Abundance Manifesto – What’s Mine?

“And so in war; if the campaign is in summer the general must show himself greedy for his share of the sun and the heat, and in winter for the cold and the frost, and in all labours for toil and fatigue. This will help to make him beloved of his followers." – Xenophon’s Cyropaedia

“And then the banquet came to an end: the guests rose, and Cyrus stood up with them and conducted them to the door.

And to those who went home he gave many gifts and sent them away well content, both officers and men.  After this he distributed among his own soldiers all the wealth he had taken at Sardis, choice gifts for the captains of ten thousand and for his own staff in proportion to their deserts, and the rest in equal shares, delivering to every captain one share with orders to divide it among their subordinates as he had divided the whole among them.  Thereupon each officer gave to the officers directly under him, judging the worth of each, until it came to the captains of six, who considered the cases of the privates in their own squads, and gave each man what he deserved: and thus every soldier in the army received an equitable share. But after the distribution of it all there were some who said:

"How rich Cyrus must be, to have given us all so much!"

"Rich?" cried others, "what do you mean? Cyrus is no money-maker: he is more glad to give than to get."

When Cyrus heard of this talk and the opinions held about him, he gathered together his friends and the chief men of the state and spoke as follows:

"Gentlemen and friends of mine, I have known men who were anxious to have it thought they possessed more than they really had, thinking this would give them an air of freedom and nobility. But in my opinion the result was the very opposite of what they wished. If it is thought that a man has great riches and does not help his friends in proportion to his wealth, he cannot but appear ignoble.  There are others," he went on, "who would have their wealth forgotten, and these I look upon as traitors to their friends: for it must often happen that a comrade is in need and yet hesitates to tell them because he does not know how much they have, and so he is kept in the dark and left to starve.  The straightforward course, it seems to me, is always to make no secret of our own resources, but to use them all, whatever they are, in our efforts to win the crown of honour.”

With these words he proceeded to point out his visible treasures, and he gave an exact account of those that could not be shown. He ended by saying:

"All these things, gentlemen, you must consider yours as much as mine. I have collected them, not that I might spend them on myself or waste them in my own use: I could not do that if I tried. I keep them to reward him who does a noble deed, and to help any of you who may be in want of anything, so that you may come to me and take what you require."  - Xenophon’s Cyropaedia

From everyone who has been given much, much will be required: and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.  – Luke 12:48, The Bible

The gospel accounts in Matthew 25:13-30 and Luke 19:11-17 have been a near constant obsession since I was 11 years old.  The story is simple – or at least it should be.  A master is heading out on a trip.  He calls together three servants and to one he gives five measures, to another he gives two, and to another, one.  And then he leaves.  After an indeterminate time, he returns and asks them to give account for what they’ve done.  The one that was entrusted with 5 invested and returned 10.  The master was pleased and entrusted him with charge over ½ of his estate.  The one who had 2 also doubled his wealth and was given charge of ¼ of the estate.  And the one that had one said that he had buried it for safe keeping and was returning it intact.  The master was furious and ordered the one measure to be given to the one that had returned 10, and punished and banished the last servant.  (Bummer for the communists among us – Jesus justified the rich getting richer!  Occupy that 99%ers!).  And these two stories fuel the fabled admonition that if you’ve been “given much, much will be required.” 

But the cunning linguistic avoidance of all the wisdom in this story and the failure to put it in the context of the passage where the admonition actually comes from robs us of much wisdom.  No one in the story was “given” anything – they we’re entrusted as stewards.  And their accountability was not to aspire to being defined by their assets but rather to return even greater value to the master.  At no point did the assets change ownership.  They remained, at all times, in the discretion of the master.  And nothing about being a steward transformed the servants into “masters”.  Cyrus the Great did not see spoils of war as “his” but merely that which he “collected”.  Throughout the accounts of his life, he constantly embodied stewardship.

stew·ard·ship (n):  the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care

I’ve experienced some poignant reminders lately about why Cyrus and the gospel parables have been both haunting and motivating throughout my life.  Several years ago, an armed soldier thrust the barrel of an automatic rifle at me and yelled, “I can take your life.”  Without missing a beat I responded, “You can’t take something from me which is not mine to give.”  When you have a gun barrel at your chest, it’s a bad idea to confuse the gun wielding angry man.  But it was somewhat amusing to observe that the power of the gun seemed to be entirely overtaken with the cognitive dissonance my response unleashed in the poor guy’s head.  He lowered the barrel and simply gazed at me with a far-off puzzling look as I walked away.  This experience, for me, was confirmation of the reflex of stewardship.  The recognition that life, ideas, experiences, people, and resources are not mine.  I am merely the collector and steward of those things that have been placed within my sphere of influence. 

