Total Despair & The Queen of Hearts


Richard Moore

From: "Marc Bombois" <•••@••.•••>
To: "rkm" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: denial
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:54:44 -0700

  > "In the aftermath of 9-11 we can see how very determined
    US elites are to employ any means necessary in pursuit of
    their own designs on world domination during the endgame of
    the petroleum economy.  They are introducing fascism at home
    and they have declared themselves above the law
    internationally. They have abandoned the last remnants of
    balanced coverage in their mass media, and now lie as
    blatantly as Goebbels ever did."
Richard, I like the way you keep hitting the nail on the

I've been trying to fathom why the elite are so successful.
You'd think that people would be more outraged and put a
stop to this blatant oppression and corruption. But we seem
to be frozen in denial.

Perhaps it's because people are basically good and socially
we assume that others are too. I think the mistake that
society is making is to extend this courtesy to the elite,
to the point that most of us (?) are unable to consider the
truth. So how do we break through this rigid denial? Is
their anything we can do now or must we wait for total
hopelessness? We have no qualms about demonizing the elite,
but how can we get others to consider the facts?
Struggling along,
Marc Bombois


Dear Mark,

Your explanation for denial was once expressed by a
famous person, one who qualifies as an expert on the
     "The great masses of the people in the
      very bottom of their heart tend to be
      corrupted rather than consciously and
      purposely evil...therefore, in view of
      the primitive simplicity of their minds,
      they more easily fall a victim to a big
      lie than to a little one, since they
      themselves lie in little things, but
      would be ashamed of lies that were too
        -- Adolph Hitler, as quoted by William
        Blum in "Rogue State, A Guide to the
        World's Only Superpower," p. 11.

As I see it, we cannot begin to be effective until we accept
total hopelessness. That is the starting point.  As long as
you have hope for making the prison better, then you are
part of the prison.   Only when you begin planning your
escape do you make yourself part of the outside world.

Which facts are useful for others to consider?  This is a
question that constantly plagues me.  Like others, I publish
 'revelations' about elite chicanery and I share
behind-the-scenes news reports.  I feel like that 'needs to
be done'.  But it's not enough.  Those are 'little' facts.
We need to somehow get people to look at the 'big' facts --
there is not a problem with the system, THE SYSTEM IS

Bob Ocegueda continues on your theme...


Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:52:50 +0200
From: Bob Ocegueda <•••@••.•••>
To:  •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: dialog

Hi Richard,

I just recently came across a quote in the daily news summary that clarifies,
for me, some of the reasons for the effectiveness of
propaganda to immobilize the population.

  "Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and
    fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because
    once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which
    they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose
    what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face
    of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and
    loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's
    self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not
    have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda
    is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to
    give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
    -- Michael Rivero

Thus, "we need to be in TOTAL DESPAIR & HOPELESSNESS. Only
then can the new world germinate." works because we reach a
point where we have more to loose by not being aware than by
opening our eyes and seeing what is happening.

It seems to me that we are rapidly approaching that time.

Looking forward to that new day.



Dear Bob,
Thanks for your comments.  I agree with you
that Rivero hits the nail on the head.  The propaganda
is too blatant and full of holes for 'lack of information'
to be the cause of so many heads in the sand.


Subject: Re: NGOs, Accountability & Democracy
To: •••@••.•••
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:50:26 -0400

Hi Richard,

      Just wanted to find out what your opinion is of the recently begun
movement for a true Democracy in the U.S.  Here is the link to it:




Dear Jeff,

I followed the URL.    Found this...

  > For the first time in history, Americans can vote
    electronically for a proposed law --- the National
    Initiative for Democracy. Philadelphia II, a nonprofit
    corporation, is conducting this national election, on behalf
    of Americans so that the people can empower themselves as
    lawmakers with procedures permitting citizens to legislate
    in every government jurisdiction of the United States,
    finally creating a government "by the people, with a de
    facto  "Legislature of the People."
  > The Act establishes deliberative legislative procedures
    for the People and creates an administrative agency (the
    Electoral Trust) to implement those procedures on behalf of
    the People, independent of representative governments.

In my view, these folks are sincere but they are going in
entirely the wrong direction..

They're trying to come up with yet-another centralized
regime, only this time they intend to avoid corruption.
That's like trying to raise a Lion, but one that will never
be hungry or want to kill.  It's contrary to nature.  They
are thinking inside the box, and the box is unsalvageable.


To: •••@••.•••
From: Tom Atlee <•••@••.•••>
Subject: re: Martin Rees' book OUR LAST CENTURY (in the US: OUR LAST HOUR)

---<snips ahead>---
... as bad as nuclear weapons are, they require vast
resources and technical capacity to produce,maintain and
use.  Although they can be stolen or made by trained,
dedicated and resourceful terrorist groups, terrorist use of
nuclear weapons would impact cities, not the entire planet.
Only the hundreds of weapons in national arsenals could
produce the global holocaust that would destroy civilization
and bring about a deadly radioactive "nuclear winter."

The same limitation, however, is not true of emerging
developments in biotechnology, robotics, nanotechnology (the
science of building objects -- including tiny machines --
atom by atom) and computing power.  The new possibility
presented by these rapidly developing -- and merging --
technologies is that within a few decades they could well
empower INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS to intentionally or
accidentally create and let loose highly destructive and,
most importantly, SELF-REPLICATING entities -- real or
mechanical life forms.  Once the wrong self-replicating
microbe or micro-robot goes forth and multiplies, it may be
incredibly difficult to stop....

...[Rees] offers a democratic suggestion:  "No decision to
go ahead with an experiment with a conceivable 'Doomsday
downside' should be made unless the general public (or a
representative group of them) is satisfied that the risk is
below what they collectively regard as an acceptable
threshold.  It isn't good enough to make a slapdash estimate
of even the tiniest risk of destroying the world."...


Dear Tom,

You seem to be nominating these new technologies for the
title of  "Danger Most Likely to Kill Us Off".  You may be
right.  And this particular danger seems to increase your
own sense of urgency to find a solution.  There's no harm in
that.  There is no way, however, that the "general public"
will be permitted to decide about R&D projects under our
current political system.  That proposal is in the "If Only"

Personally, I have no interest in debating which danger is
the most threatening.  We are surrounded by a host of
dangers, any one of which will kill us off eventually.  If
we eliminated 80% of those dangers, my sense of urgency to
find an overall solution would be undiminished -- we would
still be living under life-threatening conditions.

As Rees suggests, the solution to his specific problem lies
in the direction of democracy.  He is suggesting that the
common sense of everyday people is superior to the decision
processes that guide our current society.  This is a view
you and I both agree with.   If we want to solve any of our
problems, we need to find a way to create genuinely
democratic societies worldwide.

You and I, from our different perspectives, are each seeking
a path to true democracy.  Your path involves deliberative
processes (Wisdom Councils and the like) within the current
political system.   I believe that path is not viable.  Just
like the "National Initiative for Democracy", you are
thinking inside the box -- a box which is by its nature a
prison and can never be anything else.


The basic difference in our perspectives, I believe, has to
do with our understanding of the role of elites. In
particular, the relationship between elites and 'the
system'.  Above I have referred to 'the system' as a 'box'
and as a 'prison'.  To you and me and 'the rest of us' that
is exactly what it is -- an imprisoning box.   But to top
elites it is not a prison but an instrument -- an instrument
of mass imprisonment.

When we attempt reform, we are trying to use the rules of
the system to compel elites to give up some of their control
over us.  In many cases our actions are simply ineffective.
In those cases where reform efforts begin to bear fruit,
then elites simply change the rules.   Like the Queen of
Hearts in Alice in Wonderland.

Just this morning I received a posting from Rachel's Weekly.
LAWSUITS".  As you no doubt know, class action lawsuits have
been the most effective tool in attempts to go after
corporations for pollution and other abuses.  For decades
this tool has been used, as memorialized in the film  "Erin
Brockovich" .  New legislation, being pushed through Congress by
475 corporate lobbyists, will basically eliminate this tool.
THAT IS HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS -- to empower elites and
imprison the rest of us.

Consider some of the postings you've sent out on your list
recently, all of them about elites changing the rules:
      "Urgent petition on major attack on democracy"
      "Election Manipulation Info & Links"
      "Conservative attack on NGOs"
      "FCC ruling's potential electoral impact"

And then there's the 9-11 Reichstag Fire, and the subsequent
gutting of the US Constitution.  In one fell swoop elites
eliminated what many would consider to be history's greatest
democratic achievement.

play her at her own game.

I am not offering you here any kind of brilliant analysis.
I'm simply pointing out the obvious.  Just as The Emperor
Has No Clothes, so we can all see that Elites Cannot Be
Tamed By Reform.  Indeed Reform itself has become one of
their major tools of oppression, in the guise of Free Trade
and Market Forces.  Reform -- changing the rules -- is

If we want to make a difference, we've got to move outside
the box, we've got to start playing OUR OWN GAME.


