TheGreen Book

Part Three

The Social Basis of

The Third Universal Theory

• The Social Basis of the Third Universal Theory
• The Family
• The Tribe
• The Merits of the Tribe
• The Nation
• Woman
• Minorities
• Black People Will Prevail in the World
• Education
• Music and Art
• Sport, Horsemanship and the Stage

 

THE SOCIAL BASIS OF THE
THIRD UNIVERSAL THEORY

The social factor, the national factor, is thedynamic force of human history. The social bond, which binds together humancommunities from the family through the tribe to the nation, is the basisfor the movement of history.

Heroes in history are, by definition, those whohave sacrificed for causes. But what causes? They sacrificed for the sakeof others, but which others? They are those with whom they maintain a relationship.Therefore, the relationship between an individual and a group is a socialone 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 isderived from society, i.e., the relationship among members of one nation.The social relationship is, therefore, a national relationship and the nationalis a social relationship. Even if small in number, communities or groups formone nation regardless of the individual relationship amongst its members.What is meant here by a community is that which is permanent because of thecommon national ties that govern it.

Historic movements are mass movements, i.e., themovement of one group in its own interests differentiated from the interestsof other communities. These differentiations indicate the social characteristicsthat bind a community together. Mass movements are independent movements toassert the identity of a group conquered or oppressed by another group.

The struggle for authority happens within thegroup itself down to the level of the family, as was explained in Part 1 ofTHE GREEN BOOK: The Political Axis of the Third Universal Theory.A group movement is a nation's movement for its own interests. By virtue ofits national structure, each group has common social needs which must be collectivelysatisfied. These needs are in no way individualistic; they are collectiveneeds, rights, demands, or objectives of a nation which are linked by a singleethos. That is why these movements are called national movements. Contemporarynational liberation movements are themselves social movements; they will notcome to an end before every group is liberated from the domination of anothergroup. The world is now passing through one of the regular cycles of the movementof history, namely, the social struggle in support of nationalism.

In the world of man, this is as much a historicalreality 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 strongerthan all other factors since it is in the nature of the human group; it isin 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 basisfor the survival of all groups within the animal kingdom, so nationalism isthe basis for the survival of nations.

Nations whose nationalism is destroyed are subjectto ruin. Minorities, which are one of the main political problems in the world,are the outcome. They are nations whose nationalism has been destroyed andwhich 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 survival.

Nationalism in the human world and group instinctin the animal kingdom are like gravity in the domain of material and celestialbodies. If the sun lost its gravity, its gasses would explode and its unitywould no longer exist. Accordingly, unity is the basis for survival. The factorof unity in any group is a social factor; in man's case, nationalism. Forthis reason, human communities struggle for their own national unity, thebasis for their survival.

The national factor, the social bond, works automaticallyto impel a nation towards survival, in the same way that the gravity of anobject works to keep it as one mass surrounding its centre. The dissolutionand dispersion of atoms in an atomic bomb are the result of the explosionof the nucleus, which is the focus of gravitation for the particles aroundit. When the factor of unity in those component systems is destroyed and gravityis 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 damagingto 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 itssurvival. Only the religious factor is a rival to the social factor in influencingthe unity of a group. The religious factor may divide the national group orunite groups with different nationalisms; however, the social factor willeventually triumph. This has been the case throughout the ages. Historically,each nation had a religion. This was harmonious. Eventually, however, differencesarose which became a genuine cause of conflict and instability in the livesof people throughout the ages.

A sound rule is that each nation should have areligion. For it to be otherwise is abnormal. Such an abnormality createsan unsound situation which becomes a real cause for disputes within one nationalgroup. 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 compatiblewith the religious factor, harmony prevails and the life of communities becomesstable, strong, and develops soundly.

Marriage is a process that can positively or negativelyinfluence the social factor. Though, on a natural basis of freedom, both manand 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 bringsabout collective growth in conformity with the social factor.

THE FAMILY

To the individual, the family is more importantthan the state. Mankind acknowledges the individual as a human being, andthe individual acknowledges the family, which is his cradle, his origin, andhis social umbrella. According to the law of nature, the human race is theindividual and the family, but not the state. The human race has neither relationsnor anything else to do with the state, which is an artificial political,economic, and sometimes military, system. The family is like a plant, withbranches, stems, leaves and blossoms. Cultivating nature into farms and gardensis an artificial process that has no relevance to the plant itself. The factthat certain political, economic or military factors tie a number of familiesinto one state does not necessarily link this system or its organization withhumanity. Similarly, any situation, position or proceeding that results inthe dispersion, decline or loss of the family is inhuman, unnatural and oppressive,analogous to any procedure, measure or action that destroys a plant and itsbranches and withers its leaves and blossoms.

Societies in which the existence and unity ofthe family become threatened due to any circumstance, are similar to fieldswhose plants experience uprooting, drought, fire, weathering or death. Theblossoming garden or field is one whose plants grow, blossom and pollinatenaturally. The same holds true of human societies. The flourishing societyis that in which the individual grows naturally within the family and thefamily within society. The individual is linked to the larger family of humankindlike a leaf is to a branch or a branch to a tree. They have no value or lifeif they are separated. The same holds true for individuals if they are separatedfrom their families - the individual without a family has no value or sociallife. If human society reaches the stage where the individual lives withouta family, it would then become a society of tramps, without roots, like artificialplants.

THE TRIBE

A tribe is a family which has grown as a resultof 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 intovarious nations. The world, then, is an enlarged nation. The relationshipwhich 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 ofnation, the essence of nation is that of the tribe, and the essence of thetribe is that of family. The degree of warmth involved in the relationshipdecreases proportionately with the increase in size of the social unit. Thisis an indisputable social fact denied only by those who are ignorant of it.

The social bond, cohesiveness, unity, intimacyand love are stronger at the family level than at the tribal level, strongerat the tribal level than that of the nation, and stronger at the level ofthe nation than that of the world.

Advantages, privileges, values and ideals basedon 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, strongerat the tribal level than that of the nation, and stronger at the nation'slevel than that of the world. Thus, these social bonds, benefits, advantagesand ideals associated with them are lost wherever the family, the tribe, thenation or humankind vanish or are lost. It is, therefore, of greatimportance for human society to maintain the cohesiveness of the family, thetribe, the nation and the world in order to benefit from the advantages, privileges,values and ideals yielded by the solidarity, cohesiveness, unity, intimacyand love of family, tribe, nation and humanity.

In the social sense, the familial society is betterthan 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 tofellowship, affection, solidarity and benefits.

THE MERITS OF THE TRIBE

Since the tribe is a large family, it providesits members with much the same material benefits and social advantages thatthe 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 individualmight indulge himself in an uncouth manner, something which he would not dowithin the family. However, because of the smallness in size of the family,immediate supervision is not exercised, unlike the tribe whose members continuallyfeel that they are under its supervision. In view of these considerations,the tribe forms a behaviour pattern for its members, developing into a socialeducation which is better and more noble than any school education. The tribeis a social school where its members are raised to absorb the high idealswhich develop into a behaviour pattern for life. These become automaticallyrooted 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 individualis aware of the fact that it is dictated to him.

The tribe is a natural social "umbrella" for socialsecurity. By virtue of social tribal traditions, the tribe provides for itsmembers 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 formationof the tribe. With the passage of time, the differences between the factorsof blood and affiliation disappear, leaving the tribe as one social and physicalunit, though it remains fundamentally a unit of blood in origin.

THE NATION

The nation is the individual's national political"umbrella"; it is wider than the social "umbrella" provided by the tribe toits members. Tribalism damages nationalism because tribal allegiance weakensnational loyalty and flourishes at its expense. In the same way, loyalty tothe family flourishes at the expense of tribal loyalty and weakens it. Nationalloyalty is essential to the nation but, at the same time, it is a threat tohumanity.

The nation in the world community is similar,to the family in the tribe. The more the families of a tribe feud and becomefanatical, the more the tribe is threatened. The family is threatened whenits individual members feud and pursue only their personal interests. Similarly,if the tribes of a nation quarrel and pursue only their own interests, thenthe nation is undermined. National fanaticism expressed in the use of forceagainst weak nations, or national progress which is at the expense of othernations, is evil and harmful to humanity. However, strong individuals whohave self-respect and are aware of their own individual responsibilities areimportant and useful to the family, just as a strong and respectable family,which is aware of its importance, is socially and materially beneficial tothe tribe. Equally useful to the whole world is a progressive, productiveand civilized nation. The national political structure is damaged when itdescends to a lower social level, namely, the family and tribe, and attemptsto act in their manner and to adopt their views.

