The Green Book of Muammar Al Qaddafi – Democracy or not?

Dictator, Democrat, Corruption – Media War – What is the Truth behind the Green Book

On TV you only see Libyan Rebels, Pro Gaddhafi forces and hear many times about the green Book, is this the best democracy for the world or not. I wish to see your comments…..

The Green Book Muammar Al Qaddafi
The instrument of government is the prime political problem confronting human
communities (The problem of the instrument of government entails questions of the
following kind. What form should the exercise of authority assume? How ought societies
to organize themselves politically in the modern world?)
Even conflict within the family is often the result of the failure to resolve this problem of
authority. It has clearly become more serious with the emergence of modern societies.
People today face this persistent question in new and pressing ways. Communities are
exposed to the risks of uncertainty, and suffer the grave consequences of wrong answers.
Yet none has succeeded in answering it conclusively and democratically. THE GREEN
BOOK presents the ultimate solution to the problem of the proper instrument of
All political systems in the world today are a product of the struggle for power between
alternative instruments of government. This struggle may be peaceful or armed, as is
evidenced among classes, sects, tribes, parties or individuals. The outcome is always the
victory of a particular governing structure – be it that of an individual, group, party or class
– and the defeat of the people; the defeat of genuine democracy.
Political struggle that results in the victory of a candidate with, for example, 51 per cent of
the votes leads to a dictatorial governing body in the guise of a false democracy, since 49
per cent of the electorate is ruled by an instrument of government they did not vote for,
but which has been imposed upon them. Such is dictatorship. Besides, this political
conflict may produce a governing body that represents only a minority. For when votes
are distributed among several candidates, though one polls more than any other, the sum
of the votes received by those who received fewer votes might well constitute an
overwhelming majority. However, the candidate with fewer votes wins and his success is
regarded as legitimate and democratic! In actual fact, dictatorship is established under the
cover of false democracy. This is the reality of the political systems prevailing in the world
today. They are dictatorial systems and it is evident that they falsify genuine democracy.
Parliaments are the backbone of that conventional democracy prevailing in the world
today. Parliament is a misrepresentation of the people, and parliamentary systems are a
false solution to the problem of democracy. A parliament is originally founded to represent
the people, but this in itself is undemocratic as democracy means the authority of the
people and not an authority acting on their behalf. The mere existence of a parliament
means the absence of the people. True democracy exists only through the direct
participation of the people, and not through the activity of their representatives.
Parliaments have been a legal barrier between the people and the exercise of authority,
excluding the masses from meaningful politics and monopolizing sovereignty in their
place. People are left with only a facade of democracy, manifested in long queues to cast
their election ballots.
To lay bare the character of parliaments, one has to examine their origin. They are either
elected from constituencies, a party, or a coalition of parties, or are appointed. But all of
these procedures are undemocratic, for dividing the population into constituencies means
that one member of parliament represents thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions
of people, depending on the size of the population. It also means that a member keeps few
popular organizational links with the electors since he, like other members, is considered
a representative of the whole people. This is what the prevailing traditional democracy
requires. The masses are completely isolated from the representative and he, in turn, is
totally removed from them. Immediately after winning the electors’ votes the
representative takes over the people’s sovereignty and acts on their behalf. The prevailing
traditional democracy endows the member of parliament with a sacredness and immunity
which are denied to the rest of the people. Parliaments, therefore, have become a means
of plundering and usurping the authority of the people. It has thus become the right of the
people to struggle, through popular revolution, to destroy such instruments – the so-called
parliamentary assemblies which usurp democracy and sovereignty, and which stifle the
will of the people. The masses have the right to proclaim reverberantly the new principle:
no representation in lieu of the people.
If parliament is formed from one party as a result of its winning an election, it becomes a
parliament of the winning party and not of the people. It represents the party and not the
people, and the executive power of the parliament becomes that of the victorious party
and not of the people. The same is true of the parliament of proportional representation in
which each party holds a number of seats proportional to their success in the popular
vote. The members of the parliament represent their respective parties and not the people,
and the power established by such a coalition is the power of the combined parties and
not that of the people. Under such systems, the people are the victims whose votes are
vied for by exploitative competing factions who dupe the people into political circuses that
are outwardly noisy and frantic, but inwardly powerless and irrelevant. Alternatively, the
people are seduced into standing in long, apathetic, silent queues to cast their ballots in
the same way that they throw waste paper into dustbins. This is the traditional democracy
prevalent in the whole world, whether it is represented by a one-party, two-party,
multiparty or non-party system. Thus it is clear that representation is a fraud.
Moreover, since the system of elected parliaments is based on propaganda to win votes, it
is a demagogic system in the real sense of the word. Votes can be bought and falsified.
Poor people are unable to compete in the election campaigns, and the result is that only
the rich get elected. Assemblies constituted by appointment or hereditary succession do
not fall under any form of democracy.
Philosophers, thinkers, and writers advocated the theory of representative parliaments at
a time when peoples were unconsciously herded like sheep by kings, sultans and
conquerors. The ultimate aspiration of the people of those times was to have someone to
represent them before such rulers. When even this aspiration was rejected, people waged
bitter and protracted struggle to attain this goal.
After the successful establishment of the age of the republics and the beginning of the era
of the masses, it is unthinkable that democracy should mean the electing of only a few
representatives to act on behalf of great masses. This is an obsolete structure. Authority
must be in the hands of all of the people.
The most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have existed under the aegis of
The party is a contemporary form of dictatorship. It is the modern instrument of dictatorial
government. The party is the rule of a part over the whole. As a party is not an individual, it
creates a superficial democracy by establishing assemblies, committees, and propaganda
through its members. The party is not a democratic instrument because it is composed
only of those people who have common interests, a common perception or a shared
culture; or those who belong to the same region or share the same belief. They form a
party to achieve their ends, impose their will, or extend the dominion of their beliefs,
values, and interests to the society as a whole. A party’s aim is to achieve power under the
pretext of carrying out its program. Democratically, none of these parties should govern a
whole people who constitute a diversity of interests, ideas, temperaments, regions and
beliefs. The party is a dictatorial instrument of government that enables those with
common outlooks or interests to rule the people as a whole. Within the community, the
party represents a minority.
The purpose of forming a party is to create an instrument to rule the people, i.e., to rule
over non-members of the party. The party is, fundamentally, based on an arbitrary
authoritarian concept – the domination of the members of the party over the rest of the
people. The party presupposes that its accession to power is the way to attain its ends,
and assumes that its objectives are also those of the people. This is the theory justifying
party dictatorship, and is the basis of any dictatorship. No matter how many parties exist,
the theory remains valid.
The existence of many parties intensifies the struggle for power, and this results in the
neglect of any achievements for the people and of any socially beneficial plans. Such
actions are presented as a justification to undermine the position of the ruling party so
that an opposing party can replace it. The parties very seldom resort to arms in their
struggle but, rather, denounce and denigrate the actions of each other. This is a battle
which is inevitably waged at the expense of the higher, vital interests of the society. Some,
if not all, of those higher interests will fall prey to the struggle for power between
instruments of government, for the destruction of those interests supports the opposition
in their argument against the ruling party or parties. In order to rule, the opposition party
has to defeat the existing instrument of government.
To do so, the opposition must minimize the government’s achievements and cast doubt on
its plans, even though those plans may be beneficial to the society. Consequently, the
interests and programs of the society become the victims of the parties’ struggle for
power. Such struggle is, therefore, politically, socially, and economically destructive to the
society, despite the fact that it creates political activity.
Thus, the struggle results in the victory of another instrument of government; the fall of
one party, and the rise of another. It is, in fact, a defeat for the people, i.e., a defeat for
democracy. Furthermore, parties can be bribed and corrupted either from inside or
Originally, the party is formed ostensibly to represent the people. Subsequently, the party
leadership becomes representative of the membership, and the leader represents the party
elite. It becomes clear that this partisan game is a deceitful farce based on a false form of
democracy. It has a selfish authoritarian character based on maneuvres, intrigues and
political games. This confirms the fact that the party system is a modern instrument of
dictatorship. The party system is an outright, unconvincing dictatorship, one which the
world has not yet surpassed. It is, in fact, the dictatorship of the modern age.
The parliament of the winning party is indeed a parliament of the party, for the executive
power formed by this parliament is the power of the party over the people. Party power,
which is supposedly for the good of the whole people, is actually the arch-enemy of a
fraction of the people, namely, the opposition party or parties and their supporters. The
opposition is, therefore, not a popular check on the ruling party but, rather, is itself
opportunistically seeking to replace the ruling party. According to modern democracy, the
legitimate check on the ruling party is the parliament, the majority of whose members are
from that ruling party. That is to say, control is in the hands of the ruling party, and power
is in the hands of the controlling party. Thus the deception, falseness and invalidity of the
political theories dominant in the world today become obvious. From these emerge
contemporary conventional democracy.
“The party represents a segment of the people, but the sovereignty of the people is
“The party allegedly governs on behalf of the people, but in reality the true principle of
democracy is based upon the notion that there can be no representation in lieu of the
The party system is the modern equivalent of the tribal or sectarian system. A society
governed by one party is similar to one which is governed by one tribe or one sect. The
party, as shown, represents the perception of a certain group of people, or the interests of
one group in society, or one belief, or one region. Such a party is a minority compared
with the whole people, just as the tribe and the sect are. The minority has narrow, common
sectarian interests and beliefs, from which a common outlook is formed. Only the bloodrelationship
distinguishes a tribe from a party, and, indeed, a tribe might also be the basis
for the foundation of a party. There is no difference between party struggle and tribal or
sectarian struggles for power. Just as tribal and sectarian rule is politically unacceptable
and inappropriate, likewise the rule under a party system. Both follow the same path and
lead to the same end. The negative and destructive effects of the tribal or sectarian
struggle on society is identical to the negative and destructive effects of the party
The political class system is the same as a party, tribal, or sectarian system since a class
dominates society in the same way that a party, tribe or sect would. Classes, like parties,
sects or tribes, are groups of people within society who share common interests. Common
interests arise from the existence of a group of people bound together by bloodrelationship,
belief, culture, locality or standard of living. Classes, parties, sects and tribes
emerge because blood-relationship, social rank, economic interest, standard of living,
belief, culture and locality create a common outlook to achieve a common end. Thus,
social structures, in the form of classes, parties, tribes or sects, emerge. These eventually
develop into political entities directed toward the realization of the goals of that group. In
all cases, the people are neither the class, the party, the tribe, nor the sect, for these are
no more than a segment of the people and constitute a minority. If a class, a party, a tribe,
or a sect dominates a society, then the dominant system becomes a dictatorship.
