By Steve Carrow: What would a wise community do?

Go and watch any and every “End of the World ” movie, like Armageddon, Deep Impact, Don’t Look Up, Greenland, The Core, 2012, etc plus a zillion B grade movies..

In every single one of them, they must keep ‘the end of the world’ a secret for as long as possible, for ‘them’ to maintain a working government while they work on a solution.. Of course it’s Hollywood and they always end up saving the world, except Don’t Look Up, but it’s meant to be a sarcastic comedy, so that’s OK..

There is no way, that ‘leaders’ including the advice from top military ranks, don’t know clearly about overshoot and where we are headed, so to keep the secret they all talk up renewables and green growth, while handing out oil and gas permits like candy.

Perhaps the real plan is to blow up most of the population in a nuclear war, while the elite hide in bunkers for 10 years or whatever, then ‘they’ will sort out what’s left afterwards?

Or more likely they just want to keep everything going as close to ‘normal’ (IE them being in charge), for as long as possible hoping that ‘something’ turns up and it doesn’t all end on their watch. As I mentioned up thread, working with the ‘elites’ a couple of decades ago, I’m fairly sure it’s the latter, no plan (plan is more of the same), hope something turns up, but keep going with the perceived plan of green growth.

What it really means, is ‘they’ will print more money until we get hyperinflation, no other choice. ‘They’ will keep the green lies going, throwing more and more money at it, including increasingly obvious non-solutions like synthetic fuels from renewables, any type of ‘new’ battery chemistry, fusion, any type of nuclear reactors different from the current obviously non-economic (and net energy user, not producer) fission power plants.*

How do you, we, me, whoever, keep a large devastating secret? Hide it!! How do you hide something so large? Easy, stop people from looking, keep them so distracted with other things that they never bother looking. Let’s pretend we go to the moon, then keep smart people looking at how fake it all was, let’s destroy some building and kill some people and pretend it’s the fault of those ‘over there’, who are holding our oil, let’s throw huge sums of money and resources at some totally uneconomic oil and discredit all those peak oilers, let’s have a pandemic, kill a few million people with the disease and cure, but keep the inquisitive looking at everything going wrong there…

What? Still too many people looking at overshoot, energy decline, resource limitations, pollution, species decline and not our preferred problem of climate change (that we have a nice boxed solution for, if we pay enough university professors to write up papers on the answers), so what’s next?

OK time to start a war, not enough, OK another one, still not enough, OK WW3 or risk it, then we can drag all those people looking at the things we don’t want them looking at into armed service conscription, or just sensor them as enemies of the state, or terrorists. (In other words ‘they’ still have a few tricks up their sleeves).

The overall plan of distraction seems to be working fairly well and of course every year or 2, a new major distractio… sorry, problem, of some type breaks out. Assuming the next major world event isn’t WW3, then what’s next in the bag of tricks?? EMP from the sun, another pandemic, perhaps an asteroid, that we can garner huge resources to fight, that we have a couple of years to work towards the problem, send Elon into deep space and be successful (of course it will all happen just too far away for normal telescopes here on Earth to detect, but trust how we saved you all, with this huge expense) ((Then begin to leak how it was all fake, but do this slowly to keep the people distracted)..

Of course it might not be any of that, instead just one big conspiracy to control everything by God and/with the WEF, who have everything under control, remember you’ll be happy by 2030…. Sorry, got to go… “Yes Kate, what was that?”…….. “No Kate I’m busy”…..”OK I know you need the computer”, …. “what’s photoshop”? ……………….. Sorry bye….

*Despite one of the principal aspects of economics, being how ‘economies of scale’ work, meaning larger is better cheaper to operate etc, we are now led to believe that something different to what we have, as in Small Modular Reactors will be more economic (and of course save the world).

reedk020351@gmail.com

Dear Sirs,

There are Five Cornerstones of Independence. I am introducing you here to the first. This content is twelve pages. The objective is decentralized civilization. The types of people that this plan is intended for share that objective for sovereign, egalitarian communities and their confederations. I look forward to your evaluations.
You and your family be well and be in Good Spirits!

With respect, Reed C. Kinney

The link to my book is included below.

[p.26:] Author’s Introduction

The Five Cornerstones of Independence

Independent community is composed of five functioning components, the five cornerstones of independence:

Community structured dialogical, consensus-based decision-making processes. It is understood that all organization needs an executive function. Decentralized organization is structured so that the executive function of civic organization is always under the control of the people.
[You can go directly to Appendix C of this content.]

[Pages 30-31:] WHAT IS DIALOGUE?

Dialogue is realized among twelve or fewer adults. Its purpose is to empower the members with semi-self-sufficiency through their independent, pragmatic, concerted action. Dialogue facilitates unanimity, group decision making and its realizations without authoritarianism.

A. Members dialogue in order to reach an agreed understanding regarding what particular problem they share, which they perceive to be pressing and solvable. The objects of dialogue are their own and whatever problem or problems they decide to solve is discretionary. However, they must be consistent in their aim to generate maximum independence, discussed below. Decentralized Economic Social Organization, DESO, content is designed to guide them towards that objective.
B. They agree on what action they can deploy among themselves to solve that problem.
C. They organize their efforts and solve that problem.
Members agree to pool capital accessible to them to form their mutual community bank, MCB. An accountant records the donations made by each member. [External fiscal and material support is welcomed, and is solicited.]

Members investigate productive enterprises they may purchase, or that they may develop.

a. Proposals are written by members, with their costs itemized, reliable sources identified, overhead calculated, margin of profit calculated, market sustainability is determined, the needed skills of its personnel are ascertained, and so on.
b. The various plans are dialogued by members until one is chosen as pragmatic to their needs.
c. They use funds from their mutual community bank, MCB, for capitalizing their first Public Productive Enterprise, which employs some of their members.

1a. The profit from the Public Productive Enterprise is used to keep the operation going, to compensate its operators, and to pay back those who donated to the project through their MCB.
2b. Subsequent profits above overhead are deposited in the MCB public account.

The first Public Productive Enterprise may be a simple operation, and ethically aligned with members’ values.

Initially, its primary purpose may be for accessing conventional money for the mutualistic group in order to provide them with leverage. And, subsequent group investments may serve the same purposes.

Examples of ingenious, appropriate industry – Public Productive Enterprises – are provided by Marcin Jakubowski (1). Pragmatic plans for low cost construction, and production are widely available – each mutualistic group decides how best to initiate its first Cooperative.

Readily available, intensive, food production systems are open to investigation and actualization.

The aim of each group of three to five mutualistic families (nuclear groups) is independence. It is convenient to begin with such groups, because they are pragmatic and doable among interested people.

[pp. 32-34:] 2. CIVIC ORGANIZATION

Individual Nuclear Groups are too small to generate the type of independence needed for actualizing genuine communities. Genuine community is a structured proposition.
When two or more groups of mutualistic, three to five families begin to coordinate their productive efforts, for their respective benefits, they do so through their Community Coordinating Committee, CCC.

The Community Coordinating Committee, CCC, is composed of members of each respective group of mutualistic, three to five families. Their functions include receiving the propositions for concerted action from the members of each respective Nuclear Group. (Each proposal is signed by a number of members to demonstrate that is was dialogued and approved prior to its submission to the CCC.) The civic format is flexible relevant to the needs of each community. However, I suggest that when a set of propositions are received by the CCC that they abbreviate each of them in order that they be drafted onto ballots. The first set of ballots is delivered to the respective groups of mutualistic, three to five families: one ballot for each group.

 Since each of those mutualistic groups of families is respectively sovereign, we can refer to them as Nuclear Groups, NG.
The first ballot is discussed, dialogued, by each respective Nuclear Group. They decide the relative importance of each proposition on their ballot. A proposition may be granted a value of seventy percent consensus, or eighty, or ninety. How each Nuclear Group reasons the consensus value, or “weight,” of each proposition is up to them.

The ballots return to the CCC. For example, the CCC observes that of all the “consensus weights” a proposal had received from the Nuclear Groups, most of them were eighty percent. Thus, that proposition will be allotted an eighty percent consensus weight on the subsequent ballot. The subsequent ballot will list the same propositions that were on the former ballot (the “weigh in ballot”), but each will bear its consensus weight on the “voting ballot”. In that manner, the community determines the relative value of each proposition.

A proposition that the community wants passed, or approved in a hurry, may receive a seventy percent consensus weight. An important proposition may receive an eighty percent consensus weight. A proposition that will require an important concerted effort by all members may receive a ninety percent consensus weight.

When the actual voting ballots are sent by the CCC to each Nuclear Group, each NG discusses and dialogues each proposition until they either approve it, or not.
The CCC receives the ballots from the NG. If a proposition that had an eighty percent consensus weight was approved by eighty percent, or more, of the NG, it is approved. The same process is applied to all propositions.

In this manner, a community is managed by its members without centralized power, further explained below. (See: APPENDIX C – COMMUNITY DIALOGICAL CONSENSUS BASED DECISION MAKING PROCESSES, INSPIRED BY MARK CURTIS KINNEY II)

DEVELOPMENT OF THE MUTUAL COMMUNITY BANK, MCB

The NGs consolidate part, or all, of their respective NG mutual savings into the Mutual Community Bank, MCB. Each contribution by each NG is accounted for, recorded, and monitored by MCB accountability. The MCB is a Core Public Productive Enterprise. It belongs to the community. It is operated by community members that have the skills needed for its accounting functions. (See: APPENDIX A – MUTUAL COMMUNITY BANKS, MCB, IN DECENTRALIZED ECONOMIC SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, DESO, INSPIRED BY THE CONCEPTS OF MARK CURTIS KINNEY II)
CCC ACTIONS ARE COMMUNITY AUTHORIZED

When the CCC is authorized to capitalize a proposition that was community approved it withdraws the required, capital amount from the MCB public accounts to actualize the project in conjunction with the project’s developers. (Procedures are developed among members.)

The community project, most valued, most prioritized, by the community is allotted the first capitalization. The order of importance, as agreed on by members, determines which projects are funded by the community, relevant to what the community believes it can afford. These decisions are come about through the community-dialogical-consensus-based-decision-making-processes described above, or variants as determined by each community.

THE CCC DOES NOT HAVE EXECUTIVE POWER

Each community decides, among its members, how its MCB community accounts are used. The CCC functions to record, capitalize, and to monitor, the public concerted actions taken by the community members. Decentralized Economic Social Organization, DESO, Civic Organization precludes the centralization of power. Power is shared equally among the NG, their Civil Organization.

CIVIC-ECONOMIC ORGANIZATION

Core Public Productive Enterprises are the primary objective to be realized with capital generated from the Public Productive Enterprises mentioned above in the Civil Organization section. Public Productive Enterprises may be actualized whenever a community needs them, and are included in community Civic-Economic Organization, meaning that their management is regulated through the CCC. But their primary purpose is to generate the funds needed to actualize community Core Public Productive Enterprises.

1. CORE PUBLIC PRODUCTIVE ENTERPRISES

Core Public productive enterprises serve two functions.
1. They are the primary providers of the Guaranteed Minimum Standard of Service, GMSS.
2. They are the economic foundation of independence for all community members.

THE GUARANTEED MINIMUM STANDARD OF SERVICE, GMSS
The GMSS is composed of the essential, minimum components of a modern, healthful life …accessible to all community members.

 Community land and property acquisition is among the first challenges that may be addressed by community members and may be among the first objectives met with the capital generated by community public productive enterprises. Some members may own land that they make accessible to the community through contractual agreements with the CCC. Members locate accessible land and property. Through dialogical, consensus-based, community decision making processes conclusions are agreed on and action is taken by the community to access land and property. Land and property belonging to the community is community managed through the CCC.

[pp. 88-91:] DIALOGICAL FORMATS

The first dialogical session is for personal introductions and “speaking from the heart,” creating friendships, and sharing the intention to work together towards community. Subsequent sessions pertain to developing their priorities relevant to working-with-each-other-for-each-other to create their Nuclear Groups and their civic organization.
The whole schema for the creation of Nuclear Groups and the establishment of community in decentralized civilization is charted out before its members; becoming their “over soul” that takes on a “life of its own” as they embark upon the creative challenge of bringing it into reality. In order to fulfill its function, the dialogical, consensus-based decision-making processes need that greater purpose.

Provided here are examples of dialogical formats. The Listening Circle and the Wisdom Circle function in Nuclear Groups in real community.

The Listening Circle format is a good beginning point, as well as a good format, among others, for Nuclear Group dialogical consensus-based decision-making process. These are flexible arrangements among leaders and all people who take part in planning and practicing their dialogical formats.
Leaders have wisdom, knowledge, and skill, coupled with the sincere desire to work with all members to establish their unanimity relevant to concerted plans of action and desired results.
The community councils of the community confederation use dialogical decision-making processes.
“HOW TO DO A LISTENING CIRCLE
This form of dialogue was used by Native American councils. It is practiced with many names and variations — talking stick circle, wisdom circle, council process, and others. I call it listening circle because of its trademark quality of listening — a deep listening to one’s deepest self, to the group mind and to Spirit, as well as to each other. We can even listen deeply when we are talking, we can be aware of the words we are saying as we say them, of the way our bodies feel, of the stream of semi-formed thoughts and emotions out of which our words are coming, and of the receptive group space into which we are sending them.

Imagine now that we are doing a listening circle. You and I, and a number of friends, are seated in a circle. We tell a few newcomers what to expect. When we are all clear on what will be happening, our circle starts. We sit in silence. A stick (or some other object that can be held) sits in the middle of our circle. A woman, who feels moved to speak picks up the stick, holds it as she speaks, and we all listen to what she says. No one speaks unless they have the stick. We engage in no crosstalk or conversation in the usual sense. When the speaker is done, she passes the stick to the man on her left who ponders it for a moment before speaking. After a few minutes he passes the stick to the person on his left and so it goes. The stick continues around the circle, with each of us speaking in turn and the rest of us listening. When our scheduled circle time is up — or when we pass the stick around the whole circle with none of us speaking — the stick is returned to the center and our circle is done.

That is the whole process. At its heart, it is that simple. …
GOING AROUND THE CIRCLE
To the extent we honor the stick (or other object) and its role, we do not need chairpersons and facilitators; the stick, itself, in its journey around the circle, shapes the structure and quality of our dialogue. Sometimes, though, someone sets the tone and gets things started, and someone signals the end of the meeting.

As the focus of our attention moves around and around the circle, it spirals down into deeper shared understandings, richer shared meanings, and a growing sense of a shared, evolving story. Although sometimes we go around only once, our best circles result from going around at least 3 or 4 times, with people speaking briefly if necessary, to permit more rounds. Brevity can be immensely powerful. It is also important to sustain everyone’s attention. Sometimes we time our turns, often 1-3 minutes each, rarely as long as 6-10 minutes. A well-functioning circle should help those who usually speak a lot say less and those who usually do not speak up to say more.
It helps to remember that the essence of these circles is listening and speaking from the heart. Head-tripping, pronouncements, chatter, posturing and run-on monologues of the sort that make up so much of ordinary conversation only serve to disrupt the atmosphere of the circle. On the other hand, silence (2) — so avoided in ordinary conversation — often helps deepen the atmosphere.

