You offered a thought question around the connection of consciousness to our activism, relationships, conspiracy analysis and more. I believe that real change starts from the inside out from the individual to the collective. On the interiors, there is both a “waking up” and “growing up” dimension in consciousness. Furthermore, “waking up” in consciousness can happen at both at an ultimate level and a relative level. I believe we “wake up” to ever-present Spirit, the sacred goodness of life itself that stands outside of time through various practices like psychedelics, meditation, yoga and contemplative prayer and others. Waking up on the relative side of the street is what happens for many in the red-pill community who see that the relative reality of this life–in this time and in this space–is not what we thought. We therefore wake to both the ultimate sacredness, and relative tyranny of the Global Domination Agenda (GDA) and more.
We not only wake up but we grow up at the level of Mind in consciousness. Consciousness drives our worldview, which shapes our values and our motives. Said simply, the less ego-centric we are, the more we naturally care for the health and thriving of the whole. Our circle of moral care and concern therefore moves from me, to us, to all of us as we “grow up” in consciousness. We feel a visceral kinship with others, become more generous, kind and loving with others and all of life itself. We are best positioned to care for the thriving of the collective as it is a natural extension of who we feel ourselves to be, moment to moment.
The question that comes up for me around this topic is how do we honor the liberty perspective and voluntarism as we care for things like the “global commons.” Where does healthy care and concern, become pathological control? Many of us see how ideas like sustainability, the Green New Deal, ESG, DEI and the SDG’s have been captured and corrupted by the Global Elite to drive their desire for the centralization of control. When does healthy care, become control and coercion? In my book, I talk about the potential risk in the arena of international development where I worked for a decade. I offer the warning “beware the soft paternalism of the well-intended helper.” Do we offer the poor woman in the Andean highlands a new high-tech smokeless cookstove which will perform better and not lead to indoor air pollution for her family OR do we give her the cost of the stove in cash to do with what she deems best for her and her family?
Can we do things like “SDG’s”–worthy goals on the face–without the shadow side of coercive, centralized control that comes with it? “Impact investing” is another arena that sounds good, but is often a form of “green washing”. It would be easy to say “scrap it all and start over, clean slate.” Yet something like “impact investing” according to the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) is a trillion dollar industry. Is there not a judo move to use all of the forward momentum of this movement around impact and SDG’s, but just offer it on a voluntaryist, non-coercive way?
