alternative Aotearoa
  • front
  • purpose
    • scenario >
      • post-capitalist economy
      • teamwork
    • editorial
  • common cause
    • Greens integral frame
    • Aotearoa
  • the Ark
    • alt.community
  • paradigm
    • the fictive self
    • mythistory
  • network
    • resources
  • get this!

Labour/Greens Memorandum of Understanding

20/6/2016

0 Comments

 
Here's my view of the Labour/Green MoU (emailed to James Shaw):

Somewhat to my surprise, I'm not opposed to it.  Aotearoa now needs a change of government, but that will only happen next year if this collaboration produces a semblance of a positive alternative in the minds of swing-voters.  It's the final opportunity the leftists are likely to have to get their collective act together.

Having finally admitted online that my early intervention in the session called to decide the question of our prospective parliamentary alignment (at the Tuakau '91 conference) was sufficiently decisive that nobody disagreed, I'm still feeling considerable angst about producing our leftist parliamentary alignment.  Kiwis tend to act like sheep, and regrettably this results in the tendency of green folk in Aotearoa to act like green sheep.  I already knew, back then, that I had to play the sheepdog & bark at them to get the right result.  Some leading environmentalists had committed to working with Bolger & his closet-fascists, so I had to provide the counter-balance to prevent their capture of the green movement in Aotearoa.

Helen Clark proved that this parliamentary leftist alignment was not feasible in 2003, but the GP leaders have proved themselves clueless by retaining the failed strategy regardless.  Recall Einstein's definition of insanity:  doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  So why have our Green politicians been trying for so long to publicly prove that they are insane??

Now they think this dead horse that they have been flogging for so long is about to leap up and canter to the finish line next year.  The MoU suggests that it's alive, and the media presentations even make it seem as if the horse has raised its head & is remembering what it was meant to do.  Will I end up feeling historically validated in seizing the time at that crucial moment in '91, and no longer have to feel that I had sent the Greens down a political cul-de-sac in which they seemed determined to get lost forever?

Bomber Bradbury conducted these webcast panels discussing the MoU:
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/06/04/waatea-5th-estate-the-infamous-friday-night-political-wrap-show/
http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/06/03/waatea-5th-estate-left-wing-jedi-council-debate-the-labour-green-mou/

And here's my feedback to the Bomber's commentary on attending our AGM:
JUNE 5, 2016 AT 8:03 PM  DENNIS FRANK says:

Martyn, those panel shows you did yesterday & the day before were really good.  I don’t normally bother with the blogosphere due to getting bored easily but the MoU is a bit of a tectonic shift in Aotearoa’s political culture (better late than never).  Here’s my feedback on your impressions of our conference (which I wasn’t at) & your analysis..

Your perception of a faction that wants the GP to be non-aligned is encouraging because such people are authentic greenies.  Presumably you recall the political green movement emerging globally in the early ’80s as `neither left nor right, but in front’.  Those of us who entered the green belief system via the counter-culture in ’68/9 were mostly apolitical because the revulsion induced in us by the political left was almost as intense as that induced by the political right.  Dumb & dumber.  So we had to forge a third alternative.

Refugees from Labour swelled our ranks sufficiently in the early ’90s that they were able to take eventual control:  I left mid-’95 in disgust & rejoined 18 months ago to see if the situation could be improved. While it’s true that I seized the time in March ’91 & persuaded our conference to adopt a leftist alignment should we ever enter parliament, that was just because the Bolger govt was closet-fascist and pre-MMP parliament was binary.  Non-alignment wasn’t realistic.

The correct time to ditch that leftist alignment was 2003, after Helen Clark had proved it would never work.  Too bad those in control of the GP have demonstrated that they were/are slow learners.  However, I do agree that Aotearoa would benefit from a change of govt, so I welcome the MoU – perhaps our leftists are genuinely trying to achieve unity?

I suspect the faction you identified similarly feel we can afford to give the left one last shot at getting their collective act together.  After all, we do share their values & aspirations.  We just get alienated by their simple-mindedness, poor judgments, lack of political nous, etc.

The left has wallowed in a morass of sectarianism too long.  Their pathological need for divisiveness has prevented them identifying common ground on which to proceed.  Aotearoa needs them to play a constructive role in our political arena.  Pretending to be progressive just seems a sham to others when you’re not actually being progressive.  The government will not change unless the left stop preaching to the converted and start giving swing-voters good reasons to shift leftwards…

(http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/06/05/reflections-on-green-party-agm/#comment-339843)

After the GP conference last year I sensed that, despite the verdict of the straw poll conducted by Russel Norman at our prior summer policy conference, those of us seeking authentic representation of the green movement by the Green Party were likely to continue to have our aspirations denied by the status quo.  The emergence of the MoU confirms my apprehension, but I'm taking a positive view. Timing is the key to political intervention and halfway thro the electoral cycle is a suitable time to reframe the expectations of the electorate.

On Chris Trotter's blog I wrote (June 2nd): Feels appropriate, since Aotearoa needs unity on the left. Politically it may not work: the next poll will give us a provisional verdict on that.  If there's no shift in the middle it will test the resolve of those who negotiated the detente.  It will indicate that swing-voters are insufficiently impressed and have decided to wait & see if the collaboration will become substantive.

Green voters would have been better served if the GP had abandoned the leftist parliamentary alignment last year, but there's a faint chance the old horse ain't really dead & will suddenly leap up & bolt past the Nats to the finish line.  Our straw poll last year: 60 or so people gave us a show of hands that was two to one in favour of the authentic traditional greenies:  neither left nor right.  The situation echoes the schism in the Values Party back in the '70s (I've been neither left nor right since 1971).  Everyone's congenital reluctance to define the political left & right perpetuates our state of total cluelessness in all directions.

People keep saying nowadays that perception is reality.  That's only true of those who can't tell the difference.  But perceptions can indeed alter both the subjective reality of a person and the collective reality of a group or society - the shapeshifting of a shaman deliberately restructures the collective consciousness of the tribe, the vision of a preacher can form a religion via resonance in the minds of listeners,  the imagery of the media persuades many to buy products and wear brand logos.  The leftist MoU is a ploy of this kind as it flags a potential new government - it remains to be seen how adept those involved are at transforming this perception into reality by effecting the mass reframe Aotearoa needs!

0 Comments

Parliamentary reform to facilitate a new style of politics

28/8/2015

0 Comments

 
I support the switch to online voting, but think it will be essential to trial it concurrently with the traditional voting system for several elections so everyone can become confident that the new option is reliable.  The design of a secure online voting system obviously depends on the effective prevention of identity theft. Public confidence will depend on a voter's capability to check government registration of their vote to make sure it is correct.   Incorporating this design feature into the new system will ensure that organised rigging of an election will be easily detectable!

Retention of 19th century representative democracy seems increasingly ludicrous in the 21st century, due to the widespread agreement in recent decades that elected representatives no longer represent the common interests of constituents.  The traditional competitive ethic often merely produces egocentric posturing on the floor of parliament rather than constructive debate directed toward the solution of social problems.  A forum for collaborative political endeavour is now essential.

I advise usage of the legislative chamber for this purpose - not so much as an upper house, but as a venue to develop cross-party consensus on methods for solving social problems.   I recommend retaining the traditional system in concurrent operation because we need proposed legislation to remain contestable.  To minimise the cost to the taxpayer, the collaborative forum ought to be voluntarist – at least for a seven-year trial period.

It would work best if current MPs were empowered to elect their participation therein, but I would advise a limit on numbers to keep the operation small until confidence in the efficacy of the process becomes general.  Obviously the process would benefit from careful selection of volunteer participants (both in number and track record in public life or ngo contexts).  Final criteria ought to be opened for public input (and consequent amendment) before operation commences.

However, you must acknowledge that lateral-thinkers and natural problem-solvers are actively discriminated against in representative democracy! By virtue of its design, it compels lowest-common denominator thinking.  To solve endemic social problems, we must instead trial likely solutions until we get one that works.  This can never happen while most people think doing so is too hard.  Such prevailing defeatism prolongs the status quo and ensures that young people mature into adult-hood in dismay at the sick society that representative democracy institutionalises.   We need a can-do approach instead, to replace our defeatist tradition.

The forum for participatory democracy that I propose will give hope to the young: they will see that progress can be made via the practical process of extending consensus across party lines.  It can be advocated as a clever extension of current parliamentary select committee process, but it elevates that to a higher gear.  Our huge pool of innovators and problem-solvers will be able to contribute to political life on a constructive collaborative basis - rather than continue to be dismissed as non-conformists.  I'm confident this mutual-benefit scenario will once again make us exemplars of political progress on the global stage.

[my submission to parliament's Justice & Electoral Committee Inquiry March 2015]


0 Comments

An integral frame for green politics: including blue-green thought & practice

13/4/2015

0 Comments

 
Blue-green thinking & activism combines enterprise with environmentalism. The blue-green meme has been adopted by the Nats in an organised attempt to remedy the failure of the Progressive Greens. This can be read as privatising the political brand – but will it succeed as a monopoly? Not if the Green Party decides to also represent blue-green voters!

Energy-efficiency caught on as businesses saw the feasibility of capturing the consequent profit stream by reducing losses & waste. Reduction of their carbon footprint followed into sustainable business practice. Groups prominent as leaders of blue-green thought and practice include organic food producers, waste recyclers, biodynamic farmers, permaculturists, community & home gardeners, green-tech inventors, green-building designers. Their global spread has been increasingly evident since the 1980s.

Whereas traditional conservation reserved forests, mountains and wetlands as public domains, when environmentalism emerged in the '60s as a focus for activism it was due to the increasingly evident harm being done to nature by both businesses and governments. Environmentalist and conservationist groups were explicitly apolitical because both presumed that working with governments of the left and right would produce suitable protective legislation. This flawed assumption was exposed by escalating environmental pollution and ecosystem destruction during the '70s. By the '80s the addiction of the political left & right to economic growth policies had turned business and government into a global problem, so green political parties emerged globally as the solution.

The Green Party in this country decided to align with the left in parliament (for my part initiating this see http://www.alternativeaotearoa.org/get-this/green-politics-an-integral-frame). Leading environmentalists were aligned with the right – they established the Progressive Greens to compete for the green vote but got merely 0.25% of the vote in the 1996 election. They subsequently found a home as the bluegreen faction in the National Party (http://bluegreens.org.nz/november-2014/). Perusal of the 5 primary pages of their website establishes in the minds of unbiased observers their considerable track record of success. Such accomplishments prove they are a natural complement to the red-greens – who suffer the disadvantage of being unable to point to as many similar results of their own.

Is the bluegreen political brand here really synonymous with blue-green thought and practice? No. As already specified, there's so much more to the latter than the mere conservationist/environmentalist stance presented by the Nat faction. Their strength lies in their credentials as political representatives of the original green movement of this country. Protecting natural habitats, ecosystems & biodiversity is genuinely green, but they marry it to business as usual! This hybrid ethic is too artificial a construct to convince anyone who wants a sustainable economy. Growth addiction has never been sustainable and never will be.

In 1968 I read a two-page spread describing the poisoning of the land by agribusiness in the USA (in the University of Auckland students' newspaper) and it was like the bell of doom tolled in my head. I couldn't shake the ominous feeling for long after. The back-to-the-land movement went global that year, largely due to hippies being alienated from the robotic mainstream & the political/industrial establishment. The Whole Earth Catalogue commenced publication simultaneously and became the cultural spearhead of the movement: it was seminal blue-green thought and practice. Know-how, can do.

Eco Barons (E. Humes 2009) describes how a number of very wealthy folk are using their money & organising skills to assist the green movement and protect ecosystems in various places. Another blue-green trend is microfinance: an avatar of this method of lifting the poor out of poverty is the founder of the Grameen Bank who was awarded the Nobel peace prize for creating that enormously successful collaborative enterprise. It is an excellent example of how lateral thinking in a traditional blue sphere of operation can produce designs and social systems with outcomes normally viewed as socialist in nature.

CNN suddenly started featuring green news stories around 1994 - apparently owner Ted Turner being influenced in that direction by his new wife Jane Fonda. Since then there's been an ever-increasing stream of stories about green issues in the global media, many being good news developments. The world seems to be going green big-time now! Often ground-breaking inventions, clever designs & technical innovations & improvements feature in these media stories - clear evidence that blue-green enterprise is at the cutting edge of social progress. Sometimes the green brand is mentioned in the story, other times it is left tacit despite the green progress being evident in the content - almost as if the brand has become too normal and accepted to warrant inclusion as cultural identifier. Those originating and driving these processes may not self-identify with the blue-green ethic, but it is clearly motivating their collective endeavour.

Perceptive observers of culture and social commentators will be able to see that this dynamic global cultural trend originates from blue-green attitudes, values and priorities. The political question then becomes: who represents these drivers of the progress of civilisation in the political process? Us or the Nats? In western countries generally, will these green entrepreneurs accept being claimed by the right as exemplars of sustainable growth? Will the embrace of parasitic capitalism cause them to dissociate in revulsion? The left always claim to be progressive instead of actually making progress - so they can't represent sustainable business. Are the Greens now too contaminated by leftist thought? Unable to give credit where it's due and acknowledge the dramatic advances arising from blue-green enterprise?

Anyone musing upon the current situation will be liable to wonder why we are not doing so. Perception that leftist ideology renders us irrelevant may spread. A Green Party good at talking the right talk is in real danger of political impotence if the perception spreads that it is not associated with those who are walking the right walk. Our leftist parliamentary alignment has resulted in an effective red-green hegemony dictating our political positioning - and red-green thought remains averse to enterprise.

After the election Gareth Morgan wrote a rationale for why this country needs a blue-green political party – the primary reason he identified was the congenital refusal of the Green Party to abandon its leftist parliamentary alignment (http://garethsworld.com/blog/environment/time-bluegreen-party/). He also researched climate science before co-authoring his book about global warming. Rare to find a capitalist with so much street-cred, huh? I even bought my own copy after reading it as a library book because he did such a good job. A physics graduate once upon a time, I handle the alarmist/denier interface by reading both sides & developing an integral overview. He did too. So he's blue-green in both belief & practice, but he's also proved he has an open mind and examines the merits of both sides of contentious issues.

Lucy Lawless was interviewed on the tv news regarding his call for a blue-green political party & she said she agreed that there's a need for one - a year after she showed up on the tv news sitting next to Russel Norman at the Green Party annual conference. My take therefore is that they are giving voice to a sector of public opinion. So here's the crucial question: have the Nats successfully captured much of the green vote?

James Shaw told us recently that post-election polling revealed 28% of voters had considered voting green. Since the final green vote was nearly 11%, 39% of the electorate have now self-identified as potential green voters!!  Labour's final vote was bedrock (22%) so we have little reason to assume many went there. Comparison of campaign polls with the election result suggests 3% switched to NZFirst. That leaves 25%. Most of these folk must have voted National!

So the size of the blue-green vote is now over 20%. John Key's a smart enough dude and may have already figured this out! Best way for him to ensure he gets a fourth term as PM is to tell Nick Smith to follow Gareth Morgan's advice: a support party that takes around 20% of the vote means he need not rely on United Future, the Conservatives & the Maori Party. The electorate would then see those parties as irrelevant: most of their voters would go back to National (Maoris to Labour).

As soon as political scientists & journalists deduce that the combined green vote has escalated over 30% they will initiate polling to prove that this is so. The pressure on John Key to eject the Bluegreens from the National Party mothership & send it out to hoover up half the green vote will mount inexorably via media discussion of the scenario. Green voters will then reflect on the traditional leftist growth addiction and the reluctance of our red-greens to endorse collaborative enterprise & sustainable business. Given two green parties to choose between, they are liable to favour the one that has established a better track record of generating genuine green progress. Inclusion of minorities is the essential political principle! Our party will become authentic when it represents all three subtribes in the green movement: green, red-green & blue-green. Only by endorsing the minority rights of the blue-greens as a subtribe of the global green movement can the red-greens regain credibility. The Green Party needs to start representing all green voters, not merely half of them! An integral frame for green politics is the key to our future.

Dennis Frank, 10/4/15

0 Comments

Inequality: towards a solution

3/3/2015

0 Comments

 
Inequality of income is due to luck & karma mostly, but market forces & government intervention together maintain the systemic wealth distribution that has existed for millennia.  A semblance of equality distinguished kiwi society in the mid-20th century, but the practice of socialism that created it has since been abandoned by both the political left & right.  I'd like to see the economic policy of the Green Party advocating a systemic change to restore equity.

Prior to the advent of agriculture human wealth consisted primarily of food, dwellings & territory. Private wealth was limited to what people could carry (clothing, decorative trinkets, weapons). Equitable sharing is reported by anthropologists to be the cultural norm of the hunter/gatherer tribes that survived into the 20th century.  Hence this general principle: humanity evolved on the basis of equity – the fair sharing of social wealth.  Storing wealth began when agriculture generated food surpluses in settlements, and the organised defence against raiders created military hierarchies, further empowering rulers and privatising social wealth.  The resultant patriarchy entrenched its systemic ownership of social wealth via the doctrine of private property rights and laws to enforce them.

Today the residual patriarchy employs a fig-leaf of gender-equity to mask its moral nudity, traditional privileges and vested interests.  The historical collusion of the political right and left has proven to be an effective strategy in maintaining the control system.  The powers that be took a gamble on democracy in the 19th century, betting that a competitive charade would captivate voters much as children were captivated by the Punch & Judy show at fairs and carnivals in the pre-television era:  if you can't see the puppet-master, the conflict appears real.  The ongoing belief of adults that political competition is real has been ubiquitous, enduring, and a marvel to behold:  perceptive observers notice that apparently intelligent adults act in the political process as if they have a mental age of five. So they keep voting for the system that controls and exploits them, switching from the left-hand puppet to the right-hand puppet and back according to whichever option the controllers present as more desirable at the time.  Democracy works as required.

Democracy has also proven useful in eliminating the threat from any radical advocate of a better social system.  Fear of the unknown and anarchy lurks in the collective psyche of voters, so they can always be stampeded to choose once again the safety and security of the largely mythical trickle-down voting option.  They can no longer be persuaded to vote for tax increases, because socialists created bloated bureaucracy whose operational inefficiency alienated most people and destroyed socialism as a result.

However it is possible to do what the left has been failing to do since the 1980s:  provide a viable alternative to the status quo – by using an intelligent design.  A novel design that reverses the current tendency of the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer is what the situation requires.  I suggest we use a poll of suitable options to obtain consensus in favour of a satisfactory ratio of top to bottom incomes.   I suggest the Green Party model this solution for the general public.  Doing so will prove that we are giving people what they need.  We will then be seen as the genuine leading-edge of politics.  Voting papers ought to include these options: 1 to 3, 1 to 4, 1 to 5, 1 to 6, 1 to 7, 1 to 8, plus a voter-specified other ratio, to give voters seven ways to choose a limited income-distribution. Reporting of the poll result must specify the total vote for each option.   If a large proportion of voters choose the voter-specified other ratio, the detailed results for that must be available to researchers and reporters.

Those of us who prefer more social equity will vote for a lower income ratio;  those who prefer to incentivise enterprise will vote for a higher ratio.  The spectrum of votes within our party will reflect the relative numbers of red-greens & blue-greens, but the outcome will be decided by the bulk of us who self-identify as neither left nor right (as was decisively evident in the show of hands at the recent national policy conference).

This exercise will capture the public imagination if we publicise both the choices and results and advocate a referendum with the same design.  People will see that they can restore a considerable measure of our lost social equity by popular vote.  Knowledge that wealth is generated by business is widespread, so the general public can be expected to generate consensus around a higher median than those of us who prefer equity to money (they'd rather encourage business).

Nevertheless, past anecdotal reporting suggests a consensus within the range I have specified.  I read somewhere that Plato advised an income ratio of 1:6 for Athens in ancient times.  The past 30 years have seen the ratio in western civilisation stretch out from dozens into hundreds.  Creating a public consensus on what ratio best serves our common interests will be a serious wake-up call for those who take refuge in the apparent public acquiescence in increasing exploitation!

Dennis Frank, 28/2/15

0 Comments

Reframing Sovereignty, the Treaty & Constitution

2/3/2015

0 Comments

 
In principle, sovereignty ought to be invested in the people as a whole. Instead, sovereign nations vest it in the state. The historical reason is that the state was abstracted from the sovereign ruler or monarch when they lost absolute power to parliament. What's wrong with this?

Well, the political left and right maintain a long tradition of using the power of the state to limit our exercise of human rights and freedom of expression. They conduct the form of democracy rather than act in the spirit of it: representation of voters is a sham when they act in self-interest plus in their party's interests, but usually not in the public interest. Furthermore, retaining a foreign agent as head of state doesn't make sense unless the British Crown starts to act like a positive role model by serving the public interest.

So rather than commit to the backward Maori collective view that we must accept the the supremacy of the British Crown forever (so that chiefs can retain their traditional privileges) I prefer a forward view that does not entrench privileges for anyone. I suggest we create a genuine progressive political movement in Aotearoa that advocates constitutional reform with the priority principle that our sovereignty is formally vested in us as the basis of our constitution.

This need not mean that we ought to create a Republic of Aotearoa! Intelligent observers of the USA since Eisenhower tend to deduce that republics produce just as many abuses of democratic process as monarchies. Read Prince Charles's book Harmony (2010) and you will see that his vast unreported service to the global green cause verify that he will be an ideal head of state for us! Since it appears that he is similarly mentoring his son William, one need not be a royalist to see that preserving the status quo is likely to be the best way forward.

A prudent compromise would therefore be to make retention of the Crown conditional upon both the performance of public service by the British monarch in this country and public satisfaction with the monarch as appropriate role model - just as Charles has been providing diverse enterprising exemplary demonstrations of since the 1980s (which the media carefully refrain from publicising). The constitutional clause to effect this change ought to include a plebiscite threshold of 2/3 of kiwi voters required to make the switch away from the Crown.

When, as a child more than half a century back, I first heard that Aotearoa was the Maori name of our country, I thought it vastly preferable. It was common in those days to dismiss something that doesn't make sense as “double-dutch”. New Zealand is a double name, and it's dutch (Tasman, the discoverer, named our country after a province in Holland). Doesn't make sense to use it, right? If I could figure this out that young how come mainstream dorks still don't get it??

Rather than continuing to present as a country full of retards, we must get our collective act together and make our land Aotearoa in the new constitution. So forget our current PM's attempt to distract us from this essential transformation. No point in waving a new flag when you're still wallowing in the same old shit! Folks here need not be spineless forever: they just need to realise they can't feel kiwi pride on an authentic basis while they're still crippled by the old cultural cringe.

I'd be keen to lead this change in parliament but I can't see myself being willing to swear loyalty to a foreign agency. Neither would I front as just another suit-wearing dork. If parliament does actually have a compulsory dress code, I cannot condone discrimination against anyone who feels having to wear a 19th century uniform as a condition of entry makes MPs look like imbeciles.

So I see an oath and a parliamentary dress code suitable for the 21st century as being essential consitutional requirements to make our democracy more credible. Likewise replacing the antique competitive structure of parliament with one that balances competition with collaboration. This can readily be done by re-activating the upper chamber of parliament to serve as the forum for collaborative decision-making. This parallel structure allows the House to continue normal process while the supplementary forum gets up to speed.

The merit of this innovation is depends on a suitably-sophisticated design being used. I suggest chartering the forum to operate for the common good, so collaborative endeavour gets framed to serve the public interest. Open it not just to MPs who prefer to work constructively to extend consensus on legislation across party lines, but also to party members and other politicos similarly motivated. Make the basis of participation voluntarist, so no extra funding is required. Eliminate rabble-rousers by using a gatekeeper screening process with selection criteria. Participants to sign a collective contract specifying adherence to the collaborative decision-making process, etc.

The basic idea is enabling collective transcendence, mainly directed to solving what have hitherto been intractable social problems. Concurrent operation of the two chambers would create a different culture in parliament: effectively the traditional lower chamber would be competing with the novel upper chamber in the public mind. Folks would await the outcome, to see whether the upper forum produces better results. My pick is that the polarising, problem-institutionalising process we are familiar with in the competitive lower chamber will be surpassed and supplanted by the holistic problem-solving process we will observe in the collaborative upper chamber. Validation by results will inexorably escalate public support for this social transformation.

The general desire of people for a new kind of politics has not yet led to sufficient emergence of any such practice. Whereas the political left and right are shackled to antique representative democracy, the green movement has always been neither left nor right (but in front). It cannot be seen to actually be in front until it leads from the front, which requires the Green Party to start representing the green movement on the authentic basis of being neither left nor right. If the GP takes this initiative, it can begin to role-model a new style of politics.

Essentially, such political leadership would transform it into a political avante-garde, driving social progress forward for our country. The practice required to authenticate such a stance integrates the values and tenets of the traditional left and right by discarding all those elements which are no longer valid and retaining only the elements that everyone needs to create a successful society.

Humanity evolved wealthless, so equity is the basic social principle of leftist thought that remains eternally essential. People have a natural right of equity in any society they are born into. This right to a fair share of food, shelter and participation in social decision-making is enshrined in the covenants of civil rights adopted by the United Nations and ratified by most governments half a century ago. Civilisation evolved on the basis of social wealth, so enterprise is the basic social principle of rightist thought that remains eternally essential. People have a natural right to create goods and services, and profit from them to the extent that their value is shared by others sufficiently for trading to occur. Private property rights in common law sanctify such enterprise.

An integral political framework may include further such fundamentals from both left & right, but it suffices at this point simply to demonstrate what the GP needs to do to be avante garde. The practical method can be developed from this basic conceptual frame. Applying it to the upper chamber process, we'd see the parliamentary greens modelling consensus decision-making on this basis, identifying the common ground between left and right that the establishment folk can converge upon to agree legislative changes. Meanwhile the lower chamber can continue to be the venue for the sterile rhetoric and juvenile point-scoring that the establishment is addicted to. When the upper chamber starts producing satisfactory output the public is likely to become confident that its process is superior and the dinosaurs in the lower house will be threatened with extinction! However it is likely they will wise up at that point and realise the lower chamber is not really a children's playground after all, so it's better to act like mature adults instead.

Using a social charter for the upper chamber process combines the rationale with the collective contract. Such a charter would spell out the process, and the terms of participation, for both public & participants. Group process degenerates into a talkfest when the whip is not applied, so management of the timing and scheduling of task-specific sessions must be carefully designed to ensure the delivery of satisfactory outputs. With such a sensible approach it is likely that the establishment will see constructive progress as being in our common interests, so the necessary legislative change to reformulate the upper chamber as integral to parliamentary process will be readily agreed once it becomes clear that it will expedite the operation of the whole. It may not require constitutional reform.

To close on a personal note, I'm keen to bring about this social transformation. At my first Green Party meeting (March '91, Taukau Conference) I recall being told that “getting green activists to agree is like herding cats”. It was explained to me by Mike Smith, Convenor of the Standing Orders Committee at the time, that they were stuck in a catch-22. They couldn't agree on the wording of the party rules documents because the rules were required to be followed in order to formalise agreement - but the rules were not yet agreed. I remember taking a fraction of a second to see that this was my opportunity to contribute. When everyone is confronted by the impossible, nothing happens till an audacious lateral-thinker achieves the impossible. Democracy is a lowest-common denominator design which dumbs everyone down to mass cretinism, so folks like me usually have no way to solve social problems for the common good of all. I only joined the greens on the basis that they really were alternative thinkers, so I seized this opportunity to work with them and finesse the catch-22.

It took several years, first as a member of the SOC producing redrafts and getting agreement to the changes from the other members, then as acting convenor when Martin Wallace took over from Mike Smith but told me he didn't have time to do the redrafting himself. Eventually Martin stood himself down, the GP made me convenor, and I led the consensus process and rewrote the various party rules documents through multiple drafts, taking each through to consensus in each of the necessary party groups, until final adoption was attained at our annual conference. This included the Constitution of the Green Party, which I sent to Sir Geoffrey Palmer as instructed by our Co-Convenors. He needed it to register the Green Party with the Electoral Commission so we could then compete in the electoral process legally. I also served as Convenor of both the Justice Policy Working Group and the International Relations Policy Working Group during that time. I recently rejoined the Green Party after 19 years of self-imposed exile.

I had previously led the consensus process that produced formal documents comprehensively articulating agreed beliefs and rules for two other groups (one being the constitution for an incorporated society). Despite the widespread perception back then that consensus decision-making was an ideal that could never be made real, I proved that it could in those three contexts, and can do so again when required. The greens can model it in parliament till it becomes the norm – all we need do is widen the circle of participation. When sceptics reframe their world-view to embrace working together for mutual benefit, give it a go in practice until they can see that it is indeed a feasible political method, then they become part of the solution. Slow learners who cling to the old ways will gradually reduce in numbers and influence.

You know, it's close to half a century since the alert portion of my generation figured it would have to save the world. What was then an idealistic aspiration translated into partial success via the antinuclear and peace movements, women & gays were liberated & apartheid overthrown. The save-the-world syndrome persists in the minds of many, but the political left and right still think it's okay to be predators upon nature and climate change looms as a global threat requiring drastic action that it's not getting. In this context constitutional reform in this country may seem like window-dressing, but I believe it is required to get us all out of the cultural malaise, mental miasma, psychological dependency and legendary kiwi complacency that the political left and right foster and breed upon. Once we transform this country into a suitable form for new millennium progress, we can front ourselves to the world as a suitable model for social transformation elsewhere. We know the United Nations is incapable of doing what the world needs. We know global corporations will exploit everyone till a sufficiently powerful force transforms their operating context. That's the task the world's people must engage. Let's start here!

Dennis Frank, 3/3/15

0 Comments

Green politics: an integral frame

10/2/2015

0 Comments

 
I accept responsibility for initiating what has become the traditional leftist alignment of the GPANZ. It was in March 1991 at our Tuakau conference when Jeanette declared that we needed to decide whether to align with the left or right if we got our representatives into parliament. Remember this was before the country adopted MMP, and the antique binary structure of westminster democracy still applied, and thus framed our potential to participate in government.

The first person who spoke to the issue equivocated so I got irritated and seized the opportunity to speak second, and told everyone precisely why we must align with the left. The political context of the time featured two leading environmentalists indicating a willingness to work with the incoming Bolger government. The potential for the Nats to capture and control the green movement was obvious. Nobody disagreed with my description of this threat, so the discussion produced an easy consensus that we would align with the left in parliament. I don't recall anyone expressing concern that this parliamentary tactic would be misinterpreted as contradicting the prevailing consensus of the global green movement during the prior decade - neither left nor right: in front!

Towards the end of the 1990s our participation in the MMP parliament created a general feeling of an ecosocialist party that was failing to penetrate the mainstream and build poll support, but was merely serving to advance the political careers of refugees from the failed New Labour Party and Rogernomics. Waving the green flag of convenience worked for them – it didn't seem to matter that they had no personal history in the green movement. Things got even worse by 2003 when Helen Clark made it clear that she would continue to freeze the GP out of her leftist government. Ecosocialism was obviously a terminal failure as a political strategy for our party.

For the 12 years since then, our leadership group has proven to be collectively incapable of learning this simple lesson! Do they really believe that stealing voters from the Labour Party is the best way to grow our public support base? Has it not occurred to them that pretending to fight the political right in solidarity with the left whilst stabbing Labour in the back is a tad deceitful? Perhaps they rationalise that hypocrisy is the historical norm for socialists, so ethical conduct has no place in the political practice of ecosocialism.

I believe we would impress more voters if we get leaders who are capable of seeing the basic motivations that underlie political group psychodynamics and explaining how they cause the behaviour that triggers political events and media commentary. It is human nature to defer to opinion leaders: selecting leaders who aren't clueless and can be relied on to issue apt summaries is the best way to operate at the top political level. Suitable exemplars would notice that the global green movement has evolved into three subtribes over the past 30 years: those identifying neither left nor right have been joined by those disposed to collaborating with socialist & capitalist governments. There's an integral symbolic frame that balances these subtribes in relation to each other: imagine an equilateral triangle with red, green and blue corners. Place this triangle with all corners on a circle which represents the whole and we get an holistic view of the subtribes in parity with each other and in holistic relation to the entirety. Such exemplary leaders ought therefore to abandon the failed leftist experiment and adopt the integral frame instead, and explain to the public that the GP intends to become authentic representatives of all green voters.

The press conference announcing this political reframe must include an explicit repudiation of the ecosocialist hegemony that has prevailed within our party as the inadvertent consequence of our leftist parliamentary alignment. From now on such red-green sectarianism must be viewed as anathema. Restoring the minority rights of the real greens and blue-greens to parity with those of the red-greens is now the priority for us. I expect anyone assuming a leadership position in our party to declare that they recognise the minority rights of all three subtribes and will collaborate with the others in our leadership group to ensure that sub-tribe parity is proclaimed and enforced.

A further necessity is to learn the essential lesson of the recent election result. Swing-voters' behaviour has been indicative - but a scan of the political blogosphere reveals the penny has yet to drop! For many years it has been evident to me that this party must go through a transition of collective transcendence to break out of the traditional political matrix – so that it can lift its vote over 20%, become the key player on the political stage and create governments of the left or right depending on whatever principled and pragmatic basis seems the best option at the time.

There's a barrier in the collective psyche of swing-voters that is preventing escalation of the green vote. It is indicated by the discrepancy between the GP poll rating during the campaign and the final result: 3-4% of voters switched from us to NZFirst between campaign and voting. This late switch took pollsters & media commentators by surprise - but last-minute evaporation of the green vote has happened before. What's more, this barrier caused the green vote to flat-line around 7% all the way through from the 1990 election until the 2011 election produced a 3% increase.

This barrier arises from political identity, and a consequent tribal affiliation. The status quo persists until we see the gate, the padlock, acquire the key, and then use it. First step in grasping the key is to realise that poll questions can catalyse a dramatic increase in the number of self-identifying green voters. My estimate is that you can produce a range up to around 70% of all voters if you frame the question right. Ask them if they'd vote green if the result is protection of our natural environment in perpetuity and maximisation of the wealth generated sustainably by use of our productive environment, and I'm confident you'd get 70% agreeing and thus self-identifying as potential green voters. Ask them if they'd vote green if the GP ceased representing merely the red-green subtribe and began to represent the whole green tribe instead, and explain that this means endorsing wealth-generating economic policy together with wealth-distributing economic policy, and I suspect you'd get upward of 20% of voters self-identifying as potential green voters on this basis.

The second step in conceptualising the key is acknowledging that all three subtribes in the greens must be represented on an integral parity basis as described earlier. Sectarianism alienates too many people to be politically viable as a strategy. Not just within a party, but even more decisively so, in the public mind. The common interest is this second part of the key: a huge swathe of the electorate will always vote against a partisan sectarian option. Our representatives must reject the ecosocialist hegemony that has hitherto prevailed within our party, and declare that they will represent all three of our subtribes on a parity basis. This formal recognition of representation of minority tribal rights is our only viable path to future electoral success.

So the third step in the conceptual key that will unlock the barrier to growing our vote is eliminating our failure to provide an alternative centrist option for swing-voters. Abandoning tacit sectarianism in favour of an holistic inclusive style of politics can extend our consensus into the wider public substantially. Whereas NZFirst gives them a centrist choice purely on the basis of pragmatism, we can provide an alternative centrist option on the basis of principle. We ought to present ourselves to the electorate as non-aligned with both left and right, yet willing to work with both on the basis of shared principles which are readily specified as consensual. This means articulating the main things we agree on with the left - and likewise with the right. It also means specifying the main things we reject about both! This balanced frame specifies the pros & cons of both wings of the political establishment from our point of view in terms of simple principles that voters can readily make sense of. This enables swing-voters to do their traditional thing; control the extremist tendencies of both left and right parties by selecting centrist members of parliament who are non-aligned. In a world where everyone is going green more and more regardless of political postures, swing-voters are increasingly likely to go with this flow. All they need is a centrist choice that provides them with an option to increase this trend in politics. I suggest we give them that choice.

Dennis Frank, 11/2/15

0 Comments

Redefining the political spectrum

1/12/2014

0 Comments

 
The traditional political terms left & right arose during the French Revolution from their respective positions in the national assembly. Representatives of the people sat on the left and those of the power structure on the right. In one sense this polarity persists: we can easily see the right as defenders of the status quo and the left as the embodiment of the aspirations of the powerless. In this frame, progress comes from the devolution of state power to lower levels. That's why the left has used the term `progressive' since the 19th century (while the right has used 'conservative').

Another polarity frame from the 19th century that persists is capitalism/socialism. The right has continued to represent the ancient patriarchy and it's residual power structure (the state), it has gradually been transferring its dependency on the monarchy and aristocracy into a dependence on commerce. Using a combination of traditional power and wealth as your natural source of collective strength is sensible for the right, and has always been an effective strategy. This transfer took place in Britain during the 17th & 18th centuries. The American & French revolutions created mass expectations of freedom for the masses from the traditional exploitation and oppression that the monarchy and aristocracy had been imposing upon them since the dark ages. The ancient Greek concept of democracy was revived as the political ideology of the left. It took about a century for the state to be restructured accordingly throughout western countries, but by the end of the 19th century our modern political structure had emerged.

The left and right have since been in collusion in maintaining social control via the power of the state, carefully limiting the extent of the freedom of the people. Whether by coup d'état or election, we've seen them ascend to control the government and make law changes to suppress the rights of their opponents. The most overt such behaviour became known as totalitarianism – exhibited during the 1930s as fascism on the right and communism on the left, and degenerating into assassinations, torture & genocide. All while pretending to be democratic. These political movements believed democracy must be a sham to seduce the masses into supporting them. Those who instead believed democracy must be real chose socialism (on the left) and liberalism (on the right) as better ideologies. So nowadays the historical collusion between the left and right primarily takes the form of business as usual: the idea that the traditional economy must be maintained by means of suitable government regulation of market forces. The right believes in minimal regulation; the left believes in maximal.

Dualism has this effect on the psyche: it constrains us to see things as black & white when the real world is multi-coloured (with a spectrum of shades of grey implied). When confronted by opposed views in situations where the truth is important to figure out, and vital to their future, people adopt an either/or attitude. They claim one option is right and the other wrong. When reality ain't so simple, this behaviour creates massive social pathology when done en masse. So when the green political movement emerged from the environmentalism of the '60s & '70s, it instinctively knew that it must finesse the historical status quo by means of the novel stance `neither left nor right, but in front'.

Most people remain locked into a dualist perspective their entire lives. Those transcending the primitive conceptual outlook see other options becoming available to them. Evolutionary advance comes from identifying and choosing the best alternative to the traditional dualist framework that society has inherited. Collectively, progress emerges by consensus as the dangers of both of the extremes become evident. Folks may then articulate their new consensus as a rationale for change and social development by explaining to slow learners what's obviously wrong with the traditional extremes that the political establishment continues to promote. This emerging consensus in the middle will always profit by balancing their collective critique with acknowledgement of those elements of the left & right that do have ongoing merit. Doing so then enables us to repackage these essentials into a new synthesis.

As Milton Friedman reminded us in the mid-'70s, we must be free to choose. It's our natural right as autonomous human beings. State-imposed limits on this freedom are therefore only viable if there is general agreement that they are in our common interest. The past half-century has seen the masses turn away from the old nanny state socialists cling to, with its fostering of a dependency relation between the individual and the collective. Most people now accept that they must be free to choose how to earn their living, and that being independent is ideal. However they have also proved themselves averse to returning to the law of the jungle as dictator of social outcomes (the covert agenda of the right under the guise of market forces). The middle way for the greens to follow is therefore allowing the market to prosper while using the state as a guidance function, for damage control, for disciplining and redirecting the market as & when necessary.

The Green Party must restore its authenticity by returning to the green movement's original stance of being neither left nor right. Best to point out that the realignment is not mere pragmatism, but it's in accordance with the principle famously established in the 19th century by Hegel, when he explained how any thesis usually gives rise to an antithesis – and this polarity is eventually resolved by a synthesis of both. It is indeed how we operate in a political context. The right's thesis (might is right) was opposed by the thesis of the left (power to the people). An equally succinct identifier for the synthesis is required. When the green movement emerged from the counter-culture 40 years ago, coevolution was the key identifying principle (with sustainability as the primary goal). Nature uses symbiosis in ecosystems to integrate their ecology while maximising biodiversity. We have been acting accordingly, role-modelling peaceful co-existence via non-violent conflict resolution. Progress has been much slower on the economic & political fronts due to excessive timidity, lack of collective imagination and enterprise, the failure to use lateral thinking, plus the parliamentary tactic of leftist alignment which is now years past its use-by date...

Repositioning ourselves in the political center allows us to better appeal to & represent swing voters - the 5% or so who are the interface of the mainstream from which change proceeds. Control the middle ground of the political spectrum and you are key player in the game (as NZ First has long been teaching us). Acknowledging common ground with the left and right respectively then becomes a powerful strategy for success, as it identifies fertile political terrain where collaboration with both wings of the establishment can take root. The ensuing fruits of that work will demonstrate to swing voters that we are authentic in representing them in a centrist manner, and will prove to the media that we are no longer fringe.

It will be essential to capture NZ First market share by being seen to build consensus on the basis of principle rather than on their basis of expediency. This means spelling out the underlying metaphysics: with the left, the key principles of equity and restoring the commons; with the right, the key principles of enterprise & conservation. Just explain to the media & public that a conservative is supposed to conserve - and we're just helping the right to get real, since they're incapable of figuring that out for themselves without a dictionary.

For an individual, transcending the dichotomy induced in the psyche by a dualist belief system results in personal liberation. For any collective, group or society, transcending the polarised stand-off & impasse is what is required to get us all past the cultural stagnation and social harm that dualism creates. It is never easy to cohere sufficiently to achieve collective transcendence! Unison is ever elusive, but all it takes is seeing the middle way forward to the future between the twin extremes of left and right, and agreeing to head down that path.

Triangulating a problematic polarity enables us to finesse the situation, solve the problem, by choice of a better (third) alternative. If you explain this to folks with an open mind, they get it. Eventually, even slow learners do. When the media & public remain bogged down in traditional beliefs, we can be a beacon of hope for all who seek a better way ahead. This strategy is an essential strand in the new style of politics many have long been calling for. Acting as exemplar on this basis, we can lead the way. Maybe even snowball a global trend. Ride the wave rolling on to the sustainable society...

Dennis Frank, 27/11/14




0 Comments

contribution to the Avaaz memorial for Nelson Mandela

8/12/2013

0 Comments

 
Rarely do politicians transcend their ethnic or cultural basis sufficiently to achieve recognition as statesmen.  Nelson Mandela gave us an exemplary demonstration of how to do it via his performance in transcending race as a sociopolitical category.  His magnanimity of spirit in speaking for the common interests of us all has proven that the way forward for humanity is through the transcendence of such limiting traditional social divisions.  With the right attitude we can indeed establish unity in diversity.

Mandela will go down in history as the premier statesman on the global stage during the transition of 20th century civilisation into 21st century global convergence.  According to his Wikipedia page his 27 years imprisonment was for conspiring to violently overthrow the government of South Africa, and it confirms he was a communist during the late '50s & early '60s.  From a racial minority origin, further marginalised as the victim of state oppression and adherent of a failed ideology, this remarkable man went on to achieve virtually universal respect throughout the world.  Truly an excellent role model for young folk everywhere!
0 Comments

back again after being too busy too long elsewhere!

26/6/2013

0 Comments

 
Okay, it's been a while, eh?  What have I been up to since putting this site online late 2011?  First, Bill & I were trying to establish a kiwi version of the online petition site Get Up!

Bill had spent months awaiting a response from them, then negotiating the right to use their format & part-way was joined by some younger guys in Wellington who had had the same idea.  Bill had enlisted his young sidekick in Sea Shepherd, Matt, to write the software but they kicked the project down to Wellington when it turned out progress would happen faster there.  We remained on the advisory board to ensure the design was successful.  Originally we had decided to call it Stand Up! a la Bob Marley (symmetry with the Oz name) but turned out there was a young union group called Stand Up & others got paranoid at the similarity.

A fake poll was conducted by the young woman hired to manage project development, so Bill & I decided to leave in disgust at the unethical conduct.  Last I heard it was going to be called Action Stations & be up & running a year ago – but no sign of life as yet, huh?  Spiritual contamination is ever a trap for young players...

You're either part of the solution or part of the problem.  True, you can always spot those who are clearly both simultaneously.  Anyone not living in a dualist world can identify them. Not easily the tricky buggers who are doing it deliberately, of course!  Is the reader smart enough to have figured out why the others in this small category are doing it unconsciously? If not, your homework is to read “The Madness of Adam & Eve”.  This excellent book promotes a novel and ingenious genetic theory of schizoprenia;  which is that it is not only natural, it has driven the evolutionary trajectory of the human race.  Clue:  people always remarked how genius & insanity would often coincide within one individual.

Then Bill & I checked out the Occupy movement. I was concerned they would try to reinvent the wheel & end up making the same mistakes my generation did 40 years ago.  So it transpired.  Their tribal methodology threw up a new sign language & a measure of solidarity was exhibited globally - which proved ephemeral.  Occupy Auckland then degenerated into a braindead conformism, which subsequently morphed into anarchy.  In between these two stages a list of grievances was agreed and issued to the media.  Documentary proof that protestors are incapable of anything more constructive than complaining?  Alarmed, I suggested to Bill that we redraft it into a positive plan instead, and test consensus just like I did for the Greens 20 years back.

Once each negative clause was transformed into a positive declaration of intent, I polished up the language and Bill circulated it asking Occupy supporters to agree to their name being added to ours at the bottom to demonstrate consensus.  When we got 17 people listed identifying themselves as agreeing that the document provided a positive alternative to the status quo, I took a bunch of copies down & gave one to each likely-looking person I encountered at the occupation, explaining the purpose of the document and advising them to get the group to adopt this positive translation of their grievances.

I pointed out that the 99% needed a positive alternative to business as usual, so the protest movement is more likely to obtain solidarity with the 99% by providing it.  The interim consensus of 17 supporters was sufficient to demonstrate that widespread agreement with the positive version of their grievance document was likely.  All recipients agreed to advise the group to accept it.   Didn't happen! Why?  Protestors think they are incapable of doing anything other than protesting.  Never mind that some protest movements have achieved social transformation by signalling a better way forward for all.  You have to be aware of such outcomes as precedents.   How many protestors know of them?? How many learn from history?

Emotionally retarded, stuck in grievance mode, these aging adolescents unable to mature seem destined for permanent irrelevance.  Their pretence that they represent the 99% is clearly a sham when they make no attempt to lead the 99% to a better future.  Once protest movements were the leading edge of progress – now all protestors do is whine.  The people are inclined to view such pathetic performance with apathy - or disgust and contempt.  We await the real thing instead.

I was concurrently oldest in my class of a couple of dozen doing the Auckland Permaculture Workshop design certificate, one day per month throughout 2012.  Excellent content!  When you're apprehensive that you know everything already it's a huge relief to encounter a couple of tutors providing an exemplary demonstration that it ain't so!   The year got even busier when Tim Lynch interviewed me for his radio show, Greenplanet FM, and then invited me to co-host with him & Lisa Er in the latter part of the year.  So I did a series of shows that are still available as podcasts – you can listen to them at the GreenplanetFM website.

Then I watched as the dominos fell in Europe – would 2012 bring the long-awaited final collapse of the capitalist debt-slavery system?  No, as it turned out.  For about the 5th time in the past 30 or so years the system lurched thro crisis like a battered ship through a storm, sails shredded, a few spars blown away, sailors not as drunken as 2008 however.  The natural resilience of the system once again proven, courtesy of everyone being too stupid to go for a better option.  Would the outcome have been different if the left had disengaged from its traditional collusion with the right and not propped the system up?  Better the devil they know, eh?

Summer I prioritised a more extensive vegetable garden this year, incorporating permaculture strategies and tactics.  Autumn I prioritised maintenance & repair projects, some long-deferred.  This winter I'm writing again – recently an essay on mythistory, framed to fill the gap in Wikipedia where the mythistory page is missing still.  I've put the prototype onsite there, but lack the programming expertise to format it – alas, their prescription is too minimalist by far, the most profound dimensions of the subject will likely be gutted, preliminary advice suggests.  I now await hopefully a kind editor! Meantime, if you are intrigued, you can inform yourself about mythistory here...     http://www.alternativeaotearoa.org/mythistory.html




0 Comments

creating collective identity

7/5/2012

1 Comment

 
For us to identify with a social group, the group name needs to induce a shared resonance in us.  Psychological buttons get pushed by any meanings of the name.  The group will operate better as a social organism if the name conveys the purpose of the group to all & sundry.  Here are a few suitable names for a catalytic online community:

Leading Edge
avante garde in everyday language  -  signals leadership with cutting-edge effect as primary functions

GetInSync
motivating, directing - signals group cohesion via like-mindedness

goKiwi!
highly motivating, strong common identity with national recognition

evolver
conceptual - signals catalytic effect on society (evolution not revolution)

BetterWay
inspirational alternative - signals a better option than the status quo, for all

Innovator
conceptual, alternative - signals new things happening due to enterprise

concordance
conceptual/experiential, evocative - signals like-mindedness (concord) with flow dynamic (dance)

1 Comment
<<Previous

    Author

    Dennis Frank (mystic, fringe-dweller, leading-edge conceptualiser) also blogs @
     http://altaotearoa.blogspot.co.nz/ 

    Archives

    June 2016
    August 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    December 2013
    June 2013
    May 2012
    November 2011
    October 2011

    Categories

    All
    3rd Alternative
    Alternative Political Movement
    Avante Garde
    Coalition
    Collaboration
    Common Cause
    Democracy
    Fringe-dwellers
    Global Threats
    Greens
    Matrix
    National
    Occupy
    Psychodynamics
    Voters

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.