Элизабет Шнуг

Théun Mares – Money, Economics & Politics

A General Discussion

Interview by Russell Braithwaite

May, 13 2009

Available on YouTube


In this series of interviews on money, economics and politics, Théun Mares gives us his insight into what those human endeavours truly represent, how they are being used as methods of control, and therefore impeding our evolution, and how they could be used intelligently to uplift all of humanity.

Issues such as taxation, debt, bartering. Insurance, interest, the banking system and different forms of government are all discussed. Included are practical steps we can all take, to claim back our power as individuals, and as members of our respective communities, to bring about the change that is so necessary to our well-being as well as the freedom to create a different reality.



Russell: Théun, can I ask you some questions about money, economics and politics? Just to know in a broad sense to start with before getting to specifics. Money has long been synonymous with power in a way, and Volume II of your work it is equated with crystallized power.

Théun: Yes.

Russell: Can you elaborate on this? Why is money associated with power?

Théun: Yes. Do you want a technical answer or non-technical answer? [laughs]

Russell: Well, both if you like. I was just fascinated about why money is associated with power.

Théun: Yes. …. Russell, the way we look upon life is that…When I say we… those of us who have really sort of looked at money and money really is something else. Why we equate it with power, or why for me it makes sense to equate it with power, is because ultimately money is power. For example, if you’ve got money, as the old expression goes, “money talks”. So it is power. But for me it also goes a whole lot deeper than just the fact the money talks. For me in order to make money or to really not necessarily be exceedingly wealthy in one’s life, but simply to have money, you first of all have got to get your own act together. I mean, everybody knows it from the side of being employee or from running a business, unless you have your act together you’re not going to keep your job or you’re not going to keep your career for very long. But that really implies having a certain level of what one might call “personal power”. So in other words, knowing for sure what it is that you want out of life and then setting to with everything which is available to you to materialize your dreams and your vision for what it is that you want out of life. Now that all collectively, your vision as well as how you set about materializing that vision, is what I like to look upon as being personal power.

And when you start to materialize your vision, when you start to materialize your wishes and your dreams that you have for yourself, you are in effect even though you may not be conscious of it, but you’re starting to crystallize, you’re starting to manifest through the medium of money, you’re starting to materialize that vision. Because obviously any vision needs money. It doesn’t just need personal power. You can have all the personal power in the world that you like. But unless you can materialize the money, or crystallize, if you like, the money which you need in order to materialize that vision, you are still not going to fulfill that vision. So you’re still not going to materialize your dreams. It doesn’t matter what those dreams are. The dreams might be to have a very fancy home, might be to have a very fancy car. It might be all matter of things. But, without money you’re not going to get very far. And that is essentially in a nutshell why we like to look upon, first of all, do you have the personal power which is required, and secondly, if you do have the personal power, can you crystallize that personal power in terms of making money. And hence the expression that the power is money or rather money is power. But vice versa it is equally true.

Russell: Does it follows on that note that if you don’t have that money, let’s say to materialize the dream, that you lack that personal power?

Théun: Not necessarily. To a great extent that is true. But you must realize that we also cannot really have gaps in our knowledge within life. So there are many people today, when I say many – enough. Not necessarily about the hundreds of thousands, but there are enough people who may have an enormous amount of personal power, and there are well known historic persons – just within the history, where you can see examples of this. You might have a lot of vision, a lot of personal power, but one way or another it is not your fate in this lifetime to materialize vast sums of money. So invariably those are the people that ultimately have to, let’s say, look towards a patron, or someone who is actually going to believe enough in them to sponsor their work for them. Because even though they have great vision, and what they can offer humanity by materializing that vision is of enormous benefit, but still within themselves they do not have the wherewithal within this lifetime to make or essentially to materialize money. But generally speaking, as a rule of thumb, I would like to say, and this might sound harsh… but I do not intend it harsh, but if you’re poor at one level, chances are that you are poor at every level. And really having worked with a big cross section of humanity for most part of my lifetime, I see this materializing many times. So, in other words, when people are really really struggling to put food on the table, invariably that is where their greatest lessons of life lie. So they are not fated in this lifetime to be great entrepreneurs or great business people – they are really learning the fundamentals of life. What it is to be a provider. So they are not get to, and not matter how hard that person tries, they are not going to materialize vast amounts of money in this lifetime. If it’s money we are talking about.

Russell: Yes. Ok. So, what you are saying about people in the past… Let’s say if you needed a patron, you did something, but you needed a patron. Could one see that as a form of personal power, where you may not have the money yourself, but you have that power, or that ability, to call forth the people who do have the money, in order to materialize that dream.

Théun: Indeed. That is true. But then once again, and one has to look at history, there have been truly GREAT souls, and we don’t need to mention all their names now, but there’ve been really great souls, with tremendous amount which they could offer humanity, yet still for whatever reason they were not allowed to call forth, or, if you like, they didn’t have the ability to call forth a patron. Even if they did call forth for a patron it was always a pitiful little of what it was that they really needed. I suppose what I’m trying to explain to you is there no hard and fast rules within life when it comes to money. Money is an actually a very peculiar and a very ancient concept. And it is so misunderstood today. So people so tend to measure their value according to how much money they have. And I think in a very sort of… in a maybe surreptitious way, I’m trying to guide you into realizing that we can’t measure our value according to the amount of money that we have. Because if we were to do that, probably three quarters of humanity today would feel absolutely useless and would feel that they have nothing to offer life. And this is just not true. It is just not true.



Russell: Théun, I was going to ask that, because if one looks at the world today, you see vast concentrations of money, wealth, in a very small segment of humanity. And the vast majority seem not to have a lot of money.

Théun: Right.

Russell: Is there something else behind that or is it the fact that there is very few people today who have the ability to materialize vast amounts of money.

Théun: Again. Again. It’s not an easy question to answer the way you are asking the question. Because, it is undoubtedly true what you say. When we look at the world situation today we can clearly see that there is vast amounts of wealth, which is congregated in one specific area. Or more precisely it’s the individual or a group of individuals, relatively small group,  that have managed one way or another, they have managed to materialize vast sums of wealth, which they then hold for their own personal gain. But that now is the opposite end of the spectrum of what we have just been talking about. Really everything we’ve been talking about earlier has to do when we talk about personal power, personal power, having the ability to be crystallized into power. Everything we’re talking about there is the natural flow of that substance of life which we call money. Now really money is just a convenient way that man has developed in which to barter. And if we go back to the ancient system of bartering that might make the concept we are talking about much more understandable. It is much more a question of “you have something which I need, you have a particular skill or you have a knowledge, or an ability which I can make use of.” So I come to you and I say, “Russell, I need what it is that you have to offer. What do you want in exchange for me being able to access your skill, or your ability? Or to make use of what it is that you have to offer. What would you like from me in exchange?” That is the old-fashioned principle of bartering.

Obviously as time has evolved and as the modern society’s taking over more and more, and really by modern society I am not talking about society today; I’m going right back in time. But as civilizations grew, so people wanted to formalize their ability to barter and hence people started to think of the concept of trading in gold and silver and ultimately of course we got to money. Today we even have paper money, which is really just a symbol of what is supposed to lie behind that paper money. So when we look at the concept of say a hoarding, which is what I spoke about just now, or concentration of wealth in certain isolated pockets, what we are really looking at here is the impedance of the free flow of crystallized power. Or money, if you like. If you now take that back to the bartering system, what that quite literally spells out, and this is the shocking truth behind it, is that through whatever process that was created in order for the individual or a small group of individuals to gather, or to amass wealth, for personal gain – the greater masses surrounding them have had to be impoverished in some way. And the way invariably this has been done, and this is the shocking truth behind it, is that people have been disempowered in terms of the ability to be able to barter. And this is perhaps the greatest evil which has sprung up behind the concept of “money”, as we know it today. Because people are no longer free. Or rather, they are free to barter, but nobody does it anymore, because people have been led to the belief, rightly or wrongly, that to barter is a symbol of poverty. So unless you pull out your wallet, and pull some notes out of it or worse still today – to pull out a plastic credit card, you are seen as being a lesser citizen. So people don’t barter anymore. They desperately try to earn “money”, so that they can go and buy whatever it is that they need: whether that is food, clothing or a service, such a hiring a plumber, or going to the dentist, or finding a lawyer. But really all of this is so artificial, it is so man made, and really what I’m working towards trying to explain to you – is that it was purposely and willfully set up. So that certain individuals who have the know-how can actually amass wealth at the expense of everybody else. So, with where the world is at today, people cannot THINK in terms of anything other than money. So unless you have physical money, with which to trade or with which to barter, you are a nobody. So people can’t even think anymore, that “Hey, maybe I have a tremendous skill, which is wanted by the people let’s say in my community. Let me sell that skill in terms of bartering.” So in other words, “I will do for you, whatever is that I have to offer, and in exchange I can see that you are growing some vegetables – so in exchange I would like some vegetables. You, on the other hand, I can see that you have an ability within law. Now I will do for you whatever is that you need me to do, because you also need my skill, but in exchange I need you to take on this particular situation for me and fight my legal battles for me. Because I don’t have your knowledge of law.” But this is what I mean by about being disempowered. People have today so being pulled into the belief that they can’t do this, that nobody does it anymore. So people are desperately looking for employment, so that they can earn a little bit of money. So that they can buy with their money what it is that they feel they need. And when they don’t have money they don’t even think any further. They simply accept a mindset of poverty. And therefore it’s not surprising that they end up living a poverty. And this really is what I meant earlier when I said – in my experience, when working with big cross section of humanity, when people are poor up here (touches the forehead), they are poor in every respect. And it’s not because they need to be. But they have been so mentally conditioned in the believing that the world revolves around physical money, that they can’t think beyond anything else other than “I MUST HAVE physical money”. And unless I’m going to steal it, I somehow got to earn it. So it becomes such a vicious circle.

Russell: circle.

Théun: Because people also… because they so want to earn it rather than steal it. So they go into huge debts, for argument’s sake, to get a university training in the hope that the university training is going to give them the ability to earn money. But nobody thinks anymore in terms of “but let me use my God giving talents, which I have, in terms of crystallizing the power that I need”.

Russell: That makes a lot of sense. So on the surface, it seems like a very useful tool. But there is the trap behind it – of thinking “it’s the only tool”. If we are thinking of money.

Théun: Yes.



Russell: And you mentioned people getting into debt. If one looks at the world situation today the monetary system itself seems to be funded by debt. And I was just wondering for myself what does this say about humanity. Or even if we look at an individual, let’s say if I was in a lot of debt what would that say about me if the only way that I had of let’s say acquiring something, be it a house or a car, and because I lack that ability to materialize it I need to borrow that money from somebody else in order to acquire it. It’s seems like we’re setting quite an unbalanced system. What is your view on that?

Théun: Russell, once again. This thing of debt or being able to borrow money is again a huge trap, devised by very unscrupulous beings, or very unscrupulous people, who really are out to feather their nests, because anybody anybody knows that when you borrow money it makes somebody else – the person who is lending you the money, very rich, and he makes you very poor. And this is exactly the same principle I was talking about just now. There are very clever people in this world who know how to amass huge amounts of wealth for themselves personally at the expense of the person who is in a desperate position and ALREADY desperate position. So really when I say unscrupulous, these are people that think nothing of making the desperate situation of desperate people even more desperate. So now they’ll say to you: “Russell, but you want that nice home or you want that nice car! Or — worse still — if you are really going to be a good father, I know that you need the money to educate your children at university. So I will lend you. I will graciously lend you the money”. But yet deep down inside these people know that they are ripping you off. Because it’s not out of the kindness of the heart that they are lending you that money. They are lending you that money so that they can milk you for every last possible cent. And this is the trap that the whole humanity has been conditioned into falling into. So the whole monetary system as it is based in the world today is “the rich rapping the poor”. And I might sound very pedantic when I say that. But really I think that the time has come when we actually need to look at the world situation in terms of money. And we need to decide whether we are going to call a spade a shovel or not. Because really with where the whole monetary system is at today, it is a question of disempowering people more and more. So that rich can get richer and the poor can feel worse and worse about themselves. Because by now they feel poor in every possible respect. And that of course is exactly where, let’s call it, the money-lenders of this world want humanity, because the worse you feel about yourself the less you’re going to try and help yourself. And, therefore, when yet another money-lender comes along and says: “oh you, poor thing, I’m going to help you out, I’ll lend you money”. Of course, you just go with it, because you feel you’ve got no choice rather than going with it. Therefore, I feel: if humanity really wanted to be of service to itself it will actually start saying “No” to debt. “No, I don’t want it! I’ll find my own way. Thank you very much.”

Russell: Ok. That was going to be my next question. For the individuals out there who have seen the system for what it is, and who don’t want to take on debt. And I know that it’s not an easy question that might require several answers at the time. But is it possible in a nutshell to offer any kind of advice for those people who say, “Look, I would love to get out of the system. What is, you know, the best way in which one can take small practical steps to remove yourself from that system?”

Théun: Russell, on the one hand it’s not a difficult question to answer. And I’ll qualify that in a moment. On the other hand, it’s an EXCEEDING difficult question to answer. And I want to qualify that statement first, before I get back to the first one. It is difficult to answer because the humanity today has become so caught up in the concept of having to have “physical money”. And that is, as I said earlier, a mindset. And it’s not easy to change a mindset. It’s not easy to change it in someone else. And it’s not easy to change it within oneself. So if you have been conditioned, ever since you were a small child, to grow up with the idea that money is the beginning and end of all. It’s very hard to break that mindset. Why I said just now that it’s not actually a difficult question to answer? It is perfectly possible if you don’t want to buy into where the monetary systems in today’s world is at. It’s perfectly possible to do that, but it entails changing your mindset from being an individual that should be totally self-sufficient, totally independent, and therefore by implication isolated from the world around you, to a new mindset, wherein you see yourself as being one of, let us say, a community. And using whatever personal power you have to start interacting with the members of your community in a meaningful and in a purposeful way. By talking to them, interacting with them on a daily basis, sharing your views with them, sharing your fears with them, your doubts, your concerns. Because you’ll find that once you begun to do that you are not alone. Other people have the same fears, the same doubts, the same insecurities. What if you’ve established that much of a relationship? And people are beginning to do it in the response to the world. They start to form a very real community. Wherein they are doing exactly, or beginning to do exactly, what I spoke about earlier. Going back to the ancient system of bartering. So maybe you’re a plumber in my community. And let’s say I’m an electrician. So because we belong to the same community, I need some plumbing work done and you need some electrical work done. And we simply do each other the favor. It’s a swap – a direct swap. No money exchanges hands. Nor either you or I need get into debt. But we work together in materializing what it is that both you want, as well as what I want. So really at the end of the day the only real cost involved in something like that is now not the so-called “service” – and that word has become such a bad word in today’s society – but it is literally only the raw materials which I needed.




Théun: Anybody who knows anything about how the service industry really works… If we just take the building industry for example. Invariably your raw materials are the least of the expenses involved. The greatest expenses involved is the man hours – the actual labor that has gone in. That is supposed under the name of service. And why I say it’s become such a dirty word today is why should anybody charge such high prices for the services. I’m not saying it’s wrong to charge for a service rendered. I’m not saying that at all. But what I’m saying why can’t it be attached a fair price to a service rendered. And let me give you an example of what I mean by a fair price. Just now we spoke about you being a plumber and me being an electrician. And I need some work done and you have agreed that in exchange of my electrical expertise you will do the plumbing for me. But obviously between you and me we will still need to buy the raw materials. As it is my plumbing job, obviously I’m responsible for buying the raw materials. But there shouldn’t be any charge for the service. Because the service that you’re rendering me is the same service that I’m going to be giving you as an electrician. You’re going to give it to me as a plumber, I’m going to give it to you as an electrician. So really what we are talking about is raw materials. But there are other cases where one needs to pay for the service, because that’s all there is. So the example I’d like to use is, let say, a child that needs to be educated. So you have a child who needs to go to school. And someone in your community happens to be a school teacher. So you go to that school teacher and say, “Look, will you teach my child? And in exchange for the service you’re going to be rendering me by teaching my child I obviously need to do something, or I need to pay you for it in some way.”  Now either that school teacher can say, “Yes, ok. Well, either pay me, pay it to me in money. Or you know what… Because I’m so busy teaching students I actually haven’t got time to see to the maintenance of my home. I know you’re a plumber. But do you know anything about maintenance? Can you possibly see to my roof because it is busy leaking?” Now maybe you can’t see to the roof, but you know of somebody in the community you can see to the roof. What I’m saying is that one way or another the bartering system can be made to work beautifully. Whether we actually do it with the physical exchange of money or not. And people are starting to do that, Russell! And through that they are saving themselves VAST expenses, vast expenses in terms of taking on very expensive debts with HUGE interest on it. The same thing is happening for the example in the insurance industry today. People are beginning to wake up to the fact that rather than take out HUGELY expensive insurances with all signs and all bits and pieces of fine print, which ultimately when it comes to insurance company having to pay out, they don’t pay out anything or HARDLY anything. People are starting to wisen up to that. So rather than buying expensive insurances, HUGELY expensive insurances, they are rather starting up, let’s say, like a community fund, where they all contribute X amount every month towards their medical expenses or towards some form of “insurance” if you like. It is costing them a fraction, they are in charge of their own money and more wonderful than anything else – they are actually in charge of their own personal power. They are not handing it over to some Big Brother, that makes the promises, most wonderful promises but never delivers on the promises. And that’s why I said earlier, service today has become a very dirty word. Because so much in the world today goes under the name of “yes, but this is the service we provide”, but in the end of the day when everything is stripped away, there is no service, there is zero service left at the end of the day.

