an invitation to leadership

I’m sharing this with you because my experience of you personally is that you may be open to thinking about what may be new to you, then learning and finally acting in accordance with any new learning that you may experience. I am inviting those who I identify as prospective leaders of the emerging social order to explore the possibility of leadership with me. Below is a brief introduction to the present background that brings to my attention the possibility of leading an emerging social order, which is referenced in the conclusion of this piece.

We begin with some fundamental presumptions in language. The first presumption is the common experience of a self isolated from all other units of language and experience.

Next, just as the existence of a self is a fundamental presumption of language, the operation of self-interest is a fundamental presumption of psychological and economic theory. Further, the repression of self-interest seems to be a fundamental consideration of operations of governing, such as churches. Certain forms of self-interest may be identified for condemnation or even threatened with punishment.

This irony (of a general acknowledgment of a self operating in self-interest, yet a specific cultural idealization of altruism as in the total absence of self-interest) raises the question of why would certain people establish and support cultural operations that discourage others to act in their own self-interest? One obvious possible answer is that it could be in the self-interests of those promoting such operations to monopolize for themselves the expression of self-interest by inhibiting or suppressing or misleading the self-interests of others.

The presence of an ample supply of dependents or wards or slaves or loyal agents may be in the self-interest of those establishing such operations. The self-interests of the masses can be suppressed and then channeled into pursuing their self-interest only in specified ways, perhaps leading to addictions to medical pharmaceuticals, dependency on commercial agriculture for food and even on government hand-outs for survival, plus investment in centralized financial institutions, such as insurance policy schemes, or heavily favored, ultra-risky markets such as financed (borrowed) gambling on real estate speculation. Such bureaucratically-influenced markets can maintain trend for decades due to normal fluctuations being extended by favorable bureaucratic interventions, then, again with the possibility of sharp, sudden collapse, due not only normal fluctuations (such as due to technological innovation), but also bureaucratic interference or repression, such as the criminalization of alcohol in the 1920s in the US.

Notably, as lenders and lending markets have been heavily favored by regulatory interventions, many people have come to experience their social security number and the associated credit rating as central to their identity, which it well may be at a particular point in time. However, such concentrations of systemic economic dependency may simply be unsustainable. For instance, as bureaucratic promises balloon to create and maintain a “government-favored underclass”of retirees, the burden on the taxpaying masses may prove excessive as in unworkable, or at least frightening.

Does the above seem familiar to you? Do you recognize any of the above in your own behavioral patterns? Do you identify any other people as subject to any of the above descriptions?

Further, did you notice yourself resisting or condemning any of the above possibilities or statements? That is, perhaps you reacted to the above-referenced possibilities as “that social pattern is bad and should not exist at all” or “I personally am not like that at all- or at least I sure hope that I’m not!”

If so, I invite you to acknowledge any resistance or condemnation you may have of the above possibilities, then set them aside, at least temporarily. Further, consider the following final point of background, which may motivate you to consider partnering with me in pursuit not only of your own self-interest, but mine, in a collaboration for mutual self-interest.

Previously, I mentioned the vast concentrations of economic dependency that many elders have placed on the social security system in the US, as well as on related issues like the stability of the insurance industry, particularly to keep the extremely optimistic promises of some of their recent annuity policies. Of course, these trends all rest on the sustainability of industrialized agriculture and the concentration of elders into dense urban metropolitan concentrations.

So, with the vast disproportionate concentration of affluence not only in the elderly but in the elderly of a few relatively small geographic stretches in Europe and North America, a massive redistribution is already underway, especially toward the ballooning populations of China and India. Surging numbers of bright, eager and highly-educated Asian youth are making unprecedented economic advances as the technological innovations originating in the west are being spread worldwide to regions where billions of people are going from annual incomes of perhaps $3,000 per year toward $30,000 per year.

Western “borrow and spend”.economic trends have been de-stabilizing since at least 2005. Mainstream acknowledgment of the reversing of those trends began by 2008 with the de-stabilizing of various major financial institutions in the US and elsewhere, the de-stabilizing of stock market prices in the US and elsewhere, as well as the de-stabilizing of lending markets, real estate markets, and commodity markets in the US and elsewhere.

Rather than face the simplicity of the obvious long-term economic issues, many in the West have instead targeted relatively minor regions such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran for colonization and controversy. As the mainstream Western populations debate which political issues are most worthy of their antagonism and protest and pleas for government reforms and salvation of the masses, the massive economic redistribution proceeds from the relatively few in the western industrialized nations to the many billion in the Asian emerging nations.

The psychological dependency of the western masses is exemplified in the sense of betrayal that their leaders (in governments or churches or corporations) have conspired against them. Even if that may be true, would it be at all relevant? The masses starkly refuse to accept the situation as an opportunity to take personal responsibility for making practical adjustments to the shifting trends. The disproportionate affluence of the West cannot be questioned by those dependent on interventionist bureaucracies, but instead they cry things like “protect us, holy bureaucrats, from all unholy bureaucrats” and “the money system is bad and should simply be abandoned.” perhaps they want to keep their relatively comfortable and even luxurious lifestyles and have the growing middle classes of Asia subsidize their leisurely retirements, rather than supporting the parents of those Asian middle classes..

So, what is the nature of the leadership I propose? Is it antagonism against an enemy? Is it reform of a bureaucracy? Is it an identification and correction to an alleged injustice?

No, it’s just an expression of mutual self-interest. Asia is rising. Many in the west will ignore or even resist that. First only a few, and then more and more soon may adapt to and even benefit from the massive redistribution underway. Are you willing to be one of those leaders?

3 Responses to “an invitation to leadership”

  1. jrfibonacci Says:

    G: Well done… thanks

    JR: You’re welcome….

    The next issue is how you are willing to lead other people to the same clarifications that I reference in that piece (as well as the opportunity for prosperity that I do not much reference therein, but to which all of that leads naturally). Does anyone come to mind to whom you might want to forward this content?

    G: I think as [certain investment programs] continue to progress, more people I know will want privacy and sheltering services, eh?

    JR: probably so.

    Further, the many conversations about politics often do not get to the simplicity of the issues. Many of us go through a very emotionally reactive phase in relation to politics, and some of us never leave it.

    G: I have notice that sustained reaction in a friend. It appears as passion but I think it’s fear based.

    JR: we humans are in to pride. we fear the loss of pride. we find subjects that seem important to us, then talk about them for socializing, to see who else thinks that is important already, or might do so. We get to seem important (proud) through the subjects of importance to us. That at least is a common pattern.

    G: Well said. I think your right on. Sometimes, during a discussion/socializing, I may feel the need to impress a listener/student with (a level of) data in order to drive home a point or lesson I feel is important or is being sought. This could be a form of pride I suppose, for a constructive purpose.

    JR: we construct relationships and interpersonal dynamics, like “such and such person is an expert, an important person.” We are implicitly important through telling other people about things we think of as important or people we think of as important. If others agree with us about what is important, then we can be important to them- and we can even think of them as important to us, because they are people who “get it” as in “get us.”

    We are all sensationalists and dramatic. Some of us, like myself on occasion, present a very dispassionate and analytical context, which is natural for me, but that distinctiveness, along with the “important” topics on which I focus, is “my niche.” I cover ultra-dramatic topics (like the rise of Asia and possible collapse of the West) that other people do not touch at all, so my personality or tone can be undramatic since the topic is so distinctive, plus I have a history of making fun of the dramatic tones (passionate indignations) of other people who at least get close to the dramatic topics I cover. I can be equally satirical of someone like Lew Rockwell, who is a very dry speaker- or H Ross Perot. I just mock Lew for a lack of intellectual integrity or comprehensiveness, which is very distinctive of me again, since to most people, he is one of the most comprehensive (and dry/undramatic) analysts out there.

    I honestly think that the constitutionalist reactionaries have built their houses on sand just as much as the rest of the mainstream, and yes, to me, the constitutionalist reactionaries are definitely part of the mainstream, the herd, the sheeple.

    There is the bulk of the mainstream that floats downstream without any particular awareness of a stream. they simply do not recognize the patterns in which they participate. They are like unconscious toddlers or sleepwalking senile people.

    Then there are the various reactionaries, from constitutioalist reactionaries to any other kind. They criticize the downstream flow of blind conformists and try to go upstream, against the current of history. They want to “turn back the clock” to the good old days, like of the late 1700s when everything was perfect, just like they were propagandized in public school.- or the days of Jesus, like they were taught in Sunday school, or when the Jews lived in the holy promised land, or whatever. As long as someone was not a Native American, or a slave, or a woman, etc, then [in he late 1700s in the 13 United States] everything was perfect and fair and perfect, until suddenly everything went wrong, which for some people is when Obama was elected, or on 9/11, or when the Federal Reserve started, or milk was widely pasteurized… or whatever myth of “when everything went from being perfect to everything being wrong.”

    By the way, the promised land or “heaven” or paradise is not just a myth that religions use to manipulate people. Those manipulations are more or less, in my opinion, the mistakes of insane people who worship their own literalist understandings of scripture and completely miss the spirit (the point)- and that mistake (or sin) is equally tragic and comic.

    Nirvana or heaven or the promised land is a real experience and most so-called “fundamentalists” may be nowhere close to the experience that they project into a utopian society. Because of the unfamiliarity of the word “Nirvana”, we in the west do not associate “Nirvana” with a utopian society, but the various familiar equivalents like “kingdom of heaven” or “paradise” or “the promised land of the God of Isis-Ra-El” are thought to refer to some utopia, like a distant heaven we can reach after physical death, or some earthly society that we “should” make (or else feel guilty of failing to make).

    Those are tragic (and comic) misinterpretations. Nirvana is the experience after the metaphorical death of the ego or vanity or unrecognized pride, the awakening from the dream of rationalization and justification and self-righteousness (good and evil and so on)- not that a dream is not a real and valid form of experience, but just not the only one. The dream is floating downstream without knowing there is a stream.

    Anyway, those who react against the flow of the dream-stream and criticize and condemn the ignorant people for being ignorant… are arrogant, divisive, and diabolical. We reactionaries say that we are teaching people and saving them, but we are really condemning them. We are saying “your life is not how it should be according the ideals of the late 1700s that I reactively worship, so you should be miserable like me about how life is now hell, you know, since Obama was elected,” or whatever.

    So, while we are reactionaries, we are still focused on the mainstream and “fixing” it. We are resisting the idea that we and anyone else is flowing down a stream (of dream). Our suffering may be even more stark than that of the unconscious dreamers, but the learning process is our initiation. We may need fear and anger and grief to draw our attention to the lessons relevant, to show us the operation of the ego, which is not evil, but is the perceiver of the reactive label “evil.” Also, it is not really that the ego must die as that it must be humbled, but to the ego, humility IS death!

    To those awake, the ego- or at least the undistinguished ego- is death, numbness, blindness, ignorance, illusion, delusion, maya, confusion, divisiveness, antagonism and suffering. To those awake, they are not identifying life as fundamentally a bunch of personas or “ego identities” going downstream unconsciously, nor are they reacting against the flow and trying to swim upstream, but, for those truly awake, the stream is going down them, through them. We do not resist the stream or criticize the dream or anyone going down it- or we do not do so reactively, though we may question and reference the ego stream perhaps mockingly, consciously, knowingly, playfully. This is called the peace beyond the mind of understanding or rationalizing or judging/labeling of good and evil, as in the mind of God.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:09 AM,
      G wrote:

      Very good…
      Have you ever imagined your writings, views opinions, lessons being in an ebook? Something like a ‘Masters Manual’…

      Yes, Robert has mentioned this to me before several times. So far, I have been leaning more towards videos on youtube, plus I did a live skype video conference with a college class in Croatia as their guest speaker about a month ago. As interest in my presentations and communications grow, then I can promote for sale some writings and recordings and live interactions.

      • jrfibonacci Says:

        On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:25 AM,
        G wrote:

        Well, you do have a talent for writing. I feel your written work has improved over the past year. You seem to be more concise and not overly wordy. Much more enjoyable and powerful… congratulations.

        Thank you and you’re welcome. It is the interest and interaction of people like you that has been crucial in the developing and refining of my presentation, including emails and phone calls and the occasional in person exchanges.

        When I watch things like the video of me in 2006 explaining the mechanisms of the financial “surprises” of 2008, I am aware of how many “ums” and “uhs” and run-on sentences I spoke. The analysis was perfect, but the presentation was clumsy at best.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: