re/ back in ireland, new subscriber…
This reminds me of my time in cohousing. aka rigorous local self governance training. Amazing stuff that builds and retains commitment to these ideals over long periods.Peter
Can you tell us more about your self-governance training? I’d love to learn about the processes that were involved.rkm
Well thats a long long story. Early on the cohousing founders McCamant and Durret did a workshop with us, and one of the first things they said is that building cohousing is akin to a university degree in community development, itll cost as much and take as long.
That proved ultimately correct, after 10 years and 10 million dollars, the place was finally built. To my mind theres a circle of comittment reinforcement about cohousing. You join because your looking for more community in your life, and the process of financial committment to the project reinforces your desire to make it work when the going gets tough. The challenge of learning to work together as a group of neighbours all the while learning the tricky trade of property development tends to multiply into immensely complex undertaking. Its a peculier mix of task and process where neither could prevail. You discovered that everyone had something to contribute.
The process was fairly intense with 2 to 4 weekly meetings, with a endless parade of decisions to be made, all by consensus. The basic approach used was a mixture of:– leaning on a common vision embdodied in the cohousing book– upskilling the whole group in group decision making and conflict resolution– sponsoring people to attend specialised facilitation courses– some mix of tradtional business style meetings, proposals, votes, facilator, co facilitator, timekeeper, minute taker, vibe watcher, with more process oriented meetings to deal with any under currents that arose, plus timeout/work events, design retreats etc– quaker/cohousing style consensus tools, 3/4 majority fall back (relied on maybe once or twice tops). Colored cards system to give meeting floor time to introverts and extroverts alike.– reliance on established cohousing wisdom that groups in the 20-30 household size are the most effective. Too small and individual personalties and problems way heavy, and too large and you lose human scale.– task or focus groups as they were named and renamed were typically 5-7 people, the size considered managable without faciliation. Main group meetings were typically 30 people, and you soon learned to do your homework as working groups to make that main meeting flow.– all meetings started with a round of personal checkins.
Particular challenges were bank driven time pressure for decisions. Employing members (any group that pull that off gets an A+ for Advanced Local Governance Training). Handling crises in the construction side of it (can be incredibly powerful bonding). Particular highlights for me, were being able to contribute and learn skills, knowing that we were literally changing the world, celebrating the births, deaths, seasons and project milestones,
Earthsong Eco-Neighbourhood maintains a 3 page history here:
Its all starting to blur a bit, but if theres anything in particular that interests, just holler.
…having folk around to lend a hand, shoulder to cry on, or even just that quiet unspoken support, knowing that there are people around you who would care, and new they would and how they would because you had literally been through the wringer with them.
That’s a brilliant analysis… it makes perfect sense. It also explains something I’ve been very puzzled about. A short time ago, several months or maybe a couple of years ago, Henry Kissinger said during the course of an interview that “Within twenty years, Israel as we know it will no longer exist.” Ever since I read that I’ve been thinking… WTF? What in the world does he mean by that? Why would he say that? What purpose could it serve?
After reading your obervations below, it all fits together. He was just telegraphing something, almost bragging, in the way elites often do… something which he knew very few people would understand. In either pre-planned scenario you describe, war or no war, Israel will change dramatically… or it least they will make it appear that things have changed. Solving the crisis in Israel (the planned, ever worsening crisis) will certainly be one of the reasons for justifying a much stronger UN as you say, and one of the reasons the public will accept it… even clamor for it.
The banksters, their servant politicians, and their propaganda outlets will at least make it look like Israel and the situation in Palestine have changed… this is one of the reasons why the much stronger UN was necessary, we’ll be told, and the “results” will be trotted out as proof that it worked. Whether or not things really change is immaterial to the global oligarchs… all that matters to them is that the public buys the justification, and the appearance of change.
It seems very likely that “solving” the totally manufactured crisis with Ukraine and/or ISIS could also be offered up at the same time, strengthening the justification for the “solution”… and later bolstering the “proof” that it worked. Of course the goal of one world government is the same whether they choose the pre-planned “war” scenario or the pre-planned “no war” scenario… so it’s just a question of whether or not they’ll actually put us through World War III.
My guess is that if they can get the public to clamor for the much stronger UN and ultimately a fully integrated one world government in the “no war” scenario, they might spare us World War III. If they can’t, if the strengthened UN hits an impasse and fails (analogous to the League of Nations) then they’ll unleash World War III… and just as the failure of the League of Nations was used to justify the original UN following pre-planned World War II, the failure of the strengthened UN will be used to justify launching the full blown one world government following pre-planned World War III.
In either the “no war” or “war” scenario, I’m guessing that the changes in Israel will be mostly superficial, for as long as they need to maintain appearances. Of course ultimately the “changes” will be meaningless altogether in the post-democratic era of the bankster’s defacto global dictatorship. So the fuller truth is revealed… Henry Kissinger was referring not just to Israel, but to all nations no longer existing as we once knew them. Isn’t he clever! All we need is just enough “crisis” to get the public clamoring for the “solution”… and just enough appearance of change to minimize buyer’s remorse. And if we take Kissinger’s time table literally, the plan is for all of this to happen well inside of twenty years time, with or without World War III.
Thanks again for sharing your ideas.