The Universal Basic Income Shell Game: Controlled Dialectics, Free Energy, and Technocratic Co-Opting

This piece will explore the possibility of how a Universal Basic Income (UBI), an officially progressive wealth (re)distribution policy, could be deployed for dark, technocratic ends. Further, this piece will examine whether a UBI could actually function as a major fake out, to keep attention away from arguably much more liberating potentials like over unity (“free energy”) processes. This piece follows in a line of thought laid out by Ezekiel73 in this piece on Kevin Spacey and Game B theorists, which argued that Game B theorists need to take much more seriously the reality of an occulted system of nefarious power. The link is direct insofar as UBI is often touted within within Game B and Game B-adjacent circles.

I’m going to argue instead that UBIs, not necessarily as they are theoretically envisioned, but rather how they are being deployed by the cabal/hidden hand would have all the appearances of a progressive liberating economic policy but would in fact be a Trojan Horse for a much deeper form of technocracy.

A key concept to understand is that of controlled dialectics. A controlled dialectic is where an elite controls both sides of an argument thereby hiding (“occulting”) a third position, where the deeper truth really lies. In other words, there’s an official position and then an "unofficial official” counter-position, both of which keep out of the sight the third position. Like a shell game with two shells—the ball is always hidden under the table.

An example of a controlled dialectic would be space exploration. The official position is that there were moon landings, some space rock was collected, and then the Apollo Missions weren't needed any longer because their purpose was accomplished and there haven't been any missions to the Moon in over half a century. The official counter position consists of goofy ideas like the moon landing was faked on a movie set. The debate is then controlled as those two sides fighting it out. In particular the counter position is usually that of a junk conspiracy "theory" (which may well be seeded or at least amplified as a form of disinformation by the mainstream elites themselves). Meanwhile the third position is kept hidden out of view. The third position in this case would be things like the anomalous aspects and high strangeness in space (see Mars for example), the breakaway civilization and the secret space program, the latter softly being disclosed with things like The Space Force.

Keep in mind that controlled dialectical process as we explore how universal basic income could be (mis)used in precisely such a manner. One reason this inquiry is so timely is that UBI is in the news of late. Andrew Yang specifically had UBI as a key component of his platform during his recent run for the US Presidency. Pope Francis has called for one in response to coronavirus. Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, among other Silicon Valley types, are big proponents as well.

Zuckerberg’s inclusion on the list should raise immediate questions for anyone who supports a UBI. Not in the sense that the idea per se is a bad idea but rather the way in which an otherwise good (maybe even noble) idea could be co-opted to become a source of technocratic tyranny. We’ve seen Facebook used as a medium to deploy weapons grade psychological warfare on a population in the 2016 US presidential election as detailed in this piece. We all know Facebook’s horrendous policy of selling people’s attention and energy to market forces. It would be too simple to write off UBI-promotion by Zuckerberg and his ilk as some transparent corporate "progressive washing" initiative or some guilt tax/indulgence for the ultra-rich to maintain power. That could certainly be part of it but I think it goes much deeper than that analysis alone.

Which brings us back to the controlled dialectic. I seriously wonder whether the push towards a UBI is not itself part of an operation, particularly a controlled dialectical one.

How so?

If we look at China’s social credit system we see one side of the dialectic. This side would be the more officially or formally authoritarian wing. The Communist Party of China of course forces companies like Google to install their censors in order to do business in China. We saw the way in which the Chinese government threatened the NBA to cut off access to the China league over a pro-Hong Kong protest tweet by (now former) Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey.

China is fast approaching a central bank created centralized digital sovereign currency. The social credit scheme will undoubtedly be woven into the push for the cashless digital economy. All that data creates a digital file/footprint for individuals which can then be used to install deep surveillance as well as social engineering and psychological warfare, as a means of population control. (China of course also literally controls its population with the one child policy). Any UBI-type scenario would inevitably be tangled up in the larger issue of digital sovereignty, identity, rights, privacy (or lack thereof), and the buying and selling without consent of human attention.

The other side of the dialectic would be the “Western”, officially more democratic version of a social credit system. The (in)famous Black Mirror episode with the Facebook-esque social media app that determined one’s standing in society points in precisely that direction. You might think of that episode as a dire warning or alternatively as a way to soften a population through predictive programming. Either way, with the opacity of algorithms that determine so much of our lives and upon which is built the national surveillance state, the dialectic is in full gear now.

While the two sides have different formal surface features, underneath those superficial differences there are the same structural tendencies—namely towards technocracy.

A social credits or UBI-like scheme was already advocated in the 20th century by Bertrand Russell. Russell was a strong advocate for “scientific” managerial control and one world government. “Scientific” in scare quotes there because science for him was really the ideology of materialism and reductionistic metaphysics. For Russell the social credits scheme was explicitly intended to be a mechanism of greater control and social disempowerment (through reliance on the managerial state).

It’s not that UBI by itself is a bad idea. Again I'm actually very supportive of it as a general concept. The issue is thinking of a progressive policy like UBI within the context of technocratic elitism and how that technocratic hidden state can manipulate and co-opt a policy like UBI to dastardly ends.

So we’ve seen the two sides of the controlled dialectic/shell game and the larger context of social credits, surveillance, centralized digital currencies (and perhaps IDs if Bill Gates gets his way), that any UBI would take place within.

So what is the missing third here? What’s the ball hidden under the table of the shell game? Here I’m going to go in an unexpected and somewhat far out direction in my hypothesis. I think the answer consists of two interrelated aspects: 1. free energy (aka “overunity technology and physics") and 2. truly sovereign money.

Here I owe a great deal of gratitude to the research of Joseph P. Farrell. Farrell’s work on alternative physics, technology, and its relationship to finance (and the possibility for a long standing global hidden hand) lies behind my thinking here.

Why would I suggest that free energy and sovereign currency are a possible occulted third element with UBI standing in as a seemingly progressive liberating policy, when in actuality it may well be a simulacrum and part of a larger operation to occlude truly liberating possibilities?

Nicola Tesla, for example, was working on wireless transmission of power in the early 1900s, over a hundred years ago. It was for that very reason that J.P. Morgan shut him down (after initially backing some of Tesla’s work). Once Morgan realized that Tesla’s wireless energy transmission would undermine the entire banking-oil cartel, he (Morgan) immediately went about destroying Tesla.

Numerous are the stories of individual engineers and researchers exploring prototypes, models, and theories of “over-unity” energy. While these are sometimes referred to as “free energy” technologies, technically that isn’t really the best term. Aaron Murakami’s work is a great resource for this idea. Murakami shows that what is really involved here is essentially creating and manufacturing technology that allows small inputs from humans and let’s nature do the work. In such technology the work is done “freely” by nature.

As Murakami writes:

“We are able to design systems where we contribute a little investment in energy to leverage nature in a way that allows more potential energy from the environment to enter the system and do even more work so that that the total amount of work done is more than what we paid for.”

Such designs will tend towards a more de-centralized, open source ethos, and easy replication. Hence they stand in opposition to the movements towards centralization and managerial control that Russell espoused.

This notion of tapping nature (“leveraging” in Murakami’s lingo) cuts across the grain of both left-wing progressivist managerial-statist control but also against more right-wing corporatist power dynamics. Technocracy is really a fusion of such private corporate and public state power in a grotesque hybrid, a point I've written about previously examining the fusion of fascism and capitalism since the end of WWII.

The UFO phenomenon, which we cover in such great detail on this site, is relevant in this context precisely because whatever else it is, the UFO is a conscious technology (as Jacques Vallee pointed out). In particular this conscious technology seems to express very much the nature of over-unity or “free energy” physics (aka electro-gravitics), with it’s anti-propulsion or “anti-gravitic” expression.

Buckminster Fuller argued that the purpose of technology was to end the need for humans to work, allowing humans to focus on artistry, creativity, friendship, meaning-making and love. I wholeheartedly agree with Fuller and a universal basic income would seem to point in that direction until it’s understood that it would be enacted by a technocratic elite.   As the history of the suppression of over-unity/“free energy" makes abundantly clear, such a technocratic elite are not in the business of losing their monopoly on power.

Instead of such free energy, the push is towards Universal Basic Income which can be metered by a state and which can easily be tied into surveillance, opaque algorithms, and digital identification—leading to dependency on the state technocratic apparatus.

Instead of Universal Basic Income, how about Universal Basic Energy?

On the flip side we have finance. As Joseph Farrell’s books explore in great detail, finance is a form of physics (see especially Babylon's Banksters). Depending on what form of physics (and cosmology) one has, that physics will determine the nature of the financial and economic reality. For Farrell—based in Hermetic Neoplatonic teaching—the key is a kind of creation ex nihilo (precisely as I detail in this piece). The question is will the “nothing” in question be that of an abundance or what he terms an inverted alchemy (a kind of black magic) that creates debt.

Remember what Murakami said--that potenial energy from nature is tapped which then adds more to the overall amount of energy. That is how abundance works from the technological side. Analogously, the same idea applies on the financial side, with the "nothing" (nihilo) being potential energy in Nature.

Farrell argues that Neoplatonism (among many other non dual system the world over) encodes a hidden physics, mathematics, and therefore economics. In one form of this econophysics (as he calls it) abundance is generated. Out of the “nothingness” the state creates receipts for goods and services housed originally in things like granaries, temple grounds, etc.

In the second version (the inverted alchemy) private financiers monopolize the creation of debt instruments as financial intermediaries between the productive labor of a society and it’s economic structure. In this regard this private class has created an inverted nothingness, i.e. debt.

Debt is a kind of undead zombie energy that is both active and yet somehow not alive. It’s like a virus or parasite, which is why over time debt inevitably eats away at the host body (society, culture, nation, people-group, community, family, individual, etc.) until it destroys the life of the host. In the case of neoliberal globalism this financial elite will simply “consume” and eat places up and once they are moribund, will simply move on to another industry or location continuing the same process over again. Notice how connected private and privateering are to one another.