Russell: So it all seems dependent on what you said just now changing mindset in a way, because people, in order to make this work on a practical level of bartering, requires cooperation, in the community, let’s say. And isn’t that half the problem that people don’t seem to live in communities anymore.

Théun: They don’t.

Russel: They are pretty isolated. If you look at big cities. And you live in your apartment. There are many people who don’t even know their neighbours. There is one brick wall between them and their neighbour. So that seems like that’s the beginning…, of that cooperation.

Théun: Yes, it is.

Russell: Théun, having mentioned bartering. What came up for me with respect to bartering is tax. And tax seems to be one of those subjects that might overlap between money, economics and politics. Because it seems inextricably linked with all three. What is your view on tax? Firstly as a method for government to procure money. And is there any real validity behind tax, per se? I am asking this because it is an intriguing…

Théun: Russell, again: I feel that tax as it is practised today is actually huge crime against humanity. I feel the principle behind taxation is very good. The principle being that everybody who is busy earning money contributes something of what they earn towards the well-being of the greater whole. And of course the well-being of the greater whole is dependent upon the well-being of the individual. In other words if an individual is in need the greater whole will see to the needs of that individual. But likewise in order for that to happen the greater whole must also be healthy and must be in a position to help the individual. Now, that’s the basic principle behind the real law of taxation, if you like. And I have no problem with that. I feel that – as it stands – is a very very good system. But we all know that that is not where the taxation of the world is at today. In other words people are been taxed half to death. But the very people that are being taxed see no benefit from this tax. Most of that money goes into feathering the pockets of the big fat cats of this world – the politicians, the authorities that may be. Money regularly gets donated or get set aside for a specific purpose… But when it is needed that money has already been squandered. And of course typical as it happens today – nobody can account for where that money went to. But that system of taxation is COMPLETELY evil and it is a heinous crime against humanity. Because really and once again, what it all boils down to is rapping the poor, or the rich, or those within power, raping the poor for the own self-centered gain.




Russell: So if we look at that model – let’s say of the government and the people. What you were saying just now – whereas the government decrees by law that you must pay tax – that model if it was on a community level and there was an agreement between the members to put aside an amount of money into a pool for their mutual benefit. That would be a win-win situation.

Théun: It would be wonderful. And that is really what it was meant to be. Nobody… I don’t believe for one moment, because there is no a proof of that in the history, that taxation was a law. It was made a law by people that were only interested in feathering their own nests. It never was a law. If you go right back in history. It was a question of, let say for example, the feudal kings of old. So you had a king, a feudal king, and in exchange for being given some land, you had to pay the king something from what you had produced from the land. But really, there were no laws saying unless you give me 10 cabbages a year I’m sending you in jail. It was a question of – whatever you produced this year, and a portion of that, must come to the king’s kitchens. Because the king also needs to eat. And that king also has charity cases. He also needs to feed those that couldn’t manage to produce anything that year. But really if you go back within history this so called thing about taxation being a law is something which is very new. Very new and it’s very political. It’s got nothing to do with charity, it’s got nothing to do with the well-being of the individual. But it’s everything to do with the well-being of the politicians.

Russell: I think tax has taken us on to politics. [laughter] So before we come to the economics, let’s just stay with the politics. Just looking at politics, what you just mentioned about feudal kings let’s say, it’s seems that at some point in time the king made a deal with the aristocracy or the barons. And then there came another point in history where the barons seem to have made a deal with members of the public. And we have parliament starting. But it always seemed like a trade of in the sense keeping something at bay. Is there any validity to that or we are in a cycle that hasn’t completed itself yet in terms of politics? Or we are on a way somewhere – to something different? Or is this basically if we, or for a lack of a better world – is democracy, the way we see it today – the end of the line in terms of politics. [Théun laughs] You know, one man one vote – it seems what the whole world fights for in a way is this freedom to vote. Once they have got it, things don’t really seem to change that much – and in that sense I’m asking is that the end of the line, or is there something that humanity still has to achieve in terms of politics.

Théun: Yeah. Well we all know what Oscar Wilde said about democracy, “It is bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people”. [laughs] Really Russell, this world has never yet seen democracy. It’s never seen democracy. Not true democracy. But let’s go back to what you asked just now about the feudal kings. For me, where the whole thing really went wrong if one studies the history with care, is that there was a time, when the land and the king were one. In other words, not just the land, but the people who worked that land as being part of the land – they and the king were one. They worked as a coherent intelligent whole. Really where politics started to come in is as you mentioned just now about the barons, now I’m not too sure whether you and I on the same page when it comes to barons. But I’ll tell you what my knowledge of history tells me about barons. Barons were really very eager and very self-centered little people that wanted very much for themselves, what they saw as the king having together with his subjects. They wanted it for themselves. But not only in the sense that they had any real interest in these subjects, but they saw it as a possibility for having power over. And one way or another, and really history here is all over the place, because there’s so many different examples. And there are as many examples as there were individuals. So every individual found their own let’s say “indigenous” way of making themselves ingratiated with the king in one way or another, in exchange for favors. Now, I’m not saying that all kings were corrupt. But even kings, let’s say feudal kings as they were in those days, they invariably needed help. They could not always, sometimes the kingdoms were so big, that they couldn’t deal with it all by themselves. So yes, in exchange they would sometimes grant one of the lords or one of the barons, if you like, some executive duties to start performing on behalf of the king. And that really as simple as it sounds but that were the beginnings of the politics as we know it today. And from there of course the whole thing just became ever more corrupted. And as it became more corrupted so the land and the king became separated. Until eventually there was such a huge separation that the people themselves no longer felt aligned with the king. They started to feel more aligned with the so-called barons, who had now very ingenuously put themselves into the position of being “look, I’m actually looking after YOUR interests, and what’s more – the king has instructed me and empowered me to look after YOUR interests. But now, you know what, if I’m going to do this for you, what are you going to do for ME in exchange?” And this was really the beginnings of politics. So when we look at where the politics are at today, once again we see, in a nutshell, that the king and the land and the people that work the land, have become strangers unto each other. And there is this weird breed of animal that now sits in between, and calls itself a politician acting in the best interests of the people. And really, governments come and go. Some are very popular, some are very unpopular. But the overall thing, the overall thing that one does see with every government of the world is that very similar – does it truly act in the interests, the best interests of the people. And really if one looks at where humanity is at today we just become so confused and beguiled by where the media is at, and of course the media is just attuned to the politicians. Anybody who has got any common sense can see that for themselves. Humanity itself today is so confused that it actually doesn’t even know what its real needs are. Because all it knows is what it gets fed by the media. So it happily goes along with what the media tells it are its needs, and according to that they choose the government, that they feel are going to meet their needs. And then a year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years down the line… they wonder, why they are now worse off than they ever were before. But really at the end of the day it boils down to, once again – handing… humanity handing its power over to some imagined Big Brother that’s gonna make life better for them.




Russell: Again this might sound like a loaded question. But… if as an individual you realise that, and you don’t want to hand your power away. It seems that there is not a lot that you can practically do about it in today’s world, without falling out of the law. So I say again it sounds like a loaded question or invalid question, but what can people in that situation begin to do in order not to give their power away?

