Manipulating People with Moguls, Money, Mayhem and Murder

Manipulating People with Moguls, Money, Mayhem and Murder

UBI (Universal Basic Income) Awareness

Manipulating People with Moguls, Money, Mayhem and Murder

By Casting Light


Whether you know about UBI or not, or you think it won’t affect you, think again.  I wasn’t familiar with UBI until my city, Stockton, California, was implementing it in 2018-19.  First, you need to know that Stockton, California, was the largest city in these United States ever to file for bankruptcy.  An CNBC Make It article states, “In 2013, Stockton became the most populous city in the United States to enter bankruptcy. The city of 300,000 was toppled when the housing bubble burst, its basic operating expenses dependent on developer fees and increasing property tax revenue that never came to bear.”(read article)


In 2016, Stockton voted in a 27-year-old mayor, Michael Tubbs, whose campaign was interestingly supported by an Oprah Winfrey money bomb.(read article)  Oprah Winfrey? It begs the question, why was she supporting and influencing a mayoral election in my city?    Mayor Michael Tubbs believes that (UBI) universal basic income can be a way to ease the pains of poverty in the city.  His plan was, and is, to give a certain number of resident’s $500 free cash per month, through a program called SEED (Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration).  The mayor announced the initiative in October 2017. (read article) (read related article)  According to the CNBC Make It article, “…during the following six months, SEED was to go through a ‘design period’ where the city works with social scientists and community leaders to determine the number of residents who will be a part of the initial test phase and how to select participants.”  The SEED website states, “Stockton is in many ways a microcosm of the United States: in recent years, major shifts in our economy, persistent wage stagnation, and rising inequality have made it increasingly difficult for hardworking residents to make ends meet, …” (read article) (read related article)


What is UBI?  A Qrius article says, “At the heart of it, UBI is a programme in which every citizen of a country, state or region is given a fixed monthly income free of cost, that is, without the expectation of repayment or enrollment from the beneficiary.  The amount disbursed is deemed enough to cover a person’s basic expenses.” It continues, that UBI is not a new concept. In fact, it was first implemented as a wage-supplement system called the Speenhamland system in 1795 in Speemhamland, England. Since then, it has found advocate in many philosophers, economists and influential personalities such as Thomas Paine, Martin Luther King, Richard Nixon, Bill Gates, Richard Nixon, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, among many others.  What does UBI aim to do? As an economic and social scheme, UBI aims to reduce poverty and improve working conditions of the economically weaker sections of the society. (read article)  There are also UCTs (Unconditional Cash Transfers) or partial UBI.


Now that we know a little about UBI, we will look at how this ‘experiment’ on the people is funded.  Originally I assumed that our tax dollars were going to be used in this ‘experiment’, but was surprised to learn how it was to be funded and who supports it.  The same CNBC Make It article shared, “Stockton’s SEED program was being funded initially with a $1 million grant from the Economic Security Project and also was accepting crowdfunded donations. The Economic Security Project is an organization aiming to raising awareness of universal basic income in the United States and is co-chaired by Future of Work expert Natalie Foster, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and Dorian T. Warren (source #3).”  Facebook, wait, what, who?


On Chris Hughes’ Twitter page (@chrishughes) on October 18, 2017 1:38 p.m. he tweeted: “Proud to support Mayor @MichaelDTubbs in the newest basic income demonstration in Stockton, CA!…”.  Natalie Foster also wrote a post in MEDIUM.COM titled: “Why We’re Investing in Mayor Tubbs and Stockton.” (read article)  Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has also talked about UBI as a “strategy to unlock creativity and encourage risk taking.”  Other leaders in business, including Elon Musk and Richard Branson, have called for UBI to be used as an offset to job loss caused by rapid acceleration automation.  In another article by for March 3, 2017, which first appeared on AlterNet, “Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, during his 2017 commencement speech at Harvard, optimistically called UBI a “cushion” that would enable everyone to try new ideas that could change the world.” At this point, we have media & tech moguls investing in the idea of UBI.  The more you look, the more you will see pro UBI talking points showing up everywhere trying to grow ‘awareness’. (read article), (read related article), (read related article) Up to this point, we see tech moguls, media moguls and recognized business leaders all supporting the UBI program.


