dialog re: What are the lessons?


Richard Moore

From: "Jim Macgregor" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:24:45 +0100

Brilliant stuff, Richard.


From: •••@••.•••
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:49:06 EDT
Subject: Re: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
To: •••@••.•••

thanks richard for once again seeing the larger 
context. and writing with great gentleness.


Hi Jim,

I don't think others perceive my style as being 
gentle. But thanks. I suppose you can say that 
because in our group days you've seen an even 
more aggressive side of me.

the best

From: Larry Tesler <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:57:10 -0700
To: •••@••.•••


I don't think the 'consensus' camp is an accurate 
portrayal of the scientific consensus.

       rkm> First there is the 'consensus camp', those who believe
         that global warming is the single greatest problem faced by

Who calls it the "single greatest problem"? 
That's hyperbolic. But it's up there among the 
biggest problems we face.

        >  that reducing carbon emissions is the solution,

What climatologist says that reducing carbon 
emissions is the complete solution?

         > and that it can be achieved without changing the system as a whole.

If we wait until the "system as a whole" is "changed" it will be too late.

       > Members of this camp tend to be angered by anyone
         who questions this position, and outraged at
         contrary pieces in the media.

We are angry because the longer we bicker among 
ourselves, the more runway we give to good and 
bad capital to define the "solutions".



Hi Larry,

Thanks for writing, I appreciate your contributions.

My three 'camps' refer to the general population, 
not to climatologists, leaders, etc..

You are correct that I exaggerated the qualities 
of the consensus camp a bit. Indeed one can 
complain about defining camps at all, as there 
are no precise boundaries, everybody is a complex 
being, etc. etc. If I had time to review and edit 
what I wrote, I would have toned down the 
definitions somewhat. But in terms of my overall 
thesis, regarding social divisiveness and 
co-option, these are really nit-picks, they don't 
invalidate my conclusions.

When I said "single greatest problem", I was 
trying to get at something a bit more subtle. It 
would have been closer to the truth to say 
"single most important rallying cry". There's the 
feeling that we have a great opportunity now to 
'do something useful', in the wake of Gore's 
film. We perceive that 'the masses' have woken 
up, and that 'politicians are listening'. I'm 
trying to point out, from my perspective, that 
these are illusions. Politicians are not 
'listening', they're co-opting. Bickering among 
ourselves, or agreeing among ourselves, will not 
affect the outcome, the 'solutions'. Those have 
already been selected and are being pursued, to 
our detriment, and they will increase global 

As I see it, the most dangerous form of denial is 
the belief that we can fix things piecemeal, 
without fixing the whole system.


Subject: RE: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:13:24 -0400
From: "Elisabeth Clark" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>

Richard -- i haven't written for awhile, not for 
lack of interest rather just trying to get my 
mind around the magnitude of the radical 
restructuring of society that is required.

clearly, the puppet-master elites will confuse 
the issue of 'necessary response' to climate 
change with their partial 'buy-ins' vis à vis Al 
Gore activities that are intended to divide and 
conquer in a way elites have always carried on.

i thank you for developing the accessible new 
paradigm introducing the 3 camps: "consensus, 
big-picture and skeptic" as this is exactly the 
'scorecard' needed to follow the developments.

i'm providing a link to a CanWest News Service 
article depicting an elite attempt to invest in 
biofuels as a legitimate response.  The project 
announces North America's largest biofuel 
production initiative developing at lightening 
speed.  Amazing how quickly "an enviro project" 
can initiate with elite support.  For the 
uninitiated there is not much daylight between 
Texas and Alberta concerning the supply and 
demand of energy development.  Note that one of 
the financiers providing equity for the 
megaproject is The Carlyle Group, and elite 
control doesn't come much bigger than that.


Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:11:02 -0400
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
From: Tom Schley <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?

Hi Richard,

Here's something I heard last night on the Robert 
Redford Sundance TV Green Channel program. 
During a discussion focused on alternative fuels 
someone mentioned how much nuclear energy it 
would really require for the world to get away 
from using fossil fuels.  Then they said 
something I'd not heard before.  If we choose to 
use nuclear energy at this increased rate, then 
the world would run out of U-238 very quickly (I 
believe it was between 10 and 20 years).  By 
their estimates nuclear power then, could only be 
a short term fix.  In some ways that is rather 
heartening to hear.  However, I doubt if the 
elites would go for using it up that quickly, 
rather wanting to continue the nuclear culture 
and need for increased security as long as 

The program went on to say that any increase in 
the use of nuclear power is problematical in 
already overcrowded Europe.

Best regards,
Tom Schley


Hi Tom,

Thanks for the information. If raising our voices 
is of value, we need to be raising them against 
the 'solutions' that are being offered for global 
warming, not raising them in support of the 
media-supported bandwagon around global warming.

I think it is careless to say "If we choose to 
use nuclear...". That is implying we live in a 


From: "Rex Green" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:56:49 -0700


I marveled at how you shaped the dialog on global 
warming to make it more understandable to the 
rest of us.  If you keep this up, we should 
develop our own mental muscles to quickly discern 
how the wealthy elite operate to maintain control 
of the world economy and governments.

May I suggest as the next topic, replacing the 
Internet with Internet2. I am attaching an 
article that illustrates how folks in the know 
start telling the rest of us what will be good 
for us, when it is really another nail in our 
coffin of rights and freedoms.  Regarding how a 
highly regulated Internet2 will affect everyone's 
lives, I predict it will have more impact on how 
we live than global warming.  My first reaction 
to this article was to imagine disappearing from 
my communities and do only things I can control 
each day.  Why try to sneak around their 
information controls and just expose yourself as 
a potential terrorist.

Certainly, not as many people will develop 
anxiety over this change in the Internet as over 
global warming.  It seems more likely to steal up 
behind most of us, then just become part of our 
daily routine.  Even when some of us are hauled 
away for torture, most of us will never hear 
about it happening.  Frightening!

Attached article:

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:00:14 -0500
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
From: "A. Gayle Hudgens, PhD" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?


You no doubt spent a great deal of time composing 
your message on lessons learned from the recent 
discussion and I for one appreciate your 
thoughtfulness. I do not, however, agree with 
pigeon-holing people. The issues are complex 
enough that most of us vary in what we consider 
"the single greatest problem faced by humanity" 
and indeed whether there is a 'single' problem 
that can be said to be "the" greatest problem. Of 
the 3 camps you described I did not find one that 
fits me. We do indeed face great problems 
socially, ecologically, economically, 
politically, agriculturally, spiritually, and 
psychologically, to list a few challenges. Might 
it be wiser to be creating solutions for our 
total system of Nature and Society rather than 
getting bogged down in the problems and the 
details. We need a systems perspective not 
analysis paralysis for creating solutions.

One way to begin to do that in this abrupt 
climate change interval is to consider the 
following questions in assessing the credibility 
of information and claims various people make 
with regard to global warming science: and 

      * Does the information come from peer-reviewed articles
         published in reputable scientific journals or reports?

      * Does the writer have expertise in the subject being

      * Is this demonstrated by the writer's list of publications
         or citation index?

      * Is the writer presenting the balance of evidence?


Hi Gayle,

Thanks for writing.

         > I do not, however, agree with pigeon-holing people.

My goal is to challenge people to examine their 
beliefs, and to look at things from a fresh 
perspective. Of course any categorization is 
approximate, but that doesn't mean it's not 
useful. It often aids analysis to have a 'first 
approximation' model, and then to look at 
variations from that approximation.

       > The issues are complex enough that most of us vary in what
         we consider "the single greatest problem faced by humanity"
         and indeed whether there is a 'single' problem that can be
         said to be "the" greatest problem. Of the 3 camps you
         described I did not find one that fits me.

It seems to me that your words resonate fairly 
well with the 'big picture' camp:

      * Does the information come from peer-reviewed articles
         published in reputable scientific journals or reports? [...etc.]

I do not subscribe to these criteria, 
particularly not for my own learning. The peer 
review process is entirely to conservative and 
too politically manipulated. Experts are entirely 
too myopic for today's problems. I get more value 
out of two articles each arguing a different side 
of an issue, rather than one 'balanced' article.


Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:39:44 -0500
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
From: "A. Gayle Hudgens, PhD" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Perhaps I feel more urgency...
[following an earlier exchange - rkm]

       rkm> I believe that analysis continues to be primary up
         until the point when people understand what they need to be

We have a philosophical disagreement, here, 
Richard. If you still have my book, Collaborative 
Spunk, take a glance at Chapter 3. It is my 
conviction that analysis dis-empowers. There is 
still a need for analysis, but synthesis and 
systems thinking is where we need to be right 
now. Otherwise we are taking far too much baggage 
with us from our pasts (among other things) to be 
able to create solutions.

        > Global warming activism is not one of those things, not
         any longer. That movement has now been co-opted totally. A
         classic case. We have no hope whatever of shifting the
         agenda, whatever it might be.

I note your powerlessness in the above 
statements, Richard. In the 60s we also felt 
co-opted but did not let that stop us from 
pushing for the end of the Viet Nam war, women's 
rights, civil rights, environmental 
consciousness. While we did not succeed fully and 
the struggles continue, we did make some 

        > And there's little point in 'raising awareness of the
         problem', when the governments say they're on your side.

Raising awareness of the problem is part of the 
analysis/caught-in-the-details mindset, imo. My 
point. is not about the problem or raising 
awareness of it. My point is about creating 
solutions, offering people ways to envision a 
just, joyful and sustainable future along with 
the tools and strategies for getting there as 
rapidly as possible  -- empowering them in the 
process. (Meaningful solutions to global warming 
represent a small but critical piece of the 
overall outcome. Those solutions, if based on 
what we know is required for sustainability, will 
also clean up many other problems we face, not 
just global warming, if you get my drift here.)

Richard, our goals are probably quite similar. 
You've written that ultimately you, too, want a 
sustainable society. How well would a dialogue 
work for discovering where we agree on what it 
will take to reach that goal? 

A final note. Sometime email conveys tones that 
one does not wish to convey. I trust you can see 
that I am supportive of your efforts -- I just 
want them to be effective!



Hi again Gayle,

I do take everything people send in as being 
supportive. Otherwise people wouldn't be 
subscribers and wouldn't bother.

       Gayle> It is my conviction that analysis
         dis-empowers. There is still a need for analysis,
         but synthesis and systems thinking is where we need
         to be right now. Otherwise we are taking far too
         much baggage with us from our pasts

Analysis, synthesis, and systems thinking, along 
with this kind of dialog, have always been the 
equal pillars of my work, and continue to be so 
at every stage. As it turns out, my main 'message 
to the world' is not about analysis, but about 
the virtues of pursuing certain kinds of dialog, 
as a way to empower communities and create a 
democratic and sustainable world. I'm spending an 
increasing amount of my time in collaboration 
with various groups pursuing that positive 
vision. I also post things about that part of my 
work when the opportunity arises. But in general 
people on the list don't seem motivated to talk 
about the dialog stuff.

As regards 'baggage from the past', I see a lot 
of that in the assumptions people have 
accumulated, in a lifetime of conditioning by 
schools and media, and out of life experiences 
channeled by capitalist economics. What I seek to 
do on the list, and have from the beginning, is 
to challenge some of those assumptions, and try 
to get people to turn on their independent 
thinking machinery. I think I've had some success 
in this endeavor, but the discussion is always at 
the leading edge, where new challenges are being 
laid down, and is therefore a bit contentious. We 
don't talk much about where we're in agreement. 
And in challenging assumptions, analysis is 

         > I note your powerlessness in the above statements, ...

Powerlessness, within the elite-defined context, 
is precisely what I'm trying to establish. Or 
perhaps I should call it hopelessness. It is from 
the realization of hopelessness, within your 
current boundaries, that new directions and new 
insights can emerge. As long as false hope is 
nurtured, one remains confined in ones 
boundaries, beating ones head against the same 
walls in the same way.

        > In the 60s we also felt co-opted but did not let that stop
         us from pushing for the end of the Viet Nam war, women's
         rights, civil rights, environmental consciousness. While we
         did not succeed fully and the struggles continue, we did
         make some progress....

This is the kind of assumption that needs 
challenging. It seems to me you are assuming what 
I would call a 'tug-of-war' model of reform. We 
tug, they tug, sometimes we make gains and 
sometimes they pull us back. We sometimes gain by 
playing the game, and if we didn't play at all, 
they'd pull us in the mud entirely.

I was involved in those 60s movements. I went to 
marches and carried signs, passed petitions 
around the workplace, showed a radical film at 
the workplace, and there were miscellaneous other 
activities. In some sense it all culminated with 
the end of the war, the impeachment proceedings, 
Nixon resigning, and the achievement of the EPA, 
the Freedom of Information Act, etc. I thought we 
had accomplished a lot, and we were entering a 
new progressive era.  Lots of other people felt 
the same way. Books were published based on those 

But then came Reagan. How could that be, and so 
soon? Thus began the Great Unravelling, not only 
of the gains of the 60s, but the postwar gains, 
and now even the gains of 1776. This is a process 
that I've been watching very closely. It has 
caused me to abandon the tug-of-war model of 
reform and activism. I see instead a game of 
manipulation, where upsurges of popular will are 
skillfully managed and contained, and always the 
prerogative of elites to make policy remains 
unchallenged. We may force a policy change, but 
they write the new policy -- they 'give us' 
something of their choosing. And what they have 
given they can take away. Now that push is coming 
to shove, in terms of peak-resources, we are 
beginning to see just how much they can take 
away. Most of this I've been predicting for many 
years -- based on analysis and systems thinking, 
along with observation.

In this context activism needs to be seriously 
reconsidered. Models  from the 60s are baggage 
from the past.

        > My point is about creating solutions, offering people ways
         to envision a just, joyful and sustainable future along with
         the tools and strategies for getting there as rapidly as
         possible  -- empowering them in the process. (Meaningful
         solutions to global warming represent a small but critical
         piece of the overall outcome. Those solutions, if based on
         what we know is required for sustainability, will also clean
         up many other problems we face, not just global warming, if
         you get my drift here.)

Here we're in complete agreement.

       > Richard, our goals are probably quite similar. You've
         written that ultimately you, too, want a sustainable
         society. How well would a dialogue work for discovering
         where we agree on what it will take to reach that goal?

I'd like to see more such dialog.


From: "M.A. "Omas" Schaefer" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: An Observation
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:58:39 -0400

The more I read of your subscribers, the more I 
realize that for many of them, global warming has 
become the primary means to the end of achieving 
social and economic change. If it were really 
about greenhouse emissions, they would be 
screaming bloody murder about the methane from 
grazing cattle and the dire need for all of us to 
become vegetarians.

Apparently facts don't matter, but rather, the 
social/economic agenda. Nowhere in the arguments 
of your readers do I find evidence of 
intellectual honesty. Inevitably their arguments 
blame capitalism, industry, transportation, 
consumerism, etc. Where is the mention that 
grazing cattle that must be eliminated, a far 
bigger source of greenhouse emissions (if one 
cares to go by the facts).

If a boat has multiple leaks, it stands to reason 
that the first leak to fix is the biggest one. 
It's not a matter of choice, but survival. If 
greenhouse emissions are actually a problem, then 
the intellectually honest approach would, by 
definition, be to plug the biggest leak and start 
by turning the entire planet into vegetarians.

When will the activists in the global warming 
movement come to their senses and realize that 
they are being used as foot soldiers to do the 
bidding of the global elite? And in the end we'll 
all have to pay the price.

A vote for global warming is a vote for the NWO. 
Gee thanks, folks, just what we need to make the 
world a better place.

PS. The "consensus" of scientists is one of the 
biggest frauds I've ever seen. I'm increasingly 
in awe of the stature and numbers of "deniers" 
who are coming out of the closet. The latest is 
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at MIT. 
He can be read in this week's Newsweek magazine.


Hi Omas,

I agree with you about scientific consensus being 
frequently a fraud, and not just regarding global 

I posted Lindzen's article to newslog:
      Richard S. Lindzen: "Global Warming Fears Overblown"

He was immediately attacked on the basis that he 
got funding from oil companies:
     Lindzen: Newsweek hides Ties to Big Oil

This is of course irrelevant to his arguments, 
but if people want to reject something, they'll 
grab any easy reason they can find. I'm not 
saying I agree with Lindzen, I'm focusing on how 
different people respond to various views.

I also posted an article about cows & greenhouse gases:
     UN Report on greenhouse gases: Cows worse than cars


From: "Sirius" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 03:00:32 +0100

Climate Change and the Sun
Ed Arlt

Never mind that the current trends in climate are 
nothing new to this planet and have been repeated 
over and over again in a very identifiable cyclic 
pattern for many many millions of years. What 
Gore and Clinton are not talking about is the 
evidence that climate, volcanism, tectonic 
activity, cratering, and magnetic reversals may 
all be correlated. The evidence amassed from 
geological history shows irrefutably that there 
is a 14.1 million year cycle to the appearance of 
large craters on this planet, to tectonic 
movement, to sea level changes, and to magnetic 
reversals. The magnetic reversals coincide (every 
28 million years) with the mass extinctions 
evidenced in the fossil record of the 
earth...just like a clicking clock (or bomb). And 
all of this coincides with the passage of our 
solar system through the galactic plane and again 
as we reach the furthest point away from the 
plane when we reverse direction and head the 
other way (the 14.1 million year cycle). All the 
planets in our solar system are presently showing 
signs of increased temperature. Our solar system 
(and the earth with it) is presently passing 
through the galactic plane.
---<snip - see URL above for more - rkm>---


Hi Sirius,

The fact that all the planets are heating up is 
something we shouldn't be ignoring. This fact 
alone calls into question the validity of the 
so-called scientific consensus around carbon 


Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:56:38 -0700
From: Philip Feeley <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Reader dialog to 13 April
To: •••@••.•••

I know I wrote about Michael Chrichton's "State 
of Fear", but I didn't really believe him - even 
with all his footnotes. I've recently picked up 
George Monbiot's "Heat", and I find it much more 
sensible. I'll be searching for more solution 
oriented works from now on.



Hi Phil,

Just make sure they really are solutions and not palliatives.


Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:25:16 -0700
From: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: Reader dialog to 13 April
To: •••@••.•••

       rkm>  Our 'democratic societies' have evolved over the past
         two centuries as the most efficient systems of controlling
         populations that have ever existed. Instead of secret police
         we have propaganda, the monetary system, and the myth of
         democracy. We are born into this system and all apparent
         avenues of change are carefully managed against us. The
         prisoner is not the warden; we are not the government.

yes, and we can change the "monetary system" by 
creating our own community currencies (cc), not 
as AN alternative, but as a multicurrency 
complement - by doing so, we can then develop 
indi media such that it becomes mainstream and 
achieve the holy grail of direct democracy.

i'm surprised that you are unable to see the 
potential of community currencies to provide us 
with this essential tool to free ourselves - 
perhaps you haven't taken it seriously enough or 
maybe you, like most others, are unable to see 
what it means.

Latest open money material:
         from Eric and Ellen Harris-Braun

         see Eric's software developments...

         try it out...

From: "Thomas Greco -- thg" <•••@••.•••>
To: "CIRC" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: New reference source
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:35:22 -0700

Memo to: All
From: Thomas H. Greco, Jr.

I wish to inform you that I have written a research guide on my specialty,
complementary currencies, that has been published by Fields
of Knowledge at:

The Infography about Community Currencies

The Infography appears to be a very good reference resource on a wide range
of topics, and I suggest that you consult it when doing research on any
and consider adding the following link to your blogs and web pages:

The Infography: Research Recommendations from Professors, Librarians, and
Other Subject Specialists

I also invite you to keep tabs of developments and information posted on my


From: "Diana Jewell" <•••@••.•••>
To: "'Richard Moore'" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: FW: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:47:38 -0700

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Like the famous Pogo quotation, the CyberJournal 
series on issues involved in the global-warming 
phenomenon has exemplified a similarly 
penetrating view of our social predicament.  And 
as in Pogo's case, with global-warming the enemy 
truly is US.

Richard has provided superb facilitation and 
analysis in guiding this process, and the 
impressive mix of collective wisdom and passion 
have undoubtedly raised the levels of 
understanding and commitment of all who have 
participated, whether as contributors or readers.

However, I wish to respectfully challenge the 
group to better understand their own positions, 
and those who are opposing or leading (or 
misleading) them.  In general, I am in very close 
agreement with Richard, but I would suggest that 
his commitment to being a moderate moderator may 
have steered the discussion away from important 
issues of a more confrontational and divisive 
nature that are just too important to ignore.

But before going there, let me recognize 
that there can surely be no disagreement that all 
human practices producing ecological damage 
should be minimized as soon as possible and as 
much as is reasonable [i.e. without causing 
involuntary depopulation or driving modern 
societies back to pre-industrial standards of 
living].  Further, the precautionary principle, 
sustainability and stewardship should be 
rigorously applied.  Of course these principles 
address the panoply of ecological devastation 
caused by current practices of development, and 
if they would be adopted worldwide, the issue of 
global-warming should be effectively dealt with.

At this point, however, the primary fixation of 
our time is with the 'hot button' issue 
of global-warming.  Until now, the environmental 
movement, which has rapidly emerged within the 
First-world middle classes of the past generation 
or two, has been only minimally successful, with 
only token victories from its struggles to gain 
the attention of the political classes and the 
broader public, and the corporate class that 
always controls the capitalist system [i.e. the 
Matrix].  But suddenly the public mind has become 
bombarded by media coverage stoking the 
global-warming fires of hysteria--while 
politicians and corporations have miraculously 
embraced this new religion, and are exploiting 
green-wash strategies to their strong advantage.

To many of the most vociferous exponents of the 
global-warming hysteria, the reasons to exploit 
the FEAR factor far outweigh any questions 
regarding the veracity of the scientific issues. 
To the committed environmentalist, it is a matter 
of creed and an unprecedented lever of 
opportunity to perhaps save the planet and at 
least make it a much better place.  To the 
born-again green politician, it may be even more 
effective and at least more principled than 
wrapping oneself in the flag; besides, it's a 
powerful diversion from the more intractable 
problems of class, imperialism and capitalism. 
For the capitalist, it's a chance to improve the 
corporate image while benefiting from massive new 
public spending and profit opportunities.  For 
the environmental scientist, it's a windfall 
opportunity for research funding, career 
advancement, and a chance to play a much more 
prominent and respected role in perhaps saving 
the world or at least helping to preserve it for 
future generations and other species.  For the 
corporate media mouthpiece, it's a chance to 
perform a most worthy and important public 
service, and a welcome relief from the steady 
diet of political lies, war reports and school 
shootings etc.

From this vantage point, it's obvious that there 
is no comparable constituency for neutrality or 
objectivity on the issue of global-warming [even 
BP is now proud to proclaim its plan to become 
our energy provider "Beyond Petroleum"].  Hence, 
it would seem that there's no reason for any of 
us to question the strong consensus on 
global-warming that has been swiftly manufactured 
by the political and media classes.  If the fear 
of global-warming is grounded in reality, then it 
will truly be the greatest crisis ever confronted 
by humankind [unless we stumble upon some quicker 
way to destroy ourselves and the planet].  But 
even if it is just another over-hyped fear [how 
did we ever live through Y2K?], then at least 
anything positive that we do will make the world 

Either way, the best solution for all is to 
act decisively to mitigate or prevent the 
potential disaster of global-warming.  The fear 
factor may or may not be exaggerated, but it's 
motivational power should at least produce very 
positive results, and might actually be essential 
if humankind is to save itself from itself.

Which brings us back to Pogo's revelation:  "We 
have met the enemy, and he is us."

Let's get serious and really believe that us 
really means US, all of us -- even we who are so 
enlightened and privileged to be participating in 
this CyberJournal dialogue.  And let us reflect 
upon whether our share of the blame is just 
related to our lifestyles, or whether it also 
includes our inadequate understanding of the 
forces involved, and inability to mobilize 
ourselves and others to the most effective social 
response to the dangers we face.

While sweeping generalizations are always 
somewhat exaggerated, we, and perhaps more 
particularly those less enlightened members of 
our class, have well earned the designation of 
being the enemy of those innocent people and 
species who suffer under what people of the 
privileged classes have inflicted upon them.  And 
we enlightened ones have not done anything even 
remotely adequate to absolve ourselves from the 
collective blame that we must justly bear.

Richard's analysis of the three 'camps' into 
which the public perception of global-warming may 
be categorized is a fine example of his usual 
brilliance!  However, while probing the 
collective psyches of each camp, he has refrained 
from any serious criticisms without which WE 
[i.e. the enlightened, caring and privileged 
minority] will never be able to get our 
collective acts together to save us from 
either THEM [the elite rulers, i.e. the main 
enemy] or US [i.e. the unwittingly 
complicit enemy].

With most of the population divided between the 
'consensus camp' (mostly liberals) and 'skeptic 
camp' (mostly conservatives), this mirrors the 
manufactured political schism which has enabled 
elite rule to dominate the people under the guise 
of democracy.  Elections in western liberal 
democracies are typically a choice between 
'heads' where they win and 'tails' where 
we-the-people lose.

The 'consensus camp' may even be its own worst 
enemy, and certainly the worst enemy of the 
broader progressive activist movement.  The 
progressive activist movement has its origins and 
primary focus in social justice.  It recognizes 
the importance of the environmental movement and 
the causes for which it fights--but it accurately 
sees these to be parallel consequences, in the 
natural domain, to those it confronts in the 
social domain; it recognizes the capitalist 
system of exploitation to be the root cause of 
all abuses of nature as well as humanity.

The core of the 'consensus camp' are the 'tree 
huggers'.  In using this term of disparagement 
arising primarily from the 'skeptics camp', the 
intent is not to offend those who love trees and 
the environment--but rather to challenge them to 
ask themselves whether they love nature more than 
they love people.

However, the fundamental problem with the 
'consensus camp' is not so much the question of 
misplaced priorities-but rather that it has 
always been and firmly remains issue oriented. 
Indeed, the environmental movement generally 
needs to become remobilized to address each cause 
that comes along.  While most of its leading 
advocates recognize that their issue-based causes 
are all related manifestations of the capitalist 
system, and also the existence of parallel social 
problems for which other progressive activists 
have long been fighting, the leaders of both 
camps do nothing constructive to bring both camps 
together to wage a unified campaign in common 
cause against their/our common enemy.

Environmentalism, which emerged long after the 
rise of social activism [i.e. organizationed 
labor, humanitarian organizations, socialism, 
etc.], has historically served as a highly 
effective emotional and organizational instrument 
to divide and conquer public opposition to the 
ravages of the capitalist system.  Indeed there 
are some who suspect this to have been one if not 
the most important intention of its moneyed 
patrons, who through their foundations have 
provided a base of funding from its inception. 
In any case, this relationship is undoubtedly 
well understood by ruling elites, and it is long 
overdue for environmentalists to recognize this 
fact, and the extent to which their most worthy 
intentions are regularly and so 
profoundly exploited by ruling elites.

Environmentalism has become the primary arena of 
political activism within the so-called western 
liberal democracies, and as such, has effectively 
served to prop up the undemocratic system of 
elite rule, and protect it from the risk that 
enlightened activists might focus public 
attention and pressure on meaningful democratic 
reform that might enable the people to gain 
sovereign control over the economy rather than 
being condemned to fighting one another in the 
hope of becoming its wage slaves.

Even more sadly, environmentalism is an addiction 
of only the privileged classes within the 
privileged countries.  Not surprisingly, the less 
fortunate classes can hardly afford to expend 
their time, resources and hopes on something that 
does not improve their immediate condition.  This 
allows privileged environmentalists to feel more 
self-righteous in dedicating themselves to causes 
without immediate social benefit.  But in failing 
to fix the system itself, their fine and 
well-intentioned efforts condemn the underclasses 
to further exploitation and hopelessness.

In coming down so hard on environmentalism and 
environmentalists, please understand that I'm not 
suggesting that environmentalism or 
environmentalists are bad, or even wrong. 
Indeed, the altruism of environmentalism and 
environmentalists deserve our great respect.  The 
problem is that, in the world we're living in -- 
i.e. the Matrix -- there is a systemic perversion 
which renders environmentalism and 
environmentalists both wrong-headed and 
antithetical to their own proclaimed interests.

It is in this context that I return to the Pogo 
truism as it applies in our situation:  "We have 
met the enemy, and he is us."

In this view, the primary concern for enlightened 
activism is to try to find a way for the 
environmental and social activist camps to come 
together.  They are clearly facing a common 
enemy, and divided they are surely being 
defeated.  At this point, it is only the social 
activists who are clear on who and what the real 
enemy is, and have some commitment [clearly 
declining] to a not very unified effort to fight 
that enemy.  As such, the prospect for success of 
enlightened activism seems now to be marginal, 
but we must continue to work both harder and 

This is why it's not enough for the two 
enlightenment activist camps to continue with 
polite and semi-respectful co-existence.  That 
would be complicity in our remaining divided and 
conquered -- a state of impotence that ruling 
elites will undoubtedly use all means at their 
disposal to perpetuate.

To extend on Richard's analysis, what the 
'consensus camp' should recognize is that they 
have not won--they are being used.  It is not the 
truth or the merit of their case that has 
persuaded elites to change course--it is the 
power of the global-warming issue to create FEAR 
and to divert the attention of both enlightened 
activists and the general public.

As the so-called war on terror 
clearly demonstrates, the primary goal of elite 
rule is not to win the war, but to maintain 
public anxiety at a highest possible level of 
FEAR, without end, regardless of the actual level 
of danger.  And for the thinking public, who 
cannot be controlled by the fear of terror which 
they recognize to be vastly exaggerated, the fear 
of global-warming is the ideal complementary 
scare to control the public mind and public 
debate.  All to protect elite rule from any form 
of effective democracy, by diverting public 
attention from the real cause onto the 'hot 
button' issue, and preoccupation with the urgent 
need for bandaids rather than real remedies 
for the relentless disease from which we are 

If the 'consensus camp' comes to recognize these 
truths, they may also recognize that their 
efforts would be better focused on sharing such 
insights with their fellow citizens in the 
'skeptics camp', rather than trying to persuade 
them of the correctness of their 
eco-fundamentalist beliefs.  The only 'religious' 
belief that people need to guide them in this 
world is that elite rule serves elite interests 
at the expense of both the people and the planet. 


Escaping the Matrix website:            http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website:                       http://cyberjournal.org
Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html
Subscribe cyberjournal list: 
•••@••.•••  (send blank 
Posting archives: 
•••@••.•••  (comments welcome)