However, a class or a tribal coalition is preferable to a party coalition since societies
originally consisted of tribal communities. One seldom finds a group of people who do not
belong to a tribe, and all people belong to a specific class. But no party or parties embrace
all of the people, and therefore the party or party coalition represents a minority compared
to the masses outside their membership. Under genuine democracy, there can be no
justification for any one class to subdue other classes for its interests. Similarly, no party,
tribe or sect can crush others for their own interests.
To allow such actions abandons the logic of democracy and justifies resort to the use of
force. Such policies of suppression are dictatorial because they are not in the interest of
the whole society, which consists of more than one class, tribe or sect, or the members of
one party. There is no justification for such actions, though the dictatorial argument is that
society actually consists of numerous segments, one of which must undertake the
liquidation of others in order to remain solely in power. This exercise is not, accordingly,
in the interests of the whole society but, rather, in the interests of a specific class, tribe,
sect, party, or those who claim to speak for the society. Such an act is basically aimed at
the member of the society who does not belong to the party, class, tribe or sect which
carries out the liquidation.
A society torn apart by party feud is similar to one which is torn apart by tribal or sectarian
A party that is formed in the name of a class inevitably becomes a substitute for that class
and continues in the process of spontaneous transformation until it becomes hostile to
the class that it replaces.
Any class which inherits a society also inherits its characteristics. If the working class, for
example, subdues all other classes of a particular society, it then becomes its only heir
and forms its material and social base. The heir acquires the traits of those from whom it
inherits, though this may not be evident all at once. With the passage of time,
characteristics of the other eliminated classes will emerge within the ranks of the working
class itself. The members of the new society will assume the attitudes and perspectives
appropriate to their newly evolved characteristics. Thus, the working class will develop a
separate society possessing all of the contradictions of the old society. In the first stage,
the material standard and importance of the members become unequal. Thereafter, groups
emerge which automatically become classes that are the same as the classes that were
eliminated. Thus, the struggle for domination of the society begins again. Each group of
people, each faction, and each new class will all vie to become the instrument of
Being social in nature, the material base of any society is changeable. The instrument of
government of this material base may be sustained for some time, but it will eventual
become obsolete as new material and social standards evolve to form a new material
base. Any society which undergoes a class conflict may at one time have been a one-class
society but, through evolution, inevitably becomes a multi-class society.
The class that expropriates and acquires the possession of others to maintain power for
itself will soon find that, through evolution, it will be itself subject to change as though it
were the society as a whole.
In summary, all attempts at unifying the material base of a society in order to solve the
problem of government, or at putting an end to the struggle in favour of a party, class, sect
or tribe have failed. All endeavours aimed at appeasing the masses through the election of
representatives or through parliaments have equally failed. To continue such practices
would be a waste of time and a mockery of the people.
Plebiscites are a fraud against democracy. Those who vote “yes” or “no” do not, in fact,
express their free will but, rather, are silenced by the modern conception of democracy as
they are not allowed to say more than “yes” or “no”. Such a system is oppressive and
tyrannical. Those who vote “no” should express their reasons and why they did not say
“yes”, and those who say “yes” should verify such agreement and why they did not vote
“no”. Both should state their wishes and be able to justify their “yes” or “no” vote.
What then, is the path to be taken by humanity in order to conclusively rid itself of the
elements of dictatorship and tyranny?
The intricate problem in the case of democracy is reflected in the nature of the instrument
of government, which is demonstrated by conflicts of classes, parties and individuals. The
elections and plebiscites were invented to cover the failure of these unsuccessful
experiments to solve this problem. The solution lies in finding an instrument of
government other than those which are subject to conflict and which represent only one
faction of society; that is to say, an instrument of government which is not a party class,
sect or a tribe, but an instrument of government which is the people as a whole. In other
words, we seek an instrument of government which neither represents the people nor
speaks in their name.
There can be no representation in lieu of the people and representation is fraud. If such an
instrument can be found, then the problem is solved and true popular democracy is
realized. Thus, humankind would have terminated the eras of tyranny and dictatorships,
and replaced them with the authority of the people.
THE GREEN BOOK presents the ultimate solution to the problem of the instrument of
government, and indicates for the masses the path upon which they can advance from the
age of dictatorship to that of genuine democracy.
This new theory is based on the authority of the people, without representation or
deputation. It achieves direct democracy in an orderly and effective form. It is superior to
the older attempts at direct democracy which were impractical because they lacked
popular organizations at base levels.
Popular Conferences are the only means to achieve popular democracy. Any system of
government contrary to this method, the method of Popular Conferences, is undemocratic.
All the prevailing systems of government in the world today will remain undemocratic,
unless they adopt this method. Popular Conferences are the end of the journey of the
masses in quest of democracy.
Popular Conferences and People’s Committees are the fruition of the people’s struggle for
democracy. Popular Conferences and People’s Committees are not creations of the
imagination; they are the product of thought which has absorbed all human experiments
to achieve democracy.
Direct democracy, if put into practice, is indisputably the ideal method of government.
Because it is impossible to gather all people, however small the population, in one place
so that they can discuss, discern and decide policies, nations departed from direct
democracy, which became an utopian idea detached from reality. It was replaced by
various theories of government, such as representative councils, party-coalitions and
plebiscites, all of which isolated the masses and prevented them from managing their
political affairs.
These instruments of government – the individual, the class, the sect, the tribe, the
parliament and the party struggling to achieve power have plundered the sovereignty of
the masses and monopolized politics and authority for themselves.
THE GREEN BOOK guides the masses to an unprecedented practical system of direct
democracy. No two intelligent people can dispute the fact that direct democracy is the
ideal, but until now no practical method for its implementation has been devised. The
Third Universal Theory, however, now provides us with a practical approach to direct
democracy. The problem of democracy in the world will finally be solved. All that is left
before the masses now is the struggle to eliminate all prevailing forms of dictatorial
governments, be they parliament, sect, tribe, class, one-party system, two-party system or
multi-party system, which falsely call themselves democracies.
True democracy has but one method and one theory. The dissimilarity and diversity of the
systems claiming to be democratic do, in fact, provide evidence that they are not so.
Authority of the people has but one face which can only be realized through Popular
Conferences and People’s Committees. There can be no democracy without Popular
Conferences and Committees everywhere.
First, the people are divided into Basic Popular Conferences. Each Basic Popular
Conference chooses its secretariat. The secretariats of all Popular Conferences together
form Non-Basic Popular Conferences. Subsequently, the masses of the Basic Popular
Conferences select administrative People’s Committees to replace government
administration. All public institutions are run by People’s Committees which will be
accountable to the Basic Popular Conferences which dictate the policy and supervise its
execution. Thus, both the administration and the supervision become the people’s and the
outdated definition of democracy – democracy is the supervision of the government by the
people – becomes obsolete. It will be replaced by the true definition: Democracy is the
supervision of the people by the people.
All citizens who are members of these Popular Conferences belong, vocationally and
functionally, to various sectors and have, therefore, to form themselves into their own
professional Popular Conferences in addition to being, by virtue of citizenship, members
of the Basic Popular Conferences or People’s Committees. Subjects dealt with by the
Popular Conferences and People’s Committees will eventually take their final shape in the
General People’s Congress, which brings together the Secretariats of the Popular
Conferences and People’s Committees. Resolutions of the General People’s Congress,
which meets annually or periodically, are passed on to the Popular Conferences and
People’s Committees, which undertake the execution of those resolutions through the
responsible committees, which are, in turn, accountable to the Basic Popular
The General People’s Congress is not a gathering of persons or members such as those of
parliaments but, rather, a gathering of the Popular Conferences and People’s Committees.
Thus, the problem of the instrument of government is naturally solved, and all dictatorial
instruments disappear. The people become the instrument of government, and the
dilemma of democracy in the world is conclusively solved.
Law represents the other problem, parallel to that of the instrument of government, which
has not been resolved. Although it was dealt with in different periods of history, the
problem still persists today.
For a committee or an assembly to be empowered to draft the law of society is both invalid
and undemocratic. It is also invalid and undemocratic for the law of society to be
abrogated or amended by individual, a committee, or an assembly.
What then is the law of society? Who drafts it and what is its relevance to democracy?
The natural law of any society is grounded in either tradition (custom) or religion. Any
other attempt to draft law outside these two sources is invalid and illogical. Constitutions
cannot be considered the law of society. A constitution is fundamentally a (man-made)
positive law, and lacks the natural source from which it must derive its justification.
The problem of freedom in the modern age is that constitutions have become the law of
societies. These constitutions are based solely on the premises of the instruments of
dictatorial rule prevailing in the world today, ranging from the individual to the party. Proof
of this are the differences existing in various constitutions, although human freedom is
one and the same. The reason for the differences is the variation in the assumptions and
values implicit in diverse instruments of government. This is how freedom becomes
vulnerable under contemporary forms of government.
The method by which a specific modality of government seeks to dominate the people is
contained in the constitution. The people are compelled to accept it by virtue of the laws
derived from that constitution, which is itself the product of the tendencies within
particular instruments of governments.
The laws of the dictatorial instruments of government have replaced the natural laws, i.e.,
positive law has replaced natural law. Consequently, ethical standards have become
confused. The human being is essentially, physically and emotionally, the same
everywhere. Because of this fact, natural laws are applicable to all. However, constitutions
as conventional laws do not perceive human beings equally. This view has no justification,
except for the fact that it reflects the will of the instrument of government, be it an
individual, an assembly, a class or a party. That is why constitutions change when an
alteration in the instruments of government takes place, indicating that a constitution is
not natural law but reflects the drive of the instrument of government to serve its own
The abrogation of natural laws from human societies and their replacement by
conventional laws is the fundamental danger that threatens freedom. Any ruling system
must be made subservient to natural laws, not the reverse.
The fundamental law of society must not be subject to historical drafting or composition.
Its importance lies in being the decisive criterion in light of which truth and falsehood,
right and wrong, and individual rights and duties can be judged. Freedom is threatened
unless society adheres to a sacred law with established rules that are not subject to
alteration or change by any instrument of government. It is, rather, the responsibility of the
instrument of government to adhere to the laws of society. Unfortunately, people the world
over are currently ruled by manmade laws that can be changed or abrogated, depending
upon the struggle for power among competing forms of government.
Conducting plebiscites on constitutions is often insufficient. Plebiscites are essentially a
counterfeit of democracy since a “yes” or “no” is the only option. Moreover, under manmade
law, people are compelled to vote on these plebiscites. Conducting a plebiscite on a
constitution does not necessarily make the constitution the law of society. In other words,
the status of a constitution will not be altered by a plebiscite; it will remain no more than
the subject of a plebiscite.
The law of society is an eternal human heritage that does not belong only to the living.
Therefore, drafting a constitution or conducting a plebiscite on it is a mockery.
The catalogues of man-made laws emanating from man-made constitutions are fraught
with physical penalties directed against human beings, while tradition contains few such
measures. Tradition lays down moral, non-physical penalties that conform to the intrinsic
nature of humanity. Religion contains tradition and absorbs it; and tradition is a
manifestation of the natural life of people. Its teachings comprise basic social guidelines
and answers to the fundamental questions of existence.
Most physical penalties are deferred to a future judgment. This is the most appropriate law
affording due respect to the human being. Religion does not provide for prompt penalties,
save in certain compelling instances necessary to the well-being of society.
Religion contains tradition, and tradition is an expression of the natural life of the people.
Therefore, religion is an affirmation of natural laws which are discerned therein. Laws
which are not premised on religion and tradition are merely an invention by man to be
used against his fellow man. Consequently, such laws are invalid because they do not
emanate from the natural source of tradition and religion.
The question arises: who has the right to supervise society, and to point out deviations
that may occur from the laws of society? Democratically, no one group can claim this right
on behalf of society. Therefore, society alone supervises itself. It is dictatorial for any
individual or group to claim the right of the supervision of the laws of the society, which
is, democratically, the responsibility of the society as a whole. This can be arrived at
through the democratic instrument of government that results from the organization of the
society itself into Basic Popular Conferences, and through the government of these
people through People’s Committees and the General People’s Congress – the national
congress – where Secretariats of the Popular Conferences and the People’s Committees
convene. In accordance with this theory, the people become the instrument of government
and, in turn, become their own supervisors. Society thus secures self-supervision over its
If the instrument of government is dictatorial, as is the case in the world’s political
systems today, society’s awareness of deviation from its laws is expressed only through
violence to redirect its course, i.e., revolution against the instrument of government.
Violence and revolution, even though they reflect the sentiments of society regarding
deviation, do not constitute an exercise in which the whole of society takes part. Rather,
violence and revolution are carried out by those who have the capability and courage to
take the initiative and proclaim the will of society. However, this unilateral approach is
dictatorial because the revolutionary initiative in itself provides the opportunity for a new
instrument of government representing the people to arise. This means that the governing
structure remains dictatorial. In addition, violence and effecting change by force are both
undemocratic, even though they take place as a reaction against an undemocratic prior
condition. The society that revolves around this concept is backward. What, then, is the
The solution lies in the people being themselves the instrument of government whose
authority is derived from Basic Popular Conferences and the General People’s Congress;
in eliminating government administration and replacing it by People’s Committees; and
finally, in the General People’s Congress becoming a truly national convention where
Basic Popular Conferences and People’s Committees convene.
In such a system, if deviation takes place, it is then rectified by a total democratic revision,
and not through the use of force. The process here is not a voluntary option for social
change and treatment of social ills. It is, rather, an inevitable result of the nature of this
democratic system because, in such a case, there is no outside group who can be held
responsible for such deviation or against whom violence can be directed.
An individual has the right to express himself or herself even if he or she behaves
irrationally to demonstrate his or her insanity. Corporate bodies too have the right to
express their corporate identity. The former represent only themselves and the latter
represent those who share their corporate identity. Since society consists of private
individuals and corporate bodies, the expression, for example, by an individual of his or
her insanity does not mean that the other members of society are insane. Such expression
reflects only in the individual’s character. Likewise, corporate expression reflects only the
interest or view of those making up the corporate body. For instance, a tobacco company,
despite the fact that what it produces is harmful to health, expresses the interests of those
who make up the company.
The press is a means of expression for society: it is not a means of expression for private
individuals or corporate bodies. Therefore, logically and democratically, it should not
belong to either one of them.
A newspaper owned by any individual is his or her own, and expresses only his or her
point of view. Any claim that a newspaper represents public opinion is groundless
because it actually expresses the viewpoint of that private individual. Democratically,
private individuals should not be permitted to own any public means of publication or
information. However, they have the right to express themselves by any means, even
irrationally, to prove their insanity. Any journal issued by a professional sector, for
example, is only a means of expression of that particular social group. It presents their
own points of view and not that of the general public. This applies to all other corporate
and private individuals in society.
The democratic press is that which is issued by a People’s Committee, comprising all the
groups of society. Only in this case, and not otherwise, will the press or any other
information medium be democratic, expressing the viewpoints of the whole society, and
representing all its groups.
If medical professionals issue a journal, it must be purely medical. Similarly, this applies
to other groups. Private individuals have the right to express only their own, and not
anyone else’s opinions.
What is known as the problem of the freedom of the press in the world will be radically and
democratically solved. Because it is by-product of the problem of democracy generally,
the problem of freedom of the press cannot be solved independently of that of democracy
in society as a whole. Therefore, the only solution to the persistent problem of democracy
is through The Third Universal Theory.
According to this theory, the democratic system is a cohesive structure whose
foundations are firmly laid on Basic Popular Conferences and People’s Committees which
convene in a General People’s Congress. This is absolutely the only form of genuine
democratic society.
In summary, the era of the masses, which follows the age of the republics, excites the
feelings and dazzles the eyes. But even though the vision of this era denotes genuine
freedom of the masses and their happy emancipation from the bonds of external
authoritarian structures, it warns also of the dangers of a period of chaos and
demagoguery, and the threat of a return to the authority of the individual, the sect and
party, instead of the authority of the people.
Theoretically, this is genuine democracy but, realistically, the strong always rules, i.e., the
stronger party in the society is the one that rules.
Important historical developments contributing to the solution of the problem of work and
wages – the relationship between producers and owners, workers and employers – have
occurred in recent history. These developments include the determination of fixed working
hours, overtime pay, leaves, minimal wages, profit sharing, the participation of workers in
administration, the banning of arbitrary dismissal, social security, the right to strike, and
other provisions contained in labour codes of almost all contemporary legislation. Of no
less significance are changes in the realm of ownership, such as the enactment of laws
transferring private ownership to the state, and also those limiting income. Despite these
not inconsiderable developments in the history of economics, the problem still
fundamentally exists, even though it has been made less severe than in past centuries
through improvements, refinements and developments that have brought many benefits to
the workers.
However, the economic problem still persists unsolved in the world. Attempts aimed at
ownership have failed to solve the problems of producers. They are still wage-earners,
despite the state ownership which may vary from the extreme right to the extreme left to
the centre of the political spectrum.
Attempts to improve wages were equally significant to those that were aimed at the
transferral of ownership. In the wake of the Industrial Revolution, benefits from wage
negotiations secured for workers certain privileges that were guaranteed by legislation
and protected by trade unions, thus improving the lot of the workers. As time passed,
workers, technicians, and administrators have acquired certain rights which were
previously unattainable. However, in reality, the economic problem still exists.
Attempts that were aimed at wages were contrived and reformative, and have failed to
provide a solution. They were more of a charity than a recognition of the rights of the
workers.Why do workers receive wages? Because they carry out a production process for
the benefit of others who hire them to produce a certain product. In this case, they do not
consume what they produce; rather, they are compelled to concede their product for
wages. Hence, the sound rule: those who produce consume. Wage-earners, however
improved their wages may be, are a type of slave.
Wage-earners are but slaves to the masters who hire them. They are temporary slaves,
and their slavery lasts as long as they work for wages from employers, be they individuals
or the state. The workers’ relationship to the owner or the productive establishment, and
to their own interests, is similar under all prevailing conditions in the world today,
regardless of whether ownership is right or left. Even publicly-owned establishments give
workers wages as well as other social benefits, similar to the charity endowed by the rich
owners of economic establishments upon those who work for them.
Unlike the privately-owned establishment where income benefits the owner, the claim that
the income from the public-owned establishment benefits all of the society, including the
workers, is true only if we take into consideration the general welfare of the society and
not the private well-being of the workers. Further, we would have to assume that the
political authority controlling ownership is that of all the people, practised through the
Popular Conferences and People’s Committees, and not the authority of one class, one
party, several parties, one sect, tribe, family, individual, or any form of representative
authority. Failing this, what is received directly by the workers with respect to their own
interests, in the form of wages, percentage of profits or social benefits, is the same as that
received by workers in a private corporation. In both instances, the producers are wageearners,
despite the difference in ownership. Thus, this change in ownership has not
solved the problem of the producer’s right to benefit directly from what he produces, and
not through the society nor through wages. The proof thereof is the fact that producers
are still wage-earners despite the change in this state of ownership.
The ultimate solution lies in abolishing the wage-system, emancipating people from its
bondage and reverting to the natural laws which defined relationships before the
emergence of classes, forms of governments and man-made laws. These natural rules are
the only measures that ought to govern human relations.
These natural rules have produced natural socialism based on equality among the
components of economic production, and have maintained public consumption almost
equal to natural production among individuals. The exploitation of man by man and the
possession by some individuals of more of the general wealth than their needs required is
a manifest departure from the natural rule and the beginning of distortion and corruption
in the life of the human community. It heralds the start of the exploitative society.
If we analyse the factors of economic production from ancient times to the present, we
always find that they essentially consist of certain basic production components, i.e., raw
materials, means of production, and a producer. The natural rule of equality requires that
each of these components receives a share of this production. Because production cannot
be achieved without the essential role of each of these components, it has to be equally
divided amongst them. The preponderance of one of them contravenes the natural rule of
equality and becomes an encroachment upon the others’ rights. Thus, each must be
awarded an equal share, regardless of the number of components in the process of
production. If the components are two, each receives half of the production; if three, then
Applying this natural rule to both ancient and modern situations, we arrive at the
following. At the stage of manual production, the process of production resulted from raw
material and a producer. Later, new means of production were added to the process.
Animals, utilized as power units, constitute a good example. Gradually, machines replaced
animals, types and amounts of raw materials evolved from the simple and inexpensive to
the valuable and complex. Likewise, the unskilled workers became skilled workers and
engineers; their former huge numbers dwindling to a few specialized technicians.
Despite the fact that components have qualitatively and quantitatively changed, their
essential role in production has remained basically unaltered. For example, iron ore, a
component of both past and present production, was manufactured primitively by iron
smiths into knives, axes, spears, etc. The same iron ore is now manufactured by engineers
and technicians by means of smelting furnaces into all kinds of machines, engines and
vehicles. The animal – horse, mule, camel, or the like – which was a component of
production, has been replaced by factories and huge machines. Production, based upon
primitive tools, is now founded upon sophisticated technical instruments. Despite these
tremendous changes, the components of natural production remain basically the same.
This consistency inevitably necessitates returning to sound natural rules to solve the
economic problems that are the result of all previous historical attempts to formulate
solutions that ignore these rules.
All previous historical theories tackled the economic problem either from the angle of
ownership of any of the components of production, or from that of wages for production.
They failed to solve the real problem; the problem of production itself. Thus, the most
important characteristic of economic order prevailing in the world today is a wage system
that deprives the workers of any right to the products being produced, be it for the society
or for a private establishment.
An industrial establishment is composed of material for production, machines and
workers. Production is achieved by workers manufacturing materials and using machines.
Thus, manufactured goods would not have been ready for use and consumption had they
not gone through a production process requiring raw materials, factories, and workers.
Clearly, without basic raw materials, the factory cannot operate and without the factory,
raw materials will not be manufactured. Likewise, without producers, the factory comes to
a halt. Thus, the three factors are equally essential to the process of production, and
without them there can be no production. The absence of any one of these components
cannot be replaced by the others. Therefore, the natural rule necessitates each component
receiving an equal share of the benefits of production. It is not only the factory that is
important, but those who consume its production as well.
The same is applicable to agricultural production processes resulting from only two
components: man and land. The product must be divided equally into two shares
congruent with the number of production components. Furthermore, if any additional
mode, mechanical or otherwise is utilized in the process, production must be equally
divided into three shares: the land, the farmer, and the means of production.
Consequently, a socialist system emerges under which all production processes are
governed by this natural rule.
The producers are the workers; they are called producers because the terms “worker,”
“labourer,” and “toiler” have become invalid. The traditional definition is revised because
workers are undergoing qualitative and quantitative changes. The working class is
declining proportionately to the advancement of science and technology.
Tasks once performed by a number of workers are now being carried out by a single
machine. Operating a machine requires fewer workers; this has brought about a
quantitative change in the labour force, while the replacement of physical force by
technical skill has resulted in a qualitative change in the labour force.
The labour force has become a component of the production process. As a result of
technical advancement, multitudes of unskilled toilers have been transformed into limited
numbers of technicians, engineers and scientists. Consequently, trade unions will
subsequently disappear and be replaced by syndicates of engineers and technicians.
Scientific advancement is an irreversible gain for humankind. Thanks to this process,
illiteracy will be eliminated and unskilled workers will become a temporary phenomenon
destined to gradual disappearance. However, even in this new environment, persons will
always remain the basic component in the production process.
The freedom of a human being is lacking if his or her needs are controlled by others, for
need may lead to the enslavement of one person by another. Furthermore, exploitation is
caused by need. Need is an intrinsic problem and conflict is initiated by the control of
one’s needs by another.
Housing is an essential need for both the individual and the family and should not be
owned by others. Living in another’s house, whether paying rent or not, compromises
freedom. Attempts made by various countries to solve the housing problem did not
provide a definite solution because such attempts did not target the ultimate solution – the
necessity that people own their dwellings – but rather offered the reduction, increase, or
standardization of rent, whether it went to privately or publicly-owned enterprise. In a
socialist society, no one, including society itself, has the right to control people’s needs.
No one has the right to acquire a house additional to his or her own dwelling and that of
his or her heirs for the purpose of renting it because this additional house is, in fact, a
need of someone else. Acquiring it for such a purpose is the beginning of controlling the
needs of others, and “in need freedom is latent”.
Income is an imperative need for man. In a socialist society, it should not be in the form of
wages from any source or charity from any one. In this society, there are no wage-earners,
but only partners. One’s income is a private matter and should either be managed privately
to meet one’s needs or be a share from a production process of which one is an essential
component. It should not be a wage in return for production.
Transportation is also a necessity both to the individual and to the family. It should not be
owned by others. In a socialist society, no person or authority has the right to own a
means of transportation for the purpose of renting it, for this also means controlling the
needs of others.
Land is the private property of none. Rather, everyone has the right to beneficially utilize it
by working, farming or pasturing as long as he and his heirs live on it – to satisfy their
needs, but without employing others with or without a wage. If lands were privately owned,
only the living would have a share in it.
Land is permanent, while those who benefit from the land undergo, in the course of time,
changes in profession, capabilities and existence.
The aspiration of the new socialist society is to create a society which is happy because it
is free. This can only be achieved by satisfying, man’s material and spiritual needs, and
that, in turn, comes about through the liberation of these needs from the control of others.
Satisfaction of these needs must be attained without exploiting or enslaving others;
otherwise, the aspirations of the new socialist society are contradicted.
Thus, the citizen in this new society secures his material needs either through selfemployment,
or by being a partner in a collectively-owned establishment, or by rendering
public service to society which, in return, provides for his material needs.
Economic activity in the new socialist society is a productive one aimed at the satisfaction
of material needs. It is not an unproductive activity, nor one which seeks profit for surplus
savings beyond the satisfaction of such needs. This, according to the new socialist basis,
is unacceptable. The legitimate purpose for private economic activities is only to satisfy
one’s needs because the wealth of the world, as well as that of each individual society, is
finite at each stage. No one has the right to undertake an economic activity whereby
wealth exceeding the satisfaction of one’s needs can be amassed. Such accumulations
are, in fact, the deprived right of others. One only has the right to save from his own
production and not by employing others, or to save at the expense of his or her own needs
and not of others. If economic activity is allowed to extend beyond the satisfaction of
needs, some will acquire more than required for their needs while others will be deprived.
The savings which are in excess of one’s needs are another person’s share of the wealth
of society. Allowing private economic activity to amass wealth beyond the satisfaction of
one’s needs and employing others to satisfy one’s needs or beyond, or to secure savings,
is the very essence of exploitation.
Work for wages, in addition to being enslavement as previously mentioned, is void of
incentives because the producer is a wage-earner and not a partner. Self-employed
persons are undoubtedly devoted to their work because from it they satisfy their material
needs. Likewise, those who work in a collective establishment are also devoted to their
work because they are partners in it and they satisfy their material needs from the
production. Whoever works for a wage, on the other hand, has little incentive to work.
Work for wages has failed to solve the problem of motivation for increasing and
developing production. Whether it is a service or goods production, work for wages is
continuously deteriorating because it is performed by unmotivated wage-earners.
First example:
(a) A worker produces ten apples for society. The society gives him one apple for his
production and it fully satisfies his needs.
(b) A worker produces ten apples for society. The society gives him one apple for his
production which does not satisfy his needs.
Second example:
A worker produces ten apples for another person and gets wages less than the price of
one apple.
Third example:
A worker produces ten apples for himself.
The conclusion:
In the first example (a), because the worker’s wages are limited to one unit which satisfies
his needs, he has no incentive to increase his production. Thus, all the labour force that
works for society is psychologically apathetic.
(b) The worker has no incentive even to produce because he cannot satisfy his needs from
the wages. However, he continues working without any incentives because generally, like
all members, he is forced to acquiesce to the working conditions of the society.
In the second example, the worker works basically to get wages and not to produce. Since
his wages cannot satisfy his needs, the choices are either to look for another master to get
a better price for his work, or be forced, as a matter of survival, to remain where he is.
In the third example, the self-employed alone is the one who produces eagerly and
In a socialist society, there is no possibility for private production to exceed the
satisfaction of one’s needs because satisfaction of needs at the expense or by means of
others is not permitted. Moreover, socialist establishments operate only for the
satisfaction of the needs of society. Accordingly, the third example demonstrates the
sound basis of its economic production.
However, in all instances, even the bad ones production is associated with survival. The
proof thereof is that, even though in capitalist societies production accumulates and
expands in the hands of only a few owners who do not work but exploit the efforts of
others, the toilers are still forced to produce in order to survive. However, THE GREEN
BOOK not only solves the problem of material production but also prescribes a
comprehensive solution for the problems facing human societies so that individuals may
be totally liberated, materially and spiritually, in order to attain their happiness.
Other examples:
If we assume that the wealth of a society is ten units and its inhabitants are ten persons,
then the share of each member is one-tenth of the total one unit per person. If some
members of this society get more than one unit each, then a certain number from the
society get nothing. Their share of the wealth of their society has been acquired by others.
Hence, the presence of rich and poor in an exploitative society. Let us also suppose that
five members of that particular society each own two units. In such a case, half of the
society is deprived of their rights to the wealth of their society, for what should be theirs
has been acquired by others.
If an individual of that society needs only one of the units of the wealth of the society to
satisfy his needs, then those who possess more than one unit are, in fact, seizing the
rights of other members of the society. Because the one unit is all that is required to
satisfy the needs of an individual, the additional units are acquired for the purpose of
savings. This can only be achieved at the expense of the needs of others; the acquisition
of others’ share in this wealth. This is the reason behind the existence of those who hoard
and do not spend; those who save beyond the satisfaction of their needs; and the
existence of those who beg and are deprived of their right to the wealth of the society and
do not find enough to consume. Such is an act of plunder and theft, yet according to the
unjust and exploitative rules governing such a society, it is legitimate and overt.
Any surplus beyond the satisfaction of needs should ultimately belong to all members of
society. Individuals, however, have a right to effect savings from the share allocated to
their own needs since it is the amassing of wealth beyond the satisfaction of one’s needs
that is an encroachment upon public wealth.
The industrious and skilful in a society have no right, as a result of this advantage, to take
from the shares of others. They can use their talents to satisfy their own needs and save
from those needs. Like any other member of the society, the aged and the mentally and
physically disabled should have their fair share of the wealth of the society.
The wealth of a society may be likened to a supply establishment or a store providing a
certain number of people with daily rations satisfying their needs. Each person has a right
to save from such provisions what he wants, i.e., to consume or save whatever portions of
his share he decides, utilizing his talents and skill for such purposes. However, those who
use their talents to acquire excessively from the “supply establishment” are undoubtedly
thieves. Therefore, those using their skill to acquire wealth exceeding the satisfaction of
their needs are, in fact, infringing upon the public right, namely, the wealth of society
which is like the store in the said example.
Disparity in the wealth of individuals in the new socialist society is not tolerated, save for
those rendering certain services to the society for which they are accorded an amount
congruent with their services. Individual shares only differ relative to the amount of
production or public service rendered in excess.
Hence, human experiences through history have produced a new experiment in a unique
attempt to culminate the struggle of persons to complete their freedom, to achieve
happiness through satisfying their needs, to ward off exploitation by others, to put an end
to tyranny, and to find a method to distribute the wealth of the society equitably, without
exploiting others or compromising their needs. It is the theory of the fulfilment of needs
for the emancipation of humanity.
The new socialist society is but a dialectical outcome of the unjust relationships prevailing
in the world today. The new socialist society will introduce the natural solution – privatelyowned
property to satisfy one’s needs without exploitation, and collective property in
which the producers are partners replacing private enterprise, which is based on the
production of others without recognizing their right to a just share of the product.
Whoever possesses the house in which you dwell, the vehicle in which you ride or the
income on which you live, possesses your freedom, or part of it. Freedom is indivisible.
For people to be happy, they must be free, and to be free, they must possess the
possibility of satisfying their own needs. Whoever possesses the means of fulfilling your
needs controls or exploits you, and may enslave you despite any legislation to the
The material needs of people that are basic and personal start with food, housing, clothing
and transport and must be regarded as private and sacred and their satisfaction should
not depend on hire.
To satisfy these material needs through rent, gives the original owner the right to interfere
in your personal life and to control your imperative needs, even if the original owner be the
society in general. The original owner can usurp your freedom and take away your
happiness. The interference of the original owner may include repossessing your clothes,
even leaving you naked on the street. Likewise, the owner of your means of transportation
may leave you stranded on the sidewalk, and the owner of your house may make you
People’s imperative needs cannot be regulated by legal or administrative procedures.
They must be fundamentally implanted into the society in accordance with natural rules.
The aim of the socialist society is the happiness of the human being, which cannot be
attained except by the establishment of one’s material, and spiritual freedom. The
achievement of freedom depends on the private and sacred attainment of man’s needs.
One’s needs should not be under the domination of others and should not be subject to
plunder by any source in society, otherwise one will live in insecurity. Deprivation of the
means of fulfilment compromises freedom because, in attempting to satisfy basic needs,
one would be subject to the interference of outside forces in one’s basic interests.
The transformation of existing societies of wage-earners into those of partners is
inevitable as a dialectical outcome of the contradictory economic theories prevailing in the
world today. It is also a dialectical outcome of the unjust relationship based on the wage
system. None of these issues have been resolved to date.
The antagonistic force of the trade unions in the capitalist world is capable of replacing
capitalistic wage societies by a society of partnerships. The possibility of a socialist
revolution starts by producers taking over their share of the production. Consequently, the
aims of the producers’ strikes will change from demanding increases in wages to
controlling their share in production. Guided by THE GREEN BOOK , this will sooner or
later take place. The final step is for the new socialist society to reach a stage in which
profit and money disappear. Society will become fully productive; the material needs of
society will be met. In this final stage, profit will disappear, as will the need for money.
The recognition of profit is an acknowledgment of exploitation, for profit has no limit.
Attempts so far to limit profit by various means have been reformative, not radical,
intending to prohibit exploitation of man by man. The final solution lies in eradicating
profit, but because profit is the dynamic force behind the economic process, eliminating
profit is not a matter of decree but, rather, an outcome of the evolving socialist process.
This solution can be attained when the material satisfaction of the needs of society and its
members is achieved.Work to increase profit will itself lead to its final eradication.
Domestic servants, paid or unpaid, are a type of slave. Indeed, they are the slaves of the
modern age.
Since the new socialist society is based on partnership and not on a wage system, natural
socialist rules do not apply to domestic servants because they render services rather than
production. Services have no tangible material product and cannot be divided into shares
according to the natural socialist rule.
Domestic servants have no alternative but to work for wages, or even be unpaid in the
worst of situations. As wage-earners are a type of slave and their slavery exists as long as
they work for wages, domestic servants, whose position is lower than that of wageearners
in economic establishments and corporations, have an even greater need to be
emancipated from the society of wage-labour and the society of slaves.
Domestic servants is a phenomenon that comes next to slavery.
The Third Universal Theory heralds emancipation from the fetters of injustice, despotism,
exploitation, and economic and political hegemony, for the purpose of establishing a
society of all the people where all are free and share equally in authority, wealth and arms.
Freedom will then triumph definitively and universally.
THE GREEN BOOK thus defines the path of liberation to masses of wage-earners and
domestic servants in order that human beings may achieve freedom. The struggle to
liberate domestic servants from their status of slavery and to transform them into
partners, where their material production can be divided into its necessary basic
components, is an inevitable process. Households should be serviced by their habitants.
Essential household services should not be performed by domestic servants, paid or
unpaid, but by employees who can be promoted in rendering their services and can enjoy
social and material benefits as any other public employee would.
The social factor, the national factor, is the dynamic force of human history. The social
bond, which binds together human communities from the family through the tribe to the
nation, is the basis for the movement of history.
Heroes in history are, by definition, those who have sacrificed for causes. But what
causes? They sacrificed for the sake of others, but which others? They are those with
whom they maintain a relationship. Therefore, the relationship between an individual and a
group is a social one that governs the people’s dealings amongst themselves.
Nationalism, then, is the base upon which one nation emerges. Social causes are therefore
national, and the national relationship is a social one. The social relationship is derived
from society, i.e., the relationship among members of one nation. The social relationship
is, therefore, a national relationship and the national is a social relationship. Even if small
in number, communities or groups form one nation regardless of the individual
relationship amongst its members. What is meant here by a community is that which is
permanent because of the common national ties that govern it.
Historic movements are mass movements, i.e., the movement of one group in its own
interests differentiated from the interests of other communities. These differentiations
indicate the social characteristics that bind a community together. Mass movements are
independent movements to assert the identity of a group conquered or oppressed by
another group.
The struggle for authority happens within the group itself down to the level of the family,
as was explained in Part 1 of THE GREEN BOOK: The Political Axis of the Third Universal
Theory. A group movement is a nation’s movement for its own interests. By virtue of its
national structure, each group has common social needs which must be collectively
satisfied. These needs are in no way individualistic; they are collective needs, rights,
demands, or objectives of a nation which are linked by a single ethos. That is why these
movements are called national movements. Contemporary national liberation movements
are themselves social movements; they will not come to an end before every group is
liberated from the domination of another group. The world is now passing through one of
the regular cycles of the movement of history, namely, the social struggle in support of
In the world of man, this is as much a historical reality as it is a social reality. That means
that the national struggle – the social struggle – is the basis of the movement of history. It
is stronger than all other factors since it is in the nature of the human group; it is in the
nature of the nation; it is the nature of life itself. Other animals, apart from man, live in
groups. Indeed, just as the community is the basis for the survival of all groups within the
animal kingdom, so nationalism is the basis for the survival of nations.
Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subject to ruin. Minorities, which are one of
the main political problems in the world, are the outcome. They are nations whose
nationalism has been destroyed and which are thus torn apart. The social factor is,
therefore, a factor of life – a factor of survival. It is the nation’s innate momentum for
Nationalism in the human world and group instinct in the animal kingdom are like gravity
in the domain of material and celestial bodies. If the sun lost its gravity, its gasses would
explode and its unity would no longer exist. Accordingly, unity is the basis for survival.
The factor of unity in any group is a social factor; in man’s case, nationalism. For this
reason, human communities struggle for their own national unity, the basis for their
The national factor, the social bond, works automatically to impel a nation towards
survival, in the same way that the gravity of an object works to keep it as one mass
surrounding its centre. The dissolution and dispersion of atoms in an atomic bomb are the
result of the explosion of the nucleus, which is the focus of gravitation for the particles
around it. When the factor of unity in those component systems is destroyed and gravity
is lost, every atom is separately dispersed. This is the nature of matter. It is an established
natural law. To disregard it or to go against it is damaging to life. Similarly, man’s life is
damaged when he begins to disregard nationalism – the social factor – for it is the gravity
of the group, the secret of its survival. Only the religious factor is a rival to the social
factor in influencing the unity of a group. The religious factor may divide the national
group or unite groups with different nationalisms; however, the social factor will
eventually triumph. This has been the case throughout the ages. Historically, each nation
had a religion. This was harmonious. Eventually, however, differences arose which
became a genuine cause of conflict and instability in the lives of people throughout the
A sound rule is that each nation should have a religion. For it to be otherwise is abnormal.
Such an abnormality creates an unsound situation which becomes a real cause for
disputes within one national group. There is no other solution but to be harmonious with
the natural rule, i.e., each nation has a single religion. When the social factor is compatible
with the religious factor, harmony prevails and the life of communities becomes stable,
strong, and develops soundly.
Marriage is a process that can positively or negatively influence the social factor. Though,
on a natural basis of freedom, both man and woman are free to accept whom they want
and reject whom they do not want, marriage within a group, by its very nature, strengthens
its unity and brings about collective growth in conformity with the social factor.
To the individual, the family is more important than the state. Mankind acknowledges the
individual as a human being, and the individual acknowledges the family, which is his
cradle, his origin, and his social umbrella. According to the law of nature, the human race
is the individual and the family, but not the state. The human race has neither relations nor
anything else to do with the state, which is an artificial political, economic, and sometimes
military, system. The family is like a plant, with branches, stems, leaves and blossoms.
Cultivating nature into farms and gardens is an artificial process that has no relevance to
the plant itself. The fact that certain political, economic or military factors tie a number of
families into one state does not necessarily link this system or its organization with
humanity. Similarly, any situation, position or proceeding that results in the dispersion,
decline or loss of the family is inhuman, unnatural and oppressive, analogous to any
procedure, measure or action that destroys a plant and its branches and withers its leaves
and blossoms.
Societies in which the existence and unity of the family become threatened due to any
circumstance, are similar to fields whose plants experience uprooting, drought, fire,
weathering or death. The blossoming garden or field is one whose plants grow, blossom
and pollinate naturally. The same holds true of human societies. The flourishing society is
that in which the individual grows naturally within the family and the family within society.
The individual is linked to the larger family of humankind like a leaf is to a branch or a
branch to a tree. They have no value or life if they are separated. The same holds true for
individuals if they are separated from their families – the individual without a family has no
value or social life. If human society reaches the stage where the individual lives without a
family, it would then become a society of tramps, without roots, like artificial plants.
A tribe is a family which has grown as a result of procreation. It follows that a tribe is an
enlarged family. Similarly, a nation is a tribe which has grown through procreation. The
nation, then, is an enlarged tribe. The world is a nation which has been diversified into
various nations. The world, then, is an enlarged nation. The relationship which binds the
family also binds the tribe, the nation, and the world. However, it weakens with the
increase in number. The essence of humanity is that of nation, the essence of nation is
that of the tribe, and the essence of the tribe is that of family. The degree of warmth
involved in the relationship decreases proportionately with the increase in size of the
social unit. This is an indisputable social fact denied only by those who are ignorant of it.
The social bond, cohesiveness, unity, intimacy and love are stronger at the family level
than at the tribal level, stronger at the tribal level than that of the nation, and stronger at
the level of the nation than that of the world.
Advantages, privileges, values and ideals based on social bonds exist where those bonds
are natural and undoubtedly strong. They are stronger at the family level than at the level
of the tribe, stronger at the tribal level than that of the nation, and stronger at the nation’s
level than that of the world. Thus, these social bonds, benefits, advantages and ideals
associated with them are lost wherever the family, the tribe, the nation or humankind
vanish or are lost. It is, therefore, of great importance for human society to maintain the
cohesiveness of the family, the tribe, the nation and the world in order to benefit from the
advantages, privileges, values and ideals yielded by the solidarity, cohesiveness, unity,
intimacy and love of family, tribe, nation and humanity.
In the social sense, the familial society is better than that of the tribe, the tribal society is
better than that of the nation, and the society of the nation is better than world society with
respect to fellowship, affection, solidarity and benefits.
Since the tribe is a large family, it provides its members with much the same material
benefits and social advantages that the family provides for its members, for the tribe is a
secondary family. What must be emphasized is that, in the context of the tribe, an
individual might indulge himself in an uncouth manner, something which he would not do
within the family. However, because of the smallness in size of the family, immediate
supervision is not exercised, unlike the tribe whose members continually feel that they are
under its supervision. In view of these considerations, the tribe forms a behaviour pattern
for its members, developing into a social education which is better and more noble than
any school education. The tribe is a social school where its members are raised to absorb
the high ideals which develop into a behaviour pattern for life. These become
automatically rooted as the human being grows, unlike classroom education with its
curricula – formally dictated and gradually lost with the growth of the individual. This is so
because it is formal and compulsory and because the individual is aware of the fact that it
is dictated to him.
The tribe is a natural social “umbrella” for social security. By virtue of social tribal
traditions, the tribe provides for its members collective protection in the form of fines,
revenge and defence; namely, social protection. Blood is the prime factor in the formation
of the tribe, but it is not the only one because affiliation is also a factor in the formation of
the tribe. With the passage of time, the differences between the factors of blood and
affiliation disappear, leaving the tribe as one social and physical unit, though it remains
fundamentally a unit of blood in origin.
The nation is the individual’s national political “umbrella”; it is wider than the social
“umbrella” provided by the tribe to its members. Tribalism damages nationalism because
tribal allegiance weakens national loyalty and flourishes at its expense. In the same way,
loyalty to the family flourishes at the expense of tribal loyalty and weakens it. National
loyalty is essential to the nation but, at the same time, it is a threat to humanity.
The nation in the world community is similar, to the family in the tribe. The more the
families of a tribe feud and become fanatical, the more the tribe is threatened. The family is
threatened when its individual members feud and pursue only their personal interests.
Similarly, if the tribes of a nation quarrel and pursue only their own interests, then the
nation is undermined. National fanaticism expressed in the use of force against weak
nations, or national progress which is at the expense of other nations, is evil and harmful
to humanity. However, strong individuals who have self-respect and are aware of their own
individual responsibilities are important and useful to the family, just as a strong and
respectable family, which is aware of its importance, is socially and materially beneficial to
the tribe. Equally useful to the whole world is a progressive, productive and civilized
nation. The national political structure is damaged when it descends to a lower social
level, namely, the family and tribe, and attempts to act in their manner and to adopt their
The nation is an enlarged family which has passed through the period of the tribe and
through the diversification of tribes that have branched out from one common source. It
also includes those members who affiliated themselves with its destiny. The family,
likewise, grows into a nation only after passing through the period of the tribe and its
diversification, as well as through the process of affiliation which comes about as a result
of interaction between various communities in a society. Inevitably, this is achieved over a
long period of time. Although the passage of time creates new nations, it also helps to
fragment old ones. Common origin and common destiny, through affiliation, are the two
historic bases for any nation, though origin ranks first and affiliation second. A nation is
not defined only by origin, even though origin is its basis and beginning. In addition to its
origin, a nation is formed by human affiliations through the course of history which induce
a group of people to live in one area of land, develop a common history, form one heritage,
and face the same destiny. A nation, irrespective of blood bond, is formed through a sense
of belonging and a shared destiny.
But why has the map of the earth witnessed great nations that have disappeared to give
way to the rise of other nations? Is the reason only political, without any relationship to
the social aspect of The Third Universal Theory? Or, is it social and so properly the
concern of this part of THE GREEN BOOK?
Let us see. The family is indisputably a social structure rather than a political one. The
same applies to the tribe because it is a family which has reproduced and enlarged itself
to become many families. Equally true, the nation is a tribe after it has grown and its
branches have multiplied and become tribes.
The nation is also a social structure whose bond is nationalism; the tribe is a social
structure whose bond is tribalism; the family is a social structure whose bond is family
ties; and global society is a social structure whose bond is humanity. These facts are selfevident.
There is then the political structure of states which form the political map of the
world. But why does the map of the world keep changing from one age to the next? The
reason is that political structures may, or may not, be consistent with social structures.
When political structure and social reality are congruent, as in the case of the nation-state,
it lasts and does not change. If a change is forced by external colonialism or internal
collapse, it reappears under the banner of national struggle, national revival or national
unity. When a political structure embraces more than one nation, its map will be torn up by
each nation, gaining independence under the banner of its respective nationhood. Thus,
the maps of the empires which the world has witnessed have been torn up because they
were composed of a number of nations. When every nation clings strongly to its national
identity and seeks independence, political empires are torn up and their components
revert to their social origins. This is evidently clear through the history of the world when
reviewed through the ages.
But why were those empires made up of different nations? The answer is that the state is
not a social structure like the family, the tribe and the nation, but, rather, a political entity
created by several factors, the simplest and foremost of which is nationalism. The national
state is the only political form which is consistent with the natural social structure. Its
existence lasts, unless it becomes subject to the tyranny of another stronger nationalism
or unless its political structure, as a state, is affected by its social structure in the form of
tribes, clans and families. A political structure is corrupted if it becomes subservient to the
sectarian social structure of the family, tribe, or sect and adopts its characteristics.
Religious, economic and military factors also contribute to form a state which differs from
the basic, national state.
A common religion, as well as the requirements of economics or military conquests, may
create a state which embraces several nations. Thus, in one age, the world witnesses a
state or an empire which will disintegrate in another age. When the spirit of nationalism
emerges stronger than religious loyalties, or conflict flares up between different
nationalisms which were brought together, for example, by one religion, each nation
becomes independent and recovers its social structure. That empire, then, disappears.
The role of religion resurfaces when the religious spirit emerges stronger than the spirit of
nationalism. Consequently, the various nationalisms are unified under the banner of
religion until the national role appears once again, and so on.
All states which are composed of several nationalities for whatever reason – religion,
economics, military power or man-made ideology will be destroyed by national conflict
until each nation obtains its independence, because the social factor will inevitably
triumph over the political factor.
Despite political circumstances which necessitate the establishment of a state, the basis
for the life of individuals is the family, and extends to the tribe, the nation, and eventually
to all humanity. The essential factor is the social factor. Nationalism is a permanent factor.
Stress should be laid on social reality and family care in order to bring up an integrated
well-educated human. Care should then be given to the tribe as a social “umbrella” and a
natural social school which develops its members at the post-family stage. The nation
then follows. The individual learns social values mainly from the family and the tribe which
form a natural social structure created by no particular individual. Taking care of the
family is in the interest of the individual just as the care of the tribe is in the interest of the
family, the individual and the nation; it is part of the national identity. The social factor, the
national factor, is the real constant dynamic force behind history.
To disregard the national bond of human communities and to establish a political system
in contradiction to social reality establishes only a temporary structure which will be
destroyed by the movement of the social factor of those groups, i.e., the national integrity
and dynamism of each community.
These facts are innate in the life of humankind and are not intellectual conjectures. Every
individual in the world should be aware of these realities and work accordingly so that his
actions may be worthwhile. To avoid deviation, disorder and damage in the life of human
groups which are the result of a lack of understanding and respect for these principles of
human life, it is necessary to know these proven realities.
It is an undisputed fact that both man and woman are human beings. It follows, as a selfevident
fact, that woman and man are equal as human beings. Discrimination against
woman by man is a flagrant act of oppression without justification for woman eats and
drinks as man eats and drinks; woman loves and hates as man loves and hates; woman
thinks, learns and comprehends as man thinks, learns and comprehends. Woman, like
man, needs shelter, clothing, and transportation; woman feels hunger and thirst as man
feels hunger and thirst; woman lives and dies as man lives and dies.
But why are there men and women? Human society is composed neither of men alone nor
of women alone. It is made up naturally of men and women. Why were not only men
created? Why were not only women created? After all, what is the difference between men
and women or man and woman? Why was it necessary to create men and women? There
must be a natural necessity for the existence of man and woman, rather than man only or
woman only. It follows that neither of them is exactly like the other, and the fact that a
natural difference exists between men and women is proved by the created existence of
men and women. This necessarily means that there is a role for each one of them
corresponding to the difference between them. Accordingly, there must be different
prevailing conditions for each one in order that they perform their naturally different roles.
To comprehend these roles, we must understand the difference in the created nature of
man and woman, that is, the natural difference between the two.
Women are females and men are males. According to gynaecologists, women menstruate
every month or so, while men, being male, do not menstruate or suffer during the monthly
period. A woman, being a female, is naturally subject to monthly bleeding. When a woman
does not menstruate, she is pregnant. If she is pregnant, she becomes, due to pregnancy,
less active for about a year, which means that all her natural activities are seriously
reduced until she delivers her baby. When she delivers her baby or has a miscarriage, she
suffers puerperium, a condition attendant on delivery or miscarriage. As man does not get
pregnant, he is not liable to the conditions which women, being female, suffer. Afterwards
a woman may breast-feed the baby she bore. Breast-feeding continues for about two
years. Breastfeeding means that a woman is so inseparable from her baby that her activity
is seriously reduced. She becomes directly responsible for another person whom she
assists in his or her biological functions; without this assistance that person would die.
The man, on the other hand, neither conceives nor breast-feeds. End of gynaecological
All these innate characteristics form differences because of which men and women are not
the same. These characteristics in themselves are the realities that define male and
female, men and women; they assign to each of them a different role or function in life.
This means that men cannot replace women in carrying out these functions. It is worthy of
consideration that these biological functions are a heavy burden, causing women great
effort and suffering. However, without these functions which women perform, human life
would come to an end. It follows that it is a natural function which is neither voluntary nor
compulsory. It is an essential function, without which human life would come to a
complete halt.
Deliberate interventions against conception form an alternative to human life. In addition
to that, there exists partial deliberate intervention against conception, as well as against
breast-feeding. All these are links in a chain of actions in contradiction to natural life,
which is tantamount to murder. For a woman to kill herself in order not to conceive, deliver
and breast-feed is within the realm of deliberate, artificial interventions, in contradiction
with the nature of life epitomized by marriage, conception, breast-feeding, and maternity.
They differ only in degree.
To dispense with the natural role of woman in maternity – nurseries replacing mothers – is
a start in dispensing with the human society and transforming it into a merely biological
society with an artificial way of life. To separate children from their mothers and to cram
them into nurseries is a process by which they are transformed into something very close
to chicks, for nurseries are similar to poultry farms into which chicks are crammed after
they are hatched. Nothing else would be as appropriate and suitable to the human being
and his dignity as natural motherhood. Children should be raised by their mothers in a
family where the true principles of motherhood, fatherhood and comradeship of brothers
and sisters prevail, and not in an institution resembling a poultry farm. Even poultry, like
the rest of the members of the animal kingdom, need motherhood as a natural phase.
Therefore, breeding them on farms similar to nurseries is against their natural growth.
Even their meat is artificial rather than natural. Meat from mechanized poultry farms is not
tasty and may not be nourishing because the chicks are not naturally bred and are not
raised in the protective shade of natural motherhood. The meat of wild birds is more tasty
and nourishing because they are naturally fed. As for children who have neither family nor
shelter, society is their guardian, and only for them, should society establish nurseries
and related institutions. It is better for them to be taken care of by society rather than by
individuals who are not their parents.
If a test were carried out to discover whether the natural propensity of the child is towards
its mother or the nursery. the child would opt for the mother and not the nursery. Since the
natural tendency of a child is towards its mother, she is the natural and proper person to
give the child the protection of nursing. Sending a child to a nursery in place of its mother
is coercive and oppressive and against its free and natural tendencies.
Natural growth for all living things is free and healthy growth. To substitute a nursery for a
mother is coercive action against free and sound growth. Children who are shipped off to
a nursery are consigned compulsorily or by exploitation and simple-mindedness. They are
driven to nurseries purely by materialistic, and not by social, considerations. If coercion
and childish simple-mindedness were removed, they would certainly reject the nursery
and cling to their mothers. The only justification for such an unnatural and inhuman
process is the fact that the woman is in a position unsuitable to her nature, i.e., she is
compelled to perform duties which are unsocial and anti-motherhood.
A woman, whose created nature has assigned to her a natural role different from that of
man, must be in an appropriate position to perform her natural role.
Motherhood is the female’s function, not the male’s. Consequently, it is unnatural to
separate children from their mothers. Any attempt to take children away from their
mothers is coercion, oppression and dictatorship. The mother who abandons her
maternity contradicts her natural role in life. She must be provided with her rights, and
with conditions which are non-coercive, unoppressive and appropriate to her natural role.
She can then fulfill her natural role under natural conditions. If the woman is forced to
abandon her natural role regarding conception and maternity, she falls victim to coercion
and tyranny. A woman who needs work that renders her unable to perform her natural
function is not free and is compelled to work by need, and “in need, freedom is latent”.
Among suitable and even essential conditions which enable women to perform their
natural role, which differs from that of men, are those very conditions which are proper for
a human being who is incapacitated and burdened with pregnancy. Bearing another
human being in her womb lessens her physical ability. It is unjust to place such a woman,
in this stage of maternity, into circumstances of physical work incompatible with her
condition. For pregnant women to perform such physical work is tantamount to
punishment for their betrayal of their maternal role; it is the tax they pay for entering the
realm of men, which is naturally alien to their own.
The belief, even if it is held by a woman, that she carries out physical labour of her own
accord, is not, in fact, true. She performs the physical work only because a harsh
materialistic society has placed her (without her being directly aware of it) into coercive
circumstances. She has no alternative but to submit to the conditions of that society, even
though she may think that she works of her own accord. In fact, the alleged basis that
“there is no difference in any way between men and women”, deprives woman of her
The phrase “in any way” is a monstrous deception. This idea will destroy the appropriate
and necessary conditions which constitute the privilege which women ought to enjoy
apart from men in accordance with their distinctive nature, and upon which their natural
role in life is based.
To demand equality between man and woman in carrying heavy weights while the woman
is pregnant is unjust and cruel. To demand equality between them in fasting and hardship
while she is breast-feeding is unjust and cruel. To demand equality between them in any
dirty work which stains her beauty and detracts from her femininity is unjust and cruel.
Education that leads to work unsuitable for her nature is unjust and cruel as well.
There is no difference between men and women in all that concerns humanity. None of
them should marry the other against his or her will, or divorce without a just trial or mutual
agreement. Neither should a woman remarry without such agreement or divorce; nor a
man without divorce or consent. The woman is the owner of the house because it is one of
the suitable and necessary conditions for a woman who menstruates, conceives, and
cares for her children. The female is the owner of the maternity shelter, which is the
house. Even in the animal world, which differs in many ways from that of the humans, and
where maternity is also a duty according to nature, it is coercive to deprive the female of
her shelter and the offspring of their mother.
Woman is female. Being female means she has a biological nature that is different from
that of the male. The female’s biological nature, differing as it does from that of the males,
has imparted to women characteristics different from those of men in form and in essence.
A woman’s anatomy is different from that of a man’s just as the female differs in plants
and animals. This is a natural and incontrovertible fact. In the animal and plant kingdoms,
the male is naturally created strong and aggressive, while the female is created beautiful
and gentle. These are natural and eternal characteristics innate to living creatures,
whether they are called human beings, animals or plants.
In view of his different nature and in line with the laws of nature, the male has played the
role of the strong and striving not by design, but simply because he is created that way.
The female has played the role of the beautiful and the gentle involuntarily because she
was created so. This natural rule is just, partly because it is natural, and partly because it
is the basic rule for freedom. All living creatures are created free and any interference with
that freedom is coercion. Not to adhere to these natural roles and to lack concern for their
limits amounts to a wanton act of corruption against the values of life itself. Nature has
been designed to be in harmony with the inevitability of life, from what is being to what will
become. The living creature is a being who inevitably lives until it is dead. Existence
between the beginning and the end of life is based on a natural law, without choice or
compulsion. It is natural. It is natural freedom.
In the animal, plant and human realms, there must be a male and a female for life to occur
from its beginning to its end. Not only do they exist but they have to exercise, with
absolute efficiency, the natural role for which they have been created. If their role is not
being efficiently performed, there must be some defect in the organization of life caused
by historical circumstances. This is the case of societies almost everywhere in the world
today as they confuse the roles of men and women and endeavour to transform women
into men. In harmony with nature and its subsequent purpose, men and women must be
creative within their respective roles. To resist is retrogressive; it is directed against
nature and destroys the basis of freedom, for it is hostile to both life and survival. Men and
women must perform, not abandon, the roles for which they are created.
Abandoning their role, or even a part of it, only occurs as a result of coercive conditions
and under abnormal circumstances. The woman who rejects pregnancy, marriage,
beautification and femininity for reasons of health abandons her natural role in life under
these coercive conditions of ill health. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or
motherhood because of work abandons her natural role under similar coercive conditions.
The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or maternity without any concrete cause
abandons her natural role as a result of a coercive and morally deviant circumstances.
Thus, abandoning the natural roles of female and male in life can only occur under
unnatural conditions which are contrary to freedom and are a threat to survival.
Consequently, there must be a world revolution which puts an end to all materialistic
conditions hindering women from performing their natural role in life, and so drives them
to carry out men’s duties in order to attain equal rights. Such revolution will inevitably take
place, particularly in industrial societies, as a response to the instinct of survival, even
without any instigator of revolution such as THE GREEN BOOK.
All societies today look upon women as little more than commodities. The East regards
her as a commodity to be bought and sold, while the West does not recognize her
Driving woman to do man’s work is a flagrant aggression against the femininity with which
she is naturally provided and which defines a natural purpose essential to life. Man’s work
obscures woman’s beautiful features which are created for female roles. They are like
blossoms which are created to attract pollen and to produce seeds. If we did away with the
blossoms, the role of plants in life would come to an end. The natural embellishment in
butterflies and birds and animal females exists to that natural vital purpose. If a woman
carries out men’s work, she risks being transformed into a man, abandoning her role and
her beauty. A woman has full right to live without being forced to change into a man and to
give up her femininity.
Physical structure, which is naturally different in men and women, leads to differences in
the functions of the organs, which in turn leads to differences in the psyche, mood,
emotions, as well as in physical appearance. A woman is tender; a woman is pretty; a
woman weeps easily and is easily frightened. In general, women are gentle and men are
aggressive by virtue of their inbred nature.
To ignore natural differences between men and women and to mix their roles is an
absolutely uncivilized attitude, hostile to the laws of nature, destructive to human life, and
a genuine cause for the wretchedness of human social life.
Modern industrial societies, which have made women adapt to the same physical work as
men at the expense of their femininity and their natural role in terms of beauty, maternity
and serenity, are materialistic and uncivilized. To imitate them is as stupid as it is
dangerous to civilization and humanity.
The question, then, is not whether women should or should not work, for this is a
ridiculous materialistic presentation of the case. Work should be provided by the society
to all able members who need work – men and women on the condition that individuals
work in their own fields and not be coerced into carrying out unsuitable work.
For children to find themselves under adult working conditions is unjust and dictatorial. It
is equally unjust and dictatorial for women to find themselves under the working
conditions of men.
Freedom means that every human being gets proper education which qualifies him or her
for the work which suits him or her. Dictatorship means that human beings are taught that
which is not suitable for them, and are forced to do unsuitable work. Work which is
appropriate to men is not necessarily appropriate to women, and knowledge that is proper
for children does not necessarily suit adults.
There is no difference in human rights between man and woman, the child and the adult,
but there is no absolute identity between them as regards their duties.
What is a minority? What are its rights and responsibilities? How can the problem of
minorities be solved according to the solution to various human problems presented by
The Third Universal Theory?
There are only two types of minorities. One of them belongs to a nation which provides it
with a social framework, while the other has no nation and forms its own social
framework. The latter is the one that forms one of the historic groups which eventually
constitute a nation by virtue of a sense of belonging and a common destiny.
It is now clear that such a minority has its own social rights. Any encroachment on these
rights by any majority is an act of injustice. Social characteristics are inherent and cannot
be given or taken away. The political and economic problems of minorities can only be
solved within a society controlled by the masses in whose hands power, wealth and arms
should be placed. To view the minority as a political and economic substrata is dictatorial
and unjust.
The latest age of slavery has been the enslavement of Blacks by White people. The
memory of this age will persist in the thinking of Black people until they have vindicated
This tragic and historic event, the resulting bitter feeling, and the yearning or the
vindication of a whole race, constitute a psychological motivation of Black people to
vengeance and triumph that cannot be disregarded. In addition, the inevitable cycle of
social history, which includes the Yellow people’s domination of the world when it
marched from Asia, and the White people’s carrying out a wide-ranging colonialist
movement covering all the continents of the world, is now giving way to the re-emergence
of Black people.
Black people are now in a very backward social situation, but such backwardness works
to bring about their numerical superiority because their low standard of living has
shielded them from methods of birth control and family planning. Also, their old social
traditions place no limit on marriages, leading to their accelerated growth. The population
of other races has decreased because of birth control, restrictions on marriage, and
constant occupation in work, unlike the Blacks, who tend to be less obsessive about work
in a climate which is continuously hot.
Education, or learning, is not necessarily that routinized curriculum and those classified
subjects in textbooks which youths are forced to learn during specified hours while sitting
in rows of desks. This type of education now prevailing all over the world is directed
against human freedom. State-controlled education, which governments boast of
whenever they are able to force it on their youths, is a method of suppressing freedom. It
is a compulsory obliteration of a human being’s talent, as well as a coercive directing of a
human being’s choices. It is an act of dictatorship destructive of freedom because it
deprives people of their free choice, creativity and brilliance. To force a human being to
learn according to a set curriculum is a dictatorial act. To impose certain subjects upon
people is also a dictatorial act.
State-controlled and standardized education is, in fact, a forced stultification of the
masses. All governments which set courses of education in terms of formal curricula and
force people to learn those courses coerce their citizens. All methods of education
prevailing in the world should be destroyed through a universal cultural revolution that
frees the human mind from curricula of fanaticism which dictate a process of deliberate
distortion of man’s tastes, conceptual ability and mentality.
This does not mean that schools are to be closed and that people should turn their backs
on education, as it may seem to superficial readers. On the contrary, it means. that society
should provide all types of education, giving people the chance to choose freely any
subjects they wish to learn. This requires a sufficient number of schools for all types of
education. Insufficient numbers of schools restrict human freedom of choice, forcing them
to learn only the subjects available, while depriving them of the natural right to choose
because of the unavailability of other subjects. Societies which ban or monopolize
knowledge are reactionary societies which are biased towards ignorance and are hostile
to freedom. Societies which prohibit the teaching of religion are reactionary societies,
biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Societies which monopolize religious
education are reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom.
Equally so are the societies which distort the religions, civilizations and behaviour of
others in the process of teaching those subjects. Societies which consider materialistic
knowledge taboo are likewise reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile
to freedom. Knowledge is a natural right of every human being of which no one has the
right to deprive him or her under any pretext, except in a case where a person does
something which deprives him or her of that right.
Ignorance will come to an end when everything is presented as it actually is and when
knowledge about everything is available to each person in the manner that suits him or
Humans, being backward, are still unable to speak one common language. Until this
human aspiration is attained, which seems impossible, the expression of joy and sorrow,
of what is good and bad, beautiful and ugly, comfortable and miserable, mortal and
eternal, love and hatred, the description of colours, sentiments, tastes and moods – all will
be expressed according to the language each person speaks spontaneously. Behaviour
itself will result from the reaction produced by the feeling that the language creates in the
speaker’s mind.
Learning a single language, whatever it may be, is not the solution for the time being. It is
a problem that will inevitably remain without solution until the process of the unification of
languages has passed through time, provided that the hereditary factor loses its effect on
subsequent generations through the passage of sufficient time. The sentiment, taste and
mood of ancestors form those of their descendants. If those ancestors spoke different
languages and their children, on the contrary, speak a single language, the off-spring
would not necessarily share common tastes in virtue of speaking a common language.
Such common tastes can be achieved only when the new language imparts the taste and
the sense transmitted by inheritance from one generation to another.
If one group of people wears white clothes in mourning and another group puts on black,
the sentiment of each group will be adjusted according to these two colours, i.e., one
group rejects the black colour on such an occasion while the other one prefers it, and vice
versa. Such a sentiment leaves its physical effect on the cells as well as on the genes in
the body. This adaptation, will be transmitted by inheritance. The inheritors automatically
reject the colour rejected by the legator as a result of inheriting the sentiment of their
legator. Consequently, people are only harmonious with their own arts and heritage. They
are not harmonious with the arts of others because of heredity, even though those people,
who differ in heritage, speak a single common language.
Such a difference emerges between the groups of one people, even if it is on a small scale.
To learn a single language is not the problem, and to understand others’ arts as a result of
learning their language is also not the problem. The problem is the impossibility of a real
intuitional adaptation to the language of others.
This will remain impossible until the effects of heredity, which are transmitted in the
human body, come to an end.
Mankind is still backward because humans do not communicate in one inherited common
language. It is only a matter of time before mankind, achieves that goal, unless civilization
should relapse.
Sport is either private, like the prayer which one performs alone inside a closed room, or
public, performed collectively in open places, like the prayer which is practised
corporately in places of worship. The first type of sport concerns the individuals
themselves, while the second type is of concern to all people. It must be practised by all
and should not be left to anyone else to practise on their behalf. It is unreasonable for
crowds to enter places of worship just to view a person or a group of people praying
without taking part. It is equally unreasonable for crowds to enter playgrounds and arenas
to watch a player of a team without participating themselves.
Sport is like praying, eating, and the feelings of coolness and warmth. It is unlikely that
crowds will enter a restaurant just to look at a person or a group of people eat. It is also
unlikely that they will let a person or a group or people enjoy warmth or ventilation on their
behalf. It is equally illogical for the society to allow an individual or a team to monopolize
sports while the society as a whole pays the costs of such a monopoly for the exclusive
benefit of one person or team. In the same way, people should not allow an individual or a
group, whether it is a party, class, sect, tribe or parliament, to replace them in deciding
their destiny and in defining their needs.
Private sport is of concern only to those who practise it on their own and at their own
expense. Public sport is a public need and the people cannot be either democratically or
physically represented by others in its practice. Physically, the representative cannot
transmit to others how his body and morale benefit from sport. Democratically, no
individual or team has the right to monopolize sport, power, wealth or arms for
themselves. Sporting clubs represent the basic organization of traditional sport in the
world today. They retain all expenditure and public facilities allocated to sport in every
state. These institutions are social monopolistic agencies like all dictatorial political
instruments which monopolize authority, economic instruments which monopolize wealth,
and traditional military instruments which monopolize arms. As the era of the masses
does away with the instruments monopolizing power, wealth and arms, it will, inevitably,
destroy the monopoly of social activity in such areas as sports, horsemanship, and so
forth. The masses who queue to vote for a candidate to represent them in deciding their
destiny act on the impossible assumption that this person will represent them and
embody, on their behalf, their dignity, sovereignty and point of view. However, those
masses who are robbed of their will and dignity are reduced to mere spectators, watching
another person performing what they should naturally be doing themselves.
The same holds true of the crowds who, because of ignorance, fail to practise sport by
and for themselves. They are fooled by monopolistic instruments which endeavour to
stupefy them and divert them to indulging in laughter and applause instead. Sport, as a
social activity, must be for the masses, just as power, wealth and arms should be in the
hands of the people.
Public sport is for all the masses. It is right of all people for their health and recreational
benefit. It is mere stupidity to leave its benefits to certain individuals and teams who
monopolize these while the masses provide the facilities and pay the expenses for the
establishment of public sports. The thousands who crowd stadiums to view, applaud and
laugh are foolish people who have failed to carry out the activity themselves. They line up
lethargically in the stands of the sports grounds, and applaud those heroes who wrest
from them the initiative, dominate the field and control the sport and, in so doing, exploit
the facilities that the masses provide. Originally, the public grandstands were designed to
demarcate the masses from the playing fields and grounds; to prevent the masses from
having access to the playing fields. When the masses march and play sport in the centre
of playing fields and open spaces, stadiums will be vacant and become redundant. This
will take place when the masses become aware of the fact; that sport is a public activity
which must be practised rather than watched. This is more reasonable as an alternative
than the present costum of a helpless apathetic majority that merely watches.
Grandstands will disappear because no one will be there to occupy them. Those who are
unable to perform the roles of heroism in life, who are ignorant of the events of history;
who fall short of envisaging the future, and who are not serious enough in their own lives,
are the trivial people who fill the seats of the theatres and cinemas to watch the events of
life in order to learn their course. They are like pupils who occupy school desks because
they are uneducated and also initially illiterate.
Those who direct the course of life for themselves have no need to watch life working
through actors on the stage or in the cinema. Horsemen who hold the reins of their horses
likewise have no seat in the grandstands at the race course. If every person has a horse,
no one will be there to watch and applaud. The sitting spectators are only those who are
too helpless to perform this kind of activity because they are not horsemen.
Bedouin peoples show no interest in theatres and shows because they are very serious
and industrious. As they have created a serious life, they ridicule acting. Bedouin
societies also do not watch performers, but perform games and take part in joyful
ceremonies because they naturally recognize the need for these activities and practise
them spontaneously.
Boxing and wrestling are evidence that mankind has not rid itself of all savage behaviour.
Inevitably it will come to an end when humanity ascends the ladder of civilization. Human
sacrifice and pistol duels were familiar practices in previous stages of human evolution.
However, those savage practices came to an end years ago. People now laugh at
themselves and regret such acts. This will be the fate of boxing and wrestling after tens or
hundreds of years. The more the people become civilized and sophisticated, the more they
are able to ward off both the performance and the encouragement of these practices.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.