The Campaign - One World Government

VER04 11x5.5 300dp, jpeg.jpg

The aim of the campaign is for each country in the world to build a strong government party based on the proposal for Nexus Global.

 

The campaign will start in Canada.  Our first objective will be to build a base of 250 people who commit to support the principles as outlined in the proposal.  Having achieved this goal, we will then decide upon our next step.  

 

One of our options at this point will be to register as a National Federal Party.  

 

We will start in Canada because that is where I happen to reside.  I invite fellow Canadians to join me in this movement.

 

If you are from another country, I invite you to begin your own initiative.  We in Canada will support your work in any way that we can.  If you would like to use our campaign poster, I would be happy to alter it so that you can use it in your own country’s campaign.  

 

 “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”

 

and finally, the proposal...

Introduction

 

We have a problem.  Many now recognize that we are living in a world that has become unsustainable.  We need to change…everything.  Our own future and the future of our children depends on it.  But how do we begin this process?

A solution is Nexus.  Nexus is an opportunity to re-vision our world. It is also a strategy to get us to this new paradigm.

At the heart of this narrative that is failing us are the abuses that come from our concepts of money and power.  When we address these two concepts directly, change in other aspects of our life will be possible.

This is a top-down solution.  It is deliberately so.  Without the participation of all members of the human family, all countries, we will not succeed in a timely way.  Our problems are interconnected and global, our solutions have to be as well.  Detractors denounce piecemeal plans (and rightly so) by pointing out that if one country creates a business environment that is seen as less than favourable, investors will go somewhere else.  Imagine if there were nowhere else to go based on global solidarity!

The goal of Nexus is to build from a platform that is significantly radical in its departure, to serve notice that the concept of global governance is both imaginable and achievable. From this foundation we will re-define all other aspects of our interconnected lives.

Nexus can begin the process of disentangling ourselves from the authority that our concepts of finance and economic theories have over us.  We boldly state that these are artificial constructs and are not at the heart of who we are.

Here is the proposal:

Nexus Global

 Every country will create a political party at the national level that will have as its foundation three non-negotiable pillars.

Pillar Number One

There will be an annual transfer of funds between countries based on a formula that recognizes inequalities, with the goal to address and reduce these inequalities over a period of time.

How do we do this?

Annually, all countries in the world would be ranked by a common measure of wealth.

There are two standard methods of defining the richest countries in the world. One takes into account the economies that are the largest, as measured by total gross domestic product (GDP). However, the most commonly accepted definition of the wealthiest countries is to determine how rich the average resident of a country is. For this reason, the best method is to use GDP data per capita.

"Moreover, using a PPP (purchasing power parity) basis is arguably more useful when comparing generalized differences in living standards on the whole between nations. This is because PPP takes into account the relative cost of living and the inflation rates of the countries, rather than using just exchange rates, which may distort the real differences in income. This is the measure most economists prefer when looking at per-capita wealth and when comparing economic strength between countries and living conditions or use of resources across countries.”  Global Finance  https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/worlds-richest-and-poorest-countries

Using this standard, the richest country in the world is Qatar, followed by Luxembourg and Singapore.  Even though the U.S. has the largest GDP in the world, it is ranked 9th by this measure.  China which has the second largest GDP, is ranked 83rd. (2016)

Countries ranked 1 - 10, would contribute 1% of their national GDP to a fund.  (FCG, Fund for the Common Good)

Countries ranked 11 - 20, would contribute .9% of their national GDP to the fund.

Countries ranked 21 - 30, would contribute .8% of their national GDP to the fund.

Countries ranked 31 - 40, would contribute .7% of their national GDP to the fund.

Countries ranked 41 - 50, would contribute .6% of their national GDP to the fund.

Countries ranked 51 - 60, would contribute .5% of their national GDP to the fund.

Countries ranked 61 - 70, would contribute .4% of their national GDP to the fund.

Countries ranked 71 - 80, would contribute .3% of their national GDP to the fund.

Countries ranked 81 - 90, would contribute .2% of their national GDP to the fund.

Countries ranked 91 - 100, would contribute .1% of their national GDP to the fund.

         Currently there are 185 countries on this list.

 

So, how would these funds be re-distributed?  Obviously, the goal is not to replicate the lifestyles and consumption levels demonstrated by our so-called industrialized countries.  This is an opportunity to completely re-imagine a world that is sustainable, that seeks at the outset to allow our natural environment to heal, and then for all to consciously live in harmony with that environment.

These funds will be distributed so that all countries will be able to work towards the creation of infrastructure that supports the needs of its people in all aspects of life, including health, food, clean water, access to affordable housing, and an inspiring education. 

This moment in time will allow us all to re-conceive of our notions of work, of transportation, of energy, of extraction, of population, of education, just to name a few.

This moment in time will also allow us to contemplate the concept of a guaranteed basic income for every person on earth.  Much has been written and continues to be written about this idea. There are many ways to come up with a figure to work from.

Begin with the concept of a “living wage”.  “The living wage is defined as a regional calculation that looks at the amount that a family of four needs to earn to meet their expenses. The living wage includes costs like rent and groceries as well as items like extended health care and two weeks' savings for each adult.”  http://www.livingwageforfamilies.ca/living_wages_in_bc_and_canada

Every region on the planet would come up with this figure of a living wage.  The guaranteed basic income would be a portion of this figure.  One of the benefits of such a strategy would be to support those who are transitioning to different work based on a world of new priorities and sensibilities.

Pillar Number Two

Each country will address the gap between the most highly remunerated workers and the lowest.  All industrialized countries will limit this gap to ten times.

In Nexus, we believe all persons are created equally with strengths and gifts that are distinctive.   One of the strongest markers of personal value in a society is the salary attached to a person’s work.  It is not the goal of Nexus that everyone would receive the same wage or that everyone would be treated identically.  Each one of us is unique.  However, in an attempt to control the unconscionable discrepancy in earnings between the poorest and the richest of any country, certain controls would be imposed.  Once a country had established a figure which would allow a minimum standard of living, a factor would be chosen which would restrict the income of the richest.  For example, in a rich country, the minimum salary might be $25,000.  If 10 is the factor chosen, no one in that country could make more than $250,000.  Salaries that exceeded the chosen limits would be added to the world’s Fund for the Common Good. (FCG)

In a poor country, the factor 10 might be too challenging a hurdle at the beginning.  For example, in many countries, a $5000 annual income would be sufficient to achieve a minimum standard of living.  A maximum cap of $50,000 might be too much to expect in the early transformation days.  A more realistic initial position might be to suggest 10 to 1 for rich countries and, on a sliding scale, up to 20 to 1 in the poorest countries.

Pillar Number Three

The elimination of war.

In Nexus, our first requirement is that war be eliminated, be made illegal, impossible.  In our ancient past, there were periods of peace which lasted thousands of years.  Once we lived peacefully, we can do it again.  Disagreements, no matter how divisive, will not be allowed to get to a level where violence is unavoidable.  Because war will be eliminated, there will eventually be no need for weapons manufacturing.  This industry will slowly convert its production to meet the needs of a peaceful world.

A world without war will not happen overnight.  Nexus will maintain a sizeable military presence all over the world to ensure all sides lay down their arms.  The size of their ranks will be appropriately reduced as the world adjusts to this new position.

~

In recognition of our solidarity to re-imagine a new world, each party will be called Nexus followed by the name of the specific country. 

~

join us at

imaginexus27@gmail.com

Re - Vision

It’s April, 2015, and I thought it was time for an update.  I’ve changed, you’ve changed, we’ve all changed!  Much of the social construction of this site was written decades ago and as I was re-reading it (as I do from time to time), I realized it didn’t speak for me in the same way that it used to.  

So, time for a revision.  Still feeling pretty positive about our capabilities of creating a new world, one that matches our dreams and ever-awakening consciousness.  Actually, even more buoyant than I was decades ago!  The model I envisioned then maintained the concept of nation states with an overlay of a global governance system.  Integrated into this system was a formula whereby wealth would be shared between nations as well as a series of policies that, if implemented, would fundamentally alter the way that we inhabited this planet.  This concept was meant to represent either an end state or an intermediary stage.  For those for whom this model resonates, I support our collective energies to work towards its implementation.  

There are of course other initiatives out there that seek to significantly alter our world while preserving the concept of nation state.  I recently came across this Ted Talk  and website.  You be the judge as to whether this is the kind of initiative that you would support.  My own feeling about this and other similar initiatives that essentially preserve the status quo of nation states is that you are simply altering a system that is fatally flawed in its conception and no amount of tinkering will provide the results that it aspires to.

I now believe that our world view and beliefs are so strongly driven by certain social constructs, that it is impossible to even contemplate the kinds of changes necessary for us to realize a different world.  Two of these are our notions of nation state and our religious beliefs.  I no longer see any way to build a future that will sustain us unless these social constructs are named and examined and discarded as being simply myths that were created by us, and no longer serve us.

I believe there is a growing global consciousness about who we truly are and “the way that it is”.   As we increase our capabilities to envision this new world, this new way of being, how do we imagine these changes will come about?  What is the process?  How do we get from where we are to where we want to be, a place that is in keeping with who we truly are and “the way it is”?  There are a number of proposals out there which require us to do nothing but wait in anticipation as those who are more highly evolved and are observing us from other dimensions anticipate the right moment to “magically” transform our reality within a very short space in our time.  This is a very exciting concept and I await with patience for the event.  In the meantime, I believe there is a way that we can begin to come together to celebrate this awakening consciousness in a manner that makes us feel connected and empowered.  And that is, to begin to recognize our place in the vision and to reach out to those who also realize their place.

I propose that we create this place called Nexus and that we begin to live there.  I propose that in this place we begin to recognize the beginnings of a new world.  How energizing would it be if rather than lamenting, criticizing, protesting the old, we began to build the new, we began to create the framework of this new vision? If you declare your commitment to me and I to you, what kinds of actions can we undertake if we are just two, that would make us feel empowered and connected?  What if the group was 3 or 4 or 5 people who embrace the vision and the process?  How can we support each other if we live half way around the globe?  What can we do if physical distance is not an issue?  As we begin to connect person to person, group to group, at what stage can we begin to define emerging concepts of wealth and resources, to create energy networks that match our collective wisdom, to implement appropriate concepts of education and food production?  At what point does the old system simply fall away and rust?  

Who’s in?  Phase 1…public declaration of solidarity.  I’ll keep you posted as we grow.

 

One World Governance

Nexus is an attempt to bring form and function to the world after the event, after the transformation.  In its simplest structure, one could observe that it is a form of “one-world governance”.  

When you “google” “one-world governance”, every single reference is to the appropriation of this term by the dark side.  It is seen as the domain of those currently in power, the sinister extension of a story thousands of years in the making, the final goal of domination of the many by the few, including the elimination of the most.

How did this happen?  How did a somewhat innocuous term take on such a dastardly significance?  Have we become so jaded by this life that we now trust no one to oversee a plan that we would all agree with and support?  Knowing that our planet is one living organism, Gaia, our Mother, do we not need consciousness and systems at play that honour this reality?  Have we lost our faith in our abilities to distinguish between dark and light, good and evil?  When truth and justice return to the land, can we not imagine a benevolent leadership, a leadership that does not seek power, but accepts it as a responsibility, a responsibility that holds no more or less power than any other individual responsibility on the planet?

I am re-claiming this term.  I imagine a world where we re-claim truth and beauty as our birth right.  I stand by the concept of Nexus as described in imaginexus.org.  Join us and be part of the creation.


Invitation

All my life, I have hidden, suppressed, the most important work that I do, the work that I am the most passionate about.  I have been led to believe that this work is inappropriate, is uncomfortable to others, that others will not be receptive, that they will be uninterested in the topic, that it is not what they signed up for.  

I have always known something was wrong with the world.  It never made any sense to me.  Given who we were, I couldn’t believe we couldn’t do better, live more wisely, in more peace and harmony.  After all, we had all the choice in the world, didn’t we?

