One World, One People, One Government

Consciousness

2010-03-10T19:54:56-05:00

The post "Matter, Life, Intelligence and Consciousness" suggested that Life, Intelligence and Consciousness are properties of matter that manifest themselves only under certain arrangements of matter. In a subsequent post "A train of thought" I quickly got into argument with a couple of people on the World Wide Web, presumably Hindu, who argued that Consciousness preceded Matter, Life and Intelligence and that Consciousness was God.

The Old Testament, a book common to Christians and Jews, describes Moses meeting God and asking God for His name. God replied "I AM". While the word Consciousness has different meanings in the english dictionary "I AM" is a clear and succinct definition of Consciousness as it relates to God the Creator.

Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism superficially seem far apart, opposed to each other sometimes, yet at the core they are the same; different flavours of the same substance. If looked carefully enough I believe this and other common factors can extend beyond Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism to other religions.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and Democracy.

2010-03-07T09:13:52-05:00

Democracy is a political system "Of the People, by the People and for the People". But, does Democracy deliver "Liberty, Equality and Fraternity " to all its constituents?

Is it more important to have the right to cast a ballot to elect ones government or is it more important to have liberty, equality and fraternity? From the view of its citizens does democratic Zimbabwe have a better government than communist China? Just yesterday Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao announced his intention to reverse the increasing disparity between the rich and poor in China, something no democratic leader has pronounced.

What will it take to bring Liberty, Equality and Fraternity to all people of earth?

It will take people of different and sometimes opposing beliefs and values working in harmony with each other. It will require freedom of every person on earth to believe and practice their own religion and culture, protected from attack or subjugation by other beliefs and values, while at the same time working together on common global matters.

This collaboration between often opposing groups can only be achieved by separating and protecting partisan beliefs and values from each other at a micro level of government while promoting exchange of altruistic beliefs at a macro level. In fact the several layers of government should have diminishing partisanship and increasing altruism from bottom to top.

At the micro level: This may require changing the political topography of nations, creating provinces to accommodate partisanship. For example in Afghanistan and Pakistan it may require formation of a new province for the Taliban to freely practice their beliefs and culture within their land.

To avoid people from such provinces apposed to its partisan agenda being trapped, all people should be free to leave any province and resettle within any other part of the world within or outside their nation where they fit and can contribute to their own and global development.

At the macro level: At the macro level we do not have cohesive World Government. This creates a vacuum which the UN, ICC and other organizations unsuccessfully try to fill. In this vacuum rich powerful countries form associations such as the G7, G8, G20, G77 + China bartering with each other to the advantage of these countries and at the expense of poorer, less powerful nations. If we are to have Liberty, Equality and Fraternity for all mankind we will need a new upper layer of government. A World Government elected directly by all people of Earth. A world government with its own legislature, executive and judiciary. A government whose jurisdiction includes global economy, the environment, etc. and whose jurisdiction excludes religion, culture and even the type of national government people want for themselves. A government that is truly "Of all people of the world, by all people of the world and for all people of the world" whose primary mandate is to bring liberty, equality and fraternity to all people of the world.

Recipe for successful democracy

2010-02-28T17:25:07-05:00

Democracy is a system of government "of the people, by the people, for the people". This democracy stands upon four pillars:

Legislature
Executive
Judiciary
Press

A key ingredient to successful democracy is fair, equal representation for all its people in all four pillars of democratic government.

There is no perfect democracy. Some democracies work well while others are struggling. Take Afghanistan and Pakistan for example. The key to their success lies in giving their Taliban population a fair, equitable representation in democracy. This might mean changing the political landscape to:

Allow the Taliban their own province where their legislature enacts laws applicable within the province but do not conflict or contradict the laws of the nation. These laws would be applied by their executive branch and any disputes decided upon by their judiciary.
Allow the Taliban fair, equitable representation in the national government. At the national level each citizen should have the right to move in or out of any province.

With the above political structure in place anyone who subscribes to the Taliban laws can move into that province and anyone who does not subscribe to their laws are free to move out. This will guarantee every Afghan and Pakistani their right to practice what they believe in without transgressing on the rights of other citizens.

While this same solution may apply to other national challenges it is not a silver bullet. The principle of fair and equitable representation for all citizens in all four pillars of government is fundamental to all democracies though the methods of achieving that may differ. For example the solution for Afghanistan and Pakistan will differ from the solution for Zimbabwe.

Anarchy in extra territorial air, waters and space.

2010-02-21T22:22:58-05:00

It is 2010. There are just under 200 countries on earth, many of them land locked. For those with a coast line their sovereignty extends to 200 miles beyond their coast line. All countries have sovereignty over their air space which extends vertically to the maximum height most aircraft can fly.

Beyond existing territorial limits there is anarchy: Piracy on the high seas, Whaling on the high seas.

What we need is a World Government which has control over these extra territorial spaces on earth and beyond. A World Government that has ownership of all extra territorial affairs so there is no competition and redundancy amongst nations of earth. Why does every country on earth have to spend precious money which they could spend on their citizens to discover what other countries have discovered before them?

We need a new world. A world not divided by national boundaries. A world without ungoverned high seas. A world where individual nations do not have to compete in space. A world with a World Government.

A world without wars

2010-02-21T18:25:18-05:00

Imagine a world without wars. Is this ever possible?

We have wars

So countries can "defend" themselves against aggressors. Interestingly there is no country that proclaims itself an aggressor. It is always the other country the aggressor while we are defending ourselves.
Because there are countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan where extremists like the Taliban want to establish their own law over their own land.
Because there are groups of people such as Al-Qaeda who believe they have suffered from other cultures in the past and continue to be threatened by those cultures in the present.

and the root causes for these wars are

We do not have a global identity. We are citizens of a world without a world government. People divided, in alphabetical order, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe - each absorbed by the issues within the national boundaries we are contained within. Without a World Government we can count on, we rely on our national governments to fight for our advantage in a competing world pitting our country against the other nations of the world.
Rudyard Kipling said "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet". He was right saying "East is East and West is West" but wrong in saying "never the twain shall meet". Because of advances in travel and communication technologies, people with divergent beliefs and cultures meet whether they want to or not, sometimes violently.
Al-Qaeda breeds on the injustices done by the Christians to Muslims during the Crusades. They perceive these injustices as continuing and fight their perceived Crusaders in 2010 using weapons available in this century.

The solution?

Hundreds of years ago there were feudal states fighting each other. As time went by these states coalesced to form new, bigger states. Bigger states at peace internally but at war with other equally big states. This coalescent process continued and resulted in the nations we have today. This process of coalescence continues today with the formation of NATO, European Union, NAFTA, ASEAN, etc. but these are not states.

The United Nations (UN) was an experiment to bring all countries together. It is an experiment that has failed.

It is time for a paradigm shift. A quantum leap. A shift to a democratically elected World Government elected by every mature citizen of earth. A government responsible for global matters such as the environment, global financial controls, the rights of every world citizen to their beliefs perhaps in territories of their own. The right of minorities to leave such territories and be rehabilitated in other parts of the world.

Can such a World Government be formed? Yes. The very same advance in technology that has brought East and West together in war can bring us together in peace.

A train of thought

2010-02-13T10:24:29-05:00

The train is pulling up to a station. People are milling about the platform preparing to board. Looking out the window I see each one of them and think "Matter transformed". After all they, like me, are made up of matter. Matter formed and transformed in the Cosmos. Matter further transformed on earth. Whether created or evolved we are made up of Matter transformed.

Coincidence. An aircraft flies overhead. As I watch it fly slowly across the sky I cannot help thinking again "Matter transformed". Like us it is made up of matter formed in the Cosmos and transformed on Earth. Transformed by the generations of dreams of men who wanted to fly. Transformed by the invention of the Wright brothers. Transformed by the Science discovered and Technology invented by man. Transformed by hands of thousands of men and the machines they created. Matter transforming matter.

People, Animals, Plants, Aircraft, Automobiles, everything we experience is matter, matter transformed in some way.

At last: A North American and World leader fit for the 21st Century

2010-02-07T22:13:31-05:00

The post "The space race in the 21st century" showed how nations were spending mega millions of dollars on space projects to discover what other nations have already discovered, just to "keep up with the Joanses".

While developing countries such as Iran continue to pursue this space race (see: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jDJTHPpLUYb3WUzzphdkkrcO9HPA) it is encouraging that President Obama, the leader of one of the early nations to start the Space Race is demonstrating new, relevant leadership, recommending privatizing space (see: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jDJTHPpLUYb3WUzzphdkkrcO9HPA).

He wants some of the extra funding in 2011 to be used to incentivise private companies, to help them bring forward a new generation of launch systems to carry humans to and from space.

Privatizing space makes it available to all people regardless of race, colour or creed.

Democracy: Afghanistan vs. Canada. Which is more democratic?

2010-01-31T20:05:14-05:00

Democracy: Afghanistan vs. Canada

#	Item	Afghanistan	Canada
1	Democratic maturity	A fledgling democracy. Started after the invasion of Afghanistan by mostly democratic countries following the 9/11 attack on the United States.	A history of 250 years of democracy http://www.democracy250.ca/history.asp
2	Legitimacy of Leaders	Hamid Karzai was recently re-elected President in a disputed vote, fraught with fraud.	Stephen Harper was re-elected Prime Minister of Canada in 2008, a straightforward election. Has been in power since 2006.
3	Influence on Global matters (today).	None	None
4	Adherence to democratic principles	a) Despite international pressure president Karzai includes ex-warlords (who each represent several thousands afghan citizens) in his all inclusive government. b) Twice in quick succession the parliament rejected the majority of nominations by President Hamid Karzai for cabinet ministers.	a) Stephen Harper prorogued parliament twice thus far effectively shutting down the opposition, and the millions of people supporting the opposition view. b) Replaced senators from opposition parties with senators from his own party in the senate thus making it more likely the Harper agenda gets implemented without contest.

Which has a truer democracy today: Afghanistan or Canada?

Here come the Super Heroes, Saviours of our planet?

2010-01-04T14:53:33-05:00

In 2029 there is a 1 in 250,000 chance a 27 million tonne asteroid named Apophis will hit Earth (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8435829.stm). "People's lives are at stake" says Mr Perminov, the head of Russia's space agency. "We should pay several hundred million dollars and build a system that would allow us to prevent a collision, rather than sit and wait for it to happen and kill hundreds of thousands of people" he said.

Will Apophis actually hit Earth? We don't know.

What we know with almost certainty is that left unchecked life on Earth will be decimated by climate change. Destruction far worse than Apophis can deliver. From an environmental perspective, in the words of Mr. Perminov, is at acceptable to us to "sit and wait for it to happen and kill hundreds of thousands of people?"

There are those who argue that climate change has occurred for over millions of years without human cause and cannot be attributed to man alone. I agree with them. Yet, I believe, humans have evolved to a point we have the capability of influencing the future of our planet even for causes beyond our creation (such as Apophis). See http://www.weonepeople.com/oneworld/2009/09/evolution-chapter-two.html.

Unfortunately, while we have developed scientifically and technologically to a point we can change the future of our planet, we have not made the same advances socially and politically to benefit from this. Unless all people of earth, people of all races, colour, religions, cultures and nationalities can galvanize themselves to form a united earth we are doomed. Our planet cannot be saved by Super Heroes, but only by average diverse people working together. Getting all diverse people of earth working together to save our planet seems more difficult than diverting Apophis from collision with Earth.

China's tar sands

2009-12-31T15:55:56-05:00

After an abysmal performance at COP15 in Copenhagen (http://www.weonepeople.com/oneworld/2009/12/canada-contribution-to-cop15.html) the Harper government of Canada has outdone itself. Canada's Industry Minister has given PetroChina the go-ahead for a $1.7bn acquisition of two oil sand projects (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8434603.stm). It is as if Canada cannot do enough to pollute our environment, it needs foreign help do so. Shame on Canada.

Shame also on China for entering into this dastardly partnership with Canada. While presenting an image of being environmentally conscientious at home they are blatantly polluting the environment outside their borders. To the people of the Maldives, Bangladesh, etc. does it make a difference whether pollution emanates from China or from Canada?

Based upon this partnership alone China deserves to be booted out of the G77 + China group of countries.

Unless and until we have a World Government elected directly by the people of our planet (http://www.weonepeople.com/oneworld/2009/09/one-world-one-people-one-government.html) Kyoto, Copenhagen future COP conferences will not stop the economic interests of a few powerful countries from thwarting the interests of the world.

Climate change and scapegoats

2009-12-28T14:02:55-05:00

November 25th, 2009 was a sad day in Saudi Arabia. In the city of Jeddah 150 people died due to flash floods. On December 28th, 2009 - about a month later - at least 40 Saudi officials were arrested for investigation (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8432432.stm). Are they scapegoats?

Saudi Arabia is a desert. It is not known for heavy rainfall. Storm Drains are not a normal part of the Saudi Arabian infrastructure. On years when it rains, typically in November or December, the streets of low lying areas are flooded. Fleets of water tankers pump out the water to restore the streets to normality within a day or two. This system has worked effectively for decades.

Why not build Storm Drains you might ask? After all Saudi Arabia is a rich country! Yes, Saudi Arabia could build Storm Drains but within a matter of months they would be clogged with sand because of the nature of the land and they would be totally ineffective when needed unless there was a program to clear them of sand every year.

The 40+ officials have been arrested in Jeddah because of the November 25th incident. Would it have been different if it happened in Riyadh, Dammam or Al-Khobar instead? Have the officials in Riyadh, Dammam and Al-Khobar acted differently from those in Jeddah? Are they innocent because a flash flood did not visit their cities?

Is the incident in Jeddah related to global climate change or not? In a changing climate can one rule out a snow storm in Jeddah or any of the major Saudi Arabian cities? If this did happen in a land where only a handful amongst millions have driven in snow, where there are no winter tires nor snow ploughs and salters, where vehicles are not equipped with front wheel drives, would the death toll exceed 150?

Will there be a snow storm in Saudi Arabia? Possible, but probably after the Maldives and other islands have been wiped off the earth and large swaths of coastal areas in Bangladesh and other coastal countries have been submerged from rising seas following global warming.

Resolving India's Maoist problem

2009-12-26T15:42:04-05:00

In the post http://www.weonepeople.com/oneworld/2009/12/reading-anothers-mind.html I suggested sending the police and army to tackle the Maoist problem in India was the wrong solution. I am pleased to note that the government of India is now of the same opinion (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8427622.stm) seeking negotiation instead.

While negotiation is a step in the right direction it is not enough. The Indian government and indeed all Indians should recognize there is a large section of our society that is grossly unprivileged, a section of our society that has been submerged, subjugated and suffocated over centuries by the privileged. I think the educated and privileged of today, those of us who have access to the internet for example, should unequivocally agree to correct the imbalance and uplift our poor disenfranchised brethren. This does not require negotiating. It requires decisive unilateral action, for example setting up a national corp of our youth - high school and college students for example - to visit our slums and villages, build a bond with our downtrodden and help uplift them so we as an Indian society are liberated from the schism of privileged vs. unprivileged and save us from the tumult of a huge social revolution which otherwise is on its natural way.

The disparity between the privileged and unprivileged in India did not happen by negotiation.

Reading another's mind.

2009-12-23T12:34:43-05:00

Wouldn't it be great if we could read an insurgent's mind? Understand what makes them tick? In fact wouldn't it be great reading anyone's mind including our own? That may not be impossible.

It should not be news that physically insurgents are no different from the rest of us, they have the same circulatory system, respiratory system, digestive system and all other body and mind systems the rest of us have. In order to understand what makes an insurgent tick differently we first have to understand what makes all humans tick, why we behave the way we do and do the things we do.

In physics there is a law called The Parallelogram Law of Forces. For a detailed understanding of this law see http://www.pre-engineering.com/resources/parallel.htm. According to this law if there are two forces of different magnitudes and directions operating on an object then the object will react in a mathematically predictable way subject to the resultant of these two forces. As human beings our behavior and actions are governed by, are resultant of, two forces: Reason and Emotions. A graphical representation of human behavior and actions in terms of the Parallelogram Law of Forces as it applies to individual reasoning and emotions would look like this:

A person's actions and behavior is a resultant of their Reasoning and Emotions. As the intensity and direction of their reasoning and emotions change so does their behavior and actions.

For example consider two men identical in all ways but one: One is affluent while the other is extremely poor. Both are honorable, loving and caring for their families. Because of his affluence the rich man and his family are well fed. Because of his poverty the poor man and his family are hungry.

Let assume both men love apples. They pass a grocery shop with a huge basket of delicious apples outside its entrance on the street. The shopkeeper is occupied and not watching the apples when the men pass. How will the affluent man behave, act under these circumstances? How about the poor man?

The affluent man, being honorable, will either walk by if he and his family are already well stocked or will step into the shop and buy some apples. This experience will have no emotional impact on the affluent man. The poor man on the other hand has a dilemma. He is an honorable man with a hungry family. He has two choices: Walk away and preserve his honor while his family starve or give up his honor and steal some apples to relieve his family temporarily of their hunger. Regardless which choice he makes this experience will make him unhappy and ponder the unjustness of society of which he and his family are a part. As he goes through several iterations of this and similar experiences his unhappiness with the unjustness of society will increase until he becomes bitter and angry.

Enter Marxism and its description of bourgeoisie and proletariat, pictorially described below. For a full explanation of this picture see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat

The poor man we have been talking about having been introduced to this picture by Maoists or communists relates himself, his family and his community with the lowest level of this pyramid. Being an honorable man, loving his family and community, he rebels and encourages his family and community to also rebel and topple the establishment. Their new found political belief and their bitterness - their reasoning and their emotions - causes them to attack others in the pyramid. In response the government sends in the police and the army who shoot at them which only reinforces their belief in the communist doctrine, increases their anger, and intensifies the conflict.

This is just one example of how the parallelogram law of forces can be used to understand others.

How a about the Taliban? Can we use the parallelogram law of forces to understand them? Again let us start by examining ourselves. Why do children born of Christian parents stay Christian? Why do children of Hindu parents stay Hindu? Why do children of Jewish parents stay Jewish? Why do children of Muslim parents stay Muslim? Most parents educate their children in their religion and their religion alone. A good christian is well versed in the bible but largely ignorant of hindu, islamic and judaic scriptures. Likewise good hindus, jews, muslims and others are well versed in their own scriptures but largly ignorant of the scriptures of others. Because of this selective education, religious knowledge, the reasoning force in the parallelogram law of forces is directed towards the religion an individual has been born and indoctrinated in. Religion is the major component in our reasoning but science, arts and humanities also play a large role Thus the reasoning component of our parallelogram is a product of our religious and humanitarian beliefs.

There is a saying that "birds of a feather flock together". In the animal world, herds of animals - all of the same species - roam together. You will find herds of buffalo, elephants, cattle, prides of lions, tigers, etc. roaming together. You will not find a mixed herd of buffalo, elephants and cattle nor a mixed pride of lions and tigers. Even in the water you will find schools of fish all of the same species and not a mixed school of fish. We humans may think we are beyond such basic animal instinct, but for the most part we are not. We adhere to our own race, religion, nationality, etc. to form clans, human equivalents of flocks. This emotional attachment to ones clan forms the other force in the parallelogram.

What differentiates the Taliban from the rest of us? While most of us send our children to schools where they learn the arts, sciences and humanities the Taliban send their kids to madrassas where they are indoctrinated only in religion to the exclusion of arts, sciences and the humanities. Their emotional component, i.e., their clannish instinct is much the same as ours. What is different is their reasoning is devoid of science and humanities.

While the police and the army might contain these insurgents only an understanding and tackling of the parallelogram law of forces that create and sustain these insurgencies can be successful in defeating them.

For example if the poor and unfortunate in india who are not yet converted to extremist communism are brought out of poverty it will starve the insurgency of expansion and if done in a proper way could even convince some Maoists to return to the side of law, peace and coexistence. This is easier said than done, but it can be done. For example for a brief period in the late 1960s and early 1970s it was compulsory for college students to join the National Cadet Corp. The Indian National Cadet Corp exists even today but it is not compulsory. If some similar organization was formed to send high school and college students into the slums and villages of india with an aim to liberate these unfortunate people from poverty that would be a giant leap in the right direction that will bring a positive experience and outcome not only to the slums and villages but also to the students themselves.

It is not my intention to explain all insurgencies of the world. I can only hope that an understanding of the parallelogram law of forces can help others understand insurgents and develop effective strategies to tackle them.

Tigers and elephants make statements on the environment

2009-12-21T15:15:52-05:00

As climate changes their environments and as man continues to encroach on their habitats tigers and elephants are making their statements.

Tigers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8411208.stm

Elephants: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0603_050603_elephants.html

Canada's contribution to COP15

2009-12-19T17:23:12-05:00

Canada's contribution to the environment at COP15, the Copenhagen summit on climate change, can be viewed at two levels,

1. At the federal level the Stephen Harper government's contribution consists of

A 3 minute worthless speech by the Honourable Jim Prentice
The environmental cost of getting the Right Honourable Stephen Harper and the Honourable Jim Prentice to Copenhagen and back

Shameful. At the cost of the Canadian taxpayer.

2. At the local level

Mayors of major canadian cities joined mayors of other international cities to exchange and develop concrete actionable plans to reduce global warming. Plans that are powered by economic benefits to their cities.

When the world judges Canada on its contribution to the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change lets hope it includes the contribution of our mayors and not just on the dismal contributrion of our federal leaders [sic].

An open letter to Stephen Harper

2009-12-17T22:54:50-05:00

Dear Prime Minister,

I'm writing this open letter to express my extreme disappointment at the irresponsible stance you and your government have taken Canada into at COP15, the Copenhagen Climate Summit - 2009.

Canada is a multicultural nation of immigrants, people from all over the world. These I believe include people from Bangladesh, Palau, Nauru, Maldives and Africa. People who will perish or be seriously decimated from the rising of ocean levels consequent to global warming. Does Canada really care for these people or only care for them after they have become Canadian citizens, not caring for them otherwise?

Sir, you recently returned from a less than successful tour of China. The Chinese leadership treated you like a naughty schoolboy. Upon your return in typical school boyish fashion you retaliated saying something to the effect human rights trumps trade. Were you serious? Does human rights mean so much to you while the lives of the peoples of the nations named above mean nothing ?

At COP15 China turns out to be a more serious and mature country than Canada. I am ashamed of where you have led us to.

Sir, let's say you are successful in thwarting the goals of the Copenhagen Climate Summit. Let's say Palau, Nauru and Maldives are wiped off the earth. Will that stop climate change? No, they are not the polluters - we are - and climate change will continue until we will be decimated as well. Do you and your government recognize that?

Tarred by oil sands

2009-12-15T15:52:54-05:00

Canada is the only country on earth with oil economically extractable from tar sands. Is this a blessing or a curse?

Venezuela also has large amounts of tar sands but they also have immense quantities of conventional oil so they can keep their tar sands in their back pocket for when their conventional oil dries up.

If the same Albertan tar sand in Canada was located in some other country then the Canadian government, like other countries, would have been quick to climb on a high moral horse and demand it be shut down while the other government would be left defending their tar sands.

At COP15, the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit now underway, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government are in the spotlight. Canada is defending its tar sands to the dismay of the rest of the world.

Stephen Harper and his government were elected to look after canadians and canadian interests. They were not elected to represent the people or interests of Bangladesh, Palau, Nauru, Maldives or Africa - countries that will be decimated or at least mauled by climate change. In his role as Canada's Prime Minister Harper is doing nothing wrong. That does not make what he is doing right.

On this small planet exist many governments all of them dedicated to serve their own people without any legal obligation to the people of other countries. In this lies the problem. It sets governments with a common agenda forming groups like the G8, G20, G77 + China, working against other governments with different agendas. It is very difficult if not impossible for this hodgepodge of governments to come to agreements that make sense globally. From a global perspective for instance would it not make sense for us regardless where we are around the world to first use the cleanest forms of energy available, progressively moving to less clean forms? By the time we come to the tar sands we may have other alternative forms of energy or at least better technologies for processing these sands with lesser impact to the environment.

The only way we will have sound, sensible and globally effective policies is if we have another, higher level of government above all existing governments. A top level government elected directly by people of earth much the same as people of different democratic countries elect their national governments. The existing national governments would then continue to govern working with this new top level government rather like states and provinces currently do with their national governments.

It may seem an impossible task to create this government. It may not be. During this current Copenhagen Climate Summit millions of people are organizing marches, vigils all over the world. Technology makes this possible. There is no reason why this same technology and people power cannot work to create this new government. For more thoughts on how to create this government see:

http://www.weonepeople.com/oneworld/2009/09/one-world-one-people-one-government.html

COP15. What do we want our governments to support?

2009-12-13T13:54:22-05:00

Find your country and answer the question at:

http://groups.google.ca/group/one-world-party/web/find-your-country?hl=en

Copenhagen, December 2009

2009-12-12T21:56:16-05:00

December 12, 2009: Its below zero degrees Celsius. The blowing wind makes it colder. We've just had a snow storm. The streets and sidewalks are icy and slippery. I wish it was warmer.

A few hours away as a jet flies, in Copenhagen, the leaders of the world will suceed or fail to decide on a course of action to manage climate change. Sucess will mean that some of us will have to endure harsher winters, more snow and ice and colder temperatures. The alternative is unacceptable: The decimation of islands such as Tuvalu and the Maldives and coastal regions.

Torn between origins?

2009-12-12T16:20:06-05:00

The Human Genome Organization (HUGO) has found evidence that suggests that "Asia was populated primarily through a single migration event from the south". See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8406506.stm.

The map below shows the boundaries of this migration. I was hoping to see a name and location of the people who started this migration but the article did not contain this information. As far as I can tell from the article and the map provided, the migration started from what is now Papua New Guinea and spread all the way up to China to the North and India to the West.

This reminded me of the Phoenicians. Starting from what is today Lebanon they populated the Mediterranean. So did the Greeks. The following map shows the settlements of Phoenicians and Greeks.

The question that comes to mind is: What about the countries in between, countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq? Countries between the Asian migration and the Phoenician migrations? If these countries cannot map to the Asian or Phoenican migrations, what are their origins?

On marble and people.

2009-12-08T22:04:19-05:00

Have just returned from a 10 day cruise of the Mediterranean starting at Venice, Italy, with stopovers at Dubrovnik in Croatia, Corfu an island of Greece, Cagliari on the island of Sardinia in Italy, Malaga and Cadiz in Spain, finally ending at Lisbon, Portugal. At each of these ports I had the pleasure of visiting places, buildings and monuments steeped in history. I had the pleasure of meeting, interacting, with people who are a product of this history. I loved it all, the scenic beauty, the lovely art and architecture, the rich history and most of all, the wonderful people. It was an epic experience and a phenomenal opportunity for me to ponder upon, refine, my thoughts and beliefs as expressed in this blog

The marble of Carrera:
From Venice to Lisbon and everywhere between, wherever I went, people were proud of their history, their language and their culture. Their buildings and monuments are expressions, testaments, of their pride and attachment to their history, language and culture. Buildings are constructed of brick, limestone or marble or a combination of these. Brick and limestone are usually from local sources. Marble on the other hand can be local but the best is always from Carrera, Italy.

It seems the marble of Carrera is the best marble in the Mediterranean, possibly on earth.

The people of the Mediterranean:
From Venice to Lisbon I found common history. Most of these cities were founded by Phoenicians who colonized much of the Mediterranean. These cities were later at different times ruled by Genoese, Venetians, both people of Phoenician origins themselves. They were also ruled at times by Moors. Each of these ruling cultures left a mark on the people, the architecture and culture of these cities.

Unlike marble one cannot unequivocally claim that people from any of these occupying places whether Phoenicia, Genoa, Venice, Turkey or North Africa are superior to the rest. In fact one cannot unequivocally claim that any one race, nationality, cast or creed on earth is superior to any other.

On marble and people:
On the cruise I had the luxury of time to ponder on the differences between marble and people. Both marble and people are made up of matter. Marble is made up of Calcium, Magnesium, Iron and Oxygen among other elements. The atoms of these elements remain in the marble from the time it was formed. Marble from Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and every other country do not exchange atoms of their elements with other marble.

People are also made up of elements which include Calcium, Magnesium, Iron and Oxygen. We are also made up of Carbon, Hydrogen and many other elements. Unlike marble though people are born with a set of atoms that do not remain with us from birth to death. The atoms of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen we were born with have all escaped via excretion and exhalation. The Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and other elements we now have in our bodies arrived from food we ingest and air we inhale. Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen are recycled through many plants and animals without any preference or selection before it gets into our bodies.

Some of the atoms of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen or other elements we now have in our bodies could have come from other human beings. Some of them may have come from a person of a different race, religion or caste. People throughout the world are made up the same material and except for cosmetic, cultural & religious differences we are all the same.

When faiths act together

2009-11-05T20:00:51-05:00

I received this in my email today from the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. It is about people of different faiths working together to eradicate common human problems - such as poverty - and making our world a better place for all of us. I thought I'd share it with everyone I possibly can:

Dear Friend,

We've all seen what happens when a small number of people try to use religion as a source of conflict.

That's why it's so important that those of us who seek peace and harmony between religions are vocal - and organised. Will you join us?

We are asking you to do something extraordinary today by committing to take action with people of different faiths to work against disease and poverty.

By working together on this shared cause, we can help build trust, understanding and respect between the world's religions.

Join me now in signing the Faiths Act Declaration:

http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/FaithsActDeclaration

It's a simple statement of commitment to join us as we work in the coming months and years across different faith communities to make a difference to our world.

Our first campaign is focused on the tragedy of the 1 million completely preventable deaths each year from malaria.

While for some of you those ravaged by the disease may be many thousands of miles away, there's a lot we can do in our own cities and towns to help stop their suffering.

We'll be writing to you in the coming months about what you can do in your own faith community to make a difference - from raising awareness to generating funds.

You will not be doing this alone - you will be joined by people from all faith traditions and none who believe more can be done when we act together.

So, I invite you to take the first step by signing the Faiths Act Declaration:

http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/FaithsActDeclaration

Together, we will demonstrate religion as a force for good in today's world.

Sincerely,

Hannah Wallace

Blair plus Obama spells opportunity.

2009-10-18T11:42:20-04:00

American president Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Many argue Obama has not earned the stripes it takes to truly deserve a Nobel prize yet. Others argue Obama has already demonstrated a real and fundamental change in US government philosophy and thinking where communication, understanding and seeking agreements with the opposition whether local or international is preferred on the journey to a better world.

Don't know whether Tony Blair was nominated for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize or not. While there is a huge debate on Tony Blair vis-a-vis the British involvement in the Iraq and Afghan wars, one has only got to look at what Tony Blair has been doing since leaving his post of Prime Minister. Both his role as ambassador of peace in the middle east (see: http://tonyblairoffice.org) as well as his work in bringing interfaith harmony to the world (see: http://www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org/about-us/mission-statement.html) makes Tony Blair an extraordinary man, head and shoulders above the rest of us.

It is not the intent of this post to discuss who is most worthy of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize nor is it the intent to discuss whether Obama deserves the 2009 Peace Prize or not.

What is suggested though is that Obama and Blair, both major players on the global stage, are not parochial in their thinking. Both of them more than most understand their country is not isolated from the rest of the world and if their people are to progress it cannot be in isolation from the progress of people of all other nations.

I write this post at a key point in history - a point saturated with opportunity. Obama is the established head of state - President - of the United States of America. The European Union is close to electing a new president and Tony Blair is being proposed as that president (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8307267.stm). If this happens, with Obama as head of state of the United States and Blair as head of state of the European Union, we will see the dawn of a new era of peace and harmony not only in the United States and Europe but across the whole world.

China, the next superpower?

2009-10-12T10:55:38-04:00

Rwandan president Paul Kageme has praised China while criticizing the west on their methods of bringing progress to africa (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8301826.stm).

China is active as a member of the G77 plus China group of countries (See: http://www.g77.org/). By being politically and morally neutral and by just helping people of poor countries advance by investment in their countries and people (rather than providing or witholding aid based on compliance with political and moral issues) China is bound to gain political capital and become the most influential country surpassing the United States at some point in time.

Its time for the G20 group of countries to wake up and also start building poor countries by investing in areas that directly touch and uplift the people rather than simply providing aid that is often pocketed by corrupt government officials. Investments in industries such as agriculture and fishing ensures progress of the people. By direct investment the G20 investors will also be able to audit the books to ensure their investment is not diverted or misappropriated, something that cannot be done by simply handing over money as aid.

When the people of these poor nations advance they will have more power locally and can make their own political and moral decisions.

Uplifting the poor of these countries is not just the responsibility of the G20 governments. It can be done in a smaller way directly by individuals who are more fortunate thanks to organizations such as Kiva (See: http://www.weonepeople.com/oneworld/2009/09/the-goodness-of-money.html)

How to deal with India's Maoist threat?

2009-10-04T20:09:37-04:00

A few days ago I wrote my post "India's Maoist threat. Deja vu?" In that post I showed the situation was predicted decades previously. I did not offer any suggestion on dealing with the threat.

I would recommend reading the previous post for context before continuing.

Imagine a child that just learnt to walk. How responsible is that child for wandering into dangerous situations? Adults are responsible for the well being of children including preventing them from hurting themselves or breaking things, doing this with love and care rather than harsh measures.

Like children the proletariat of India have advanced just enough to become somewhat literate and somewhat knowledgeable. Just like children who have just learnt to walk, they are wandering into dangerous territory such as naxalism with no "parent" to care for them. This proletariat may have some elementary and high school education but even then not a quality one. So expecting them to think and act like the more fortunate, educated and sophisticated is like expecting a child that has just learnt to walk, to walk responsibly like an adult.

How to deal with the Maoists? The first thing we need to recognize is the fact that while most Maoists are from the proletariat class (with few exceptions) the entire proletariat class are not Maoists. By sending police and soldiers to defeat them the government is only reinforcing the Maoist concept of capitalism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat, encouraging others within the proletariat to become Maoists.