So I’m puzzled when I hear people refer to ideas that I’ve shared as something they “control”.  I find myself deeply hurt when I hear someone refer to groups of people as “my contacts” or “my group”.  When work that’s been developed in collaboration suddenly is appropriated as “mine” or subject to “my” control, I wonder what purpose is purportedly served.  When I developed the technologies that have ranged from laser surgical devices to linguistic genomics unstructured data analytics to hieroglyphic enciphering to anechoic materials to optomagnetic synthetics to accretive arbitrage finance, I know that none of these were “mine”.  They represented the accumulation of all my observations and experiences in a context in which their manifestation was possible. That they achieve scales of impact beyond the ordinary and are of inestimable value doesn’t make “me” rich or powerful.  Because these concepts (wealth, power, status) born of aspirational dominion are of no consequence in reality.  They feed illusions that beget separation and isolation.

I’m working with two different groups on highly disparate projects.  In one instance, I’m seeking to build enterprises around the many assets that have been manifest in my corporate activity.  I have carefully conscripted individuals with precise competencies to the table to work with us on harvesting the value that we’ve validated.  And much to my sadness, this impulse has engendered a response of appropriation.  “I’ll take this from you,” is the response to an offer of collaboration.  This response has been a near constant companion to each moment I’ve extended the enterprise table to others.  In another deeply personal instance, I’ve watched as a massive catalyst for deep social transformation has become the basis for claims of proprietary control all the while knowing that the substance of the catalyst – an impulse coherent with humanity’s best expression – transcends containment and dominion.  When did we lose the recognition that we’re in this thing called life together and we’re entrusted with the tools, insights, connections, and networks through which we’re provisioned and by which we can provision others?  When did we stop observing Light and recognizing that energetic transmission – not hording or absorbing – is the ideal condition? 

I stood on the green marble rostrum at the United Nations General Assembly hall yesterday in New York City.  I was invited to speak about the work I’ve done to find peaceful resolution to conflict in places ranging from Central America to Central Asia to Bougainville, Papua New Guinea.  I have no idea whether I will ever stand in that spot again.  So this was “my” moment, right? No, I spoke about the wonderful experiences I had with combatants and refugees during the Nicaraguan conflict in the 1980s, the amazing fellowship I had with Lawrence Daveona, Chris Uma and the combatants at the Morgan Junction access road to Panguna Mine, and the myriad of people around the world with whom this life has intersected – people who will likely never stand in the great hall of the United Nations.  This was not MY moment.  It was a moment for all those who have shared their journey with me and entrusted the story of our lives to me!

We’ve all been entrusted with various amounts of life, experience, story, legacy, resources, networks, friends, capabilities, etc.  These are not “ours” and they defy the idolatry of turning them into appropriated artifacts.  They are merely those energies over which we have the opportunity to exercise stewardship.  And, if we’ve been entrusted with much, let’s let it flow in channels that maximize those impacts to others. 

Ecclesiastical Chocolate Bunnies

Fourteen days after the New Moon on the Ecclesiastical Lunar Calendar.  Hmmm, let’s see… Easter must be about Christianizing the Jewish Passover with the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, or the best time to eat too much chocolate!  Oh, and the Passover must be the Abrahamic overlay to the Isis and Osiris festival of fertility.  Egypt may have been inspired by the Mesopotamian Inana / Ishtar cults that found the vernal equinox the cause of sacred reverence for fertility.  And so on and so on.  On the foundation of one “indigenous” and “pagan” ritual, the dominant ones build their sacred!  How tired a story this is.  Fourteen days.  What else is 14 days?  Oh, that’s right.  In folk medicine and present endocrine research, the relationship with lunar light exposure seems to be associated with ovulation[1].  In a recent epidemiological study, conception at full moon disproportionately favored male births while waxing, waning and no moons favored female births.[2]  Could it be that the Exodus, the Inana / Ishtar Mesopotamian fertility rites, and the Constantinian obsession with the vernal equinox as a date for the rites of Christianity’s Easter all have as much or more to do with fertility than they do with religious icons?   

Now there’s a strong temptation on my part to go down the tangent of railing against the illusion that anyone has a monopoly on “truth” or “right” given the preponderance of evidence stating that we are hopelessly predictable in our lack of creativity.  Everybody’s got their Creation, Flood, Burial and Resurrection, and Final Judgement stories and myths and the numbers of days 6, 40, 3, and eternity are the same in every human contrivance to explain why: a) you’re bad for being human; and, b) someone or something is going to get you so be very scared (a.k.a. behave in a manner that reinforces the dominant power structure du jour).  I could comment on the irony that the best we seem to get is our pathetic re-narration of tired myths in which, the mere changing of the names we place on the pantheon makes our story “right” and all other stories “wrong”.  I could observe that it’s precisely this abject ignorance that lands us in a world where our elections are rigged for theatrics while masses suffer unnecessarily.  But this would be a rant and not an appropriate blog post so I’m going to leave all of those topics for another day!  Whew!  Dodged a metaphoric bullet from a concealed carry at the Republican nominating convention!

What I do find instructive about the Fertility Rites of Spring and their attendant invocation of “new life” and “fertility” is a much more profound insight that has been missing from the economy for as long as the illusion of debt has dominated our economic framework.  The agrarian impulses of the Tigris and Euphrates, the Yellow and the Yangtze, the Susquehanna and the Mississippi, the Amazon and the Nile realized that life on this planet happened in seasons.  Floods moved silted ground into lands that could be easily tilled for planting.  The warm summers gave rise to the bountiful harvests that would feed the children born of Spring mating rites.  A world filled with Scorpios and Sagittarians was a world of independent nomads and wanders who could live on the frontiers and optimistic social beings, respectively.  These were the infants that lived because they had ample food most of the time. 

With the advent of industrial and mercantile impulses that built towns, cities and states, the rhythm of the spheres was drowned out by the clang of steel, the pump of the bellows, the belching of smoke and steam, the whir of engines, and the hypnotic pulse of 60Hz current.  And we fell out of rhythm.  Mate when you want.  Eat summer fruit in the middle of winter (so long as you can enslave the Southern hemisphere dwellers into indenture to the capricious whims of the Northern dwellers and vice versa).  Discontinue the respect and reverence for the rhythm of natural terrestrial and cosmic cycles because clearly they don’t include wisdom that can be relevant in our automated, grandiose view of Self. 

We celebrate Easter when we do because a 4^th century Pope decided that we must poke a stick in the eyes of the “sinful” Jews.  The Jews celebrate Passover because rabbis decided to poke a stick in the eyes of the Egyptians.  Egyptians celebrate Isis and Osiris union because they decided to poke a stick in the Mesopotamians.  And because we’re so busy poking each other in the metaphoric eye, we blind ourselves to the wisdom that once realized that celebrating our interactive role in the universe allowed us to duration match our social and economic interactions.  Our current view of debt, risk, economic cycles, etc. are all a direct result of our failure to match our actions with the natural pace of the actions in our ecosystem.  We build where we want and then lament the wind and storm.  We tower above the fault lines and puzzle about the collapse of buildings.  We belch smoke and noxious materials into the air and wonder why we can’t breathe and why our oceans are dying.  In short, we pretend to be victims of that which we don’t include in our illusion of control while all the while decreasing our resilience by contrived social conventions.

If we wish to form a More Perfect Union, we would be well advised to begin listening to the music of the spheres – the Orphean sweeter song – and start dancing back into rhythms long forgotten.  Go outside tonight and listen.  It’s still singing and asking, “will you remember my night song when the Son rises?”

---

[1] Law, SP.  “The regulation of menstrual cycle and its relationship to the moon.”  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand.  1986; 65(1):45-8.

[2] Sakar, M and Biswas NM. “Influence of moonlight on the birth of male and female babies.”  Nepal Med Coll J, 2005 June; 7(1):62-4.

The BIGGER Short

O.K.  I admit it.  I was putting off watching The Big Short for a bunch of reasons.  The first was simple.  I was talking about the House of Cards financial risk before the “discovery” of the mortgage crisis portrayed in the film.  In fact, when I met with the Richmond Federal Reserve in 1999, I pointed out that I had better visibility on intangible asset liens in commercial lending than banks had on pooled mortgages.  The President of the Richmond Fed at the time agreed with me!  While the protagonists in The Big Short were running around in 2005 and 2006 placing their bets against the market collapse, I was trying to wake people up to what was coming.  To the fact that President George W. Bush’s “patriotic” plea for Americans to over-consume and use their home equity as an ATM in the wake of September 11, 2001 was a horrible idea that blended short-term consumer debt dynamics with long-term real estate debt guaranteeing structural collapse.  To the fact that rating agencies admitted to not having any mechanism to measure the veracity of over 80% of the credit assets of the economy.  To the fact that the U.S. economy was built on plagiarized and illegitimate intellectual property.  To the fact that rating agencies were churning out ratings to sell products to investors and derelict in their fiduciary duty to measure risk.  And, when the dust settled, the public lost well over $5 trillion. 

The second reason was a bit more complicated.  There’s an even bigger certainty on the horizon and we’re either hypnotized or near-euthanized so much that we’re pretending not to see it.  Setting aside the nearly $19 trillion in national debt in the U.S. alone, there’s about $11 trillion in illiquid government associated financial products that are coming due over the next few years – social security, school loans, packaged mortgages, and depository insurance – products that are owned by retirees, ordinary citizens, and institutions and that will be subject to actual or manipulated default.  According to the Social Security Administration’s own numbers, the safety net for aging and disabled Americans vanishes around 2035 and that is assuming that benefits shrink by over 12% in 2017 and premiums rise by the same amount or more!  Where the GFC of 2007-2008 was a shock felt round the world, the current U.S. economic chasm is close to six times greater than the GFC.  This is NOT my estimate.  These are publicly available statistics.  And we’re pretending that the only news worth discussing is the theater between a xenophobic cartoon and a moral chameleon. 