The nation is an enlarged family which has passedthrough the period of the tribe and through the diversification of tribesthat have branched out from one common source. It also includes those memberswho affiliated themselves with its destiny. The family, likewise, grows intoa 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 resultof interaction between various communities in a society. Inevitably, thisis achieved over a long period of time. Although the passage of time createsnew nations, it also helps to fragment old ones. Common origin and commondestiny, through affiliation, are the two historic bases for any nation, thoughorigin ranks first and affiliation second. A nation is not defined only byorigin, even though origin is its basis and beginning. In addition to itsorigin, a nation is formed by human affiliations through the course of historywhich induce a group of people to live in one area of land, develop a commonhistory, form one heritage, and face the same destiny. A nation, irrespectiveof blood bond, is formed through a sense of belonging and a shared destiny.

But why has the map of the earth witnessed greatnations that have disappeared to give way to the rise of other nations? Isthe reason only political, without any relationship to the social aspect ofThe Third Universal Theory? Or, is it social and so properlythe concern of this part of THE GREEN BOOK?

Let us see. The family is indisputably a socialstructure rather than a political one. The same applies to the tribe becauseit 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 havemultiplied and become tribes.

The nation is also a social structure whose bondis nationalism; the tribe is a social structure whose bond is tribalism; thefamily is a social structure whose bond is family ties; and global societyis a social structure whose bond is humanity. These facts are self-evident.There is then the political structure of states which form the political mapof the world. But why does the map of the world keep changing from one ageto the next? The reason is that political structures may, or may not, be consistentwith 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 changeis forced by external colonialism or internal collapse, it reappears underthe banner of national struggle, national revival or national unity. Whena political structure embraces more than one nation, its map will be tornup by each nation, gaining independence under the banner of its respectivenationhood. Thus, the maps of the empires which the world has witnessed havebeen torn up because they were composed of a number of nations. When everynation clings strongly to its national identity and seeks independence, politicalempires are torn up and their components revert to their social origins. Thisis evidently clear through the history of the world when reviewed throughthe ages.

But why were those empires made up of differentnations? 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 severalfactors, the simplest and foremost of which is nationalism. The national stateis the only political form which is consistent with the natural social structure.Its existence lasts, unless it becomes subject to the tyranny of another strongernationalism or unless its political structure, as a state, is affected byits social structure in the form of tribes, clans and families. A politicalstructure is corrupted if it becomes subservient to the sectarian social structureof the family, tribe, or sect and adopts its characteristics.

Religious, economic and military factors alsocontribute to form a state which differs from the basic, national state.

A common religion, as well as the requirementsof economics or military conquests, may create a state which embraces severalnations. Thus, in one age, the world witnesses a state or an empire whichwill disintegrate in another age. When the spirit of nationalism emerges strongerthan religious loyalties, or conflict flares up between different nationalismswhich were brought together, for example, by one religion, each nation becomesindependent and recovers its social structure. That empire, then, disappears.The role of religion resurfaces when the religious spirit emerges strongerthan the spirit of nationalism. Consequently, the various nationalisms areunified under the banner of religion until the national role appears onceagain, and so on.

All states which are composed of several nationalitiesfor whatever reason - religion, economics, military power or man-made ideologywill 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 necessitatethe establishment of a state, the basis for the life of individuals is thefamily, 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 bringup an integrated well-educated human. Care should then be given to the tribeas a social "umbrella" and a natural social school which develops its membersat the post-family stage. The nation then follows. The individual learns socialvalues mainly from the family and the tribe which form a natural social structurecreated by no particular individual. Taking care of the family is in the interestof the individual just as the care of the tribe is in the interest of thefamily, the individual and the nation; it is part of the national identity.The social factor, the national factor, is the real constant dynamic forcebehind history.

To disregard the national bond of human communitiesand to establish a political system in contradiction to social reality establishesonly a temporary structure which will be destroyed by the movement of thesocial factor of those groups, i.e., the national integrity and dynamism ofeach community.

