Starlife Friends on World Party: Mail no. 2
A
World Party stuck in the past?
Following the WSN World Party
discussion a couple of days has made me both surprised and worried. I don't
know if those revolutionary attitudes some of you have are representative
for the academic world. But of course, students are always are a little bit
more radical than the rest of the population. (It use to fade away when you
have finished your studies and mabye start to make careers in big
corporations yourselves!)
In any case, we are really approaching this subject from different
directions. Many of you see some very bad things about our society, and you
feel oppressed by the present "rulers" of the world. So you want
to fight for a direct change of economic system and ideology, just like is
the case with most political revolutions in the past. Global Unity and World
Citizenship is not really your cause at all - at the most it can be a tool
for those other aims you have.
But it is our cause. We in Starlife Friends are talking about education,
about change of values, identities and priorities, and the spreading of new
visions and spiritual nurturing among people. If we can educate global
values and priorities among people, preferably already from their
childhood, these kids will grow up and start to implement their
visions as students, workers, politicians and corporate leaders. Then the
world would start to change, without the need of rules, laws or force. In a
sense, we are not talking politics at all. But we see the need for building
political support for these and related aims, and since traditional parties
are so slow in getting the picture, we are talking World Party ideas.
I don't like to put political labels on neither myself nor a future WP,
but I definitely feel more comfortable with the recommendations of Prof.
Randy Groves (Ferris State University), who proposed a more liberal
World Party. I completely agree with his call for a real cosmopolitanism. It
is a quite natural process that we are heading towards a global economy.
Everything is turning global, so why not the corporations? As he said, we
will not get rid of it, and the best we can do is to riding the wave and
change the system in a positive direction from within; "promoting
human rights, environmentalism, democracy and creative thinking to undermine
the corrupting influence of big money".
This approach is not only more realistic, it also ensures stability and
represent in general a more adult behaviour worthy people of the 3rd
millennium. I am surprised how many of you who seems to live in the past.
You talk about revitalizing old, outdated systems and ideologies which
already have proven not to work. Especially, I feel bad about your talk
about "our enemies". Of course, we will have people working
against our interests. But the mere fact that you are splitting up the world
in "friends" and "enemies", in "we" and
"them" indicates that you are still dominated by the ancient,
aggressive "reptile brain" thinking which has lead to so much wars
and suffering throughout our history.
There are millions of colors between black and white, between good and
bad. There is no "we" vs. "them". There is only
"us" - the human civilization. We are in this together. Everyone
is a potential friend. Our goal should not be to "fight our
enemies", but to educate and spread new insights and visions to those
who at this moment doesn't agree with us. A strategy based on peace, love
and mutual respect. Like Emilio in Colombia wrote: "Who would
be the activists? People who is ready to act peacefully, but intelligently
and with heart, to transform present madness whirpool ...talking with each
others as friends."
The enemy attitude and other revolutionary expressions by some of you,
really make me scared. I agree completely that "people from below"
should have more influence in the world. But who says we "the
peoples" would be better to lead this planet than today's governments
and corporations? Would all problems be solved just because we take the
power? No. If change comes suddenly, like after a revolution or a collapse
of the present systems, we would probably fight just like the nations.
Different people and groups would stand against each other. It would be a
highly unstable world.
Why so? Because this behaviour is written in our genes. Just as wars and
conflicts will not stop just beacuse we enter a new millennium (exept maybe
a few hours on january 1st), the world will not become a paradise just
because we change the people in charge. The biological evolution is slow. We
shouldn't expect paradise anytime soon. But we can try to make the best of
the situation. We can use our intelligence, our compassion and empathy for
others, our love and responsibility for other people and this planet, to
oppresse these "bad genes" from our past. We can have a
conscious evolution.
I believe we should be hopeful. I believe we can become better persons.
But we can't solve all problems merely by exchanging the peoples and
instituitons now having the power. As I see it, this must be an evolutionary
process which will go on more or less forever, where new and old players -
like governments, corporations, NGO:s and individuals - work together for
the future of the planet. This is how both the biological evolution and our
social and scientific renewal has worked throughout history (except maybe
when an asteroid killed the dinosaurs). New players, ideas and developments
are introduced and tested parallell with old ones. It is also a guarantee
for stability.
I have a strong feeling that much of your World Party discussion got
wrong from the start. Already on the WSN World Party homepage, with its
focus on Warren Wagars book, and through the questions we were supposed to
comment on, the organizers have stated what kind of ideas and answers they
want. I do want to apologize to Wagar for calling his book stupid. I read a
lot of science fiction books before, and it is always exciting to explore
and speculate about different futures. That's OK. But to base a political
party on his scenario is stupid indeed. If such a party would be founded in
my country or elsewhere in northen Europe, it would be totally ignored.
Let us do something new. Let's not repeat the old. A World Party should
find new ways, terms and expressions to show what it wants to do. It
shouldn't be associated with any ideologies from the past. We certainly
would like to see quick change, but we are not a revolutionaries in the
tradional political meaning.We are "evolutionaries" and
reformists. For Starlife Friends and its associates to support this
initiative, it should fulfill the following requirements:
1. Not one big World Party, but a network or alliance of likeminded
parties throughout the world, possibly recognized by a common name.
2.
Focus should be on World Unity & Citizenship, as a part of our expanding
worldview, and not on promoting certain economic/political ideologies from
the past.
3. Work within the system to accomplish change and reform.
4. Friendly, peaceful, positive and constructive image.
As I see it today, this is not the way you are heading. You are stuck in
the past, while we at Starlife are "providing new perspectives and
opportunities", as we state on our homepage. We don't need another
protest movement (or party) only complaining and fighting about what's wrong
in the world. We need a party with visions of something newer and better,
and which can motivate people to work for these visions. Even if this party
never gets the power, we can accomplish a lot just by influencing other
parties, just like the Greens have influenced the environmetal policies of
many European governments.
I want to thank those of you who are showing interest in our World
Citizen Party Network - an initative with a different approach. To the rest
of you, please think again before you rush ahead with something which will
never get enough support among the big masses.
Hans Starlife
President,
Starlife Friends
Sweden
starlife@starlife.org