More recently, another support for UBI surfaced within the so-called manifesto written by the El Paso alleged murderer.  However, he contradicts himself by at first supporting less dependency on welfare, but in the next sentences is supporting UBI which is free assistance and/or government handouts.  Under his title of Economic Reasons, the manifesto states, “The less dependents on a government welfare system, the better. The lower the unemployment rate, the better. Achieving ambitions social projects like universal healthcare and UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of dependents are removed.” (article here)  He clearly supports the UBI program, but with one caveat: the amount of dependent people must be reduced.  What was meant by ‘reduced’ is not known, but talk of a reduced people reminds me of the idea of depopulation pushed by Ted Turner, the Georgia Guidestones, etc.  So now we have an alleged murderer supportive of UBI with his beliefs circulated in the news for many people to read and become aware of UBI.  Whether it was by design, or just by chance, this event helped more people become ‘aware’ of UBI.


UBI experimental programs are not limited to my city, or even our country.  To name just a few planning UBI or who have already implemented a test program: Oakland, Alaska, Finland, Kenya and Ontario.  In 2016, a Silicon Valley start-up accelerator Y Combinator has initiated a long-term study of UBI.  Their research arm has piloted a program in Oakland, Calif., and is planning on a larger program involving 3,000 individuals.  1,000 will receive $1,000 per month for up to five years, and 2,000 will receive $50 a month as a control group.  “Eliminating poverty is such a moral imperative,” Y Combinator president Sam Altman has told CNBC Make It. (read article) (read related article)  Supporters of UBI seem to have touted the concept to the headlines and financial media in 2018.


An article by (full name of media) (FEE) states, “Universal basic income has had a phenomenal year in 2018… Silicon Valley billionaires, academics, and leftist politicians are raving about the brilliant new scheme, which we are told will prevent a Social Darwinist dystopian future in which average Joes everywhere stand to lose their low-functioning blue collar jobs to the grave perils of automation. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO and one of the three wealthiest individuals in the world, is a big fan. He has emerged as a high-profile public cheerleader for the universal basic income scheme.” The FEE article continues, “Such a program has never been tried on a large scale, so there are no empirical results, except for small-scale test runs. A basic understanding of human nature, coupled with common sense, however, suggests that the UBI is not the golden panacea that a few starry-eyed Silicon Valley billionaires make it out to be.” (read article)  We are dealing with Silicon Valley billionaires, academics and leftist politicians who are major endorsers of UBI.


In California, welfare is offered with different programs such as SNAP, WIC and Section 8.  In a article, which originally was printed by Alternet, Valerie Vande Panne wrote, “Everyone will potentially get a piece of the poverty pie regardless of income. Call it ‘luxury communism’ and embrace it!… Many UBI proposals include the elimination of other social programs such as SNAP, WIC and Section 8.  Folding multiple bureaucracies into one would, the argument goes, make everything streamlined, and again, eliminate jobs and entire agencies.”  Valerie continues, “They’re also saying it’s inevitable. Global business leaders Richard Branson and Elon Musk say a UBI will become a necessity as tech replaces jobs.” She writes, “And so, many of the richest men in the world — who are inevitably rich because they are skilled at concentrating wealth into their own hands — are telling the public UBI could ensure dignity and self-esteem.”  The author of this article describes UBI outright as Communism and it appears that at least in California, they believe UBI would be a consolidation, restructuring and/or repackaging of the many welfare programs streamlining them into one. (read article)


Let us not leave out National Public Radio (NPR). They posted interview notes with Mayor Tubbs of Stockton titled “In California, Stockton Experiments with Guaranteed Basic Income.”  It states, “The city of Stockton, Calif., plans to give its poorest residents $500 a month, no strings attached. It’s the first U.S. city to guarantee a basic income.” NPR’s Ari Shapiro talks with Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs about the plan and states, “Finland has tried it. Kenya has tried it. Now the city of Stockton, Calif. is going to try it. A few dozen families will get a check, $500 a month, no strings attached. The fact that this money does not come with any requirements makes it different from a traditional welfare program.”  Mayor Tubbs answers Shapiro about how the program is funded stating, “It doesn’t cost tax payers anything. It’s paid from $1.2 million in philanthropic funding.  So the idea is that in the next couple of years, we’ll have some data that will tell us whether this is a solution that is viable or not.”  The interview ends as Shapiro asks Mayor Tubbs, “what’s the end game here? If this is successful, do you imagine a scenario years from now when everyone who lives in Stockton gets this monthly check or where nobody needs it anymore, you graduate out of it? How does that work eventually?” Mayor Tubbs responds, “Well, I think the idea is like in Alaska. So Alaska has this permanent dividend fund that’s been around for a generation where just for being an Alaskan citizen, as being part of that social contract, you’re given a check every year. And I think for something like this to work on a city level, it has to be a state or national policy. But again, before we can even call for that, we need to see if it works and we need to try it.” (read article)  The mayor of Stockton, CA, makes it clear that he endorses UBI and we continue to see leftist politicians supporting it as well. According to, “The California Democratic Party platform officially endorses a Universal Basic Income.” (read article)  What is the end game? It is a very good question.


Are we being groomed to accept by means of small steps, another socialist program which eventually morphs into a global UBI program?  The definition of grooming from Out of The Fog’s website states, “Grooming is the predatory act of maneuvering another individual into a position that makes them more isolated, dependent, likely to trust, and more vulnerable to abusive behavior.  Description: Grooming is a insidious predatory tactic, utilized by abusers.  Grooming is practiced by Narcissists, Antisocial predators, con-artists and sexual aggressors, who target and manipulate vulnerable people for exploitation.” (read article)  They call it an ‘experiment’ or ‘test’, so does it seem like we are lab rats being manipulated by recognized, rich, ‘successful’ people who use their notoriety and fame to influence people?  As we review the supporters of UBI, it is a valid question to ask.


Now we know some of the people supporting UBI:

  1. Recognized global business leaders like Elon Musk and Richard Branson
  2. Media moguls like Oprah Winfrey influencing local elections that help put in place a mayor that endorses UBI
  3. Big tech moguls like Mark Zuckerberg CEO Facebook
  4. Corporate media that supports it in glowing articles
  5. An alleged El Paso murderer endorses it as covered in the news.
  6. Silicon billionaires, academics and leftist politicians


Why are they all embracing this socialist scheme while nudging the public to embrace it?  And did anyone ask you if you wanted UBI in your city or country?  Do you remember voting on UBI being implemented in your country or city?  The social engineers are working hard to frame society, even the world, the way they want it to be for themselves, not the people.  Socialists often will create a problem, create fear and then offer a solution so that the people fall in line with their plan, remember crime pays when you are playing both sides.  However, the people often end up being the losers within socialist constructs.


UBI may not start with our taxes, but if history tells us anything our taxes will end up being used for it, taking our freedom and liberty, edging us closer to their goals. Economic problems, job loss, no jobs, divorce, high cost of living, the middle class being squeezed into poverty, moral relativism feeding drug use, family destruction, all these and more help to create money mayhem in peoples’ lives.  Social engineers are all too ready to offer their reasons to implement UBI: ‘the rise of automation, causing loss of jobs’, ‘sharp decline in economy, wage stagnation, and rising inequality’.  They are more interested in equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity, as they self profess that it is their job to increase public ‘awareness’ of the benefits of UBI until we get to the point we accept their offerings of warm, fuzzy promises that sound great until it’s too late and we are ultimately pushed into the witch’s oven.



Finally, in an article by states, “Socialists Are Interested in Control, not Economic Prosperity.  Those of us who are economists are fascinated by this process because we see human ingenuity, the coordination of the goals of numerous people, and, when the system works, a higher standard of living for most people.   A socialist does not and will not see things this way. The end of socialism is not a higher living standard or even making life better for the poor, as much as a socialist will talk about the well-being of poor people. No, the end of socialism is socialism, or to better put it, the ideal of socialism. Once socialism is established, as it was in Venezuela or in the former USSR or Cuba, the social ideal had been met no matter what the actual outcome might be.” “As I observe (and participate in) a few discussions on Facebook and elsewhere about socialism, I have come to a few conclusions about the nature of the arguments and the reasons why socialists remain socialists even as we see the utter failure of socialist economies throughout history.”


“Socialists, however, don’t see what we see.  Instead, they see chaos and unequal outcomes. Not everyone benefits, right? In some situations, someone may lose a job or a way of doing things becomes obsolete. In the end, some people won’t be helped at all, at least not directly, and in the mind of someone that has an organic view of society, the fact that certain entrepreneurial actions taken by some individuals have created goods that meet the needs of others is irrelevant. Society should be providing those goods for free! People should not have to pay for what they need!” (read article)



Other Links of Interest


  1. Credit Credit Andrew Renneisen for The New York Times Annie Lowrey (read article)
  2. Free Cash Finland. By New York Times (read article)
  3. Basic Income Earth Nethwork (read article)
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments