The Great Libertarian Speech

He stood there, lean and strong, walking with a spring in his step as if he was a professional dancer. This was it for him, it was 2028, and at 55 he had spent most of his adult life in the pursuit of liberty and freedom for all. He had joined the libertarian movement at 17 when he started university, studying engineering, aerospace engineering to be exact. He enjoyed a great career with General Engineering, a consulting firm. At 38 he was chosen by his state to represent them at the capital, after all he lived in a democracy, a country that voted who should represent them. Today at 55 he was in the primaries to be a presidential candidate. The conference center he was in had a capacity of 3 000 people, it was packed to the seams with many others waiting outside the doors listening on headphones, the turnout was unexpected.

He began to talk, the expectations where high, one could feel the expectations in the air. There was silence, the expectations had created great tension, the silence was thick, the silence signaled the hopes of those who had come to listen, the silence represented hope, hope of great words, hope of inspirations to come. “What can I say,” began the campaign of the day, “what can I say about anything, today is a great moment. I sense the expectations from you, am I going to let you down, or am I like those great who came before me and will speak the truth against known and massive adversity. What should I say, what can I say?

Should I get into debate about current policy, should I let them control the debate. Should I talk about how I will act according to policies that they have begun, putting a mockery to democracy because the debate has already been controlled, I will do this, I will do that. What am I expected to say, because the debate is we are not in control of the debate. I am supposed to talk about the economy. How am I as a president going to manage the economy? Manage the economy to ensure growth and prosperity. I will inherit all these institutions that will want to advise me on what economic policies I should take. They will come with a whole lot of data and tell me best policy would be to take this route, maybe this one, maybe that one. A whole load of data telling me how best for me to control you. Should I control you this way, should I control you that way, the debate is already staged. The networks have the questions, they pose them to me and I must answer them. I must answer them what is the best way to control you, to affect your destiny. I don’t know if I should answer that question now, I don’t feel it is right for me to answer that question today, today is a day of us taking control of the debate.

How will I react to the phone call at 3 in the morning about some foreign problem. Well first of, I hope I am not woken up at 3 in the morning because I will not be bothering some people somewhere, why should I bother them, for who to gain. Then they will tell me I am not being real, I should expect trouble, what am I going to do. I don’t want expensive trouble, I get out, because that money is your money, I don’t want to waste your money. Another loaded question if you think about it, what am I going to do at 3 in the morning because of some trouble involving us somewhere around this world.

The debate is controlled, they ask me what am I going to do about this and that, what policies shall I implement.

I am not going to control you, many policy analysts will have to find real jobs producing goods and services. I am not going to look at their statistics very much, my first bill will be too give you freedom and myself and government less power over you. They will scream nonsense, a government is supposed to govern, tell you I am a joker, they will say I am not serious about governing this great nation of ours. Govern who shall be my reply. Govern my equals, I represent my equals I do not govern them. I get out of the way of my equals. They will say you need governance, good governance to make it sound nice and pretty. We need good governance. A good way to make you do this and that, hmmm.  A good way to tell you that you can’t do this and that, it all makes me sick. I want you to have what is rightfully yours.

My first bill, you have a right to be what you desire if you have the capacity. As long as any citizen is allowed to do an activity to earn a living, no law will stop you from being allowed to undertake that activity because you are both equal in the eyes of the law. None is more equal than the other. I want you to have what always should have been yours. The people must build the society in their image, not in the image of government. You must build the society in your image, the common image can only be built by free interactions amongst us all. Free interaction, your right to choose who you interact with, and that is completely tied to the notion that you can do any activity that another does with their property, use your property as you see fit, don’t harm others, that is a given, we are a civilized society.

Money bags has a bank. The law does not say he is better than you, go ahead, go and work for him, show him your qualifications, go work for them. You really want to be a banker, you believe you have what it takes. Put in your application, hopefully he will give you a job. But this is society, what if they all say your don’t fit with the profile of their ideal employee, what then? Go and start your own bank, you good be better than money bags, he has been protected from competition, go ahead, start your own bank, you sure as hell could prove more capable than money bags, society will benefit. You are equal, he is not more of a citizen than you, that is why these big corporate types don’t send any campaign contributions to me. I refuse to accept they are or should be more equal than you.