We can learn …[much] about silence from Quakers, whose traditional meetings for worship have little or no ritual, leadership, or conversation, nor do they take turns around a circle. Rather, they sit in a silence which they perceive as being filled with Spirit. From time to time a member who feels “called” (moved from within by Spirit, by their “inner light”) rises and speaks. When finished, they simply sit down. No one responds. The pregnant silence settles once more among and within the congregation. Many circles try to nurture this spirit in their midst, at least occasionally, with or without a formal period of silence or the religious beliefs the Quakers bring to it. In a formal circle, anyone can create silence in their turn simply by holding the object and not speaking. A person can also skip their turn, passing on the object after only a moment.
IN CONCLUSION ABOUT DIALOGUE
Clearly, much skill, consciousness, and experience can be developed in the process of doing circles, and yet the basics are incredibly simple. All of us can promote the basic circle format and spirit wherever we are, in our families, spiritual communities, schools, workplaces.

Even the simplest, most unsophisticated circles are experienced as revolutionary by people who’ve known little more than the hectic, banal, adversarial or repressed communication modes typical of our mainstream culture.

You don’t have to do anything fancy to use the circle process — just get together with some friends or associates and take turns speaking from the heart as best as you can; use a stapler as a talking-stick if that’s what’s handy. The important thing is to just do it. You will be amazed at how powerful it is. Even before you learn how to do them “well,” in nine out of ten circles the rewards will pay back your efforts a thousand-fold.”

I encourage Nuclear Groups as well as their nuclear families to use the Wisdom Circle Format for reaching unanimity efficiently, relative to their concerted decision making.
“To encourage and facilitate the use of circles, Wisdom Circles has formulated a set of guidelines that we call the Ten Constants. These constants have been inspired by councils of indigenous peoples, informed by support and dialogue groups, and drawn from our own experience. The Ten Constants create a safe container that allows participants to tap their innate capacity to relate to each other in a context of wisdom and compassion.” (3)
http://www.acocreativepath.com/wisdom-circles-constants/

(See: APPENDIX C – COMMUNITY DIALOGICAL CONSENSUS BASED DECISION MAKING PROCESSES, INSPIRED BY MARK CURTIS KINNEY II)
[pp. 96-99:] Appendix C

Dialogical Consensus Based Community Decision Making Processes

Inspired by Mark Curtis Kinney II
Consensus based community decision making obliges each community to duplicate itself whenever its population becomes too large for consensus-based self-management. The type of decision making that maintains mutualism is unanimity. Structured unanimity means that all proposals from the community for community action must be community approved for community support.

Each proposal is signed by twelve community members at large to assure that it was dialogued and ascertained viable, and in keeping with community values, before it is submitted to the Community Coordinating Committee, CCC. Community proposals received by the CCC are listed on rating ballots for weighing each proposal. Proposal consensus weights are decided in dialogue by each sovereign, Nuclear Group, and the consensus weights are rounded out to 90%, 80%, and 70%. An approval weight is assigned each proposal. (1)

To do this, each Nuclear Group, of no more than twelve (or thirteen) decision makers, dialogues each recommendation for community action and can vote, perhaps by a show of hands, to assign the approval weight, consensus weight, which they allot to each proposal. Or a community can create more stringent, consensus-based decision-making procedures for Nuclear Groups to assign consensus weights. 

The CCC tallies the consensus weights provided by the Nuclear Groups, and assigns each proposal its, respective, community approved consensus weight. For example, if the issue for investing in the purchase of a community mobile, water well drilling rig received more 70% weights than any other weights, that proposal would be allotted a 70% consensus weight. 

Then, the voting ballots are drawn up by the CCC and each proposal is printed with its community designated consensus weight printed beside it. Each Nuclear Group receives a single ballot. Each proposal issue is openly dialoged and voted on by each Nuclear Group.

Each proposal that carries a 90% approval weight, consensus weight, must be approved by at least 90% of the members of a respective Nuclear Group to be approved by that Nuclear Group. Of twelve voters, eleven must approve. Among ten voters, nine must approve, and so on.

Each proposal with an 80% consensus weight must be approved by at least 80% of the members of the Nuclear Group. Of twelve voters, ten must approve. Among ten voters, eight must approve.

Each proposal with a 70% consensus weight must receive the approval of at least 70% of the members of the respective Nuclear Group. Of twelve voters, eight must approve. Among ten voters, seven must approve.

When the ballots are returned to the CCC for counting and recording, the proposals are decided in the following manner:
For example, three hundred member families of various sizes may comprise 50 Nuclear Groups.
Each proposal voted on with a 90% approval weight would require the approval of at least 45 Nuclear Groups.
Each proposal with an 80% approval weight would require the approval of at least 40 Nuclear Groups.
Each proposal with 70% approval weight would require the approval of at least 35 Nuclear Groups.

  Approval weights reflect the degree of importance a proposal has for the community. For example, if the proposal to invest 150,000 FRN for the purchase of a mobile, water well drilling rig is important to the community that proposal may receive an approval weight of 70% to assure all members that the proposal will be approved. Or its level of importance may take the form of a 90% approval weight to assure members that nearly all members are committed to actualizing the proposal. The people base their decisions on what they prioritize and what they think that they can afford.

Important matters can be dialogued by community members on occasions when all Nuclear Groups come together with their respective speakers to explain the verity and pragmatics of their respective, prospective plans during “Community Hearings,” prior to each Nuclear Group going to one of their respective homes to dialogue among themselves before weighing their ballot or before casting their vote. Each community forms their organizational structures so that everyone can be involved in participatory, community policy making.

Consensus weights are decided among all Nuclear Groups, and stem from their independent judgments. Thus, the community itself determines the relative importance of each proposal that the community brings to the table. If a proposal is generally supported, it may receive an 80% consensus weight. 

If a proposal with an 80% consensus weight is not approved by 80% or more of the Nuclear Groups, it is not acted on by the CCC. The same holds for all proposals on the voting ballot.

Community self-management is directed through the decision-making structures described here, not to the exclusion of slight variants of that structure made by the people. Community survival is contingent on the permanent service of consensus-based decision-making processes. 

All of the suggestions I make are “objects of dialogue.” Every community decides how best to manage their internal, unanimous, community decision making processes. Nonetheless, the guiding principle is that structured unanimity must be maintained. However, unanimity only functions when a community population is small enough that general consensus can be arrived at through dialogical decision-making processes. Due to technology and knowledge providing sovereignty for smaller communities, communities may deploy other modes for actualizing organized consensus not suggested here. 

The consensus-based decision-making process as the sole means of community decision making is fundamental and necessary for the actualization of decentralized economic social organization. Without that component, genuine participatory community self-management cannot exist. Nor would there be any means to self-regulate each community’s population. With consensus-based decision making a community’s population stays within the boundaries of personal accountability among member families, which is a fundamental component or attribute of genuine, human scale community. 

Individualized conventional democracy as it is used by representational government, and its political parties, maintains a stratified society. It is corruptible, divisive, and it lends itself to the subjugation of mass populations. By contrast, the mutualistic economy described here demands the inter-personal accountability provided by structured, dialogical, consensus-based community decision making processes. 

Human scale, community organization provides the benefit of the direct, mutual support needed by everyone to grow in individuated self-development. Human scale community is prerequisite for sane, existential living. Humanness is exercised through dialogue in the context of community. The vital sectors of each community’s economy that provide security and wellbeing are shared equally among community members. 

Community self-management, with inter-personal accountability, as described here, is accomplished only in the context of a limited population. Consensus-based, community decision making processes enforce a limited population to maintain the permanence of community.

Entry level community people enjoy the permanence of their first community, while their young folks create their own community.
You can see and download the PDF of my book… DTN member, Barbara Williams was kind enough to make this link:

https://poemsforparliament.uk/book-kinney/

Reconstruction of the Indigenous for Contemporary Times…