[asteram]

This is a good thread, Baggywrinkle. I appreciate it.

Truth be told, I don't resonate at all with any of the communities described here so far. I'm sure they work for those who "fit" within them but I wouldn't. The intentional communities from the seventies and eighties have been too much corrupted by the Marxist/Protocols/Tavistock propaganda, feminism, gay rights, egalitarian communism etc. There appears no room for individuality and the rewards therefrom. All men are equal in the eyes of God, perhaps, but all men are not created equal by any means.

I'm reminded of a community barter system that I read about when I lived in the Seattle area. The idea was that all members bartered their time hour for hour. In essence, the person who spent two hours mowing a lawn could trade for two hours of an engineer's or architect's or skilled craftsman's time. How could this work? Well, IMO, it couldn't and I'm sure it didn't. People who have spent a large portion of their life learning advanced skills will not be willing to trade hour for hour with those who have either been to lazy or are not intelligent enough to acquire advanced skills.

As noted in your post on Twin Oaks "failure to attract or retain people with specialized skills slows us down." Indeed, and this has been the downfall of every communistic/communitarian experiment ever done. People who accomplish more need to be rewarded more or they lose motivation. This reward historically has been monetary, but it needn't necessarily be such. Respect, free time, having the community provide them with a certain level of abundance that reflects their contribution----there must be some reward.

One huge problem is exemplified by the contrasting of the authoritarianism of the religious communalists and the freewheeling "democracy" of the intentional communities. Some of us chafe under any form of authoritarianism, and many decisions should not be made by majority vote of a community either; they need to be made by those with knowledge and expertise. Those decisions need to be in the hands of people who have the best interests of the community as a whole in mind and not every member of a community will have the intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom to make them.

Another observation is where does an eccentric individualist, such as yours truly, fit in? When I work I am focused and work very hard, often eighteen hours a day. What I work on changes from month to month, year to year, project to project, and is determined by what inspires me at the time. One year it may be building stone walls, another year it may be writing, right now my focus is agriculture. When I reach a conclusion or a stopping point on a project, I need a break for a few weeks or sometimes months. I may head into the wilderness with a backpack, fly off to a tropical beach, or just hole up at home and drink rum all day for a week or two while I recharge my internal batteries and get ready for what's next. How would either the democratic egalitarian intentional communities or the religious communities find room for that? Even our present individualistic society has a hard time allowing me that freedom.

I'm quite sure that the group/tribe/community and the "family business" are what the future holds for us. I know it because I have not only seen it but I have been there, walking around the community and talking to people; I have been to the future and it is very, very good, but I won't get into details about that here. The point is that there was no coercion or need for such, nor was there foolish egalitarianism. Some people have more ability, intelligence, and drive than others. Treating everyone as an equal before the law is one thing; I believe ethics and morals are essentially universal. Treating all people as true equals, or pretending that all contributions are equal will not work.

I read many posts on this forum where people are talking of creating a community and saying "all are welcome". Is this wise? I'm reminded of the "robe" quote above where the corporate model is mentioned. The corporation as we know it is a very bad and evil entity, being the antithesis of personal responsibility, but I do understand their allusion to the idea of a group diversified in skills and in far-flung locations working together towards a common goal. My point is, are all welcome? No, only those who have skills that contribute to the goals and purposes of the corporation.

I would suggest that those looking to form communities approach it somewhat as a job application process, from each individual's point of view as well as the overall goal of the community. The chaos is upon us, and we are called not just to survive the coming changes, but to come out the other side with systems and examples that do work, models on which to build the new paradigm. Yes we will all need food, water, clothing, and shelter during these times, but I would suggest that people find more specific goals and dreams around which to gather and work together. Come together with others who share your portion of the dream, rather than simply others who want to survive and have somewhat of a spiritual bent. A community focused on free energy, perhaps, or seriously investigating the human soul, or advanced computer technology, or cutting-edge sustainable agriculture, or fine craftsmanship. Find a focus, a purpose, and then attract others who are not only interested in doing that but have something of real value to add to the project. As I said, approach it as a mutual job application process, for lack of a better term. Decide what it is you would like to be creating, find or form a group with similar interests, and then use wisdom and discernment to decide who you want to spend the next years working and living with. It doesn't matter how nice and friendly someone may be if they have nothing to contribute, nor will you enjoy living and working with a highly skilled and knowledgeable creep. Creating the new paradigm requires focus and work; what is your part? What strongly draws you? What sort of "family business" would you throw your heart and soul into, joyfully?

Although I work almost entirely alone these days, in the past I have been involved in many enterprises that required me to "hire and fire" and I interviewed many prospective employees. The majority of them simply wanted a paycheck; they had no real interest in what the goals and purposes of the enterprise were. I could easily spot them by asking "what sort of work do you like to do?". Their answer was something like "Oh, I can do anything". I would dig a little deeper and ask "If you could do anything at all, what would you like to be doing?" Too often the answer was "I dunno", along with something that told me that if they could be doing anything their choice would be to do nothing. Those people I only hired for the most menial jobs, knowing they wouldn't be around long anyway. What I was looking for ( and still am looking for) are those with a passion for what the project is, those who would do it for free simply because they love the idea, the goal, the accomplishment. They need not be highly skilled or educated, but the passion and interest are essential.

This, I am suggesting, would be a wise path for us to take in forming our groups, associations, and communities that will be responsible for creating the new paradigm, the new world. By our accomplishments and contributions we shall be known.