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.  If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson, 1802

See, my problem with The Big Short has nothing to do with the superb writing, acting, directing and production.  It is elegant and brilliant.  My problem is that we’ve become so accustomed to the stories of being lied to and robbed that we have seen it as entertainment rather than tyranny.  And while I’ve just come from Papua New Guinea where I’m repeatedly warned of government corruption, I look at an American economy that willfully lies to the public, willfully and negligently defrauds its citizens and it is this America that deigns to judge the corruption lubricated by U.S. and Australian dollars and Chinese yuan!  We pretend that trillions of dollars of losses and bailouts are just the price of doing business but we neglect the fact that each of those losses comes at the price of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness among the rank and file.  Slow bleedings, to be sure, but the body is already anemic and a financial plague is just around the corner. 

Together with the remarkable producer and director of the internationally acclaimed Future Dreaming, I have commenced work on a new film that seeks to preempt the “who could have seen it coming?” refrains that reverberated around the empty shell of what used to be Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers at the end of the past decade.  In the film I discuss the architecture of an economic system that is built on explicit ignorance to the all-in-consequence of our industrial and consumer behaviors and the fact that such systems have only been able to be propped up by intermittent, horribly violent military contrivances resulting in the deaths of millions.  Who could have seen this coming?  Well, once again, Thomas Jefferson stated that “…it is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.” 

Watching The Big Short reminded me that we’ve got an even more vexing challenge.  In the film, there is an effort to acknowledge that the celebrations surrounding winning the bet against the American economy were occasionally tempered with the sober knowledge that economic hardship would put people out of work, would expand homelessness and poverty, would lead some to suicide, and would have generational effects that will be slow in their evolution.  The fiduciary “obligation” that the fund managers had to maximize investor returns led the anonymous wealthy to curse the prognostication of fraud before the collapse and then dismissively cash in on their spoils with no regard for the lives that they’d cost after the fact.  At no point does it dawn on someone that a >400% profit may mean that the public was as robbed by the opportunist short investor as they were by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Ponzi scheme.  And this leads me to my own paradox.

I know that the U.S. market is well past the point of no return with respect to indebtedness and illiquid pension liabilities.  I know that hundreds of public companies – many of whom have been off-shoring assets for years – have massive liabilities for securities and financial misrepresentations.  My guess is that off-shoring has as much to do with known fraud as it does “tax efficiency”.  I know that several countries have adopted U.S. market models only to run the risk of greater instability.  Australia, for example, is drinking the Kool-Aid around venture capital and making illiquid markets part of its pension scheme without realizing that the U.S. VC model required highly nuanced tax loss harvesting, robust middle market private equity, and price collusion – none of which are suitably in place for the average Australian investor.  The ECB is pretending that the quantitative easing (read Ponzi scheme) that has failed in the U.S. will somehow have a better outcome in fractious Europe.  The oil rich Middle East is now realizing that its gilded age may be losing some of its glint with oil depressed and unlikely to rise soon.  And Pandora’s box has had some lid slippage with the Petrobras corruption allegations in Brazil.  In other words, the current system has run its course and the Bretton Woods experiment has concluded. 

And I’m not alone.  In his March 9, 2016 note entitled “Japanese Policy Failure Means Disaster for Us All”, John Mauldin details what he and others see in the near future with the “major economic disruption in Japan.”  Citing work by Mohamed El-Erian, he details the reflexive and unchartered courses being implemented by central banks which have been using classical economic theory in a market that has not fully understood the implications of demographic shifts, productivity challenges, quantitative international trading techniques and countless other anomalies.  El-Erian concludes that the, “implications go well beyond economics and finance, extending also to national politics, regional and global negotiations, and geopolitics.”  He continues, “Unless we understand the nature of the disruptive forces, including tipping points and T-junctions, we will likely fall short in our reaction functions.  And the more that happens, the greater the likelihood we could lose control of an orderly economic, financial, and political destiny – both for our generation and future ones.”  As was the case in the turns of the 19^th and 20^th century, these transitions are not without their opportunistic winners.  The few wealthy individuals who, in moments of crisis, can offer bailouts to governments (often to pay for wartime indebtedness) are the ones who set the tone for centuries of predatory enslavement of the general population.  Only this time, the denomination of “wealth” might be a bit tricky as the mere accumulation of debt-based currencies may in fact render the “wealth” quite ephemeral and fleeting.  While synthetic derivatives and swaps, agency debt, “risk-free” bonds, and the like may be proliferating once again like fungal spores in a rainforest, the arbiter of the impending dislocation will likely be those who have elected to secure control of resources and means of production.  A world awash in financial instruments and hedges will likely become a barren landscape when those who have been chasing amoral yield for its own sake are exposed.

So, do I take the path – like the traders in The Big Short – and bet against the fact that you’ll never read this post or understand it if you do?  Or do I work to tell a better story – one that is built on Integral Accountability where returns may not come in currencies (fiat, debt, or crypto)?  The answer is that I’m choosing humanity.  I’m investing my time, my creativity, and my efforts on getting into the trenches with those who want to be part of a human experiment that learns from the past and explicitly forgoes the predation on ignorance that was celebrated in the film.  I may wind up with a lot less money.  I may wind up with less gadgets and gizmos.  And in the end, I may underestimate the long arm of fraud and corruption that will continue to fool a public through cunning illusions.  Over the next several months, together with a great team of luminaries, we’re launching Future Dreaming: The Awakening which will be a series of gatherings around the world in which we’ll build new models of enterprise.  I’m honored to stand with amazing colleagues who have committed to go LONG humanity!  Let’s tell that story!

Eye-to-Eye

On Saturday morning, I had the distinct honor of watching the sunrise over the cannon battery at the Middle Head Gunners point in Mosman overlooking the Sydney Harbor.  Nearly a year since our collaboration that resulted in the critically acclaimed Future Dreaming, Dan Freene, Kaya Finlayson and I traded the chilly rocks of Antarctica for the balmy breezes of a Sydney morning to commence our next film.  What a reunion!

A few hours later, we were joined by a luminous group of individuals who are working to expand understanding around how persons living with a variety of mobility and physical challenges can bring their exceptional talents and perspectives into productive engagement with enterprises and social interactions.  Sitting in the shade of a massive tree inhabited by a juvenile kookaburra who wanted to join in our conversation, we began filming the stories of four and then five amazing Australians who had maneuvered across the battery in power chairs and with the aid of a cane.  We discussed a variety of themes ranging from the importance of eye-to-eye communication, to care-giving and travel, to perceptions of condescension from those who are not similarly impacted by mobility challenges.  Why is it that something like a power wheel chair stands in the way of a smile, a simple “hello”, or an invitation to join in a social function?  How is it that a simple technology that is designed to facilitate integration and access can actually heighten a sense of separation and isolation?

With the cameras rolling, the boom mike bouncing from one and then the other, we shared a rich exchange about life, living with purpose, and gratitude.  And then came the moment that defined the day.  I asked each person to define what wealth means to them. 

“Spending the day with friends.”

“Being able to travel to be with family and friends.”

“Greeting someone on the street with a smile and having them smile back.”

As we dove deeper into the meaning of wealth, I found it quite interesting that none of the individuals mentioned a number.  None of them mentioned money.  None of them mentioned physical artifacts like houses, cars, boats, planes, or stuff.  Each of them saw wealth as what I’ve used to define the principle of Well-Being:  the capacity to engage in the ecosystem at liberty without diminishing the options for other to do the same.

According to those who wish to classify and categorize, these individuals were “persons with disability” or “disabled” and they are a “cost to society”.  But during our conversation, the technology that was the apparent barrier to humanity melted in everyone’s experience and was replaced by an overwhelming sense of connection and deep appreciation.  More profound, however, was the recognition that each of these individuals, when pressed on their life purpose, all had a common impulse to care for others.  Several wanted to be psychologists or counsellors.  One already worked for a crisis intervention hotline having himself experienced a near-death experience.  What became immediately evident was the fact that each one of these people was, in fact, the direct outcome of the sum of their experiences.  Knowing the pain of condescension and rejection, they had heightened empathy.  Having experienced care necessitated by physical limitations, their definition of value was inextricably linked to connection to others. 

Our gathering was not about finding a nostalgic “good story” to accommodate the “unfair” or “difficult” narratives to which we’ve become accustomed.  Our gathering was to listen to the wisdom that was seeking to burst forth from those whose voice is so frequently unheard.  And in our interaction, what became evident is that a better humanity is not some sort of elusive utopian ideal.  When we elect to enter our daily activities with gratitude; when we conscript the matter and energy that is around us and integrate our wisdom into its engagement; when we provision ourselves and maximally utilize the social and physical technologies that allow us to manifest our purpose; then the outcome is one that naturally evokes connection, compassion, and collaboration.

My life is richer thanks to Phillip, Shane, Kate, Shanais, Marc, and Monique.  And so are the lives of all of us if we meet them eye-to-eye and listen to the wisdom that comes from a life considerately lived.

Blood at the Graves

In morality befitting the modern Islamic State extremists who have famously destroyed countless antiquities, St. Augustine encouraged Christians to destroy all symbols of ‘paganism’ with the exhortation “that all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims.”  Pope Gregory I was credited with the recommendation to “tear down temples and shrines from their foundations.”  And last week, a property developer in Albemarle County, less than one mile from my home, likely violated 25 U.S. Code 3001-3013 by bull-dozing and crushing giant quartz mounds which were reportedly the final resting place for First Peoples in what is now called Virginia.  In a few short months, half million dollar homes will sit atop the desecrated remains of those who were inhabitants of very different woodlands in very different times. 

I took scores of people to the mounds over the past 10 years.  Heads of State, scholars, seekers, friends, lovers all took solace in the sanctuary of the giant oak, maple and sycamore trees that were the cathedral befitting those great souls who danced in the light breezes.  Late in the night, the starlight piercing the frigid winter would glisten off the quartz as if to provide a homing beacon for the souls who were physically present and whose energy lingered.  Peace pipes, prayers, chants and cries all marked this precious spot on earth.  The timeless nature of all souls seemed, in a moment, to pause, intermingle and then move on as if to say that WE are all ONE – just inhabiting individual experiences of sense and place which are not ours but ours to share. 

The mounds are now gone.  As I left the spot, I was perplexed by how mindless and thoughtless one can be when operating a giant Caterpillar earth mover.  Did the hollow sound of crushing crystal boulders reverberate in any part of consciousness or was the stereo in the cab on loud enough to deaden the consciousness that has been seared by a few pieces of silver?  Which led me to the deeper question: can one desecrate or defile in the physical realm if one is devoid of a sense of the sacred?  Can one reverence or ignore what exists beyond the edge of the capacity to comprehend? 

As my thorn-torn hands offered blood to the ground that had been ripped open, I reflected on how many places, social institutions, consensus beliefs and other human actions are defiled and desecrated in the minds of one or many only to be seen as land befitting development by another.  I know that in my life, I’ve held many things sacred and have stood aghast at the way in which what I valued most evoked indifference or neglect in others.  What I thought were some of my most precious attributes were deemed to be utilitarian expectations by others.  “Of course Dave does…,” this or that was the justification for many moments of deferred or neglected gratitude for true effort.  And I am not alone.  I know many healers, carers, stewards, and the like who have become so much an accepted utility as to make them devoid of human interactions in the common realm.  Because they don’t articulate their “need”, the logic goes, they must not “need” gratitude, love, care, compassion, companionship, etc.  The more one evidences the capacity to “give” or offer service, the less others anticipate the genuine longings of the offeror. 

One of the buried chiefs reportedly visited a dear friend of mine.  He was buried under one of the mounds that had blood red quartz on it and was covered in beautiful moss.  He asked the friend to tell me to make sure that I protect the water here because one day that would be important.  I remember that night and that dream.  The night was filled with lightning and the ponds swelled to overflowing in the morning.  On other occasions, other friends told me of visits from the spirits that were represented in the graves.  All of them told me of instructions for me to protect the environment and care for others.  I don’t need an explanation for this phenomenon other than to say, on this day when their quartz markers have been desecrated and crushed, I will remember.  And I will still walk in the woods listening for the quiet prayers that seek for kindness, stewardship, and love.  You are not forgotten.  While your physical markers have been erased, your spirit lives in the memories of people from many lands and many nations who once stood in your land and drank from its goodness!

x

Losing Your Head Over Love

One thousand seven hundred and forty-seven years ago today, a man was beaten with clubs and then beheaded under the order of Marcus Aurelius Valerius Claudius Augustus.  Known by his buddies as Claude and known by his deific title (yes, he was a god according to the Roman Senate) as Divus Claudius Gothicus, Claudius II was an epic military leader bent on restoring greatness to the Roman empire as it was coming apart at the seams.  And, in the proud tradition of the apocryphal “divine” lineage, Claudius II is allegedly an ancestor to Constantine, the emperor who, a short 34 years after the martyrdom of St. Valentine issued the Edict of Milan in which the Roman Empire officially professed Christianity.  When you’re sniffing your roses and eating your chocolates, ponder the paradox that you’re celebrating a clubbing and beheading of a proselytizing man who had the audacity to challenge the deification of military emperors.

The National Retail Federation estimates that, in the U.S., consumers will spend $19.7 billion this year on Valentine’s Day blasting through the previous all-time record of $18.6 billion spent in 2013.  And, following the Pavlovian impulse of mercantile behavior, our collective caring impulse will enrich candy makers, greeting card publishers, restaurants and venues, florists, and jewelers.  These, in order of gross consumer percentages, will be the winners of what society has deemed to be “love” in modern times.  When one contemplates our iconography of “love” one can readily see a social commentary on the state of humanity that could benefit from a little socioeconomic historical review.

While most of the historical record of the Bishop of Terni, Narnia and Amelia was destroyed in the flames of book-burning impulses throughout the tumultuous demise of the Roman Empire, tradition states that St. Valentine was under house arrest ordered by Judge Asterius.  During his impassioned conversations with the judge, the humble bishop reportedly laid his hands on the eyes of the judge’s blind daughter and miraculously restored her sight as proof of the power of Jesus.  This miracle reportedly led to the conversion of the 44 members of the judge’s household to Christianity and the emancipation of Christian prisoners in the region.  Emboldened by the conversion and – more importantly – the judge’s decision to smash all of his idols deemed a pagan affront to Christianity, the Bishop went on to Rome where he conducted Christian marriages in violation of Roman law.  His actions were deemed treasonous by Claudius II and, after a failed attempt to convert the emperor, he was sentenced to death and executed.  Claudius II wanted people to have faith in him and, failing that, he wanted to kill his opponents.  St. Valentine wanted people to have faith in his belief.  A few decades after his death, his prevailing view justified the killing of those who didn’t believe.  In short, St. Valentine, Claudius II, and Constantine were co-conspirators in one of the most ruthless genocides of all time – all pivoting around the perversion of a very simple principle: love!

Anyone astutely watching politics in the U.S. right now can see the theater at the end of an empire.  We’re bombarded with the subterfuge and lies of a former First Lady and Secretary of State who, together with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, know that they’re all co-conspirators on actions in North Africa and other parts of the world which were corrupt and antithetical to principles of transparent democracy; the brash xenophobia of a bloated icon of the worst of horded capital; the pandering proselytizing populists; and all other manner of superficiality and rather than allow this theater to indict our sense of callous neglect for the Unity of all peoples across the world, we turn to chocolates, greeting cards and faux tokens of “love” while we do nothing to evidence that love. 

Ironic, isn’t it, that the two biggest commercial successes of the Valentine’s Day economics are two industries that are rife with inhumanity.  The extractive industries that provide the glitter of jewelry have, over the centuries, involved warfare, genocide, torture, organized crime, yet we continue to return each year to them as icons of love.  The cocoa industry – 70% of which is supplied from Cote D’Ivoire and Ghana – is so filled with labor abuses that a 2004 effort to expose the human rights violations in Cote D’Ivoire resulted in the state-implicated kidnapping, torture and murder of a journalist seeking to report on the conditions of workers in the cocoa farms of Western Africa.  To insure that buyers can cheaply show their love for their sweethearts, the average cocoa farmer earns less than $2 per day.  Sixty percent of Americans will spend 80 times that amount in this one day to show “love”.

This post is not an anti-love screed.  This is not a plea to shun celebrations.  It is, in the tradition of Future Dreaming, a call for us to consider the all-in-consequence of our chosen actions.  In fact, I would like us to consider what WOULD be a celebration befitting the namesake of this holiday.  While the Catholic Church demoted St. Valentine in 1969 and while I’m not, nor have I ever been, a fan of making martyrs out of those who try to argue for “belief” rather than simply living evidence of a better way of living, I would like to consider what a day of celebrating love would actually look like. 

So what I’m doing to celebrate St. Valentine’s Day is simple.  I’m corresponding with those I love and letting them know how much they mean to me.  I’m redoubling my commitment to my work with people like Lawrence Daveona and Theresa Arek who represent some of my closest connections to the extractive and the cocoa production industries and, rather than buying gifts of fleeting value, I’m allocating my time and treasure to see them succeed in their efforts to bring humanity to industries that have historically abused humans to the point of death.  And I am, for the first time in 30 years, choosing to celebrate Valentine’s Day with a light heart because I have now seen that love can actually emanate not from a cognitive agreement in my head but can be an effusive expression of my interconnectedness with ALL.  Here’s to all you lovers out there!  Celebrate unbounded, relentless, integrated love!

x

Let Them Die and Decrease the Surplus Population

"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

This chilling recommendation by Ebenezer Scrooge in Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol is spoken of the “poor” in his encounter with the gentlemen from the charitable society.  While it sounds like the ravings of a pure sociopath in the 21^st century, we miss the depth of commentary that would have attended audiences of the cognoscenti of the late 18^th and early 19^th century.  Then, the proper noun “surplus population” would have been known to mean those unemployed and under-employed who serve no purpose to the rent-based labor model of capitalism.  They were, in the minds of 18^th century economists, better off dead than being a drain on mercantile profits.  This is because they added nothing in terms of marginal rents to be exploited for labor advantage and they did were non-responsive to price manipulations.  They were not just the “unaccounted for” – they were useless.  Ironically, the urban and rural poor of the 18^th century were less valuable than slaves as they couldn’t even be commodified into chattel trade!

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. issued a recent note calling into question the efficacy of capitalism.  “We are always wary of guiding for mean reversion.  But, if we are wrong and high margins manage to endure for the next few years (particularly when global demand growth is below trend), there are broader questions to be asked about the efficacy of capitalism,” stated Goldman’s Sumana Manohar and her colleagues.  For the new players not familiar with the statistical principle of “mean reversion”, it’s most easily understood to refer to phenomenon that take on cyclical oscillations where period of high prices, for example, ultimately re-equilibrate with competition or increased supply thereby approaching commodity marginal value.  But in their analysis, Goldman accidentally indicts the already failed modern capitalist model by citing, as reasons for high profit margins, “strong commodity prices” (read – exploitation of impoverished and disenfranchised labor and resource regions where willful neglect of quality of life and land lead to extractive bonanzas), “emerging market cost arbitrage” (read – exploitation of poorly compensated labor), and other variables.  In short, the 18^th century mandate that modern capitalism be predicated on imperialistic land and inhabitant exploitation is actually getting worse and incumbent businesses are the ones who, through bribery, corruption, incumbency paralysis, and patronage hold the only advantage to pressure “emerging market” countries’ leadership into allowing reckless endangerment of their land and citizens.  Goldman would be ideally suited to know about this given the extensive role they play in financing what Joseph Schumpeter predicted as the end of capitalism.  Schumpeter recognized that, drunk on power, influence derived from the control of capital and surplus profits, companies would take on corporatism where their own existence would be more important than the markets they once served.  “Entrepreneurship” and “innovation” in his forecast, would merely serve to create acquisition efficiencies for corporations and would not challenge incumbent products or services. 

Over the past several years, I’ve noticed an alarming trend in what is heralded as “innovation” – once the fulcrum required to tip the profit margin lever in the capitalist model.  In “Silicon” this and “Entrepreneurship” that, there’s been an increasing push towards incremental improvements to incumbent platforms.  We don’t come up with a new way to communicate, we come up with an app that renders an incumbent device more incumbent.  We don’t come up with a new enterprise model, we crowd-fund and crowd-source our way to market tests to offer shrewd companies insights into where the market is susceptible to “new”.  In homage to Frank Robinson, angel investors and venture capitalists fawn all over “minimum viable product” efforts while incumbency-threatening transformation is suffocated.  For Adam Smith’s corrupt system to work, it required capitalists who would take gambles on transformation where price or supply dislocation was possible. During the last 15 years, this impulse has been extinguished and corporatism has fully replaced capitalism in every quarter.

And embedded in the virus that was unleashed when mercantilism ceded its hold to capitalism was the toxin of necessary neglect.  By assiduously avoiding contact with the land and people which were the “efficiencies” derived from colonial and militant oppression and extraction, the general public could comfortably clothe, feed and amuse themselves without ever seeing the cost of contaminated water, inhumane treatment of workers, decimation of culture and community, and extinction of resources, flora and fauna.  In other words, for the capitalist system to work, moral opacity was necessary.  Not surprisingly, the observational retrospective piece by Goldman presumes that corporate profits are essentially valuable.  But this two and a half century assumption has not been sufficiently examined. 

Under capitalist dogma, profit is the arbitrage between the “cost” of production and distribution and the “price” that a consumer is willing to pay.  It is the seduction premium that is foisted upon a public willing to acquiesce to manipulated supply, frail egoic identification, or perceived need.  As the consumer is seduced into their portion of the calculus, so too is the enterprise willing to bankrupt its own sense of accountability or responsibility by intermediating those attributes of business most odious.  Celebrate the environmentally friendly electric vehicle so long as you don’t pay any attention to the lithium miners’ plight.  Carbon obsess your way into wind turbines so long as you don’t see the rainforests of Papua New Guinea that are clear cut for the toxic balsa timber.  Celebrate – with Goldman – the collapse of commodity prices while paying no heed to the environmental and social cost of extractive industries becoming more callous in their pursuit of metals and energy in more remote and unverifiable locations.  The less you measure the extinction costs which are “free” in the capitalist model – that matter, energy and effort that can be used and abused to extinguishment without any model for replenishment or reuse – the more “profit” seems to manifest.  Profit is the inverse economic function to all-in-consequence value recognition.  This is NOT an anti-enterprise statement.  Genuine innovation, genuine quality, genuine purpose-filled products and experiences can justify a PREMIUM which, unlike “profit” is the value acknowledgement willingly bestowed on enterprises who manifest value in line with socially desired outcomes.  And premium can exist on both sides of the antiquated business model.  As a supplier, I may offer goods or services to partners at an advantaged price because I prefer my affiliation with them.  As the distributor of goods and services, my transparency and honorable actions may engender greater reward and recognition than my thoughtless, mercenary alternative. 

And lest one misunderstand this commentary to solely apply to business and industry, allow me to bridge the following important social observation.  Many deeply personal and intimate relationships suffer from the same negligent accountability capitalist curse.  Profit in friendship, relationship, and intimacy can be often a seductive trap where one party seeks to benefit at the expense of the unacknowledged well-being of another.  The resulting imbalance can, like imperialistic business, lead to subtle and overt exploitation, resentment and ultimate extinction of relationships.  Unseen and unaccounted contributions by one party can render gifts of generosity, kindness and service which in their offering are freely and joyfully given and manipulate them into entitlement and expectation.  What once was generative and offered in love becomes resented and provided in dutiful drudgery.

Unlike Goldman Sachs’ recent note, I would argue that the capitalist ideal likely never got a chance to breathe.  The experiment largely born in the industrial age in the U.S., the U.K. and Germany was immediately co-opted by militarism and state-sanctioned privatization of Federal Treasuries (not surprisingly necessitated in each instance by sovereign debt resulting from expeditionary military exercises).  Apologists for capitalism fail to evidence its capacity to function without tyrannical extraction from colonial theft of lands and peoples thought to be too remote to matter.  Since the early 1800s, they’ve assiduously avoided accounting for extinction and waste of materials, community, culture, and energy.  And they’ve entirely neglected the damning evidence that the vast majority of genuine, transformational innovation has been stifled or extinguished by incumbencies that control capital, means of production and distribution, and governmental patronage.  In other words, irrational profit margins are not the harbinger of capitalism’s failure – they’re merely the forensic evidence of rigor mortis in the unborn fetus of imperial hegemonic delusions. 

When we account for it “all”, we’ll be able to discuss the persistent, generative, infinitely orthogonal cyclical efficiency of systems which are devoid of extinction, oppression and callous neglect for each actor in the ecosystem.  We will celebrate with premiums those actors and enterprises that model the most salutatory of ethical values rather than reward with indifference those who maximize seduction while preserving moral opacity and negligence. 

x