These facts are innate in the life of humankindand are not intellectual conjectures. Every individual in the world shouldbe aware of these realities and work accordingly so that his actions may beworthwhile. To avoid deviation, disorder and damage in the life of human groupswhich are the result of a lack of understanding and respect for these principlesof human life, it is necessary to know these proven realities.

WOMAN

It is an undisputed fact that both man and womanare human beings. It follows, as a self-evident fact, that woman and man areequal as human beings. Discrimination against woman by man is a flagrant actof oppression without justification for woman eats and drinks as man eatsand drinks; woman loves and hates as man loves and hates; woman thinks, learnsand comprehends as man thinks, learns and comprehends. Woman, like man, needsshelter, clothing, and transportation; woman feels hunger and thirst as manfeels hunger and thirst; woman lives and dies as man lives and dies.

But why are there men and women? Human societyis composed neither of men alone nor of women alone. It is made up naturallyof 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 necessityfor the existence of man and woman, rather than man only or woman only. Itfollows that neither of them is exactly like the other, and the fact thata natural difference exists between men and women is proved by the createdexistence of men and women. This necessarily means that there is a role foreach one of them corresponding to the difference between them. Accordingly,there must be different prevailing conditions for each one in order that theyperform their naturally different roles. To comprehend these roles, we mustunderstand 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. Accordingto 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 activefor about a year, which means that all her natural activities are seriouslyreduced 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 womanis so inseparable from her baby that her activity is seriously reduced. Shebecomes directly responsible for another person whom she assists in his orher biological functions; without this assistance that person would die. Theman, on the other hand, neither conceives nor breast-feeds. End of gynaecologicalstatement!

All these innate characteristics form differencesbecause of which men and women are not the same. These characteristics inthemselves are the realities that define male and female, men and women; theyassign to each of them a different role or function in life. This means thatmen cannot replace women in carrying out these functions. It is worthy ofconsideration that these biological functions are a heavy burden, causingwomen great effort and suffering. However, without these functions which womenperform, human life would come to an end. It follows that it is a naturalfunction 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 forman alternative to human life. In addition to that, there exists partial deliberateintervention against conception, as well as against breast-feeding. All theseare links in a chain of actions in contradiction to natural life, which istantamount 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 inmaternity - nurseries replacing mothers - is a start in dispensing with thehuman society and transforming it into a merely biological society with anartificial way of life. To separate children from their mothers and to cramthem into nurseries is a process by which they are transformed into somethingvery close to chicks, for nurseries are similar to poultry farms into whichchicks are crammed after they are hatched. Nothing else would be as appropriateand suitable to the human being and his dignity as natural motherhood. Childrenshould be raised by their mothers in a family where the true principles ofmotherhood, fatherhood and comradeship of brothers and sisters prevail,and not in an institution resembling a poultry farm. Even poultry, like therest of the members of the animal kingdom, need motherhood as a natural phase.Therefore, breeding them on farms similar to nurseries is against their naturalgrowth. Even their meat is artificial rather than natural. Meat from mechanizedpoultry farms is not tasty and may not be nourishing because the chicks arenot 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 naturallyfed. As for children who have neither family nor shelter, society is theirguardian, and only for them, should society establish nurseries and relatedinstitutions. It is better for them to be taken care of by society ratherthan by individuals who are not their parents.

If a test were carried out to discover whetherthe 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 naturaltendency of a child is towards its mother, she is the natural and proper personto give the child the protection of nursing. Sending a child to a nurseryin place of its mother is coercive and oppressive and against its free andnatural tendencies.

Natural growth for all living things is free andhealthy growth. To substitute a nursery for a mother is coercive action againstfree and sound growth. Children who are shipped off to a nursery are consignedcompulsorily or by exploitation and simple-mindedness. They are driven tonurseries purely by materialistic, and not by social, considerations. If coercionand childish simple-mindedness were removed, they would certainly reject thenursery and cling to their mothers. The only justification for such an unnaturaland inhuman process is the fact that the woman is in a position unsuitableto her nature, i.e., she is compelled to perform duties which are unsocialand anti-motherhood.

A woman, whose created nature has assigned toher a natural role different from that of man, must be in an appropriate positionto perform her natural role.

Motherhood is the female's function, not the male's.Consequently, it is unnatural to separate children from their mothers. Anyattempt to take children away from their mothers is coercion, oppression anddictatorship. The mother who abandons her maternity contradicts her naturalrole in life. She must be provided with her rights, and with conditions whichare non-coercive, unoppressive and appropriate to her natural role. She canthen fulfill her natural role under natural conditions. If the woman is forcedto abandon her natural role regarding conception and maternity, she fallsvictim to coercion and tyranny. A woman who needs work that renders her unableto 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 whichenable 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 incapacitatedand burdened with pregnancy. Bearing another human being in her womb lessensher physical ability. It is unjust to place such a woman, in this stage ofmaternity, into circumstances of physical work incompatible with her condition.For pregnant women to perform such physical work is tantamount to punishmentfor their betrayal of their maternal role; it is the tax they pay for enteringthe realm of men, which is naturally alien to their own.

The belief, even if it is held by a woman, thatshe carries out physical labour of her own accord, is not, in fact, true.She performs the physical work only because a harsh materialistic societyhas 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, eventhough she may think that she works of her own accord. In fact, the allegedbasis that "there is no difference in any way between men and women", depriveswoman of her freedom.

The phrase "in any way" is a monstrous deception.This idea will destroy the appropriate and necessary conditions which constitutethe privilege which women ought to enjoy apart from men in accordance withtheir distinctive nature, and upon which their natural role in life is based.

To demand equality between man and woman in carryingheavy weights while the woman is pregnant is unjust and cruel. To demand equalitybetween them in fasting and hardship while she is breast-feeding is unjustand cruel. To demand equality between them in any dirty work which stainsher beauty and detracts from her femininity is unjust and cruel. Educationthat leads to work unsuitable for her nature is unjust and cruel as well.

There is no difference between men and women inall that concerns humanity. None of them should marry the other against hisor her will, or divorce without a just trial or mutual agreement. Neithershould a woman remarry without such agreement or divorce; nor a man withoutdivorce or consent. The woman is the owner of the house because it is oneof 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 fromthat 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 theirmother.

Woman is female. Being female means she has abiological nature that is different from that of the male. The female's biologicalnature, differing as it does from that of the males, has imparted to womencharacteristics different from those of men in form and in essence. A woman'sanatomy is different from that of a man's just as the female differs in plantsand animals. This is a natural and incontrovertible fact. In the animal andplant kingdoms, the male is naturally created strong and aggressive, whilethe female is created beautiful and gentle. These are natural and eternalcharacteristics innate to living creatures, whether they are called humanbeings, animals or plants.

In view of his different nature and in line withthe laws of nature, the male has played the role of the strong and strivingnot by design, but simply because he is created that way. The female has playedthe role of the beautiful and the gentle involuntarily because she was createdso. This natural rule is just, partly because it is natural, and partly becauseit is the basic rule for freedom. All living creatures are created free andany interference with that freedom is coercion. Not to adhere to these naturalroles and to lack concern for their limits amounts to a wanton act of corruptionagainst the values of life itself. Nature has been designed to be in harmonywith the inevitability of life, from what is being to what will become. Theliving creature is a being who inevitably lives until it is dead. Existencebetween the beginning and the end of life is based on a natural law, withoutchoice or compulsion. It is natural. It is natural freedom.

In the animal, plant and human realms, there mustbe a male and a female for life to occur from its beginning to its end. Notonly do they exist but they have to exercise, with absolute efficiency, thenatural role for which they have been created. If their role is not beingefficiently performed, there must be some defect in the organization of lifecaused by historical circumstances. This is the case of societies almost everywherein the world today as they confuse the roles of men and women and endeavourto transform women into men. In harmony with nature and its subsequent purpose,men and women must be creative within their respective roles. To resist isretrogressive; 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, notabandon, the roles for which they are created.

Abandoning their role, or even a part of it, onlyoccurs as a result of coercive conditions and under abnormal circumstances.The woman who rejects pregnancy, marriage, beautification and femininity forreasons of health abandons her natural role in life under these coercive conditionsof ill health. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or motherhood becauseof work abandons her natural role under similar coercive conditions. The womanwho rejects marriage, pregnancy or maternity without any concrete cause abandonsher 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 occurunder unnatural conditions which are contrary to freedom and are a threatto survival. Consequently, there must be a world revolution which puts anend to all materialistic conditions hindering women from performing theirnatural role in life, and so drives them to carry out men's duties in orderto attain equal rights. Such revolution will inevitably take place, particularlyin industrial societies, as a response to the instinct of survival, even withoutany instigator of revolution such as THE GREEN BOOK.

All societies today look upon women as littlemore than commodities. The East regards her as a commodity to be bought andsold, while the West does not recognize her femininity.

Driving woman to do man's work is a flagrant aggressionagainst the femininity with which she is naturally provided and which definesa natural purpose essential to life. Man's work obscures woman's beautifulfeatures which are created for female roles. They are like blossoms whichare created to attract pollen and to produce seeds. If we did away with theblossoms, the role of plants in life would come to an end. The natural embellishmentin 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 withoutbeing forced to change into a man and to give up her femininity.

Physical structure, which is naturally differentin men and women, leads to differences in the functions of the organs, whichin turn leads to differences in the psyche, mood, emotions, as well as inphysical appearance. A woman is tender; a woman is pretty; a woman weeps easilyand is easily frightened. In general, women are gentle and men are aggressiveby virtue of their inbred nature.

To ignore natural differences between men andwomen and to mix their roles is an absolutely uncivilized attitude, hostileto the laws of nature, destructive to human life, and a genuine cause forthe wretchedness of human social life.

Modern industrial societies, which have made womenadapt to the same physical work as men at the expense of their femininityand their natural role in terms of beauty, maternity and serenity, are materialisticand uncivilized. To imitate them is as stupid as it is dangerous to civilizationand humanity.

The question, then, is not whether women shouldor should not work, for this is a ridiculous materialistic presentation ofthe case. Work should be provided by the society to all able members who needwork - men and women on the condition that individuals work in their own fieldsand not be coerced into carrying out unsuitable work.

For children to find themselves under adult workingconditions is unjust and dictatorial. It is equally unjust and dictatorialfor women to find themselves under the working conditions of men.

Freedom means that every human being gets propereducation which qualifies him or her for the work which suits him or her.Dictatorship means that human beings are taught that which is not suitablefor them, and are forced to do unsuitable work. Work which is appropriateto men is not necessarily appropriate to women, and knowledge that is properfor children does not necessarily suit adults.

There is no difference in human rights betweenman and woman, the child and the adult, but there is no absolute identitybetween them as regards their duties.

MINORITIES

What is a minority? What are its rights and responsibilities?How can the problem of minorities be solved according to the solution to varioushuman problems presented by The Third Universal Theory?

There are only two types of minorities. One ofthem belongs to a nation which provides it with a social framework, whilethe other has no nation and forms its own social framework. The latter isthe one that forms one of the historic groups which eventually constitutea nation by virtue of a sense of belonging and a common destiny.

It is now clear that such a minority has its ownsocial rights. Any encroachment on these rights by any majority is an actof injustice. Social characteristics are inherent and cannot be given or takenaway. The political and economic problems of minorities can only be solvedwithin a society controlled by the masses in whose hands power, wealth andarms should be placed. To view the minority as a political and economic substratais dictatorial and unjust.

BLACK PEOPLE WILL PREVAIL IN THEWORLD

The latest age of slavery has been the enslavementof Blacks by White people. The memory of this age will persist in the thinkingof Black people until they have vindicated themselves.

This tragic and historic event, the resultingbitter feeling, and the yearning or the vindication of a whole race, constitutea psychological motivation of Black people to vengeance and triumph that cannotbe disregarded. In addition, the inevitable cycle of social history, whichincludes the Yellow people's domination of the world when it marched fromAsia, and the White people's carrying out a wide-ranging colonialist movementcovering all the continents of the world, is now giving way to the re-emergenceof Black people.

Black people are now in a very backward socialsituation, but such backwardness works to bring about their numerical superioritybecause their low standard of living has shielded them from methods of birthcontrol and family planning. Also, their old social traditions place no limiton marriages, leading to their accelerated growth. The population of otherraces has decreased because of birth control, restrictions on marriage, andconstant occupation in work, unlike the Blacks, who tend to be less obsessiveabout work in a climate which is continuously hot.