So how should the governments of India handle this? I think the best way is to separate Maoist beliefs from Maoist actions and treat these two aspects separately:

1. Recognize that Maoist belief is based on their concept of capitalism. This view is real to the proletariat based on their position in society and fed by the fact they are left behind while non proletariat classes benefit from India's technological advances. The Indian government should with dedication and total transparency demonstrate that the rewards of India's progress flows equitably - I would argue more than equitably, to make up for the past - to India's proletariat.

2. Recognize that attacking and killing others is criminal regardless of political belief. All criminals should be brought to equal justice. The intent here being to punish their deeds, not their beliefs. This is easier said than done when it comes to Maoist criminals because they are embedded within and often protected by the proletariat. They are difficult if not impossible to arrest individually and brought to justice.

So what to do? In June 2009 the government banned the Maoist Communist Party of India (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8112103.stm). This ban in itself is not going to contain or reverse the Maoist movement. It is okay as an interim measure but the government really needs to come up with clear policies and transparent actionable plans based on the principle of separation between beliefs and actual criminal activities. While this interim ban is in place the governments (both national and state) should:

1. Create laws guaranteeing all Indians (including Maoists) the rights to their beliefs (not actions)

2. Create credible plans to ensure fortunes of the country and individual states are equitably distributed to all citizens, favouring the proletariat

3. Create institutions with a clear mandate to deliver on those plans

4. Regularly audit these institutions to ensure there is no corruption and they are delivering on their mandate

5. Engage in discussions with leaders of the proletariat to (a) provide their constituents with their share of India's fortunes and (b) get their support to arrest criminals embedded in their constituencies.

These are just a few thoughts, not necessarily right. Hopefully this will generate conversation in this and other groups, the more the better. Other groups I recommend are:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/Swadeswethepeople/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reddysociety/

http://groups.google.ca/group/one-world-party---india

New role for the G-20

2009-10-04T11:23:57-04:00

In late september 2009 at a meeting of G-20 countries in Pittsburgh the leaders of these nations determined that the G-20 will permanently replace the G-8 as the "permanent council for international economic cooperation."

Of this change British PM Gordan Brown said "The old system of international economic co-operation is over...The new system, as of today, has begun."

What really has changed? Prior to the September 2009 agreement the 8 biggest economies of the world made decisions that effected the 193 sovereign states. Post September 2009 the 20 biggest economies will do the same. This leaves the populations of 173 sovereign states at the mercy of the G-20.

What will it take for every single person of every single country on earth to have representation on decisions that affect them? A G-193? Even within the G-8 there was bickering. For example following the sub prime crises the US and UK wanted countries to spend billions of dollars while France and Germany wanted tighter financial controls. This bickering will probably increase with the switch to G-20 and would be impossible to manage with something like a G-193. A G-193 would probably make the UN appear to be an effective organization.

So what will it take for every single person of every single country on earth to have representation on decisions that affect them? It will take a World Government made up of representatives elected directly by the people of earth (not their governments). By having a world government elected directly by the people of earth we will have a government representative of all people and not influenced by individual powerful states.

See http://www.weonepeople.com/oneworld/2009/09/one-world-one-people-one-government.html

India's Maoist threat. Deja vu?

2009-09-27T12:45:28-04:00

India's Prime Minister says that its Maoist insurgency is the single biggest threat to India's security. He goes on to say India is losing the battle against these rebels (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8266550.stm). This implies that the Maoist insurgents of India are a bigger threat to India than neighboring countries such as China and Pakistan and islamist insurgents including those in Kashmir.

I recall reading an article by one Ashok Mehta many, many years ago (on India) which to the best of my recollection went something like this:

"This is the land of the ultimate proletariat of the world. Unless this proletariat is rehabilitated there will be an explosion for this proletariat will not agree to remain submerged, subjugated and suffocated. If this explosion is to be avoided, denied, then I think the best amongst us will have to kneel to raise and stoop to conquer."

When Ashok Mehta wrote this decades ago there was no explosion of the proletariat. There were Maoists and Naxalites and communist governments in some states but no explosion of the proletariat. Why?

Unlike the proletariat of China, Russia and other countries around the world that have had a communist revolution the majority of the Indian proletariat are Hindu with a deep belief (at that time) in Karma. On karma Sri Tulsidas a great Hindu saint said: "Our destiny was shaped long before the body came into being." Because they believed their destiny was shaped before they were born and without an education to understand karma in its fullest the indian proletariat rejected any change to the life style and the conditions they were born into. They were illiterate, ignorant of the world beyond their village, powerless, poor and unable to do anything other than accept their destiny.

Since then the various governments of India have done a lot to educate the proletariat and have succeeded to a certain extent. This proletariat now has some education so they are not illiterate. They have radios and television sets in their villages even if they don't own them personally so they know what is going on around the world in other states and countries. This access to education and information has given them enough to break out of the thinking that their destiny is not in their own hands but was shaped before they were born. In abandoning their "karma" they also abandon their hindu religion converting to other religions that do not believe in karma or abandon religion altogether converting to communism and becoming naxalites so they can fight their way out of their current world to a new equitable world.

The various governments India has had have also helped the country make great strides in science and technology. India's advance in Information Technology makes it one of the world's biggest players in that area. India has also developed a sophisticated space program. Recently India launched 7 satellites in a single space mission emerging as a major player in the multi-billion dollar space market. These advances bring fortunes to the "haves" but very little trickles down to the "have nots", the proletariat.

This proletariat that is now literate, knowledgeable, largely denied of the benefits of the technological revolution, in the words of Ashok Mehta "will not agree to remain submerged, subjugated and suffocated." We are now witnessing the explosion Ashok Mehta spoke of.

If India is to avoid this explosion, then the best amongst Indians regardless of religion or caste, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, from Gujarat to Nagaland, will have to stoop to raise and kneel to conquer the hearts and minds of the millions of downtrodden brotheren ensuring they have a fair share in the resources and fortunes of the country.

Capitalism, Communism, Dictatorship, Democracy, Religious or Secular State?

2009-09-20T15:12:09-04:00

Which is right?

Across our world people have evolved with different cultures, values, beliefs, economic and political systems which continue to evolve with time. Most communist countries of today evolved from dictatorships. So did democracies.

Sir Winston Churchill said "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried". This implies that democracy is the best form of government bar none and this belief is strongly held in the west. It is this strong belief that western governments, in the goodness of their hearts, use to try to democratize non-democratic countries. The same can be said of communist countries which, at least in the past, tried to spread communism across the world.

How different is a political belief from a religious belief? How does imposing ones political belief on others differ from imposing ones religious belief on others? How does this differ from imposing ones values on others? Sir Winston Churchill's statement implies there is no perfect government. All governments regardless of their political or economic stripe have supporters and dissenters. In all forms of government some people are more favored than others. It is arrogant for any one form of government to claim superiority over any other.

The true litmus test of a government should not be whether it is capitalist, communist, secular or theocratic but what good it does for its people. History around the world abounds with examples of good rulers who did wonderful things for their people. It also abounds with examples of bad rulers who did terrible things to their people. If we look around us there are great democracies doing great things for their citizens. There are also corrupt democratic governments where the elected "representatives" actually cheat and rob their constituents, create discord and conflict within their constituents all for their own selfish benefit.

What the world needs is not a single form of government. What the world needs is a higher World Government to knit the heterogeneous governments around the world into a seamless whole so important global matters such as the environment, climate change, hunger and poverty can be effectively tackled. This World Government cannot be constituted by representatives of sovereign states (like the United Nations is). This World Government should have representatives elected directly by the people of all sovereign states so the new World Government cannot be manipulated by individual nations. Having been elected directly by the world's people it will have authority over all existing governments.

For more of such thoughts visit http://www.weonepeople.com

A sad and shameful record.

2009-09-16T20:18:56-04:00

In 2009 the number of hungry people on earth has exceeded the 1 billion mark while countries spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new space race and over a trillion dollars on military spending.

What does the space race do for humanity? What does the arms race do for humanity? If we had a One World Government would such a space race be necessary? Would such military spending be necessary? Could these billions and trillions of dollars be used to uplift our poor, hungry and downtrodden brothers and sisters instead?

Death by war vs. death by starvation.

2009-09-15T21:41:45-04:00

What is the difference? Over one trillion US Dollars!

In 2009 while the world is still reeling from the economic Tsunami that hit us, while millions of people across the world have lost their jobs, and while the domino effect has driven millions more to starvation we learn that the global military spending is now well over 1 trillion dollars. What does this global military spending do?

It kills more of our fellow men. Would it not make more sense for this one trillion dollars be spent to save lives rather than destroy lives?

Can this happen without a World Government?

A sad day.

2009-09-13T14:11:54-04:00

Today, August 1, 2009 is a sad day.

On August 1, 2009 six of our fellow human beings, four women, one man and a child died in religious unrest between Christians and Muslims in Pakistan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8179823.stm). Pakistan is struggling to deal with the Taliban and this mistrust and consequent conflagration between Christian and Muslim Pakistanis only makes that struggle more difficult.

As I stated in my post First Step toward World Peace (http://www.weonepeople.com/oneworld/2009/09/first-step-to-world-peace.html) we, people of all races, cultures and religions need to engage in honest and earnest dialogue if we are to defuse this situation and reach understanding, thus avoiding confrontation . We need to talk. We need to understand each other and from this understanding build trust.

This process of dialog, understanding and mutual trust would best be initiated by leaders of world religions as I proposed in my post Trinity, Trimurti and a wish for a Holy Triumvirate (http://www.weonepeople.com/oneworld/2009/09/trinity-trimurti-hope-for-a-new-triumvirate.html). At times like this to me this becomes more than a wish. I becomes a fervent hope.

Africa

2009-09-13T14:10:58-04:00

August 20, 2009: The Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the libyan bomber of Pan Am flight 103, returned to a hero's welcome on his return to Libya after his release from prision on compassionate grounds. He is dying from cancer.

September 9, 2009: Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi again received a standing ovation, this time from a group of African Union MPs. Read the BBC article "Africa MPs cheer Lockerbie bomber".

Why would democratically elected members of the African Union give someone like Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, guilty of killing 270 people, a standing ovation? Are they renegades representing their own sentiments rather than the sentiments of their constituents or do they actually represent their constituents? What does Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi represent to these people that deserves this ovation?

Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi probably represents the sentiments and feelings of the african people now just as the time of the Lockerbie bombings. There does not seem to have been much difference in favour of the african people between then an now.

There is a chasm between africa and the western world. This chasm is reflected by conflicting emotions between africans and westerners on opposite ends of this chasm. Many africans obviously connect with the experiences and feelings of Mr. Ali al-Megrahi while westerners are appaled, disgusted by such displays of cheering for a man who killed 270 people, most of them western.

Could the western reaction of being appaled, disgusted, be an unconscious act of putting on blinkers? Burying heads in the sand? Being in a state of denial? Let's try a simple test, everyone, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, culture or religion:

Step 1: Put your amygdala (the part of the brain that governs fight or flight decisions by reducing its thinking capability) to rest. In other words in your mind ignore your nationality, ethnicity, culture (only for this exercise)! If you can,

Step 2: Put yourself in the shoes of an african in africa (the writer of this post is not african). The rest of this post is phrased as if we were african.

Step 3: Ponder the question: "What is the future of africa? What is our future?"

African nations are among the lightest polluters on earth but will suffer the most from climate change.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8217449.stm). How can we africans help ourselves? Developed countries are spewing tons of pollutants that is affecting our world. Developing countries will increase their pollution levels. There are talks and discussions going on by the G8 and G20 on the subject of environment and climate control. We are not in these G8 or G20 talks and have no place in this discussion that effects us more than any other country. Our lives depend upon the decisons made by countries other than us. Our feelings for those countries depend upon how much they consider us in their decisions.

Step 4: Having gone through this exercise ask yourself how can we bridge the chasms between continents both in practical and emotional terms?

Me, I believe the only way to do this is by having a democratically elected world government above all existing governments elected by you and me, regardless of our nationality, ethnicity, culture or religion. For thoughts on how to get there see post One World Government .

The Holocaust

2009-09-13T14:09:29-04:00

Did The Holocaust really happen?

I, one human being among many millions, believe the holocaust really happened. There are others who believe it did not. From what I read upto 6 million jews and upto 17 million people in all were tortured and lost their lives in The Holocaust.

Not having any first or even second hand experience with The Holocaust my belief is based on trust. Trust in what I read. Trust In what I hear. There are others who read differently and hear differently and trust what they read and hear. How can I claim that my trust and belief trumps theirs?

The Holocaust was preceded by rape, pillage and plunder of humankind by the Mongols, the Crusaders, the Inquisition, the Persian and Turkish Invasions etc.

So why do we politicize The Holocaust? Can we put this all behind us and work together towards a future where people of different races, religions, languages and cultures knit ourselves into a fantastic fabric that is strong and united while still displaying our diverse cultures and religions?

Honduras, Iran for want of a One World Government

2009-09-13T14:04:55-04:00

In my blog http://www.weonepeople.com I argue that we are all really the same, made up of the same matter which we have absorbed from the air we breathe, water we drink and the food we eat. The air that we breathe has no national boundaries neither does the water we drink.

In my post "One World Government" I argue that the world needs a top level government over and above all existing governments in order to govern things that cannot be governed by national governments of collectiions of nations the UN, EU, G8, etc.

Recent events in Iran and Honduras show that such a higher level government, endorsed by the people of the world and not just their governments, could have a role in ensuring that governments of individual nations govern in a manner beffiting their constituents. In Iran for example such a top level government could have monitors to ensure the conduct of the election was beyond reproach. In Honduras the government or people could approach this top level government to deal with the president rather than resorting to a coup.

I fear that with the exit of US troops from Iraq the Iraqi government could fall apart due to divisions within the country. A top level government could help the Iraqis stay united.

There are other areas where a One World Government would make a positive difference to our planet. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this.

The United States of America and World Governance

2009-09-13T14:03:35-04:00

Why does the government of the United States of America act like it rules the world? Why is the United States the lead country trying to stop North Korea, Iran and other countries from developing nuclear weapons? Why is the United States trying to set up democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why is the United States trying to promote democracy in Africa?

Why is the United States' Dollar the anchor currency of the world?

Are Russia, China and India vying to usurp the USA from that position of world dominance? Would Russia, China or India be any better than the United States in that role?

There is a void on earth in terms of government. While we have local, regional and national governments we lack a world government – a layer of government above all existing national governments, including the United States. The United Nations as an institution to establish world governance has failed. There is a desperate need for world governance that the United Nations is unable to provide. Nations of the world cannot continue to develop and threaten each other with nuclear weapons if the world is to survive without a nuclear holocaust. Countries of the world cannot be let to deteriorate into Somalia like states. These are just some examples. Without any credible world government the United States as the only Super Power has an obligation to step in and attempt to establish some sort of world order. World order is important not just to the United States but also to other nations on earth which is why the US is supported by its allies.

There are other countries that want to replace the United States as the dominant power on earth. There is no reason to believe they will be any better or any more successful.

In its attempt to govern the world the United States has achieved only limited success. After all just being the world's only superpower does not make the United States a totally credible world government. The only way to have a credible world government is to have a government elected by you and me, people of all nations, religions and cultures voting not just for our local, regional and national representatives but also for our world government representatives.

This one world government is not going to happen by itself, nor can a credible and effective world government be formed by the national governments of the world. The powerful nations of earth already tried to do so and failed with their attempts towards the League of Nations and the United Nations. The only way to get a credible one world government is for people like you and me, using modern technology such as the internet that connects you and me, wherever we are on earth, whatever our nationalities, religious beliefs or cultures, whether you are in my neighbour or half way across our planet to create one. For more on this please visit

http://www.weonepeople.com/oneworld/2009/09/one-world-one-people-one-government.html

The goodness of money

2009-09-13T12:08:26-04:00

In the post Money is the root of all evil I said "The root of all evil is not money. It is the human lust for wealth and power". Money, like a knife or atomic energy can be used for evil or good. While examples of usage of money in a negative manner abound, the use of money in a positive manner is harder to find and is generally associated with wealthy philanthropists.

I thought it was impossible for an average person like me to contribute money directly to needy people across the world except through charitable organizations until this fathers day when my son sent me the best gift I have ever received. It was $25 contributed to http://www.kiva.org/ which I could direct to any needy person or group around the world helping them achieve their goal. Once they achieved their goal the $25 was returned to me, which of course I (being generous with my son's money) contributed to others. So far that initial $25 of my son's money has helped me help two people (with families or others attached to them) become independent. So far I have successfully contributed this same $25 twice to help two groups achieve their goals and self-sufficiency. If I keep contributing this same $25 over and over again how many people can I uplift? I don't know. I will keep on doing it until I loose that money.

I have no connection to the Kiva organization except as described above. There may be other similar organizations or avenues for us to help our fellow beings throughout the world. If you know of any please share this with us by commenting on this post.

Money is the root of all evil?

2009-09-13T12:07:32-04:00

Or is it?

What is money? Bits of metallic coin? Pieces of printed paper? Numbers on your bank account statement? Stocks? Bonds? Bits and Bytes stored in a vast array of computer systems worldwide? Trillions and Trillions of dollars represented in these and other forms?

Let us mentally sum up all of this money worldwide and put it in some immense imaginary vault somewhere on earth. Can you imagine how immense this vault would be? What the value of its content would be? Then remove humans from the equation. The vault would still be immense but its value zero.

Without humans money is not worth anything. Money (or Gold, Diamonds, etc. for that matter) has no intrinsic value. It only has the value we humans give it. Yet money plays a powerful role in our human world. Recently we have seen how CEOs of global organizations because of greed and lust for wealth and power brought not just their companies but the global economy to distress. The source of this evil is greed among the affluent particularly in the most affluent countries.

Then there is Somalia, Afghanistan, the North West Frontier Provinces of Pakistan and other areas on earth where money or rather lack of money poses an equal if not greater problem. Illiteracy and ignorance are a direct product of poverty. Intelligence, creativity, resourcefulness, courage, and other qualities are not. More than others the pirates of Somalia clearly demonstrate this principle. So do the insurgents in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the rest of the world. Clearly these people are all intelligent, creative and courageous. What they do not have is education and sound knowledge. There are those who exploit the ignorance, intelligence, creativity and courageousness of these poor people to advance their lust for money and power.

Why do these people both in affluent countries and poor countries have this lust for money and power? It is because we average human beings encourage them to by unconditionally valueing money and power. We associate the value of a person with their bank balance and position. We do not really differentiate between wealthy people. We value them by their bank balance regardless of whether they amassed their wealth by legal or illegal means. Likewise we associate the value of a person by their power - regardless of how they gained it.

The root of all evil is not money. It is the human lust for wealth and power. We, average people, have the choice of either continuing to fuel this lust by giving it unconditional support or discontinue it by giving conditional embrace: (1) Morally how did one amass their wealth and (2) What is being done with this wealth, hoarding it or sharing it with the needy?

Simply put if we average humans can value other people by what they do to elevate other people rather than what they do to elevate themselves that can turn the tide where money can stop being the root of evil but rather a tool for us to contribute according to our means to make this world a better place for all of us.

Most of us spend most of our time, our thoughts, on how we can advance ourselves. This world will be a better place if we can spend some of our time and thoughts on helping others to truly make our world a better place.

I hope you like this article and if you wish to see my other thoughts I invite you to visit my blog at http://www.weonepeople.com

World Citizenship

2009-09-13T11:53:22-04:00

I got an email from a person in China asking me what a "World Citizen" is. What a great question!

Reality is that, today, we do not have a democratically elected World Government and therefore there are no bonafide World Citizens. There is a void in governance of the world beyond national governments, some of them at war with others. If we are to be true World Citizens we need a true World Government and the only way to get there is for people of all nations, cultures and religions to band together to create one. Here is my reply to my new chinese friend:

"From a philosophical point of view being a World Citizen means going beyond narrow partisan ways of thinking and behavior. It means elevating ourselves beyond our own national, regional, cultural and religious limits to understand and embrace people of other countries, cultures and religions worldwide.

From a practical point of view we do not have a World Government and therefore we do not have world citizenship. If we had a free world government we would then have, legally and politically, world citizenship where every individual on earth could move freely across every inch of our planet and express themselves freely, verbally, on every square inch of earth.

We do not yet have a world government or world citizenship in any effective form. If we are to have a world government, become world citizens, we have to create one.

First step to World Peace

2009-09-13T11:51:11-04:00

If there was a road map, a step by step plan to achieve world peace and harmony what would the first step be?

Surely it would begin with people of all races, religions and beliefs conversing with each other respectfully, finding common ground where we can, respecting others' right to differ when we cannot. Hopefully that common ground will include a rejection of violence as a mechanism to sort out differences.

These conversations would have to be at various levels: Local Communities, Provincial/State, National and Global. The following link is a list of discussion groups for each country on earth:

http://groups.google.com/group/one-world-party/web/find-your-country

You are invited to find and join your country's group, create your own groups based on Regions/States or community and link them to your country's group so people can start these conversations.

There is nothing to lose and a WHOLE WORLD to gain! So join your country's group. Invite your friends, better yet invite your enemies, to join, and start conversing.

World Peace

2009-09-13T11:49:58-04:00

Will we ever achieve world peace?

One would think that as time goes by the world will become increasingly civilized, people more united and in harmony with each other. We have made huge advances in arts, sciences, medicine and technology. On the contrary, the advances in communication and travel has made our earth a smaller place with people of different thinking - whatever that thinking may be - conflicting with each other. Other advances in technology have replaced the stones and sticks our ancestors used with missiles and atomic bombs. Instead of moving towards a unified world populace we find ourselves moving in the opposite direction. A world increasingly in conflict.

People rely on their leaders, their governments and other governments to talk to each other and fix differences. Let's look at some examples: North and South Korea, Israel and Palestine, Pakistan & India, Zimbabwe, Somalia to name a few. This is not going to happen unless humans evolve to a higher plane.

Look at what is happening in Iran today. Iran has largely blocked access to modes of communication to their citizens. Yet there is huge communication happening between people in Iran and the rest of the world via Twitter, Facebook, etc. Yet there is obviously no communication between the opponent camps in Iran! Just like there is no communication between the people of North and South Korea, Palistinians and Israelies, Indians and Pakistanis.

What we need to do is to depend less on our leaders and more on ourselves and our fellow men to talk to each other, understand each other, build bridges and respect differences. Towards this end I have created discussion groups for each country on earth. Please find your country in the link below, join the discussion group and invite others to join in the discussion.

Do do not have to be a citizen of a country to join that group. For example people of North and South Korea can join each others group as well and start talking. Click on the link below to find the groups you wish to join.

Subscribe and invite others to your country's discussion group.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon criticises G8 climate efforts

2009-09-13T11:46:08-04:00

Today in a world that you, me and our progeny continue to populate, 8 leading developed countries (G8) and 5 leading developing countries (G5) agreed that global temperatures should not rise more than 2 degrees Celsius above 1900 levels. The G8 agreed to themselves reduce emissions 80% by 2050 and tried to persuade the G5 developing countries to reduce their emissions by 50%. The leaders of the G5 agreed to the 2 degrees Celsius objective but did not agree to the 50% reduction in their emissions.

If the goal to contain the increase in global warming to 2 degrees Celsius is based mathematically (as one would imagine) by the G8 reducing emissions by 80% and the G5 reducing emissions by 50% how can this objective be obtained without a G5 commitment to reducing emissions by 50%?

Let's assume that somehow the agreement to reduce emissions 80% and 50% respectively between the G8 & G5 by 2050 will be met. This is an agreement between 13 (8+5) of the world's countries. What about the other 190 countries on Earth. They have no part or say in this? Can we reasonably assume that the landscape of developed, developing and other nations will remain static between now and 2050?

Nothing in the agreement states how the G8 and G5 will achieve their stated goal.

To me this agreement is smoke and mirrors. The leaders of both the G8 and G5 know that their constituents demand they do something to stop global warming and save the environment. These leaders also know their constituents demand they secure the upper hand in any negotiations with other countries. This agreement allows them to appear to be doing something to save the environment without giving in, losing, to the other countries. The net result will probably be token measures to stop global warming without much chance of achieving the goals we humans want.

I believe this agreement has no teeth. I believe that if you and me really want to stop global warming, save the environment, avoid global catastrophes like the current global recession, you and I need to:

Accept we are really one people (read http://www.weonepeople.com/oneworld/2009/09/matter-life-intelligence-and-consciousness.html)
Accept our diversity and work together (read http://www.weonepeople.com/oneworld/2009/09/symphony-of-religions.html)
Form a world government elected by you, me and people from all 203 countries on earth (read http://www.weonepeople.com/oneworld/2009/09/one-world-one-people-one-government.html)

Maybe I am a skeptic and pessimist. I hope time proves that I am.

Pope calls for a UN 'with teeth'

2009-09-13T11:42:15-04:00

In my reply to one of the comments on my post "One World Government" I suggested that the United Nations, International Criminal Court, Organization of American States and other similar organizations have no wind in their sails. I argued that that until we have a One World Government with a President or Prime Minister and a cabinet elected by you, me and every person on earth of voting age we will not have effective organizations to govern the environment, international finance, etc.

Today I am pleased to see in the news that pope Benedict XVI has called for reform of the UN and financial bodies (see news article).

Interestingly, when I was writing my comment, I considered suggesting that the UN and organizations named above lacked teeth but chose to use the expression "lack wind in their sails" instead. I did this because I felt that giving these or any organization the teeth without giving them the power of all people behind may result in these organizations using their teeth to impose the will of a few powerful countries over others.

If anyone does think that I am arguing with or contradicting His Holiness, far from it. If one reads the enire news article especially the statement "There is urgent need of a true world political authority" you will see we are hoping and praying for the same thing.

The space race in the 21st century

2009-09-13T11:41:01-04:00

On October 22, 2008 India launched an unmanned spacecraft, Chandrayaan-1, to the moon at the cost of $100 million. On August 29, 2009 mission control lost all contact with Chandrayaan-1. On August 31 after all attempts to reestablish contact with Chandrayaan-1 failed ISRO (The Indian Space Agency) abandoned the mission.

Is it right for the country with the highest number of undernourished people in the world (230 million)embark on such a costly adventure?

This is debatable. In his article published by BBC News Pallava Bagla the Science editor for New Delhi Television (NDTV) and author of the book Destination Moon - India's quest for Moon, Mars and Beyond lists some very impressive achievements of Chandrayaan-1. One could argue that a country like India shun all such adventures and devote all resources to feeding and developing its people. On the other hand one could argue that the preceding sentence is a rather limiting one keeping India's undernourished people undernourished for decades. One could argue that India as a developing nation by launching such satellites as Chandrayaan-1 which produced some impressive results before it failed, actually gets India and its capability for leading edge science and technology credibility which can be translated to accelerated economic progress which could translate to earlier liberation of its hungry population from their suffering.

So what does all of this have to do with the title of this post "The space race in the 21st century?" It sets the context. Two things in Mr. Bagla's article set me thinking:

"Did India ride on the shoulders of earlier successes (of other nations)?

Certainly not, since the know-how and technologies to go to the Moon are just not available for the asking. Each nation has to learn on its own. India experimented and did that with complete success."
"The mission ..... also permanently placed India's flag on the Moon.

Having done this, India became the fourth nation to have done this after Russia, America and the European Space Agency.

This is hugely significant because, if ever the Moon's resources are to be divided, India's rightful share can be claimed having achieved what others have not been able to do."

So let us analyze this in a global context:

Do we all people of earth need to share the resources of the moon (let alone resources on earth!) equitably or does that depend upon who plants a flag where?
There are 203 sovereign countries on earth. Does each country have to spend approximately $100 million each to place a flag on the moon in order to get a fair share of the moon's resources, duplicating work done by all countries before them?
Other countries like N. Korea and Iran claim to pursue ambitions of launching satellites while the world fears they pursuing intercontinental ballistic missiles. Are we not encouraging them by parochial thinking and behaviour that promotes a race into space by individual countries?

There is only one answer to the problems that plagues us. That answer is a Global, democratic, representative, elected government above all existing governments. As I stated in http://www.weonepeople.com this is not going to happen by itself or by existing governments embracing each other. It can only happen if people of earth - you and me - make it happen as described in the post "One World Government."

Trinity, Trimurti and a wish for a Holy Triumvirate

2009-09-13T11:39:33-04:00

Trinity: The Christian belief in one God manifesting Himself in three forms; God the Father (the Creator), God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

Trimurti: The Hindu Trinity of Gods; Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver and Shiva the Destroyer who represent the three forms of the supreme being.

Triumvirate: A group of three people who jointly share some responsibility, authority, or power.

If we look at religious conflicts, the major conflicts over the last few centuries have been between Christianity and Islam. Middle East and European history demonstrates this. Sadly, in the last few decades Hinduism has entered the fray with conflicts with both Islam and Christianity in the Indian subcontinent.

One might argue that I have left Judaism out of the equation. One might argue there is a huge conflict between Muslims and Jews, and that would be true. Yet that huge conflict is not based on religion, rather it is based upon Zionism (a political rather than religious ideology). This is best demonstrated by Hamas leader Ismail Haniya's recent comment "Hamas rejects Zionist ideology, not Jews" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8155350.stm).

Back to the topic, what is my hope for a Holy Triumvirate? It is my hope that leaders, representatives of (in alphabetical order) Christianity, Hinduism and Islam get together and form a Triumvirate, sharing responsibility and their authority to encourage their followers to embrace each other, despite their differing religions, based upon the fact they were created by just one God.

Who should form the Holy Triumvirate?

Christianity: Although there are many denominations of christians I think the Catholic church best represents Christianity from the time Jesus Christ said to Peter, "Peter upon this rock I build my church...". Following Peter and a succession of Popes, I think the current pope, Pope Benedict XVI is best placed to be a part of this triumvirate.

Hinduism: Hinduism began in the Vedic age 1500 years B.C. It is impossible to establish a direct connection between the founders of Hinduism 3500 years ago and Hindu leaders today. My best choice of a Hindu leader for the Triumvirate would be Sri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal, the present Jagadguru of the Shringeri Pita.

Huh? Let me explain. In the book "Historic India" published by TIME-LIFE books, the author Lucille Schulberg says: "Of all the philosophers that India has produced, one who graced the Ninth Century A.D. ranks among the great minds in all history. That was Shankara, a brahman born in Kerala, in southern India. In a brief life of 32 years he did for hinduism what the 13th Century Thomas Aquinhas did for Christianity: he took his religion apart and examined it in minute detail, then drew the pieces together again in one cohesive whole....".

Just like Jesus Christ passed his church to Peter and on to subsequent popes with pope Benedict XVI being the latest, Sri Adi Shankara passed his reigns on to Sri Suresvara Acharya who passed the position onwards which Sri Bharti Tirtha Mahaswamigal now occupies.

Islam: On the Islamic front I would put forth the current successor of Hazrat Khwaja Moinuddin Hassan Chishty who preached "love towards all, malice towards none", but I do not know who that might be. Hazrat Khwaja Moinuddin Hassan Chishty brought Islam to the Indian subcontinent not by the sword but by the power of his thoughts and messages.

The founders of Christianity, Hinduism and Islam (amongst other religions) believed in and preached Peace, Love, Kindness and unity amongst all human beings. Yet followers of these religions today practice hate, malice and killing of each other.

It is time for leaders of these great religions to lead their flocks, teach them that every single person on earth was created by the very same God who created them. Teach them how to - people of all religions, races, cultures - love each other, unite and work with each other to make our world a better place for all of us. If these three leaders reach out to each other and agree to form a triumvirate surely billions of their followers worldwide will embrace each other. In time Christians, Hindus and Moslems from other denominations will probably follow.

How will this Triumvirate be formed? For sure it will not happen simply because I wrote this piece. If you have any ideas I would appreciate your comments.

Evolution and Man: A unique relationship.

2009-09-13T11:36:13-04:00

For the first time after billions of years of evolution matter in the form of human beings has evolved to a point where we can consciously change the course of evolution on earth and beyond.

From the beginning of time, call it Creation or Big Bang, energy and matter evolved. Energy transformed into fundamental particles of matter which grouped into simple atoms such as hydrogen. Gigantic clouds of such matter condensed into Galaxies forming Stars where more complex, heavier, atoms and molecules were created. When these stars died (just like we do) they let the matter they were made of become available to the rest of the universe. Atoms combined with other atoms to form molecules and compounds. From these heavier elements and compounds planets formed where arrangements of matter continued to evolve. On Earth this evolution continued to form life forms, some intelligent, conscious and ultimately human beings with life, intelligence, consciousness and a conscience.

Some may argue we were created and did not evolve. Reality is that the universe was both created and has evolved. Many religions, for example the catholic church believes this.

No other animal, plant or other being other than the almighty God has had the ability to consciously direct or change evolution. This puts a huge yoke of responsibility upon us. We human beings can make important choices that can change the future of this planet and our universe. If we choose to do nothing that is still a choice albeit a terrible choice. If we do nothing climate across the world will change, huge swaths of earth will be submerged with rising seas, pollution will kill millions of our fellow human beings, and ultimately the destruction of human life, maybe all life, on earth.

The path to the evolution of the human species is paved by cannibalism, cooperation, conflict and the survival of the fittest. Galaxies devour other galaxies, animals eat other animals, animals and even plants both cooperate with each other individually and in groups as well as fight each other individually and in groups to fulfill "Survival of the fittest". If we choose not to change, evolution will continue its merry way and our species will join the hundreds of other species that have become extinct along the way.

If we human beings choose to cooperate rather than compete with each other there are hugh opportunities to change the course of evolution on our planet. For example, instead of each country on earth spending $100 million to plant their flag on the moon, this money could be spent on geoengineering. Perhaps if we had a democratically elected world government over and above existing national governments it will help getting all people of earth working together.

For more on this visit http://www.weonepeople.com

One World Government

2009-09-13T11:34:50-04:00

Regardless of our physical appearance, nationality, religion or culture we are all one people. What we lack is a world government that is democratically elected and representative of every single person on earth regardless of physical attributes, religious beliefs or cultural values.

Does the air in our athmosphere stay confined within national boundaries? Does water in our hydrosphere stay confined to national boundaries? Do Tsunamies, whether tidal or economic, stay contained to individual nations? Can pollution, global warming, destruction of the ionosphere and such be governed and regulated by national governments or do we need a higher level of government - one world government - for all of Earth?

One world government? Before I even start explaining what is being proposed let me explain what is not being proposed! I am not proposing a simplistic conversion of the United Nations to a world government. Nor am I proposing expanding the European Union as a model for world government. What I am proposing is a conservative, albeit brand new, super confederation of nations.

Confederation by definition is a group of loosely allied states. Examples include the United States, Canada, India and many other countries where individual states coalesced into a nation. This new super confederation of nations then would be a new higher layer of government atop of existing municipal, regional and national governments.

This super confederation, a natural extension of the current systems of government, will by design on the one hand address global issues such as global warming, pollution, economics & finance, while on the other hand preserve individuality of people, their social, cultural, religious and other comfort zones so every individual on earth has the greatest freedom of thought and belief and unlimited opportunity to grow on an extremely competitive planet.

Consider this: Our world consists of an atmosphere and a hydrosphere. These are not confined to national boundaries. The air that you breathe out consists of carbon dioxide (CO²) for example. This CO² gets into the air, gets blown across provinces, states, countries, and continents and ultimately gets absorbed into a plant somewhere else on earth, perhaps in another country, perhaps in another continent. Likewise the oxygen that you and I breathe in may come from a plant in some far corner of the earth. Our lives whether human, animal or plant all depend upon this oxygen and carbon dioxide cycle.

Consider this: Hundreds of tons of waste (mercury for example) are dumped into our hydrosphere, much of it toxic. The spread of this waste is not contained within territorial borders but expands out to contaminate oceans worldwide. It destroys life in streams, rivers, seas and oceans worldwide. Over fishing and other bad practices exacerbate the destruction to life in our hydrosphere.

Consider this: Global warming is not segmented by countries or continents. Global warming is in a significant way the cumulative effect of actions by millions of people all over our planet without any consideration of territorial boundaries. Global warming is also contributed to by natural systems in no way connected to the actions of humans. Yet we humans have the power to control global warming not only by changing how we ourselves behave (contributing to global warming) but also have by our imaginative and creative power the ability to compensate for global warming caused by non human factors. What causes global warming is a great rhetorical question. The real question is this: Are we humans going to watch global warming increase to the point that life on earth is not sustainable or we going to do something about it?

Consider this: People, humans like you and me, are killing each other for Religious, Social, Political and Economical reasons. Gaza, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Zimbabwe and we can go on and on are painful examples.

History shows us that for large swaths in time Christians, Jews and Muslims lived in harmony in what is now Israel. Likewise Hindus and Muslims lived in peace and harmony in the Indian subcontinent for example at the time of Hazrat Khwaja Muinuddin Chishti as did Christians who became a part of the Indian fabric later. So if people with differences could live in harmony in the past (and still do in most parts of the democratic world) then why can’t all peoples of the world, each with their own beliefs live in harmony and indeed work together to overcome the huge challenges we have now and in future?

Consider this: Can all of the problems described above be resolved by the United Nations, European Union, ASEAN - or any other existing organization - or do we need to create a new level of government to deal with global issues while leaving national, regional and local issues to existing national, regional and municipal levels of government?

There is a suggestion that the G8 be replaced by the G20, in effect 20 rather than 8 of the world's most prominant countries work together - albeit competing with each other - on Global issues. While the move does enfranchise 12 more countries it still leaves the remaining 170 countries disenfranchised. Do the other 170 countries and the people therein not matter?

I do not believe that these problems can effectively be tackled by existing national governments or institutions. I do believe we need a global level of government formed by a confederation of existing national governments.

How to get to this Super Confederation?

It is not possible to get to a global government, a confederation of nations, overnight. Global government has to evolve – just like everything else has in our universe. The rest of this article is not a commentary on how this evolution should or will happen. Rather it is a commentary on how this evolution could happen. Whether this evolution to a new global layer of government happens – or not – and how this does indeed evolve totally depends upon us, you, me, and all other human beings that populate our world.

I think the first step is for those of us who recognize the impossibility of effectively controlling global issues such as global warming, pollution, inter national conflicts and such without a global level of government, and those of us who are passionate about this, do two things: (1) be an evangelist for a global layer of government and (2) band together to form a global movement or movements towards that end. I hope this blog facilitates the formation of one such movement which I (being the first member of this movement) name it “One World, One People, and One Government Movement”. For this movement to be successful it should not target or present a threat to any existing nations or forms of government whether one party, two party, multi party, secular, religious or communist). This aspired global layer of government will only govern global matters, matters that are beyond any individual nation, and will have to work harmoniously with all forms of national governments.

If and when there is a critical mass of people supporting this movement (or other such movements) there will be a need to add structure and organization. In our case we could form a party say “One World, One People Party”. This second step will require getting thousands, hopefully millions of like minded people worldwide into an organized, structured party. This will be a huge undertaking way beyond the capability of this one person movement today as I write this article, but we can tackle this if and when we get large enough membership in this movement.

This structured, organized party – totally devoid of links to any other existing political, ethnic or cultural party around the world as they exist today or subscribing to any existing form of government (democracy, communism, or theocracy) – then develops a global manifesto (a public written declaration of principles, policies, and objectives). This global manifesto should define and dwell on the issues that are patently beyond the capability of existing national governments. The key element of the global manifesto is its Global scope.

Once we have achieved this level of maturity the “One World, One People” organization can inject itself in various national governments in many ways:

1. In countries that have a multi-party system of government this party can register and compete with other existing parties. Cream rises to the top. Because of its inclusiveness, universality and potential to bring positive global change across every nation this party will likely succeed in elections and, when in power, work together with other “One World, One People” party governed national governments to form the global layer of government aspired.

At the national level though, there could be many individual “One World, One People” parties each with their own unique name, each with their own national and domestic agenda. What brings them together is their adoption of the global “One World, One Party” manifesto while what differentiate them will be their national domestic stances. Obviously the fewer such parties abound will increase the chances of one of them reaching power. So the national “One World, One People” party that is most inclusive and universal can coalesce with others to increase their numbers and succeed.

There will be a temptation for such national “One World, One People” governments to compromise on the global manifesto and claim to be 99.9999% adoptive of the global manifesto while being 0.0001% deviant. This should not be allowed! All parties should be 100% compliant with the global manifesto and there should be a mechanism to certify compliancy at the global party level. If there is even a small deviation between the global manifesto and that of any individual national party then there should be a negotiation and a change to the global manifesto (after consultation with other national parties) so there is absolutely no discrepancy in the global agenda.

2 In countries that have a two-party system of government there are two potential avenues:

a. One or both parties adopt the “One World, One People” global manifesto as described above and add it to their national manifesto. Everything applicable to a new political party in a multi-party state will apply to this existing albeit transformed political party or

b. Independents, members of the “One World, One People” party can band together, develop a domestic national common manifesto, and then stand for elections as independents subscribing to that manifesto, in effect becoming a third party in a two-party system. Again, because of their inclusiveness and universality this group of independents – the third party – hopefully will be the cream that rises to the top. They will have to deal with this anomaly of being the successful third party in a two party state. Everything applicable to the “One World, One People” parties stated above will apply.

2. Countries that have a one party system – whatever that system is – equally have an opportunity to join the “One World, One People” government. As an inclusive, universal party we have to recognize that there have been several very popular single party governments in history whether kingdoms or presidents who came to power due to their achievements and consequent popularity. This cannot be denied.The monarchs, presidents, premiers or prime ministers of these one party systems have an opportunity to become a part of the “One World, One People” government by accepting 100% the manifesto of the “One World, One People” party and being formally accepted by this party. No government that cannot be inclusive and universal in its outlook can ever be a part of this new global party and government. These rogue governments led by rogue leaders (mischievously playful persons who are also likable to some) – some albeit relevant in the past - will ultimately isolate themselves. If their subjects are influenced by the “One World, One People, One Government” movement, their subjects will not agree to remain subjugated forever, reality will prevail and these governments will change.

If we people of earth, regardless of nationality, religion, ethnicity, colour or belief can join together in an all inclusive, universal movement to transform this world from its current state - lacking a global government - to a future state inclusive of a global government we can transform the world from one where nations compete to one where nations cooperate we can raise the quality of lives in parts of the world without reducing the current quality of lives in other parts of the world.

While today:

There is a global recession resultant from a United States mortgage sub-prime situation.

This US national economical situation, compounded by other US national economic situations caused a global economic Tsunami.
Countries are circling their wagons, protecting themselves from economic threats from other nations.
This same protection poses economic threats to those other nations who are equally circling their wagons to protect themselves..
All this national circling of wagons creates a lose/lose proposition for all peoples of earth.

By having a global layer of government where all nations are represented equally with one universal currency, universal trade agreements rather than national or regional trade barriers it is possible to leverage the strengths of different regions of earth (North America and Europe for their technological leadership, South America and the Middle East for their natural resources, Asia for manpower, etc.) in a spirit of cooperation so it’s a win/win proposition for all peoples of earth.

Neither Democracy nor Communism were formed by existing governments transforming. France and the UK are prime examples of people instituting change toward democratic governments. Likewise China and Russia are prime examples of people instituting change toward communist governments. In those days people of the movement took pitchforks and scythes and went out on the streets. Today I believe we can even more effectively change world government using the power of the World Wide Web/Internet without leaving our homes. Communism nor Democracy would have happened without people banding together to the cause. One World Government will not happen without people embracing the idea and joining the movement.

For those of you who do embrace the idea of a One World Government we have created Google groups for everyone to help develop a single global manifesto for the "One World Party".

You can subcribe or visit this group below:

Subscribe to One World Party

Email:

Visit this group

Symphony of Religions

2009-09-13T11:33:11-04:00

Regardless of our religion, caste or denomination, regardless of whether we are believers or non-believers, we are all one people. We were all either created by a single Creator or we all evolved without a Creator.

Thousands of years ago early religions formed, each in their own part of the world, to unique peoples and cultures. The oldest religions still in prevalence, Hinduism and Judaism to mention two of the major original religions still prominent today developed in isolation from each other. These religions grew and matured unhindered by other major religions. They had no competition outside of themselves (Hinduism for example had competition from followers of individual Hindu Gods). From these source religions, either derived from, as a reaction to, or influenced by, other religions developed. Christianity and Islam are the two major religions that followed Judaism. Buddhism and Jainism are some major religions that followed Hinduism. These later religions though felt the need to compete not only with their predecessors but also their new peers. These latter religions proselytized using either the power of the word or the power of the sword. Jainism spread through India, Buddhism spread outside India to China, Japan, Sri Lanka, etc. while Christianity and Islam spread to the Middle East, Europe and Asia.