You want to import something, import it, from whomever you want to import it from, from any country. Who am I to tell you what you can and can’t do with your money? You earned it, do what you like with it. I mean it, do what you like with your money. I will return to you what should have been yours all along, your freedom.

I am serious, you are here because you believe that you deserve to be equal citizens, that no citizen should have greater rights than you, otherwise voting is just a gimmick. Let us not make voting a gimmick, let us make it real. See these people they like to govern, a need to tell others what to do, always promising to do this and that for you. I make no promises about what I will do for you, how can I know your circumstances, how can I know your mind. Only a slave mind believes that others will do something for them, that master will provide. But we are not a nation of slaves, we are a nation of free people, equal people, equal in terms of the law. We are a people who believe in our rights to our property, to make profit from our property, and mature enough to realize it is possible to make loses in a venture.

You are not slaves, I don’t want to ever treat you like slaves, like experimental rats, it is statistically proven that a rat will take this route to the cheese. Well damn your statistics, we are talking about human beings, we are talking about our equals, we are not rats, we don’t accept to be their underclass.Think of the message of Ron Paul, he did a man's job in spreading the message.

Your property is private, its your property. I have no right to know what you have, how much you have, it is your property. Unless you have committed some crime, a proven crime, nobody has any right to know how much you have, how little you have. If you want to tell the world how much you have is good, if you believe discretion is better part of valor, we don’t need to know how much you are worth. It’s a free society. You do not have to declare how many shares you own in a company, you vote like any other shareholder. If other shareholders do not like you or style of management, then sell, do your so called duties as a citizen and all will be fine. We don’t need to know how much you own, that is your business, and we should stay out of your business.

My stand is to give you your rights, to make all equal before the law, a truly mature society. A mature society has got rid of mentality that others should be lower than them, should have less rights, I don’t believe in that.

He has a right to own a casino, go ahead, go and work for him, if he says you are not the right fit, go to your basement and start your own thing, go get a deck of cards, they have a right to open a casino, you are not less than them, the law allows them right to a casino, the law will allow you when I am president.

Listen to the thief’s, to those who will see themselves as our masters, already calling me a bringer of chaos, how can everybody be equal, there will be chaos, society needs aristocracy, those that are more equal so to say. Your right to open your own poker joint is seen as a crime just because I say everybody is equal because we are a mature society way above serfdom. But these would be masters that call us lunatics because we say everybody is equal say we are the immature, the unrealistic, because to them for everybody to be just citizens is insanity. They need to make themselves better, and you are a good candidate, a realistic candidate if you promise that. I am realistic if I agree the majority should be legal serfs, to serve them. I do not agree with that. I can never agree with that because when I talk to you, as I stand here telling you my views, I see human beings, we are all human beings and our society must reflect that. Our society must reflect that in the laws that we have, we are a beacon to the world, that here reside a free people. We all deserve to be a free people. To them, a free people means chaos.

They don’t understand what competition means. They talk of competition, they don’t even understand what it means. You make swords and you sell swords, you could be the only sword maker in town, but so what? If another feels they can also make swords a law should not be there to hinder them if they so desire. They could prove to be better sword makers, society gains. If there is only room for one sword maker, then the one who is of no good should not be protected, they can either leave sword making or ask for a job and get a chance to learn from the better sword maker. 

Monopoly you scream, there is only one sword maker who will charge exorbitant prizes. True, we all know the power of a monopoly. If the prizes are so exorbitant import swords, if not possible somebody will find a way to make a more efficient weapon than a sword, that is how society progresses. These controllers of fiat money refuse to understand that, the money authorities must print money for them to survive, because they believe they are better than us, that they deserve more rights than us.

They scream all day that we are beyond fossil fuels, but they caused this situation. A century ago they broke up the monopoly oil company, said there must be competition. Well there was competition, no incentive to find an alternative. The monopoly oil company was better organized than its competitors, that is how it got its monopoly status. So what, humans will find a way if the monopolist over charges. Now we are stuck with fossil fuels, whose fault is that, the same people who broke up the monopoly ensuring no incentive to search for better fuels are now complaining, they don’t care about cause and effect, they care about their emotions now,  they have their statistics to lie for them and say this is the road society should take.

