----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:01:48 -0700
To: •••@••.•••
From: Tom Atlee <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: NGOs, Accountability & Democracy
Dear Richard,
How do you envision using localism to address the
over-fishing of oceans, the damming or re-routing of rivers
for the benefit of one area, the increasing likelihood of
nuclear war, and the development of nanotechnology (just to
name a few)?
A LOT of people are turning to localism, and remarkable work
is being done in that realm. I acknowledge and honor that.
I just don't see how that approach adequately deals with the
dangers to the global commons that are growing with each
day.
Coheartedly, Tom
PS: I'd love to talk with you more after you read Martin
Rees' book OUR LAST CENTURY (in the US it's titled OUR LAST
HOUR).
-------------
Dear Tom,
Please tell me more about what the book has to say.
I'll respond to your doubt about localism in tomorrow's posting.
ciao,
rkm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tony O' Reilly <•••@••.•••>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:40:06 +0100
---<snip>---
I just thought this was fantastic:
"we need to be in TOTAL DESPAIR & HOPELESSNESS. Only then
can the new world germinate." It could be the best line
you've written!!!???
It reminds me of an Irish word that I love "uaigness" --
which means a kind of a satisfying despair/ lonliness/ pain,
maybe a feeling that things are so bad they can only
improve.
Glad you're happy here in Ireland. You seem to have found
something of the true Ireland. (Uaigness?) Here there is a
kind of a pride that goes with loss/ suffering, even with
death. Sometimes we prefer to lose than to win. We like a
struggle. We usually can find something pleasing no matter
what the situation.
I have learned an awful lot from you in the last year or so,
I thank you. There is no doubt that you should not be
struggling away with some job/ business that your heart is
not in (I hope you're not), you have found your calling in
life I believe. As Gayle said to you "keep on informing
people. You have a gift. The world needs to hear you."
I must get to Wexford and have a pint sometime.
All the best, Tony O' Reilly, Cork.
------------------------
Dear Tony,
Thanks for your encouragement and for the intriguing image, uaignes.
Too bad I can't pronounce it, but no matter. You can tell me when
you're in town for a pint.
all the best,
rkm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:52:20 EDT
Subject: comment
Richard,
In your email of June 23 you wrote:
"Hitler had no desire to fight in Europe, but there was no
way the other Western powers were going to permit Germany to
control the vast Soviet realms. He was forced to deal with
them before turning East."
Are you saying that the Western powers were opposed to a
German invasion of the Soviet Union because they wanted to
control the Soviet Union themselves or because they just
didn't want Germany to control Soviet Union? Either way I
find it difficult to agree. Why would the Western powers --
good anti-communists all -- think this way? Munich wasn't
"appeasement", it was "collusion" -- to encourage Hitler to
invade the Soviet Union. Please explain what you mean a
little further. thanks.
------------------
Dear Bill,
Thanks for the question.
Yes, as you and I know, US-based elites covertly created and
armed Nazi Germany for the purpose of invading the Soviet
Union and suppressing socialism generally. But that doesn't
imply Washington relished the idea of Germany ruling an
empire extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We know
that by 1941 the official but secret US strategy was to take
on Japan and Germany, allying with all appropriate parties
including the Soviets. At a more covert level, aid to
Germany continued so that the US was able to maintain a
dynamic balance of power. As Truman put it, and I still
haven't been able to identify when it was printed,
(paraphrasing), "If the Germans are winning we should help
the Russians, and if the Russians are winning we should help
the Germans. That way we can kill as many of them both as
possible."
Yes, the story is more complex than I implied in my
statement -- particularly where the US is concerned.
Nonetheless, the US did in the end decide that it was not
"going to permit Germany to control the vast Soviet realms".
I don't know the behind-the-scenes story in Britain and
France. But I doubt if elites in those countries
intentionally pursued a game plan that would include
occupation of their territories by German troops, or
bombardment from German planes. If, as you suggest, Munich
was collusion by all Western parties, then evidently British
& French elites wanted Hitler to have Czechoslovakia -- but
no more than that. Otherwise, why did they declare war upon
the invasion of Poland? If they wanted Hitler to invade
Russia, they would have continued appeasement. I doubt if
they would have declared war with the intention of losing,
so that Germany could occupy Europe and use it as a base for
the Russian invasion. That scenario was, however,
acceptable to US elites.
My theory is that British and French elites never did intend
for Hitler to invade Russia. They supported fascism in
Germany, as they did in Spain and Italy, to counter the
spread of socialism. But they did not want to radically
alter the balance of power in Europe. They were still deep
in the pre-1945 world view of competing imperial powers.
Balance-of-power geopolitics took precedence over any love
of fascism.
They drew the line at Poland's border and decided that was
as far as they could permit German imperialism to spread.
When that line was crossed they felt their survival as great
powers depended on stopping Germany. They had to declare war
and hope for the best. Most certainly, they were not willingly
"going to permit Germany to control the vast Soviet realms".
I imagine they were unaware, for the most part, of the
grander chess game of US elites -- in which European
territory became a pawn in a sacrificial gambit. They
perhaps also seriously underestimated Germany's strength
until it was too late for them to do anything about it.
I didn't want to go into all this in the piece I posted. I
was focusing on Hitler's game plans, and permitted myself a
brief summary of the Western role in his adventures. For
those readers who believe World War II was a noble crusade
against fascism, my summary would do nothing to disturb that
illusion. I agree that was unfortunate. Thanks again for
the opportunity to clarify.
yours,
rkm
--
============================================================================
For the movement, the relevant question is not, "Can we
work through the political system?", but rather, "Is
the political system one of the things that needs to be
fundamentally transformed?"
cyberjournal home page:
http://cyberjournal.org
"Zen of Global Transformation" home page:
http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/
QuayLargo discussion forum:
http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ShowChat/?ScreenName=ShowThreads
cj list archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj
newslog list archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog
'Truthout' excellent news source:
http://www.truthout.org
subscribe addresses for cj list:
•••@••.•••
•••@••.•••
============================================================================
Share: