Revenge or Understanding: The Rule of Law or of Love

ALL LEGAL SYSTEMS are nothing but the revenge of society -- against those who don't fit in with the system. According to me, law is not for protection of the just, it is for protection of the crowd mind -- whether it is just or unjust does not matter. Law is against the individual and for the crowd. It is an effort to reduce the individual and his freedom, and his possibility of being himself. The latest scientific researches are very revealing -- perhaps ten percent of the people who are termed criminals are not responsible for their crimes; their crimes are genetic, they inherit them. Just as a blind man is not responsible for his blindness, a murderer is not responsible for his murderousness. Both inherit the tendency -- one of blindness, another of committing murder. Now it is an established scientific fact that punishing anybody for any crime is simply idiotic. It is almost like punishing somebody because he has tuberculosis -- sending him to jail because he is suffering from cancer. All criminals are sick, psychologically and spiritually both. In my vision of a commune, the courts will not consist of law experts, they will consist of people who understand genetics and how crimes are inherited from generation to generation. They have to decide not for any punishment, because every punishment is wrong -- not only wrong, every punishment is criminal. The man who has committed anything wrong has to be sent to the right institution -- a psychiatric institution, or a psychoanalytic school, or maybe a hospital, to be operated on. He needs our sympathy, our love, our help. Instead of giving him our sympathy and love, for centuries we have been giving him punishment. Man has committed so much cruelty behind such beautiful names as order, law, justice. The new man will not have any jails and will not have any judges and will not have any legal experts. These are absolutely unnecessary, cancerous growths on the body of society. There will certainly have to be sympathetic scientists, meditative, compassionate beings to work out why it happened that a certain man committed rape: is he really responsible? According to me, on no account is he responsible. Either he has committed rape because of the priests and the religions teaching celibacy, repression for thousands of years -- this is the outcome of a repressive morality -- or biologically he has hormones which compel him to commit rape. Although you are living in a modern society, most of you are not contemporaries because you are not aware of the reality that science goes on discovering. Your educational system prevents you from knowing it, your religions prevent you from knowing it, your governments prevent you from knowing it. The man who is committing rape perhaps has more hormones than those moral people who manage to live with one woman for their whole life, thinking that they are moral. A man with more hormones will need more women; so will be the case with a woman. It is not a question of morality, it is a question of biology. A man who commits rape needs all our sympathy, needs a certain operation in which his extra hormones are removed, and he will cool down, calm down. To punish him is simply an exercise in stupidity. By punishing, you cannot change his hormones. Throwing him in jail, you will create a homosexual, some kind of pervert. In American jails they have done a survey: thirty percent of the inmates are homosexuals. That is according to their confession; we don't know how many have not confessed. Thirty percent is not a small number. In monasteries the number is bigger -- fifty percent, sixty percent. But the responsibility lies with our idiotic clinging to religions which are out of date, which are not supported and nourished by scientific research. The new commune of man will be based on science, not on superstition. If somebody does something which is harmful to the commune as such, then his body has to be looked into; perhaps he needs some physiological change or biological change. His mind has to be looked into -- perhaps he needs some psychoanalysis. The deepest possibility is that neither the body nor the mind are of much help; that means he needs a deep spiritual regeneration, a deep meditative cleansing. Instead of courts, we should have meditative centers of different kinds, so every unique individual can find his own way. Instead of law experts, who are simply irrelevant -- they are parasites sucking our blood -- we will have scientific people of different persuasions, because somebody may have a chemical defect, somebody may have