All I want to do is give you your freedom, return our rights to us. The right to pursue our happiness, the right to allow society to progress in the manner that the majority see fit through the process of the market. I don’t want to control society, I want society to control itself, and how does that make me less pragmatic, how is it evil to say we are all just human beings and all have a right to contribute to the society that they live in, all have a right to be the best they can be, how on earth does that make us evil, to say human beings must have a choice. The evil ones are the ones that want to tell us what to do, do this, do that, you can’t do that, only they can do that, society should not be a hoax on us, we deserve to be free.

Human beings need to mature, we need to mature, they will always tell us we need to be governed for their benefit of course, I say we are the same, no more slavery, no more serfs, we are all just human. Man like Hayek warned you about how they always want to bring back serfdom, so that we serve them, even if we have better knowledge than them.”

He walked to take a glass of water, his passion had risen beyond limits, shown in his rising voice when it came to what he considered crucial points. The crowd was not disappointed, the continued silence showed they were paying attention to every word.

“Your right to be, only the most mature society can understand that. What is less government. It is a government out of your way. It is a non elitist government, a government for the people by the people treats all as equal citizens in every sense. By giving you your rights, by us taking our rights back, less government is needed to make sure we are breaking less laws, breaking less regulations. The more you are allowed to do, the smaller the government will be as they need to monitor society less....." feel in the rest yourself, what greater points could he mention.

Bhekuzulu Khumalo

When Will Africa Get it, Short Term Ideology of Hailemariam Desalegn

When the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) Marched on Addis Ababa in 1991, one expected something new, after all the EPRDF had just overthrown one the worst dictators in Africa post world war two since Ethiopia was never colonized, that of the Derg under the leadership of Mengistu. The ideology of the Derg was in truth to maintain power, but like the Ethiopia of Emperor Haile Selassie, the Derg continued to support the ideology of black freedom on the continent of Africa, but that little good does not override the misery it caused in Ethiopia, that is why Mengistu was able to run to another dictator after he was toppled, that dictator being Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe who has just won “resounding” support in an election voted for by the same people he beat up in 2008 when they did not vote for him.

When the EPRDF won Ethiopia a lot of the black peoples yearning for freedom around the continent thought surely after Mengistu something new would be presented to the African continent true freedom, not just another group that has won power and aims to keep that power to itself instead of giving people freedom. But to be fair to the EPRDF it did introduce democracy in Ethiopia, but is that a reason to hold onto power. The act of introducing democracy is itself heroic and puts them into history books. 1991 I remember just having finished high school talking with friends that dictators can be toppled, the only maintenance on power is their monopoly off weapons, once that is nullified they go running. We were proud of the EPRDF.

In recent years the economy of Ethiopia has grown at an amazing rate, but is their model sustainable in the very long run, 100 why not 150 years from today. Hailemariam Desalegn insists that he will continue with the economic policies set up by his predecessor Meles Zenawi, tight control of banking sector, tight control of telecommunications sector and tight control of retail sector. These are crucial sectors and reading an article by Katrina Manson on 27 May for the financial times, Hailemariam Desalegn admitted that the telecoms sector is a cash cow, and he suggested why liberalize the sector when the money can flow to the government. As a man who believes in freedom such a statement was shocking, so what happens when the Telecoms sector is no longer a cash cow.

In terms of Africa, Ethiopia is a very important country, it has 85 million people and a very diverse population in terms of language and culture. If the country could get its ideology into an acceptable order, understanding what creates, Ethiopia would be a beacon of hope for Africa as it was during the colonial period. The EPRDF already acknowledges that Ethiopia is not as well endowed with natural resources like say the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, South Africa, or Ghana, but Ethiopia has one thing in abundance people. People have minds, and the mind is the most important resource, of what use is coal if the mind does not know how to use that coal.

Ethiopia has to unleash the most important resource, the minds of the people, that is all it really has. That can only be done by making people equal in the eyes of the law. What one person can do all other people can do. If one person can have a bank, all others can start a bank as they are equal before the law. If the state can own a bank all others can own a bank, because they are equal in the eyes of the law. If the government of Ethiopia can own a telecoms company, then any other Ethiopian with the means, vision and drive should be allowed to own a telecommunications company as they are equal to the state in the eyes of the law, that unfortunately to all who claim to give freedom is what freedom is, anything less will never be freedom, anything less is a feudal mind.

