Our Ecological Order

Within my book, “Cosmopoly,” the foundation of Cooperativism is that we fundamentally exist within a biological existence. We share our biosphere and natural environment with all that are the result of the physical existence of life and the foundation upon which everything else begins.  Therefore, the way that we human beings treat our biosphere will determine how we define it, which is directly linked to how we treat each other as well.

Our traditional way of defining things according to ourselves makes them all different form us. By defining our biosphere as being different from us, we have separated it from us as well. This has resulted in determining ourselves the same way that we think about the natural world.

The result historically has been that many people defined the biosphere as they did each other, which was always as though it were a separate entity from them and, therefore, ripe for exploitation. Therefore, only when we change our relationship with each other and see ourselves cooperatively will we also see the biosphere and our relationship with it differently than we do now.

If we are to see ourselves as a single human entity, then we need to see our bio-sphere cooperatively as our partner and the one from whom we obtain our natural existence and, therefore, the one to whom we owe our primary allegiance, because it can exist without us but we can not exist without it. When the biosphere is seen as the source of all life and we an extension of it, then we will also come to realize that it was never naturally an extension of us politically but instead we where an extension of it naturally.

When we come to see ourselves as an extension of the biosphere, we will also come to see that our political borders were never natural and only politically self-serving to those that controlled those borders, which resulted in controlling the personal capabilities of the people within them. Life’s natural resources must be seen as intended for all of us to enjoy and not just the few that politically or economically dominate them for their own purposes by politically trying to limit the access of the people and their capabilities to the political limits imposed upon them.

Obama: Bringing the Ideas of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi to Politics

Because of his lack of aggressiveness, many of his own supporters have questioned President Barack Obama’s commitment to progressive causes. During a period when the financial stability of the nation and the world was at stake, the people needed to plug the holes in the system where those that were intimately involved with their formation were involved. This is exactly what President Obama did.

President Obama began by placing into positions of power some of the same people that at least allowed the conditions in our financial crisis to occur if not facilitated them. This resulted in stabilizing the financial markets and averting a financial collapse. He has also restarted the economy by beginning to rebuild our infrastructure and investing in a greener future. Should he not have staffed his financial positions with new progressive figures that would put the financial industry on its’ heels?

Having watched President Obama for a while now, I believe that I have detected the nature of a new kind of politics. I believe that I have detected the method of his madness. What I believe I have detected is the making of a whole new kind of political strategy, one based on allowing your opponent to discredit himself rather than directly confronting him.

This Obamaism, as I coin it, is more of an Akido where you use your opponent’s actions against himself rather than a boxing match where one tries to beat the other into submission. This is why I equate this new political strategy with Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. in that it uses the morality of ones position to reveal the immorality of your opponents.

Obamaism is a consensus building process, which is by nature a bottom-up process requiring bringing together people with divergent views. To accomplish this consensus building Obamaism is fundamentally about re-educating the public to the true motives of his opponents.

This re-education of the public would change their understanding of the true nature between themselves and their institutions, both public and private. The core of this new Obamaism would be based on the re-education of the public. This would be accomplished by allowing his opponents to reveal their true immoral nature by allowing them to discredit themselves in the eyes of the public.

Forcing his opponents to act out in public their frustrations and rage reveals to everyone their extreme and uncompromising nature. He allows the truthfulness of his position to reveal itself through the actions taken against him by his opponents, which allows him to maintain the moral high ground. This not only gets his opponents to delegitimize themselves, but it also leaves him unscathed with a sense of moral superiority over them.

I first took notice of this Obamaism political strategy during the presidential primary when candidate Obama was attacked by candidate Hillary Clinton, where candidate Barak Obama allowed candidate Hillary Clinton do all of the talking to the point where she sounded unreasonable and even spiteful. By Barack Obama not directly reacting to her, he was able to take the highroad, which made Hillary’s questioning of him seem petty and at times condescending. He won as much by winning the moral high ground, as it was the message that he conveyed.

Another example was his handling of the North Korean problem. Again, this Obama political strategy was based on allowing the North Koreans to show that they could not be trusted regardless of the promises they made. Once again he showed that by acting reasonable against an opponent that is unreasonable, one automatically takes the moral high ground. He allowed their own belligerence to force the countries of the region to act in their own behalf and form the consensus needed against their actions. This showed the difference between the immoral argument made by the North Koreans and the moral stand taken by the United States and the countries of the region.

His handling of the Iranian nuclear problem is another example of Obamaism. Apparently president Obama was briefed about Iran’s covert nuclear processing plant but didn’t reveal it until he had created the conditions that would leave him with the moral high ground. Iran was claiming that its program was for peaceful purposes and, therefore, they had every right to pursue the development of nuclear power.

Both the Russians and Chinese do a substantial business with Iran and, therefore, were reluctant to apply pressure in what seemed to be as much a moral dispute as it was a legal one. The President Obama then divulged to the public Iran’s clandestine nuclear enrichment plant. This made Iran seem dishonest which resulted in their losing any moral position that it had held in its argument.

The so-called healthcare debate is another example of the Obama political strategy at work. Here again he allows the moral high ground to move in his direction by gradually shifting it his way.

He has done this by refusing to respond to what are obviously absurd allegations made by the right. This has shown them to be primarily about destroying his presidency rather than actually helping the country through these trying times. These unanswered daily attacks have now become old and taken on the status of mantras without substance and only sound.

As the opponents to any kind of real health insurance reform and their constant attacking and demonization of the president, the Republicans have shown themselves to be more the representatives of the health insurance industry than the actual healthcare needs of their own constituencies.

The consensus building process in the health care reform debate was given to the Congress to deal with. This has resulted in providing the public with a front row seat in watching the inner-workings of legislation making. This has resulted in the public becoming disgusted with Congress and the whole legislative process.

He has allowed the Republicans to show the American people that they are the party of indifference and greed and the agents of the heath insurance companies that finance their campaigns and determine their political agenda. This has also shown the insurance companies for what they really are, profit making enterprises not benevolent institutions.

The next example of the Obama method of politics in action has been his dealings in the financial crises. He has given the banks everything that they wanted and they have shown themselves for what they really are, self-promoters and profiteers who are willing to take the taxpayers bailout money and give next to nothing in return.

On top of this indifference, they have also shown their total indifference to the plight of the country by refusing to perform their fiduciary responsibility as the providers of capital, and instead gave themselves the largest bonuses in history without any regard for where the money came from.

The banking industry has shown the American people just who and what they really are. We now understand the relationship between us the people and the banking industry. No longer will the banks be seen as the pillars of society and the paragons of trust within society. They are now seen as just another industry based on greed that is willing to exploit their costumers’ misery and despair for profit.

Now again President Obama has shown the country and the world not only the true interests of the Republican Party. He has also shown the true nature of the greed and indifference of the republican’s wealthy pay-masters. By giving the republicans the tax cuts that they wanted for the very wealthy, he has also shown their lack of patriotism and their favoring investing in foreign interests rather than in the interests of the American people.

President Obama, now has victories for the American people like health care, extending unemployment, and the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” as well as many others behind him. He will now be able to take the moral high ground in defense of the interests of the American people when confronting those that have shown their total indifference to the needs of the American people. Congratulation Mister President! It seems as though you do own a light-saber.

Entrusted Natural and Private Property

One of the tenants of Cooperativism is that the earth belongs to all the things on it and must be shared by all. Natural property can only be used but never owned. Instead of owning property of the natural environment, the people and their institutions would instead hold any property of the natural environment entrust. This entrusted property could be bought and sold like any other commodity.

Cooperativism is ecologically based, which means that it sees all private property as being ecological property that has been leased to the public for private utilization and must provide a positive result for society and not adversely affect the natural environment in order to achieve it.

Within Cooperativism private land property, because it would exist as natural territory, would be seen to be natural property in the long run which would essentially make it a part of the natural resources state trust and ecological state, and be under its ultimate stewardship. Therefore, private property, while privately owned would be seen to be ultimately an extension of the natural world of which all natural resources would in the end be a part of.

All entrusted property would be given an expiration date when the entrustment would have to be reissued. Entrusted property could have stipulations placed upon it that would specify its use. The property entrusted to a civil or personal trust would be the entrusted resources that would be made available to the members of the trust for exploitation and development.

Instead of Sovereignty Holding Territory Entrust

Within my forthcoming book “Cosmopoly” my system of entrusted government called Cooperativism would be based on the entrusted territory and resources that it’s civil, political, and state entrustments would have access to. Unlike the nation-state, which is based permanently on its own sovereign territory, the territory of an entrusted resources state and its institutions would only hold them entrust for the term of their entrustment.

A global ecological state would be a parallel state that would consist of the many natural resources state trusts of all of the many entrusted resources states that would be using its natural resources. The territory of every entrusted resources state would merge with one- another forming their own separate and global ecological state.

This would permit the natural resources state trusts of all of the entrusted resources states to not only support their own entrusted resources state, but also be members of an ecological-state that would be formed between them.

As the cooperative government process would increase and more nation states would be replaced with entrusted resources states, so would the amount of territory entrusted to the “planetary” ecological-state.

The ecological-state would represent all of the territory and natural resources of our planet. This would result in the gradual global entrustment of all of the earth’s territory into the global ecological-state making it the common property of us all.

Art Is What Makes Us Human

Art is not an afterthought!  It is instead the thing that gives our thoughts substance. It provides us with the sights, sounds, tastes, and smells that define our reality for us. We are as much the result of our art as our art is a result of us. Our art is what makes us human.