a biological defect, somebody may have a physiological defect. We need all these kinds of experts, of all persuasions and schools of psychology, all types of meditators, and we can transform the poor people who have been victims of unknown forces -- and have been punished by us. They have suffered in a double sense. First, they are suffering from an unknown biological force. Secondly, they are suffering at the hands of your judges -- who are nothing but butchers, henchmen -- your advocates, all kinds of your law experts, your jailers. It is simply so insane that future human beings will not be able to believe it. It is almost the same as in the past: mad people were beaten to cure their madness; people who were schizophrenic, who were thought to be possessed by ghosts, were beaten almost to death -- this was thought to be the treatment. Millions of people have died because of your great treatments. Now we can simply say that those people were barbarous, ignorant, primitive. The same will be said about us. I am already saying it: that your courts are barbarous, your laws are barbarous. The very idea of punishment is unscientific. There is nobody in the world who is a criminal; everybody is sick, and needs sympathy and a scientific cure, and most of your crimes will disappear. But first private property has to disappear: private property creates thieves, dacoits, pickpockets, priests, politicians. Politics is a disease. Man has suffered from many diseases and he has not even been aware that they are diseases. He has been punishing small criminals and he has been worshipping great criminals. Who is Alexander the Great? A great criminal; he murdered people on a mass scale. Adolf Hitler alone killed millions of people, but he will be remembered in history as a great leader of men. Napoleon Bonaparte, Ivan the Terrible, Nadirshah, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane are all mass-scale criminals. But their crimes are so big, that perhaps you cannot conceive.... They have killed millions of people, burned millions of people alive, but they are not thought of as criminals. And a small pickpocket, who takes away a one-dollar note from your pocket will be punished by the court. Once private property disappears.... And in a commune there is going to be no private property, everything belongs to all; naturally, stealing will disappear. You don't steal water and accumulate it, you don't steal air. A commune has to create everything in such abundance that even a retarded person cannot think of accumulating it. What is the point? It is always available, fresh. Money has to disappear from society. A commune does not need money. Your needs should be fulfilled by the commune. All have to produce, and all have to make the commune richer, affluent, accepting the fact that a few people will be lazy. But there is no harm in it. In every family you will find somebody lazy. Somebody is a poet, somebody is a painter, somebody simply goes on playing on his flute – but you love the person. A certain percentage of lazy people will be respectfully allowed. In fact a commune that does not have lazy people will be a little less rich than other communes which have a few lazy people who do nothing but meditate, who do nothing but go on playing on their guitar while others are toiling in the fields. A little more human outlook is needed; these people are not useless. They may not seem to be productive of commodities, but they are producing a certain joyful, cheerful atmosphere. Their contribution is meaningful and significant. With the disappearance of money as a means of exchange, many crimes will disappear. As religions disappear, with their repressive superstitions and moralities, crimes like rape, perversions like homosexuality, diseases like AIDS will become unheard of. And when from the very beginning every child is brought up with a reverence for life -- reverence for the trees because they are alive, reverence for animals, reverence for birds -- do you think such a child one day can be a murderer? It will be almost inconceivable. And if life is joyous, full of songs and dances, do you think somebody will desire to commit suicide? Ninety percent of crimes will disappear automatically; only ten percent of crimes may remain, which are genetic, which need hospitalization – but not jails, prisons, not people to be sentenced to death. This is all so ugly, so inhuman, so insane. The new commune, the new man, can live without any law, without any order. Love will be his law, understanding will be his order. Science will be, in every difficult situation, his last resort.

