You promised that in Book 2 You would get into larger geopolitical issues facing the planet (as opposed to the basically personal issues addressed in Book 1), but I didn’t think You would enter into this debate!
It is time for the world to stop kidding itself, to wake up, to realize that the only problem of humanity is lack of love.
Love breeds tolerance, tolerance breeds peace. In-tolerance produces war and looks indifferently upon intolerable conditions.
Love cannot be indifferent. It does not know how.
The fastest way to get to a place of love and concern for all humankind is to see all humankind as your family.
The fastest way to see all humankind as your family is to stop separating yourself. Each of the nation states now making up your world must unite.
We do have the United Nations.
Which has been powerless and impotent. In order for that body to work, it would have to be completely restructured. Not impossible, but perhaps difficult and cumbersome.
Okay—what do You propose?
I don’t have a “proposal.” I merely offer observa-tions. In this dialogue, you tell me what your new choices are, and I offer observations on ways to manifest that. What is it you now choose with regard to the current relationship between people and nations on your planet?
I’ll use Your words. If I had my way, I would choose for us “to get to a place of love and concern for all humankind.”
Given that choice, I observe that what would work would be the formation of a new world political com-munity, with each nation state having an equal say in the world’s affairs, and an equal proportionate share of the world’s resources.
It’ll never work. The “haves” will never surrender their sovereignty, wealth, and resources to the “have-nots.” And, argumentatively, why should they?
Because it is in their best interest.
They don’t see that—and I’m not sure I do.
If you could add billions of dollars a year to your nation’s economy—dollars which could be spent to feed the hungry, clothe the needy, house the poor, bring security to the elderly, provide better health, and produce a dignified standard of living for all—wouldn’t that be in your nation’s best interest?
Well, in America there are those who would argue that it would help the poor at the expense of the rich and of the middle-income taxpayer. Meanwhile, the country continues to go to hell, crime ravages the nation, inflation robs the people of their life savings, unemployment skyrockets, the government grows bigger and fatter, and in school they’re handing out condoms.
You sound like a radio talk show.
Well, these are the concerns of many Americans.
Then they are short-sighted. Do you not see that if billions of dollars a year—that’s millions a month, hun-dreds and hundreds of thousands a week, unheard of amounts each day-could be sunk back into your system
that if you could use these monies to feed your hungry, clothe your needy, house your poor, bring security to your elderly, and provide health care and dignity to all ... the causes of crime would be lost forever? Do you not see that new jobs would mushroom as dollars were pumped back into your economy? That your own government could even be reduced because it would have less to do?
I suppose some of that could happen—I can’t imagine government ever getting smaller!—but just where are these millions and billions going to come from? Taxes imposed by Your new world government? More taking from those who’ve “worked to get it” to give to those who won’t “stand upon their own two feet” and go after it?
Is that how you frame it?
No, but it is how a great many people see it, and I wanted to fairly state their view.
Well, I’d like to talk about that later. Right now I don’t want to get off track—but I want to come back to that later.
Great.
But you’ve asked where these new dollars would come from. Well, they would not have to come from any new taxes imposed by the new world community (al-though members of the community—individual citi-zens— would want, under an enlightened governance, to send 10 percent of their income to provide for society’s needs as a whole). Nor would they come from new taxes imposed by any local government. In fact, some local governments would surely be able to reduce taxes.
All of this—all of these benefits—would result from the simple restructuring of your world view, the simpler reordering of your world political configuration.
How?
The money you save from building defense systems and attack weapons.
Oh, I get it! You want us to close down the military!
Not just you. Everybody in the world.
But not close down your military, simply reduce it—drastically. Internal order would be your only need. You could strengthen local police—something you say you want to do, but cry each year at budget time that you cannot do—at the same time dramatically reducing your spending on weapons of war and preparations for war; that is, offensive and defensive weapons of mass destruction.
First, I think Your figures exaggerate how much could be saved by doing that. Second, I don’t think You’ll ever convince people they should give up their ability to defend themselves.
The nations that are spending the most could redi-rect the most to the other priorities mentioned. So larger, richer nations would see it in their best interests to do so—if they thought it was possible. But larger, richer nations cannot imagine going defenseless, for they fear aggression and attack from the nations which envy them and want what they have.
There are two ways to eliminate this threat.
1. Share enough of the world’s total wealth and resources with all of the world’s people so that no one will want and need what someone else has, and every-one may live in dignity and remove themselves from fear.
2. Create a system for the resolution of differences that eliminates the need for war—and even the possi-bility of it.
The people of the world would probably never do this. They already have.
They have?
Yes. There is a great experiment now going on in your world in just this sort of political order. That experiment is called the United States of America.
Which You said was failing miserably.
It is. It has very far to go before it could be called a success. (As I promised earlier, I’ll talk about this—and the attitudes which are now preventing it—later.) Still, it is the best experiment going.
It is as Winston Churchill said. “Democracy is the worst system,” he announced, “except all others.”
Your nation was the first to take a loose confedera-tion of individual states and successfully unite them into a cohesive group, each submitting to one central authority.
At the time, none of the states wanted to do this, and each resisted mightily, fearing the loss of its individ-ual greatness and claiming that such a union would not serve its best interests.
It may be instructive to understand just what was going on with these individual states at that time.
While they had joined together in a loose confed-eration, there was no real U.S. Government, and hence no power to enforce the Articles of Confederation to which the states had agreed.
States were conducting their own foreign affairs, several reaching private agreements on trade and other matters with France, Spain, England, and other coun-tries. States traded with each other as well, and although their Articles of Confederation forbade it, some states added tariffs to the goods shipped in from other states—just as they did for goods from across the ocean! Merchants had no choice but to pay at the harbor if they wanted to buy or sell their goods, there being no central authority—although there was a written agree-ment to prohibit such taxing.
The individual states also fought wars with each other. Each state considered its militia a standing army, nine states had their own navies, and “Don’t tread on me” could have been the official motto of every state in the Confederation.
Over half of the states were even printing their own money. (Although the Confederation had agreed that doing so would also be illegal!)
In short, your original states, though joined together under the Articles of Confederation, were acting exactly as independent nations do today.
Although they could see that the agreements of their Confederation (such as the granting to Congress the sole authority to coin money) were not working, they staunchly resisted creating and submitting to a central authority that could enforce these agreements and put some teeth into them.
Yet, in time, a few progressive leaders began to prevail. They convinced the rank and file that there was more to be gained by creating such a new Federation than they would ever lose.
Merchants would save money and increase profits because individual states could no longer tax each other’s goods.
Governments would save money and have more to put into programs and services that truly helped people because resources would not have to be used to protect individual states from each other.
The people would have greater security and safety, and greater prosperity, too, by cooperating with, rather than fighting with, each other.
Far from losing their greatness, each state could become greater still.
And that, of course, is exactly what has happened. The same could be made to happen with the 160
nation states in the world today if they were to join together in a United Federation. It could mean an end to war.
How so? There would still be disagreements.
So long as humans remain attached to outer things, that is true. There is a way to truly eliminate war—and all experience of unrest and lack of peace-but that is a spiritual solution. We are here exploring a geopolitical one.
Actually, the trick is to combine the two. Spiritual truth must be lived in practical life to change everyday experience.
Until this change occurs, there would still be dis-agreements. You are right. Yet there need not be wars. There need not be killing.
Are there wars between California and Oregon over water rights? Between Maryland and Virginia over fish-ing? Between Wisconsin and Illinois, Ohio and Massa-chusetts?
No.
And why not? Have not various disputes and differ-ences arisen between them?
Through the years, I suppose so.
You can bet on it. But these individual states have voluntarily agreed—it was a simple, voluntary agree-ment—to abide by certain laws and abide by certain compromises on matters common to them, while re-taining the right to pass separate statutes on matters relating to each individually.
And when disputes between states do arise, due to differing interpretations of the federal law-or someone simply breaking that law—the matter is taken to a court ... which has been granted the authority (that is, given the authority by the states) to resolve the dispute.
And, if the current body of law does not provide a precedent or a means by which the matter can be brought through the courts to a satisfactory resolution, the states and the people in them send their repre-sentatives to a central government to try to create agreement on new laws that will produce a satisfactory circumstance—or, at the very least, a reasonable com-promise.
This is how your federation works. A system of laws, a system of courts empowered by you to interpret those laws, and a justice system—backed by armed might, if needed—to enforce the decisions of those courts.
Although no one could argue that the system doesn’t need improving, this political concoction has worked for more than 200 years!
There is no reason to doubt that the same recipe will work between nation states as well.
If this is so simple, why hasn’t it been tried?
It has. Your League of Nations was an early attempt. The United Nations is the latest.
Yet one failed and the other has been only minimally effective because—like the 13 States of America’s origi-nal Confederation—the member nation states (particu-larly the most powerful) are afraid they have more to lose than to gain from the reconfiguration.
That is because the “people of power” are more concerned with holding on to their power than with improving the quality of life for all people. The “Haves” know that such a World Federation would inevitably produce more for the “have-nots”—but the “haves” believe this would come at their expense... and they’re giving up nothing.
Isn’t their fear justified—and is wanting to hold on to what you have so long struggled for unreasonable?
First, it is not necessarily true that, to give more to those who now hunger and thirst and live without shelter, others must give up their abundance.
As I have pointed out, all you would have to do is take the $1 ,000,000,000,000 a year spent annually worldwide for military purposes and shift that to hu-manitarian purposes, and you will have solved the problem without spending an additional penny or shift-ing any of the wealth from where it now resides to where it does not.
(Of course, it could be argued that those interna-tional conglomerates whose profits come from war and tools for war would be “losers”—as would their employ-ees and all those whose abundance is derived from the world’s conflict consciousness—but perhaps your source of abundance is misplaced. If one has to depend on the world living in strife in order for one to survive, perhaps this dependence explains why your world resists any attempt to create a structure for lasting peace.)
As for the second part of your question, wanting to hold on to what you have struggled so long to acquire, as an individual or as a nation, is not unreasonable, if you come from an Outside World consciousness.
A what?
If you derive your life’s greatest happiness from experiences obtainable only in the Outside World—the physical world outside of yourself—you will never want to give up an ounce of all that you’ve piled up, as a person and a nation, to make you happy.
And as long as those who “have not” see their unhappiness tied to the lack of material things, they, too, will get caught in the trap. They will constantly want what you have got, and you will constantly refuse to share it.
That is why I said earlier that there is a way to truly eliminate war—and all experience of unrest and lack of peace. But this is a spiritual solution.
Ultimately, every geopolitical problem, just as every personal problem, breaks down to a spiritual problem.
All of life is spiritual, and therefore all of life’s prob-lems are spiritually based—and spiritually solved.
Wars are created on your planet because somebody has something that somebody else wants. This is what causes someone to do something that somebody else does not want them to do.
All conflict arises from misplaced desire.
The only peace in all the world that is sustaining is Internal Peace.
Let each person find peace within. When you find peace within, you also find that you can do without.
This means simply that you no longer need the things of your outside world. “Not needing” is a great freedom. It frees you, first, from fear: fear that there is something you won’t have; fear that there is something you have that you will lose; and fear that without a certain thing, you won’t be happy.
Secondly, “not needing” frees you from anger. An-ger is fear announced. When you have nothing to fear, you have nothing over which to be angry.
You are not angry when you don’t get what you want, because your wanting it was simply a prefer-ence, not a necessity. You therefore have no fear associated with the possibility of not getting it. Hence, no anger.
You are not angry when you see others doing what you don’t want them to do, because you don’t need them to do or not do any particular thing. Hence, no anger.
You are not angry when someone is unkind, be-cause you have no need for them to be kind. You have no anger when someone is unloving, because you have no need for them to love you. You have no anger when someone is cruel, or hurtful, or seeks to damage you, for you have no need for them to behave any other way, and you are clear that you cannot be damaged.
You do not even have anger should someone seek to take your life, because you do not fear death.
When fear is taken from you, all else can be taken from you and you will not be angry.
You know inwardly, intuitively, that everything you’ve created can be created again, or—more impor-tantly—that it doesn’t matter.
When you find Inner Peace, neither the presence nor the absence of any person, place or thing, condi-tion, circumstance, or situation can be the Creator of your state of mind or the cause of your experience of being.
This does not mean that you reject all things of the body. Far from it. You experience being fully in your body and the delights of that, as you never have before.
Yet your involvement with things of the body will be voluntary, not mandatory. You will experience bodily sensations because you choose to, not because your are required to in order to feel happy or to justify sadness.
This one simple change—seeking and finding peace within—could, were it undertaken by everyone, end all wars, eliminate conflict, prevent injustice, and bring the world to everlasting peace.
There is no other formula necessary, or possible. World peace is a personal thing!
What is needed is not a change of circumstance, but a change of consciousness.
How can we find inner peace when we are hungry? Be at a place of serenity when we thirst? Remain calm when we are wet and cold and without shelter? Or avoid anger when our loved ones are dying without cause?
You speak so poetically, but is poetry practical? Does it have anything to say to the mother in Ethiopia who watches her emaciated child die for lack of one slice of bread? The man in Central America who feels a bullet rip his body because he tried to stop an army from taking over his village? And what does your poetry say to the woman in Brooklyn raped eight times by a gang? Or the family of six in Ireland blown away by a terrorist bomb planted in a church on a Sunday morning?
This is difficult to hear, but I tell you this: There is perfection in everything. Strive to see the perfection. This is the change of consciousness of which I speak.
Need nothing. Desire everything. Choose what shows up.
Feel your feelings. Cry your cries. Laugh your laughs. Honor your truth. Yet when all the emotion is done, be still and know that I am God.
In other words, in the midst of the greatest tragedy, see the glory of the process. Even as you die with a bullet through your chest, even as you are being gang-raped.
Now this sounds like such an impossible thing to do. Yet when you move to God consciousness, you can do it.
You don’t have to do it, of course. It depends on how you wish to experience the moment.
In a moment of great tragedy, the challenge always is to quiet the mind and move deep within the soul.
You automatically do this when you have no control over it.
Have you ever talked with a person who acciden-tally ran a car off a bridge? Or found himself facing a gun? Or nearly drowned? Often they will tell you that time slowed way down, that they were overcome by a curious calm, that there was no fear at all.
“Fear not, for I am with you.” That is what poetry has to say to the person facing tragedy. In your darkest hour, I will be your light. In your blackest moment, I will be your consolation. In your most difficult and trying
time, I will be your strength. Therefore, have faith! For I am your shepherd; you shall not want. I will cause you to lie down in green pastures; I will lead you beside still waters.
I will restore your soul, and lead you in the paths of righteousness for My Name’s sake.
And yea, though you walk through the valley of the Shadow of Death, you will fear no evil; for I am with you. My rod and My staff will comfort you.
I am preparing a table before you in the presence of your enemies. I shall anoint your head with oil. Your cup will run over.
Surely, goodness and mercy will follow you all the days of your life, and you will dwell in My house—and in My heart—forever.