|

"Every really new idea looks crazy at first."
- Abraham H. Maslow



“Civilization is a movement and not a
condition, a voyage and not a harbor.”
–Arnold Toynbee



It is not your obligation to complete the task [of perfecting
the world], but neither are you free to desist [from doing all
you can].
-
Ethics of the Fathers 2:16
As
cited in "Jewish Wisdom" by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin.

Human Beings have some instincts that foster the
greater good and others that foster self-interested and
anti-social behavior. We must design a society that
encourages the former and discourages the latter.
Matt Ridley, Origins of Virtue, 1996

"No institution can possibly survive if it needs
geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a
way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of
average human beings."
Peter Drucker

If we are to recover social harmony and virtue,
if we are to build back into society the virtues that made it work
for us, it is vital that we reduce the power and scope of the
state. This does not mean a vicious war of all against all.
It means devolution, devolution of power over people's lives to
parishes, computer networks, clubs, teams self-help groups, small
businesses--everything small and local. It means a massive
disassembling of the public bureaucracy. Let national and
international governments wither into their minimal function of
national defence and redistribution of wealth (directly--without
an intervening and greedy bureaucracy). Let Kropotkin's vision of
a world of free individuals return. Let everybody rise and
fall by their reputation. I am not so naive as to think this
can happen overnight, or that some form of government is not
necessary. but I do question the necessity of a government
that dictates the minutest of details of life and squats like a
giant flea upon the back of a nation.
Matt Ridley, Origins of Virtue, 1996






















“Societal choices, more often than not, are the result
of expediency, statistical fallacy, sentiment, political
or media pressure, or personal prejudice and vested
interest. Crucial decisions affecting the lives of
everyone on the planet are made under conditions that
virtually guarantee failure. Because societies lack the
necessary reality base for formulation of effective
problem resolutions, they fall back, over and over, on a
resort to {government} force (in its various expressions
such as law, taxation, war, rules and regulations) which
is extremely costly, instead of employing power, which
is very economical.”
David
Hawkins’
Thoughts on Intocracy
Many people will feel that this is not "powerful"
enough to contain the fear, uncertainty and doubt in a rapidily
expanding set of global issues. Yet, my concern is that we
fall into the trap of a particular "common sense."
The following quote was sent to me by Richard Freis.
This is from Shunryu Suzuki's Not Always So,
49-50:
"Buddha tried to save us by destroying our common sense....Our
tendency is to be interested in something that is growing in the
garden, but not the bare soil itself. But if you want to have a
good harvest the most important thing is to make the soil rich and
to cultivate it well....Buddha was not interested in a special deity
or in something that was already there; he was interested in the
ground from which various gardens will appear...."
The key is to design the habitat as my friend and
mentor Don Beck states. Yet, being watchful not to merely
design a value system that forces others to tradeoff their own
system in exchange for someone else's.
The key is the medium within which the cultivation
can take place and flowers--many of which are unknown to us and wait
in evolution to arrive--not be destroyed before they've had a chance
to bloom.
I expect conflict to occur among vMEMEs and rightly
so, as the twisting of the "memetic tectonic plates" bump and grind
on each other--creating divides and differences. Yet, these
are the sounds of conscious evolution that must be welcomed rather
than prohibited. I'll leave you with this quote from Ridley, who in
my opinion has the knowledge to make the case for an intocractic
form of commons.
Mike Jay, July 2003
"For St. Augustine the
source of social order lay in the teachings of Christ. For
Hobbes it lay in the sovereign. For Rousseau it lay in the
solitude. For Lenin it lay in the party. They were all
wrong. The roots of social order are in our heads, where we
possess the instinctive capacities for creating not a perfectly
harmonious and virtuous society, but a better one than we have at
present. We must build our institutions in such a way that
they draw out those instincts. Pre-eminently this means the
encouragement of exchange between equals. Just as trade
between countries is the best recipe for friendship between them,
so exchange between enfranchised and empowered individuals is the
best recipe for cooperation. We must encourage Social and
material exchange between equals for that is the raw material of
trust, and trust is the foundation of virtue."
