Home | About | Donate

Creating Resilient Communities


#1

Creating Resilient Communities

Robert C. Koehler

“Conflict happens in isolation.”

Wow, that’s it. A sense of awareness ignited as I listened to Kristin Famula, president of the National Peace Academy, make this seldom-acknowledged observation. When we feel wronged, violated, disrespected, suddenly we’re alone with our careening emotions.


#2

As long as the pas de deux between the MIC and the corporate media continues, there will be no peace.


#3

Resilient communities can be characterized by the simile of the pollinators - bees. There is an old Quaker adage from the 1660s about peace: "We are called to live ‘in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars'.
The model of Pollinator Enterprises is presented in this talk covering examples from all over the world and the span of potential excluded by the predatory capital model. A practical exploration of the model with Michael Schuman.


#5

Koehler invites us to consider that Peace is not the absence of war, but an intentional process. Dennis Kucinich was right on in wanting to establish a Department of Peace to complement the War Department. but we got the Homeland Security Department instead. Rather than building private prisons, we should be investing in building resilient communities, or actually creating the Department of Peace this world so badly needs.


#6

The "We" that wants peace and would wish to invest in peace-making institutions is clearly not the "we" that makes war, aggression, violence, and competition its highest priorities.

I think when the term WE ceases to push every human being into the same envelope and instead ACKNOWLEDGES that many people do want peace; do their best to live in peace; and would rather see the larger society invest in peace ... clearer discernment will exist.

Dissecting the asymmetric nature of power is impossible so long as ONE generic we is used to define all actions, methods, protocols, and motives.

Are the Koch Brothers part of that "we"? Are the cops and soldiers who LOOK for opportunities to kill because for them, killing constitutes some form of manhood-test part of that same peace-prizing "we"?


#7

Amen to that.


#8

The "We" that wants peace and would wish to invest in peace-making institutions is clearly not the "we" that makes war, aggression, violence, and competition its highest priorities.

Clearly.

I think when the term WE ceases to push every human being into the same envelope and instead ACKNOWLEDGES that many people do want peace; do their best to live in peace; and would rather see the larger society invest in peace ... clearer discernment will exist.

Is this saying that lobo4justice's use of the word "we" in either of the two sentences in which it is used, is in some way ambiguous or wrong? I would have to disagree with that, even though the word is used for different meanings in the two sentences:

"but we got the Homeland Security Department instead." - Clear statement of occurance, clear statement of disapproval.

"we should be investing..." - Clear statement of desired action.

The imputation that one word is incapable of conveying multiple meanings is simply incorrect, as you will find on any page of a dictionary.

Dissecting the asymmetric nature of power is impossible so long as ONE generic we is used to define all actions, methods, protocols, and motives.

It is an error to posit that there is such a thing as "ONE generic we." In fact, you said as much in your first sentence.

Another example: Did you mean electrical power by the use of the word "power" in this statement? Answer: Obviously not. And I don't think you or anyone else is confused about what you do mean.

Are the Koch Brothers part of that "we"? Are the cops and soldiers who LOOK for opportunities to kill because for them, killing constitutes some form of manhood-test part of that same peace-prizing "we"?

No one said they were.