EDUCATION

Education, or learning, is not necessarily thatroutinized curriculum and those classified subjects in textbooks which youthsare forced to learn during specified hours while sitting in rows of desks.This type of education now prevailing all over the world is directed againsthuman freedom. State-controlled education, which governments boast of wheneverthey 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 coercivedirecting of a human being's choices. It is an act of dictatorship destructiveof freedom because it deprives people of their free choice, creativity andbrilliance. To force a human being to learn according to a set curriculumis a dictatorial act. To impose certain subjects upon people is also a dictatorialact.

State-controlled and standardized education is,in fact, a forced stultification of the masses. All governments which setcourses of education in terms of formal curricula and force people to learnthose courses coerce their citizens. All methods of education prevailing inthe world should be destroyed through a universal cultural revolution thatfrees the human mind from curricula of fanaticism which dictate a processof deliberate distortion of man's tastes, conceptual ability and mentality.

This does not mean that schools are to be closedand that people should turn their backs on education, as it may seem to superficialreaders. On the contrary, it means. that society should provide all typesof education, giving people the chance to choose freely any subjects theywish to learn. This requires a sufficient number of schools for all typesof education. Insufficient numbers of schools restrict human freedom of choice,forcing them to learn only the subjects available, while depriving them ofthe natural right to choose because of the unavailability of other subjects.Societies which ban or monopolize knowledge are reactionary societies whichare biased towards ignorance and are hostile to freedom. Societies which prohibitthe teaching of religion are reactionary societies, biased towards ignoranceand hostile to freedom. Societies which monopolize religious education arereactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Equallyso are the societies which distort the religions, civilizations and behaviourof others in the process of teaching those subjects. Societies which considermaterialistic knowledge taboo are likewise reactionary societies, biased towardsignorance and hostile to freedom. Knowledge is a natural right of every humanbeing 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 ofthat right.

Ignorance will come to an end when everythingis presented as it actually is and when knowledge about everything is availableto each person in the manner that suits him or her.

MUSIC AND ART

Humans, being backward, are still unable to speakone common language. Until this human aspiration is attained, which seemsimpossible, the expression of joy and sorrow, of what is good and bad, beautifuland ugly, comfortable and miserable, mortal and eternal, love and hatred,the description of colours, sentiments, tastes and moods - all will be expressedaccording to the language each person speaks spontaneously. Behaviour itselfwill result from the reaction produced by the feeling that the language createsin 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 inevitablyremain without solution until the process of the unification of languageshas passed through time, provided that the hereditary factor loses its effecton subsequent generations through the passage of sufficient time. The sentiment,taste and mood of ancestors form those of their descendants. If those ancestorsspoke different languages and their children, on the contrary, speak a singlelanguage, the off-spring would not necessarily share common tastes in virtueof speaking a common language. Such common tastes can be achieved only whenthe new language imparts the taste and the sense transmitted by inheritancefrom one generation to another.

If one group of people wears white clothes inmourning and another group puts on black, the sentiment of each group willbe adjusted according to these two colours, i.e., one group rejects the blackcolour 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 thegenes in the body. This adaptation, will be transmitted by inheritance. Theinheritors automatically reject the colour rejected by the legator as a resultof inheriting the sentiment of their legator. Consequently, people are onlyharmonious with their own arts and heritage. They are not harmonious withthe arts of others because of heredity, even though those people, who differin heritage, speak a single common language.

Such a difference emerges between the groups ofone 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 alsonot the problem. The problem is the impossibility of a real intuitional adaptationto the language of others.

This will remain impossible until the effectsof heredity, which are transmitted in the human body, come to an end.

Mankind is still backward because humans do notcommunicate in one inherited common language. It is only a matter of timebefore mankind, achieves that goal, unless civilization should relapse.

SPORT, HORSEMANSHlP AND THE STAGE

Sport is either private, like the prayer whichone performs alone inside a closed room, or public, performed collectivelyin open places, like the prayer which is practised corporately in places ofworship. The first type of sport concerns the individuals themselves, whilethe second type is of concern to all people. It must be practised by all andshould not be left to anyone else to practise on their behalf. It is unreasonablefor crowds to enter places of worship just to view a person or a group ofpeople praying without taking part. It is equally unreasonable for crowdsto enter playgrounds and arenas to watch a player of a team without participatingthemselves.

Sport is like praying, eating, and the feelingsof coolness and warmth. It is unlikely that crowds will enter a restaurantjust to look at a person or a group of people eat. It is also unlikely thatthey will let a person or a group or people enjoy warmth or ventilation ontheir behalf. It is equally illogical for the society to allow an individualor a team to monopolize sports while the society as a whole pays the costsof such a monopoly for the exclusive benefit of one person or team. In thesame way, people should not allow an individual or a group, whether it isa party, class, sect, tribe or parliament, to replace them in deciding theirdestiny and in defining their needs.

Private sport is of concern only to those whopractise it on their own and at their own expense. Public sport is a publicneed and the people cannot be either democratically or physically representedby others in its practice. Physically, the representative cannot transmitto others how his body and morale benefit from sport. Democratically, no individualor team has the right to monopolize sport, power, wealth or arms for themselves.Sporting clubs represent the basic organization of traditional sport in theworld today. They retain all expenditure and public facilities allocated tosport in every state. These institutions are social monopolistic agencieslike all dictatorial political instruments which monopolize authority, economicinstruments which monopolize wealth, and traditional military instrumentswhich monopolize arms. As the era of the masses does away with the instrumentsmonopolizing power, wealth and arms, it will, inevitably, destroy the monopolyof social activity in such areas as sports, horsemanship, and so forth. Themasses who queue to vote for a candidate to represent them in deciding theirdestiny act on the impossible assumption that this person will represent themand embody, on their behalf, their dignity, sovereignty and point of view.However, those masses who are robbed of their will and dignity are reducedto mere spectators, watching another person performing what they should naturallybe doing themselves.

The same holds true of the crowds who, becauseof ignorance, fail to practise sport by and for themselves. They are fooledby monopolistic instruments which endeavour to stupefy them and divert themto 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 handsof the people.

Public sport is for all the masses. It is rightof all people for their health and recreational benefit. It is mere stupidityto leave its benefits to certain individuals and teams who monopolize thesewhile the masses provide the facilities and pay the expenses for the establishmentof public sports. The thousands who crowd stadiums to view, applaud and laughare foolish people who have failed to carry out the activity themselves. Theyline up lethargically in the stands of the sports grounds, and applaud thoseheroes who wrest from them the initiative, dominate the field and controlthe sport and, in so doing, exploit the facilities that the masses provide.Originally, the public grandstands were designed to demarcate the masses fromthe playing fields and grounds; to prevent the masses from having access tothe playing fields. When the masses march and play sport in the centre ofplaying fields and open spaces, stadiums will be vacant and become redundant.This will take place when the masses become aware of the fact; that sportis a public activity which must be practised rather than watched. This ismore reasonable as an alternative than the present costum of a helpless apatheticmajority that merely watches.

Grandstands will disappear because no one willbe there to occupy them. Those who are unable to perform the roles of heroismin life, who are ignorant of the events of history; who fall short of envisagingthe future, and who are not serious enough in their own lives, are the trivialpeople who fill the seats of the theatres and cinemas to watch the eventsof life in order to learn their course. They are like pupils who occupy schooldesks because they are uneducated and also initially illiterate.

Those who direct the course of life for themselveshave 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 grandstandsat the race course. If every person has a horse, no one will be there to watchand applaud. The sitting spectators are only those who are too helpless toperform this kind of activity because they are not horsemen.

Bedouin peoples show no interest in theatres andshows because they are very serious and industrious. As they have createda serious life, they ridicule acting. Bedouin societies also do not watchperformers, but perform games and take part in joyful ceremonies because theynaturally recognize the need for these activities and practise them spontaneously.

Boxing and wrestling are evidence that mankindhas not rid itself of all savage behaviour. Inevitably it will come to anend when humanity ascends the ladder of civilization. Human sacrifice andpistol duels were familiar practices in previous stages of human evolution.However, those savage practices came to an end years ago. People now laughat themselves and regret such acts. This will be the fate of boxing and wrestlingafter tens or hundreds of years. The more the people become civilized andsophisticated, the more they are able to ward off both the performance andthe encouragement of these practices.

Return

Click here to discuss The Green Book!