I enthusiastically support your work because you are getting
the word out about consensus, facilitation, and the
emergence of collaborative synergy & community wisdom.  
I believe those are the empowering tools that can help us
create our own salvation.  They are the processes that
enable us to create OUR OWN GAME.  You are doing as much as
anyone I know to promulgate these tools -- more power to

I disagree about where these processes could be best
applied, but so what?  Neither you nor I will be in a
position to determine how they are used -- when and if they
catch on big time.   That will be determined by other
forces, and I hope those turn out to be the forces of true
democracy -- spontaneous, bottom-up, non-hierarchical,
community based -- and OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM.

best regards,

From: •••@••.•••
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:31:51 EDT
Subject: Re: Not Roger
To: •••@••.•••

In a message dated 7/2/2003 , •••@••.••• wrote:
  > The popularity of Roger Moore's books and films -- in the
    midst of hyper patriotism and military conflict -- can be
    taken as a symbol of the doubt that must linger in their
         >> Don't you mean "Michael Moore"?
   > Yes of course.

No, I think you meant Richard Moore.


Dear Bill,

Thank you sir.  Yes, it'd give me great pleasure to give
them doubt, to make them worry.  But alas I don't show up on
their radar.   Blessings to you folks who put out books and
films that actually get some wide circulation.

all the best,

From: •••@••.•••
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:53:28 EDT
Subject: Re: Not Roger
To: •••@••.•••

On AOL forums
a huge 85% is anti Bush
Strange, polls saying 60% pro


Strange only if you think the system works as advertised on
TV. If we see only a few 'strange' things, then perhaps we
can dismiss them as anomalies.  But when every day is filled
with 'strange' things then we must re-assess our
understanding of how the system really works.

Mass-media published polls are an instrument of disinformation,
not information.  Disgusting but not strange.

From: "John Bunzl" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Localism, Consensus, and Transformation
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 08:54:19 +0100

Dear Richard and Tom,

It's interesting to observe your exchanges on localism,
hierarchy, etc.

Is it not so that it is not a question of either local or
global approaches but a question of both?

And with respect to hierarchy, Richard, may I suggest that
your apparent view that all hierarchy is always necessarily
bad is incorrect. For do we not have to distinguish between
'dominator' and 'actualising' hierarchies? In the case of
the former, that is what we have in the world today; i.e. an
EXPLOITATIVE hierarchy (what I refer to in my book as "the
quasi- dictatorship of global destructive competition"). But
an actualising hierarchy (eg. atoms, molecules, cells, and
so on upwards) is an ENABLING hierarchy; i.e. one where the
lower orders benefit from the higher order cooperation.
Similarly, the higher orders of the organism as a whole
benefit from the diversity of its lower order parts. Your
body would be another example.  --<snip>-- [John
goes on with references to Ken Wilbur and Elizabet
Sahtouris, re: evolutionary biology.]

John Bunzl - Director
International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO)


Dear John,

Thanks, once again, for your dialog.

I draw opposite conclusions from your examples.

The organization of cells in the body is indeed ENABLING,
but enabling of what?  What is enabled is the coherent
activity of the organism as-a-whole -- not the actualization
of the individual cells.  When cells do not serve an
assigned function, they are removed from the body by the
immune system or other enforcement mechanisms.   The cells
are then degraded into their constituent parts and recycled
by other organisms in the environment.  Cells are fodder for
the benefit of the Greater Organisms, the Tops of the Food

As a metaphor for society, the body represents
totalitarianism.  The subservience of the Individual to the
needs of the State.  "The Fatherland", "The Reich", "Holy
Russia" -- these are the images of a Greater Organism,
conjured up to inspire sacrifice and subservience by the
individual to the needs of the Hierarchical Centralized


I would select different examples from the literature on
evolutionary biology.   What is more interesting to me is
the evolution of cooperation among autonomous organisms and
species.  The inter-dependence and cooperation between bee
and flower, prey species and predator species, rain forest
and resident species .  This is all autonomous; it happens
in the micro transactions; it is not hierarchical.  And it
leads to Gaia -- a vibrant non-hierarchical organism of

There is a grand coherence to nature, an evolving fabric of
interactions and mutual benefit.  It is not a dog-eat-dog
competitive jungle in the sense implied by Simplistic
Darwinism.  This is the beautiful insight of modern biology
-- an insight known from childhood by every member of any
aboriginal society.


As I see it, you are confusing hierarchy with organization.
Hierarchy is one form of organization.  Voluntary
collaboration is another.  The pursuit of a strong UN is an
attempt to find a solution in terms of still-more hierarchy.
Voluntary collaboration among nations goes in a more
non-hierarchical direction.

SP seems to aim somewhere in between.   Later in your
comments you say:
  > Humans, through a process like SP, can intentionally and
    consciously decide to introduce simultaneous global
    governance to prevent destructive competition. And they can
    design constraints that do not restrict independence and
    freedom any more than is necessary to provide the benefits
    of cooperation...

I would suggest a more positive vision.  Instead of 'global
governance to prevent destructive competition', I would talk
about 'global liberation to enable productive
collaboration'.   Instead of 'designing constraints' I would
talk about 'designing processes of collaboration'.

Some external constraints on societies may be necessary, but
we need to be very careful in defining them, and in thinking
about how they would be enforced.  The more constraints you
set out, the more frequently enforcement would be required,
and the greater the hierarchical apparatus.   As I see it,
the main constraint we need is a taboo against external
interference in the affairs of any society.   In support of
that, I would suggest a related taboo against offensive
armaments, and the ownership (direct or indirect) of
property or resources by non-residents of a society.

Those are the kinds of things I would like to see nations
agree on -- and those are things that would serve the mutual
benefit of national populations and national prosperity.

But there is something missing here.  Who is it that
represents nations?   Through SP you hope to enlist the
power of popular political pressure, but ultimately it is
official governments that would or would not make SP happen.
 The problem with this is that national governments do not
represent the interests of their populations.  They
represent the interests of political and economic elites,
domestic and international.   Through a collaborative
initiative like SP, national elites might hope to reshuffle
the deck of geopolitical power -- but it would not be for
the benefit of you and me.

In order for SP to be transformative, the participating
players need to be transformed first.  A New Deal for
national elites is not where it's at.  When nations are
democratic, then they can enter into useful collaborative
arrangements with one another.  Before that we will see only
rearrangements in the Boards of Directors who run the world
for their own benefit.


I support your work because you are building international
links and promoting thinking outside the box of currently
imposed international structures.  Your work inspires a
sense of empowerment -- that collective voluntary action can
SOMEHOW overcome hierarchical control (WTO, IMF, free-trade

As I understand it, your current efforts are focused around
outreach -- getting lots of people around the world to sign
up to as SP subscribers.  I presume the intention is to
create a growing constituency that could be politically
effective as a pressure group pushing for consideration of
SP by governments.  I would suggest an additional focus.

Permit me to sketch a rough scenario.  Let's assume that by
now you have a few dozen (at least) staunch SP supporters in
each of several nations.   You announce a Mock Global SP
Conference -- where your subscribers in each nation pretend
to be their nation's official representatives.  They caucus
in each nation with the intent of sending a delegation to
your global Mock Conference.  Each caucus aims to bring to
the conference proposals for the contents of the Simltaneous
Policy.   At the the global conference, the delegations sit
down together to try to work out a consensus understanding
of what should be the substance of the SP agreement.  As you
might predict, my process suggestion for these caucuses and
conference would be along the lines of Dynamic Facilitation.

I would foresee outcomes of such an undertaking that would
advance SP's agenda and lead to other kinds of progress as
well.   Within the context of SP, the exercise would build
solidarity in the organization and also help define the
substance of the elusive SP agreement.   From my
perspective, the desirable outcome would be the promulgation
of the consensus concept, regardless of any immediate


Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 09:19:41 -0400
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Aaron Koleszar <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction Search Results

Hi folks. this is peculiar... don't know how it works.

1.  Go to:

2.  Type: weapons of mass destruction
    into the search box.

3.  Click on the button labelled "I'm feeling lucky" (not
    the "search" button)

if you would prefer to skip these steps, just scroll down this email

(the following website is displayed as microsoft's "This
Website cannot be displayed" page)

    These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed
    The weapons you are looking for are currently unavailable.
    The country might be experiencing technical difficulties, or
    you may need to adjust your weapons inspectors mandate.
    Please try the following:
    Click the "Regime change" button, or try again later.
    If you are George Bush and typed the country's name in the
    address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly. (IRAQ).
    To check your weapons inspector settings, click the UN menu,
    and then click Weapons Inspector Options. On the Security
    Council tab, click Consensus. The settings should match
    those provided by your government or NATO.
    If the Security Council has enabled it, The United States of
    America can examine your country and automatically discover
    Weapons of Mass Destruction. If you would like to use the
    CIA to try and discover them, click "Detect weapons"
    Some countries require 128 thousand troops to liberate them.
    Click the Panic menu and then click About US foreign policy
    to determine what regime they will install.
    If you are an Old European Country trying to protect your
    interests, make sure your options are left wide open as long
    as possible. Click the Tools menu, and then click on League
    of Nations. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Head in the
    Sand section and check settings for your exports to Iraq.
    Click the "Bomb" button if you are Donald Rumsfeld.
    "Cannot find weapons or CIA Error"
        Iraqi Explorer



    There is not a problem with the system.
    The system is the problem.

cyberjournal home page:

"Zen of Global Transformation" home page:

QuayLargo discussion forum:

cj list archives:

newslog list archives:

'Truthout' excellent news source:

subscribe addresses for cj list: