Coopetysm Party 6.6 – The Bondi-Massacre: Extremism’s Antidote Begins With Recognising, ‘Nature is God’s Greatest Scripture’

…

The Aftermath

Australians are overwhelmingly reconfirming:

‘It may happen overseas; but we’re not having it here.’

The question is, how can that best be achieved?

Meanwhile, at Sunday night’s nationally televised Bondi ‘Day of Remembrance’ (a week after the attack), some of the main themes were:

1. Light dispels darkness
2. Hateful thoughts lead to hate speech leads to violence
3. Action is required including ‘mitzvah’ or ‘small acts of kindness’.

So, what mitzvahs of ours can maximise the light and minimise the hateful thoughts?

If that’s figured out (and implemented) then not only will ‘The Great Southern Land’ be floodlit but its glow will shine all around the world.

…

December 23, 2025

Hello

What is extremism?

The anti-Semitic Bondi-massacre is an example; however, what is its definition?

Oxford dictionary:

Extremism: ‘the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism.’

Apart from referencing both the political & the religious, how is it helpful?

To holistically address and pre-empt extremism – prior to it becoming physical/emotional holes in humans – it must be defined.

This article offers a holistic nature-based definition plus an optimal extremism-addressing governance system via:

1. Making the case for nature as the ‘supreme scripture’
2. Highlighting ‘nature’s impetus’
3. Stating ‘nature’s human ethical-system’
4. Pointing out what is government, why we have it and, briefly, how it evolved
5. Detailing how ‘nature’s human ethical system’ may optimally be expressed via a modern society’s infrastructure.

1. Nature: The Supreme Scripture

‘Nature is the ethical commonality for Supernaturalists, Atheists & Agnostics.’

[Note: as per the article, ‘Coopetism 5.3 – A ‘Love Thy Neighbour’ Letter to Atheists, Agnostics & Supernaturalists:  The Causality/Existence Parallel’, there’s evidence for both Atheism (i.e. causality) and Supernaturalism (i.e. existence); however, neither has proof of their own belief including no proof the other is incorrect.]

For supernaturalists, shouldn’t nature be perceived as God’s greatest scripture?

After all, which of God’s non-nature scriptures including the Torah, Bible, Quran, Vedas, Tripitaka, Adi Granth, Avesta and Kitáb-i-Aqdas is greater and more all-encompassing than nature?

First, isn’t nature written directly via God’s ‘hand’ in God’s chosen language and, by definition, isn’t it the sole living-scripture?  Isn’t it also God’s work in action and shouldn’t it be regarded as God’s ‘leadership by example’?

Second, do any of our non-nature scriptures make any sense, whatsoever, without being contextualised within nature including its physical pleasure/pain, non-tactile-senses, metabolic systems and mortality?

For example, from The New Testament:

Without nature, how is any of that possible/intelligible – i.e. ‘he’, ‘bore’, ‘body’, ‘tree’, ‘die’, ‘live’, ‘wounds’, ‘healed’?

1 Peter 2:24:

‘He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed’

Similarly, The Quranic ‘Throne Verse’ 2:225:

‘God: there is no god but Him, the Ever Living, the Self Sustaining. Neither drowsiness nor sleep overtakes Him. All that is in the heavens and in the earth belongs to Him. Who is there that can intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them, but they do not comprehend any of His knowledge except what He wills. His throne extends over the heavens and the earth; it does not weary Him to preserve them both. He is the Most High, the Tremendous.’

Though The Quran particularly relentlessly channels the receiver’s focus toward Allah, nevertheless, without its words being nature contextualised, how can it be understood – ‘him’, ‘living’, ‘self sustaining’, ‘drowsiness’ etc?

Accordingly, while non-nature-scriptures may possess mystery-explaining-narratives (for example, ‘creation’), predominantly, don’t they consist of nature-based human-experience and related ethical-roadmaps for navigating mortal-life?

That is, rather than consisting of rules for behaving in the afterlife, don’t they mostly pertain to mortal-living – i.e. living within nature and as a part of nature?

To emphasise the point, even if we also exist spiritually (i.e. are of a soul) and one or more of our other scriptures are supernaturally existent, without nature there would be no ‘human-nature’, which also means no human-experience including no prophets.

However, does nature even have an ethical-system?  And, if it does, what precisely is it?

2. Nature’s Impetus

Nature’s driver is: ‘DNA-configuration survival-proliferation’.

