This has been published in the book PEACE OR BUST.
Q: Isn't this going to be less convenient than having one's own car to take on long trips?
P: Perhaps in some ways because of our current habits,
but
in other ways the new system will be more convenient.
All of the
problems, messiness, and noise related to the internal combustion
engine
will be avoided by most people.
In the future I think that
people are going to become less materialistic
than our current
affluent class.
People will not want to be bothered with hauling
around so much stuff.
Being less possessive of personal ownership,
they will realize that
whatever they need will be available wherever
they go.
Q: So you still visualize a lot of streets and parking lots?
P: Actually not as many as there are now.
The cars will be
smaller, and their speed quite limited in the local communities.
If the cars were not individually owned, or if many people used
taxi services,
there would not have to be so many parked cars.
The freeways, highways, and larger roads would be replaced by
the rail system,
which could either be underground or elevated
to give passengers a view.
In either case the ground space could
be used for other things.
Probably in the cities and towns, the
rails would usually be underground,
because the surface space
would be more useful, and elevated trains might be
a little noisy
and would mess up other people's views.
One of the great advantages
of the electric cars,
in addition to not polluting the air, is
their quietness.
Noise pollution would be greatly reduced.
Q: What about that, and those leaf blowers, lawn mowers, and other heavy machinery?
P: You're right; the noise pollution in our society really
gets on people's nerves and is not healthy.
As a start at least
we could require mufflers on those engines,
but eventually they
will become obsolete or be replaced by quieter electric tools.
I think that people will realize that exercise can be combined
with work
and that raking leaves or even pushing a lawn mower
can be a useful as well as a healthy activity.
As we become more efficient and skilled with our technology
and machinery,
there is going to be less need for human labor
as robotics takes over the repetitive drudgery in the workplace.
Yet there are going to be people needing and wanting part-time
jobs or exercise
in their leisure time that could be spent in
nature working with plants
and cleaning up the environment.
Gardening
is likely to become an increasingly popular hobby
for many and
a pleasant part-time job for others.
P: Nuclear energy based on fission has not lived up to the
promises that were made for it.
The cost of building and operating
a nuclear power plant has risen into the billions of dollars,
and yet many experts are still not satisfied that they are safe
enough to be worth the risk.
No long-term solution has been found
for the nuclear waste produced
except to bury it and leave it
alone for centuries.
That is a terrible legacy to leave the future.
Q: But isn't it an efficient source of energy that we are going to need?
P: Not really; the nuclear power plants become so contaminated
with radiation
that they can only function for about twenty-five
years.
Then the entire plant must be de-commissioned and buried,
again for centuries.
Even without accepting any reasonable insurance
liability for a possible accident,
a burden which the United States
Government unwisely relieved them of
in the Price-Anderson Act,
the costs have proven to be too high.
Apparently nuclear power
based on fission is an experiment that has failed.
At least we
can thank God that there was no accident more serious than Chernobyl,
which did poison a large area and harmed many people.
Q: What about fusion energy?
P: Some believe that eventually this can become an abundant source of energy.
This thermonuclear energy is what powers the sun and explodes in a hydrogen bomb.
Fusion energy seems to be rather hot and difficult to control,
although perhaps technology could be invented to do that.
Nevertheless it is a high-tech, centralized, and dangerous
kind of energy similar to fission power.
Such energy is popular with large government and corporate powers
because they can have more control over its use.
I don't doubt that this could become an energy panacea in the far-off future,
but I don't think it is anything we can count on.
One of the great values of solar energy and other appropriate
technologies,
such as wind, water, and local fuels, is that they
are more readily available to individuals
and small communities,
thus giving people greater energy independence.
As with government,
the more we can distribute power equally
the less chance there
is for the abuse of great power.
Q: What about the natural environment?
P: This is perhaps one of the most prominent parts of my vision
of the future.
I see humanity becoming much closer to nature than
we have been in the twentieth century.
First we must reverse the
trend toward cutting down the rain forests for grazing land
and
old-growth forests for timber.
These great plants provide us with
oxygen and are our complementary breathing system,
taking in our
carbon dioxide, in addition to their being ecologically rich niches
for various animals and potentially useful herbs.
Remember, the Earth, called Gaia by some after the Greek name
for the Earth Goddess,
can be seen as a living organism, an interdependent
system with various homeostatic balances.
If the human species
gets out of control and starts to alter these balances
essential
for the life of the Earth, then adjustments are likely to occur,
such as changes in the weather.
Q: What kind of weather changes do you mean?
P: If our air pollution causes a greenhouse effect, then more
solar heat may be retained
on the surface of the Earth, causing
an increase in the average temperature.
This already seems to
be happening, as five of the hottest ten years
in the last century occurred in the 1980s.
Warmer temperatures in the oceans tend
to produce more storms and hurricanes,
which can be devastating
to coastal cities, as with hurricane Andrew in Florida in 1992.
The eruption of the volcano in the Philippines at Mount Pinatubo
in 1991
spewed so much dust into the atmosphere that the temperature
of the whole planet
was actually lowered for a few years.
This
may in fact be an example of the Earth responding to correct the
global warming;
or it may merely temporarily mask the global warming
that is occurring.
Obviously it is not very wise for us to depend
on such catastrophic means of adjustment.
Q: Do you think that global warming could cause
the polar icecaps
to melt and flood coastal areas?
P: It is possible and a real danger.
Yet there is also another
theory that the extra moisture caused by this greenhouse effect
might move up to the poles and become frozen, causing another
ice age,
which could be even worse.
Ice ages, when they occur,
apparently come on within a few years.
All the creatures on the Earth, including us humans,
are merely
parasites on the large body of Gaia.
We need to realize that we
have no place else to live until space exploration
finds another
suitable planet, which isn't likely for several centuries.
We
must respect our Mother Earth, or else we harm ourselves as well
as Her.
Q: What about the hole in the ozone layer?
P: Certainly this is a major concern, as already the number
of skin cancers
is greatly increasing near the poles.
People in
southern Australia no longer dare expose their skin to direct
sunlight
for any length of time without special protection.
Chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs), which also contribute substantially to global warming,
are the main cause of ozone depletion.
Already international agreement,
starting with the Montreal Protocol in 1987
and strengthened in
1990, requires the complete elimination of CFCs by the year 2000.
Q: How can we protect our forests from being cut down and burned?
P: Our forests are not only national treasures but global treasures
as well.
The burning of wood is another major factor in the global
warming.
Certainly some trees can be farmed in a sustainable way
so that trees
are replaced each generation, and the soil and local
ecosystems are protected.
Additional building materials can be
found in other farm products, such as hemp,
which grows fast
and easily.
The hemp plant was the major source of paper, rope,
canvas, and many other products
before it was banned in the 1930s
because of its narcotic properties as marijuana.
Q: Can't we also recycle paper?
P: Of course, and we will not need to use much paper in the future
as we become more of an electronic culture.
Tremendous amounts of paper are wasted on advertising
in newspapers and magazines and in junk mail.
Already newspapers, such as the Los Angeles Times, are available directly through
the phone lines on one's personal computer.
Soon anyone will be able to access the information
from great libraries by the touch of a few buttons.
However, before I go into the communications revolution,
I
want to describe how we can become closer to the natural environment.
Probably everyone can intuitively sense the value and healthiness
of having living plants in one's environment.
They provide oxygen
to breathe, purify the air, shade us from the sun,
protect us
from the wind, prevent flooding,
and of course provide our nutritional
sustenance.
Could there be a correlation between the happiness
of the people in a community
and the amount of growing things
present?
The problems in our inner cities of concrete might lead
us to think so.
Q: But don't people live in the cities for the jobs there?
How can you have more plants in the urban areas?
P: Cities will still exist in the future, but I believe that
they will become much more green,
as people realize the value
of having more parks and gardens in our working areas
as well
as around our homes.
Food can also be grown in many more places
than it is now.
Why not have vegetable gardens and fruit orchards
along our streets
and next to our businesses as well as near our
residences and in parks?
A holistic philosophy called "permaculture"
is developing
which integrates many of these concerns together.
Q: What does permaculture mean, and how does it work?
P: The word is a shortened form of permanent agriculture which
is designed
to be sustainable both for people and the Earth.
The
idea is for humans to take responsibility for maintaining a healthy
balance
by working with nature rather than against it.
Permaculture
turns problems into solutions, is energy efficient, avoids pollution,
replaces and renews resources by recycling, uses biological resources
instead of artificial and dangerous chemicals to provide for human
needs,
using appropriate technology and the efficient use of labor.
Q: How will things be different with permaculture?
P: Those who practice permaculture well are sensitive to the
natural environment,
meditate upon it conscientiously before they
begin to alter it in order to study its
living species, its water,
wind, and sun patterns as well as the human patterns of use thus
far.
Then in consultation with the human purposes desired, careful
planning attempts
to preserve much of the natural life in place,
or what was probably there
before human intervention, and integrate
this with what humans want.
As many functions and uses as possible
may be integrated together in the same area.
For example, a lot in the city may need to accommodate the
walking patterns of pedestrians,
the water flow patterns from
rain; trees or bushes might be planted so as to mask the cars
on the street or an adjacent building; then an organic garden
of vegetables may be planted
where it can be easily watered and
tended; fruit and nut trees could be spaced for shade
or as wind
breaks, and various of these may be mixed together
with decorative
flowers or edible plants growing under fruit trees, and so on.
Q: But what if the fruit trees need to be sprayed for pests?
Would that be a good idea in the city?
P: No, you are right in that it is not a good idea in the city,
nor anywhere else either.
The use of poisonous pesticides and
herbicides has increased dramatically
in the last thirty years
or so with no improvement at all in controlling pests.
Just as
with our military situation, there are better ways of handling
these problems
other than declaring them enemies and killing them
in great numbers.
Pests are much more abundant when they can attack
large monocultures,
and according to evolutionary theory
the mutants
which can survive the poisons tend to multiply.
In permaculture there is such a mixture of different kinds
of plants and insects that loss
can be minimized by encouraging
the natural predators of pests and by finding other ways
of discouraging
them that are not harmful to the whole environment.
For example,
flowers that attract the kinds of insects and birds that eat pests
can be planted.
Also ponds can have fish that eat mosquito eggs
and frogs that eat insects.
Plants, such as legumes, that take
nitrogen out of the air
can be used instead of artificial fertilizers.
Crop rotation as well as mixing of plants can work effectively.
As people realize how much disease, particularly cancer, is caused
by these poisons
getting into our food and water,
they will convert
our agriculture over to organic gardening and farming.
Q: But what would prevent people from stealing the food?
P: These gardens would belong to the people of the local area
who would be taking care of them as jobs or hobbies.
If they saw
someone trying to take something, they might call in law enforcement
authorities,
if they were being too greedy or destructive about
it;
but more likely they would probably invite people to help
themselves to the food
which could be for whoever is hungry and
in need of it.
By having these gardens and orchards in the cities
as well as the suburbs and the country,
there would be some employment
for those who need it and abundant food for everyone.
There would
be nice places for people to walk and talk and for children to
play.
Q: Does permaculture also integrate building structures with the natural environment?
P: This is one of its great values.
Buildings can be designed
so that the sunlight is used for heat and light.
Energy can be
conserved by good insulation and intelligent planning for efficient
use.
The whole idea is to integrate all the concerns of function,
health, economy,
and personal desires together.
Roofs and terraces
might be partly used as gardens as well as for direct solar energy.
Rainwater is saved and used for irrigation or flushing toilets,
although composting toilets may be used for fertilizer and may
not need flushing;
or a combination of the two might be used so
that the toilet won't smell,
but the waste could still be collected
for fertilizer.
Q: How would trash be picked up and recycled?
P: All organic materials can be composted at a convenient place
in the yard.
Metals, glass, paper, and other items can be separated
for recycling,
and all of these would be picked up with whatever
other trash there is.
Already in Europe some countries have computerized
trash collection so that individuals
are charged by weight for
their different kinds of trash.
Of course non-recyclable material
would be the most expensive and so on.
This gives people an incentive
to be more efficient and throw away less.
Lightweight standardized containers and bags could be used
for carrying things
such as groceries that would fit neatly and
securely into train compartments and electric cars.
By re-using
these containers and bags, much waste could be eliminated.
Of
course people could also shop electronically by means of two-way
visual and audio communication and have their purchases delivered.
Q: Ah yes, the information super-highway.
How
do you see the future of electronic communications?
P: This is coming in very quickly and for good reason.
People
like good communication systems, as can be seen from the immediate
popularity
of books, newspapers, photographs, phonographs, telephones,
films, radio, television,
computers, video, and so on.
Plans are
already in the works for combining
telephone, television, radio,
and computers into one integrated system.
The implications of
this in the development of freedom of choice,
I believe, are very
significant.
Q: How will these improve freedom of choice?
P: Instead of the rather limited choices of three or four very
similar TV networks,
for example, people now can choose from hundreds
of options.
In other words, instead of the large corporate powers
deciding what people
will see, hear, and know about, people can
be much more self-directed.
In my opinion one of the greatest
improvements will be in the elimination of
commercialism and advertisements,
which I consider to be consciousness pollution.
Q: What do you mean by consciousness pollution?
P: Advertisements are a waste of time and energy for countless
millions.
In the past when people wanted to listen to the radio
or watch television
they had to put up with these messages, which
use every form of
psychological manipulation to try to get people
to buy particular products or services.
The resulting pseudo-entertainment
can even be seen as a form of black magic
which attempts to control
the behavior of people against their will
by appealing to their
subconscious.
This materialistic system has promoted excessive
consumerism and false values
by getting people to believe that
they need or want all these extra things in their lives.
Our society
has become a market-driven sales culture
which continues to exploit
people's habits and weaknesses.
Q: How so?
P: For example, violence and sexual titillation are used to capture people's attention
because these have immediate psychological appeal.
Violence and danger evoke fear and excitement, and our instincts are programmed
by evolution to pay attention to them for the sake of our survival.
Similarly evolution is also based on sexual selection because only those creatures
who engage in sex and parenthood pass on their genes.
Thus the sexual drive is in some ways stronger even than the drive to survive,
because from evolution's point of view it does not matter if an animal does not survive
after it has produced surviving offspring.
So these have been used not only by advertisements but by commercial
programs
to get people to watch so that their programs would make
money through the advertising.
Studies have shown that the excessive
violence on television de-sensitizes people,
especially children,
to violence so that they themselves become violent much more easily.
Thus our society has become permeated by guns and violence.
Q: Would you censor violence from the media?
P: No, once again I am for freedom of expression, especially
in the arts.
However, by replacing the advertising system of financing
media programs,
a tremendous amount of psychological garbage and
waste can be eliminated.
Why should we have to watch commercials,
if we don't want to?
Instead of the corporations telling us what
to watch, we as consumers
can decide what we want to watch and
know about.
Q: Would you ban advertising?
P: No, there still could be advertising messages for various
products,
but they would only be watched by people who wanted
to know about those types of products.
Through computerization
and two-way communication, people could research
whatever product
or service they wanted, or even browse around
looking at different
things just by pressing buttons.
Q: Would people have to do all their shopping from home?
P: No, but they could if they wanted to.
Those who like to
go out and see and touch things could always do that,
but they
could save much time and effort by doing a preliminary search
for what they think they want by visiting stores through the communications
system.
Q: Then would people have to pay for all the programs on TV?
P: Obviously someone has to pay for the production of movies,
documentaries, news,
and other programs, and there are various
ways of doing this.
Since there are so many viewers watching these
programs
even when there are many channels, the cost per viewer
is rather small,
unless we want to give enormous amounts of money
to the people who make them.
One way would be to have computers
calculate who is watching what
and distribute money accordingly.
Also people could decide through their governments that they want
to fund publicly
various cultural and educational programs through
their taxes.
Then these programs would have independent financing
and would not have to worry about appealing to huge audiences.
Q: But then who would decide which programs and films
deserve
to get made and which don't?
P: Councils and committees of the most qualified people interested
in making these decisions
could be appointed and rotated frequently
in order to give many
different kinds of people the chance to
participate.
Of course there would also be evaluation systems
which would
include an assessment of the audience viewing.
I believe
that as people gain more leisure time and gradually become better
educated
and more cultured, these types of programs will become
more and more popular.
I believe that through experience people
will gradually mature and evolve
in their consciousness so that
eventually they will not want to watch as much violence
and crude
sex; but censorship and prohibition delays this process
and even
makes these things seem alluring to many.
Of course people could
see any movie or program they wanted,
and they could also get
the information from any book or library they wanted.
Q: So do you see most of adult education coming through the communication media?
P: There certainly will be much more available in this way
than ever before
with college courses on hundreds of subjects
available
from renowned universities as well as local colleges.
Yet these can be supplemented by many other educational methods
as well.
People will be encouraged to attend discussion groups,
workshops, and seminars
as well as participate in arts, crafts,
theatre,
and recreational activities in their local communities.
Q: How will all the people providing these services be paid?
P: Again some of it might come through public funding of education,
but also people would be encouraged to give private donations
to support those activities they especially value.
I would hope
that most educational activities would be available to all whether
they could afford them or not, and I think that will be the case.
Some activities, which cost more money in the arts, crafts, and
recreation,
might require a fee; but then students may also be
able to sell some of their work
or develop skills for jobs that
may pay more.
Q: Would public television and radio stations have all those pledge drives to raise money?
P: Heavens no!
The pledge breaks are as bad as the advertisements.
Also the corporate sponsors definitely need to be removed, for
they do influence
the content of public programs whether they
admit it or not.
Did the single-payer health care system,
which
is favored by more people than any other plan,
get a fair hearing
on the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour
which is sponsored by New York
Life Insurance?
In the system where small amounts of money are given to those
programs
which people watch automatically through computer billing,
they would be contributing something just by watching or listening.
Everyone would simply be made aware how they could contribute
more to any program
or station they chose to support through their
computerized account.
Q: What kind of taxes are going to pay for all the education and job training?
P: Traditionally in the United States most of the costs of
public education are
collected by the states through property taxes.
I think this is basically fair and will probably continue.
The Earth is here for all of us to share.
Yet I am not against the private and corporate ownership of land
because it is there to be used and cared for by people.
I think that it is also good for the states and nations to own some of the land for public use,
such as for roads, public institutions, parks, recreation, and nature reserves.
I think a balance works best here, rather than complete ownership by the state
as in Communism or too little ownership by the state
and too much ownership by big corporations as in raw capitalism.
Q: But how can people keep their land when taxes are always going up?
P: The land should be used and cared for either privately or
publicly.
Land ownership is a privilege society grants to those
who have some accumulated wealth.
In my opinion with that privilege
comes great responsibility of not only caring for the land
but
also to contribute to the good of society out of their abundance
if they can afford land.
Otherwise the tendency under social Darwinist
capitalism is for more and more wealth
to become concentrated
in fewer hands,
which I don't think is healthy for anyone, even
the rich.
Those who cannot afford to pay reasonable taxes on their
land
may need to sell it to individuals or groups who can.
Q: What about other taxes?
P: I've already mentioned the need for environmental taxes
to make people responsible for their waste.
These might even be
able to replace the sales tax.
Although the sales tax does discourage
excessive consumption, it tends to be
a fairly regressive tax
in that the poor have to pay as much as the wealthy on what they
buy.
Certainly food need not be taxed, as most states don't;
for
everyone needs to eat and has the right to eat,
and the overconsumption
of food is obviously limited.
I've mentioned that tobacco and
alcohol can be highly taxed to pay, not for the sin,
but for the
health consequences of these bad habits.
Other legalized drugs
would also be highly taxed and regulated.
Guns that may still
be allowed would be highly taxed, registered, and carefully monitored.
Q: What about income tax?
P: I believe that income tax is progressive, like property
tax,
in that those who can afford it pay more.
On the national
level, where most of the income tax in the United States is,
more
than half of it is currently going to military spending
(if you
count the interest on the national debt from past military costs,
secret "intelligence" spending, nuclear weapons in the
Energy Department, and military pensions).
The disarmament and
rapid decreases in military spending would reduce these costs
to a small fraction of what they are now in the United States,
which is currently spending on the military as much as the rest
of the world combined.
Q: So would this income tax be reduced?
P: Unfortunately, probably not for quite some time.
First, the environmental cleanup from military activities has been
estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Second, the national debt of the United States Government has grown so astronomically
since 1980 that the annual interest payments are now a billion dollars a day.
This debt began with the War for Independence and has increased
during every war in our history.
The emergencies of wars and the foolishness of the cold war caused the U.S. Government
to borrow from future generations and obligated our society to pay interest to the wealthy
from whom we borrowed the money, thus providing welfare for the rich
far greater than the minimal welfare programs for the poor.
Q: How will this debt ever be paid,
if the interest is already
so high that it is difficult to pay that?
P: Reducing military spending and balancing the federal budget
is the first step.
However, I have thought of a plan by which
the debt could be paid off as well at the same time.
Since the
wealthy have benefited from this borrowing and since they will
be
the recipients of the money when it is paid back,
it seems
fair to me that they could be asked to contribute the money
to
rid our nation of this huge collective burden.
Q: How could that be done?
P: The assets in this country are even more unfairly distributed
than the income.
Everyone has some income, because everyone needs
food and other things to survive.
Although many have large amounts
of income, which are taxed,
assets are only taxed if they are
in real estate,
or the additional profits on investments are taxed
as income or capital gains.
The poor and even the lower middle
class have very few assets,
since they own little and often have
nearly as much debt as what they actually own.
However, the wealthy
class has tremendous untaxed assets.
If I am not mistaken, the
top one percent owns more assets
than the bottom ninety percent
of the population.
Q: Would you tax those assets to pay the national debt?
P: Yes, a temporary tax on each individual's assets beyond
a certain amount,
such as $50,000 or $100,000 could be taxed annually
at perhaps one percent until the debt is paid.
Assets over one
million dollars could be taxed at two or more percent per year,
assets over ten million at a higher rate and so on.
This would
not be a great sacrifice for the wealthy, but it would redistribute
a small portion
of the excess wealth they have been able to accumulate
in our society.
In fact much of this wealth would end up going
back to the same people, as the debts are paid.
Why should wealthy
bondholders be collecting money
from everyone else every year
because of this enormous debt?
Q: But wouldn't the rich find ways to hide their money
so that
they wouldn't have to pay this tax?
P: Legislation could be written to handle that in the best
way possible,
for example by taxing money that is removed from
the country.
If they give it to relatives and friends, the recipients
would have to pay income tax on it;
and it would also be redistributing
the wealth, which I believe is good and stimulating
for the economy
and creativity.
Once this national debt is paid off,
the future
would look much better and be much more secure.
Q: Then would the income tax be reduced?
P: I'm afraid not.
We still have not discussed the health care
system.
It seems to me that people will want to make sure that
everyone
has at least a basic minimum of proper health care.
Most
of the developed nations in the world have found that government
is
the most efficient and fair way to make sure that their people's
health is well treated.
Private insurance systems have been found
to be expensive and bureaucratically
wasteful
as many extra salespersons
and clerks are needed to run such a profit-making system.
Q: But isn't the government even more bureaucratic?
P: Yes, it is in many things, but not necessarily in health
care.
By having one state-operated system, whether it be national
or by state,
many procedures can be standardized and streamlined
so that much of the paper work can be eliminated.
By going to
universal coverage, all the problems of individual insurance policies
can be eliminated for most people.
Those who want to pay more
for extra coverage can still do so privately.
With universal health
care, people do not have to fear financial burdens
when they need
to go to a doctor, get an exam, or receive a treatment.
They simply
get the service they need.
Progressive income tax could efficiently
collect all the money needed to finance this system.
Q: Would everything for everyone be covered?
P: Obviously there would have to be some guidelines in the
gray areas,
such as cosmetic surgery or treatments and perhaps
in some of the preventive therapies
and methods which blend into
healthy psychological growth and recreational exercise.
Nevertheless
it is probably in the best interest of society to encourage people
to participate in such activities as much as possible.
People
will decide through their representatives what they feel society
can afford
to pay and what can be left for individuals to supplement
privately.
Q: How would the progressive income tax work in your opinion?
P: Each society would decide what it considers to be a minimum
standard of living,
sometimes called the poverty line below which
people have to decide which necessities they cannot afford.
Those
with incomes below this line would not owe any income tax.
I believe
that generous deductions ought to be made for dependent children
so that our future generations can have an excellent start in
life.
Those with incomes above this poverty line would pay a small
percentage
only on the income above this line.
For example, if
the line for a family of four is $20,000 per year,
then they might
have to pay 10% income tax on any income over that amount,
20%
on income over $30,000, 30% on income over $40,000,
and so on
up to perhaps 80% or 90%.
This is what makes it progressive.
Keep
in mind that even those paying 90%, are not paying 90% of their
whole income,
but 90% over a certain amount, such as $200,000.
Q: But wouldn't this take away the incentive people have
to
make more money and replace it with a deterrent?
P: People who are rich and greedy argue that, but I don't think
people need incentives
to make enormous amounts of money, and
having some deterrent may actually help
to give others who need
it more of a chance to make money also.
Nor do I think people
need enormous salaries as incentives
for the top positions in
business and government.
Managerial positions are interesting
work and have many incentives
other than financial rewards.
In
fact these managers might do better jobs if they are not so greedy
just for making money
but are more concerned with doing a good
job.
Do we need workoholics spending sixty hours a week on their
job?
Wouldn't it be better to share that work more evenly by using
two or three people
who are less greedy and not half-exhausted?
Q: You really want to soak the rich, don't you?
P: Some may say that, but in actuality I think it is time that
we stop allowing the rich to soak everyone else.
In recent years
the wealthy have been getting richer,
while the number of poor
has been increasing.
The salaries that top management pays itself
in the United States are grotesque today,
when one considers how
many people are homeless and lacking even rudimentary
job opportunities
and the basic necessities of life.
It is a disgrace to our whole
society,
and I do not believe that people will tolerate such terrible
inequities in the future.
Q: Are you a socialist, and do you want to give everyone
equal
amounts of everything regardless of what they do?
P: No, I think either extreme will be avoided in the future.
A progressive tax system is still capitalistic in that individuals
and corporations
are free to make profits and accumulate wealth;
it merely provides that a portion of that extra wealth goes back
into the good of the society as a whole.
I believe that those
who live in a society that allows them the freedom to make money
and do as they please as long as they don't hurt others
have an
obligation to support the general welfare of that society.
Recent cultural evolution indicates to me that education and
health care are so essential
to everyone in modern society that
it is in the best interests of the whole
to socialize these in
efficiently run programs
that do not discriminate against anyone
in the society.
Q: What about the free market?
Do you believe
in that?
P: Yes, particularly for consumer goods and every sector of the economy
except for the public insurance programs that make sure that everyone
has their basic needs met, and we must also except the military sector
which was also socialized by public taxes and which now
can be almost completely eliminated.
History shows that free enterprize in business and commerce
stimulates creativity and inventiveness, efficiently provides for supply and demand
at the lowest costs to everyone, as long as monopolies and cartels are not allowed.
In these areas I think private business is much more efficient and less bureaucratic.
The competition to provide the best goods and services to the public
at the lowest prices is a healthy and useful system because for the most part
it can be self-regulating in response to how people
choose to buy and use those goods and services.
Q: But don't many philosophers say that cooperation is better than competition?
P: Certainly in most cases we can learn better and be more
productive
by working together in cooperation, and even in the
market system
it is the case that much cooperation is occurring
between the people
who work together in a business that might
be in competition with another company.
However, the Communistic
experiment of trying to completely eliminate competition
by having
bureaucrats plan economic activity was found to be wasteful,
inefficient
and destructive of the normal incentives to achieve excellence.
Neither do we want monopolistic multi-national corporations
cooperating
together to plan everyone else's future.
Rather let various groups
of people cooperate together and compete
with each other so that
no one large group can dominate and exploit people.
Q: What about housing?
Do you consider that a basic necessity?
P: I do.
I believe that everyone deserves a decent place to
live,
even if they are not able to work.
Public housing can be
provided for those who need a place to live
until they can find
enough work to afford a better place.
As we get better at it,
these homes will be more intelligently planned
so that they meet
basic needs at low costs and are accompanied by job opportunities
and ways that people can learn to help themselves by growing their
own food if they wish,
preparing it or helping others to prepare
it, and so on.
Various kinds of job training, counseling, and
social services would be available
to the people in these public
communities.
Everyone who wants to work should have the opportunity
to do so.
However, the current policy of continual structural
unemployment
is how the capitalists keep wages low.
Q: How would you end unemployment?
P: I recommend shortening the work week gradually and steadily
so that there will be more jobs for more people.
We have been
on a forty-hour work week for most of this century,
while our
technology has produced computers, for example, that are doing
the work
of what would have required many trillions of people.
France is already experimenting with a shorter work week.
Within
a generation or two I believe that the average work week
will
be closer to twenty hours.
Not only is our technology with electronics
and robotics becoming more efficient
and requiring less human
labor, but as people appreciate leisure and learn to live simpler
and less materialistic lifestyles, they won't want to work so
much.
Q: What about those who refuse to work?
P: Even those who refuse to work for money, I believe still
have a right
to the basic necessities of life, but not to its
luxuries.
Since most people prefer to work and contribute something
to society,
I don't think it will be a problem to provide the
basic necessities of housing,
food, health care, and education
to the few who don't.
It is important though to encourage people
to work and make sure that
there are jobs available in every area
to people who want to do something useful.
Q: But don't people need incentives to work?
If they can have
all their needs met without working,
won't a large number of people
just be lazy and enjoy a life of leisure?
P: I don't think that will be the case, because there still
will be many incentives to work.
Only the bare necessities would
be provided for those who refused to work.
If one wanted a better
place to live, possessions, and money to spend,
they would have
to work for it.
Also most people get bored without any work at
all to do,
and by working one tends to graduate toward better
and more interesting kinds of jobs.
No, I don't think too many
will refuse to work altogether,
but people will not have to work
any more
than they want according to the lifestyle they choose.
Q: So would there be more part-time jobs
and jobs with flexible
hours to accommodate them?
P: Certainly.
Basically supply and demand would regulate the
labor market,
but workers would have more autonomy and not be
as dominated
by the inflexibility of tradition and large corporations.
Many more jobs will be in the service areas, as industry becomes
more automated.
This actually will give more flexibility,
because
there are so many options of services that people can use.
Q: But how can you guarantee jobs to the unemployed?
P: It seems to me that there are always improvements that can be made
for the general maintenance and improvement of society.
Naturally private businesses of all kinds would be encouraged to hire
as many workers as they can, and government agencies could see to it
that any excess labor could be put to good use in public service jobs of various kinds,
from scientific research to public education to
cleaning up and preserving the environment and so on.
For example, there is almost no limit to how many teachers and teacher's aides
can be useful to making education more personal.
In the private sector I foresee a great increase, for example,
in the number of hand-crafted items, which many people prefer to machine-made products.
Q: What about the use of animals in scientific research?
P: This is another controversial issue which is in need of
reform.
The military and many of the large corporations and universities
have not been very sensitive to animals in their research.
I think
that society will want to put some guidelines on this work in
order to restrain
the unfettered profit motive and zealous scientists
with limited ethical awareness
or appreciation for the feelings
of animals.
However, I personally would not recommend going to
the other extreme
of banning any use of animals in scientific
research.
Although it is obviously difficult to get the voluntary
cooperation of animals in research,
we can consider their well-being
and respect their lives.
Animals can help us to learn about life,
but we must also learn how to be merciful and compassionate to
them as well.
Many improvements can be made, such as the use of computer
models for dissection
in schools to replace the mass slaughter
of helpless frogs, for example.
Forcing children to be so cruel
to other animals in order to "get ahead" in their education
sets a very bad example and indicates an insensitive ethics.
Q: You seem to believe in the value of prayer?
Don't you think voluntary prayers should be allowed in the public
schools?
P: This is a very tricky issue which has been used by the religious
right so that
they can present themselves to the public as the
defenders of religion and prayer.
I think we need to realize that
prayer is primarily an inward process between
an individual's
consciousness and a higher being or power or God.
Since freedom
essentially exists in consciousness, every individual is free
at any moment
they are conscious to pray, and no one can stop
that.
Since most would acknowledge that God or the object of prayer
is probably omniscient,
it is not necessary for prayers to be
made aloud so that God can hear them.
As Jesus taught, it is usually better to pray in private, and
it is often the hypocrites
who want to gain a reputation for piety
who want to pray in public.
Thus it seems ironic to me that it
is mostly Christians
who want to have public prayers
in United States schools.
I think the tradition in this country
that the government should not promote any particular
form of
religion is a healthy one,
considering past abuses of this kind
of power in western civilization.
Q: What about having a moment of silence in the public schools?
P: I have found that this is an excellent solution and have
used it myself regularly
when teaching at a private university
that emphasizes spiritual teachings but is non-sectarian.
A time
of silence allows students to pray if they are religious and to
contemplate
or meditate within themselves if they are not.
This
I think is very beneficial both to individuals and to the calming
of a group.
However, if prayers
are made vocally,
then others have to listen to their implied
doctrines
or absent themselves, which is rather awkward.
Q: What about allowing voluntary groups to meet at schools for prayer sessions?
Q: I have no problem with this provided that it is not part
of the regular curriculum
but in the nature of an extra-curricular
activity during non-schooling hours
such as before or after school
or during lunch when students
are free to pursue their own activities.
As far as having prayers
at public meetings, such as a graduation ceremony,
I think we
need to be very careful and follow a fine line.
If a minister
is allowed to say a prayer
pleasing to the majority,
there are bound to be minority religions
and agnostics who are going to feel uncomfortable.
Yet once again
a moment of silence could allow people the experience of real prayer,
while the minorities
could pray or contemplate in their own way too.
Prayer
is very powerful and helpful, and I do want to encourage people
to pray
as much as they wish, even up to twenty-four hours per
day;
yet I think we need to be careful not to impose
our religious
beliefs on other people against their will.
Q: Do you think religion should be studied in public schools?
P: Yes, there is a big difference between the study of something
and the practicing of it.
We need to study all the important aspects
of human life and history in order to
understand them and draw
lessons from them,
even including what we today consider barbaric
or unwise.
Thus we study wars, feudalism, dictators, fascism,
Communism, and religious fanaticism.
Of course religion needs
to be studied for its positive aspects as well.
I think that the
study of all the great religions of humanity can be extremely
enlightening
for people and will lead to a wiser, more tolerant
and universal form of religion in the future.
Q: How do you see religion changing?
P: I think humanity will be maturing much in the next century.
Traditionally people have followed the religion of their culture
as it has been taught to them by their family and local community.
As we become more cosmopolitan and aware of different faiths and
philosophies,
individuals are more likely to become eclectic and
self-selective
of their religious ideas and practices.
Eventually
I think that most people will realize much more strongly the unity
of humanity
and that all religions and philosophies are part of
a great quest we all share for truth
and understanding of our
place in the universe.
Great teachers from various cultures will
be studied
to learn how we each can improve our own lives.
Q: What will happen to the great religions like
Hinduism, Buddhism,
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?
P: I'm sure they will continue for a long time,
for the power
of tradition is strong and persistent.
Yet people will become
more tolerant of other ideas, and more people will gradually
move
into various ecumenical and universal approaches
that acknowledge
the values found in each of these great traditions.
Q: But aren't there some major contradictions between these
faiths,
such as over reincarnation, for example?
P: In this new age of Aquarius, humanity is already coming
to recognize greater truth than ever before.
The doctrine of reincarnation
was actually present and
accepted by many of the early Christians
such as Origen.
However, early church councils decided to eliminate
the doctrine.
Nevertheless mystics and psychics are able to perceive
the experiences of past lives,
if not always accurately, and more
of the population is
becoming aware of the likelihood of reincarnation.
Within another generation or two I believe that only the most
stubborn traditionalists
will continue to reject the ageless teachings
of reincarnation and karma,
which is the doctrine of responsibility
for one's actions.
Q: Wasn't the Buddha actually an atheist?
P: Although the Buddha himself
did not recognize the existence of a God
or even the reality of
the soul, Buddhism contains so many excellent insights
into the
processes of consciousness and enlightenment
that it's teachings
have grown and flourished.
Some of the metaphysical nihilism has
been replaced
by more popular beliefs about Buddhas and heavenly
worlds.
As we mature in our spiritual awareness, I think that metaphysical
arguments
as to whether God exists or is one or two or three or
many, male or female,
will seem rather irrelevant and uninteresting
to most people who probably
will realize that God or the Universe
can be any and all of these things.
Q: What is the age of Aquarius?
P: Ancient astronomers and astrologers observed that the Earth
has a cycle
which averages 25,868 years based on where the sun
is in relation to the stars
on the first day of spring when the
days and nights are equal.
This equinoctial point moves backwards
or precedes gradually such that it takes
a little over 2,000 years
to precess through a sign.
In other words about 2,000 years ago
the sun was at the
beginning of the first sign of Aries
on the first day of spring.
Now on the first day of spring, the
sun is near the cusp of the last sign of Pisces
and the eleventh
sign of Aquarius.
So for the last
two thousand or so years we have been moving through
the age of Pisces and its opposite sign Virgo,
for the autumnal equinox is affected the same way.
Q: So how was the age of Pisces different from the preceding age of Aries?
Q: This was a rather significant transition, because it was
from the first sign to the last.
Aries
represents the self and is ruled by the warlike god Mars.
Pisces, however, is the last sign
in the ending of the cycle.
Pisces
is a water sign and relates to the much more complex self-expression
of belief.
The symbolism of the fish and the virgin of the opposite
sign were prophesied
by astrologers to be important in the new
religion of that time,
which occurred in Christianity.
The concept
of salvation from this earthly life was also adopted in the East
in the Mahayana form of Buddhism which spread greatly in the Piscean
age.
Q: How will the Aquarian age be different than the Piscean age?
P: Aquarius has the self-expression,
I know, which gives it a scientific quality
as opposed to the
dogmatic quality of Pisces typified
by its ruling planets Jupiter
and Neptune
which represent
religion and mysticism respectively.
Aquarius is ruled by Saturn and Uranus.
While Saturn is the father
and the past,
Uranus represents
revolution, invention, and the spiritual intellect.
Aquarius
is the sign of the common person and represents democracy.
The
three constellations in the portion
of the Piscean sky portray a king, queen, and a princess.
Thus
the Piscean age was dominated by monarchies,
while Aquarius
has two flying horses and a sea monster, signifying a time of
free flight.
These symbolize the technological inventions of air
travel and communication through air
by means of waves, the glyph
of Aquarius;
they also imply spiritually traveling outside of
one's physical body,
an ability likely to become much more conscious
and practiced in the Aquarian age.
Q: But isn't astrology frowned upon by modern science as superstition and pseudo-science?
P: Attitudes about science and religion in the Piscean age
were quite dogmatic.
As we are now making this transition into
the new age of Aquarius,
many
of the traditional concepts of science are being overthrown,as
relativity and
quantum physics transformed the seemingly perfect
system of Newtonian physics.
Even more significant is the transformation
of the physicalistic paradigm
which has reduced science to a materialistic
view that only physical things are scientific.
The development
of psychology indicates that
the soul or spiritual nature of our
consciousness transcends physical laws.
Q: How would you describe this new philosophy?
P: Essentially we are learning to be more holistic in our thinking,
realizing that causality
is not merely linear but multi-dimensional
with elements of freedom
that can only be calculated in relation
to probabilities.
Also we are seeing the interrelationship of
various fields and their integration.
Not only are we finding
scientific proof that prayer is effective
and that clairvoyance
is possible, but the entire universe is beginning to come alive
as we perceive the Earth as the goddess Gaia, an organic being.
The integration of the spiritual realm with the physical world
is more complicated
and less mechanistic, but nonetheless it is
essential
to any intelligent perspective on life and consciousness.
Q: How does astrology fit into this new paradigm?
P: Astrology is considered to be perhaps the oldest science
in the world,
as even primitive people studied the marvelous celestial
bodies
and their relationship to their lives.
Essentially astrology
is the science of time from a qualitative
as well as a quantitative
point of view.
In other words people discovered long ago that
different times of the year
and different times of day have different
qualities in relation to human experience.
They took these insights
and developed them into stories (myths)
for which they found holistic
symbols that could be identified in different portions
of the
heavens as constellations.
The sun, moon, and the five visible
planets were found to have certain
symbolic qualities when in
these different sections of the heavens.
Individuals born at the
different times indicated by these symbols
seemed to have common
characteristics.
Q: Then why has modern science not considered this scientific?
P: Because this holistic thinking is so different from analytic science that traditional scientists
usually reject it out of hand without even bothering to study it in the way it is intended.
Ironically though, some of the greatest scientists who did study it,
including Isaac Newton himself, found it to be quite useful.
In fact it has been said that astrology is the science of astronomy
applied to human affairs.
Astrology is holistic because it integrates the study of time with every aspect of life.
Q: But does astrology determine our character and destiny?
What happened to free will?
P: Astrology is a way of understanding
what I call our cosmic environment
or how we as individuals fit
into time and space,
but it is more related to correlation and
probability theory than to direct causation.
No, it does not take
away free will; but it is another factor of our environment
which
does influence us, just as our genetic pattern and personal upbringing
also influence us.
Nonetheless the soul still decides when to
be born and continues to have numerous
choices even after incarnation
in human form.
I have found that astrology can help individuals
to understand themselves better
as unique human beings who share
various common patterns in different combinations.
Although we
all share the universe as a whole,
we each fit into it in our
own way.
Understanding ourselves as different from others can
be enhanced
by means of these tools or symbolic keys.
Thus astrology is a holistic system for helping
us to understand the patterns
of our minds, emotions, personalities,
instincts, etc.
Q: If Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism were religions for
the Piscean age,
will there be a new religion in the Aquarian
age?
P: Yes, there is a very new cosmic vibration now
which does
affect religion as well as everything else.
However, religion
was more important during Pisces,
as I explained,
whereas science and technology will be more important
during the Aquarian age.
In many respects the great teachings
of Jesus the Christ
and Gautama the Buddha
are eternal and will always be valuable to humanity,
but the form
of worship and practice of rituals are bound to change from age
to age.
Because of this transition from the Piscean to the Aquarian
age,
these have been called discontinuous energy patterns which
are being replaced
by the new dispensation of Light,
just as the
Piscean replaced the Aries (Aryan) 2,000 years ago.
Q: But don't you believe in the second coming
of Christ
or the Jewish Messiah or the Buddhists' Maitreya?
P: Of course most Christians believe that Jesus
was and is the Jewish Messiah,
and they are expecting his second
coming foretold in the New Testament.
I personally do believe
that Jesus was Christed ("anointed") for his holy mission
of bringing great spiritual teachings to humanity;
yet I also
can see the Jewish point of view that the Messiah will really
bring about
a transformation of our society so that God will rule
a world of justice and peace.
Similarly I accept Buddhist ideas
of the coming of enlightened Bodhisattvas
and Maitreya to help
humanity live more spiritually aware.
Q: When do you think the second coming of Christ will occur?
P: My interpretation of this is that the second coming of the
Christ
is when it comes to each person.
So the timing is individually
determined.
Jesus
prophesied that in the coming age many would say, "Lo here,"
and
"Lo, there, come and see the Christ;" and he warned
people not to go after them,
because when the Christ came again
it would be as obvious as lightning from east to west.
I believe
that the Christ consciousness is in the soul of every person;
and when we awaken to this divine presence within ourselves
we
become Christed by a transcendent Light just as Jesus himself
was.
Q: Do you believe that individuals can save themselves?
Don't
you believe the grace of God is necessary for salvation?
P: That is a tricky question.
I do believe in the grace of
God and also in the cosmic Christ
(although other terms may also
be used for the same thing),
which is a position or job in the
spiritual hierarchy to help souls lift into the heavenly worlds.
In regard to salvation I am a universalist in that I do not believe
that any soul is ever lost, but that every soul being eternal
eventually returns to God.
In other words I do not believe there
is any everlasting hell
or permanent damnation of souls.
There
are temporary hells though, and war is one of the worst.
I do think there is some role for individual effort or seeking
in the process of enlightenment
or liberation and that there is
also grace and help from above.
Many incarnations as a human being
are usually required
to evolve in consciousness toward liberation
from this cycle of rebirth.
Q: Do you believe that the same souls who incarnate
as human
beings also incarnate as other animals?
P: The soul is very majestic, and even human incarnation is
quite a fall, as they say.
As I understand it, souls do not usually
incarnate in other animals,
except maybe in very advanced species
such as whales, dolphins, and perhaps even elephants.
Usually
a soul connects to and rules over a group of animals of the same
species
without actually incarnating in their bodies; this is
called a group soul by theosophists.
Nevertheless there seems
to be consciousness
in these different animals which is gradually
evolving.
Q: Do you believe in the prophecy that after the second coming
of Christ
there will be a thousand years in which Christ will
rule on Earth?
P: Yes, I think there will be a time when many people will
share this Christ awareness
and work to bring about a society
of justice and peace.
That is what this book is about, and I think
this new age of love and Light
will be established within the
next one hundred years.
In Hindu terms we are making a transition
from the darkest age of Kali yuga
into the brightest age of truth
called the Satya yuga.
Thus the transition is even more radical
than a revolution,
and is more like a complete transformation
of consciousness and way of life.
Q: But what about Jesus?
Will he come again?
P: Jesus is a
great soul who never really left
and is quite aware of what is
going on now in this transition.
Clairvoyants in the last twenty-five
years have indicated that the one who was called Jesus
in that
former life has recently changed his name to Sananda in order
to
have a new vibration for the Aquarian age.
The old Piscean-age
patterns have become discontinuous so that new energy can come
in.
Q: What are discontinuous energy patterns,
and what does that
mean for those who are following them?
P: Naturally those who pray will receive whatever they deserve
in way of attunement
based on their sincerity, devotion, and wisdom,
but generally those who
follow discontinuous energy patterns tend
to get back what they put in.
Wiser and more spiritually aware
souls tune into the living spiritual energies
of the present and
receive excellent guidance and grace from divine consciousness.
I'm afraid that much religious zeal has been misdirected
and less
enlightened than it might have been.
Whenever there is a change
of the age, there is this conflict between the old forms
and the
new ones coming in.
Moses had
to deal with the Hebrews worshipping the golden calf of the old
Taurean age,
and Jesus
faced stubborn traditionalist rabbis who could only see obedience
to the letter of the law the "I am" God gave to Moses.
(The opposite sign of Aries,
whose self-expression is I am,
is Libra, whose scales represent
law.)
Q: Do you see this resistance in fundamentalists today?
P: Yes, religious fundamentalism and intolerant fanaticism
are very serious problems,
whether they are Jewish, Christian,
Islamic, or any other religion.
They are usually based on some
kind of idolatry or fanatical worship of
certain books, personalities,
or religious symbols.
They fanatically adopt certain beliefs and
hate anyone who challenges or disagrees with them.
Thus the faith,
love, and kindness, which should be the basis of religious experience,
become perverted into the opposites of fear, hatred, and anger.
Q: How would you describe this idolatry?
P: Perhaps the most prevalent is called bibliolatry,
which
means the worship of a bible or book.
This is prevalent in Judaism
and Christianity in relation to their Bible
and in Islam and their
Koran.
In other words instead of worshipping and attuning themselves
to the living Spirit of God,
they worship a particular scripture
as literally the word of God which cannot be changed
or even interpreted
in a broad enough way to make it more reasonable.
Often the authors
of these writings were inspired, but they also had many imperfect
ideas
reflecting their own personal and cultural development.
To assume that God dictated all these writings perfectly is, I
think, a fundamental error.
As I said, Jesus
had to contend with the same kind of fanaticism in his time,
and
he was persecuted for transcending their limited religious beliefs.
Q: Are there other forms of idolatry?
P: Fortunately many of the more obvious forms of idolatry that
flourished in the Piscean age,
such as the worship of relics and
the giving of indulgences,
have been recognized by most people
as corruptions of true religion.
However, I think there is a subtle
idolatry related to bibliolatry
among the born-again Christians
which I call Jesusolatry.
In this case people seem to worship
the personality of the man Jesus
as God
instead of the greater universal Spirit or Holy Spirit.
Now I actually agree that Jesus,
the soul, is divine;
but I differ from fundamentalists in that
I believe that every soul is divine,
though the consciousness
may not yet be as enlightened as his.
Nonetheless I think it is
an error to make a person into the absolute God.
But this is not
the worst of it.
Q: What else bothers you about this worship of Jesus?
P: The doctrine of vicarious atonement, I think, tends to produce
a spiritual complacency,
because people believe that Jesus took
on all their sins, past, present and future.
Thus they assume
that all the spiritual work is already accomplished,
and no one
has to do anything anymore to save souls or improve this world.
I believe that Jesus did take on a tremendous amount of karma
or responsibility
for negativity in his time and helped to lift
many people;
but it is also obvious to me that there is still
sin (ignorance, errors) in the world
and that there is much more
work to be done by those who would follow
in his footsteps and
take up their cross to act as the Christ would act in our time.
Q: So do you believe in the imitation of Christ?
P: Yes, in a general way, not a slavish literal kind of imitation.
I think that Jesus did call people to follow a spiritual path
and work for
the good of humanity, and that as Sananda he and
other great spiritual teachers
are still calling us to expand
our awareness, open our hearts, and devote ourselves
to the welfare
and upliftment of all.
Yet when I see many people who call themselves
Christians actively
supporting the militarism of the United States
Government and even supporting politicians
who would reduce needed
help for the poor and favor executing rather than
rehabilitating
criminals,
then I have to examine
the fruits of action rather
than the belief professed.
Q: What about cult leaders and all these New Age gurus?
P: Again, as with Jesus, the worship of a personality
rather
than the Spirit of God can be a limiting idolatry.
However, Jesus
and his early followers were also a cult, perhaps the finest so
far.
In this awakening new age, spiritual teachers are needed;
and there will be many advanced spiritual teachers, as people
become more fully realized
in the Christ consciousness or enlightened
awareness
(if you don't want to use the term "Christ").
Nevertheless any great power is subject to abuse, and spiritual
consciousness
can be a great power which individuals are learning
how to use wisely.
A true spiritual teacher will not manipulate
people or tell them what to do,
but rather allow individuals their
own freedom so that they can grow in their own way.
I believe
that Jesus foresaw this, and that's why he warned us about it.
Q: Didn't he also foresee nations warring against each other?
P: Yes, I think he saw the overall pattern of civilization, but it is difficult even for such
a great soul to predict so far ahead exactly how
peace and justice can be brought about in the world.
That is why we need to tune into the Holy Spirit and great teachers now
so that we can perceive what we each can do to help bring about this new paradise.
Q: So are you finally getting to the question of how?
P: Many of the methods of how we can bring about a good future
have been described
already in my explanations of what the future
could be like.
The most difficult part of course is how we get
from where we are now to that.
The 1980s and the 1990s so far
have been a rather discouraging time
for many progressive people,
as the United States and England in particular seem
to have fallen
back into a reactionary past of selfish and greedy
conservatism
and fiscally irresponsible militarism.
Q: Yes, the trend seems to be in the opposite direction
of many
of the social and political reforms you are suggesting.
How can
that pattern be reversed?
P: We have been in a conservative cycle astrologically as indicated
by Uranus and Neptune
being in the most reactionary sign of Capricorn,
which attempts to consolidate the past
and in its negative expression
uses fear and paranoia for manipulation and ambition.
Nevertheless
the mostly nonviolent revolutions in the Soviet Union and eastern
Europe
away from totalitarian Communism and toward democracy and
capitalism
have been enormous steps forward.
So even the conservative
cycle has its value.
Now the co-ruling planet of the Aquarian
age, Uranus, is going into
the sign of Aquarius for seven
years, with the center of that period being the year 2000.
In
1999 Neptune will also go
into Aquarius for fourteen years.
Q: Do you really think the movement of these planets will make much difference?
P: To give you an idea, let's just look at what happened
the
last time Uranus was in Aquarius between 1911 and 1919.
Up till then the world seemed to be in
a conservative period and in the grip
of powerful monarchs and
royal empires.
With the movement of Uranus
into Aquarius came revolutions in Mexico and China,
the outbreak
of the first world war which destroyed the
Hohenzollern, Hapsburg,
and Romanov dynasties and led to the astounding revolution
in
Russia and the forming of the first attempt at world government
in the League of Nations.
Q: Those were remarkable changes,
but can we count on the planets
to bring about revolution for us?
P: Of course not, but we can be ready and able
to make the
changes humanity needs at this time.
Certainly everyone is looking
at the year 2000
as a powerful symbol of a new beginning for civilization.
The psychology of this openness to change is important
and is
a great opportunity for us to bring about major reforms.
Q: But what can individuals do to help bring about
such grandiose
changes as you are recommending?
P: It is nothing else but individuals who will make these changes
in the world.
We each have our role to play in the unfolding of
the great cosmic drama.
Whether we contribute to good or evil
is up to each of us to decide.
I believe that everyone is trying
to do good, but many are too ignorant
or uninspired to act in
more intelligent ways.
The fact that you are reading this book
indicates to me that you are probably
one of those who are more
intelligent and willing
to make a great contribution to improving
society.
Q: All right, assume that to be true; but what can I do?
P: Every little thing we do as individuals makes a difference,
just as the proverbial butterfly flapping its wing in China can
cause a
typhoon and tidal waves across the Pacific Ocean.
First
of all, it seems to me we must begin inside ourselves by contacting
that true self or soul that has the capability of
knowing and
understanding anything that can be known.
Q: How does one contact the soul?
P: Actually by listening to the still small voice inside ourselves
we come to realize that
we are the soul; the soul is the true
essence of our being.
It is not our physical body, although we
are one with our physical body
and use it as an instrument.
Please
don't get me wrong; I am not trying to say the body is evil or
not important.
But we are more than our bodies, and the life that
sustains our bodies
is the inner energy, which is also the source
of our consciousness.
Q: But how can consciousness find its own source?
P: This can be quite tricky, because the consciousness is often
confusing itself with
various thoughts, concepts, feelings, instincts,
etc.
Yet all the time the source is eternally present, like a
void or ineffable being
in the center of our awareness.
There
are numerous techniques which can be used to
explore our consciousness
and seek this center.
I am not going to go into all of them, but
they can be summarized
in the general categories of prayer, meditation,
and contemplation.
Q: What is prayer, and how does it work?
P: Prayer is perhaps the
most active form of spiritual endeavor by which
we consciously
direct our awareness toward God or a higher reality.
Of course
there can also be the receptive kind of prayer in which
we listen
and watch for the response of Spirit within us.
Yet compared to
meditation and contemplation, prayer is usually more actively
seeking to align one's will with the divine.
Spiritual exercises
where we chant sounds or words, inwardly or outwardly,
or visualize Light are active forms of prayer.
These
methods of attuning to the Sound of God and the Light
of the Holy Spirit
have been found by many to be quite effective
and have been called the way of the saints by some.
Q: But can't prayer be manipulative?
How do we know what to
pray for?
P: I have been describing a higher form of prayer whereby we
attune ourselves to God's will,
which does know what is best for
all;
but you are right: prayer can be abused and be a form of
black magic if we use it for selfish desires.
That is why it is
always wise to ask God for the highest good of all concerned,
even when we are making a particular request for something we
feel we need or want.
That way if what we are asking for is not
for our good,
then it will not be brought forward.
Q: How else can prayer be used wisely?
P: We can also pray for others and the world by sending this
Light of the Holy Spirit,
or asking that
it be sent by God.
Again it is important that we always ask for
the highest good of all concerned.
Otherwise we are using only
the magnetic Light which can produce karmic effects
we may not
want, instead of the wisdom of spiritual Light
or Holy Spirit
which is guided by God for the good of all.
Prayer has been proven to be
very effective in experiments with people
who were having surgery
or were in ill health.
Those who were prayed for did better than
those who were not.
Q: So do you think prayer can help to bring about a better future?
P: Yes, I think that prayer
is absolutely necessary to bringing about a better world,
and
the more people who are praying for the good of all, and the more
they pray,
the faster that vision will be able to manifest.
Nevertheless
prayer is not sufficient by itself.
Of course we also have to
act for the good too and stop acting in ways that
support the
evils that must be removed.
Prayer
can also guide us in this discernment of determining
what will
support the good and what supports the evils.
Q: What is meditation, and how is that practiced?
P: Meditation is usually described as being more passive in
order to receive the answers
to the questions in the prayers.
The idea of meditation is that we need to calm our minds and emotions
before we are able to clearly perceive the higher spiritual awareness
or deeper insights.
If our minds are continually operating, even
if in prayers, the deeper self or soul
may not have the opportunity
to be reached.
Thus the practice of meditation is also active
in its own way as an
inner focusing of awareness and perception,
while the more superficial levels of consciousness are allowed
to calm down.
Q: How is meditation practiced?
P: Usually one puts one's body in a position where it will
not distract us,
and the eyes are often closed.
However, one can
meditate with the eyes open by observing not only
what one is
seeing outwardly but also what is occurring inwardly.
Some practice
guided meditations in which the mind is used to visualize calming
scenes,
and meditation can
be combined with prayer in this way by visualizing
what one is
praying for while being receptive to insights and guidance at
the same time.
Q: What do you mean by contemplation?
P: There are also forms of spiritual exercise which utilize
intuition and intellect
by observing and analyzing the flow of
consciousness.
Often when people attempt to pray or meditate,
many thoughts and feelings from the day
and its concerns intrude
themselves upon us for attention.
Contemplation is a way of looking
at our lives and examining those things
which concerns us, instead
of trying to avoid them.
Q: How can contemplation be used?
P: If we have a particular problem for example, it can be explored
from various perspectives
for the insights that can be gained.
This thinking process can help us to work through dilemmas by
understanding our motives (and those of others) and the causes
and effects of actions.
Then we can integrate the various aspects
of our lives so that we can master them better.
By using the imagination
we can try out ideas mentally to see how they might work
before
we go to the trouble of doing so physically.
This gives us a sense
of how an action might feel
so that we can better realize whether
we want to do it or not.
Q: What about yoga and raising the kundalini?
P: Yoga means union and implies union with God and integration
into a healthy whole
However, the yoga I recommend does not try
to move the
lower snake-like earthly energies of the kundalini,
which many acknowledge
can be dangerous and difficult to control.
Instead I have found that it is better and more enlightening to
focus on the top chakras
(energy centers in the body) and through
prayer call in the heavenly energies from above.
For experiencing
greater oneness with God, consciousness can be focused
on the
top of the head in the crown chakra.
Divine Light
will pour into you like a waterfall, and you can also send Light
out
through this center and lift up your own consciousness at
the same time.
Q: But doesn't yoga have to do with physical exercises?
P: There are many types of yoga.
The physical or hatha yoga
does practice postures to stretch and energize the physical body,
and properly done they can enhance health.
I would like to mention
though, as related more directly to this book,
what I call political
yoga, which involves the unification of all humanity.
I suppose
it could also be called social and economic yoga.
This I think
is our greatest challenge now: how to integrate our human civilization
into a holistic system that is balanced with justice and harmonized
by mercy.
Q: What about ecological yoga?
P: You make a good point.
Certainly we as humans also need
to integrate ourselves with all other species
on this planet into
a way of life which is going to be healthy and beneficial for
all living things.
The learning experience of becoming sensitive
and considerate to the political, economic,
social, and ecological
aspects of life will make us more holistic and wise in our awareness.
By working for the good of everyone we cannot help but learn how
we as individuals
fit into and can contribute to the whole.
Q: So after prayer, meditation, and contemplation, what is the next step?
P: Communication.
Once we have
opened our hearts and minds to the process of human improvement,
we need not only to express our own ideas and insights to others,
but also to listen to and observe others so that we can be learning
more all the time.
There are some who seem to believe that we
cannot do anything to help the world
until we become fully enlightened
ourselves, and so they never seem to go beyond
seeking inner peace
by inward spiritual endeavor; but it is my opinion that we need
to work on the inner and outer simultaneously and that each stimulates
the other.
I believe the world is in an evolutionary crisis and
needs immediate help.
If we wait until we are perfectly enlightened
Buddhas before we act in the outer world,
the less enlightened
may destroy the Earth
before those working on enlightenment get
around to saving it.
Q: But doesn't politics bring out the worst in people,
and
if we lose our inner peace, can we really do any good?
P: I agree that to neglect our own inner peace and get lost
in a political struggle
can be the other extreme and counterproductive.
Yet by working on both we can keep a better balance.
I have found
that by engaging in the political struggle through action,
the
inner spiritual lessons are multiplied.
It is easy to keep one's
inner peace while meditating at home;
it is more challenging to
discuss political controversies with an adversary
without losing
one's inner calm.
Perhaps the greatest test is to challenge powerful
authorities with action
when we are deeply convinced that their
policies are wrong and harmful.
This of course can bring about
persecution and even imprisonment or death,
and is the way of
the cross which Jesus demonstrated and taught.
Q: Wait a minute.
Are you saying that we have to go out
and
get ourselves crucified for the sake of humanity?
P: No, I'm getting ahead of myself here.
No one has to do anything
they don't want to do.
We each are free to decide what contribution
we wish to make to the collective effort.
Getting back to communication,
it is important that we educate ourselves
on the issues we are
concerned about and want to reform.
In that process we will be
influenced by those more aware than we are on some things,
and
then we will be able to share the knowledge we gain
with those
less enlightened on these subjects.
Talking with our families,
friends, neighbors, colleagues, and acquaintances
is a very significant
part of this social and political transformation.
Q: Just talk?
How can we be effective in this?
P: Just talking in a natural way is important, and of course
there are
commonsense guidelines to good communication.
We need
to be honest with ourselves by listening to our inner feelings
and conscience
so that we can be true to what is best within us.
Feelings and emotions tell us what our concerns are,
and it is
important to understand them and express them.
Obviously this
does not mean throwing away all self-restraint and control
of
negative feelings, but it does mean that we can look at what is
causing these feelings
and find positive ways of expressing our
concerns.
If we are afraid of something, for example,
we can talk to
someone close to us about our concern.
Then together after understanding
it better, we might want to take our concern to others.
Eventually
we may be moved to act, perhaps first by calling some authority
we consider is responsible or by writing a letter.
Q: What about anger?
Can't expressing that be emotionally harmful
to others?
Q: Certainly uncontrolled anger can be abusive; but that usually
occurs
after it has built up without communication and understanding.
Suppressed or repressed anger may even lead to deep depression
and despair
if it is not acknowledged and expressed in a reasonable
way.
I know; anger does not always seem reasonable.
Yet if we
can talk about our anger with the person who seems to be making
us angry
or with someone we trust, then we can come to understand
it and help others
to understand the problem that is stimulating
it.
Often for the person who is depressed,
the expression of anger
is a very positive step forward.
Q: Shouldn't love come into the communication?
P: Absolutely.
In my opinion, love is the basis of all action
and consciousness,
because we do and even think about what we
love.
By working with our feelings of fear, anger, jealousy, hatred,
etc.,
we will come to understand ourselves better,
and our love
for ourselves and others will naturally awaken.
Remember, that
to love others as we love ourselves implies that we love ourselves.
We cannot really love anyone else any more than we love our own
self.
Of course the natural tendency is to love others less than
ourselves
with whatever love might be left over after we take
care of ourselves first.
Kierkegaard pointed out that we tend to be subjective about
ourselves
and objective about others, when it might be better
to reverse it.
In other words, we should make extra effort to
understand and excuse others,
while being more detached and critical
of ourselves.
However, being too hard on oneself can also be a
problem
for some who may have already reversed this too much.
Q: What else helps communication?
P: Active listening is a technique that assures us that we
are understanding
what the other person is saying by repeating
back to them in our own words
what it is we understand they have
communicated to us.
Then the other person can verify, correct,
and add to what we have understood,
and then we can again repeat
back and so on.
So many problems in the world seem to go on because
people are talking
past each other without really understanding
the other's point of view.
Q: What happens when the viewpoints are understood,
but there
are still differences of opinion as to what should be done?
P: In many institutions, families and other situations the
tendency then is
for the authoritative ones to impose their will,
or sometimes the majority will do so by voting.
However, there
are other procedures which can either replace those methods
or
at least modify their results by preceding those decisions.
Q: Like what?
P: I refer to negotiation and working toward consensus.
In
this process everyone concerned is allowed to be heard and considered
so that a more holistic decision can occur.
If the group can understand
the different concerns and their reasons
and importance to people,
often adjustments and compromises can occur
which may produce
better solutions.
If all of these concerns can be met, the resulting
decision
is going to be better supported by everyone.
Q: What if the conflicts can not be resolved?
P: At least the process of discussion and consideration will
enable everyone to know
what the unresolved concerns are.
Then
those with the concerns have several choices.
They can give in
for the time being on this issue and try to build more support
for it later
by staying in the group and either supporting the
group's action
or standing aside only on this particular issue.
They can quit the group and look for another more supportive group
elsewhere.
Or if they believe strongly this is an important ethical
violation, they can attempt
to resist the action of the group
by staying in the group and not cooperating with the action.
Q: Now you've gotten beyond communication to
political action, haven't you?
P: Yes, we each must ultimately decide whether to support,
ignore,
or resist the actions of any group we are in.
But before
I go on with group action strategies, it might be better to discuss
other individual actions we can take besides prayer,
communication, and education;
for the actions of our daily lives have many economic and political
implications.
Q: What can we do economically to help the world?
P: We can be careful how we spend our money by being very discriminating
in what we buy.
For example, we can boycott companies which have
poor environmental practices
or which violate human rights.
We
can live simply and not buy material things that are wasteful
and unnecessary.
We can recycle useful products as well as waste
materials.
For example, in regard to clothes we can either give
away to charity extra clothes
we no longer want, or we can buy
used clothing at thrift stores, or both.
Books and other items
as well can often be bought used.
We can share our possessions
and material goods with those around us
whom we trust with them.
We can become vegetarians, or at least eat less meat.
We can drive
our cars less and use public transportation or bicycles and walking
more.
Q: These sound like a lot of personal sacrifices.
Why do the
good people have to deprive themselves of these things,
while
the bad go ahead and enjoy them?
P: Everyone must decide on their own the sacrifices
they are
willing to make for the good of the whole.
Don't forget also the
power of personal example.
What intelligent and good-hearted people
do will often be imitated by others.
Also most of these things
are actually more healthy individually as well as collectively,
such as being vegetarian and bicycling and walking more;
and simple
living is more economical, giving us extra money or time to do
what may be more worthwhile than materialistic concerns.
If we
have extra money, we can donate to worthwhile causes
or invest
in socially responsible businesses.
However, I agree that these
alone are not enough to bring about the changes we need.
But to
stop others from being abusive of the environment
or from harming
people with violent methods, we need to become involved in political
action.
Q: What political actions can we take?
P: Obviously we can vote intelligently in elections,
but there
is also much more than that that we can do.
I already mentioned
talking to and writing to public officials.
We can become involved
with others and work together on political campaigns,
not just
for candidates for office but on particular issues of concern
to us as well.
Q: Now you are back to group action.
What political strategies
do you recommend?
P: Again each of us has to decide what is most important to
us.
For many people politics is a distasteful activity, and most
people in our society
do not get involved unless an issue arises
that seems to affect them personally.
These are often referred
to by the acronym "nimby" (not in my backyard).
The
history of revolutions shows that usually governments bring on
their own overthrow
by becoming so oppressive that eventually
the people can no longer tolerate the grievances.
As privileged
and powerful individuals, groups, corporations, and governmental
officials
exploit people and resources for their selfish purposes,
they impinge on the well-being of other people who may be stimulated
to act in response.
Q: But if everyone takes care of their own backyard,
so to
speak, won't the world be a better place?
P: Yes, absolutely; I don't mean to criticize people
for
acting on issues of immediate personal concern.
Action on local
issues is very important and can help
build larger movements of
similarly concerned people.
However, in examining the larger picture
of what is wrong in our society,
I'm afraid that these efforts
will not be adequate for solving the major problems we face.
Also
sometimes personal and local concerns can be short-sighted and
in conflict
with what would be in the best interest of everyone
in the long term.
Q: Could you give an example of this?
P: Sure. Communities and their political representatives, who
may even be "liberal,"
often oppose the closing of military
bases in their areas because of the immediate loss of jobs.
Yet
they fail to see that other better jobs can be created in the
cleanup of military facilities
and in their conversion to constructive
uses.
Eventually the jobs that are created in the converted facility
will more likely be long-lasting,
better paid, and certainly more
ethical and beneficial to society as a whole.
Yet thinking only
of the temporary disruption of employment and their own re-election,
these politicians continue to support a horrendously
wasteful
and unnecessary military establishment.
Q: How are we ever going to get people to
support disarmament when
it seems to be against the short-term
benefits of jobs
and the national power of the United States?
P: This I believe is the crux of the problem.
It is very difficult to get people to see that what is in the long-term best interest of everyone
on the planet is also in their personal best interest from a spiritual perspective.
In other words we are actually causing ourselves and our children future problems
by continuing an unethical, wasteful, and harmful system of militarism.
This is perhaps the main purpose of this book—
to explain why we need to make these changes and how to do it.
Getting people to understand that disarmament will be better
is probably the most difficult part of that.
Q: Why?
P: Because most of the other issues relating to the environment,
crime, welfare,
economic justice, human rights, vegetarianism,
and so on tend to impinge
more directly on people's lives.
Thus
people are able to adjust their economic and social habits so
as to bring about
gradual reforms in these areas.
However, with
militarism it is a function of the national government paid for
by taxes
and borrowing, and until there is a devastating war it
doesn't seem so bad.
The only problem is that it only takes one
bad war to annihilate us completely,
after which of course it
will be too late.
Q: Yet haven't you explained how militarism is a continual drain on our economy?
P: Yes, and the United States by spending as much as the rest
of the world combined
on the military, while having less than
5% of the world's population,
is obviously carrying the lion's
share of this burden.
It has kept our standard of living from
growing for the last thirty years and will continue
to do so until
we change this pattern, even while other nations like Germany,
Japan,
and developing countries are catching up and surpassing
us.
Yet because the United States economy has been very successful
in the past
and is still the largest in the world, our standing
still or decline is not really experienced
as being as painful
as it finally was in the Soviet Union,
whose economy was eventually
destroyed by the arms race.
Q: Are you saying that the United States did not really win the arms race and the cold war?
P: As is usual in war, the winner is the one who manages
to
lose less than all the others involved.
In the world wars the
United States made economic gains by supplying the
fighting countries
before entering those wars.
I think the U.S. lost much in the
cold war; we just didn't lose as badly as the U.S.S.R.
Yet if
we try to continue the arms race and militarism alone as the only
superpower,
we are bound to bankrupt our society financially as
well as morally.
Not only is the national debt of the government
about five trillion dollars now,
but the annual trade deficit
has been running about
one hundred billion dollars a year for
more than ten years.
The United States is being sold out to pay
for this arms race.
Eventually people will finally realize that
it is not appropriate for the United States
to appoint itself
the world's police force.
Q: Do you think that persuasion will be able to bring about
the change of consciousness needed for disarmament?
P: I wish it could, but unfortunately it seems as though the
propaganda in this country
for patriotic militarism is so widespread
among the politicians of both the major parties
who are corrupted
by contributions from the warmaking corporations,
and because
of similar biases throughout the media and intellectual communities,
it could take a long time before people get enough of a chance
to hear the truth
from an unbiased perspective.
I'm afraid that
if we do not take some courageous steps to get our points across,
the country might just bumble along until there is
a major military
disaster or economic depression.
Q: How then can we help to bring about this realization sooner?
P: I mentioned before about not cooperating with the unethical
actions
of a group to which we may belong.
Mahatma
Gandhi showed that not cooperating with evil
can be as important
as cooperating with good.
So in addition to using all the tools
of persuasion we can muster,
it is my deep conviction that we
need to withdraw our support from definite evils.
Q: What evils do you mean and how might we be supporting them?
P: In my opinion the military spending of the United States
Government is so far beyond
what is needed for self-defense of
the country, especially since the Soviet Union collapsed,
that
I cannot in good conscience contribute to it; and I don't.
In
fact I have not paid federal income tax for many years,
because
more than half of it is spent on the military; and I consider
much of that,
particularly what is spent on nuclear weapons, to
be illegal as violations
of international law and treaties to
which the United States has agreed.
Q: But what about the social security system and tax?
P: I am not opposed to social security, which is in fact a
separate insurance system,
and I do pay social security tax.
The
social security funds are supposed to be independent,
but recently
the federal government has even borrowed
from them to finance
the pentagon's waste.
Q: But doesn't federal income tax also pay for welfare and other services?
P: Yes, but many things in addition to the large social security
system are paid by other taxes.
Highways are paid for by gasoline
tax, for example.
The post office is financed by the price of
stamps.
More fees have been added to visit national parks, and
so on.
Now the Republicans in their contract with America are
trying not only to increase
military spending but also to cut
welfare costs and perhaps even eliminate them
from the federal
budget so that the states would have to take them over.
Q: What do you think of this and the balanced budget amendment?
P: I favor a balanced budget for the federal government as
soon as possible,
and so do not oppose such an amendment.
Let
us hope they do not put loopholes in it so that in a "war
emergency" it can be ignored.
A balanced budget will force
the federal government to be more responsible
for military spending
by raising taxes or reducing the defense budget.
So this at least
could bring some discipline to the military waste.
I do believe that welfare and social services are needed, especially
when there are
not enough jobs for all who want them, but I don't
see why they cannot be handled
by the states instead of by the
federal government.
Q: But won't things get worse if the Republicans get their way?
P: Yes, probably; but the evils will become more obvious.
If
welfare is shipped back to the states, then the evil of militarism
will become
much more concentrated in the federal income tax.
Already 20% of federal income tax is not collected.
I believe
that a campaign of not paying federal income tax combined with
a call
for complete nuclear disarmament as the first step
toward
total disarmament and world law could be effective.
Q: Are you asking us not to pay tax to our own national government?
P: Yes, in my opinion to pay federal income tax to the United
States is to support
what I call the corporate warfare state and
so be an accomplice in their international crimes.
If we want
to bring about peace in the world, we have to begin by ceasing
to pay for war.
Anyone who claims they are for peace and justice,
yet is paying thousands of dollars
every year to the United States
Government's war machine, is, in my opinion, a hypocrite.
Q: What precedent is there for not paying taxes to one's own government?
P: Perhaps the best example is with the thirteen colonies who refused to pay taxes
to the British government to pay for the costs of
the French and Indian War which ended in 1763.
The Stamp Tax of 1765 was successfully resisted by nonviolent noncooperation,
and it had to be repealed.
The colonists continued to refuse to pay taxes to England because they felt
they were not represented in that government.
"Taxation without representation is tyranny."
This issue eventually led to the independence of those thirteen states
and a war to sustain that independence.
Yet as John Adams pointed out, the real revolution occurred
between 1760 and 1775 and in fact was almost completely nonviolent.
Q: But are not the people of the United States represented in the Congress?
P: Yes, but who and what are these politicians representing
when it takes millions of dollars to get elected?
They either
have to be independently wealthy and thus tend to represent that
class,
or they have to accept contributions from various special
interest groups.
Do you really think that is a democracy?
No,
it is clearly a plutocracy, wherein those with the money rule.
Q: What other examples of noncooperation are there?
P: Many.
India won its independence from the British also by
nonviolent noncooperation.
Boycotts helped to overthrow the apartheid
system of South Africa.
Don't you wish more good Germans had refused
to support the Nazis?
Yet the Norwegian teachers refused to teach
Nazi propaganda in the schools
when their nation was occupied
during the war.
Q: But didn't Jesus say that people should pay tax to Caesar?
P: No, this is a very misunderstood issue, and I'm glad you brought it up.
It is actually quite the reverse.
If you examine the Gospel of Luke
23:2, you will find that Jesus
was probably crucified
because he was telling people not to pay
taxes to Rome.
The famous statement he made about rendering to
Caesar the things that are Caesar's
and to God the things that
are God's was made in response to a question
maliciously calculated
by his enemies to trap him into admitting his real stand on this
issue.
However, apparently he was not yet ready to be arrested
at that point;
so he gave an ambiguous answer, which could easily
be interpreted by his supporters
as implying that they should
not have anything to do with the Romans or their money system,
while at the same time not incriminating himself.
Yet as Luke
makes clear, when Pontius Pilate asked the Jewish people
why they
wanted Barabbas released instead of Jesus,
the main reason they gave was
that Jesus
was an enemy of Rome, because he told people not to pay taxes
to the Romans.
Q: But what about the story of sending Peter to catch a fish
with a coin in it to pay the tax to Rome?
P: I hope you will forgive me if I speculate that that seems like a fairy tale or legend to me,
made up by someone later who wanted to justify Rome and Christianity to each other.
Also that tax was for the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.
When Christianity became a separate religion from Judaism and the religion
of the Roman empire, efforts were made to blame the Jews for the killing of Jesus;
yet the
facts remain that Jesus
was a Jew, and crucifixion was a Roman punishment.
Q: But if we refuse to pay tax, won't we be put in prison?
P: Not necessarily.
If we are earning less than the taxable
amount, then we don't owe any income tax.
Currently an individual
can make up to about $6,000 per year
without owing any federal
income tax.
Q: But how can a person live on that, and what if we have children to support?
P: The exemptions for children allow some more income,
and
the Republicans plan to increase these exemptions somewhat.
Certainly
it does mean living at or below the poverty line, but it can be
done.
Q: How?
P: By sharing and living in community with others we can
save
much on housing and other expenses.
Also it is not necessary to
have an income that low.
If one is earning more than that, one
can donate the excess to a non-profit organization.
Q: It sounds like you're asking people to live like saints.
What if a person owes taxes but refuses to pay?
P: Usually people are not put in jail for refusing to pay their tax,
but they are put in jail for cheating or lying about their taxes.
Some people even argue that the income tax is illegal,
because that amendment to the Constitution was never actually ratified.
Nonetheless the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does act precipitously to get the money
the U.S. Government believes belongs to it.
They do not bother to go through any legal procedures; they will simply take your money
any way they can get it, such as by robbing it from your bank account,
forcing your employer to give a portion of each check to them,
stealing your property and selling it at auction, etc.
Q: How can the conscientious person avoid these hassles with the IRS?
P: Unfortunately being a conscientious tax resister
is incompatible
with being materially wealthy.
If you have a large income and
assets, the IRS will probably come after them.
Thus the best solution
I can offer is the same one Jesus gave to the rich man,
"Sell
your possessions; give to the poor; and follow me."
If enough
people refuse to pay tax to the United States Government,
its
bankruptcy from military spending will become more evident sooner.
Then people will make the changes that are needed.
Q: But what if my employer automatically withholds the federal
income tax
from my check and sends it to the government before
I even get it?
P: It is up to you in filling out the forms to indicate that
you consider yourself
exempt from paying the federal tax.
If your
salary is too large, and the employer insists on withholding this
money,
you may have to find another job or cut back your hours.
Q: But is there no chance at all of my being arrested if I honestly refuse to pay?
P: Although it is unlikely, I can't guarantee that people may
not be charged with something,
even if it is merely refusing to
file an income tax form.
Of course if they think you do owe money
and haven't paid,
they may prosecute you for cheating.
However,
to put someone in jail they have to go through the legal process,
and you will at least get a hearing and a trial.
This is much
more burdensome for the federal government,
which cannot afford
the legal costs.
That is why the IRS prefers to just take the
money, if they can get it.
Q: What else can we do to protest militarism
and stimulate the change toward disarmament?
P: For the courageous and self-sacrificing there is always
civil disobedience.
I myself recommend nonviolent protest as the
purest form of social revolution.
There are so many military bases,
terrible weapons manufacturers,
and other military atrocities
in this country that one does not have to go far
to find something
bad to protest.
Or people can protest the politicians who are
voting for all these things
by sitting in their offices and refusing
to leave or by other creative demonstrations.
Q: Now these type of actions do lead to jail, don't they?
P: Yes, but once again we do have a judicial system in this
country,
and one always gets one's day in court.
Naturally to
take one's protest into the judicial system by pleading not guilty
adds tremendously to the costs of the federal government in handling
the case
and does tend to lead to longer sentences.
However, as
long as one's protest is nonviolent and does not damage property,
it almost surely will only be a petty offense or a misdemeanor
with a maximum sentence usually of six months.
Q: Is there any major difference between the federal judicial system and that of the states?
P: Yes, although the states will usually allow jury trials,
the federal courts will not give you
a jury trial if the maximum
sentence is six months or less,
even though the United States
Constitution states in two different places
that the trial of
all crimes shall be by jury.
Q: Why don't they follow the Constitution?
P: Because the U.S. Supreme Court decided that six months is not
a significant impact on one's life, and therefore somehow they rationalize
that they can ignore what the Constitution requires in those cases.
Q: Do you think there will be a mass movement of civil disobedience against U. S. militarism?
P: Certainly mass movements can be very effective, but they
are difficult to mobilize
unless there are obvious grievances
which affect many people.
If the United States were to get involved
in an obviously unjust war again, as in Vietnam,
I think that
the response to protest it will be quicker and larger than that
earlier
loss of innocence which had to build up over so many years.
I do think if we had enough people dedicated to really bringing
about world peace
through disarmament and world justice,
we could
turn this country around within a few years.
Q: But what about the rest of the world?
P: The United States is now clearly the leader, especially
in regard to the military situation.
If we can elect leaders in
the United States who favor negotiating complete
nuclear disarmament
as a first step to be followed by conventional disarmament
and
the establishing of world democracy and world law, I believe that
most, if not all,
of the other nations will eagerly follow.
Any
nation which tried to hold out against disarmament would have
to be treated
carefully by the other nations, but with the United
States
and most of the world acting together it could be accomplished.
Q: How would that work?
P: The first step of nuclear disarmament would depend on
convincing all of the major nuclear powers to agree.
If a nation suspected
of having a secret and therefore fairly small nuclear weapons
program
refused to cooperate, then the rest of the world could
go ahead with the
constitutional convention, ratify a new world
government, and eventually
create a world law banning nuclear
weapons.
At that point world police and inspectors would go into
the resisting country
to make arrests of the individuals breaking
that new law.
Q: But what if they resisted with military force?
P: Then the world police would have to do whatever police normally
do
when suspected criminals violently resist arrest:
they would
have to attack them to disarm them and arrest them.
Of course
some of the violent resisters may be killed, but they would have
brought it
on themselves after having ample opportunity to surrender
and submit to world law.
Q: Could a better organized world stop the Serbians and others
from fighting in Bosnia in this way, for example?
P: Yes, the same type of thing could be done in a situation
like Bosnia;
but of course once disarmament is established these
problems would be solved
before they ever escalated that far.
Nonetheless in the initial phases of disarmament a resisting military
force may have
to be militarily defeated by the rest of the world.
However, by first charging the political leaders with crimes,
it is likely that the soldiers will not resist in such a hopeless
cause.
Q: So I take it from all this that you are saying that the
world then will no longer
tolerate the use of violence and war
as a political means.
Is that correct?
P: Exactly.
We must learn how to discipline ourselves as a
civilization so that we no longer allow
these immature and dangerous
activities to occur.
For too long we have made violent politicians
and military leaders into patriotic heroes
when in reality they
are actually war criminals.
In the future we will have many problems
to handle, as I have explained;
but if we can begin by stopping
the worst crimes and removing the most
devastating dangers first,
then all of the other concerns can eventually be solved
without
having this tremendous anxiety and insecurity
that the world could
blow up in our faces any time.
Q: What other methods can we use to convince people
of the
need for disarmament and world government?
P: There are so many ways of bringing peace and persuading
people in nonviolent ways
that I would not presume to think that
I could list them all.
I would like to leave it with the creativity
of the people who want to
make this Earth a better place to decide
how they each want to act.
I can only plead with them that they
pray and meditate about all these things
and after consulting
their conscience do as much as they can
to bring about a world
of love, peace, and justice.
Thank you for asking questions, and
God bless everyone.
This has been published in the book PEACE OR BUST. For ordering information, please click here.