are hatched.
    Nothing else would be appropriate for man's nature, and would suit his dignity, except natural motherhood, (i.e. the child is raised by his mother ...) + in a family where the true principles of motherhood, father hood and brotherhood prevail, + rather than in a centre similar to a poultry breeding farm. Poultry, like the rest of the members of the animal kingdom, needs motherhood as a natural phase.
    Therefore, breeding them on farms similar to nurseries is against their natural growth. Even their meat is closer to synthetic meat than natural meat. Meat from mechanized poultry farms is not tasty and may not be nourishing because the chicks are not naturally bred, i.e. they are not raised in the protective shade of natural motherhood. The meat of wild birds is more tasty and nourishing because they grow naturally and are naturally fed. As for children who have neither family nor shelter, society is their guardian, only for them should society establish nurseries and the like. It is better for those to be taken care of by society rather than by individuals who are not their parents.

    If a test were carried out to discover the natural propensity of the child towards his mother and the nursery, the child would opt for his mother and not the nursery. Since the natural ten dency of a child is towards his mother, she is the natural and proper person to give the child the protection of nursing. Sending a child to a nursery in place of his mother is coercion and oppression against its free natural propensity.

    The natural growth for all living things is free sound growth. To substi tute a nursery for a mother is coercive action against free sound growth. Chil dren who are driven to a nursery are driven compulsorily or by exploitation and simplemindedness. They are driv en to nurseries purely by material istic and not social considerations. If coercion and childish simple mindedness were removed, they would certainly reject the nursery and cling to their mother. The only justification for such an unnatural and inhuman process is the fact that the woman is in a position unsuitable to her nature, i.e. she is compelled to perform duties which are unsocial and anti motherhood.

    The woman, whose nature has assigned to her a natural role different from that of man, must be in an appropriate position to perform her natural role.

    Motherhood is the female's function, not the male's. Consequently, it is unnatural to separate children from their mother. Any attempt to take children away from their mother is coercion, oppression and dictatorship. The mother who abandons her mater nity contradicts her natural role in life. She must be provided with her rights and conditions which are appropriate, noncoercive and unoppressive. Thus she can carry out her natural role under natural conditions.
    Anything else is a selfcontradictory situation. If the woman is forced to abandon her natural role as regards conception and maternity, she falls victim to coercion and dictatorship. A woman who needs work that renders her unable to per form her natural function is not free and is compelled to do that by need, * for in need freedom is latent. *

    Among suitable and even essential conditions which enable the woman to perform her natural role, which differs from that of man, are those very condi tions which are proper to a human being who is sick and burdened with pregnancy, i.e. bearing another human being in her womb, which renders her physically incapacitated. It is unjust to place such a woman in this stage of maternity into circumstances of phy sical work incompatible with her con dition. Such work is a punishment of woman for her betrayal of maternity and of mankind. It is also a tax she pays for entering the realm of men who are not, of course, of her sex.

    The belief, including the woman's own belief, that the woman carries out physical labour of her own accord, is not, in fact, true. For she performs the physical work only because the harsh materialistic society has placed her, without her being directly aware, in coercive circumstances. She has no alternative but to submit to the conditions of that society while she thinks that she works of her own accord. However, the rule that 'there is no difference between man and woman in every thing' deprives her of her freedom.

    The phrase 'in every thing' is a monstrous deception of woman. This idea will destroy the appropriate and necessary conditions which constitute the privilege which woman ought to enjoy apart from man in accordance with her nature on which a natural role in life is based.

    To demand equality between man and woman in carrying heavy weights while the woman is pregnant is unjust and cruel. To demand equality be tween them in fasting and hardship, while she is breastfeeding, is unjust and cruel. To demand equality be tween them in any dirty work, which stains her beauty and detracts from her femininity, is unjust and cruel. Education that leads to work unsuit able for her nature is unjust and cruel as well.

    There is no difference between man and woman in all that concerns hu manity. None of them can marry the other against his or her will, or divorce without a just trial. Neither the woman nor the man can remarry without a previous agreement on divorce. The woman is the owner of the house be cause it is one of the suitable and necessary conditions for a woman who menstruates, conceives, and cares for her children. The woman is the owner of the maternity shelter, which is the house. Even in the animal world, which differs in many ways from that of man, and where maternity is also a duty according to nature, it is coercion to deprive the young of their mother or deprive the female of her shelter.

    A woman is but a female. Being female means that she has a biological nature different from that of man. The female's biological nature differing, as it does, from that of the male, has imparted to a woman characteristics different from those of a man in form and essence. A woman's anatomy is different from that of a man just as the female in plants and animals are diffe rent from the male. This is a natural and incontrovertible fact. In the anim al and plant kingdoms the male is naturally created strong and tough, while the female is created beautiful and gentle. These are natural and eternal characteristics innate in these living creatures, whether called hu man beings, animals or plants.

    In view of his different nature and in line with the laws of nature, the male has played the role of the strong and tough without compulsion but simply because he is created in that way. The female has played the role of the beautiful and the gentle, not because she wanted to, but because she is created so. This natural rule is just, partly because it is natural, and partly because it is the basic rule for free dom. For all living creatures are cre ated free and any interference with that freedom is coercion. Non commitment to these natural roles and a lack of concern towards their roles amount to an act of negligence and destruction of the values of life itself.

    Nature has thus been designed in har mony with the inevitability of life from what is being to what will become. The living creature is a being who inevit ably lives until he is dead. Existence between the beginning and the end is based on a natural law, without choice or compulsion. It is natural. It is natu ral freedom.

    In the animal, plant and human king doms there must be a male and a female for life to occur from its begin ning to its end. They do not only exist but they have to play, with absolute efficiency, the natural role for which they have been created. If their role is not efficiently performed there must be some defect in the course of life caused by certain circumstances.
    This is the case of societies nowadays almost everywhere in the world as a result of confusing the roles of man and woman, i.e. as a result of endeavours to transform a woman into a man. In harmony with their nature and its purpose they must be creative within their respective roles. For the opposite is retrogressive. It is a trend against nature, which is as destructive to the rule of freedom, as it is hostile to both life and survival. Men and women must perform, not abandon the role for which they are created.

    Abandoning the role or even a part of it only occurs as a result of coercive conditions, i.e. under abnormal conditions. The woman who rejects pregnancy, mar riage, make up and femininity for reasons of health, abandons her natu ral role in life under these coercive conditions of health. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or motherhood etc., because of work, abandons her natural role under the same coercive conditions. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or maternity etc., without any concrete cause, abandons her natural role as a result of a coercive condition which is a moral deviation from the norm.
    Thus. abandoning the natural role of female and male in life can only occur under unnatural conditions which are con trary to nature and a threat to surviv al. Consequently, there must be a world revolution which puts an end to all materialistic conditions hindering woman from performing her natural role in life and driving her to carry out man's duties in order to be equal in rights. Such a revolution will inevit ably take place, particularly in the industrial societies, as a response by the instinct of survival, even without any instigator of revolution such as the Green Book.

    * All societies nowadays look upon woman as no more than an article of merchandise. The East regards her as a commodity for buying and selling, while the West does not recognise her femininity. *

    Driving woman to do man's work is unjust aggression against the feminin ity with which she is naturally pro vided for a natural purpose essential to life. For man's work disguises the woman's beautiful features which are created for female roles. They are exactly like blossoms which are cre ated to attract pollen and to produce seeds. If we did away with the blos soms, the role of plants in life would come to an end. It is the natural embellishment in butterflies and birds as well as the rest of animal females which is created for that natural vital goal. If a woman carries out man's work, she will be transformed into a man abandoning her role and her beau ty. A woman has full rights to live without being forced to change into a man and to give up her femininity.

    The physical structure, which is naturally different between man and woman, leads to differences in the functions of their different organs which lead in turn to differences in the psyche, mood, nerves and physical appearance. A woman is tender. A woman is pretty. A woman weeps easi ly. A woman is easily frightened. In general woman is gentle and man is tough by virtue of their inbred nature. To ignore natural differences be tween man and woman and mix their roles is an absolutely uncivilized atti tude, hostile to the laws of nature, destructive to human life, and a genuine cause for the wretchedness of human social life.

    Modern industrial societies, which have made woman adapt to the same physical work as man at the expense of her femininity and her natural role in terms of beauty, maternity and peace of mind those societies are uncivil ized. They are materialistic, uncivil ized societies. It is as stupid as it is dangerous to civilization and humanity to copy them.

    * The question, then, is not whether the woman works or does not work. For it is a ridiculous materialistic presentation. Work should be provided by the society to all able members men and women who need work, but on condition that each individual should work in the field that suits him, and not be forced to carry out unsuitable work.

    For the children to find themselves under adult working conditions is in justice and dictatorship. Equally it is injustice and dictatorship for woman to find herself under the working condi tions of man. *

    Freedom means that every human being gets that education which qual ifies him for work which is appropriate to him. Dictatorship means that a human being learns what is not suit able for him. That leads him to work which is not suitable for him. Work which is appropriate to man is not always appropriate to woman, and the knowledge that is proper for the child is not suitable for the adult.

    There is no difference in human rights between man and woman, the child and the adult. But there is no absolute equality between them as re gards their duties.

    What is a minority? What are its pros and cons? How can the problem of minorities be solved in accordance with the solution presented by the Third Universal Theory to various human problems?

    There are only two types of minor ities. One of them belongs to a nation which provides it with a social frame work, while the other has no nation and forms its own social framework. The latter is the one that forms one of the historic accumulations which even tually constitute a nation by virtue of a sense of belonging and a common destiny.

    It is clear now that such a minority has its own social rights. Any encroachment on these rights by any majority is an act of injustice. The social characteristic is personal and is not to be given or taken away. Its political and economic problems can only be solved by the masses in whose hands power, wealth and arms should be placed. Viewing the minority as a political and economic minority is dictatorship and injustice.

    The blacks will prevail in the world. The latest age of slavery is the white race's enslavement of the black race. The black man will not forget this until he has achieved rehabilitation. This tragic and historic event, the resulting bitter feeling, and the search for satisfaction derived from rehabili tating a whole race, constitute a psychological motivation in the move ment of the black race to vengeance and domination, which cannot be disre garded.
    Added to that is the inevitabil ity of the social historical cycles in cluding the yellow race' s domination of the world when it marched from Asia against the rest of the continents. Then came the role of the white race, when it carried out a wideranging colonialist movement covering all the continents of the world. Now comes the black race's turn to prevail.

    The black race is now in a very backward social situation. But such backwardness helps to bring about numerical superiority of the blacks because their low standard of living has protected them from getting to know the means and ways of birth control and family planning. Also their backward social traditions are a reason why there is no limit to mar riage, leading to their unlimited growth, while the population of other races has decreased because of birth control, restrictions on marriage and continuous occupation in work, unlike the blacks who are sluggish in a climate which is always hot.

    Education, or learning, is not neces sarily that methodized curriculum and those classified subjects in text books which youth are forced to learn during specified hours while sitting on rows of desks. This type of education, now prevailing all over the world, is against human freedom. Compulsory educa tion, of which countries of the world boast whenever they are able to force it on their youth, is one of the methods which suppresses freedom.
    It is a com pulsory obliteration of a human being's talents as well as a forcible direction of a human being's choices. It is an act of dictatorship damaging to freedom be cause it deprives man of free choice, creativity and brilliance. To force a human being to learn according to a set curriculum is a dictatorial act. To impose certain subjects upon people is a dictatorial act.

    Compulsory and methodized educa tion is in fact a forced stultification of the masses. All countries which set courses of education in terms of formal curricula and force pupils to learn them, coerce their citizens. All methods of education prevailing in the world should be done away with through a worldwide cultural revolu tion to emancipate man's mind from curricula of fanaticism and from the process of deliberate adaptation of man's taste, his ability to form con cepts and his mentality.

    This does not mean that schools are to be closed and that people should turn their backs on education, as it may seem to superficial readers. On the contrary, it means that society should provide all types of education, giving people the chance to choose freely any subjects they wish to learn. This re quires a sufficient number of schools for all types of education.
    Insufficient schools restrict man's freedom of choice forcing him to learn the sub jects available, while depriving him of natural right of choice because of the lack of availability of other subjects. Societies which ban and monopolize knowledge are reactionary societies biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Thus societies which pro hibit the teaching of religion as it actually is, are reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Societies which monopol ize religious education are reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Equally reac tionary and biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom are the societies which distort the religions, civiliza tions and behaviour of others in the process of teaching those subjects.

    Societies which consider materialistic knowledge as taboo are reactionary societies biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Knowledge is a natural right of every human being which nobody has the right to deprive him of under any pretext except in a case where a person himself does something which deprives him of that right.

    Ignorance will come to an end when everything is presented as it actually is and when knowledge about everything is available to each person in the manner that suits him.

    Man is still backward because he is unable to speak one common language. Until he attains this human aspiration, which seems impossible, the express ion of joy and sorrow, what is good and bad, beauty and ugliness, comfort and misery, mortality and eternity, love and hatred, the description of colours, sentiments, tastes and moods all will be according to the language each people speaks automatically. Be haviour itself will remain based on the reaction produced by the feeling the language creates in the speaker's mind.

    Learning one language, whatever it may be, is not the solution for the time being. It is a problem that will inevit ably remain without solution until the process of the unification of languages has passed through various genera tions and epochs, provided that the hereditary factor comes to an end in those generations through the passage of enough time.
    For the sentiment, taste and mood of the forefathers and fathers form those of sons and grand sons. If those forefathers spoke various languages and the grandsons speak one language, the grandsons will not necessarily share a common taste by virtue of speaking one language. Such a common taste can only be achieved when the new language imparts the taste and the sense which are transmit ted by inheritance from one generation to another.

    If a group of people wear white clothes in mourning and another group put on black ones, the sentiment of each group will be adjusted according to these two colours, i.e. one group hates the black colour while the other one likes it, and vice versa. Such a sentiment leaves its physical effect on the cells as well as on the genes in the body.
    This adaptation will be transmit ted by inheritance. The inheritor auto matically hates the colour hated by the legator as a result of inheriting the sentiment of his legator. Consequently, people are only harmonious with their own arts and heritages. They are not harmonious with the arts of others because of heredity, even though those people, who differ in heritage, speak one common language.
    Such a difference emerges between the groups of one people even if it is on a small scale.

    To learn one language is not a prob lem and to understand others' arts as a result of learning their language is also not a problem. The problem is the impossibility of a real intuitional adap tation to the language of others.

    This will remain impossible until the effect of heredity, which is transmitted in the human body, comes to an end. Mankind is really still backward be cause man does not speak with his brother one common language which is inherited and not learned. However, it is only a matter of time for mankind to achieve that goal unless civilization should relapse.

    Sport is either private, like the prayer which man performs alone by himself even inside a closed room, or public, practised collectively in open places, like the prayer which is prac tised collectively in places of worship. The first type of sport concerns the individual himself, while the second type is of concern to all people. It must be practised by all people and should not be left to anybody to practise on their behalf. It is unreasonable for crowds to enter places of worship just to view a person or a group of people praying without taking part. It is equally unreasonable for crowds to enter playgrounds and arenas to watch a player or a team without participat ing themselves.

    Sport is like praying, eating, and the feeling of warmth and coolness. It is stupid for crowds to enter a restaurant just to look at a person or a group of persons eating; it is stupid for people to let a person or a group of persons get warmed or enjoy ventilation on their behalf. It is equally illogical for the society to allow an individual or a team to monopolize sports while the people as a whole pay the costs of such a monopoly for the benefit of one person or a team. In the same way people should not democratically allow an individual or a group, whether party, class, sect, tribe or parliament, to replace them in deciding their destiny and in defining their needs.

    Private sport is of concern only to those who practise it on their own and at their own expense. Public sport is a public need and the people should not be represented in its practice either physically or democratically. Physic ally, the representative cannot trans mit to others how his body and morale benefited from sport. Democratically, no individual or team has the right to monopolize sport, power, wealth or arms for themselves. Sporting clubs are the basic organizational means of traditional sport in the world today. They get hold of all expenditures and public facilities allocated to sport in every state.
    These institutions are only social monopolistic instruments like all dictatorial political instruments which monopolize authority, economic instruments which monopolize wealth, and traditional military instruments which monopolize arms. As the era of the masses does away with the instru ments monopolizing power, wealth and arms, it will, inevitably, destroy the monopoly of social activity such as sports, horsemanship and so forth. The masses who queue to vote for a candi date to represent them in deciding their destiny act on the impossible assumption that he will represent them and embody, on their behalf, their dignity, sovereignty and point of view.