So, one sets off on a journey of discovery.  Who are we truly?  What are the forces at play in the world?  If the world is not the physical manifestation of who we are as spiritual beings, why not?  What is this energy which is skewing the process?  If this dark power is not visible, where is it hidden?  What is this story we are living out, who created it, when will it end, what will be the new story?

And slowly, one begins to discover that there are answers to all these questions.  The truth is everywhere and although it is shocking and heart breaking, it is a necessary part of the process, of the transition.  And thanks to the internet, the last decade has seen an explosion of exposure of what is and has been going on and is available to any and all who are interested.

We are now on the verge of a breakthrough, the most significant transformation in thousands of years.  And we will all be part of it, whether we choose to or not.  

The work I do is facilitating the transition to a new world.  I am one of many.  Join us!

newearth-300x156.jpg


Our primary relationship

In the old world (the current one) it is possible to identify the wrongful ideas that have infiltrated our culture and over time lead it to this sorry state.  One is the idea that man stands at the pinnacle of power over Nature.  It is this basic disregard and lack of respect for Nature that has significantly contributed to our current flawed world view.  In our new world, our relationship with Nature will be realigned.  It will be obvious in everything we do that our primary source of inspiration and direction comes from a benevolent relationship with the natural laws of Nature which is our pathway to a relationship with the divine.  

In Nexus, then, there will be directives, agreed upon by all, but possibly maintained by a few (more on this later), that would enforce a set of rules which would honour a new relationship with nature and the earth.  

No group, nation state, or organization would supersede these.  These agreed upon principles who include global policies on resource extraction, energy production, food production and distribution, fish and oceans, and what we now refer to as natural resources.  These policies will ensure that Nature leads the way in our new era.  We will enact policies that will allow Nature to recover from the assault that has taken place on an ever increasing scale for a very long time.  Once our natural support systems are returned to their natural state of health, everything we do will reflect the goal of remaining in balance with these life support systems.

I am You and You are Me

Nexus, then, is an example of the work needed to be done to bring shape and meaning to our world after the current system collapses.  All ideas on this journey of discovery are welcome and honoured.  

Let us return, then,  to the practical work at hand.  Before the summer, a significant amount of time and energy was devoted to the examination of the situation with aboriginal persons.  The focus was on the Canadian perspective but the hope is that insights could be applied to indigenous persons anywhere on the earth.  

As stated previously, there are obvious concerns about a non-Native person making statements about governance and policy concerning Native persons.  We can extend this concern to anyone suggesting/creating/imposing rules on others, especially if that group is outside of that person’s national or ethnic background. Let me address this concern in this way.

It goes without saying that we are all attached and identify with our own particular life that we are currently leading, including it’s cultural background, history, place in time.  So, for example, if you are a white German male, you likely identify with that culture that you find yourself in.  However, we have all lived many lives in the past.  So, aside from this particular life, you are no more German than any other human on the planet.  For better or for worse, you cannot claim responsibility for anything that happened historically in Germany outside of your lifetime.  Nor can you claim credit for anything culturally outside of your lifetime.  

Put another way, I am as German as you are, as Native, as Jewish, as feminine, as masculine, as gay.  We are truly one and the same and we have all been and played many roles in the past.  As such, we are collectively all responsible for our past history, for better or for worse.  No one outside of us is to blame for the current situation we are in.  We have all had a hand in creating this story.  Because we are the creators of this old story which is at its end, we also have the capacity to be the creators of a new one.

We are all now ready to move into a new era where such truths are made manifest in our consciousness.

 

The summer of 2014

It is safe to say that we have reached new levels over the past few months.  

The daily news has brought us dark tales of wars in Israel, Palestine, and Syria.  We watch as the West escalates its presence in Iraq once again.  For the first time for many of us, we begin to hear and be aware of a new term, ebola.  2 planes mysteriously crash, one yet to be found.  There are talks about a new cold war.  Reasons for doom and gloom are readily available.  

The good news is that there is less doubt (for those who still maintain their faith in the system) that the belief system we are currently living out is broken and unfixable.  More and more people have access to sources of information that were not available even a decade ago.  The truth is available to each and all.

What is really going on in the Middle East?  With the ebola outbreak?  What is the underlying storytelling that explains how we got into this morass?  The answers to these questions are readily available now thanks to the internet to any and all who are interested.  

As a result of this ground swell of awareness, their is an enormous energy being created by the ever expanding group of people on the planet who no longer believe the information that is being fed to us through mainstream media.  It is certain that this old system will fail, and the likelihood is that this event will happen in the near future.

And we will survive this event, and on the other side we will construct a society that is in the image of who we truly are.  And once again, there will be light.

 

Right Livelihood

My answer to the question “does it matter what one does on this land?”

I think it does.  

In his book, King refers to two of the traditional ways that Native groups are creating income from their land.  One is casinos.  The other is resource development.
Here is what he has to say about casinos:
“I’m not particularly happy about gambling as a fiscal base for Native people.  That kind of money generally brings out the worst in folks, Native or non-Native.  But after several centuries of economic oppression, and given the lack of alternatives, professional gambling, for many tribes, holds the most potential for the least effort.  Still, apart from raw cash and jobs, industrial-strength gambling contributes little of value to the world.  
    But then, the same thing could be said for land mines and reality television.”

As for resource development, he says “I suggest we concentrate on the issues of tribal membership and resource development...these two topics may well be two of the more important issues of the twenty-first century for Aboriginal people in North America.”  He goes on to say “the Alberta Tar Sands is an excellent example of a non-Native understanding of land.  It is, without question, the dirtiest, most environmentally insane energy-extraction project in North America, probably in the world...”  Further… “ I still find it impossible to imagine the Alberta tar sands ever coming out of an Aboriginal ethos.”

In my opinion and at this point in our history, casinos and resource extraction cannot be at the heart of any people, any culture, cannot be the principal economic engine.  What is soul destroying for the one is soul destroying for the all.
As we shift our priorities, the focus needs to become the concept of “right livelihood”.  In Nexus, we will bring consciousness to that aspect of our lives that we call work.  So many of us are compromised by what we are called upon to do in order to “make a living”.  Many of us are engaged in employment which we know is adding to the misery of the world.  When the whole is tainted, the parts which are supporting it are also tainted.  We need to come to terms with the great number and breadth of jobs which do not merit our participation...anything from weapons manufacturing, to the exploration and development of energy sources that are unsustainable, to the manufacturing and sales of goods that have been created and built using unacceptable and exploitative labour practices.  It doesn’t matter which group, culture or nationality we are talking about - soul-destroying work is unacceptable and repugnant and we need to address this issue in all aspects of our re-visioning.

Vietnamese Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh wrote,
"To practice Right Livelihood (samyag ajiva), you have to find a way to earn your living without transgressing your ideals of love and compassion. The way you support yourself can be an expression of your deepest self, or it can be a source of suffering for you and others. " ... Our vocation can nourish our understanding and compassion, or erode them. We should be awake to the consequences, far and near, of the way we earn our living."

The inconvenient Indian

I have just finished reading the book “The Inconvenient Indian” by Thomas King.  Let me begin with a variation of my usual disclaimer.  Reading a book written by a Native North American about his perspective on Native North Americans does not make me an expert on Native North Americans.  Having said that, here are a few of the things I learned from the book.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was formed in 1991.  The final report was the most comprehensive and complete study of Aboriginal people, Aboriginal history, and Aboriginal policy that has ever been done in North America.
The last volume of the report contained 440 recommendations, which included recognizing that “Aboriginal people are nations vested with the right of self-determination,” that Aboriginal people in Canada enjoy “a unique form of dual citizenship,” that the government abolish the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and replace it with “two new departments: a Department of Aboriginal Relations and a Department of Indian and Inuit Services,” that the government of Canada meet with First Nations governments and people to “meet the need of First Nations people for adequate housing within ten years,” and that “Representatives of Aboriginal peoples be included in all planning and preparations for any future constitutional conference convened by the government of Canada.”

So, a pretty good list.  If all of those terms actually were realized, would that be the basis of a good policy?  Should more be added?  Some deleted?