Théun: Russell once again, we’ve got to start with where we’re at, so it really starts with the individual waking up first of all to the fact that it doesn’t actually always just have to bow down to the man-made “law” of Big Brother. But that, he actually does have some ability within himself to start fighting the system. Whatever it is within that system that he finds to be unjust. Really once again we are back to the concept of having personal power. But realise why I say we’re back to the concept of personal power. That you must at LEAST have enough personal power, at least, to BELIEVE sufficiently enough in yourself to be able to say, “I find it what is happening in my life right now unjust and whatever is at my disposal I’m gonna start fighting it!” You must at least have that much personal power. But if you are caught in a mindset which says to you, “But what can I do? I’m one man alone against the entire system”. Well then you’ll never be able to do anything, because you are already defeated by your own mindset. But if you truly believe that whether you win or whether you lose, but it is important enough for you, to use WHATEVER is available to you, to FIGHT AGAINST what you DON’T BELIEVE is right. Your example of fighting for yourself, will once again – coming back to the community – will begin to rub off on the people around you. And within time you will find yourself being surrounded and supported by like-minded individuals, who like you are now starting to want to fight for their rights. And that in turn has a snowball effect and more and more people start feeling “well, if they can do, then surely I can also do it”. So what I’m saying there is no easy quick solution to change where we’re at. But if we start where we are at and we start with what we can do, literally we CAN change the world.

Russell: OK. So it’s about getting involved in a way.

Théun: Yes.

Russell: Being more proactive in what you can do.

Théun: Yes.

Russell: Not only in your life, but let’s say vis-a-vis the political processes in whichever country you happen to live. I’m just, I’m not really asking a question, I’m asking you to corroborate whether I’ve understood you correctly. Some people see or rather not see, but they feel that by not participated in the political process, whether it’s not voting or not really caring about the political situation in their particular country, they feel they are doing something, but what you seem to be saying is that one should become involved if he wants to see changes.

Théun: Yes, yes.

Russell: Ok.

Théun: You’re not going to change anything by being a passive onlooker. [laughs] You just will be a sitting duck! [laughs]

Russell: Before I move to the economics, I just would like to ask, in terms of politics, again, one always sees that duality in the world out there. On the one hand we have the capitalistic approach to politics and what we have seen in the world which seems to be over for now was the communistic approach to politics. As I said just now, and I think it is the same with tax, but I’m not too sure whether lines fall anymore between money, economics and politics, because they all seem to be inextricably intertwined.

Théun: True.

Russell: What is your view on communism? Firstly as a political system…

Théun: Yes.

Russell:…and then what’s really behind that, what was the drive behind that urge towards communism?

Théun: Once again, Russell, like what I said just now about the income tax. I feel that where communism started, if one looks at the early writings… everything, everything about what Marx set out to teach. So yes, if you look at these early writings, everything was about looking after the individual as a member of a greater whole. And by looking after the individual you’re automatically caring for the greater whole. And vice versa. So really where it all started was phenomenally good. And it was what I like to look upon as being the beginnings of true group consciousness. In other words, if we want society to thrive we’ve got to make sure that the individuals which make up society also thrive. And of course there is only one way in which to make sure that everybody keeps thriving. There must… the greater whole must also thrive. So that when a member within society falls, the greater whole can be there to help them back up on their feet again. So when one looks at it from the early, early concepts of communism, there was nothing wrong with it, it was absolutely beautiful, and the concept was pure and it really really could have worked, I believe; had not the power hungry politicians of this world coming and then corrupted the whole thing into having power over. Because that is where the communism fell flat on its face, ultimately. So instead of the state looking after the people, the state became the power over the people. That’s where it all fell apart.




Russell: Théun, as I said just now, economics, money and politics really seem so intertwined today. It is hard to differentiate where one starts and the other one stops. So briefly, what is your perspective on the economics?

Théun: Russell, are you talking about economics in terms of principle or economics – where the world situation is at.

Russell: I suppose, as a principle, its true principle. What it should be ordered.

Théun: Really in order to answer that question I must speak a little bit about what I like to look upon as being the law of economy, which if you like is a universal law. Which if you really study life you can see that law at work within life. But really what the law of economy is about is the natural balancing of forces. So if I can use the example of let’s say wind, the way wind moves, or the way wind blows. There is an area of high pressure and an area of low pressure. And it is natural for air to move from area of high pressure to area of low pressure in order to equalize the forces. That is the very simple, not simplistic, but very simple answer on what the law of economy is. It’s an equalizing of forces, which naturally become unbalanced for whatever reason from time to time. And that is really the law of economy. So really the principle upon which economy should be based is the equalizing of natural forces. But, of course, that is a far cry from what today is called economy.

Russell: So if we extrapolate that, let’s say to commodities in the world today, whether it is rice or grain or whatever there happen to be, if you use that analogy, of the balancing out of some sorts, it seems to imply the sharing, of what the Earth can produce, which is a very different set up than the one we have today.

Théun: Oh, indeed, indeed.

Russell: Just looking at the world, or the capacity of the world to produce what humanity needs, let’s just say that a finite amount. And looking at the world population, do you think that the world can sustain the number of human beings that are on the planet today?

Théun: Russell, yes, I think it’s perfectly possible, but then once again, we have to adhere to the law of economy. So in other words we would have to learn how to utilize the resources of the planet in an intelligent way. And not the way economy is practised today, because let’s face it, today it’s not a question of equalizing the forces. It’s a question of – create a scarcity in one area of life and then create a HUGE amount of surplus on the other hand, so that you can sell your surplus to where it is most needed at vast profits. But that must get reflected back for us through life. So if we want to continue operating by violating the natural law of economy then this must be reflected for us within our everyday life. Because how else can we learn other than through experiencing of falling and the effects of our falling, for what it really is. So the way economy is practised today, my answer is going to be: “No, we can’t sustain it. It’s impossible. But it’s not because the planet can’t provide enough resources for the humanity. It’s more the way humanity is utilising the resources of the planet, that becomes impossible.”

Russell: OK. So, if we look at let say what they call a “first world”. And a very topical issue today is energy consumption, whether it is in a form of oil or gas. But again, as it is with money, small segment of humanity seems to use the vast majority of its natural resources in terms of energy.

Théun: Yes.

Russell: And because of that energy they enjoy a certain quality, if one can call it that, of a lifestyle. Is it foolish to believe that all of humanity at this point in time could have that same standard of living as the first world enjoys, or does something need to change in the first world, in order for us all to have a common quality of life.

Théun: Russell that is such a vast question that you’ve asked, because in reality there is only one life. It is so manmade to talk about first world, second world, that world, x-world, y-world, z-world. It is so manmade! Really, all of that is based upon, those who have, and those who do not have. And that is how we so-called classify a world as being the first world, or second world, or third world. So when you ask me the question “is it something which is possible for everybody to obtain? Or must it first be the first world that must change something?” If  I’m going to try to answer your question as quickly and as easily as possible, I’m going to say the first world not only have the great deal to answer for, for the fact that it called itself the first world. But it also needs to change. Because these are the people that HAVE all the wealth which they ingeniously construed to have, at the expense of the rest of the world, and then made the rest of the world the second class or third class citizens of the world. So to try to answer your question more explicitly: yes, I believe it is possible for all of us to have in abundance of whatever it is that we need in life. But then we MUST CHANGE, if you like, the economic situation in the world. Or more precisely, we must change the monetary system in the world. Whilst there are always those that are looking at how to feather their own nests at the expense of the masses, there will never be enough for anybody.

Russell: OK. So, would bartering work or could it be a solution on a national level as we mentioned when we were discussing money, whereas bartering on an individual level can be a step in claiming that power back for oneself. Could the same apply on a national level between countries: let’s say there is country very rich in gas and there’s another country which is very rich in something else. Could that be a solution?

Théun: It could indeed. It could indeed. Yes.

Russell: Thank you, Théun!

Théun: It’s a pleasure, Russell!


К данной статье еще нет комментариев. Оставьте комментарий первым.

Оставить комментарий

Добавить комментарий

Ваш адрес email не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *

Этот сайт использует Akismet для борьбы со спамом. Узнайте как обрабатываются ваши данные комментариев.


вверх | на главную