A World of Communes

MY VISION OF a new world, the world of communes, means no nations, no big cities, no families, but millions of small communes spread all over the earth in thick forests, lush green forests, in mountains, on islands. The smallest commune manageable can be of five thousand people, and the biggest commune can be of fifty thousand people. From five thousand to fifty thousand -- more than that will become unmanageable; then again comes the question of order and law, and the police, and the court, and all the old criminals have to be brought back. A commune is a declaration of a non-ambitious life, of equal opportunity for all. But remember my differences with Karl Marx: I am not in favor of imposing equality on people, because that is a psychologically impossible task -- and whenever you do something against nature, it becomes destructive and poisonous. No two men are equal. But I can be misunderstood very easily, so try to understand my standpoint very clearly. I am not in favor of equality, but I am not in favor of inequality either! I'm in favor of creating equal opportunities for everybody to be himself. In other words: In my vision, each individual is equally unique. The question of equality or inequality does not arise, because two individuals are not the same. They cannot be compared. A real commune, a real communism, will create equal opportunities for growth, but accept the uniqueness of each individual. A commune means that we have pooled all our energies, all our money -- everything into a single pool which will be taking care of all the people. There should be absolute freedom of expression in words or in creativity. Each individual should be respected as he is, not according to any ideal. His basic needs should be fulfilled by the commune, and as the commune becomes richer, every individual should be provided with more comfort, with more luxury --because I am not against luxury or comfort. I am not a sadist, and I don't want people to be tortured in any beautiful name. In the name of religion or in the name of socialism nobody should be sacrificed; no kind of self torture should be supported. Man is here to rejoice, to live a life as beautifully, as peacefully, as comfortably as possible. I am absolutely for those progressive inventions which can make man happier, live longer, be younger, healthier, and which make his life more of a play, fun, and less of a torturous journey from the cradle to the grave. I am all for richness -- but the richness will be of the commune. As the commune becomes richer, every individual will become richer. I am against poverty, I am not a worshiper of poverty. I don't see anything spiritual in being poor; it is sheer stupidity. Neither poverty is spiritual, nor sickness is spiritual, nor hunger is spiritual. A commune should live in such a way that it becomes richer and richer, in such a way that it does not produce too many children, that it does not overproduce people, because overproduction of people is bound to create beggars, is bound to create orphans. And once there are orphans there are Mother Teresas to convert them into Catholicism. All the communes should be interdependent, but they will not exchange money. Money should be dissolved. It has done tremendous harm to humanity -- now it is time to say good-bye to it, because money can be accumulated. And if one commune becomes richer than the other communes, then comes from the back door the poverty and the richness and the whole nightmare of capitalism, and the classes of the poor and the rich, and the desire to dominate. Because you are rich, you can enslave other communes. Money is one of the enemies of man. Communes will be exchanging. They will be broadcasting on their radio stations that such and such a product is available from them. Anybody who has certain other products that they need can contact them, and things can be exchanged in a friendly way; there is no haggling, there is no exploitation. But the commune should not become too big, because bigness is also dangerous. A commune's criterion of bigness should be that everybody knows everybody else; that should be the limit. Once that limit is crossed, the commune should divide itself into two. Just as two brothers separate, when a commune becomes big enough it divides itself into two communes, two sister communes. And there will be a deep interdependence, sharing ideas and skills, without any of the attitudes that grow out of possessiveness -- like nationalism and fanaticism. There will be nothing to be fanatic about. There will be no reason for a nation. A small group of people can enjoy life more easily, because to have so many friends, so many acquaintances, is a joy unto itself. My idea of a commune is, living in small groups, which gives you enough space, and yet living in a close, loving, relationship. Your children are taken care of by the commune, your needs are taken care of by the commune, your medical care is taken care of by the commune. The commune becomes an authentic family without any diseases that families have created in the past. It is a loose family and a constant movement. There is no question of any marriage and no question of any divorce. If two persons want to be together, they can be together, and if one day they don't want to be together, that is perfectly good. It was their decision to be together; now they can choose other friends. In fact, in one life why not live many lives? Why not make it richer? Why should a man cling to a woman, or a woman cling to a man unless they enjoy each other so much that they want to be together for their whole life. But looking at the world, the situation is clear: people would like to be independent from their families; children want to be independent from their families. But in a commune, there is no need to make any fuss. You can say good-bye any moment, and you can still remain friends. It will be a richer life; you will have known many men and many women. Each man has his own uniqueness, and each woman has her own uniqueness. In a commune the older people will be loved and respected for their experiences. The older people will become the teachers, the guides. Old age will not be thought of as something ugly, but as something immensely graceful. One has gone beyond all childish and all youthful foolishness; one has come to be very centered and silent after a life-long meditation. They will teach you how to die -- because when they die, they will die with such grace and joy. That will be their last gift to the commune. The whole world should be one humanity, only divided by small communes on a practical basis. No fanaticism, no racism, no nationalism -- then, for the first time, we can drop the idea of wars. We can make life with honesty, worth living, worth enjoying -- playful, meditative, creative -- and give every man and every woman equal opportunity to grow and bring their potential to flowering.

The Right to Die : euthanasia

I ALSO SUGGEST euthanasia. Just as we are putting limits on birth -- birth control -- let me give you another word: death control. But no nation is ready for death control. Even if, after a certain age, a person wants to die and has lived life fully and has no responsibility -- rather he is a burden on himself -- he is forced to live, because the law is against suicide.

I suggest, if you accept seventy as the average age to die, or eighty or ninety as the average, a man should be free to ask the medical board: "I want to be freed from my body." He has every right to do that, if he does not want to live any more because he has lived enough. He has done everything that he wanted to do, and now he wants not to die of cancer, or tuberculosis; he simply wants a relaxed death.

Every hospital should have a special place for people, with a special staff, where people can come, get relaxed and be helped to die beautifully, without any disease, supported by the medical profession.

If the medical board feels that the person is valuable, if the medical board feels that the person is of immense importance, then he can be asked to live a little longer. Only a few people should be asked to be here a little longer, because they can be of so much help to humanity, so much help to others. But if even those people don't want to live, that is their birthright. You can ask, request, and if they accept it, good; but if they say: "No, we are not interested any more," then certainly they have every right to die.

One can understand trying to save a child, but why are you saving old people who have lived, lived enough, suffered, enjoyed, done all kinds of things, good and bad? Now it is time -- let them go.

But the doctors cannot let them go because it is illegal.

They cannot take them off oxygen and other life-support systems, so you go on saving the dying or almost-dead people.

No pope issues a commandment that these people should be allowed freedom from their bodies. And what is left of their bodies? Somebody's legs are missing; somebody's hands are missing; somebody's heart is not working so a battery is working instead of a heart; somebody's kidneys are not working so machines are doing the work of the kidneys. But what is the purpose of these people? What will they do even if you continue to keep them going this way?

Yes, at the most they keep a few people employed; that's all. But what kind of a creative life are they going to have? And what joy can they have in all that is being done to them? Continual injections are being given to them. They cannot sleep, then sleeping pills are given to them. They cannot wake up, then activators are forced into their blood so they have to wake up. But for what reason -- the Hippocratic oath? Let Hippocrates go to hell! He had no idea what his oath was going to bring about.

Instead of medicines, a meditator should be there to teach the dying man how to meditate, because now medicine is not needed, meditation is needed -- how to relax and peacefully disappear from the body.

Every hospital needs meditators -- they are essential -- just as it needs doctors.

Up to now meditators were not needed because there was only one function: to save life. Now the function is doubled: to help people die. Every university should have a department where meditation is taught so that people themselves are ready. When the time comes to die, they are fully ready to die -- with joy, with celebration.

But suicide is a crime. This will be considered suicide, and I will be considered to be teaching people illegal things.

My concern is with truth, not with law.

The truth is that you have unbalanced life, nature. Please give back its balance.

I suggest a movement so that when people have lived enough and they desire to be freed from their bodies, then hospitals should provide a convenient, pleasant death. It is absolutely sane that every hospital should have a special ward with all facilities so that death becomes a pleasant experience, enjoyable.

Meritocracy - Power in the Hands of the Intelligentsia

ONE THING IS absolutely certain: The days of the politicians are over. They have done too well their job of being destructive, violent. Nothing is favorable to the politician; and as each day passes his death comes closer. He himself is responsible. He improved the weapons, which can bring death to the whole world, to such a point that there is no way of going back. Either there will be an ultimate war -- which means death to all and everything -- or a total change of the whole structure in the human society. I am calling that change "meritocracy." One thing -- we have to drop the idea that every man, just because he is twenty-one, is capable of choosing who is the right person to decide the fate of nations. Age cannot be a decisive factor. We have to change the decisive factor; that is changing the very foundation. My suggestion is that only a person who is at least a matriculate, a high school graduate, will be able to vote. His age does not matter. For the local government, matriculation will be the qualification for the voters. And graduation from a university, at least a bachelor's degree, should be a necessary qualification for anybody running for election, for the candidates. A master's degree should be a minimum qualification for the one who is running for mayor. For the state elections, graduation with a bachelor's degree should be the minimum qualification for the voters. A master's degree in science, the arts, commerce, should be the necessary degree for the candidates. For the cabinet ministers an M.A. with highest honors should be the minimum necessary qualification; more will be, of course, more appreciated. And anybody trying to become a cabinet minister will have to know something about the subject. His qualification should correspond to the subject matter that he is going to deal with in his term of office. So if somebody is going to be an education minister, then his qualifications should make him capable of being an education minister. He should have at least a master's degree in education with highest honors; with less than highest honors nobody should be a minister on the state level. Yes, if he has better degrees -- doctor of education, Ph.D. in education -- that is good, that will make him more qualified. The attorney general should have at least a doctorate in law, an LL.D.-- not less than that, because he is going to defend the law of the state, the rights of the citizens. He should have the best degree possible so he knows everything about it. The governor should have the best of all the degrees possible for him: M.A. with highest honors, Ph.D. -- his Ph.D. should be in political science -- and at least one honorary degree, a D.Litt. or LL.D. For the federal government, a master's degree will be the voter's minimum qualification. A master's degree with highest honors and a Ph.D. should be the minimum for the candidates running for election. And the ministers should all have the highest degrees in the subjects for which they are going to be ministers. If it is education then the highest degrees in education available in the country; if it is going to be health, then the highest degrees in health available in the country. The president should have at least two Ph.D.s and one honorary D.Litt. or LL.D.; and the same for the vice-president because he can become president any day. In this way mobocracy is destroyed. Then just because you are twenty-one it does not mean you are capable of choosing the government. Choosing the government should be a very skillful, intelligent job. Just by being twenty-one you may be able to reproduce children -- it needs no skill, no education, biology sends you well prepared. But to choose the government, to choose people who are going to have all the powers over you and everybody, and who are going to decide the destiny of the country and the world, just to be twenty-one is certainly not enough...the way we have been choosing them is simply idiotic. I would like all the universities -- within each state -- to call a convention of all the vice-chancellors and the eminent professors; of the eminent intelligentsia who may not be part of the university: painters, artists, poets, writers, novelists, dancers, actors, musicians. It would include all dimensions of talents, all kinds of people who have shown their caliber -- excluding politicians completely. All the Nobel Prize winners should be invited -- excluding the politicians again, because within these past few years a few politicians have been given Nobel Prizes, and this has degraded the value of the Nobel Prize. So from each state a delegation should be chosen for the national convention, which goes into details of how the meritocracy can work. From the national candidates there should be an international convention of all the universities of the world and the intelligentsia. This would be the first of its kind because never has the whole intelligentsia of the world come together to decide the fate of humanity. They should write the first constitution of the world. It will not be American, it will not be Indian, it will not be Chinese -- it is going to be simply the constitution of the whole of humanity. There is no need for different kinds of laws. There is no need -- all human beings need the same kind of laws. And a world constitution will be a declaration that nations are no longer significant. They can exist as functional units but they are no longer independent powers. And if the whole intelligentsia of the world is behind this convention it will not be very difficult to convince the generals of the world to move away from the politicians. And what power do politicians have? All the power that they have we have given to them. We can take it back. It is not their power, it is our power. We just have to find a way to take it back -- because giving is very easy, taking is a little difficult. They will not be so simple and innocent when you take the power back as they were when they were asking it from you. It is our power, but they will go on having it if the mob remains there to give it to them; the mob can be convinced about anything. It is the function of the intelligentsia.... I would like to say that now, if anything happens to humanity, the whole condemnation will go to the intelligentsia: "What were you doing? If those idiots were ready to kill humanity, what were you doing? You simply went on grumbling, being grumpy, but you did nothing else." And the time is running short. Once we decide that the voting power is not the birthright of every human being but is a right which you will have to earn by your intelligence.... You have to see the distinction: Everybody is given the opportunity to earn it, there is equal opportunity for all to earn it, but it is nothing birth-given; you have to prove it. Once we move the power from the mob into the hands of intelligent people, people who know what they are doing, we can create something beautiful. If a man who has devoted his whole life to thinking about education and its problems, has done all that was possible to do to find out every detail, every fundamental of education, all the possible philosophies of education -- if he becomes an education minister, there is a possibility that he will do something. I suggest to shift completely from the mob to the chosen few. I am not against the people. In fact, in the hands of these politicians, the people are against themselves. I am all for the people, and what I am saying can be said to be exactly what has been said about democracy: for the people, by the people, of the people -- just "by the people" I will have to change. This intelligentsia will be for the people, of the people. It will be serving the masses. It is so simple a thing. You don't elect a doctor, and just anybody can stand, because it is a birthright and people can vote...two persons fighting to be the doctor or to be the surgeon. What is wrong in it? The people choose for themselves: for the people, by the people, of the people. They choose one person -- to be the surgeon -- because he speaks better, he looks good on the television and he makes great promises. But he is not even a butcher, and he is going to become a surgeon! A butcher would have been better; at least he would have known how to cut -- but you don't choose a surgeon by election. How can you choose a president by election? How can you choose a governor by election? For one post so many people are hankering, desiring. Those who are most sick with ambitiousness will fight the most, they will kill -- they will do anything. You are giving so much power to power-hungry people; with your own hands you are helping them to hang you! This is not democracy. In the name of democracy these people have been exploiting the masses. So politicians and priests both have to be dropped out of their long, long-standing establishment, and a totally new kind of management has to be developed. Just to make a distinction I am calling my system "meritocracy." But merit for what? The merit is to serve and share. And once you have decided to shift the power from the politicians to the intelligentsia, everything is possible -- everything becomes simple. Meritocracy is a whole program of transforming the structure of society, the structure of the government, the structure of education. It is a difficult job, arduous but not impossible -- particularly in such a situation when death is the only alternative.

Priests and Politicians -- the Ancient Conspiracy

THAT SAME U.N. report, "Our Common Future," fails to deal with the real roots of the problems because that would go against our own governments and religions. For instance, it says the economy and ecology are connected, but what about religion and politics? You have to be made aware who the real criminals are. The problem is that those criminals are thought to be great leaders, great symbols of holiness and respectability. So I have to expose all these people because they are the causes. For example, it is easier to understand that perhaps politicians are the causes of many problems -- wars, murders, massacres -- but it is more difficult when it comes to religious leaders, because nobody has raised his hand against them. They have remained respectable for centuries, and as time goes on their respectability goes on growing. The most difficult job for me is to make you aware that these people -- knowingly or unknowingly, that does not matter -- have created this world. The politicians and the priests have been constantly in conspiracy, working together, hand in hand. The politician has the political power; the priest has the religious power. The politician protects the priest, the priest blesses the politician -- and the masses are exploited, their blood is sucked by both. Religions have made man's mind retarded by creating beliefs out of fictions. And politicians have destroyed man by creating as undignified a life as possible -- because their power depends on your slavery. These barriers should be removed. Rather, science should be employed not in the service of death and destruction, but in the service of life and love, affirmation, celebration. We are in such a situation today that either we will let these rotten politicians and priests destroy the whole of humanity and the earth, or we will have to take the power from their hands and decentralize it into humanity. For example, every religion goes on teaching against birth control, and no government is courageous enough to tell these religions that they are creating a situation in which the whole earth is in tremendous suffering. In forty of the poorest countries in the world today, one fifth of all children die before the age of five. The politicians are afraid to say to the people anything in favor of birth control, in favor of abortion, because their whole interest is not whether the country survives or dies, their interest is that nobody should be offended. People have their prejudices, but the politicians don't want to touch their prejudices because they need their votes. If they hurt their prejudices, these people are not going to give them their votes. The population explosion is the problem. All the religions are teaching: "Serve the poor," but not a single religion is ready to say: "Accept birth control so that the population is reduced." The pope is continually interfering. He will not allow birth control: it is a sin, a sin against God. And what kind of God is this, who can't see that the earth is overburdened with the population? Politics is a game of numbers. How many Christians you have in the world -- that is your power. The more Christians there are, the more power is in the hands of Christian priests, the priesthood. Nobody is interested in saving anybody, but just in increasing the population. What Christianity has been doing is to continually issue orders from the Vatican against birth control, saying it is a sin to use birth control methods, that it is a sin to believe in abortion or to encourage abortion or to make it legal. Do you think they are interested in the unborn children? They are not interested; they have nothing to do with those unborn children. They pursue their interest knowing perfectly well that if abortion is not practiced, if birth control methods are not practiced, this whole humanity is going to commit a global suicide. And it is not so far away that you cannot see the situation. If things don't change, just within twelve years the world population will be such that it will be impossible to survive. Just now, just recently, the Vatican has come out with a long message to humanity -- one hundred and thirty-nine pages: "Abortion is sin; birth control is a sin." Now, nowhere in the bible is abortion a sin. Nowhere in the bible is birth control a sin, because no birth control was needed. Out of ten children, nine were going to die. That was the proportion, and that was the proportion in India just thirty or forty years ago: out of ten children, only one would survive. Then the population was not too great, not too heavy on the resources of the earth. Now, even in India -- not to say anything about developed countries -- even in India, out of ten children, only one dies. So medical science goes on helping people to survive. And Christianity goes on opening hospitals and distributing medicines, while at the same time condemning birth control and preaching stupid ideas like: "children are God-sent," and Mother Teresa is there to praise and the pope is going to bless you.... They are even worried about Russia. There is, in America, a Christian association called Underground Evangelism, which works in communist countries to distribute the bible freely, and to distribute these stupid ideas that abortion is sin and birth control is sin. Somehow Russia is not starving; they are not rich but they are not starving. Please, at least leave them alone. And it is because of birth control that they are not starving. If birth control is prohibited, if abortion is prohibited, Russia will be in the same position as Ethiopia. Then Mother Teresa and the pope will be very happy. The underground evangelists will come overground -- a great opportunity to convert people to Christianity. If some day this whole earth dies because of this explosion of population, then these people will be responsible for it -- they are against birth control and abortion. Now, without birth control, without abortion, there is no possibility for this earth to be rich.

One World Government

ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT was tried by the League of Nations before the second world war, but it could not succeed. It simply remained a debating club. The second world war destroyed the very credibility of the League of Nations. But the necessity was still there; therefore they had to create the United Nations Organization, the U.N. But the U.N. is as much a failure as the League of Nations was. Again, it is still a debating club because it has no power. It cannot implement anything; it is just a formal discussion club.

To make it a success, the simple thing is to make it a World Government. All nations should surrender their armies, their arms, to the World Government. Certainly if there is only one government, neither armies are needed nor arms. With whom are you going to have a war?

Now each big country, each power, is loaded with nuclear weapons, so much so that if we want to, we can destroy seventy earths like this, right now. That much nuclear power is there, available; to destroy each person seventy times. We also have war-gases enough to kill the entire life on earth five thousand times. It is not needed, one time is enough -- but politicians don't want to take any chances. Their faces are all masks. They say one thing, they do another thing.

Politicians are basically, deep down, impotent -- hence the urge to power.

They feel their weakness, inferiority and powerlessness; they know they are nobodies. But if they can convince the mediocre mob that they will be fulfilling their needs -- then it is a mutual understanding, a bargain. Then the masses give them power, and once they have got the power, they forget all their promises; in fact they never meant them. Once they have the power, then you see their real faces.

The politician is nothing but an egoist. Inside he feels inferior -- and afraid of that feeling of inferiority. He wants to be somebody, so that he can forget that feeling of inferiority. Power gives him the chance: he can see that millions of people are under his thumb. He can convince himself that he is not a nobody, he is somebody special. And he starts behaving that way. He starts misusing power. Once he is in power, he never wants to be out of it, because subconsciously he knows very well that out of power he will have to face his emptiness, his feeling of inferiority, his impotence.

And the power is in such people's hands. Any crackpot can push a button and finish the whole of humanity -- the whole of life on earth.

The United Nations should be converted from a formal organization into a real World Government, and all nations should surrender their armies and arms to it.

Then ways can be found for the arms technology to be used for some creative purposes. And millions of people in the armies will be released for such creative work, and all the scientists that all the governments are holding in their power will become, under the U.N., one single unit.

Each prime minister of the existing countries will become a member of the World Government, and all the prime ministers of the countries which join into one World Government will continue to work functionally. They won't have any real power, because the question of anyone invading anyone else does not arise. They will simply run the railways and post offices, etc., of their countries.

There is a possibility that a few governments won't join the World Government; then they have to be boycotted completely as if they don't exist. There should be no relationship with them, no communication, because that is the only way to bring them to join. And they cannot stand against the World Government. They will have to surrender. It is better to surrender gracefully. And then they will have their government, they will have their internal guards, a national force which can manage internal affairs, but they will not have plants making nuclear weapons and millions of people engaged in the unnecessary exercise of killing man.

The members of the World Government will choose the world president. But the world president will be chosen not from the members of the World Government, but from outside. And one thing should be absolutely certain about him -- that he is not a politician. He can be a poet, a painter, a mystic, a dancer, but not a politician. Anything except that. So in this way we will destroy the political power which has been the whole torture in the past.

The way the U.N. is now, with a few countries having veto power, should be dissolved.

It is again a power trip, and this has been the cause of many troubles: one single government can veto something for the whole world. Instead, each president from different nations will have voting power according to the nation's population of matriculates, of high school graduates.

This will change the whole power structure in the world. Then details can be worked out very easily.

Insemination is the only scientific way to find the best child.

We have to drop the old idea that: "I am the father." We have to create the idea that: "I have chosen the best child!" That should be the man's pride. Values have to be changed this way.

You don't know what you are carrying in your genes; you don't know what is your potential, what kind of child you are going to give birth to. You love the woman; there is no harm. Love should be absolutely available to you; that is your birthright. You love the woman, but every woman need not be a mother. Every man need not be a father.

You want a child, and if you really love a child, you would like the best child possible. So who contributes the semen and who contributes the mother's womb should not be your concern. Your concern should be that you get the best child possible.