I wrote this article in Russian ten years ago, and — unexpectedly even to me — it proved quite popular at the time. Now that U.S. President Donald J. Trump has proposed paying his fellow citizens something akin to a UBI ("akin to", because it depends on if the Republicans will win the election), it is clearly time for Americans to read this article as well. I do this if only because I fully support Trump's idea of such a payment.
Alex
Moma
September
12, 2026.
*
* *
In the spring of 2016, poet
and political writer Alina Vitukhnovskaya put forward a revolutionary thesis:
that the fundamental existential question boils down to whether life is worth
living for free. This topic was raised and continued to be discussed — for
instance, in the context of the debates currently underway in several Western
countries (notably Switzerland and Finland) regarding the introduction of a
Universal Basic Income (UBI), as well as in relation to the issue of suicide,
which remains a pressing concern even in developed nations. These discussions
take on a strictly economic character at times ("won't this break the
budget?"), a predominantly moral one at others ("would anyone
actually agree to work after this?"), or sometimes a blend of both
elements.
Like Alina, however, I
would like to address not merely the existential aspect of this question, but
rather its Gnostic dimension: should people be compensated for the moral injury
caused by the very fact of their involuntary arrival in this awful world?
It is worth clarifying
why the concept of compensation for moral injury is relevant here in the first
place. For one thing, it is an established global practice. Indeed, if we are
to consider the appropriateness of compensation in our specific case, it is
best to start at the beginning — by asking whether such compensation is needed
at all. After all, a look at the court records of almost any country leads
almost inevitably to the conclusion that most people filing such lawsuits have
completely lost their minds. Their claims against defendants often appear to be
utter nonsense. These cases involve either attempts to curtail freedom of
speech (most often) or efforts to frame a defendant’s grievances — directed
more at the organization the plaintiff leads than at the individual himself — as
a personal insult, and so on. There is a multitude of bizarre scenarios
involving both words and actions, and were I the judge, I would simply dismiss
the majority of such lawsuits.
Yet, these suits are
routinely accepted for hearing and frequently not dismissed at all — often to
the utter astonishment of journalists and observers. Against this backdrop — and
considering the astronomical sums involved in such cases — the idea of a
"Gnostic Universal Basic Income" as compensation for the global moral
injury suffered by a vast number of people (addressed at the legislative rather
than the judicial level) does not seem "freaky" or "beyond
discussion", contrary to the views of legal experts.
Obviously, all manner
of assertive optimists — that is, people prone to pathological self-deception
and the deception of others — would answer "no" to the question of
whether financial compensation is needed for our global existential plight. In
that case, one is reminded of the proverb: "You cannot force happiness
upon someone". In other words, if someone does not want to receive
compensation, they can do without it. Let others receive it — that just means a
larger share for them. A person should have the right to go to a local social
services office and file a claim: "I request compensation for the
emotional distress caused by being forced to live in your world" (or, in a
milder version, "in your country"). Optionally, one could add something
like, "as I am not inclined toward suicide and therefore consider this the
only way out of my current situation". Only then would one begin receiving
the due monthly payments. This would undoubtedly reduce the incidence of
depression — which is, incidentally, an economic issue as well — and the number
of suicides stemming from a lack of personal purpose (including unemployment),
loneliness, illness, or destitution. After all, money allows these problems to
be at least partially resolved. And a partial solution is far better than no
solution at all.
Since the issue at hand
is not primarily economic, there is no point in discussing specific amounts — unlike
during the Swiss referendum (which proponents of Universal Basic Income lost
ignominiously, by the way, precisely because they had given such poor thought
to the economic aspects of the proposal). Naturally, the poorer the country,
the smaller the payment it can afford to make. Yet the exact amount matters
less than the very fact of compensation. Of course, it is highly desirable to
first rid your country of any fascist dictatorship (if one exists); it is
obvious that corrupt fascist regimes would never agree to such new payments,
preferring instead to continue embezzling public funds and / or pouring them
into aggressive wars against peaceful states. And not only for that reason — but
also because, in such countries, it is impossible for a genuinely legitimate
legislative framework to exist for the enactment of such a law, given that
their "parliaments" are legally null and void fictions.
The question naturally arises: why should such compensation be paid by society — and the state it tolerates — rather than by Yaldabaoth and his Archons, at whose mercy we languish here? Or, for instance, by some private charitable foundation dedicated to aiding the victims of abortions that failed to take place on time? Is this fair? I would answer in the affirmative: "Yes, it is fair". For several reasons.
First, no one has ever managed to extract cash from disembodied infernal powers and spirits. There are, of course, various magical stratagems — specifically designed for this purpose — that might help you "suddenly get rich out of nowhere". But magic is serious work; moreover, it is dangerous in the worst-case scenario and often fruitless in the best. In other words, there is no guarantee of income here.
Second, the Archons created us in the flesh but then used and abandoned us; this amounts to a kind of Gnostic deism: they are to blame initially, but their share of the guilt is now minimal. The real culprits behind current events are society and the state — entities that emerged, one way or another, from the Archons' original "beneficence" in populating the material world with beings who were never even asked for their consent.
Third, the argument that we shouldn't be supported by the taxpayer — who couldn't care less about our existential problems — is simply laughable. After all, that same taxpayer uncomplainingly foots the bill for generals with their ever-growing appetites and for cops who, as a rule, bring nothing but direct harm? They do pay. And the costs associated with them — along with all their hardware and infrastructure — involve far larger sums. Wouldn't it be better, for the sake of the state budget, to make serious cuts to their funding instead? Moreover, given that the system of tax expenditure — even in the most advanced nations — is highly opaque and undemocratic (at least regarding certain budget items, which are often simply classified), such arguments shouldn't even be taken seriously. Make the financial system in this state of yours more transparent—and then we can talk about "morality" and "fairness".
Fourth, if we speak not so much of the state as of "suffering society", the nauseating nature of our existence is driven in 90% of cases not by politicians — with their bestial intrusions into our private lives, whether "legally justified" or simply lawless (though they are to blame, of course, it isn't a daily occurrence in every instance) — and not even by the "bad climate" (since everyone has their own idea of good weather), but precisely by those ordinary taxpayers—the "aunt Iren" and "uncle Thomas" — whom you’ve loathed since childhood (just as they’ve likely loathed you). This compensation is meant, in part, for the dubious honor of having to tolerate these leftish wokeists and / or right-wing moralizers in your midst. And it is, indirectly, funded by them as well.
Fifth, if you continue working (and in most cases, you will — what choice do you have? after all, a Universal Basic Income wouldn't provide the standard of living you desire), your salary structure still won't include compensation for the various forms of moral (and physical) harm stemming from the part of your "life" tied to your "job". For instance, no one has put a price tag on the necessity of sitting in morning traffic jams — often after failing, as usual, to get a good night's sleep. If you insist on it when signing your employment contract, your employer might reimburse you for gas or for your commute on a packed subway; however, they are under no obligation — and certainly won't — compensate you for the boredom and nauseating nature of your morning commute, your lack of sleep, or the presence of colleagues who are constantly plotting to undermine you or do you a dirty turn. In any case, I have never heard of salaries that account for such things.
Sixth, these very same ordinary citizens willingly spend money to support the official church, even if they do not de facto belong to it (after all, you see, it represents "foundational values" for them). Why not spend that money on proponents of an alternative view of this notorious "spirituality"? What difference does it make to people who are supposedly so "practical"? Fewer suicides — that, too, represents a form of foundational value, only a positive one, and without the need for quotation marks (and, considering that your church looks askance at potential and actual suicide victims — favoring only those who die of natural causes — it is a "spiritual" matter in the truest sense).
Seventh, the existing structure of private charitable activity operates worldwide in a way that primarily enriches all manner of intermediaries of dubious value, fraudsters, and the direct administrators of the funds. In other words, the compensation goes not to you, but to them — often the very people who share responsibility for your misfortunes. In the scenario under discussion, however, there would be no need to create any new structures at all. Not to mention that no private foundation is, by definition, obliged to pay you compensation for something in which it played no part. The state, on the other hand — though not alone in this — is always to blame for your existential problems. By its very nature: as an apparatus of coercion and violence. Violence directed at you personally.
Furthermore, even in a prosperous country, the bankruptcy of a private foundation is by no means a rarity, whereas the bankruptcy of a state — even a not-so-wealthy one — remains an extraordinary event. Not everyone can pull off the "feat" achieved by Zimbabwe; even the Russian Federation is not yet capable of that. Of course, a caveat is in order: the recipient of the Gnostic UBI (just like, incidentally, the alleged "economic" UBI in Finland) would have to forgo all other social benefits received from the state. And the point isn't so much that the budget would — in all likelihood—fail to sustain the cost otherwise (though that is a factor, too). The main issue is one of priorities: if, for you, all the evil and injustice of the world — into which you were cast against your will and saddled with a heap of obscure "debts to society" (a society that only rarely, such as when you have children — children not always wanted by you, but always needed by it as future slaves and / or cannon fodder — compensates you with meager handouts) — boils down to the lack of a free bus or subway pass, then your notions of good and evil are something extremely simplified! Aren't you setting your sights a bit low?
And finally, since we are on the subject of morality: would it be moral — upon the submission of their applications — to pay the Gnostic UBI to the very people who make our lives unbearable? For instance, to those politicians whose raison d’être is to forbid us from doing things — like having sex for money, watching some kinds of hentai, or smoking even in the special places of restaurants?
It is likely immoral. But... First of all, who are we to judge? Do we not — without being politicians ourselves — make the lives of those around us harder than they might otherwise be, thanks to our "active involvement" in them? After all, Yaldabaoth and his "Angels"—having created, in the apt words of the anonymous author of the Apocryphon of John, a "shameful fate, that is, the last of the mutable shackles" — have effectively bound the vast majority of us in a web of collective responsibility with other members of society; a state of affairs that has persisted since ancient times, often against our own wishes. Secondly, in any case, the law governing such payments — if it is ever passed (and we ought to insist on it!) — will be enacted by those very same politicians. Who else? Would they pass a law that directly discriminates against them personally? Obviously not.
And so, we might find ourselves with a rare opportunity to see Yaldabaoth get screwed over by his own earthly servants. That would be such a spectacular sight that, in this instance, one might well overlook strict ethical considerations! The end justifies the means, provided that achieving that end reduces the amount of suffering in the world.
June 2016
Saint Petersburg
Originally published at:
https://gnostik.ru/alex-moma-gnosis-and-basic-income.html
https://noocivil.esrae.ru/250-1677
