CwG: An Uncommon Dialogue

Since this website is technically called “spirituality demonstrated”, once again I feel obliged to share a passage from the source of some of my wisdom/spirituality/whatever cheesy word you wanna call it. I’ve posted passages from these books before, and I’ll continue doing it. I just wanted to reiterate that you should not be thrown off by the title, because the level of wisdom and common sense present in these books will blow you away if you give them a chance. It’s a continued conversation with what Neale Donald Walsch calls “god”. I won’t get into whether or not it’s actually God that he’s talking to, but that’s neither here nor there. It’s an assumption that if you were to talk to something that represented a perspective that contained infinite understanding and wisdom, what would you ask it? What might He/She/It say? This particular passage comes from his second Conversations with God book, which focuses on geo-politics and the state of the world in general. (Q&A Format, Neale italicized, "god" not)

Specifically talking about the relationship of war, the economy and humanitarian causes.
------------

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, hundreds 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 (although members of the community – individual citizens – 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.

Let’s look at the numbers. Presently (it is March 25, 1994, as we write this) the world’s governments spend about one trillion dollars a year for military purposes. That’s a million dollars a minute worldwide. (that's $1,000,000,000,000)

The nations that are spending the most could redirect the most to 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 everyone 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 possibility 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 confederation 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 individual greatness and claiming that such a union would not serve its best interests.
…..

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.