RCL Virtual Talking Circle between all the RCLs

  • 28 Aug '17

Hi everyone!

I'm facilitating a talking circle between all the Rainbow Crystal Lands, which will happen in non-real time via email - it might last months!? The idea is to create the internet equivalent of a real talking circle by passing the virtual stick between the internet focalisers of all current RCLs, who in turn will discuss with everyone on the land before posting a reply. It's an experiment, let's see if it works!

We want to keep the email circle as sacred and focussed as possible, so only one internet focaliser per land and no one else will participate. So if you have a strong relationship with an RCL but you're not there right now, talk to the internet focaliser through the internet to stay informed about the email circle and to have an influence on decisions. This circle is supposed to have the power to make Global Consensus - for example, potentially, to consense for a new version of the Declaration of Common Intention.

At the same time, we know that the RCL family is big and all over the place, and we want everyone to feel included in the conversation. So simultaneously, we could have a fully open discussion here on rainbowcrystalland.org and on the Facebook group where everyone can participate. The email circle can then refer to the open discussions to see how everyone else feels, and let this influence their decisions.

In the email circle we have:

Costa Rica - Scottino
Colombia - Lucas
Peru - Ruth
Poland - Henri
Hungary - awaiting reply from Miki
(I am only facilitating, not participating)

The important question is: WHICH OTHER LANDS OUT THERE CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE AN RCL RIGHT NOW?????????? Please help me to answer this question so that everyone can participate.

I have heard many rumours of new lands but nothing confirmed. I know about Fiji but I also know they've had serious legal problems - do they still consider themselves an RCL? I have written to their FB group but so far have not received a reply. Which other lands are operating as an RCL right now? If you have a land that you would like to donate or other future plans and ideas about setting up an RCL, it would probably be better if you participated in the open discussion for now.

I will wait perhaps a week for replies before starting the circle. I will then start the discussion by suggesting some topics both in the email circle and in the open discussion.

Oh and one more thing - we need to renew the domain name rainbowcrystalland.org, which will cost 16 euros. I paid last year. Can someone else pay this year? Thanks. Henri in Poland deals with everything to do with rcl.org, inc. money.

Thanks for your help, over.


  • 4 Sep '17

This is what I just posted on the Facebook RCL group, and I'll just copy / paste it here:


The email talking circle between all RCL communities will start today. The purpose is to open a communication channel between all the lands, to identify and find solutions to common challenges, to possibly update the DCI, and whatever else might arise in the circle.

The circle will probably last for months, but a statement will for sure be posted publicly at the end of it. Participation in the circle is limited to those who are present at an RCL right now. (I am not, so I am only facilitating the circle, not participating.) For everyone else, this message can serve as the starting point for fully open parallel discussions on FB and rainbowcrystalland.org, that the email circle can refer to for inspiration and a wider range of opinions.

Find attached 2 documents which could serve as starting points for discussions both here and in the email circle. "RCL Evaluation" is written by myself, looking back at RCL's 5 year history. "Rio's Story" is written by the long-term caretaker at the RCL in Costa Rica.

Feel free to discuss in comments below.

Luz, paz y amor


  • 4 Sep '17

Unfortunately, I'm unable to upload those 2 files here, so instead I will copy / paste the text here.

First, the "RCL Evaluation"

Rainbow Crystal Land 5 Years On – An evaluation of the past with questions and potential answers for the future

I can't say that I am the right person to write an article that lives up to such a title but then none of us are, and in this fact lies some of the beauty of RCL. I cannot stress enough that the following is written by myself alone from my unique perspective, and that these words represent no one else and hold no authority over anyone. I only hope to trigger discussions in the RCL Communities and online, and perhaps together we can revitalise our project and grow in our unity of purpose.

I am Martin, I was one of the people who channeled the vision of RCL during the world rainbow caravan from Brazil to Guatemala / Mexico in 2012. I created thealternativenow.wordpress.com to publish a pre-RCL version of the vision, and this website was consensed to be the official communication channel of RCL until the creation of rainbowcrystalland.org in 2014. During the caravan I met Ruth, the corner stone of the RCL in Peru. I helped to create talking circles in Guatemala and Palenque which resulted in the RCL Declaration of Common Intention (DCI) in December 2012. I went to Costa Rica to help found the first RCL Community, where I only spent a month and a half before going to the world rainbow gathering in Canada to facilitate a consensus to update the DCI to version 2. In the summer of 2014 I went to the European gathering in Romania and the world gathering in Hungary to hold RCL circles to spread the vision to Europe – I met with Henri and helped him in the process of becoming the Poland RCL, and I briefly visited the Hungarian RCL. We updated the DCI to a new version following the RCL code, and we wrote the RCL Handbook to better explain the vision.

At this point I felt that “my work is done” and that RCL must develop freely, which I feel is indeed a central part of the vision. I became a father and I started looking for land to create a community in Oaxaca, Mexico, which may not be compatible with RCL as it is today (more on that later). I more or less stopped facilitating communication about RCL and since then I have only heard stories and rumours about what is going on in the world of RCL. I have mostly stayed out of the RCL Facebook group. I tell you all this so that the reader knows where I am coming from, so that you understand my perspective.

My starting point as I write these words is that RCL, like the rest of the world, is in the middle of a perfect process and that nothing needs to change in any other way than it is already changing on its own. But I am also one small part of all the change and I feel an urge to write for a reason.

What was the essence of the RCL vision back in 2012?

From my point of view as a nomad at the time, it came from the feeling of sometimes not feeling 100% welcome in communities, of sometimes being met with a feeling of suspicion. From seeing travellers being exploited by land-owners and land-owners being exploited by travellers, from energy imbalances between permanent and temporary residents of communities. From seeing the label “rainbow” being used inappropriately. From the wish for travellers to be more of use for communities and for communities to be more of use for travellers; for nomads to have many homes where a true sense of belonging can free up their creative powers. And of course, for the need for radical sustainable change in the world in general and the unquestionable spiritual truth of a big human family of oneness and love.

Non-ownership and openness is at the core of the vision, but at the same time we always stressed that RCL is more than a “permanent rainbow gathering”. An RCL Community is supposed to be an ecologically (and just as importantly, as I later learned – socially) sustainable community based on rainbow principles, but that it is more important to be sustainable than to be fully open. Some rainbow principles must be modified in order to achieve sustainability.

The term “rainbowland” has existed for decades and for me this feels like a word used for a general grouping of rainbow-related land projects without a specific meaning or standard that it has to live up to. We always emphasised the fact that RCL must be an organically growing vision - that the DCI is not a set of rules and regulations but rather a vision to guide community creation - yet there are some fundamental RCL principles that should not be diluted if we don't want the name RCL to lose its meaning.

What is RCL now, in 2017?

It seems to me that in five years RCL has grown out of its baby-stage to become an adolescent with growing pains. Let's not forget that from the perspective of the creation of a worldwide network of sustainable communities, five years is like the blink of an eye!

It often seems like the internet is a source of bad news but face-to-face personal accounts of RCL experiences are often very positive. This is a very important difference to be aware of in general. I have met and heard of people who have had life-changing experiences in RCLs (including myself). It seems, in general, that RCL is a huge success for nomads but more troublesome for some land-owners and those seeking more permanency. RCL is - at the very least - a beautiful community-school for travellers and a portal to rise in community and sustainability awareness.

At the beginning it was easy to keep track of new RCLs – Costa Rica, Peru, Hungary, Poland, Fiji, Colombia... but now there are new RCL projects popping up all over the place and I don't think any one person has the full overview of what's going on everywhere. This is simultaneously beautiful and challenging. Off the top of my head I think I have heard rumours of Belgium, Brazil, the US, Italy, Spain, Chile and more.

It seems like every RCL has different challenges. Costa Rica sometimes struggles with too much transience and too many people at certain times of the year (and too few at others). Several people have tried to settle permanently in Costa Rica but have subsequently abandoned those plans, possibly because of the high transience but maybe even because of the very radical idea held by a few people that “no one should build their private house and live permanently on an RCL because the land is for everyone”, which to me is a worrying and counter-productive idea and outside of what I believe RCL is. Poland and Hungary have some permanence but struggle to attract enough people, possibly due to remote locations. And I can imagine that the same is the case for Fiji, though I have no idea. Fiji seems to be facing serious legal challenges and opposition from neighbours and I'm unsure if they still consider themselves to be an RCL, but I do not know the full story. Peru are sending out beautiful invitations every year but also seems to struggle to keep long-term residents. I heard that Belgium failed before it got really started. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this!)

When someone tells me of a new RCL project (or of new people in an old RCL), one of my first questions is often “what is their understanding of RCL?” and the answer is often that there is a low awareness of the vision of RCL and the DCI.

The DCI states that each new RCL Community must present their community vision to another RCL and be accepted into the RCL Network through a consensus in the other RCL. This is not happening, perhaps because it is too early on in the project to judge this, because it is not important, because of long distances and a lack of connection between lands or because of a lack of awareness of this part of the vision. Or perhaps even because of a deliberate wish to take advantage of the benefits of using the term “RCL” without having to be held accountable for it, though I don't seriously think so. Costa Rica is the only “officially accepted” RCL right now.

The positive effect of this is that RCL can spread like wildfire; it is treated like an open, free and flexible vision. But it also means that RCL becomes more like “rainbowland”, in that it becomes diluted, less strongly connected as a network, less accountable, more open for exploitation, and, importantly, that it becomes almost impossible to make decisions on a global level that affect all RCL Communities. We don't actually know who “we” are!

Why would we need to make decisions on a global level? Well, to update the DCI, we would have to. Another example from the real world that I know of, is that there is confusion over an RCL magic hat that was collected by anonymous donation outside of an RCL. The project it was collected for has since changed, the purpose for which people donated has changed, so it is ethically questionable to use the magic hat now for a different purpose. So what should be done with the money? Who can make that decision? If it was down to a global consensus, who gets to participate in it? Every place that calls itself RCL? We don't even know who they are or how to contact them! Online discussion? I don't think so. So it looks like whomever is present in Costa Rica at whatever time the proposal for consensus arrives will get to decide, even if the magic hat has nothing to do with them directly. Is that fair? It's as fair as it gets right now, as far as I can tell.

I'm sure there are many other reasons why maintaining an ability to make Global Consensus matters, and reasons in the future that we can't even imagine. Every community that calls itself RCL should be aware that, technically speaking, a Global Consensus can be made right now in Costa Rica as it's the only officially accepted RCL. If other RCLs wish to participate in Global Consensuses, as things stand, they should present their community vision in Costa Rica in order to be accepted into the RCL Network. I feel strongly that for most big decisions, as many people as possible should be given the opportunity to participate.

Legally speaking, as far as I am aware, no RCL has fulfilled the ideal of “equal rights and responsibilities” on the land, meaning a move away from private ownership by a single person. Poland is close to this, being owned by a self-determined organisation of which all residents can be members, though I seem to remember from reading their memorandum / articles that some members have special legal powers, so it can't be said to fully accomplish “equal rights and responsibilities”. Costa Rica still has a single land-owner, and although attempts have been made to set up an association to take over ownership, this seems like a difficult task to accomplish without permanent residents. Hungary is in a special situation where four owners seemingly without interest in the land have scattered all over the world, so making any legal changes is difficult. Peru also lacks full legal self-determination.

I have no idea how to fulfill the dream of “equal rights and responsibilities for everyone present on the land at any time”, or if this is even desirable. The only way I could imagine this is if we set up one organisation that can hold lands all around the world in ownership or trusteeship, that decisions within this organisation is made by consensus of all its members, and that anyone present on all RCLs and all nomads travelling between them could become members of the organisation. Even if this were legally possible, and I don't think it is, this idea failed to reach consensus in Costa Rica in 2013 on the grounds of security – every land in the whole RCL Network would be at risk if a government or other agency decided to give this single organisation a legal beating-up. If we truly want to find a legal solution for all RCLs I would still vote for this option but it seems unrealistic. In the mean time, let's try to find legal solutions for each land that gives us the highest possible degree of self-determination, lack of hierarchy and equal rights and responsibilities.

Moving on, I have briefly read descriptions of the state of things at the Costa Rica RCL through the despairing eyes of the owner and an anonymous neighbour, regarding the cutting down of forest, violence in the community, a declining reputation among the locals, theft, etc. It of course worries me greatly to read this, though I have also been told by others that some of their descriptions are somewhat exaggerated. I feel that they want to have a serious conversation with all of us about these issues, and of course we should, but because of the transient nature of the community they are not sure who to talk to or which forum to use. And they are right! Who are “we” and how do we speak to us??? It must for sure be challenging to be an owner or neighbour of an RCL...

What will RCL grow into in the future?

For me, many of the issues mentioned can be solved by having a higher level of permanency in the RCL Communities. More permanent residents means that legal issues can more easily be solved, communication will improve, relations with locals will improve, visions and intentions will more easily be carried forward in time, the day-to-day organisation of the community will run more smoothly, forests will be better protected, projects will have more continuity, theft less likely to happen, and RCL Network-wide integration and Global Consensus more easily achieved. On the down side is the possibility for separation and energy imbalances between permanent and temporary residents. If we want more permanency, we create it by welcoming and helping those who want to build houses to live in. We would have to accept that their reality and needs are a bit different from someone passing by. We do not need to accept permanent residents as authorities, but we would be wise to be open to learn from their greater experience with the land and the community.

How do we make changes in an RCL? The people who are there and living the experience make changes through all their intentions, actions and attitudes. Words can never replace that, but the DCI remains a useful unifying tool of communication. The DCI should not dictate the actions of people in RCLs – your actions should dictate the words of the DCI. And ultimately, you are the people who decide.

Reading version 3 of the DCI now, I (and many others) feel that it is too complicated, long, detailed and restrictive, and that this is part of the reason why some people don't connect with it. Actually, more than a year ago in California, a group of 6-7 people who have been involved with RCL from the beginning sat down to brainstorm a new, simplified version of the DCI but we never finished the work and nothing happened with it. We tried to go back to the one-page format of the original Palenque vision. The major points of discussion between us were openness, permanency, whether RCL should be “open source” or if new RCLs must seek official acceptance into the network (and as a consequence rescue Global Consensus).

Now, continuing this work on my own, I wish to give options for what a future DCI might look like, depending on the direction we judge RCL to be heading.

1 – No change

Perhaps we think that the DCI doesn't matter so much, it is irrelevant and not worth the effort.

So the DCI could stay the way it is (version 3) or revert back to version 1 (although the biggest issue with version 1 is that it says that the world rainbow gathering has full authority to make changes to the DCI, etc.)

2 – Open source

But I would argue that version 1 or 3 does not really describe what is going on in RCLs right now and so the DCI would become even more irrelevant. We could create one final, simple, non-restrictive version of the DCI which accepts the fluid nature of things, that RCL is simply an open source vision that anyone can do whatever they like with, that any community that wants can call itself RCL with zero accountability. Such a DCI might look something like this:

We are one
Mother Earth is free of ownership and borders
We envision a global garden of abundance in which all beings live together in harmony as one great and diverse family
We co-create a worldwide self-sufficient network of free and open sustainable communities
We provide safe homes for visitors and residents within the ecological carrying capacity of the land and without the legal hierarchy imposed by land ownership
We show deep love, respect and humility in our interaction with ourselves, our neighbours, Mother Earth and all beings
We have equal rights and responsibilities and we make decisions communally
We believe in sharing and want to be as free from the energy of commercialism as possible
Each community makes decisions based on its own needs and realities
We can connect on rainbowcrystalland.org but we honour those individuals and communities who desire online privacy
3 – Structure
The above is as simple as it gets while keeping the essence of RCL, but we would lose the network structure and the ability to make Global Consensus and with it the ability to update the DCI. A more elaborate version which addresses these issues and puts more focus on permanency might look like this:
We are one.
Mother Earth is free of ownership and borders.
We envision a global garden of abundance in which all beings live together in harmony as one great and diverse family.
We co-create a worldwide self-sufficient network of sustainable communities free from the legal hierarchy imposed by land ownership and peacefully seek political autonomy.
We show deep love, respect and humility in our interaction with ourselves, our neighbours, Mother Earth and all beings.
Our communities are linked by nomads and caravans and we provide safe homes for visitors and residents alike. Within the ecological and social carrying capacities of our communities, we are open to all those who share our intentions and wish to participate and contribute.
The community is the guardian of the land and all resources and structures on it, but private usage rights may be granted through community agreements.
We have equal rights and responsibilities and we make community decisions in circles by consensus. Global Consensus on matters concerning the whole network can be reached through a collection of Community Consensuses of all official RCL Communities.
A new RCL is officially accepted into the RCL Network through a Community Consensus in a circle with at least ten people or the majority of the community residents present in another officially accepted RCL. The circle must consider if the vision of the new RCL is compatible with the DCI, if there is a clear understanding of RCL, if sustainable living is achievable and how the issue of land ownership will be handled.
We believe in sharing and co-operation and we want to be as free from the energy of commercialism and competition as possible. Participation in RCL does not cost money.
Each community makes autonomous decisions based on its own needs and realities.
Rainbowcrystalland.org is our official channel of communication and a tool to create Global Consensus. We honour those individuals and communities who desire online privacy.
4 – Crystal Home
Finally, I would like to show an example of how the vision could be adapted to support even greater permanency. The following vision is arguably contrary to some fundamental rainbow and RCL ideals so I am not seriously suggesting that this is what the RCL DCI should become. Instead, this could be seen as an alternative parallel vision called “Crystal Home”, retaining the word “Crystal” to show its origin but removing the word “Rainbow” out of respect for all things rainbow and changing “Land” to “Home” to emphasise the focus on permanency. This vision is based on the Avalon / Valley of the Elves “house circle” structure which has been running successfully for 35 years, and it might be related to what we are trying to do in Oaxaca, Mexico. Such a DCI might look like this:
We are one.
Mother Earth is free of ownership and borders.
We envision a global garden of abundance in which all beings live together in harmony as one great and diverse family.
We co-create a worldwide self-sufficient network of sustainable communities free from the legal hierarchy imposed by land ownership and peacefully seek political autonomy.
We show deep love, respect and humility in our interaction with ourselves, our neighbours, Mother Earth and all beings.
Our communities are linked by nomads and caravans. Within the ecological carrying capacity of the land and the social carrying capacity of our communities, we show a high degree of openness to those who share our intentions and wish to participate and contribute.
Decisions in our communities are made by consensus of the House Circle of permanent residents. All House Circle Members are committed to the community and have long-term intentions. A House Circle Member has the right to build a private-usage house on the community land, to become a full member of whichever legal association serves to hold the land in ownership and carry out business, and to participate in all decision-making. A House Circle Member shares an equal responsibility for the land, the community and all activities therein, and agrees to spend most of their time and energy on the community land and on communal activities. The House Circle accepts new members by consensus of all current House Circle Members.
The community is the guardian of the land and all resources and structures on it. Private-usage houses cannot be bought and sold and will become communal-usage houses if left unoccupied. A House Circle Member is free to leave the community but their investment of money and energy stays in the community.
The long-term aim of the community is to fulfill the basic needs of all community members through communal activities.
Global Consensus on matters concerning the whole Crystal Home Network can be reached through a collection of House Circle Consensuses of all official CH Communities.
A new CH is officially accepted into the CH Network through a House Circle Consensus in another officially accepted CH.
We believe in sharing and co-operation and we want to be as free from the energy of commercialism and competition as possible. At the same time, we acknowledge the need to create an income in our communities. However, we do not financially or energetically exploit visitors and volunteers.
Each CH community makes autonomous decisions based on its own needs and realities.
crystalhome.org is our official channel of communication and a tool to create Global Consensus. We honour those individuals and communities who desire online privacy.

With love and gratitude

  • 4 Sep '17

And then "Rio's Story":

Rio's history with the RCL movement: 

In 2013 I spontaneously went to my first Rainbow Gathering; The US nationals in Montana. I found my tribe was the feeling I had. I discovered the Rainbow bicycle caravan which was going to the World Rainbow Gathering in BC Canada and I joined them at the last minute. Literally I arrived in Missoula, Montana the day before the caravan was to take off. The Rainbow opened me up to a new way of living, and the caravan taught me how to travel in a much more creative way. My life was changed forever. I went back to Babylon to try to get into activism. I ended up working some soul-sucking jobs and realized that I had to go back to what felt so right; The Rainbow. While I was slaving away friends of mine who I’d met along the way, Michael, who was in the bicycle caravan, and Jusone, who I met at the BC gathering, were at the RCL in Costa Rica. Their stories and photos of the place looked/sounded like paradise. Long-story short I put together a bicycle and peddled from northern California to Costa Rica. 

The journey to get down here took much longer than I originally envisioned (a year and half). Once I finally made it to the RCL I found a beautiful land but far from the thriving community I had imagined. There was one French brother who was holding down the fort basically solo and two Ticos who did the minimum to survive and would be revealed to be thieves in time. Also a Panamanian ex-professor drunkard had just arrived and lived here for the first couple months of my time here. This was in December 2015. The French brother at the time was the main entity that held this place together. He was working in the gardens, fixing things, constructing furniture, etc.. Any questions or concerns and he was the one to talk to. He had been at the RCL for roughly 8 months at that time and he still had faith in the RCL vision. About five months later, after the CR Equinox Rainbow Gathering, we got swarmed with Rainbow Family (a yearly occurrence). There was a nice side to it and some constructive things that happened. Also there were unpleasant things: People stamping over gardens, building haphazard temporary constructions, tools went missing, a lot of drama, and endless talking/consensus circles that drained everyone and sometimes lasted for days. The French brother ended up running away from here (in large part because of a thief who he confronted who called the police on him and revealed his illegal status in CR). His last words to me while he was on his way out was that he didn’t give a shit about this place and that it could burn down for all he cared. I felt like that was an insensitive and crazy thing to say. Especially for a guy who did so much and put so much time in here.

Over a year has passed since he told me that and now I understand him much better. I’ve taken on his role and after a year I’ve begun to have a similar feeling. Especially after this year's yearly Rainbow flow of “nomads” through Central America. Well I won’t say that I want the place to burn down but there is definitely something inherently wrong with a community that drives the long-term caretakers away from here. The female long-term caretaker before the French brother had similar things to say to me via the internet and called this place “a nest of thieves.” Not attracting long-term care-takers is poor enough, running them out of here is unacceptable. What has kept me here is this land which is amazing and has been a home and a teacher to me. I couldn’t imagine just leaving this place abandoned. Especially when there are at least two troublesome ex-community members who still prowl around here and would almost certainly take up residence here if I left. I know we try to be open to all but we also have consensus’ against thievery, violence, alcohol, and other things that I am sure wouldn’t be followed by such people. 

Despite all of the problems I am grateful for the RCL and that this whole thing has even existed or else I wouldn’t even be here writing this message. I do love my life at the RCL. Even though I’ve spent a great chunk of the year and half with just the land, plants, and animals. Even though I’ve played host to hundreds of people who’ve come by hoping that they’d stick around. Even though some of those people haven’t appreciated me much, left me with their dirty sheets, trash, lice, bad vibes. It’s funny that in the beginning I used to dread being alone here. Mainly because of fear. Now I enjoy it better a lot of the time. It’s strange when more people equals more work but that’s a reality that occurs here often. Trust me I’ve seen the word “Rainbow” thrown around here in ways that certainly don’t resonate with my idea of Rainbow. Especially in defense of laziness, carelessness, ect.. I feel like the RCL is a sandcastle that we keep making really beautiful and then several beautiful people throw a party here once a year and in the end the castle is all smooched. That leads me to my next part. 

Through my experience what I believe needs to change in the DCI:

1) In the “Organization” section:

“In the RCL Network we make decisions by unanimous consensus of all current RCL residents (meaning anyone currently present)…”

I propose that we create a system of earning ones vote by proving oneself before having consensus power. I know that at the Rainbow Gatherings anyone and everyone who wants to go to the Vision Circles has consensus power. However, in a permanent community there is more at stake, such as the land which we are care-taking. Sometimes we need to take immediate actions and consensus circles have proven to, at some of the most critical times, be long drawn out practices with plenty of people who lack either the commitment to stick around for what their decision will implicate, or they don’t have sufficient knowledge of the situation to truly have a legitimate opinion. Is it realistic that someone who has two days in a place should have the same level of decision making power as a person with over a year? Or five months? In my opinion this isn’t a recipe for success. I personally wouldn’t enter a new community and begin making decisions about how things should be run. Of course we could and should respect the opinions of all and someone may show up tomorrow who has the best intentions and even the solution to our present anomaly. However, in my experience I believe that people should first come in and learn, see how things are flowing, and then they can make decisions once they’ve proven that they are committed to see their consensus’ live out. Should temporary passerbys make decisions for people who are living somewhere long-term? Once the passerby leaves the consensus could just be annulled and we wasted a bunch of time in the process. Something which has happened here.

This can also be dangerous in the fact that deceitful people can use their power of consensus to create mayhem. An example from RCL Costa Rica last year: We had a group of thieves and we couldn’t make consensus to get one of them out of here because his accomplices kept blocking consensus. I also believe that they may have used the circles as a way to draw us all into these endless talks which left most of the camps open to thefts. Many thefts occurred during time when people were at consensus circles. 

My proposal is merely a slight edit in the wording. (Each RCL can determine how to determine “trusted”):

“In the RCL Network we make decisions by unanimous consensus of all trusted RCL residents (meaning anyone who has earned power of consensus)…”

I know that this is tricky and my attempt at a word edit may create a conundrum for the organization  of how RCL’s will determine who is “trusted,” also how to make sure this doesn’t get corrupted. But I believe that being completely open is far easier to corrupt. I don’t think we should be afraid of setting some hoops that people need to jump through. Earning ones way is a part of life. Things are rarely just given out, and although it is nice be so open many people don’t respect what comes too easy. Which is a recurring problem here.

2) In Appendix B: RCL Organizations:

“All current residents (meaning anyone currently present) of all constituent RCLs are automatically members of the RCL Organization…”

Same issue. I propose something like:

“All Core-Group Members (meaning all members who have earned the status of CGM)…”

Again I realize that this may create other problems. Unfortunately much of humanity isn’t really in their right minds or places in their hearts and the RCL network is far from flowing with enough gusto to transmute these sorts of energies. I would not be surprised if entities/forces from “babylon” would or have purposefully sent people here to mess with our Organization because its so easy to infiltrate. Even if groups haven’t done this individuals certainly already have. How do we deal with this ongoing issue? 

  • 14 Dec '17

Thank you for your input. My family and I have been thinking about settling in an RCL for a long time now, but there is always stories of very aggressive things happening there. I think you are very right about that someone who just stays there should not have the same power to vote. There has to be some kinds of staking for decision-making. Since I have not been there I should not say to much, but I think a dubble step of 1 month=1vote, 1 year=3 votes maybe would balance it a bit more.

The difficulty as I see it is to balance the power of long-termers to newcomers with good intentions. If some "not so nice" people stay longer and get all the power, no newcomers want to join.

Very difficult situation. Over all I think what is necessary is a larger group of rainbows to come there at the same time and with the same intention of staying for a longer time.