When Hailemariam Desalegn says he does not want to adopt the “western liberal” model, he does not understand that this model is based on inequality, on the concept that others are allowed and others are not, it does not matter the spin that is put on it, it is not a model of freedom. Thousands of people run from horrid conditions around the world to the west because of the propaganda that the west is freedom only to find by law they are denied freedoms and must do menial jobs, their life being their only reward. One is not free to be in the west as people are not equal under the law, try and start a bank in Canada or Europe, one would think it is easy with all the propaganda they hear about freedom, but it is illegal, you will end up in jail if you try to compete with the established banks or telecommunication companies. There is nobody in the IMF or world bank who wants to see equality before the law as a model, because there is no equality before the law in Europe, Canada, Japan, or USA, that is a simple fact. Therefore, nobody is asking Prime Minister Desalegn to follow or accept advise from Western Institutions.

What freedom loving Africans expected from the EPRDF in 1991 was the introduction of real freedoms. Africa to truly catch up in economic terms needs to be the most free continent in the world. Every Ethiopian has to be equal under the law, what one Ethiopian can do so can another, it is 2013, this will allow the creative forces in the minds of Africans to be released, there is no other way, everything is connected, the cash from the cash cows should be competed for to see who is best service provider. As long as there is no competition that sector will always wait for innovations from outside before it moves ahead, with competition, Ethiopians will become innovative as they try to improve their services and products, not always waiting for innovation from outside.

Everything is interconnected when it comes to economics, banking, telecoms, farming, they all follow the same philosophy, you can’t free the heart and regulate the liver. You can’t regulate the lungs and free the legs, for the body to operate optimally everything has to be free. By introducing concept of equality before the law, in 150 years time Ethiopians will thank the EPRDF, indeed most of Africa would probably thank the EPRDF. It would be nice to see the next generation of holograms invented in Ethiopia, or Africa in general, that can only be done by freeing up the economy right now.

What you have just read is different from the advise African countries get officially from the West, for example the Western advisor will approach an African country and say privatize your telecommunications sector sell it to a western corporation as the private sector runs things better than government, and they will show a lot of statistics to prove their point. Then they will demand that the monopoly remains, that is hardly freedom, that is the so called “western liberal model”, a far concept from freedom. Western people who could give good advise don’t go near the IMF and World Bank, they are known as Libertarians, people who follow the methodology founded by Carl Menger.

Equality before the law, that is what Ethiopia and Africa need, too far behind in economic terms to ignore the human potential of each individual. Everybody must be free to do, no feudal mentality. The law must have no hierarchy.

Bhekuzulu Khumalo

Twitter: @bhekukhumalo

What is a Constitution Worth? Meaning of Snowden's Revalations

This article is inspired by a talk heard given at a meet up of a group of people who believe in liberty and the rights of individuals, I will not mention the speakers name .

 A lot has been made about constitutions, but are they really cut up to be what they are. Constitutions are written by those that found states, they are meant to be a guideline and in most cases are wonderful documents if people ever follow them as they are supposed to be.

 Edward Snowden has brought some concerns about constitutions on a world wide scale. Edward Snowden revealed that the USA is spying on the whole world including and especially its own citizens, Edward Snowden says he was compelled to reveal to American citizens and the world how the American government was betraying the constitution of these United States of America, the constitution considered the soul of America by many who are and those who claim to be freedom lovers. But what is a constitution really worth considering there are some human beings who are compelled to control other human beings in all societies. Constitutions were of course designed to limit these power hungry people, usually having no talent except the talent of backbiting, and hence need the power of the state and custom to hide their weaknesses.

The constitution of the USSR is a great document and inspired the whistle-blower laws in America and elsewhere, laws that should have protected Mr. Snowden. Article 58 of the constitution of the USSR read as follows, “Citizens of the USSR have the right to lodge a complaint against the actions of officials, state bodies and public bodies. Complaints shall be examined according to the procedure and within the time-limit established by law. Actions by officials that contravene the law or exceed their powers, and infringe the rights of citizens, may be appealed against in a court in the manner prescribed by law. Citizens of the USSR have the right to compensation for damage resulting from unlawful actions by state organizations and public organizations, or by officials in the performance of their duties.” Now was this law ever applied in the USSR, lodging such a complaint one truly would have put themselves in grave danger, just as Mr Snowden has put himself in great danger in the USA for telling the world that their rights are being infringed upon.

Been written at a later time than the constitution of the USA, the constitution of the USSR included Article 56, it read as follows, “The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law.” Now we all know everybody in the USSR was scared to say things against the state on the telephone or by telegraph, that would have just been suicide, and we all know it. The constitution of the USSR as constitutions come probably had the best wording, gave the greatest rights, but we all know that the words where empty because nobody cared about them especially the communist elite, they broke all the rules in the constitution to keep the general public in tow, and keep each other in tow.

 Take a look at section 8 of the Canadian Charter, it is inspired by the fourth amendment of the USA Bill of Rights. The Canadian charter states “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” This is supposed to be a guarantee of privacy, you cannot just search anybody without a reasonable reason. Listening to a phone conversation is an illegal search. You are searching for who I speak with, and what I say to them. Looking through somebody’s email is definitely a search, you are seeking something. I am not a legal mind, but I do have tools and resources available to me like a dictionary. I can look up in the dictionary the definition of search.

Dictionary.com defines search as: 1. to go or look through (a place, area, etc.) carefully in order to find something missing or lost: They searched the woods for the missing child. I searched the desk for the letter. 2. to look at or examine (a person, object, etc.) carefully in order to find something concealed: He searched the vase for signs of a crack. The police searched the suspect for weapons. 3. to explore or examine in order to discover: They searched the hills for gold. 4. to look at, read, or examine (a record, writing, collection, repository, etc.) for information: to search a property title; He searched the courthouse for a record of the deed to the land. 5. to look at or beneath the superficial aspects of to discover a motive, reaction, feeling, basic truth, etc.: He searched her face for a clue to her true feelings.

Clearly one can see from the definitions that going through peoples mail, be it paper or electronic encompasses a search.

One can make it legal by getting a warrant, but it definitely constitutes a search. Edward Snowden is from the USA, let us look at the 4th Amendment of the constitution of the USA, the fourth right in the bill of rights. It says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 This constitution of course is very old, so a fancy lawyer could argue that email is neither a house or paper. But an email is a personal effect sent from a personal email that theoretically only the owner knows the password. One sends an email as they feel safe against the email reaching unintended hands if they put the correct email address. Therefore to search my computer and my emails one needs a warrant, and they must have cause to get that warrant. Presumably this is understood by the government of the USA that is why they had judges sign the order, but the judges said no warrant is needed, logically if they are not breaking the constitution of the USA, that means they consider whatever it is that they signed a broad warrant covering every citizen of America, the question that then comes to mind is, is that a reasonable search. Can every citizen be held under reasonable suspicion for something that nobody knows about, what is being planned that every citizen must have their emails searched? I mean that is what comes to mind, what is being planned. A reasonable logical and rational person would ask, what is being planned. Whatever is being planned must be global, because the searches are global as long as a computer server is based in the USA.

 When one reads an article from vice.com, a survey showed 51% of the Americans do not mind that these intelligence branches can search their emails and listen to their phone calls without a warrant. This is how the last vestiges of freedom disappear, with who cares. Masterful stroke, you have to hand it over to the manipulators, they have pulled of a superb job. Few can counter them because they are united and have deep pockets to create all sorts of useless studies and put them to the public as science. Unless you are blind pattern is obvious.

In time anybody who says anything against them will be anti humanity, why not unsocial behavior? Again we must affirm the truth, an individual has the right to be, once the rights of an entire citizenry are robbed, there is no distinction made between criminal, innocent, guilty, reasonable, or unreasonable, it is the law. Nobody has a right to search anybodies emails.

Giving the bankers a trillion dollars and nobody demonstrated was a sign that the big move was coming, a world ruled by the untalented selling the world the lie that they are the most talented, it is in front of you, stop pretending to be blind. It is business as usual around the worlds major capitals, there can be no free market unless they are removed and individual rights restored, and equality before the law enshrined.

Snowden is a very brave men indeed, everybody has something to lose for saying the truth, it must be said. Those running the system don’t care of any fall-outs, in time you will forget, where is the Tea Party, where is the ghost army that made no demands but just sat as if warning of what could come, those who occupied wall street. What of Snowden’s revelations?

 Soon only knowledge from their fraternity will be considered “real”, to maintain the image of being smartest human beings, that is the end result. Your children will grow up believing, those are thinkers, far superior to me, total control of mind, great when done on somebody else, not so funny when it is done on you, it is already working, people say sure go ahead check up on me, I am not doing anything wrong.

 Bhekuzulu Khumalo

Fear of Knowledge Leads to Oppression

Truly Great thinkers throughout the ages have argued for freedom, for liberty, rather than justify a ruling class, or change the way an elite behaves, they have argued for freedom, limited governments, and free exchange of ideas and goods.

The movement in this direction began in the West with the economist/ philosophers Francois Quesnay and improved upon by Adam Smith. Their works were later fully established by Ludwig von Misses and Frederick Hayek. These economists all understood that it is the free interaction of people that allows society to progress. The free interaction of people does not just include the exchange of goods and services, but the exchange of ideas, scientific knowledge, and political speech.

Two millennia before Adam Smith and Quesnay, in China there was a philosopher known as Lao Tzu, probably the first human to postulate that governments should be as small as possible, a quote from his famous works Tao Te Ching, “it is always through not meddling that the empire is won.” The Chinese only learnt recently of the truth of these words and allowed economic freedom, and just like that there is a boom. To those who feel bothered that Lao Tzu was the first to stipulate small governments, this article is for you, because you dread knowledge, thereby fearing humanity and freedom.

Central to the concept of freedom is the concept of equality before the law. Equality before the law means everybody gets equal protection from the government. In an economic sense, this means that whatever A can do, given the same resource B can do it. If B cannot do it because of the law, that means B is not receiving equal protection from the law, the law is biased towards A. For there to be fair competition in an economic, even political sense, the law cannot protect one over the other, anything else is not equality before the law. The minute one understands this they will see how unequal the law is in almost every society in the world, why is A allowed to own a casino and not B if they are equal before the law. Where there is true justice, if B fails to get a casino license and there is a law stipulating equality before the law, B should win, think about it. Governments to go around the concept of equality before the law always state they are protecting people therefore some must be more equal than others.

Central to these philosophers of the past was smaller governments, why? Governments are run by human beings, these human beings have friends, have interests, the larger the government, the larger the interests, and more friends the government will have. It is natural to help a friend. Big governments will have more interests to protect. It is best the government is small and keeps out of the way of the people, the general citizenry who are not in government and have no government protection. Friends of the government will be treated more equally than those who have no connections in government.

Having laid down the basic concept of freedom, what is it we use to create goods and services. We use knowledge to create goods and services, all human progress has come through the actions of the human mind. Knowledge shapes our modes of life as well as mode of thinking. Space is vast, but we once thought above the clouds was the home of the gods. Motion is relative, time itself moves differently in different societies, faster in undeveloped countries, hence progress seems to be slow, and slower in developed countries, hence more work is done. More work done in terms of knowledge and creating goods and services. Hence there are taboos in less developed countries that have long been found to be nonsense in developed countries. The more taboos, the less knowledge will sink in as a culture because people will be afraid of seeking out knowledge that might contradict those taboos.

Being afraid of taboos rises to oppression, and a society must make sure there are laws protecting those taboos. Hence people like the 18th century philosopher Kant argued that religion should be a private affair, the taboos in religion will hinder the progress of a society. Those who fear taboos will have to oppress people who have different views solely in order to preserve their power, yet most scriptures themselves say people are given a choice, why force the choice upon them.

Talking of taboos we can see now how oppression comes about and why the laws will not have equality, fear of knowledge. This group that fears taboos are against what they would consider chaos developing in society, they strictly want to protect their positions. This class has changed from the religious/ aristocratic link to the academic/ business link. However both use the same argument, and both fear knowledge equally for the same reason. They are what can be considered conservatives broadly speaking in a contemporary sense.

The religious/ aristocratic link said all knowledge comes from them, they have been chosen by some higher being or beings to receive knowledge and control society, thereby justifying they having more rights than the serfs, slaves who they ruled. Europe went through much bloodbath for this class to protect itself, any view different from them was written into law as heresy. Scientists were oppressed for having different views that went against the religious doctrine, as the justification for their power was the religious doctrine. Europe stagnated for over a thousand years, the dark ages.

Today’s link is the academic/ business link, these are the modern conservatives. They use academics to justify there not being competition in society, there will be chaos if more competition, there will be chaos if there is no bailout, others are genetically pre dispossessed to have knowledge as compared to others, in this university 2 + 2 = 4 is better than 2 + 2 = 4 from that university. Therefore business, the modern aristocracy uses academics, the modern priests to justify there not being competition. The modern priests fear any truth from anybody they consider an outsider, any new discovery that comes from an outsider is frowned upon, and they try to hide it and block it by any means they can. They have to do this to preserve the mantra that knowledge can only come from them; hence one can only learn from them and be chosen by them to do things. They fear equality before the law because you will not need their permission to start a casino, they will no longer be able to claim we taught him/ her. Nobody can just start their own investment advisory, they want to say we taught him/ her. Incidentally, the academics act liberal but are very much conservative as they believe all source of knowledge comes from them, bestowed upon them by going to an institution that teaches the same knowledge but the bricks and mortar at those particular institutions has special vibrations.

The conservatives, those considering themselves on the right fear knowledge because if it can come from anybody then their elite positions in society are challenged, they fear knowledge because of their greed. They will never believe in equality before the law, they believe in bailouts for themselves as they have the special talents to make money in good times, something that anybody can do by just advising people to put their money in a Dow Jones Index fund or Shanghai Composite index. The conservatives just want to make money and justify that means by using the modern priests, who if agreeing with them, shower them with money. And business returns the favour by refusing to accept knowledge can come from anybody else besides their teachers, if it comes from somebody else you just take it without acknowledging it.

The left fears knowledge for completely different reasons, the modern academic is not part of this group, they protect their interests by acting conservative, that best knowledge stems from them. The left fears knowledge because they lack confidence in themselves. They do not believe if there was equality before the law they will have anything worthwhile to contribute to society. They fear those they consider better than them, they fear that others have better knowledge than them, hence they fear to be free, and politicians take advantage of this by promising a more fair society, and the first thing they do is get rid of the concept of equality before the law, you will need special dispensation from them to use your knowledge, if you adhere to their principles, just as conservatives behave.

Fearing those with what they consider have better knowledge, the left is not driven by greed per se, but by envy, why did he discover that, that is not fair, why is he better than us, we are all the same, his work was stolen, good, that will keep him in his place why rise above the rest of us. Therefore whilst the right leaning parties use greed to fight knowledge, the left uses envy, both equally destructive emotions. At the back of the mind of so called left leaning parties is a time when we where all cave men and had no possessions and lived for 30 years, having lived brutal lives against the elements. The left envies those who allow society to progress, yet the leaders on the left themselves always have money but need to keep their people all poor, they need to keep the people in a state of lack of confidence by taking away from them the desire to be and letting state take care of it all.

Envy and greed produce an intense fear that one finds joy in the suffering of others, because to them that is justice that the mind is a worthless tool, and anybody using the mind must be feared because they are different, how comes I cannot think of that but I have a PhD from Harvard, that is just wrong and not fair, you mean I wasted my time at Harvard, anybody can gather knowledge, even on a mountain top one can discover the laws of existence, people will not pay me what the media promised I will get if knowledge exists for all who want it. But is better to get institutional education at one point, you can see human behaviour.

Do not fear knowledge, be you on the right or left. Those on the right have to stop being greedy, stop shouting you believe in equality before the law yet you never implement it. Those on the left, stop demanding for equality before the law if you fear so much that others are better than you and will progress. Both left and right should demand equality before the law rather than use it as a slogan, get rid of your greed and envy. The minute you say greed is a good thing, you will corrupt the government to serve your needs, to give you bailouts. Envy will corrupt governments to hide that others can discover new things, though both left and right have a degree of both envy and greed.

It is hoped that in Egypt, Tunisia, and in the future, Africa, well truth be, let us hope the world respects the concept of equality before the law, this will lead to a more productive world, a world were people do not fear knowledge and where it comes from, and where people will not fear new knowledge, no matter who discovered this new knowledge.

Fear of knowledge will always lead to oppression, as we move towards being one human race, to a golden age of humanity we must accept knowledge can come from anybody, and not be oppressive. What is the problem if anybody shows the world new knowledge and understanding, nobody is ordained by God or genetically to advance humanity. All humans have a duty to use their knowledge, oppressive systems and attitudes means others should not use their abilities to the full extent, that means no golden age. A golden age comes about when humans all over the world are free to be.

Bhekuzulu Khumalo