______________________________________________________

 

“The Inconvenient Indian” is an important book in the same way that “Twelve Years a Slave” is an important film as are numerous films about the Holocaust.  
It is vital that we know about the past.  I am reminded that each generation needs to refresh their collective memories around these aspects of our society, around the historical backdrop of how our western society came to be.  What assumptions were involved throughout history that allowed us to make the kinds of decisions that we made?
But, at a certain point, we need to get to the place where we say “now what?”  Now that we have a firm understanding of the past and the belief systems that lay the basis for our policies, “now what?”
How do we move from the anger, the blaming and the victimization?  What would we do in the absence of an adversary, a bad guy?  What could and should be the policy?
More specifically, in an ideal world, how would aboriginal people be living in this country, in the United States, in Australia, in ...
Can we imagine a different future?

As we delve into the morass that is this question, what are some overriding principles that we can declare and be aware of that can act as guiding lights in this exploration? 

(like choice, diversity, …)

_________________________________________________________


In Thomas King’s book, the question comes up, “What do Indians want?”?  Now, he would say that it’s the wrong question.  He would say that it’s the wrong question first of all because it presupposes that all Native groups should be lumped together and come up with a single answer.  Then, he goes on to say that a better question to ask is “What do Whites want?”  The answer to that question, according to him, is land.  
Having said that and reflecting on what all of that means, I still think the first question is a good one, in a modified form.

What do these individual groups want? The Lubicon Cree of Alberta, the Brantford Mohawk of Ontario, the Zuni of New Mexico, the Aborigine of Australia, the Inuit of the North, the Hupa of northern California or the Tlingit of Alaska.
If each group draws upon its collective wisdom, how would each group/tribe/band answer these questions? 

What do you want?  What is your vision of a peaceful, vibrant, purposeful, creative future? What structural changes need to be brought about for this to happen?
And let’s imagine that at least one of the answers to this question “What do Indians want” is land.

Which brings us to the next part.  Does it matter what one does on this land?  Should there be a double standard for whites and Native people as to what are acceptable practices on this land?
How would you answer these questions?

My answer next time...

indigenous art.jpg

A question of culture...part two...

This article allows us to further explore other biases/assumptions that exist in our western society, biases that are so deeply imbedded in our culture that, for the most part, we are no longer capable of objectively examining them.


In this society, unlike most others, we carry a belief that we are essentially independent of the group.  It appears the majority of the world sees itself as being a part of a whole, of being inside something looking out, rather than being outside looking in.
From this western mindset, how would you conceive of the other?  How would you treat them?  How would you see your relationship with nature?  Over a prolonged period of time, what would be the legacy of such a cultural position?  
From the article...
“Westerners (and Americans in particular) tend to reason analytically as opposed to holistically. That is, the American mind strives to figure out the world by taking it apart and examining its pieces. Show a Japanese and an American the same cartoon of an aquarium, and the American will remember details mostly about the moving fish while the Japanese observer will likely later be able to describe the seaweed, the bubbles, and other objects in the background.”
And further,
“the culturally shaped analytic/individualistic mind-sets may partly explain why Western researchers have so dramatically failed to take into account the interplay between culture and cognition. In the end, the goal of boiling down human psychology to hardwiring is not surprising given the type of mind that has been designing the studies. Taking an object (in this case the human mind) out of its context is, after all, what distinguishes the analytic reasoning style prevalent in the West. Similarly, we may have underestimated the impact of culture because the very ideas of being subject to the will of larger historical currents and of unconsciously mimicking the cognition of those around us challenges our Western conception of the self as independent and self-determined.”

This mindset of “rugged individualism”, of the individual as disconnected from the group may explain to some extent our ability to create a path and remain on that path despite overwhelming evidence that this path is leading to our destruction.  It is also preventing us from acknowledging the spiritual truths that will set us free.

A question of culture...part one...

I have just finished reading the article “We Aren’t the World”, from the Pacific Standard, February 25, 2013.
It reminds me that as we engage in this process of redefining the world, we need to be aware that no matter what policies and parameters we arrive at, they will be informed by our cultural biases.  One way to mitigate against theses biases of course is to be as inclusive of  as many cultures as possible.  Ultimately, one of the litmus tests of whether  we are successful in imagining a different world will be the demonstration of many voices in the choir.  
Here are two quotes from the article that demonstrate the extent of the bias in our understanding of “universal” cultural norms.
“A 2008 survey of the top six psychology journals [determined that] more than 96 percent of the subjects tested in psychological studies from 2003 to 2007 were Westerners—with nearly 70 percent from the United States alone. Put another way: 96 percent of human subjects in these studies came from countries that represent only 12 percent of the world’s population.”

“Among Westerners, the data showed that Americans were often the most unusual, leading the researchers to conclude that “American participants are exceptional even within the unusual population of Westerners—outliers among outliers.”
Given the data, they concluded that social scientists could not possibly have picked a worse population from which to draw broad generalizations. Researchers had been doing the equivalent of studying penguins while believing that they were learning insights applicable to all birds.”
Hmmm...more next time...

Ishmael

Twenty years ago a book came out which struck a chord with many and subsequently became a best seller.  It continues to be read.  The name of the book is “Ishmael”.  

A couple of weeks ago, I came upon the book in a serendipitous way.  Following my intuition that I was meant to read it again, I did.  Ironically, as I began re-reading it, I realized that I had retained no idea of what it was about from the initial reading.  I suppose I was meant to re-member what I had originally been drawn to.

Firstly, the story or myth that underpins our lives is exposed...

    the world was made for man...
    man was made to rule it...
    in order to be ruler, man had to first conquer it...
    we are paying the price of enacting a story that casts mankind as the enemy of the world..
    under human rule the world was meant to become a paradise...
    but tragically, man was born flawed...
    questions about how to live always ends up becoming religious questions
    so, we turn to prophets to tell us...
    [and then the question] why don’t we have knowledge about how to live?

The author divides the world into two groups - the Takers (most of us living out this story) and the Leavers (those who were here before this story took hold).
For the author, the Takers are those who know good and evil, and the Leavers are those who live in the hands of the gods.
If you live in the hands of the gods, you evolve.  For the Takers, evolution came to an end with man.
The premise of the Taker world is that the world belongs to man, and for the Leavers, man belongs to the world.
The Leavers are the endangered species most critical to the world - not because they’re humans but because they alone can show the destroyers of the world that there is not one right way to live...and forever relinquish the idea that anyone knows who should live and who should die on this planet.

The Leaver lifestyle isn’t about hunting and gathering, it’s about letting the rest of the community live.
The world of the Takers is one vast prison, and except for a handful of Leavers scattered across the world, the entire human race is now inside that prison.  During the last century every remaining Leaver people in North America was given a choice: to be exterminated or to accept imprisonment.  Many chose imprisonment, but not many were actually capable of adjusting to prison life.
The principal industry inside this prison is consuming the world.
What is crucial to your survival as a race is not the redistribution of power and wealth within the prison but rather the destruction of the prison itself.

____________________________

Hmmm, what do you think?  Valid insights twenty years ago, valid insights now?
Oh, and in the story of “Ishmael”, another book is recommended.  I recommend it as well.  It is called “The Chalice and the Blade” by Riane Eisler.

Default settings...number two...

Default setting number two, when in doubt choose and support diversity.

The very notion of diversity is a survival factor for our species.  In nature, any reduction of species is a reduction of our collective strength.  Any policies, ideas, or movements which continue to result in the extinction of species need to be named and stopped.

For the longest time, I had difficulty coming to clarity about Monsanto, specifically, and the issue of seed diversity in general.  Not any more.  There can be no doubt (if you had any) that such an organization/movement is simply courting disaster.  Any attempt to eliminate competition, either in nature or in business, is short-sited and debilitating.

Monopolies do not make us stronger - whether it be food production (factory farming), commerce (Walmart), or cultures who seek to brand themselves all over the world (guess who!).
Small is beautiful!  (once again) and small and diverse is even better!

Default settings...number one...

 

 

In Nexus, when determining policy there will be two default settings...default setting number one, when in doubt, we support choice.  

How many times in the old paradigm are we involved in debates where one side wants to impose their will on everyone and the other side simply wants the right to choose?  
This setting would oversee debates such as abortion, education, sexual preference, and end of life issues.

In Nexus, we believe that, in cases where the rights of the one do not impinge upon the rights of the other, the individual should be free to choose.  Being able to be free to choose in these and other areas of policy will weaken the control of the state, will weaken our hold on this myth that we are better when such things are legislated, and will facilitate another way of being.  In the end, we honour the individual and our innate ability to make decisions for ourselves when they are not harming or intruding upon others.

Any other areas of our society where freedom of choice would dramatically alter the way we see ourselves?  Where else should this notion of choice be introduced?

 

Stages

There are different stages in this process.  The first stage is to recognize that we have a problem here.  The second stage is to identify the problem.  The third stage is to build a solution.  The fourth stage is to move there.
Is it possible to say that each stage gets progressively more difficult?
Stage one...I have noticed in the past thirty years (ok, maybe I’m older than you :~)) that in this western society of which I am a part, we have moved from almost no one talking about it to being able to have the conversation with just about everyone at just about any time.  And we’re not talking just about a little issue here, we’re talking about full blown extinction of the human species, the end of life on this planet as we know it!
So, is there really anyone out there who still believes we can just carry on as usual and things will turn out ok?  
Stage two...this is a rich and fertile place.  I could spend all of my time and effort pointing out the absurdity, the lies, the disaster that is the current framework under which we are currently living.  Many of these statements might be labelled by some to be “conspiracy theories”, locking us into a never ending series of debates which would take up all of our time and in the end leave us in the same place.  Ammunition for what is truly going on in the world is readily available everywhere, assuming of course you are interested in finding it.  For many, this knowledge is simply too depressing.  And in the absence of something to do about it, an alternative, I completely understand the choice to avoid these dialogues.
Stage three...this is the most complicated one so far but the one we are being called upon to engage in.  I can personally admit that I avoid the work to be done here largely because the work at stage two is so much more readily available.  Also, stage two involves the critique of our world and criticism seems easier to undertake than construction.
And though I will return to stage two at times (and perhaps there is some solidarity in that), I recommit to the goal of putting forth this concept.  
I believe it is possible for us to re-define ourselves in a new story.
How cool would that be?

 

More bears...

How many times have we been involved in a project and the structure with which we are working doesn’t meet the needs of the problem or situation we are working with?  How many times do we end up with a skewed process simply because the structure supporting us does not match the needs of the situation under scrutiny?  

For example, you are studying the polar bear population in a certain area of the North.  Obviously, these animals do not respect the artificial boundaries that our species has imposed upon the planet.  So, in Canada, provincial boundaries, federal boundaries, land claim agreements, traditional territorial borders, have nothing to do with the polar bear.  But what happens when a meeting is called, and each person present represents their part of an artificial construct?  How can one effectively deal with a holistic organic situation when each of the problem solvers is only representing their artificial piece of the pie?  Can this be an effective approach?  So, how do we begin to develop structures that appropriately represent the nature of the situation that we are bringing our attention to?

Is not this situation the microcosm of what the planet is facing?  Our issues are global in nature and yet our solutions are provided by nation states whose systems are energized by the need to achieve what is best for its own people.  Can any good come from this approach?  And how can we move from this approach to one that is appropriate for what is facing us?  
These are not rhetorical questions!

In Nexus, we will not only build a world based on sustainable policies but also the means to carry them out.  Bring it on!

the North...3

I recently read a newspaper article that talks about the spring bear hunt in Northern Ontario, Canada.  The article, by Thomas Walkom, a news services columnist, makes it very clear that all the current decisions and those in the recent past have everything to do with political expedience and nothing to do with the long term welfare of the bear population.  

He ends the article with this statement:
“...the spring bear hunt is now back on the table...All three [political] parties know that the spring bear hunt is a foolish idea.  All three know it won’t solve the nuisance-bear problem.     
    But politically, it is the easiest thing to do.”

If the issue is the welfare of bears in a certain geographical region, Nexus will allow us to formulate an appropriate, thoughtful response that is not hijacked by political rhetoric.
Issues that require an organic/global/non-partisan approach will be reflected upon and acted upon by a system of governance that is capable of intervening at that level.   Imagine that!