cj#754> re: Revolutionary Leadership Conference


Richard Moore

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998
Sender: Korac MacArthur <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Meeting for responses to Globalism....

Definitely a good idea.      I think no matter where the meeting is, the
discussion should be carried live on some IRC or multiple website feeds
somewhere, with people typing it in for the rest of us to read as it
happens.   Maybe there could be other simultaneous channels for audience
commentary and possibly interaction via a Q&A session.    Of course the
records of the event should be downloadable by anyone later since word will
not spread to everyone in time of the event.

Moderators should be wisely picked, since there is a fine line between
stifling free expression and keeping hundreds of voices to some kind of
order so that all are heard.    No topic should be prohibited, no
censorship of any kind should be required.   I think relevant speakers who
cannot attend should be allowed to send in papers to be available online to
everyone and possibly the best of them be read at the conference for
education and commentary.

All that is left is lining up a guest list and a physical location (i.e.
the real work).    High intensity PR should be considered using the web,
TV, press, etc.   If the globalist beast is really that far advanced it
will be difficult to promote this in any forum, so we should start as early
as possible before the event to re-route around obstacles.

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998
From: <personal correspondent>
Subject: latest cj

dear rich,
        i like the conference idea. i'd like to share some comments from my
experience at berkeley in the 60's where i attending many political meetings,
including 'coalition-building' meetings. often they degenerated rapidly into
either bickering (whose vision is most pure and important), or personalities
(whose speaking is so inspired that it must go on and on and on and on.)  the
groups of peoples and organizations who would (or at least who ought to)
attend your conference would be so diverse, i'd set and enforce some ground
rules from the gitgo:

        1) the conference's mission is to help diverse groups understand the
        the threat of the NWO/TNCs, and then to help them organize
 effective, peaceful, democratic resistance to it. Hopefully, the
future result of this will be more open and democratic societies and
processes, within which diverse organizations will continue to have
the freedom to follow and share their beliefs.

        2) the conference is not a platform for political/religious
        diatribes/harrangues. it is not a forum for debates
 between antendees about their causes/differences. it is
 not designed for atendees to promote the rightness (or
 leftness, for that matter) of their causes. it is a time
 of truce between all factions, during which all groups can
 focus on a larger, more dangerous foe, and how to
  effectively oppose it.

From:  <personal correspondent>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: New Years Greetings
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 11:19:25 -0400

Just a few lines to wish you a happy new year.
I read the full text of your Greetings message and found it very

The workings of  globalization  are  hard felt in underdeveloped countries
like Venezuela where poverty deepens and the State is under such attack
that  is has lost all legitimacy to act in planning and as relative
arbiter of opposed class interests.

Since social science has been completely penetrated by the W.B, IMF and
other international organizations it is incapable to produce any ideas of
real interest....

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998
Sender: •••@••.•••
Subject: William Morris Quote: use of word "revolution"

        This quote is one which has just presented itself to me
while browsing a collection of political writings by William Morris.
It was the introduction to a lecture delivered in 1884 entitled
'How we live and how we might live'.  It resonates ...

'The word revolution, which we Socialists are so often forced to
use, has a terrible sound in most people's ears, even when explained to
them that it does not necessarily mean a change accompanied by riot and
all kinds of violence, and cannot mean a change made mechanically and
in the teeth of opposition by a group of men who have somehow managed
to seize on the executive power for the moment. Even when we explain that
we use the word revolution in its etymological sense, and mean by it
a change in the basis of society, people are scared at the idea of
such a vast change, and beg that you will speak of reform and not revolution.
As, however, we Socialists do not mean by our word revolution what
these worthy people mean by their word reform, I can't help thinking
that it would be a mistake to use it, whatever projects we might conceal
beneath its harmless envelope. So we will stick to our word, which means a
change in the basis of society; it may frighten people, but it will
at least warn them that there is something to be frightened about, which
will be no less dangerous for being ignored; and also it may encourage
some people, and will mean to them at least not a fear, but a hope.

Good with words our William!

        In peace and solidarity

                        Ian Hewitt


Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• -  PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland
         www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal                   (USA Citizen)
  * Non-commercial republication encouraged - Please include this sig *

To leave cyberjournal, simply send (from the account at which you're
        To: •••@••.•••
        Subject: (ignored)
        unsub cyberjournal