It’s worth nothing that in Biblical apocalyptic theology, debt is considered sin. This was the source of the Church’s traditional stance against usury for example. In one translation of the Our Father Jesus taught his disciples to pray to God to “forgive us our debts/as we forgive our debtors.” Judaism had the practice of the jubilee, where debts and slavery were cancelled every 50 years, since debt automatically leads to slavery. Slavery, in other words, is an inevitable outcome of a debt-based system.

Such a privatized, “inverted alchemical” economics can do nothing but generate more negative information (debt) into the system. In order to pay off that debt, more debt must be created. Then further debt needs to created in order to pay off the debt that paid off the previous debt and so on ad infinitum.

Eventually such a system collapses. The Roman Empire is a classic version of that process. The 2008 economic collapse was yet another example as is the current economic meltdown. The famous economic cycles of boom and bust are pre-programmed into such a privatized, debt-system. They are intrinsic features not bugs.

Any UBI system assumes the existing order of financial privatization and debt. It’s trying to ameliorate the negative consequences of such a debt-based slavery system. It does not however touch the nature of that debt slavery system itself. We can see then how while it may appear to be a benevolent progressive idea, UBI is are extremely status quo scenario. UBI proposals never raise the issue of the very fraudulence of the debt-based slavery system itself.

The state (or perhaps better the commons) issuing receipts for the productivity of a populace means that there is no built-in debt slavery cycle. Productivity is properly accounted for in the economic system. No private class gets to profit on the enslavement of the population in this system—which is why it’s kept occulted.

Here's the Murakami quotation again:

Why couldn’t economic systems be designed that do precisely the same thing? Arguably they have already been designed and implemented (example here). These alternative systems create flourishing, until of course they are shut down by the system that doesn’t profit on abundance but rather on scarcity and debt slavery.

The same financial elite who suppressed Tesla’s wireless transmission, also suppressed knowledge of this alternative economics. They are two sides of one coin. Again J.P. Morgan shut down Tesla and of course is of the Morgan banking dynasty (Morgan-Chase).

Watch Game of Thrones—whose the real power? The Iron Bank. The various houses and factions fight each other for titles and the seeming control of the world (through explicit political rule). But whose the real power behind the Iron Throne? The Iron Bank. Their opaque, impersonal, and private nature is the real hidden power. They play all sides so that whoever comes out victorious they win. They gain power through financing wars and forcing major players in those wars to be indebted to them.

Central banks (like the US Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, etc.) are private institutions that dictate policy for countries. Publicly financial powers and their various political and ideological representatives in our world will of course typically take a much more officially “conservative”, so-called free market or libertarian approach. Conservative in scare quotes because they leave the truly radical nature of their power play undisclosed. In relationship to UBI then they will oppose them publicly which will create the illusion that there’s an actual debate there and that UBI would then (one presumes) really be some progressive major achievement for the general populace.

That “debate” and “conflict” is all just for show. That superficial level consists of different factions fighting for the Iron Throne while The Iron Bank controls whichever faction is temporarily victorious. As mentioned, I've covered this terrain from a slightly different angle exploring the penetration of fascism into the West following the end of WWII. Here we could add in socialism as well—with a UBI coming from a more social-democratic socialist type orientation.

As long as the alchemy is held by the black magicians of The Iron Bank it doesn’t ultimately matter which formal face they put on the throne—authoritarian, fascist, supposedly democratic, socialist, libertarian, whatever—they are all simply different heads of one hydra. Relatively it matters, absolutely it does not.

That hydra is technocratic; it is a “black magic” form of technocracy. The controlled dialectic is to make it appear like a universal basic income would be some crazy radical left-wing idea when in reality it’s easily co-opted to technocratic ends. And in a strange way because of it’s more officially “liberal” or “progressive” outer covering it’s ability to pull us deeper into technocracy is more sinister and subtle. We’re seeing the same thing with (supposedly) progressives pushing so hard for lockdowns, shutdowns, social distancing, as well as cancel culture, shadow banning, and all the rest (covered elsewhere on the site here and here.)

To reiterate, I’m not arguing UBI is an inherently problematic idea. I’m saying that within the context of the para-political/deep state, it can easily be put to destructive uses. It is in that way a kind of economic limited hangout—where the real aspects of the story are kept under wraps. In this case that deeper story would be things like over-unity energy and economics.

The last scenario I would lay out speculatively for how UBI could be co-opted to technocratic ends, would be to tie UBI to a rise in robotics, AI, automation, and consequent mass (human) unemployment.

Consider a situation in which not only does automation and robotics end existing industries, but does not create new industries for humans while simultaneously generating new industries for robotics/AI, becoming a self-reinforcing loop. In that case endemic mass human unemployment becomes the norm. In such a scenario UBI—once seen as some wild eyed utopian lefty vision—will now become a most conservative, even reactionary, policy. Particularly, as we’ve been exploring, if and when any such UBI were inexorably tied to mass surveillance, digital IDs, social credit scores, and endemic, opaque algorithm-dictated censorship.

Only when we start imagining ways in which a hidden hand could warp or co-opt various policies to its goal of technocracy will we be able to start envisioning ways that are more technocratically-resistant or even immune.