To this end, there are 2 relevant subjective entities:

1. The individual
2. The group.

A prerequisite for a group is Cooperation – i.e. no Cooperation means no group.

More holistically, a group’s internal behaviour is defined as ‘Coopetyve’ – i.e. an entity that catalyses ‘Cooperation first & foremost and, within that context, Competition as the treasured second’.

The Coopetytion system is ubiquitous in all social species – sentient or otherwise – from archaea/bacteria to humans.

Furthermore, a group’s strength and power are optimised via maximising its Coopetytion – i.e. in non-conscious social-organisms, Coopetytion is harnessed as a tool to maximise ‘DNA-configuration survival-proliferation’.

The supreme group is a ‘society’.

[That Coopetytion is natural is evidenced in our societies where, though until recently not a narrative, it’s pervasive – i.e. in sport, the economy, democracy, the legal-system, the local bingo club etc. there are rules that protagonists are expected (and agree) to abide by, then within that context, there is competitiveness.]

Regarding individuals vis-à-vis the group, individuals are the building block and the group supports its individuals.

In nature-based evolutionary terms, which may be spiritually-derived, there emerged conscious-animals who are capable of and have a propensity to plan – i.e. engage in intertemporal analysis.

Consistent with this, whereas in the non-conscious, both individuals and groups are ‘DNA-configuration survival-proliferation’ driven, in conscious individuals, nature’s driver manifests as: optimise net physical & emotional pleasure/pain – i.e. maximise happiness.

An individual’s happiness-maximisation includes optimising their interaction with the group, which has 2 Coopetyve-related aspects:

1. Transactional or quid-pro-quo, which, concerning what an individual thinks it can directly gain from a group or some members of a group, is brittle, may lead to short-term (at the expense of long-term) prioritisation and is most effective with perfect information and information processing, which are impossible
2. Relational, which, indirect, is more robust and prioritises the long-term over the short-term.

Regarding the relational, it relies on social-emotions such as empathy, loyalty, trust, fraternal-love, justice etc., which, adding stability, together form, at least in the case of humans, morality/ethical frameworks.

3. Nature’s Human Ethical-System

‘Whereas morality relates to the bottom-up dynamic of the individual vis-à-vis the group, ethics relates to the top-down of the group vis-à-vis the individual.’

While nature often exhibits great violence, which may seem antithetical to morality & ethics, morality/ethics only pertain to perceived groups – i.e. they pertain to interactions within groups.

This is why in war (and preceding war), often groups are redrawn – i.e. instead of the enemy being regarded as human, they may be redesignated as ‘cockroaches’, ‘inherently greedy’ etc.

Regarding human ethical-systems, which may also be termed ‘ideologies’, all have:

1. A narrative
2. Rule/s
3. Mechanism/s

While, as a conglomeration, ‘ethical-system narratives’ are, to say the least, imagination-expanding, typically, no story is designated ‘extremist’ – i.e. for an ideology to be extreme, it’s their rule/s and impact on behaviour that’s relevant.

That is, only an ideology’s rules (and, perhaps, mechanisms) can earn it the label, ‘extremist’.

‘Ethical-system rules’ are extreme if they contradict nature particularly if there is enforcement – i.e. the degree of extremism depends on:

1. The degree of nature-contradiction
2. The degree of liberty deprivation, corporal punishment and other harassment.

However, in the context of a modern human society – i.e. a territorially-defined post-Industrial Revolution society-of-strangers (rather than a society-of-the-familiar) – what is a nature contradiction?

Humans want to be happy, which, in terms of their societal-interaction, means they want to have the opportunity to be:

1. Self-actualising
2. Societally-contributive
3. Fellow-citizen-appreciated.

Conceptually, the solution is a society that’s:

‘optimally universal-sustainable-stability-prosperous’.

Doesn’t this imply the maximisation of all individuals’ opportunity & freedom such that they’re only restricted by:

1. Merit
2. Not detracting from others’ opportunity & freedom
3. Not weakening the group?

Accordingly, contradicting ‘universal sustainable stability-prosperity’ contradicts nature, which is unsustainable – i.e. doing this will cause increasing problems. 

Yet, as shall be detailed, currently (and, since the Industrial Revolution – i.e. for the last 265 years or 13 generations), that’s what humans have been doing so it’s unsurprising there are across-the-board problems – i.e. the problems are just our living-scripture’s warning – which, though exponentiating, is being somewhat camouflaged by our also exponentiating Science & Technology innovation.

Turning to the ‘ethical-system mechanism’, it is: Coopetytion – i.e. ‘catalysing Cooperation first & foremost and, within that context, Competition as the treasured second’.

However, nature doesn’t accept Coopetytion being used to nature-contradict.

For instance, an ideology demanding people eat grass, which isn’t part of humans’ natural diet and, on the contrary, is unhealthy, contradicts nature.

Thus, though a grass-eating-ideologue may invoke Coopetyvity saying, “if you don’t eat grass then you’re not Cooperating” that is untrue (and immoral) as, on the contrary, it is their insistence others adhere to a nature-violating ideology that is inherently uncooperative and, therefore, anti-Coopetyve.

Inclusive of this, Coopetytion is not selfishly-authoritarian – i.e. it’s anti-Coopetyve to insist, ‘you cooperate for my benefit at the expense of the group or else’.

Regarding a benevolent-authoritarian, in principle, it’s possible for that person to behave Coopetyvely; however, Coopetytion is most-consistent with Universal Liberal Democracy, which has never existed – i.e. post-Industrial Revolution, there’s always been Subsistence-Income-Servitude (SIS).

Regarding the supernatural, while a benevolent-authoritarian God is possible, if a particular guise is invoked by humans that contradicts nature – i.e. contradicts God’s supreme scripture – that invocation is, by definition, false and immoral.

Accordingly, our society must legally guard against such demonstrably charlatan interpretations.

Thus, in the case of the grass-eating ideology, while an individual who believes grass-eating has some unproven merit has the right to take it up, incitement to grass-eating and harassment of non-grass-eaters is extremism and that ideology should be banned.

Similarly, allowing grass-eating ideologues to immigrate should also be banned.

Summing up, nature’s human ethical-system is:

1. Definitive
2. Consistent with both secular and most supernatural beliefs
3. Inclusive and integrating yet conditional
4. Already the most prevalent civilising feature of our society.

So, how do we best infrastructuralise nature’s human ethical-system?

4. Government

Originally, humans evolved in hunter-&-gatherer societies-of-the-familiar wherein everyone knew one another such that the social-emotions of empathy, loyalty, trust, fraternal-love & justice usually manifested as Coopetytion.

However, with the evolution of farming then settlement then the economy (then later the Industrial Revolution), there manifested societies-of-strangers, which meant trust in individuals needed to be buttressed with trust in systems.

Thus, there arose artificial society-of-strangers’ systems particularly government and its created/administered infrastructures.

Also, there arose the concept of civilisation, which may be defined as when a society-of-stranger’s infrastructures are such that they catalyse a society-of-the-familiar approximation.

A society-of-the-familiar approximation is achieved via ‘optimising universal-sustainable-stability-prosperity’, which means that society’s 5 Big [SEE–in–G] Picture outcomes will be optimal.  [SEE–in–G: ‘Socio-Econo-Enviro-[international/natural]-Government-budget’.]

However, to this point, all 5 are exponentially problematic – i.e. there’s:

1. Socio- disempowerment
2. Econo- inefficiency
3. Enviro-international- invasiveness
4. Enviro-natural- unsustainability
5. Government-budget- pressure.

The solution is: Coopetysm.

5. Coopetysm: Fully-Civilised ‘End of History’ Nature’s Ethical-System-Consistent Governance

Coopetysm:

‘Government that maximally catalyses universal-sustainable-stability-prosperity-optimising Cooperation first & foremost and, within that context, Competition as the treasured second’.

We have 3 tools for achieving our 5 SEE–in–G outcomes – i.e. Science, Human-Organisation & Technology (SHOT).

Given S&T are exponentiating, obviously, Human-Organisation is the culprit.

And, what a culprit it is – i.e. 265 years following the Industrial Revolution when the ‘National-Product-to-subsistence Ratio’ was say 1.3, having gone from the shovel to AI, our ‘GDP-to-subsistence Ratio’ is just 5.  [For example, in Australia, GDP per capita is around $100,000 yet it costs an adult at least $20,000 per year to subsist.]

Coopetysm requires 4 social-infrastructures:

1. Universal Rule of Coopetyve Law
2. Universal Education (including Coopetytion as part of the national-syllabus)
3. Universal Healthcare
4. Universal Subsistence Income (USI).

[These 4 are our Industrial Revolution inheritance and, transcending the Left/Right/Centre-paradigm, when they exist there is Universal Liberal Democracy.]

So, already possessing relatively robust versions of the first 3, we just need the latter, which, specifically, requires ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’.

‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ involves substituting ‘The Universal Subsistence Income’ (USI) for both:

1. Universal Minimum Hourly Wages (UMHoW)
2. Income-Welfare (including, as well as direct-payments, subsidies (such as for childcare) & tax-breaks (such as for superannuation).

UMHoW needs eradicating because it’s inefficient – i.e. it raises costs, increases regulation and doesn’t eradicate Subsistence Income Servitude (SIS). 

Moreover, it may even increase SIS because it causes unemployment – the labour market consists of the employed and the unemployed; however, there is also the ‘non-participating’ [another topic] – which means it’s anti-Coopetyve – i.e. immoral.

In addition, it’s a drag on entrepreneurialism, which is similarly anti-Coopetyve.

Regarding income-Welfare, it’s also inefficient and, with no poverty nor unemployment, superfluous.

Together, UMHoW & income-Welfare catalyse harassment, stigma, employee-exploitation, The Cost-of-Living Crisis, the opportunity-deficit and so on.

Furthermore, they’re insidious-pervasive-legitimized-terrorism – i.e. ostracize and isolate financially-precarious citizens whose labour may be worth less than UMHoW ($24.95 an hour) as ‘dole-bludgers’ who then suffer mental-illness and get drawn into escapism and crime, which also costs the taxpayer – it’s both intellectually-bankrupt and immoral.

Thus, as voters in a democracy, weeding-out terrorism includes focusing on the focuser in the mirror then making a covenant to do whatever mitzvah we can to eradicate infrastructural-Disempowerment.

Regarding the Government-budget, ‘The Reform’ depressurises it via:

1. Increasing tax-revenue including through unleashing business
2. Decreasing outlays as non-USI expenditure on mental-illness, crime, bureaucracy etc. plummets.

Also, in the context of the Bondi-massacre, it must be pointed out that the USI-absence and UMHoW-&-income-Welfare-presence are attacks on both the individual and the group – i.e. they’re divisive and disenfranchising, which therefore catalyses terrorism.

For example, while ‘the chicken and egg’ conundrum can always be referenced, the youngest shooter was unemployed and we know the community that ‘nurtured’ their extremism has relatively high-rates of unemployment.

Regarding talk of ‘war on anti-Semitism’, this will probably be counterproductive. 

Also, lambasting Albo and some other politicians is fair enough to a point given they directly wield power, some of their decisions have been suboptimal and also as an attempt to impact the electoral paradigm; however, like business-people who, no disrespect, are essentially profit-maximisers (otherwise, they will likely soon be out of business), politicians are essentially electoral-maximisers (otherwise, they will likely soon be out of office) so there’s unlikely to be purity of leadership.

Accordingly, outside the box thinking is required including of indirect effects – for example, wasn’t Nazism born out of the post-First World War suffering of the German citizen following which Jews were used as a scapegoat?

So, isn’t it reasonable to surmise that if the early 20^th century German citizen hadn’t been so oppressed then the Holocaust would never have occurred?

Thus, wouldn’t Universal Empowerment have been the Big Picture pre-empting salvation?

That is, ‘The USI-4-UMHoW Reform’ would have prevented World War 2 by preventing poverty, unemployment etc.  [Aside: As has been explained in previous articles, ‘The Reform’ would also have prevented Communism’s rise (and, therefore the presence of Putin, Xi & Kim) – for a start, without poverty and employee-exploitation, there’s no way Marx would have been motivated to write his manifestos.  Similarly, ‘The Reform’ will minimise the chance of World War 3.]

Universal Opportunity (via the universal-light of infrastructuralised-Empowerment) promises to pre-empt grievance and, therefore, terrorism yet has never been fully-tried.

‘Hateful thoughts lead to hate speech leads to violence’ – yes; however, infrastructural-Disempowerment leads to hateful thoughts.

Coopetysm implemented in Australia will shine light here and on the rest of the world.

Thus, the most pertinent mitzvahs may be those that assist the implementation of Coopetysm.

Hopefully, enough minds & hearts will simultaneously open – we need a critical mass of it.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year

Paul Ross

Founder & CEO

The Citizens’ Dividend Organisation (CDO)