dialog from Kauai


Richard Moore


I’ve been falling way behind on keeping up with news developments, and with email generally. Instead, taking it easy here on Kauai, visiting with family, and reading biographies. I guess I’m trying to catch up on the things I missed because I wasn’t born yet. William McKinley, Neysa McMein, Dorothy Parker, Galileo, Bette Davis, Francis Bacon — not really much of a pattern. Everyone’s life seems intriguing once you get into it. Basically I’m taking a break, conserving my energy, for the daunting task of tracking the disaster that is going to be the Obama era.
By coincidence (?) my good friends Jim and Dorothy Fadiman are on Kauai currently as well. We had dinner together and discussed Dorothy’s recent very popular DVD, Stealing Americia: Vote by Vote If you haven’t seen it yet, you can order it here: http://www.stealingamericathemovie.org/filmmakers.html. You can also view it online: http://www.stealingamericathemovie.org/index.html
Please forgive me if your own comments are not included in this dialog posting. I’m just picking out a few messages to comment on, as I take this work break from my vacation break. 
love to all
From: George Williston
Date: October 17, 2008 3:21:22 PM HST
To: cyberjournal <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Crisis, Crisis – What’s really going on?

I so very much enjoy your insights. Your book was an eyeopener about
J.P. Morgan and the English reasons for WWI along with the creation of
the Federal Reserve to do such work. Where is this all going in the
next months do you think?
Hi George,
It’s been kind of eerie in these weeks since you sent in your message. As we look at the fundamentals, and the analyses of keen observers, it is quite clear that we are entering into a very dark era, and I’ll be saying more about that. And yet, when we see TV going on as if nothing is amiss, all the SUVs crowding each other on the freeway, and everyone shopping for Christmas, it seems like everything is normal. I’m reminded of the relatively uneventful months leading up to September 11, 2001. 
From: plorenz <•••@••.•••>
Date: October 15, 2008 9:02:44 AM HST
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Message — from The International Forecaster website contact  page]

Hi Richard!

I will admit curiosity got the best of me regarding Bob Chapman’s use of the term,
“Illuminati” so I wrote to ask him specifically what he meant by the term.

See below what he wrote back.

My reading of his reply suggests that he is using “Illuminati” in a very specific meaning of the word,
rather than as a “shorthand” for the financial elite.. My question is how can writers like Bob Chapman
have so much apparent knowledge of the plans and inner financial workings of the Illuminati
without knowing exactly who they are?

Are we talking about the same group and bloodlines that have been around since the 13th Century?
Or, are we referring to the banking cartel here and abroad? I find this confusing.


Hi Peter,

Here’s my view on ‘secret societies’. At any given point in history, if there is a secret society with grand ambitions, either it brings in elements of the current top power structure, or it withers and becomes a discussion group of has-beens. To put this another way: the top elites of any given era will end up becoming the dominant members of all important, surviving, secret societies. At the same time, if a society is well established, it will be promoting its members, or people linked with them, to top positions of power (not necessarily as heads of state, more likely as behind-the-scenes advisors). So we end up with an interplay between existing secret societies and emerging centers of power, a kind of co-evolution.

The 13th Century (when the original Illuminati emerged) was the beginning of the capitalist era. It began when a dispersed international network of Genoese bankers achieved dominance over European finance. They soon learned that the financing of governments was the ‘big game’ of the financial world, much more profitable – and secure – than investing in entrepreneurial ventures or other business opportunities.

The most profitable of all was the financing of wars, because when fighting for survival, governments are desperate for funding, and will agree to whatever terms they can get. Particularly profitable is the financing of both sides in a war. That way the war can be kept going as long as possible, both fall deeper and deeper into debt, and when the war is over the victors will be in a position to repay their loans. Not only that, the victors will extract tribute (eg, Versailles Treaty) from the vanquished in order to help refinance the repayments. World War I serves as a classic example of this ‘fund both sides’ investment strategy.

From the beginning the capitalist class has viewed nations as pawns, and treated them as such. It is only natural that this class would think along certain strategic lines. In particular, as regards wars, they would recognize that there are two kinds of outcomes to be sought if one is contemplating stirring up another war. Besides the obvious astronomical profits to be made from any war, regardless of who wins, there is also the geopolitical outcome. In what way is the balance of geopolitical power rearranged by the war? Are the new dominant nations more friendly, or less friendly, to international capital, compared to the preceding arrangement? Which side would we like to win this particular conflict? Which side should we continue funding, and which side should we cut off from their line of credit?

In other words, it is inevitable that the capitalist class would end up taking on the ‘evolution of the world system’ as an ongoing project, with wars being their most potent instrument of change. And obviously the desired evolutionary direction would be toward a ‘capital friendly’ world system. Very little imagination is required, if one is thinking in these terms, to come up with the vision of a one-world government, and a government that is under the control of the capitalist class, as being the ‘ideal’ geopolitical system.

It is inevitable that an ‘Illuminati’ would emerge, under one name or another. And as the center of capitalist power shifted (as from Holland to Britain) it is only natural that the new elites would either join in the existing secret society, or else create a new one along similar lines. Which of these happened at each shift isn’t really that interesting, except to history buffs. My guess is that continuity would prevail. It’s easier to assume chairmanship of an existing organization / network than it is to start a new one. Once in charge, one can bring in friendly new members and purge left-over undesirables. Either way, we end up with a ‘continuity of form’ as regards secret societies, regardless of whether we have ‘continuity of entity’.

In “The Money Masters” (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936) we can see several quotations from recent capitalist elites regarding their agenda to create a one-world government. In the neoliberal globalization project, and the UN reform project, we can see this agenda being moved forward. This current, engineered, financial collapse also advances the agenda. Instead of the biggest banks being liquidated, the governments are being liquidated. A very clever move. Western governments are now firmly under the thumb of this era’s version of The Illuminati, and Henry Paulson is the poster boy of this new regime.


From: John Fellowes 
Date: December 5, 2008 3:21:01 PM HST
Subject: Your Seat at the Table | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team

Hi John,

Thanks for this! On this website Obama makes it perfectly clear that by ‘change’ he actually means ‘more of the same only worse’. I recommend to my readers that you check out his Agenda page (http://change.gov/agenda/). I’d welcome comments either pro or anti Obama, as grist for the mill of a later dialog posting. Similarly I welcome comments on this recent Global Research article by Stephen Lendman, Obama’s War Cabinet – http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11296
In closing, I’d like to offer some observations on past wars of the USA. Interestingly enough, during our biggest wars, we’ve tended to have popular Presidents who were thought of as ‘men of peace’ rather than hawks, and who went down favorably in history. Lincoln and the Civil War, Wilson and World War I, FDR and World War II. In other words, if there is to be a big war, requiring sacrifice on the part of the population, we’ve been given a leader who is able to ‘rally the people’ in support of the war. 

This is perhaps one of the most frightening things about Obama. We are very clearly in a pre-war scenario. Only a nuclear World War has any hope of preserving US military hegemony and the hegemony of Western capital. And it was only a World War that was able to pull the US out of its earlier Great Depression. The sabers are loudly rattling with respect to Iran, the border states around Russia, and between India and Pakistan. In each case it is Washington that is doing the rattling. And of course the US has been working feverishly for decades (ever since Reagan’s “Star Wars”) to develop its first-strike capability. 

don’t blame me,
i’m only the messenger,

subscribe mailto:
old archives: 
Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)