WHO I AM: I've been a psychotherapist for 30 years, written 8 novels, science fiction, fable, political satire, romantic thrillers, 3 nonfiction books that turn psychology into a political philosophy; married, 3 children, 5 grandchildren. I'm dedicated to facilitating a true direct-vote world democracy, dissolving nations and corporations, as they currently exist, and the economic aristocracy as ruling authorities by eliminating the possibility of wealth, completely democratizing power. I’m a peaceful, nonviolent anarchist who seeks a way to make violence or domination, of any kind, nearly impossible.

     My World Manifesto:

Shared Responsibility vs Victim/Villain

     In any human event, every participant is responsible for the outcome. Responsibility varies from one person to another at any given moment—sometimes to a large degree. But overall, in the course of that event and its aftermath, responsibility exists in much more balanced proportions than we care to acknowledge. What we do instead is to create a hierarchy of good and bad in which, of course, we put ourselves at the top, and anyone who hurts us, or who seems too strange to stomach, at the bottom.
     Our belief in “good guy”, “bad guy”, known also as victim/villain, exists in order to create hierarchy that intrinsically avoids responsibility, making crime—from taking-advantage to murder—not only possible, but also very commonplace and ordinary. That is, something we can be “forced to do” in order to be powerful enough to remain comfortable inside our own perspective.
     To seek relief from our own pain, or to respond to someone suffering emotional pain, with “let’s fix-it by making someone the bad guy”—i.e. villain-ization of another experience-participant—is commonly perceived as justice-seeking for ourselves, or empathy for someone else. When instead of achieving justice or sympathy, villain-ization attempts to solve pain by creating a hierarchy of rightness that justifies inflicting at least emotional violence, if not more, upon an alleged miscreant. Thus “rendering punishment where it’s due”, thereby avoiding empathizing with the pain and the fear that always accompanies hurt, disagreement and confusion as an emotional event, by reducing it to a villainous one requiring police—violent—intervention, whether done by uniformed or bathrobed persons.
     When in every event, no matter how contentious or painful, everyone sees and speaks part of the truth. Yet to view it in this democratic way, as a viable and superior alternative to “turning the other cheek”, throws us into a terrible quandary. It requires us to suspend comfort in the midst of the hazard of being partly wrong about what’s happening, suffering the fear that will inevitably accompany such a caring effort. And then to persist in such a peaceful manner for the amount of time two or more participants may need to find a viable common ground, inside of which comfort is sufficiently restored, is far more than daunting; it seems impossible.
     Yet such is the fate of nonviolence where difference is addressed and not covered over with the appearance of good will that never really pays attention to conflict. Instead it buries it so it can’t be seen—what diplomacy has always tried to do. It’s considered necessary lying, which requires having secrets—instead of putting all cards on the table whatever they are.
     All of which is true whether we’re talking about love and family, or international affairs.