INTEGRAL ANTI-CAPITALISM cont'd.

[Layman Pascal]

For an introduction to this expanding meta-thread see Integral Anti-Capitalism pt I. We continue here because we have, hilariously, exceeded this website's capacity...

LAYMAN PASCAL

I agree that holacracy should be singled out for special investigation. The provocative notion that we are dramatically over-emphasizing the need for "conscious leadership" pertains very pertinently to this discussion. Robertson, like ourselves, is pointing to the fact that business (organizations) which integrally improve the interiors and cultural
spirit of their participants are still predisposed to certain outcomes as a result of their actual structural habits of communication and their specific decision-making protocols.
His notion of a constantly self-correcting dynamic organization drawing upon the capacity of individuals to act as tension-sensors relative to the "evolutionary purpose" of the organization is compelling and admirable.

More important is simply that he is making a stand and making an attempt to construct a protocol (constitution). I am not fully versed in the 4.0 version of the holacracy constitution but we should get deeper into some of these proposals.  

Given the level of your current knowledge of their protocols, what would you want to change or add in order to ethically and functionally empower this approach even more?

THEURJ

First some housekeeping in providing links in part I to comments on holacracy: their website, comment 1, comment 2, comment 3 (and 3 more on p. 7), and the first 7 comments on p. 8. 

I’m not yet familiar enough with holacracy to know it might need. So for now I’ll ask questions.  From p. 8 there was a blog post on ownership and the model might (but not necessarily) include outside capital investors. I asked:

“One question immediately pops up on outside investors. Are there limits on the amount of outside capital investment? What if their investment is such that without it the company could not financially survive? And/or depends on it for start-up? Then such investment would control the company, like it or not. If you don't do what I say I'm taking my ball and going home. No ball, no ballgame. Not the same as a mortgage or loan company.”

Granted why such investors are included on the Board there are other stake-holders to balance their input. But are there rules about which outside individuals or companies can invest? Do they have to have similar values like triple bottom lines instead of just profit for their investors? Can a Goldman Sachs provide start-up capital? Or Romeny’s ex-firm, Bain? Just wondering, so perhaps it’s time for those out there more familiar with the system to engage us?

LAYMAN PASCAL

I appreciate your inquiry about the potential influence of outside investors in holacratic systems. Perhaps they have a good protocol for that. Or perhaps not. In general, all "smart groups" need to comprehend and anticipate the distortion influence that donors and enablers wield. The psychology of human nature shows that we may believe ourselves to be quite sturdy and impartial while we are really bending in the breeze.

One of the concerns I had while perusing the holacracy constitution was about the voting procedure for filling roles. There are many parts of their approach which impress. In particular I would like to make not of the necessity to place constraints upon discussion. When the mention of a concern is met with the mention of counter-concerns then the intelligence and practical efficacy of discussions drops dramatically. A highly suspicious mind might even supposed that the human hive is encouraged to engage in the constant casual usage of dysfunctional conversation. So their use of controlled phases in both operational and hiring decisions is admirable. However, their actual voting protocol seems (to my naive glance) to be based on a model of transparent majority. A sophisticated "show of hands".

So this may be an area in which holacratic principles can be expanded to include a more thorough use of "secret ballot" and "averaged ranking".

The former often seems like a show of bad faith and an invitation to covert dangers... but these are considerably outweighed by the liberation of individual intelligence from any conscious or unconscious concerns about the social consequences of their input.

The latter evades a primitive "first past the post" approach in which our intelligence is functionally limited to a yes/no determination about each candidate relative to other candidates.

Another thing I admire about holacracy is that it represents a functional procedure and culture in which participants would appear to become better participants by participating. Their capacity and ethical commitment to the good of the organization through its evolving protocols should be an increasing trend. Any smart group needs to be arranged so that even people who try to distort the results will find their capacity and will to do this reducing over time. Replaced by the inspirational efficacy of the group.

This brings me to another issue relative to voting, both in political and economic groups. That is the relative absence of specific instructions about how to translated ones feelings into a vote-mark. This is almost completely unaddressed in terms of popular elections. To discuss it even seems insidious to some people who fear coercion (and/or wish to maintain the current material power structures).

Protocols should have at least a clear suggestion about how to locate both "gut" and "intellectual" data within ourselves and convert that into a numerical value which can be contributed to a group decision. A lack of clarification at this critical junction may act as an invisible source of drag upon an otherwise very functional group organism.

It might even be possible to define an "integral-level organizational set up" for business or politics by simply compiling a list of areas in which intelligence and capacity are distorted. We might recall that most of Wilber's philosophy has emerged in levels correlated to his discovery of "fallacies" or "basic errors". Integral proposals about business and society could be all over the map unless there is a reasonable set of constraints that make sure they fall in the most lucrative zone.

So other than the potential influence of outside "helpers" and "donors" what other sources of distortion or inhibition do you see going mostly unaddressed in otherwise progressive groups?

THEURJ

My next question of holacracy is who came up with it? It seems to be the pet project of Brian Robertson, his own brainchild. I'm wondering if that is so of if it was a community or P2P project? I mean, the structure of holacracy itself calls for distributed decision-making but was the creation of holacracy itself derived from this process or mostly dictated by Robertson? I've yet to find an answer at the site so I posed this question to them via contact info. I'll provide the response if/when received. I think the answer is pivotal in determining if this thing called holacracy arose from its own medicine.

LAYMAN PASCAL

I look forward that answer if it is forthcoming. The notion of self-arising systems is something which haunts the periphery of these discussions. My fantasy is that we can devise a group protocol which so reliably and simply exceeds the cognitive capacity of the individual participants that it would be foolish to predetermine the purpose and nature of the group. Collectively we could a better job of determining what kind of a collective we should be. "Smartgroups" of this kind could then spread through the world in a very radical social uprising. How possible that is remains uncertain...

As I understand holacracy, the different companies making use of it are assumed to engage in their own mutational modifications of the "constitution". So even if Brian wrote the whole thing out in his bathtub it still retains an open source quality. The answer to whether its current forms are or are not the result of distributed decision-making is almost certainly: sort of.

One of the reasons the holacracy approach is so amenable to business organization is that it seems to depend upon the functional axis of a specified purpose. The aim is somewhat pregiven -- our job is to sell widgets or maximize share-holder profit, etc. His use of the metaphor of the sensors on an airplane derives from a mechanism that is assumed to be designed for a well-known purpose.

My question would be whether or not this "aim" is a necessarily functional element in generating enhanced organizational capacity? Or whether it is simply an artifact of the need to make these systems serve a relatively conventional marketplace task?

THEURJ

Your suggestion of a smart group that arises creatively from a continually evolving set of parameters seems to be the intent and practice of holacracy. As to the organizational purpose of Holacracy One, it seems to have multiple bottom lines including but not limited to profit. For example, see this post in the comments where I noted that the top to bottom pay ratio is 3 to 1, and quoted some of those multiple purposes:

"With Holacracy at play, the game is entirely different: with the decentralization of authority, the separation of people and role, and the dynamic evolution of those roles, we end up with a situation that looks more like free agents going about their work with no central planning. There might not even be a single person who knows about everything you do."

This sounds much more like the sort of emerging P2P organizational structure discussed throughout this thread. And also of significance in the post following this article where The Integral Center of Boulder has "voluntarily relinquished their rights to control their company as owners. Instead, they have ceded authority to a purpose-centered governance process called Holacracy, a model that distributes authority across the organization and gives primary power to the organization itself."

These are indeed advances over the kind of conscious capitalism promoted and AQALly packaged for sale at I-I.

LAYMAN PASCAL

(comment pending)

This is an interesting moment. Apparently Amazon.com is experimenting with a version of holacracy as well. It clearly represents a theoretical advance over the typical kind of conscious capitalism which combines advanced sentiments with a potentially dangerous and uninspected ideological allegiance to more primitive routines of social organization and wealth production. Yet we cannot know the results of the experiment in advance.

I have tremendous optimism about emergent p2p organizational structures. Experimentation is utterly necessary and should be strongly encouraged. I am also very hopeful that advances can be made in terms of quantification. This is very central in my thinking lately.

It seems that experimental protocols for advances social organization systems suffer from the lack of a quantifiable evaluation of their respective degrees of "collective intelligence". Most people are drawn to such possibilities by ethical and aesthetic criteria which do no necessarily persuade the world. So I would love to see experimentation supplemented by the attempt to devise a metric for estimating the intelligence of a social organization protocol.

Along similar lines, my "tetrabucks" type notions represent the possibility/necessity to structure our currency at a level that correlates to advanced P2P organizational structures and post-pluralistic consciousness.

The potential of an evil holacracy has hardly been broached. If it works -- it works. Other than simply the tendency of less complex people not to use more complex systems, and the tendency of more complex systems to complexify their participants, there needs to be some inter-organizational structures which incline all organizations int he direction of broad human well-being. It is my assertion that as long as primary areas of value remain outside monetization the actions of groups trying to utilize official social credits will constantly become unstable.

So I am imagining a line leading from pathological capitalism to standard capitalism to conscious capitalism to trans-capitalist network organizations to such organizations bound together by a integrated set of metrics for determining the intelligence of groups and splicing together (at least) four broad domains of human value.

Along these lines -- how will we decide whether holacratic integral business is working better?

THEURJ

As to how we determine whether alternative economic paradigms are 'working,' I'd suggest that even by the standards of typical business democratic workplaces like co-ops are successful. If by that we mean the organization runs smoothly, has low employee turnover, high employee satisfaction, makes a profit or surplus over operating costs, and other such typical measures. Plus they fulfill their stated purposes as expressed in theRochdale principles, like community education, cooperation, democratic control, etc.

I'd say the same applies to holacracy. They also have to accomplish the usual business parameters like above but also meet stated principles like in their constitution. Given Robertson's business acumen I'm sure at the site he has precise and measurable indices to track such progress, though I didn't try to find them as yet.

LAYMAN PASCAL

(comment pending)

[Edward theurj Berge]

In the US the term Democrat does not equal progressive. We have plenty of corporate Democrats who are at least ostensibly more liberal on social issues but still rather conservative on fiscal issues. Meaning many of them are bought off too. The only true progressives belong to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which has 74 members. That's about 14% of our Congress. See their new budget as but one example that these folks do not bow down to Kash but rather the people. E.g.:

"Eliminates the ability of U.S. corporations to defer taxes on offshore profits; Enacts a Financial Transaction tax on various financial market transactions; Implements Chairman Dave Camp’s financial institution excise tax; Closes tax loopholes and ends subsidies provided to oil, gas and coal companies; Addresses the climate change crisis by enacting a price on carbon pollution while holding low income families harmless; Invests in clean and renewable energy, which creates middle class jobs, boosts the economy, and cuts pollution."

Granted they don't have the numbers to enact this agenda, but it serves as an attractor toward which future enaction will happen, as the public leans more in this direction every year. It's just a matter of time until we get there, but in the meantime we must daily reinforce these principles and agenda, and ceaselessly work like mad to elect those who support them. That's where the real work of the people resides, in this political and socio-economic infrastructure where we must change the "gravity of things." While we are making progress there's still a long road ahead.

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Hey theurj, Did you see my proposed meta-strategy of "just enough" (green activism) to create a distraction while emphasizing outflanking, including the penultimate outflanking of Rifkin's lateral power and resource-sharing as developed in the Internet expression of the marketplace? Morph the marketplace right under the noses of the Plutocrates who hide behind the "free market" (which they rig) and allow the money system and the marketplace to kind of put itself out of a job (eventually). Although Rifkin believes it will continue to have a part-time job, a less dominant role). That's okay too, as long as it doesn't keep "f" ing up democracy and interdependent ways of doing and being. I meet Rifkin halfway there. In the foreseeable future, yes. Capitalism will hang around in a less dominant role. But eventually, perhaps in the distant future, it will no longer have relevance. Who really needs to own anything if you understand it's all about effective functions/services and integral psychosocial components rather than owned things (capital) and individuals. I can hear (in my "mind's ear") Tina Turner belting out "What's individual got to do with it, got to do with it?" And "What's stuff got to do with it, got to do with it?" 

  Back to the "just enough" strategy: The goal is to devote most of the "troops" and resources to outflanking but allow just enough green outrage and activism to let the Plutocrates think they see us coming. In the meantime the subtle realm of Bohm and Hiley's "implicate order," a quantum substratum of reality analogous to if not identical with the Vedic "subtle" realm will assist in evolutionary guidance and unfolding of reality. Much of the "outflanking" comes from deep within as we recieve (Bohm and Hiley's) "active information," which actively puts form in us and/or forms us, as in the Biblical (Christ) sense of "Be ye transformed." In traditional Christian theology terms the outflanking is assisted by "grace." Thus, looking to the periphery or side or between lines is not the only focus for successful outflanking. Looking deeper within, into the subtle and causal depths of the ever-unfolding flare/self is one of the best foci for effective outflanking. The more spiritual you are the less the gross-oriented souls can even detect your significance. You are just seen as playing around or being wierd. When in fact you are creating a new order. I also believe that Hegel's dialectical (or is it dialectic, I get confused) can be played in the "key" of "s" for synthesis. If played in key of "t" for thesis, then the inevitable antithesis is called forth with a vengence (sp?). Playing the dialectical in the key of "t" involves what I call "thinking like matter." It also clings to the gross body way of doing and seeing and being. The old must go out for the new to come in. This is all a much higher resistance mode than the subtle and causal body approaches which tap into the deeper zones of the flare/self. As resistance is lowered we float to the bottom (core) of the self, where Self or "your third nature" resides. Playing the dialectical in the key of "s" is utilizing the subtle realm as stepping stone to causal Source-power, and as a highly effective staging area for tactical outflanking at the level of gross body reality. 

While running yesterday I had a glimpse or insight as to how it may work:  If you get a bit of what Bohm and Hiley call "active information" via a "psi wave" or otherwise (spirit guide? Arnold Mindell's "flirts?" etc.) and if I feel your vibes or resonance with my own sensed purpose or mode or direction, then the normally fuzzy holographic image of the whole becomes a bit clearer. Resonance promotes resolution. And with increase resolution comes resolve in the form of a stronger "calling." When two independent entities at the gross level (or "explicate order" -- Bohm and Hiley) "hear" each others psi wave then both are spiritually (or quantumly) empowered. Both tap into the potentials hidden in a deeper subtle/implicate-order (and by extension causal, or "super-implicate order") level of reality. Deep informs outflanking by means of slipping in through the periphery or through the cracks or between the lines of the existing group narrative. 

For the most effective positive social transformation strategy we need both real soldiers and ghost soldiers, but with most emphasis on the ghostly or spy-like, ninja, soldiers. 

darrell

theurj said:

Unless, of course, by integral movement we mean circle-jerking each other with grandiose theories that benefit our own insular, elite, narcissistic in-groups and have little to do with enacting said equal opportunity for the rest of mankind. At least religious groups keep the latter in mind, except perhaps for those engrossed in capitalism. Would not our 'more highly evolved' postmetaphysical spirituality have some, if not greater, responsibility to said 'rest of mankind?' And do our theories help them improve the quality of their lives? Important questions, don't you think?

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Part of the Outflanking strategy will be to embrace corporatism but in a transcorporatism sort of way. Form "indigenous" profit-sharing corporations or other similar corporations which create a culture of equitable pay, power-sharing, resource-sharing, etc.  -- all in the name of good old corporate America or even "capitalism." Using those two systems' own structures we can take the so-called "conscious capitalism" to a whole new level. This is a Trojan Horse type of outflanking which maximizes the inherent cracks in any given system. At the subatomic level hard existing physical things are 90% or more totally empty space. If we squint our eyes and use our imagination we can find such empty spaces, cracks, or "play" in the systems, to successfully morph or re-synthesize, existing "hard" and "powerful" systems. This might even be easier if the mainstream Plutocratic-run corporate realm is busy facing off "just enough" green actiivists, social activists, progressives, liberals, etc. Any working-within will be percieved as stricktly "being on our side." It is a form of espienage (sp?). Spy wars.

Darrell 

theurj said:

In the US the term Democrat does not equal progressive. We have plenty of corporate Democrats who are at least ostensibly more liberal on social issues but still rather conservative on fiscal issues. Meaning many of them are bought off too. The only true progressives belong to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which has 74 members. That's about 14% of our Congress. See their new budget as but one example that these folks do not bow down to Kash but rather the people. E.g.:

"Eliminates the ability of U.S. corporations to defer taxes on offshore profits; Enacts a Financial Transaction tax on various financial market transactions; Implements Chairman Dave Camp’s financial institution excise tax; Closes tax loopholes and ends subsidies provided to oil, gas and coal companies; Addresses the climate change crisis by enacting a price on carbon pollution while holding low income families harmless; Invests in clean and renewable energy, which creates middle class jobs, boosts the economy, and cuts pollution."

Granted they don't have the numbers to enact this agenda, but it serves as an attractor toward which future enaction will happen, as the public leans more in this direction every year. It's just a matter of time until we get there, but in the meantime we must daily reinforce these principles and agenda, and ceaselessly work like mad to elect those who support them. That's where the real work of the people resides, in this political and socio-economic infrastructure where we must change the "gravity of things." While we are making progress there's still a long road ahead.

[Edward theurj Berge]

I worked in corporations for many years, trying to inculcate progressive ideas in the most subtle of ways, given they were outright rejected. I had little to no effect in that regard. There were a few like-minded others in said corps working with me, but even together we were no match for the ingrained corporate worldview and structure.

I'm reminded of the Wolf of Wall Street, who started out with delusions of helping people but was quickly corrupted by the system. Or good-intentioned greenwashing like Whole Foods, which has been corrupted by capitalism. Systemic change requires large political change. And when dealing with bullies like the plutocrats and oligarchs sometimes (ofttimes?) the only thing they understand is a punch in the face (or wallet).

[Edward theurj Berge]

While failed as a Trojan Horse our progressive ideas did work as a Trojan prophylactic in keeping our values protected while engaged in corporate intercourse.

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Andrew, I agree with the need for active, green conscious, interventions. Integral needs to re-embrace green more. They seem to distance themselves, perhaps to individuate similar to how an adolescent tries to individuate from his or her parents. But to distance too much is to lose political power. 

I am increasingly seeing the need for a two front approach with green at the front lines and more "Integral" methods for outflanking from the side or even within, in Trojan Horse style. 

But for Integral and Integralists be too high and mighty for green is to significantly lower potential efficacy for creating a better world. 

I think Pascal coined the term "Integralites" mostly for this reason, to not enable the Integral tendency to distance itself from the green meme. We can't afford to simply not show up on the frontlines of politics.

Have you seen my "just enough" meta strategy? It empowers green but keeps from putting all our eggs in that one basket. Hopefully it is "integral" without the "so-yesterday" snobbery (and resultant circle-jerking) about green truths and resources. 

Darrell

andrew said:

It should be noted that politically, since Obama gained power,  the Christian right shifted focus onto taking control of state legislatures. They have been far from idle. I don't see how anything can change in North America unless someone can convince that demographic that they have been lied to and corrupted over the past 50 years. I will ask that the question of ontology be put aside for the moment for what remains of this post while we explore my previously stated thesis. It's truly a sad day for the God of love when the best exemplar this God has in North America is Liza Simpson! The laity within the Christian demographic has to be made aware that they have been sold a lie and have chosen to serve Mammon. They have chosen to be the goats in the parable told by Christ. They have chosen to accept being consumers by the false Messiah ( The Corporation) and concomitantly have accepted every corruption that goes along with that choice. They have accepted having their personal bio/living systems poisoned by institutions like big sugar, big fat, big fast food, and big pharma, to name just a few. They have accepted the lie put out by big petroleum that the poisoning of the Earth's atmosphere by carbon pollution in untrue. They are DELUSIONAL when they think that God will reward them for being complicit in the destruction of the Earth's living systems. The Christian laity HAS to rebel against any clergy that teaches that the corruption of their soul is acceptable. They have to reject being servants of Mammon ( the god Ka$h) and get back to being responsible stewards of the environment, and once again promote a healthy social gospel. If this can happen; then imo, more enlightened memes stand a chance of developing. Regrettably, the shepherds of these goats would rather, i suspect, attack the messenger here. Well sirs, think not that god doesn't know my sins and yours! My humble suggestion would be to take the corruption out of your own eyes first! Now onward integral solders!

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Yes, We must take the condoms off and start corporations from scratch. More radical than simply working within existing particular corporations, but still working within the overall corporate/capitalistic system. Perhaps a hybrid of Trojan Horse and Green Activism. Green and/or interdependent corporations from scratch. Specially designed instruments of economic/political war, but like stealth bombers or drones. 

And a big "Ha Ha" regarding the Trojan Horse condoms and "intercourse with corporations"!!!!  

darrell
theurj said:

While failed as a Trojan Horse our progressive ideas did work as a Trojan prophylactic in keeping our values protected while engaged in corporate intercourse.

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

I agree that punches are sometimes needed and effective, but as an overide to a more balanced or integral default program which never looses sight of outflanking and amplifying the evolutionary impulse and wave. 

In quadrant terms would the punch be UR? 

darrell

theurj said:

I worked in corporations for many years, trying to inculcate progressive ideas in the most subtle of ways, given they were outright rejected. I had little to no effect in that regard. There were a few like-minded others in said corps working with me, but even together we were no match for the ingrained corporate worldview and structure.

I'm reminded of the Wolf of Wall Street, who started out with delusions of helping people but was quickly corrupted by the system. Or good-intentioned greenwashing like Whole Foods, which has been corrupted by capitalism. Systemic change requires large political change. And when dealing with bullies like the plutocrats and oligarchs sometimes (ofttimes?) the only thing they understand is a punch in the face (or wallet).

[Edward theurj Berge]

Upon further reflection I like the metaphor of Trojan condoms becoming the Trojan Horse. Wearing the condom is like pretending to go along with the corporate agenda. It gives them the veneer of your being safe. Meanwhile, you have secretly put a pinprick hole in the condom. While you're in their corporate vagina during intercourse you can impregnate them as they writhe in ecstasy during your profitable ejaculations. We now return this broadcast to your regularly scheduled reality...

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

That metaphor/analogy might well point to a new reality often overlooked. A space in the system. I still see starting from scratch with new types of corporations as being more effective, but might this underground planting of interdependent social model seeds be also undertaken? Don't employees and shareholders have at least some voice at meetings? If green or integral moles were working within existing profit-worshiping corporations at the same time new corporations provide bench-markable alternatives (Costco vs Wallmart) could the moles with holes in their corporate condoms have a more fertile ovum in which to plant their seeds? Instead of taking the lead, a given corporation might want to get on the green bandwagon while drafting behind other frontrunner corporations. Perhaps at first to only "look good," or "prosocial" or "green," but in time the posing could affect the actual posture (or to stick wit your analogy) the actual offspring of the corporate reproduction system. "How did this branch or product get those blue eyes? From the mail man? Or was it that fellow named Theurj? But I thought he was wearing a condom?!  Mole with a hole. 

darrell

theurj said:

Upon further reflection I like the metaphor of Trojan condoms becoming the Trojan Horse. Wearing the condom is like pretending to go along with the corporate agenda. It gives them the veneer of your being safe. Meanwhile, you have secretly put a pinprick hole in the condom. While you're in their corporate vagina during intercourse you can impregnate them as they writhe in ecstasy during your profitable ejaculations. We now return this broadcast to your regularly scheduled reality...

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Andrew,

The really bad news is that the ones who openly worship Kash will use this as an excuse to do away altogether with Progressive interventions, instead of working to clean up the corruption and make the prosocial agency actuall work more efficiently and effectively. The conservatives will be more than happy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The corruption just gave them an excuse to do so. That's the real crime or tragedy of the story (as inferred from what you described. I did not have time to open up the link and read the article.

darrell 

andrew said:

Here is a link to The Portland Hotel Society Scandal occurring now in NeoLiberal B.C. :

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Liberals+both+unlikely+into+spendin...

Now, this society has been run by the most progressive left leaning activists in North America. I challenge anyone to find anyone in North America to find a society this progressive when it comes to helping and dealing with the worst addictions of drugs and alcohol, and, divergent types of serious mental illness. These folks worked tirelessly to run a safe injection site among many other programs and services since the 90's. And, FYI, the downtown Vancouver east-side is shocking for it's crime, addiction, and poverty. It rivals the worst of any poverty stricken district in N.A.  I know, i've lived it there and visited most of them back in the day. NOW, my point is this: this article doesn't even come close to touching accurately how much money was misspent by these left wing progressives! It's truly a small fortune! As Obama has proved endlessly and cases like this amplify; the left is every bit as prone to corruption as the right when it comes to being in relationship with the monological god Ka$h.

[andrew]

Hey Darrell, yes, correct, there is a rabid feeding frenzy up here by the regressive's over this misspending by these left progressives. I've been stewing on this issue all night and have come up with an unlikely alternate explanation for what happened here. It's premised on the fact that everyone in government knows that this type of behaviour is not criminal by the law codes and no one was ever going to be charged for this misspending. Now, in light of that, and considering the behaviour of powerful lefties like Glen Clark ( who switched sides), i am proposing that the regressive Neo-Liberal machine got to these folks in this society. I would like to follow any money trails to off-shore deposits in these peoples names. We know that this society had a bulls-eye on it's forehead  somewhat similar to Iceland in 2008. This kind of progressive system just cannot be tolerated by the NeoLiberal machine anywhere! And sadly, maybe this was just another tactic used. Okay, maybe imaginative and unlikely, but it's just hard for me to wrap my head around this one. Narcissism and a sense of entitlement also explains some of what happened. 

On another somewhat less important topic: from every thing i can recall and remember, i was the first one to use the term Integralite on the old Gaia website in 2005.2006. Naturally, i could be wrong about this, but i never read it anywhere until i used it in a post. Shame on you Brian, for shutting that site down!

Anyway, we all know that condoms are anathema to the archetypes of the old roman church who's structure is very much alive and well today under the guise of global finance. The God Ka$h, the corporate messiah, the holy spirit of profit and the mysterious machinations of fiat currency, with it's apostles, celebrity disciples , Wall St. advertising evangelicals, etc…….

Carry on my Wayward sons!