Archive for the ‘New World Order’ Category

Love for One’s Motherland

Sunday, January 15th, 2012

I have never felt rooted. I have never believed it possible to feel a sense of place. I learned that the Government “owns” all the land. I learned that the best I could do is “purchase” — that is, go deep into debt with the “help” of the Bank — the rights to use land, misleadingly called “ownership”. I learned that my rights can be revoked and my land seized by simply failing to pay property taxes. In my view, such temporary and vulnerable “land use rights” is a far cry from true “ownership,” setting aside for the moment the utter absurdity of the concept of “owning” any place on the Earth. To rub salt in the wound, the Government unjustly, but quite legally, takes any equity it gains beyond the taxes owed when the property rights are resold. How can anyone feel a sense of belonging on the Earth under those conditions? How has it come about that everyone submits to Government and accepts this state of affairs? Why do so few people raise questions?

My grandparents emigrated from Lebanon, when families there could no longer sustain themselves due to political and economic woes. My mother was born and raised in a U.S. city where her family struggled to keep body and soul together during the Great Depression. She remembers long lines waiting for rations of poor quality food. My father, on the other hand, lived in a tiny, economically pinched rural town, but everyone there at least had a garden, chickens and a pig in their yards; they scarcely knew there was a depression. Once the depression receded and the world wars were finally over, it seemed like boom times were on a roll that might never end. To my young parents, city life seemed far easier than country life, and was certainly more exciting and promising of adventure. Though my father could have known better, food security was no longer considered an issue worthy of concern.

Though my parents “owned” a house in the city, this did not engender a sense of place, since the norm (which my parents religiously followed) was to upsize every few years into a more “fashionable” neighborhood (greater debt) to increase their “social status” in the eyes of their peers. I sadly observed as my parents became virtual bio-robots enslaved by huge debts to soulless jobs that cut them off from the real world of Nature, breathing polluted air, drinking contaminated water, eating junk food, and calling that “the good life”.

While I was growing up, my parents never grew so much as a potted tomato plant on their patio, much less a garden. We seldom ate fresh vegetables anyway – Wonder Bread and the convenience of canned foods reigned supreme! I had no idea what garden plants even looked like, since raising your own food was not on the curriculum of a “modern” education (unless you went on to college and chose to study agribusiness methods of raping the Earth). In fact, schools offered very few practical skills at all – we were successfully “programmed” to be cogs in the industrial machine of modern capitalism. The subtle message of the propaganda called “history” drummed into us in school was that the less we questioned authority and our lot in life, the better for the “stability” of society and ultimately for our “happiness”. The carrot dangling before our noses was the fantasy that we, too, could be “successful” and make a lot of money if we just worked hard enough (and did not rock the boat!)

I had resigned myself to this unreality, believing that those in power called the shots and that the best I could do was to stay under the radar. I scarcely noticed as this deadening worldview seeped into my consciousness from a young age, resulting over time in a numbing powerlessness. My meek acceptance of everyday injustices just felt “normal”.

Field of Daisies

That is, until I read The Ringing Cedars books about Anastasia, a Russian mystic living in the remote Siberian forest. After studying her ideas, I now understand that my rootlessness and powerlessness stem from the fact that most families around the globe have never had a domain that we can claim in perpetuity on which to sustain ourselves that no one can take away from us. No one in my family has ever experienced a deep and abiding love of the land, of Nature, nor the wonder of the miracle of Life.

Now I clearly see the injustice of having to pay “ransom” for land with the ever-present threat of its seizure for not participating in the economic system as demanded. I clearly see the insidious agenda behind our modern “lifestyles”: the continual enrichment of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of Earth’s inhabitants. The false, human-concocted system of monetary economics has replaced natural, resource-based economics and is designed to keep the common people too impoverished, downtrodden and distracted to ask pertinent questions or to fight back.

Isn’t it curious that those who interpret the Bible literally and try to live according to its dictates have overlooked the model of life presented in its first chapter? They have never cognized that Adam and Eve left PARADISE, which was a GARDEN right here on Earth, where all their needs were naturally met. They have never cognized that we can return to Paradise as we leave behind the addictive pursuit of “knowledge,” which is really overstimulation of the mind obscuring the heart. We can restore the Garden of Eden one garden at a time, learning to become stewards of this beautiful Earth, reconnecting with God through Nature, the manifestation on Earth of God’s Thought.

I know. This proposal sounds too simplistic. Dead-on-arrival.

Except that Russians are already materializing Anastasia’s Dream in their Motherland one garden at a time. Private gardens in Russia produce a whopping 56% of the country’s produce! Citizens are tackling the oppressive sovereignty of their government one unjust law at a time by forming new political parties and campaigns. They are restoring Community, transitioning into living in greater harmony with Nature and one another one cooperative settlement at a time, by taking over and restoring wasteland and abandoned towns. Anastasia’s Vision is even expanding beyond Russia’s borders.

Imagine the possibilities…!

Leadership in the Aquarian Age

Sunday, January 1st, 2012

What happens when a group of people decides to accomplish a task together where there is no designated leader? In my experience, there are two distinctly different patterns of how the group resolves this tension. The process begins in an outwardly similar manner. There is often an initial uncertainty and discomfort covered over by small talk as each person covertly looks to the others for cues as to what to do. Within a few minutes, the group establishes some loose boundaries of how self-effacing one must behave, versus how self-assertive, and still be considered acceptable as a prelude to the discussion of options and decision-making.

New York City

When most of the members of the group engage in this initial discussion as peers, viewing one another as workable human beings, then we come out of this initiation with feelings of solidarity and camaraderie. We feel self-confident, open to what comes next. This happens more frequently in spontaneous groups outside of any organizational context.

On the other hand, when the initial conversation has moments of “one-upmanship” (an attempt by one or more persons to be seen as “one-up” in status, forcing the others into the “one-down” position), then many of us are triggered into anxiety and self-doubt. We believe we must hide our feelings of inadequacy or uncertainty about how to proceed. In order to protect against potential attacks to our self-esteem, we close ourselves off to varying degrees. I have experienced this outcome most often in an organizational or family context, where power and inequality are the norms reinforced by the hierarchy.

The “ground rules” thus laid, the group has reached a definite fork in the road: what to do about leadership and decision-making? Depending on the task, each person brings to the table expertise ranging from novice to expert, and a temperament ranging from shy and self-effacing to aggressive and self-assertive. To get to know one another and to explore possibilities, questions about the task are asked aloud and proposals aired to get the discussion going – and soon someone will begin to emerge as the person having the most “answers”.

In peer groups where there is more mutual respect, answers tend to be expressed from genuine experiential knowledge, tested and honed out in the field. The relative “weight” of such opinions is greater, having a distinctive persuasive quality. The group feels free enough to creatively brainstorm and safe enough to give and receive feedback on the various proposals without taking it personally and feeling judged. Once the group has ferreted out the person with the most experience and expertise, people begin to behave towards that person as the leader to whom they direct questions and readily act upon suggestions offered. Often there is no formal assignment; there is simply a smooth transition as people self-organize into roles as the group moves into action. Such a group can just as fluidly look to someone else as the leader for the next task requiring a different type of expertise. The upshot is that in a group of peers, a leader is more frequently chosen by merit.

In the atmosphere of one-upmanship, on the other hand, more energy may be spent on covert efforts to jockey for recognition and authority rather than genuine problem solving. Instead of experienced-based answers, the proposals may consist of two parts arrogance to one part hearsay, delivered with sufficient bluster to convince those who are none the wiser. Even with the presence of able “BS detectors” in the group, depending on the degree to which their self-confidence has been undermined by self-doubt, they may allow themselves to be dominated by the person with the highest level of narcissistic need. Such a leader, unfortunately, may not be the person with the greatest degree of merit; just the most aggressive. Those with the greater expertise and experience may allow themselves to be overridden by the bluster. The leader may continue to assert this power role regardless of the situation, the task at hand or the skills needed.

Depending on the balance of the group members, I have seen myself flip-flop both ways – as feeling self-confident and capable, offering my experiential knowledge and legitimate expertise; or feeling inadequate and clumsy, exaggerating my knowledge and adding bluster for defense. I am still surprised at how difficult it is to remain true to my principles and how easy it is to be triggered into defensiveness and pretense. There is no doubt that the structure of the group exerts enormous influence on the outcome. The experience of working with a self-organized group is so satisfying, I had to wonder: is it possible to extend the model of fluid, merit-based leadership between peers to a larger community of people and for a longer duration than just one project?

In the process of searching for an intentional community to join over the past two decades, I have been struck by the number of communities – in all parts of the world – which were originally founded on consensus-only decision making, that over time have evolved toward a system of councils and/or functional leaders chosen by merit. (See Lost Valley Educational Center as an example of this evolution which they call “sociocracy”.) It appears that consensus-only communities, where everyone laboriously makes every decision together and one dissenting person can hold the entire group hostage, have merely swung the pendulum to the opposite side where, ironically, an overt dictator has simply been swapped for one that wears sheep’s clothing. The idea of consensus is understandably an appealing alternative to the ubiquitous hierarchies and dictatorships that characterize so much of family, social and corporate life. The pent-up need for all voices to be heard and concerns weighed through genuine dialog is a driving force behind the intentional community movement. Unfortunately, in that passionate swing of the pendulum, the middle ground of self-organization and merit-based, distributed leadership has inadvertently been missed.

Psychological research into the phenomenon now known as “fundamental attribution error” affirms that situations have more influence on how people behave than intrinsic characteristics of the people involved. In other words, hierarchical structures breed power struggles whereas the same people relating to one another as peers can produce cooperative behavior. It makes sense, then, that a change in organizational structure and culture may indeed produce the desired results in and of itself.

Research into quantum physics shows that the universe, from our vantage point as observers, is itself a highly interactive, self-organizing entity. Once we people get out of our own way, this utterly natural behavior appears in us as well. In our perennial power struggles, it is sad to note how this self-organizing characteristic of the universe is nearly invisible to our heavily conditioned awareness.

For a fascinating deep-dive into these topics and how they apply to leadership, read Margaret Wheatley’s book, Leadership and the New Science. Her thesis, supported by multiple scientific disciplines, is that when people are left alone and trusted to exercise their innate intelligence, they inevitably self-organize into fluid, cooperative teams where the leader is simply the person who, upon seeing a need, steps forward to fulfill it, supported by others who also recognize the need. Meg does not merely write books and give talks about leadership – she walks her talk. She delegated to the staff at Berkana Institute, a non-profit she founded, the response-ability of organizing themselves to accomplish the organization’s mission rather than calling all the shots herself. In today’s world, that takes a great deal of courage and confidence in one’s hard-won convictions!

Meg believes that the hierarchical dinosaurs will eventually implode under their own weight. Systems based on the tired old command-and-control paradigm cannot be fixed. Instead, she is betting on the self-organizing abilities of small groups throughout the world who believe in egalitarian principles expressed through distributed, merit-based leadership to build alternative systems of networks which will be fully functioning and ready to take over from the dinosaurs. That’s a creative, science-based Vision of the New World Order that I can support!

When we have work parties at our family domain, this model proves itself over and over. I have experienced this model at work successfully in non-profit and educational organizations through committees, despite the hierarchies in place in those organizations. Beyond that is another story. I am not naively suggesting that this model can work at the national or even municipal levels, at least not yet. :-) Government bodies, regulations and enforcement are still very much needed to reign in corporate greed for power and prestige and to protect our environment as the world brings about reform to these structures and transitions to something more workable. I am proposing that the Vision for a New World Order begins with the first step: small networked groups throughout the world that serve as working models of our future.

For a real-world example of self-organizing in action, consider the article Walking the Walk by Amy Dean, Truthout:

Asked what Fuerza Laboral takes from the organizing model of National People’s Action, the national coalition of which it is a member, Shagwert says, “Networking and constantly building leadership. It’s a real belief that everyone who belongs to your organization, or wants to belong, has the potential to take leadership.”