    However those masses, who are rob bed of their will and dignity, are re duced to mere spectators, watching another person performing what they should, naturally, be doing them selves.
    The same holds true of the crowds which fail to practise sport by them selves and for themselves because of their ignorance. They are fooled by monopolistic instruments which en deavour to stupefy them and divert them to indulging in laughter and ap plause instead. Sport, as a social activ ity, must be for the masses, just as power, wealth and arms should be in the hands of the people.

    Public sport is for all the masses. It is a right of all the people for its health and recreational benefits. It is mere stupidity to leave its benefits to certain individuals and teams who monopolize them while the masses provide the facilities and pay the expenses for the establishment of public sports. The thousands who crowd stadiums to view, applaud and laugh are those foolish people who have failed to carry out the activity themselves. They line up on the shelves of the sports grounds, practising lethargy, and applauding those heroes who wrest from them the initiative, dominate the field and con trol the sport, exploiting the facilities the masses provide. Originally, the public grandstands were designed to demarcate the masses from the play ing fields and grounds, i.e. to prevent the masses from having access to the playing fields. When the masses march and play sport in the centre of the playing fields and the open spaces, stadiums will be vacated and des troyed. That will take place when the masses become aware of the fact that sport is a public activity which must be practised rather than watched. The opposite, which would be a helpless apathetic minority that watch, would be more reasonable.

    The grandstand will disappear when no one is there to occupy it. Those who are unable to perform the roles of heroism in life, who are ignorant of the events of history, who fall short of envisaging the future and who are not serious enough in their lives, are the trivial persons who fill the seats of the theatres and cinemas to watch the events of life and to learn their course. They are like pupils who occupy school desks because they are not only unedu cated but also illiterate.

    Those who direct the course of life for themselves do not need to watch it working through actors on the stage or in the cinemas. Likewise, horsemen who hold the reins of their horses have no seat in the grandstands at the race course. If every person has a horse, no one will be there to watch and applaud.

    The sitting spectators are only those who are too helpless to perform this kind of activity because they are not horsemen.

    Equally, the bedouin peoples show no interest in theatres and shows be cause they are very serious and hard working. As they have created a se rious life, they ridicule acting. Bedouin societies also do not watch performers, but perform games and take part in joyful ceremonies because they natu rally recognize the need for these acti vities and practise them automatic ally.

    Different types of boxing and wrest ling are evidence that mankind has not got rid of all savage behaviour. Inevit ably they will come to an end when man ascends the ladder of civilization. Human sacrifice and pistol duels were familiar practices in different stages of human evolution. However, those savage practices came to an end years ago. Man now laughs at himself and regrets such acts. That will be the fate of boxing and wrestling after tens or hundreds of years. However, the more the people are civilized and sophisti cated, the more they are able to ward off both the performance and the en couragement of these practices.

    (download .PDF)
  2. Adharusi

    Adharusi JF-Expert Member

    Jan 30, 2012
    Joined: Jan 22, 2012
    Messages: 7,768
    Likes Received: 858
    Trophy Points: 280
    Kitabu kizuri sana,nitakipata wapi hapa Tanzania,Green book
  3. IGWE