Matt Ridley, Origins of Virtue, 1996
RESOURCES TO PONDER:
NOW THE PENTAGON TELLS BUSH: CLIMATE CHANGE
WILL DESTROY US By Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York The
Observer Sunday, February 22, 2004
- Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
- Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
- Threat to the world is greater than terrorism
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Feedback:
Thanks to Barrett Brown:
Concerning the pentagon report, for what
it is worth, your link to the Observer article is
questionable. The Observer isn't exactly a highly respected
paper on the global scene, more like our "NY Daily News", a
tabloid which tends to sensationalize things. They are
criticized for sensationalizing this Pentagon report. Some
more accurate and at least a little more respected recounts
of it can be found here:
the Fortune magazine article which first carried the story
(requires subscription):
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/print/0,15935,582584,00.html
and Grist Magazine's write up on it (certainly not un-biased
either)
http://www.gristmagazine.com/muck/muck022504.asp?
For people to read the report for themselves:
http://www.gristmagazine.com/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.pdf
THE FUTURE OF HIGHER (LIFELONG) EDUCATION:
For All Worldwide, A Holistic View Click
here
World Development Report, 2004
The World Bank annual report on how countries are "making services
work for poor people".
http://econ.worldbank.org/wdr/wdr2004/text-18786/
More comments:
http://joi.ito.com/joiwiki/EmergentDemocracyPaper
Emergent Democracy
Mostly by Joichi Ito
Version 1.40 October 1, 2003
Note: another version of this document is in process, to be
included in a book O'Reilly is publishing. If you have changes,
additions, or comments in mind, please contact Jon Lebkowsky at
jonl at polycot.com.
Proponents of the Internet have long sought a more intelligent
Internet which can help correct the imbalances and inequalities
of the world. Today, the Internet is a noisy environment with a
great deal of power consolidation instead of the level, balanced
democratic Internet many envision.
In 1993 Howard Rheingold wrote[1],
We temporarily have access to a tool that could bring
conviviality and understanding into our lives and might help
revitalize the public sphere. The same tool, improperly
controlled and wielded, could become an instrument of tyranny.
The vision of a citizen-designed, citizen-controlled worldwide
communications network is a version of technological utopianism
that could be called the vision of "the electronic agora." In
the original democracy, Athens, the agora was the marketplace,
and more--it was where citizens met to talk, gossip, argue, size
each other up, find the weak spots in political ideas by
debating about them. But another kind of vision could apply to
the use of the Net in the wrong ways, a shadow vision of a less
utopian kind of place--the Panopticon.
Rheingold has been called naive.[2] While the Internet has
become a global agora, or meeting place, effective global
conversation and debate is just beginning. We are on the verge
of an awakening of the Internet, an awakening that may either
facilitate the emergence of a new democratic political model
(Rheingold's revitalization of the public sphere), or more fully
enable the corporations and governments of the world to control,
monitor and influence their populations, leaving the individual
at the mercy of and under constant scrutiny by those in power
(an electronic, global Panopticon).
We must influence the development and use of these tools and
technologies to support democracy, or they will be turned
against us by corporations, totalitarian regimes and terrorists.
To do so, we must begin to understand the process and
implications of this Emergent Democracy. This new political
model must support the basic characteristics of democracy and
reverse the erosion of democratic principles that has occurred
under the burden of concentrating power within corporations and
governments. New technologies may enable the emergence of a
functional, more direct democratic system which is able to
manage complex issues and will support, change or replace
indirect, existing representative democracies.
-----End Excerpt-----
"Poor countries thus don’t have to wait
until they build bigger and better school systems and
educate a whole generation of workers. Nor do they need to
wait for more development aid from rich countries. If local
businesses followed the proven approaches for organizing
production and managing a workforce, poor countries could
grow much faster than most people realize. Domestic savers
and foreign investors hungry for good returns would also
supply these countries with plenty of capital for new
investments."
Source
For decades, international institutions have
pumped billions of dollars into developing nations in attempts
to remedy their ills through the development of their
technological infrastructures, educational systems, and health
care programs.
Yet despite this infusion of capital and
attention, roughly five billion of the world's six billion
people continue to live in poor countries. What isn't working?
And how can we fix it?
In his book The Power of Productivity,
William W. Lewis—a founding director of the McKinsey Global
Institute (MGI) and a former McKinsey partner—offers a practical
look at why some countries are rich, why others are poor, and
what we can do about it.
Tapping the consumer

The Power of Productivity argues that
the key to reducing economic inequalities between rich and poor
countries is productivity and its links to competition and
consumption. It further argues that only one force can stand up
to producer special privileges—consumer interests.
Lewis's book is based on years of research on the
economies of 13 nations. His analysis asked fundamental
questions about what products are purchased by consumers, how
(or if) people and corporations pay taxes, even how large or
small a country's retail stores are.
From Russia and India to Brazil and the United
States, MGI studied national economies from the ground up, and
Lewis brings together the results and formulates them into a
broad and applicable set of solutions for ameliorating economic
disparity.
Demolishing long-held
beliefs

In laying out these solutions, Lewis also
demolishes long-held beliefs about how best to help poor
nations. For example, an educated work force, he found, is not
essential to improving a country's productivity, so development
money spent on education in poor nations has often proven
ineffective in improving economies. The same is true of efforts
made to improve the solvency of individual governments and
exchange rate flexibility as well.
With a firm fact base behind him, Lewis explores
beyond the strict economic lines that define MGI's reports. The
last three chapters contain Lewis' insights into political
economy based on extensive research and his own observations.
Lewis's conclusions will prove to be highly
controversial, but few will be able to argue with his research
and reasoning, in part because it is based not on theory but on
actual practice.
The hidden dangers of the informal economy
|
DAVID KIRKPATRICK
|
|
Saving Lives with a Simple PDA
From Palm handhelds to Microsoft software, the right
technology can bring incredible changes to
developing nations. That's why a unique nonprofit
wants to make sure the tools get used wisely.
Apr 28 2004
By David Kirkpatrick
Fortune.com
No single issue in IT is more important than figuring out how to use
technology in the developing world. That's why you
should know about Teresa Peters. Raised on a farm in
Ohio, she now runs a group in Cape Town called
Bridges.org, a unique nonprofit consulting firm on
IT and development. "Our expertise is helping others
use tech better," said Peters at a recent lunch in
the unfamiliar precincts of an expensive midtown
Manhattan restaurant. "We're all about the critical
eye."
There are two reasons why this subject—and
Peters—is so important. First, if you believe as
many of us do that technology is a transformative
social force for good, this is the ultimate test.
The global economic divide is the world's single
biggest problem today and the root of many of its
ills. Tech can help, but it's not easy. It can give
the world's underprivileged tools to increase their
productivity and incomes, enabling them to pay for
what would otherwise be prohibitively expensive. The
second reason is more one of business pragmatism. As
University of Michigan Business School professor C.K.
Prahalad and others have explained, the biggest
opportunity for large companies to grow is for them
to tap the biggest markets of all—those that are
home to all the world's more than six billion
people, not just the few hundred million that have
wealth in the most developed countries. C.K.'s book
on this—The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid—is
out this summer. There is a beauty to this
convergence—markets grow and people are helped, in
tandem.
Bridges.org consults on IT-related projects for
governments, nonprofits, and groups such as the
World Bank. It evaluates specific technologies, and
advocates policy changes that will make it easier
for tech to be useful in developing countries. The
government of Rwanda created something called the
Rwandan Information Technology Authority and put
together what Peters calls an "excellent, phone-book
sized" strategy. But the government brought in
Bridges to help implement it. The group has focused
almost exclusively on Africa, where Peters, normally
modest, proclaims, "We know more about what's
happening on the ground than anyone."
Many IT-related projects in Africa are failing.
That's because, Peters says, too many ignore the
basic criteria for success: "Small, cheap, local,
and relevant are the key things for IT here, with a
suite of applications around the device." Often, for
instance, what's appropriate is not a PC but a
handheld, or even just a cellphone. (One of the main
reasons for that? PCs are often stolen.) Assessments
are not what's needed, she says. Action is. "Our
calculation is that 84 different countries worldwide
have had their IT assessed more than 10 times."
Peters says the most effective use of technology
she's ever seen was in a pilot project that gave
doctors and medical students in Kenya Palm handhelds
that contained a regularly updated set of medical
reference materials. Drugs change frequently, as do
treatment regimens. But, she explains, "Doctors are
out all day seeing patients two to a bed and on the
floor—so many it's unbelievable. They make notes on
each patient but without a handheld they have to
wait until the end of the day to check reference
books for drug interactions and other information."
The program resulted in clear improvements in
patient care.
But Peters says that despite the effectiveness of
handhelds in such situations, it remains impractical
to expand such programs. At present it is almost
impossible to buy any kind of handheld in most of
Africa outside South Africa, and even there it is
hard to get one repaired. A simple thing like a
handheld repair service might be the unexpected
gating factor for a medical technology program.
"It's about more than just devices and connections,"
Peters says.
Bridges is now conducting a study comparing
open-source software like Linux with proprietary
software for community-access computer labs and
Internet cafes. It is assessing the total cost of
ownership—doing what Peters calls a "reality check."
While the report is not complete and she says they
aim not to take sides in a commercial competition,
"today's realities indicate that proprietary
software is more suitable for most of these labs.
Technical support is the absolute deal killer. The
tech support is just not there for open source."
While she says most African governments are feeling
pressure to move to the "free" open source, most
projects will fail because, for now, there is simply
no technical support in Africa for desktop Linux.
(People aren't having as much trouble with Linux for
server installations, she says.) Microsoft, on the
other hand, which is the de facto supplier of
proprietary alternatives, has a well-developed
support infrastructure in many places.
Peters is excited about a program Bridges has
underway in its home city of Cape Town, which has
one of the world's highest rates of tuberculosis
infection. One doctor at a TB clinic was frustrated
that even among patients who had come up with the
money to join a treatment program, success rates
were only about 60% because skipping the drugs for
even one day meant someone had to start all over
again. But he noticed that most of the patients had
cellphones. ("In Africa people who don't even have
addresses have cellphones," says Peters.) So he
designed a program that automatically sends out
daily SMS text messages to those phones in local
languages. It says, according to Peters,
"essentially that if you don't take your medicine
you will die." Treatment success rates shot up. Now
the City of Cape Town is considering rolling out the
program in all 27 TB clinics across the city, and
testing it in AIDS clinics.
What really upsets her are ill-informed and
anachronistic government policies that prevent IT
from fulfilling its potential. For instance, in
South Africa voice-over-IP Internet calls are
illegal, as is Wi-Fi wireless Internet access unless
it is inside a private building. "So you can't use
Wi-Fi to expand Internet connections," she
complains. The rules protect the revenues of the
national telephone monopoly. And labor unions have
fought against changes, worried for their jobs. So
Bridges has begun meeting with the unions to help
them understand the opportunities.
Bridges' work is so multifaceted it's amazing
that it only employs 12 people. The group,
officially registered as a non-profit in the U.S.,
has a wonderful website loaded with information (www.Bridges.org).
Go look at it, and give them some money if you can.
Bridges is also planning to start cloning itself by
helping to create a center for International
Information and Communications Technology Policy in
partnership with the Harvard Law School and the
Makerere University Law School in Uganda. "There are
lots of well-intentioned development efforts which
are losing momentum because they're not thinking
about the real issues," says Peters. "I don't want
to see them fail."
Questions? Comments? E-mail them to me at
dkirkpatrick@fortunemail.com.
|
Underreported Global Issues Index:
Male to Female Birth Ratio in Developing Countries
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24761-2004Jul2.html
Gandhi and the Politics of Development in the New Millennium
http://www.pamij.com/99_4_1_walter.html
World Democracy Count
There are 135 democracies in the world today. 100
Democratic
republics and 35 Democratic constitutional monarchies.
Other forms of governments –
Absolute monarchies 11
Authoritarian republics 28
Military governments 3
Communist states 5
Transitional governments 8
(Source -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government
Systems of Government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_government
Notice there is no definition of Intocracy.
Rough Draft 2004
Here goes: Intocracy is the form of governance which allows a
people to participate as a people in governing themselves in
relation to the ability to govern as a people.
1. Systems of Government seek spiral
fitness and design appropriate structures.
2. All
structures are built as open
systems
3. All
forms are promoted through an understanding of stretch, but not
dislocation from the spiral nature of the governing peoples.
4. People
are encouraged to be who they are and when being who they are
interferes with other's right to be who they are, there are actions
taken according to the rules of the governing system, by the leaders
in that system.
5. If the
leaders in any system refuse to take power, accountability,
authority and responsibility for the violations within their
systems, the intocratic council will sanction the leaders, the
government with a "time bound escalation of intervention" that no
one can stop excepting the leaders and system being sanctioned.
6. The
escalation of PAAR begins with a warning, which is then followed by
sanctions at the intocratic council, leaders are expunged from the
council, then followed by economic sanctions, then followed by exile
from the united nations, then followed by blockade, then followed by
invasion, capture, trial and rebuilding by the civilary.
7. Each
nation "earning" their way into the intocratic council by gradually
moving itself along a development path agreed to by the IC as
proposed by the UN will receive an escalating program of support
defined by military peacekeepers, civilary, economic support,
admission to the UN and finally representation on the intocratic
council. (reverse of the punitive program)
8. All
nations agree to a payment of support, fair trade as determined by
their contribution and governance, acceptance and promotion of
civilary and leadership growth to support intocracy.
9. All
nations agree to move towards the formation of an intocratic
planetary system by 2025, with specific steps to be outlined by
those governments rated on the intocratic scale at the highest
levels.
10.
Governments are judged by an intocratic index of development that is
supported through the growth of the intocracy, formation of an
intocratic council, a revised UN and IMF/World Bank and the creation
of the civilary.
Civilary
Civilary
is a stratified force of specially trained individuals form any
country who operate on behest of the intocratic council. In the
beginning, it becomes a governing body for all organizations on
earth at all levels exporting relief in any form.
Grouping by level
Beige:
Survival support and recovering, fast-acting intervention emergency
actions and currently tied to FEMA-like structures, designed for in
and out intervention to stabilize survival in calamity of any form.
Used in conjunction with military interventions as dictated by
intocratic law described above.
Purple:
Short term support design like the Red Cross.
Red: Military invasion force, quit
hitting strike force that kills the enemy
while avoided non-military targets (marine recon, delta, seals,
rangers, etc.) with lethal force.
Blue:
Military forces coming in behind Red for longer term military
presence with lethal and well as non-lethal weapons*
Orange:
Military Police force designed to promote the gradual introduction
of spiral activity in the populus where military police are required
to stabilize with non-lethal weapons
Green:
Long term aid workers who work in areas that have been devasted,
attacked by disease, famine and pestilence that require long term
aid and rebuilding (peace corps)
Yellow:
Intocratic intellectuals, scientists, governance, economists,
bankers, entrepreneurial coaches, designers, professional innovators
who are supplied and paid by intocratic council to provide a shot in
the arm for jumpstarting economies, systems of delivery of services,
etc.
Turquoise:
Healers, gurus, pundits, mystics, artists and shamans who agree to
support the growth of healing and development according to the ways
of the people.
This
civilary would often be deployed as a system and would draw from
professionals who are paid, supported and trained by the yellow and
turquoise levels to become civilary.
Civilary
would be a global force and would take applications from any country
regardless of status. A rigorous stratified training system and
qualification system designed to promote the growth of each
individual in the civilary to the desired level of their
contribution. Applications taken on a rotating basis so all
countries could participate in sending members and a quota
established based on the population of each country and the
representation related to population of each country.
Countries
according to intocracy would be those entities that are recognized
through allowing people to be who they are at any level matched to
the appropriate system.
Planatary
visas would provide free moment among countries allowing people to
move as immigration quotas allowed according to their "history" of
peace contribution, non-peaceful participants would be limited in
movement as well as electronically tagged for varying levels of
probationary status depending on intocratic guidelines.
Access is
allowed to internet kiosks in all parts of the world using 4G
wireless system, accompanying "lisa-like" monitors identifying large
value fluctuations in the consciousness through detection and the
deployment of appropriate civilary to guard, support and deter
events which would affect people being who they have a right to be.
*Non Lethal Weapons to be used for
all Non Red Strike Force & Blue Protectors when possible
Source |
Read
|
http://www.locusmag.com/2004/Features/09_ShirleySocialFuture.html
The world seems dangerously chaotic; the spread of
nuclear technology, unmonitored fissionable materials, WMDs
and so forth, might be an argument for a powerful
centralized global government. On the one hand this has
fascist overtones, or it risks something dictatorial; on the
other hand one could argue it's the only way to prevent
significant loss of life. Can one defend greater
governmental control for the future, in this increasingly
overpopulated world?
Pat Murphy: “I am not
convinced by any argument for increased governmental
control. In fact, I would be more inclined to look in
the direction of increased personal responsibility. I
see this as a direction in opposition to a more powerful
government. I feel that the more powerful the government
is, the less people take the personal responsibility.
And what we need now is more personal responsibility,
not less.”
Several interviewees mentioned the European Union in
this connection.
Kim Stanley Robinson: “I
like the UN, the European Union, and other aspects of
trans-sovereignty, but I don't like globalization as the
massive emplacement of capitalist injustices, so I don't
know what to say about 'greater governmental control'.”
Ken Wharton sees nuclear power as resource
that could help us handle global crisis:
“Actually, I could make a strong
global-warming-based argument for more spread of
nuclear (power) technology. It's ironic that our courts
have decided a 10,000 year nuclear waste depository
doesn't take a long enough view, while on most issues
our society can't seem to look beyond a decade or so. On
century timescales, you can't stop large groups from
getting just about any weapon they want. And while
stomping on personal freedoms might slow the acquisition
of those weapons, it will probably only increase the
probability that they'll actually be used.”
Norman Spinrad too is skeptical of global
control systems but sees a break-up of the old
nationalisms: “Way back when, I
sort of liked the idea of a world government. Then I
heard Lenny Bruce say: 'If you want to imagine a world
government, think of the whole world run by the phone
company and nowhere else to go.' On the other hand, I
think that the concept of absolute national sovereignty
is on the way out and good riddance. The European Union
is one model. My own, as in Greenhouse Summer, is
some form of syndicalist anarchism — 'anarchism that
knows how to do business' — no national governments per
se.”
Cory Doctorow doubts the efficacy of big
control and again sees information as the key:
“The Stasi — the East German
version of the KGB — had detailed files on virtually
every resident of East Germany, yet somehow managed to
miss the fact that the Berlin Wall was about to come
down until it was already in rubble. Tell me again how a
centralized government makes us more secure? September
11th wasn't a failure to gather enough intelligence: it
was a failure to correctly interpret the intelligence in
hand. There was too much irrelevant data, too much
noise. Gathering orders of magnitude MORE noise just
puts that needle into a much bigger haystack, while
imposing high social costs. Fingerprinting visitors to
the US and jailing foreign journalists for not
understanding the impossibly baroque new visa regs makes
America less secure (by encouraging people to lie about
the purposes of their visit and by chasing honest people
out of the country), not more.”
Bruce Sterling speculates that big global
government might take new shapes:
“I had a brainstorm about this very problem recently.
What if there were two global systems of
governance, and they weren't based on control of the
landscape? Suppose they interpenetrated and competed
everywhere, sort of like Tory and Labour, or Coke and
Pepsi. I'm kind of liking this European 'Acquis' model
where there is scarcely any visible 'governing' going
on, and everything is accomplished on the levels of
invisible infrastructure, like highway regulations and
currency reform.”
|
|
To sort of top off a previous question: Is a real world
government possible and could it be a good thing, on
balance?
(What can I say, I'm really interested in the
question of world government and plan to write a novel on it
someday.)
Pat Murphy's response is succinct:
“I don’t think it’s possible or
desirable.”
Kim Stanley Robinson is equally succinct and
he has exactly the opposite opinion:
“It's possible, and if it happened
it would be a good thing.”
Ken Wharton: “The only
nice thing I can say about a world government is that
there are some global problems that are best dealt with
on a global level. As for it actually happening in a way
that such problems can indeed be dealt with... I doubt
it, but I'll be watching the E.U. to see how far the
concept can go.”
Norman Spinrad: “As I
said before, probably not a good thing. And probably
impossible. Too many cultural and economic disparities.
Even the recent expansion of the European Union east is
not going to work too well for that reason. Even Germany
has plenty of problems in its governmental union with
the former DDR.”
Bruce Sterling:
“Civilization is better than barbarism. I'm not sure I
believe in 'real world government,' but global civil
society attracts a lot of my attention. 'Globalism' used
to be a synonym for 'Americanization', but nowadays it's
starting to look a lot more genuinely global: Iranians
in Sweden, Serbians in Brazil, global Bollywood movies
filmed in Switzerland, a real mélange.”
|
The Wellth Mastermind Introduction & Vision:
Click
here to listen to the July 11, 2003 MasterMIND Call.
View the Introductory Slides
here
Registration Options for the Wellth
MasterMIND
|