dialog:11-21 July


Richard Moore

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:20:56 -0500
To: •••@••.•••
From: "A. Gayle Hudgens, PhD" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Reuters:   Solar Variations Not Behind Global Warming

I have been skeptical of the skeptics on this issue from the get go. 
Who benefits from these skeptics? The archaic energy industries, of 
course. Certainly not we the people and future generations.

We need to focus on sustaining our planet -- specifically, Nature and 
Society -- with renewable energy (and justice, dialogue, etc.) rather 
than blaming the sun for "earth crimes" committed by our own species.

The following report will not be the last word on this, no doubt. But 
in case you missed this news, here 'tis.

     "Solar Variations Not Behind Global Warming"


Hi Gayle,

Thanks for sharing this recent research.

One point that often gets forgotten here is that nothing we can do 
will make any noticeable difference in global warming in the next 50 
years or so. Even if we stopped all emissions totally, which is not 
at all possible, it would take many decades for the excess co2 to 
begin to go away. Another point that needs to be kept in mind is that 
all the solutions being considered by governments will make things 
worse rather than better. In particular, an emphasis on 'renewable 
energy' rather that 'less energy usage' encourages people to think 
that our current lifestyles can somehow be made sustainable.

For these reasons, I see all the debate about global warming, in the 
media and on the Internet, to be a distraction from what we really 
need to be concerned about, which is achieving overall 
sustainability. If we move toward sustainability, we automatically 
will be doing our best about global warming. If we focus too much on 
global warming alone, we will continue destroying the Earth.


From: "Sabine K McNeill" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Cc: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: newslog: 27 June - 16 July
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:40:09 +0100

Dear Richard

Have you come across http://www.webofdebt.com ???

I know the remarkable lawyer author and I hope that you can make the link
with Richard C. Cook as one of your monetary experts!

Yours most connectedly,



Thanks Sabine, an excellent site, and a very good interview candidate.  -rkm

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:08:07 -0400
To: •••@••.•••
From: Don Chisholm <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Dave Pollard on the collapse of the nation state

With regard to the subject conversations, the following news clip 
from  http://www.safewatergroup.org/ daily headlines, shows a very 
significant potentially turning point, imho.

Don Chisholm

16-Jul-07 <http://www.nysun.com/article/58464> Conservative 
Pennsylvanians pass 'radical' environmental laws. More than 100 
largely Republican municipalities have passed laws to abolish the 
constitutional rights of corporations, inventing what some critics 
are calling a "radical" new kind of environmental activism. 
<http://www.nysun.com> New York Sun, New York.


Hi Don,

Such laws are of course unenforceable, but it is wonderful to see 
local communities developing a sense of their collective will.


From: "GUY L PROUTY" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Dave Pollard on the collapse of the nation state
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:05:37 -0700

Developing alternative communities are necessary, I agree, but we 
need to expand and use an entirely new political, economic, and 
spiritual model to sustain us as collapse occurs.  And this model is 
called PROUT (<http://www.prout.org/Summary.html>), developed by the 
Indian philosopher P.R. Sarkar.  It is a very valuable model to use 
because it provides humanity definite steps to move forward in the 
development of our consciousness and to take definite, concrete steps 
to achieve sustainability, such as relocalization and the development 
of communities.  In fact, in Eugene, Oregon, my colleagues and I are 
developing a series of workshops through the PROUT Institute and if 
anybody is interested in these, please let me know and we can provide 
you with some information.


Guy Prouty, Ph.D


Hi Guy,

Did you name yourself after the system, or vica versa?? ;-)

I notice this on the website:

    Basic Necessities Guaranteed to All
    "The basic necessities of life must be a constitutional birth
    right of all members of society. People cannot attain their
    highest human potential if they lack food, shelter,
    clothing, health care and education. Meaningful employment
    with a living wage must be planned to ensure adequate
    purchasing capacity for all basic necessities. The standard
    of guaranteed minimum necessities should advance with
    increases in the economy's productive capacity."

Sorry, but I cannot go along with the notion of a planned, 
centralized society. Indeed, I find the prospect quite scary.  It 
would be a good life for sheep, but a prison for people. As Heinlein 
said with pride, we are descended from apes, not ants.


Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:03:29 -0400
To: •••@••.•••
From: X <•••@••.•••>

for the sake of constructive feedback, i would add this view; you 
shine at constructing the big picture, but ya kinda lose me in the 
"solutions" and feet-of-clay details, ie;

the recent flail that was/is the list migration,
one proves oneself ready for larger initiatives (reconstructing 
society, saving the world) by acing the small ones.


Hi X,

My contribution, such as it is, has to do with exploring possible 
paths to transformation, and identifying cul de sacs among paths that 
are distracting people from progress. You expect too much if you also 
expect me to carry everyone along the path. I'm not a White Knight 
who is going to save the world for you, and waiting for such a White 
Knight is not going to get us anywhere.

You are probably not the only one who 'gets lost' regarding the kind 
of solutions I talk about. I'm disappointed that more people don't 
express their reservations so that we can learn from one another.


Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:15:42 -0400
To: •••@••.•••
From: Ed Goertzen <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Dave Pollard on the collapse of the nation state

Hi David & Richard:

I agree 100% on the local initiative. It can be done with the proper 
organizational structure.

The first priority is to get the language right. Without that we are 
doomed to fail.

'Community' means interest group. They COMMUNE together.

What we need is neighbourhood. That is, people living in close 
proximity to each other AND COMMUNicating.

We are inundated with special interest groups that the media brings 
into competition and conflict for scarce resources.

The public interest is obtaining the general, not the special interest.

As early as 506 B.C. Kleisthenes, (also Cleisthenes) a
statesman and undisputed ruler in ancient Athens instituted
democratic reforms that ended civil strife. He established a
democratic constitution using several reforms. "The first of
these reforms was to divide Athens into 100 districts known
as demes The districts cut through the competing tribal,
special and economic interests and focused on obtaining the
common interests of the whole state. By further gathering
the 100 "demes" into 10 regions, and assuring that all the
economic and tribal interests were balanced against each
other, he weakened the power of the landowning families to
make or influence laws. "In the assembly the same potter
could seek the (common) good by taking part in the search
for good law. But that kind of search involved an
intellectual discipline that encouraged men to search
together" for what was true, regardless of whether this
truth appeared immediately applicable to the making of a
beautiful, useful pot, or even to the making of a good and
useful law." Quoted from The Will Of Zeus, A History of
Greece by Stringfellow Barr, (1961) p78.

The key is to obtain representation of the DEMES.


Hi Ed,

Kleisthenes' model seems right on the mark. The Swiss system is also 
careful to include diversity in their Cantons, for similar reasons. 
And his emphasis on "searching together for what is true" resonates 
with the principles of facilitated dialog.

As regards terminology, we need neighborhoods to become communities. 
I prefer the term that reflects the goal, and which emphasizes social 


From: "Rex Green" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Dave Pollard on the collapse of the nation state
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:56:44 -0700

    While I agree with most of the points you and Dave Pollard are 
making, I thought some clarification of the history or development of 
states/governments is needed to put us on the same page regarding how 
the matrix has worked.

     I will be paraphrasing Michael Mann's views on the history of 
social power ("The sources of social power, Vols 1 and 2").
With the advent of city-states prior to 6000 BC, wealthy farmers 
developed the first governments to control commerce and 
institutionalize their hold on power.  Four forms of power 
predominated:  military, economic, political, and ideological.  The 
rulers became monarchs and their families royalty...

    I agree that the one-world state is scheduled to replace 
nation-states, with a further increase in state power.  Of course, 
the wealthy elite will maneuver to control this state, just as they 
always have.  Did the one-world state begin with the United Nations? 
Certainly, our US wealthy families were instrumental in creating the 
UN.  The latest buzz is that the meeting next month in Canada between 
Bush, Calderon, and Harper will officially start the US, Canada, and 
Mexico collaborating as the new North American Union.  Already, the 
European Union has begun reaching for nation-state powers, with 
France and others resisting a little.

   Rather than rue the loss of nation-states, I urge each of us to 
study the longer-term trends and appreciate how determined the 
wealthiest families are to rule the rest of us, regardless of the 
type of government.  Richard's answer is to reduce the size of the 
state to single communities.  If this can happen, according to Mann 
it must concentrate all four types of social power within each 
community.  Of course, there are other sources of power, but these 
four account for most of the power maneuvers that occur.  Alas, 
people still operating only within the matrix believe they have the 
power to do what they want.  They are oblivious to the larger power 
structures in place that cause so many wars and rob us of most of our 


Hi Rex,

We are reading from the same page, and my book basically agrees with 
your interpretation of Mann. I would use different terminology 
however. Rather than reducing the size of the state to a community, 
I'd say we are replacing the state with local sovereignty. The 
'state' is a particular kind of society, large in scale, and with 
powers centralized. Economic and political sovereignty for 
communities provides the basis for democratic governance, and 
military and ideological power are things we don't need at all in our 



Posting archives: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org

Community Democracy Framework:

Moderator: •••@••.•••  (comments welcome)