    IGWE JF-Expert Member

    Jan 30, 2012
    Joined: Feb 3, 2011
    Messages: 7,444
    Likes Received: 712
    Trophy Points: 280
    yap_ingekuwa vema kama wangetafsiri kwa lugha yetu lakn.......
  4. doctorz

    doctorz JF-Expert Member

    Jan 30, 2012
    Joined: Aug 10, 2010
    Messages: 907
    Likes Received: 1
    Trophy Points: 35
    Laiti kama tunge chaguwa vijiji kadhaa nchini TZ ajili ya kufanyia majaribio, ndiyo hasa tungejuwa kwamba The Third Universl Theory ni muamala mzuri sana wa siasa ajili ya maendeleo ya watu wooote. Nchi kama Oman wame adopt hii na sasa maendeleo yanaonekena. Kila mwananchi ana mahala pazuri pa kuishi, elimu na afya nzuri bure. Kila asiye na kazi anapata mshahara kadri ya elimu yake hadi apatapo kazi. Hamna awezae kufanya ufisadi. Anayekamatwa atapata adhabu kali kwa mujibu wa kosa. Tujiulize: TZ itawezekana?
  5. newmzalendo

    newmzalendo JF-Expert Member

    Jan 30, 2012
    Joined: Mar 23, 2009
    Messages: 1,341
    Likes Received: 25
    Trophy Points: 145
    Kwa uongozi legelege ,TZ kuwa hivi ni sawa Na ndoto za mchana baada ya shibe ya maharagwe na ndezi.
  6. m

    mob JF-Expert Member

    Jan 30, 2012
    Joined: Dec 4, 2009
    Messages: 1,646
    Likes Received: 139
    Trophy Points: 160
    wazee huyu jamaa amekufa ila alifanya jambo la muhimu sana ukisoma tu iyo document utachoka every thin in the documment is valid
  7. Bigirita

    Bigirita JF-Expert Member

    Jan 30, 2012
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Messages: 13,570
    Likes Received: 326
    Trophy Points: 180
    huyu jamaa huyu!!!!..........akili yake ilikuwa mbele sana huyu!!!
    tatizo ulafi nao sio mzuri......at some point in time, you need to be able to nurture future leaders. Badala yake, yeye alikuwa anataka ndio awe future leader wakati alikuwa the current leader.
  8. P

    Phillemon Mikael JF Gold Member

    Jan 30, 2012
    Joined: Nov 5, 2006
    Messages: 7,591
    Likes Received: 809
    Trophy Points: 280

    I have my own green book Swahili version ..I have misplaced it...,it is such a nice book......,most of Libyans now want to go back to green
  9. Ngongo

    Ngongo JF-Expert Member

    Jan 30, 2012
    Joined: Sep 20, 2008
    Messages: 11,544
    Likes Received: 2,625
    Trophy Points: 280
    Mkuu PM,

    Walibya wamechelewa sana tayari wameshakabidhi mafuta yao America na Ulaya.itawachukua miaka 100 kujitoa.

  10. Somoche

    Somoche JF-Expert Member

    Jan 30, 2012
    Joined: Oct 6, 2010
    Messages: 3,124
    Likes Received: 274
    Trophy Points: 180
    R.I.P KAMANDA wewe ni SIMBA
  11. P

    Phillemon Mikael JF Gold Member

    Jan 30, 2012
    Joined: Nov 5, 2006
    Messages: 7,591
    Likes Received: 809
    Trophy Points: 280

    Raia tayari wameanza kujichululia sheria mkononi,juzi wamefanya jaribio la kumuuwA mwenyekiti Jalil baada ya kundi la waandamanaji 2'000 kuvamia makao Makuu ya NTC....ilikuwa wamuuwe....kabla Yake wanafunzi wa chuo kikuu walimfukuza kwa mawe makamu wake na akaamua kujiuzulu....

    Mafuta lita million moja zinauzwa kila siku ...lakini wananchi Hawaoni faida.....wanajutaa,......

    Katika Hali ya tahadhari marekani imesogeza askari 12'000 Malta....kujiandaa kwa lolote baada ya wananchi kuanza kupinga utawala mpya na wakitaka mfumo wa Green wa GHadafi urudi...........kwenye mji wa Abu walid ,.mtawala wa NTC amefurushwa na wananchi .....na NTC bado wameshidwa kwenda kumrudisha mamlakani ....huku bendera ya green .. Ikipeperushwa.....sana sana NTC wamefunga barabara ya kuunganisha Misrata na mji huo kuepuka uasi kusambaa.....
  12. Saharavoice