For a while religions were somewhat separated by geographic boundaries into loosely speaking religious zones. Islam and Judaism prevailed in the Middle East, Christianity dominated Europe, Hinduism prevailed in the Indian Subcontinent and Buddhism took hold in the Far East. These zones where somewhat insulated from each other by time, distance and segregated social, political and economic structures. The competition and contention in these zones were thus limited within the zones themselves with not much spillover to other zones. The Crusades for example at its time did not have an impact beyond the Middle East, The Inquisition did not have much of an impact beyond Europe nor did the Turkish conquests in the Mediterranean. Likewise the Persian invasion and the establishment of the Mogul empire did not have any significant impact beyond the Indian subcontinent. Major conflicts in one zone had little or no impact on other zones. It took weeks if not months for a person or goods to move from one such zone to another while today with air transport it takes hours. It took weeks if not months for information or messages to move from one zone to another while today with Information technology it takes seconds. As the 2008 sub prime crisis clearly demonstrates, any change whether economic or financial in any place on earth can have earth shaking consequences all over the world. We cannot safely assume this global impact from local circumstances is limited to finance and economics.

The logical implosion of space and time on earth causes an ever increasing friction between peoples subscribing to different religions, morals and values, which will unchecked eventually result in an explosion.

We can let things deteriorate to a point where our world explodes (bear in mind that several countries have nuclear armaments) or we, people of all faiths and cultures can band together to change the course of this world, if not the Universe. The choice is ours.

By embracing a new bold thinking - Intelligent Faith, Monism, Creation, Evolution and our acceptance and understanding of the various dimensions we live in and are surrounded with (space, time, cultures, history, religious beliefs…….) but most importantly acknowledging there is only one Creator of the Universe - we can change this world from a crucible of destruction to a crucible of love with manking of all races, religions and cultures working in harmony to advance creation and evolution in the direction or Creator would want.

Before embracing these elements of the bold new thinking let us understand them.

Intelligent Faith

If I was blind I would have to depend totally, have absolute trust and faith, on someone or something else for me to “see”. I would have to have “Blind faith”.

I am not blind. I see everything real around me, but I also see mirages (in the distance as I drive down a road on a hot day), reflections in mirrors, projections on movie screens and television. I find a need for me to separate the real from the unreal and to do this I have to apply intelligence. I then need to have confidence in my thinking, my intelligence, and have faith in my understanding of what is real and what is not from what I see. This to me is “Intelligent faith”.

I think intelligent faith embraces all peoples regardless of color, race or religion. I see Buddhists, Christians, Hellenists, Hindus, Muslims (and all other religions) working together with Intelligent faith to create a world were we all respect each others’ intelligence and faith (although others’ faith – not intelligence - may be different from ours). If all of us humankind embraces intelligent faith and respect each others’ beliefs (including those of Agnostics and Atheists) we may ultimately arrive at a common core belief built upon a process of trust between all of us.

Blind belief is static. It follows word for word – without any intellectual engagement – the words of the Bible, Koran, and other holy books. Intelligent belief on the other hand is dynamic. It will change as our knowledge and understanding increases. Intelligent faith therefore is by its definition not absolutely right but the best belief we can hold at any given time based upon the extent of our knowledge and understanding.

Monism

Wikipedia’s definition of monism is: “any philosophical view which holds that there is unity in a given field of inquiry, where this is not to be expected. Thus, some philosophers may hold that the Universe is really just one thing, despite its many appearances and diversities: or theology may support the view that there is one God, with many manifestations in different religions”.

From a theological perspective Christians believe in the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit as one God. Hindus, despite their many Gods believe in one Creator. In Islam the Suffi believe in Monism. According to Wikipedia “Sufi orders trace their origins from the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, through his cousin Ali or his father-in-law Abu Bakr”. In Judaism the Kabbala supports Monism.

One thing is clear: Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and all other religious followers were not each created by their own God (each God responsible for their own creation and in competition with other Gods). There is only one creator of all of us, the same creator who created Earth, the Solar System, Galaxies and the entire Universe.

If all people of Intelligent Faith accept the fact we are the products of one and the only Creator and that killing another human being in the name of the same one Creator or God is an oxymoron this world would be a hugely better place being a catalyst in God’s creation rather than destroying it.

Sri Sankaracharya is a phenomenal example of the success of Monism. Following are excerpts from the book The Greatness of Sringeri (A publication of Sarada Peetham, Sringeri)

“He was able to perceive that there were many points of view, contrary because no one had a full perspective of the Reality. He was prepared to say to both of them ‘You are right’. He felt that they were right so far as they went. He disagreed only when they presumed to say that their conception of what was right exhausted all.”

“The great Acharya…..was able to reconcile all the warring creeds and sects.”

Adi Sankaracharya in his brief lifetime of 32 years (788 to 820 AD) traveled the length and breadth of India, unifying Hindus, the followers of many Gods, with this philosophy.

Our World has imploded in dimensions, exploded in population

Today we can travel at least 25 times farther in the same amount of time than we could 500 years ago when traveling large distances. It is as if the earth has shrunk equivalently.

While the world has not changed its physical dimensions at all, in terms of human experience it is much smaller today than it was 500 years ago. During this same period earth’s human population increased dramatically. The end result is that a markedly increased number of humans subscribing to conflicting beliefs and values are compressed into a smaller experiential space. This naturally results in increased friction which is clearly demonstrated by 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan, the occupation of Iraq, the Madrid Train Bombings, the London bombings and recently the Mumbai carnage.

The technology that made the “shrinking” of the earth possible also increased the speed and distance we can communicate. Today we can communicate from any point on earth to any other point within seconds. This makes it possible for people to organize and execute these kinds of attacks from great distances. Technology also increased the destructive power of weapons available to people. 500 years ago weapons used were swords and similar weapons. Today RDX has been used and it is entirely possible for weapons of mass destruction to be used.

Unless peoples of all faiths, creeds and ethnic differences purposefully band together to avert it the human race is on a path of self destruction. Left alone the logical future is an ever increasing frequency of such attacks with ever increasing magnitudes of mayhem until such time as we humans wipe ourselves out of the cosmos. I think it was Bertrand Russell who said that from a cosmic point of view this means nothing. The rest of the Universe will go on. In fact, once we humans have annihilated ourselves, this planet will probably recover from the destruction we humans have done to it. Perhaps life will develop or be created somewhere else in the universe and hopefully this life will be more intelligent than us humans.

As a human I find it difficult to accept the annihilation of the human race even if it means nothing from the cosmic perspective.

If this path to destruction of humankind is to be avoided, turned around, I think the best amongst us need to, while retaining our religions, our cultures and our values embrace Intelligent Faith and Theological Monism and work together to resolve the social, economic and other gaps that divide us and move our human race and our environment on a constructive path leading to better place whatever you call it: Heaven, Nirvana, Omega state or any other. Whatever you call it, it is the end goal of creation. I’ll call it the cosmic goal.

All religions have a social context with a goal to both enhance their follower’s life on earth and lead them towards the cosmic goal. If people of all religions retain their own faith and values yet respect and accept others’ faith and values, if we people of all religions all created by the same Creator work in harmony in a Symphony of Religions this world will become a wonderful place for all of us – a paradise. If you are a person of Intelligent Faith who can accept Theological Monism and want to do something to make this world, maybe this Universe a better place please leave a comment.

Matter, Life, Intelligence and Consciousness

2009-09-11T19:49:28-04:00

Regardless of our skin colour, eye colour, hair colour or features whether Asian, Caucasian or Negroid we are all one people made up of the same matter, Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, etc. shared amongst all humans, animals. plants and even inorganic forms.

Life as we know it originated from Amino Acids. Where did Amino acids come from? They came from chemical reactions between molecules. Where did these molecules come from? They came from atoms coming together in unique arrangements. Where did these atoms come from?

They were formed within stars which then exploded and provided the heavier elements (Carbon, Oxygen and Calcium for example) that formed planets. In the stars nuclear fusion crushed the atoms of Hydrogen and Helium into heavier elements to form Carbon, Oxygen, Calcium, Iron and all the elements on earth so essential to life. Where did Hydrogen and Helium come from? They came from an arrangement of Protons, Electrons, Neutrons and other sub atomic particles. Finally, where did the Electrons, Neutrons, Protons and other sub atomic particles come from? They came from a condensation of energy created by the Big Bang.

Where did the Big Bang come from? Surely it could not have come out of nowhere! Surely there must have been a Creator. This Creator could be external to His/Her creation (segregating the Creator from Creation) or could be, with the Big Bang, a self transformation to become an aggregation of the Universe. In other words our Creator could have been external to the Universe prior to Creation and the Big Bang but transformed Himself/Herself into the current day Universe. Both are reasonable, viable, and deserve equal respect.

Scientifically what we do know today is Matter and Energy are manifestations of the same thing – lets call it momentum – governed by the equation E = MC². What we do know is the sum of all Matter and Energy in our Universe, momentum as we have called it, is a constant. This “momentum” has not changed at all since the Big Bang. Over billions of years this momentum whether measured in Ergs (energy) or grams (matter) has not changed by a single unit or a fraction thereof. I argue that this “momentum” post Big Bang is equivalent to its corresponding “momentum” pre Big Bang. So in effect this “momentum” is a constant without beginning and without an end, both in momentum and in time. Matter and Energy today are manifestations of this “momentum” today. Does this “momentum”, a summation of Matter and Energy in the Universe include Life and Intelligence?

If this is true and Life and Intelligence are products of an arrangement of “momentum”, an arrangement of Matter and Energy in unique ways, then did Life start with amino acids, did intelligence start with the formation of man or even animals, did consciousness begin with man or perhaps other higher animals predating man, or are life, intelligence and consciousness derived from the creation of the Universe, the Big Bang? Max Velmans has expressed this best. Like magnetism and luminescence for example, Life, Intelligence and Consciousness could very well be properties of matter that only manifest themselves under certain arrangements of matter.

We are all made up of matter, Carbon, Hydrogen & Oxygen to mention just a few elements. Each of these atoms of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and other elements while being identical to other Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and other elements respectively, are distinct individual units. If we wanted to and if we could, each atom in this universe could be given a part and serial number. So if the part numbers of Carbon, Hydrogen & Oxygen were C, H & O respectively and each atom of that element numbered starting from 1 then every single atom in the universe could be uniquely identified by its part and serial number. Every Carbon atom would have a serial number between C1 & Cn, every Hydrogen atom a serial number between H1 & Hn, every Oxygen atom a serial number between O1 & On etc. where n is the count of the last atom of that element in the universe.

We were all born with a certain set of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and other atoms each of which could be uniquely labeled by part and serial number as defined in the preceding paragraph. In each of us today most if not all of the original atoms we were born with have left our bodies through exhalation and excretion. The original set of atoms of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, etc. which were once part of our bodies are now elsewhere on earth, some in other plants or animals or even in other men (or women). The atoms of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and other elements that constitute us today have come from the food we have ingested, the plants and animals we have eaten and air we have inhaled. Even the strictest vegetarian or vegan has within them matter from other vegetable and even animal life through what they have ingested and inhaled. The matter of which our bodies are made up of today, Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and a host of other elements have traveled around over billions of years supporting other plants, animals – and yes humans – before they arrived into our bodies.

In conclusion then, we human beings are unique arrangements of matter that gives us life, intelligence, consciousness and individuality – the concept of “I” - the same matter that existed in other life forms and contributed to their life, intelligence, consciousness and individuality depending upon which life form they supported.

If all of us blacks, colored, whites, African, Asian, European, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, people of all colour, race and belief are made up of the same matter why do we kill each other? (Link to next blog)

If this subject interests you and you wish to exchange thoughts with others similarly interested please leave a comment.