Into the Heart of Lightness

INTO THE HEART OF LIGHTNESS - PART 1 of 5 - Work in Progress


References Not Required

A lie travels round the world while truth is putting on her boots - generally attributed to Winston Churchill but actually written by minister Charles Haddon Spurgeon (d. 1892)

The references for this project are incomplete. The theory is that official documentation does not make anything more or less true.  In fact, as will be shown, there is often an inverse relationship between authority and authenticity.

The excessive adversariness throughout industrial age communities includes rejecting and clouding any information that is not in an contender's short term interest. In the information wars, as in all wars, the first casualty is truth.  

As the age declines further, lies and mindless busyness increasingly overshadow knowledge and purposeful work mirroring the old and ironic habit of human beings to run faster when we have lost our way.

Another strike against referencing in modern times is that because of the flood of information available, much is missed by those who worry too much about who said what.  The ‘what’ is far more important than the ‘who’. For anyone wishing to verify or read further according to a particular author, keywords will get you there.  

Finally, references in any work are screened according to the perception of a writer. Today, unguided searches on the Internet provide a superior method for obtaining further information. Mainstream search engines and social media platforms can be a good starting point to better judge the less compromised online information sources. Fact checking websites can also be useful, once one learns these can be heavily biased to the point of spreading yet more misinformation.

A chapter in the following work covers various deception tactics and how best to spot them. Do your own research on topics that interest you.


Our problems are man-made — therefore, they can be solved by man. – John F. Kennedy.

Say goodbye to work drudgery, heavy taxation and environmental degradation. This sounds like a late night infomercial. Yet we have the technology to do this and more. So why the disconnect between what is doable and what is possible? Powerful actors and institutions are often blamed, but these reflect society in general. Suspect leaders and institutions fade away through the ages, yet the gaping separation between human potential and political reality remains. 

The misdeeds by overt and covert rulers are part of a deeper, systemic problem. At root, humanity’s evolutionary path is the culprit. Like all life, it led through a jungle environment, where force and deception are the cardinal virtues. The brutish instincts required for survival in this milieu are still within us. In the words of a cartoon character, we have met the enemy and he is us. 

The good news is that people change all the time, and societies along with them. The development of civilizing structures nurture our better nature. The law of the jungle is slowly giving way to laws loosely based on justice. As a result, there is far less violence today than in times gone past. The most dangerous neighborhood would be considered a relatively safe space by our distant ancestors. The exception to this is during times of war. As one general put it “the clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.” 

History has also shown wars are inevitable in the absence of overarching laws. When tribal law was the highest level of social organization, there was constant combat between the tribes. As tribes coalesced into rules bound confederations, the fighting between erstwhile deadly enemies dropped off precipitously. Once these alliances amalgamated into nation states, warfare again diminished dramatically. Peaceful times were longer and covered more territory with law settling most disputes. However, when war did come, it naturally scaled up with the larger groupings.

As nations grow closer together through technology, trade and treaties, warfare is again decreasing. It has been generations since conscription in many nations. War between the democracies is almost unthinkable today. There is still constant warfare on the world stage because nascent international laws often have no teeth and are applied selectively. However this is on a much diminished scale compared to the past. The final step to ending war is to create more effective global laws. The question of our times is whether this is done through the imposition of a secretive global oligarchy with dictatorial ambitions or with the participation of a more educated, informed public. 


The Emperor’s Old Clothes

 “The higher I go, the crookeder it becomes.” - Michael Corleone, Godfather Part III

Understandably, many are strongly opposed to the idea of global law. The more distant the government, the more difficult it is to keep it accountable. The higher concentration of power also tends towards more corruption. Stories that leak out of existing international bodies do not dispel concerns. Nationalistic conditioning, complete with flags and anthems, creates yet more resistance to the idea of world citizenry. 

Beyond this, our daily experiences with national and lower levels of government are rife with abuses of power and other forms of corruption. Politicians often finish dead last in surveys on the trust accorded to a profession. Who in their right mind would want more of this, at a higher almost untouchable level?

The first question to ask is how is it that those elected to high office are ranked so low? To be fair, politicians are in the spotlight along with their shortcomings. Constituents can condemn the human failings of a politician while ignoring their own similar transgressions. That said, the lack of trust is ultimately justified. Politicians are integral participants in what has been accurately termed a lying structure. This method of ruling predominated long before any serious moves towards world government.

The lying structure political model was codified some 500 years ago in a book entitled The Prince, by high court diplomat Nicolo Machiavelli.The term Machiavellian is often used as a pejorative, meaning underhanded and unethical. However, Machiavelli was simply being forthright about what it took to advance in the ruling structure of his day. His conclusion was that we cannot do good without power but we cannot gain power, nor keep it, without doing evil. The reason he gave for this was the people themselves. Many would abandon their leader if they thought another power seeker could offer them more.

Machiavelli wrote: “One can make this generalization about people: they are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours. They would shed their blood for you, risk their property, their lives, their children, so long, as I said above, the danger is remote; but when you are in danger they turn against you.”  If people see a greater personal advantage in supporting someone else, their loyalty turns out to be a loyalty of convenience, no matter what you have done for them in the past. In other words, wise leaders don’t trust the people any more than the people trust their leaders. 

Because rival claimants to power can be unscrupulous, it was necessary that the current leader act likewise to defend themselves. Nice guys usually finish last was Machiavelli’s observation. Consequently, he advised “It is necessary that the prince should know how to colour his nature well, and how to be a great hypocrite and dissembler”. He went so far as to argue that it was irresponsible to apply to political action the moral standards that are appropriate to private life. His reasoning was that disorder would result and the people would suffer more.

Machiavelli viewed morality as only another tool for manipulation. He wrote: "a leader doesn't have to possess all the virtuous qualities but it's absolutely imperative that he seems to possess them." The crowd is won over "by appearances", and as "the world is all crowd", appearances matter. He expressed admiration for “a certain prince of present times, whom it is not well to name, never preaches anything but peace and faith, and is very hostile to both.” 

Over a century after Machiavelli’s defining work on the necessity of force and deception in politics, Englishman Thomas Hobbes followed up with an equally pessimistic look at humanity. In his most famous work, Leviathan, he wrote "in the first place, I put forth a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceases only in death.” Hobbes argued that individuals living in a state of nature were constantly at war, did not know right from wrong, and lived lives that were “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. He advocated rule by an absolute sovereign, or dictator.  Otherwise “during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man.”

The Machiavellian or lying structure predominates today. It underlies the false reality projected by our mainstream media, educational facilities and other institutions. People have a tendency to vote for whoever promises the most for their own personal circumstances, regardless of broken promises in the past. Leaders that are immoral and cater to the selfish side of humanity usually end up on top. For most people, it is easier to fool them than convince them they have been fooled. As difficult as it is to accept, as an aggregate, the people do get the government they deserve. It’s no one’s fault of course. Previous human evolution got us here and the selfish gene lurking deep within us needs to be better directed to get us out of here. The question is how best to break out of the cycle of mutual distrust to create a participative, empowering future for all world citizens. 

Machiavelli’s most well known statement is that "it's much safer to be feared than loved". The reasoning is that fear is a more powerful emotion than loyalty or friendship. However, fear also breeds hatred. It is instructive that the ruler who served as a model for Machiavelli’s book fell to ruin rather spectacularly. Machiavelli must have sensed the downside to his advice as he also wrote:  “the best fortress is to be found in the love of the people, for although you may have fortresses they will not save you if you are hated by the people”.

Proofs of a Conspiracy

“If indeed sometimes I do happen to tell the truth, I hide it among so many lies that it is hard to find.” - Niccolo Machiavelli

The super elites themselves have described their Machiavellian bent in published books that can be accessed through the public library system. Insider economist John Keynes came clean in his 1931 book Essays in Persuasion when he wrote “for at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still.  For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight”. In other words, it is necessary to do evil in order to do good. The ends justify the means. Keynes was the major influence in the development of the post WWII money system.

Jesuit and Georgetown University professor Carroll Quigley, described by past U.S. President Bill Clinton as a mentor, wrote a book entitled Tragedy and Hope, a History of the World in Our Time. In this massive tome he laid bare the reality behind Keynesian economics. He wrote: “The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.” Quigley also related that he was an insider with this group, had studied its inner workings for years and approved of their overall aims.

Arnold J. Toynbee served as a director of the highly influential Royal Institute of International Affairs. He admitted his adherence to Machiavellian principles when he wrote: “we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands. It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly because to impugn the sovereignty of the local nation states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or publicist can perhaps not quite be burned at the stake but certainly be ostracized or discredited.”

In his book Memoirs, UN stalwart and financier David Rockefeller did not mince words when he penned: “for more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

This is but a tiny sampling of the evidence of the super elite push to weaken national sovereignty in favour of global governance and do so by secretive means. A key point here is that the conspiracy to create a world government is not a monolithic block as is sometimes presented. Like every other significant social endeavor, there are competing factions, outliers and shifting alliances. As Keynes, Quigley, Toynbee, Rockefeller and others make clear, even the injunction to secrecy is not something all feel bound to. A caveat is that when these leaders made their honest statements they felt confident their grip on the mass media and educational systems would ensure our political reality would not become widespread knowledge. Rightly, it was assumed that few people would read the original works in low circulation journals or plow through Quigley’s book of more than 1300 pages. The Internet is a game changer here. The relevant quotes were pulled from their obscurity and given wide circulation in a concise format, along with references to the original works. Belated, futile attempts to stifle information on the Internet is not so much to forestall fake news as to try to put this information genie back in the bottle. 

Out of the Heart of Darkness

Dyma ni awr ar daith ein gobaith (here we are now on our journey of faith) - Morgan John Rhys

It has been said change is the only constant. However, a distinction can be made between gradual change and discontinuous change. Discontinuous change has been defined as non-incremental, relatively sudden change. It can threaten existing power structures, often because it alters the way things are done. When discontinuous change overtakes society in general, it can be referred to as an age change. Previous human ages were the agricultural age and the industrial age. Currently, most of the world is working through the information age. 

As futurist Alvin Toffler relates in The Third Wave, the last significant transition in human affairs occurred during the birth of the industrial age.  It involved "one long blood-drenched drama of wars, revolts, famines, forced migrations, coups d'état, and calamities". In assessing the start of the information age, Toffler concludes "today the stakes are much higher, the time shorter, the acceleration faster, and the dangers even greater”.  

Toffler concludes his 1980's bestseller with "much depends on the flexibility and intelligence of the elites, sub-elites and super-elites.  If these groups prove to be as shortsighted, unimaginative, and frightened as most ruling groups in the past, they will rigidly resist the third wave (information age) and thereby escalate the risks of violence and their own destruction."  Toffler's work is mainstream enough that he has dined at the U.S. White House. Because of his establishment approach, many of the specific concepts behind his concerns could only be hinted at.  There are no such constraints here.

The establishment mantra is that the information age is now here. In terms of technological capability this is true. In terms of society in general, the misinformation age would be a better fit. This age change is being “rigidly resisted” by the elites. The powerful institutions that emerged with the industrial age; the mass media, banks, schools, legislative bodies, corporate structures and so on remain largely unchanged. Economic progress continues to be measured by GDP, where a murder and a marriage are considered to be of equal value if the same amount of money changes hands. Instead of the overdue transformation of thoroughly obsolete and unjust industrial age institutions, there is the usual attack on individual rights that occurs when a power structure is threatened. 

Humanity is still at a fork in the road that is as significant as any in history. True to form, the ruling class approach to the upcoming change is ‘shortsighted and unimaginative’. Superficial changes, lip service and a reflexive clampdown flows from the top, while real, institutional change, as always, is coming from the outliers and the grassroots. It was to be expected. One of things Toffler left unsaid is the catch 22 inherent in an uninformed populace under a Machiavellian leadership. How do the current rulers get off this tiger without being eaten? There are precedents in the last age change. During the transition from the agricultural to the industrial age, some ruling members of the aristocracy did not “escalate the risks of violence and their own destruction” and peacefully gave way to the emerging elected legislative bodies. English and Dutch royalty segued into comfortable ceremonial roles. Conversely, French and Russian royalty met tragic ends. Either way, the agricultural age institution of hereditary rulers gave way to industrial age legislatures. The peaceful route needs to be expanded as the legislatures give way to information age governance structures. To take the path out of the jungle, to what Toffler and others have referred to as the first true human civilization in history, change of change is necessary.

Change of Change

When precedents fail to assist us, we must return to the first principle of things for information and think, as if we were the first people that thought. - Thomas Paine

The industrial age brought amazing progress to humanity including that which makes the first relatively peaceful change to a new age possible. Force is less tenable today. Widespread massacres of rebellious populations are off the table in the liberal democracies, not least because most police and soldiers would refuse such orders and switch sides. On the other side, mob rule seems unlikely in countries where nascent democratic traditions have taken root. The continued effectiveness of institutional deception also looks to be off the table. Widespread new communications technology means less and less of the people can be fooled less of the time.

A surveillance society is being pushed by the establishment but historical lessons on the horrors of totalitarian societies have left a deep impression on humanity in general. Constitutional protections provide an additional layer of protection and are proving resilient in the face of would-be dictators and oligarchs looking to forestall the age change. Other developments since the last age change that call for a relatively peaceful transition include the advent of nuclear weapons and serious ecological challenges. 

The Internet is forcing the issue as social media supplants industrial age mass media. The secrecy necessary for the Machiavellian way is melting away. Dominant players in the new technologies are attempting to block and spin information much like the traditional mainstream media, but endruns are easy. Censorship and fake news efforts come to light, such that even more credibility and influence are lost by the establishment. It is not unusual for condemnations and ridicule to be the dominant themes in a comment section. This sea change in knowledge and attitude happened in less than 30 years. The original DARPA military contribution to the development of the Internet emphasized decentralization in order to survive decapitation by nuclear strikes from the totalitarian USSR. This resilient capability is being fulfilled in unexpected ways in preserving freedom of expression in the democracies. 

In addition to the age change, an overarching era change is in the cards. Insider Carrol Quigley chose his words carefully when he wrote “this system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world“. The neo-feudalism Quigley referred to is accomplished by having a relatively few people create money from thin air, and lend it out at compounding interest to the general public and captive governments. More about this later. The end result is that masses of borrowers enter debt servitude. Even if an individual is free of personal debt, they are held to be responsible for a share of the ballooning odious public debts. Modern lord and serf dynamics have sometimes been referred to as class warfare. However, in socialist countries, despite claims to the contrary, feudalism is both more direct and more pronounced.. 

Own or be Owned

“In every republic there are two parties, that of the nobles and that of the people. The former have a great desire to dominate, whilst the latter have only the wish to not be dominated, and consequently a greater desire to live in the enjoyment of liberty.” - Nicolo Machiavelli

The feudalism era became entrenched with the end of the hunting and gathering age. It overlaid the agricultural, industrial and now the start of the information age. The book Microserfs was about feudalism in the information age. The phrase ‘wage slavery’ is all too often an accurate description of how most people spend the bulk of their waking hours. More often than not, the work involved is busywork, and does not add to any of what people would consider wealth. It is done so they can obtain money to live and to pay taxes and interest. True emancipation requires what has been termed an ownership society, where each and every individual owns a part of the amazing technology that is making labour less and less of a factor in wealth production. 

A discipline known as binary economics is perhaps the pre-eminent starting point for the path out of the jungle. It is not a stretch to argue that civilized means must be used for the transition to a truly civilized age and this design has it in spades. For starters, the change process involves bringing everyone up, without bringing anyone down. Unlike past age changes, the establishment is not harmed nor even deprived of any of their property. Instead, natural increases in wealth that constantly occur are widely distributed, generally by free market principles. It is done in such a way that each individual is in direct control of their productive property, without relying on an often corruptible, inefficient bureaucratic central body to dole out rewards.  

All will have equality of opportunity, but Individual productive investments, along with one’s own labour, will lead to dramatically different individual material wealth results.Some might prefer more free time instead of a higher standard of living. As the founder of social credit, C.H. Douglas put it "what we really demand of existence is not that we shall be put into somebody else's Utopia, but we shall be put in a position to construct a Utopia of our own”. Universal Basic Ownership should predominate over the top down, feudalist Universal Basic Income idea.The latter could come into play through a negative income tax, but only as a last resort, for the small minority whose investments do not pan out for a time.

The websites at and work on marrying the core concepts of binary economics with other progressive movements that focus on creating a world community designed around ecological sustainability. At the lower levels of existence such as food, shelter, clothing, transportation and communications, the most ecologically sustainable design would be mainly technocratic in nature; extending the concept behind the fluoride free public water systems in many countries. This would avoid what has been referred to as the tragedy of the commons. Even so, ownership of the machinery providing basic needs should be widespread through such things as community investment coalitions. For the higher levels of our existence, our sense of belonging and self-actualization, freedom should be as unfettered as possible. 

By separating the lower and higher needs (defined here from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) it is possible to bridge the somewhat false dichotomy between what has been termed the freedom of the individual and the freedom of the whole. Some cyberneticians hold that the more individual freedom increases, the less free an overarching system is to follow a predefined course and vice versa. This view does not account for many things, such as most individuals choosing freely to do the right thing for the commons, if given good information. In short, enlightened self interest and morality are absent from the theory. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides a good first goal for information age institutions. 

It is increasingly obvious that industrial age legislatures are on the way out. Adults should have more direct more input into the governance of their community, state, nation and globe. Communications technologies have at last made this possible in societies larger than the tribal unit. As Nicholas Negroponte points out in Being Digital, connected computers have the ability to globalize and harmonize while simultaneously providing decentralization and individual empowerment. The networks are also capable of exchanging more information in seconds than all of the pre-computer communication in recorded history.

An oligarchy or dictatorship, benevolent or not, is unsustainable in the upcoming age. One reason is the flow of information today cannot be adequately addressed by such excessively top down structures. By the time information has passed up and down a decision tree, the situation on the ground has often changed. A truly aware person closest to the action is needed for most intelligent decisions today. Less deception also results in more of the moral glue that helps align much of the lower level decision to the common good. Currently, morality is declining in the West, as more and more people see through the lies of the leadership and lose faith in the system. 

Even if a dictatorial leader resists the tendency of power to corrupt, the relative decency of such a person leaves them vulnerable to a coup by those with less scruples. A dictatorship or oligarchy based on lies will not have the broad base of informed popular support of a truly representative government. It was not an accident that Machiavellians came to dominate our current leadership. In the final analysis, mushroom eating John’s biblical warnings about an apocalyptic ending to the dictatorial path is based on logic. 

Our societies are caught between the jungle and true civilization. The worst of our leaders are opportunists, looking for material advantage and with little to no thought given to the common good. They may be peripherally aware that not all is as it appears in regards to budgets and deficits, but there is little thought given to this. They are not motivated by the primary goal of many players in the international financial fraud, which is a world government with a view to ending warfare and introducing environmental sustainability.   

However, the best of our current leaders also constantly lie or tell lies of omission.With some justification, they think truth and participative democracy would lead to anarchy or mob rule. In their eyes, they lie to us for our own good. They do evil in order to do good. At some point, these leaders have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. By keeping the public in the dark and subverting our educational and mainstream mass media systems, they have ensured that the average person does not have the tools to participate fully in their future. Yet the old feudal structure is no longer viable or sustainable in the information age. Superseding industrial age educational institutions will be an early requirement for the upcoming age change. Evolutionary economist and cybernetician Kenneth Boulding spoke of a knowledge age, rather than an information age, to distinguish between an age with massive flows of indiscriminate and purposely inaccurate information and that which is relevant, true and therefore useful.