    Saharavoice JF-Expert Member

    Jan 31, 2012
    Joined: Aug 30, 2007
    Messages: 2,534
    Likes Received: 19
    Trophy Points: 135
    Kwa kawaida sisi binadamu ni wa ajabu sana, mpaka leo bado najiuliza Walibya walikuwa wanataka nini hasa hata kufikia kumuua Gadaffi, Laiti kama wangejua Watanzania na nchi zingine maskini tunaziota sana hizo huduma walikuwa wanazipata chini ya Gadaffi, wasingethubutu hata chembe kumtoa Gadaffi pale. alikuwa Mzee wa kutosha kujifia peke yake bila ya kuguswa.
  13. Cynic

    Cynic JF-Expert Member

    Jan 31, 2012
    Joined: Jan 5, 2009
    Messages: 5,156
    Likes Received: 608
    Trophy Points: 280
    Madikteta na magaidi (mfano: Ghadafi, Hamas, CCM, etc.) wanapenda rangi ya kijani.. kwa nini?
  14. N

    Nonda JF-Expert Member

    Jan 31, 2012
    Joined: Nov 30, 2010
    Messages: 11,508
    Likes Received: 998
    Trophy Points: 280
    Hivi ni kweli kuna chama Tanzania ambacho wanatumia bendera ya Kijani?
  15. IGWE

    IGWE JF-Expert Member

    Jan 31, 2012
    Joined: Feb 3, 2011
    Messages: 7,444
    Likes Received: 712
    Trophy Points: 280
    Yeah_r.i.p my fallen hero.
  16. Mzuvendi

    Mzuvendi JF-Expert Member

    Jan 31, 2012
    Joined: Apr 28, 2009
    Messages: 412
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 0
    He writes "The natural person has freedom to express himself even if, when he is mad, he behaves irrationally to express his madness."

    So Gaddafi knew that people are free to express themselves. Yet he never let his own people to exercise this natural right.
  17. Mzuvendi

    Mzuvendi JF-Expert Member

    Jan 31, 2012
    Joined: Apr 28, 2009
    Messages: 412
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 0
    I won't lose a bet underestimating your ignorance.
  18. P

    Petu Hapa JF-Expert Member

    Jan 31, 2012
    Joined: Jan 2, 2008
    Messages: 714
    Likes Received: 3
    Trophy Points: 0
    Green book is quite interesting an ideological piece which I have never came across before - but as for now it make me understand Gaddafi a little bit more. As, i red it nation of classes, political elites and economy reminds me of basic principles discussed in the communist manifesto by Max and the red book by Mao. His position toward western democracy is aparrent - laying fundamental critique of majority rule, but the most critical position is the argument that leadership must master politics as well as countries economic an emphasis of which Karl Marx make on the relationship between superstructure and economic base. This is a position of which, I do agree that state have responsibility and role to play on its citizens - on area of education, health, and economy of the country. I would not go as far as to make responsible in handling productions - rather even the so called investor foreign or local - should work for the interest of the given nation. For this matter, protective ideology grounded with umbrella of assumed socialims, could be misused.

    I am not sure how, this ideology worked in practise at the same time wondering this book was written in 1975 - was there changes made in betwee?

    Just curious in libya, if I am reading right! people did not own land at individuals basis - how did they system of investment worked?
  19. Adharusi

    Adharusi JF-Expert Member

    Sep 21, 2013
    Joined: Jan 22, 2012
    Messages: 7,768
    Likes Received: 858
    Trophy Points: 280
    Bado nitaendelea kumuheshimu Ghadafi,ni bora niwe na utawala unaonipa mahitaji yote ya lazima kwa kutumia rasimali zetu,Elimu,afya,maji,nishati,miundombinu,ajira,na maendeleo,na kuninyima Kukosoa,kuliko kuwa na utawala unaonipa Uhuru wa kukosoa lakini nikikosoa hawabadiliki,wananinyima maji safi,nishati,miondominu,Elimu bora,afya,na umaskini uliokithiri na kufanya uchaguzi wa kidemokrasia Laghai!!!!!!!!
    #Ex Africa Simper aliquid novi#
  20. MaxShimba

    MaxShimba JF-Expert Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    Joined: Apr 11, 2008
    Messages: 35,808
    Likes Received: 94
    Trophy Points: 145
    Where is Muamar Ghadafi?:heh: