more dialog on recent themes…


Richard Moore

From: "Claudia Rice" <>
To: "rkm" <•••@••.•••>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 11:15:54 -1000
Subject: Re: Spiritual Transformation, Evolution, and Culture

Hi Richard:

a passing thought re: the Soviets, spiritual movements etc.--- they 
often start out with the best intentions etc. and, if they gather 
steam, they get hijacked.

We must stay vigilant for power trippers, especially when members get 
lazy and are willing to delegate their powers.



Hi Claudia,

Every movement has intentions, which we might call the 'will of the 
people' -- as it is the intention that draws people to the movement. 
Every movement also has some kind of decision-making process by which 
it operates. If victory is achieved, then the movement finds itself 
in charge -- the default new regime.  The intention will still be 
there of course, but what actually happens next is going to depend on 
the decision-making process of the new regime -- which is of course 
the same decision-making process the movement has been using all 

Most movements that I have ever heard of, and certainly all of those 
that have achieved victory, have a centralized leadership group, and 
it is those leaders that make decisions for the movement. Indeed, it 
almost seems that strong central leadership is necessary for victory, 
as that makes for a coherent and disciplined movement. In any case, 
when victory is achieved, the leaders find themselves in charge of 
the whole nation. The leaders then have a choice to make: are they 
most interested in pursuing the will of the people, or are they most 
interested in retaining their new-found power?

People being what they are, very few of them will pass up the chance 
to hold on to power once they have it. Almost always the choice of 
the leaders will be, and has been historically, to hold onto power 
first, and pursue the will of the people as a second priority. Once 
that choice is made, the movement has been hijacked by the leaders, 
and the fate of the intention is now in the hands of people who are 
primarily concerned with maintaining their own power.

Hijacking is thus inherent in the nature of centralized movements. It 
is what we should expect; any other outcome would be quite 
extraordinary. Any leadership group that might choose to put the will 
of the people first would be made up of very special people, those 
few who are willing to subjugate their own power to what the people 
want. There are such leaders of course, for example Castro and 
Chavez, but they are seldom to be found among those who have the 
skills to lead a successful movement.

The way the Soviets dealt with the intention issue was to declare 
that the Communist Party was the 'embodiment of the people', and 
hence the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' -- the intention -- had 
been achieved. This was nonsense of course, what we really had was a 
dictatorship of the party leaders. In the case of the USA, wealthy 
elites wrote a Constitution, and they declared that it embodied 
'democracy' -- the intention. Again this was nonsense, and what we 
really had was complex bureaucracy designed so that it could be 
easily subverted by corruption -- and of course it is the wealthy who 
can afford to do the corrupting. So instead of a democracy, we got a 

So it is not power trippers we need to watch out for, but rather 
centralized movements. The only movements worth joining are movements 
where all the decisions are made at the grassroots level, and where 
every member can participate directly in the decision-making process.


Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:44:40 -0500
To: •••@••.•••
From: Bob Ocegueda <>
Subject: Re: Spiritual Transformation, Evolution, and Culture

Very well said Richard.  It gives form/substance to what I've been
thinking and feeling all along.



From: Bill Blum
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:32:09 EST
Subject: Anti-Empire Report, December 11, 2007

Anti-Empire Report, December 11, 2007

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:15:27 -0600 (CST)
From: newcombat
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: A few interesting items for you...

thanks, I've posted the Danny Est radio show

A kind of showdown in evidence today with the US fed reserve bank. 
Siding with the Euro bank and accomodating asian investors (in US 
treasury bonds) -- at the expense of the domestic economy.  IE push 
coming to shove, and the proles will be the ones to pay.


hi newcombat,

The Fed is simply doing what is in the self-interest of its owners, 
which is what all good private corporations are supposed to do. The 
last thing they want is for Asian investors to stop buying US bonds 
-- that would rapidly accelerate the decline of the dollar, and 
thereby reduce the power and wealth of the Fed and its owners. As 
regards the effect on homeowners and the US domestic economy, that is 
strictly a secondary consideration. As regards the proles, they are 
always the ones to pay, that's what civilization is about -- 
civilizing (ie domesticating) the proles.


From: "John Bunzl" <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:59:15 -0000
Subject: Re: Power and Corruption: Just What Is Their Relationship?

rkm> "our best hope lies in trying to figure out how we can
transform our cultures -- through grassroots initiatives --
in a way that can eliminate positions of 'power over
others'. In other words -- can we learn how to govern
ourselves collectively? Can we find a way for our societal
policies to emerge as a consensus out of our 'collective
considerations', rather than having our policies determined
by some set of power holders, who inevitably must be
corrupted by their overt or latent dark sides?"

Hi Richard,

Fully agree with the thread of your analysis all the way through. Excellent!

As to possible practical tools for transformation there are others on 
the table apart from those you mention, such as Simpol, which, since 
they fully meet the requirement you laid down (as repeated above), 
you might like to mention so that your readers have a chance to 
consider them.

all the best


Hi John,

That was a wide-ranging analysis, and I'm pleased our agreement 
extends that widely. That bodes well for possible collaborations in 
the future.

In response to your request, to say something about Simpol, let me 
begin by giving my own brief summary of the Simpol vision. Folks can 
also go to your website above for the official version.

Your basic analysis, as I understand it, is that the world's 
government leaders aren't free to pursue good policies, because of 
the pressures of globalization and the global economy. If any one 
government tried to adopt polices not favored by investors, the 
investors would simply move elsewhere and the country would go down 
the tubes. On the other hand, if governments around the world all 
acted together -- SIMultaneously adopting the same good POLicies 
(hence SIM POL) -- then investors would have nowhere to flee, and 
they would be forced to adjust to the new policies.

Based on this analysis, you are pursuing two tracks of action. Track 
One is the development of a set of 'good policies', and Track Two is 
the promotion of the Simpol vision to citizens around the world. If 
you can get masses of citizens to sign up as 'adopters' to the Simpol 
vision, then that would create a voting constituency that might be 
able to induce their government leaders to join in, and agree to 
simultaneously implement the 'good policies'.

I think your analysis and your program make very good sense. Indeed, 
if you have enough adopters, you might be able to induce government 
leaders to adopt policies that would be quite a bit better than the 
leaders would have come up with otherwise! There is thus an 
'empowering the people' element in your program, in addition to your 
primary objective of 'empowering the leaders'. All very good stuff.

Now let's bring in my paragraph above, which you selected as a strong 
point of agreement between us. That paragraph is very relevant to 
Track One of your program -- developing a set of 'good policies'. 
According to the principles laid down in that paragraph, we want "our 
societal policies to emerge as a consensus out of our collective 
considerations". That is, you need to find a way for your adopters to 
collectively participate in some kind of grassroots-based consensus 
process, and thereby generate Simpol's set of policies.

If you want to talk about what kind of process  might be useful for 
such an endeavor, I'd be happy to discuss that with you. One process 
that would not serve us here, would be the standard approach of some 
central group drafting a set of policies, and then sending it out for 
comment or voting by the adopters. That would be not at all like 
grassroots-generated consensus. It would not be nearly as creative 
and productive of good policies, nor would it be consistent with the 
principles in our agreed paragraph.

If you were to pursue this kind of policy-development program, then 
you and I would be very much in harmonious collaboration. All of the 
things I've been learning about process, and about community 
empowerment, are all directly relevant to what you would need to be 
doing. And as your policy process unfolded, pockets of empowerment, 
and We the People consciousness would be emerging -- which is exactly 
what I am seeking with my agenda.

glad to mention Simpol,

To: <•••@••.•••>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:05:57 -0600
From: "Howard Switzer" <>
Subject: Re: Power and Corruption: Just What Is Their Relationship?

rkm> "Those are people who have been touched by a bit of
spiritual enlightenment, and I think it is in that way that
enlightenment CAN be part of the solution -- we can pay
attention to those who have the capacity to show us the

Absolutely a beautiful job of addressing this, Richard.  It reminds 
me of the teaching of the prophet Bahaula who said, "Listen to the 
teachers of your day."  He is the prophet of the Bahai Faith despite 
his having said that the 9 great religions were manifest to each 
organize a different area of the planet and that this 10th 
dispensation was about starting over and organizing the whole, or the 
whole organizing itself.  So his writings indicate that no new 
religion, as Bahais call their faith, should be started, but that it 
was time for humankind to start over and come together.  He pointed 
out that after 9 you start over.  He said things like everything 
evolves including religion and women are to be considered equal to 
men and other progressive things 150 years ago in Persia.  I'm 
finding considerable resonance in what he was saying in the efforts 
of you, Tom and others around the world.  I share your excitement 
about community dialogue for much the same reasons, it is a way of 
coming together.

Howard Switzer


Hi Howard,

Thanks very much for your comments. I didn't know anything about the 
Bahai faith or Bahaula, and you've intrigued my interest. I've done a 
lot of research and study into the Enneagram, and I've learned that 
nine is a very special number, as regards interacting energy fields. 
The Periodic Table, for example, has nine elements per row, 
representing the interaction of proton and electron energy fields. If 
we think of a religion as being an interaction between the energy 
field of a belief system and the energy field of the membership, I 
can see how we could end up with nine 'religion configurations'. And 
'starting over and coming together' is long overdue. Persia has been 
the home of many great mystics and teachers. It's good that the 
bombing campaign has been called off.

thanks again,

From: "John Lowry" <>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:44:38 -0800
Subject: Re: dialog on recent themes...


I strongly reccommend "The Symbolic and the Real," by Ira Progroff.  It has
to do with "imagining" reality.

stay well,



Hi John,

Many thanks. It's out of print, and not even available from Ira's 
website. But I found a copy on Alibris for about $2 -- whatta deal!

I really like it when people recommend books on the basis of 
something I wrote. I'll never forget the time someone said I 'had to 
read' the Story of B. I'm so glad I listened. That was indeed my 
'next step' in understanding, with respect to what I had most 
recently written. It also contributed eventually to a spiritual 
shift, even though Quinn didn't get into that.

Once you can see humanity as an inherently wise species, then you 
also begin to feel that wisdom is evolving out of nature, and that we 
are its manifestation. That gives us a connection straight through to 
Gaia, the evolving biosphere from which we arose. Gaia is quite 
literally the mother of our species. It's difficult to say things 
like that without getting a 'spiritual tingle', even if the 
considerations are only at the level of evolutionary principles.

happy holidays,

From: "Claudia Rice"
To: "Richard Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:47:02 -1000
Subject: Re: Elite Depopulation Agenda Gains Ground

...we can't get away from the fact that 6+ billion humans alive at 
the same time is way beyond a sustainable level. (Unless you think a 
planet like Asimov's in the Foundation trilogy is possible. Want to 
live on a planet-wide city? not me).

Systems are a problem but our chances of a "system fix" are not 
even remote. Admitting this is perhaps painful. We can depend on 
Nature's system to eventually take care of our malignant growth and 
trashing of the planet. The recent forecast of global climate changes 
reducing human population to @ 600,000 is probably quite reasonable.

What we need to do is to form the local co-operative and self-reliant 
groups that have some chance of surviving as something other than 
failed sapiens. 


Hi again,

You are accepting the inevitability of the collapse of civilization, 
and you have a scheme for surviving that and coming out OK on the 
other side. In order to figure out if that scheme makes sense, we 
need to think about what the collapse scenario might look like.

One possibility would be a martial law scenario, where the military 
would be in control, the last vestige of social order. What always 
happens in such cases is that harvests are confiscated by the 
military, and then redistributed according to 'who deserves to live'. 
In your self-reliant group you can be sure your food production will 
be confiscated, and they'd probably leave you just enough for a 
below-poverty diet, just enough so you can stand up long enough each 
day to hoe your row. In any case, your self-reliant autonomy would be 
no more.

The other likely possibility, in a more total collapse, is that there 
would be no order at all, just armed bands searching far and wide for 
food and ammo. So don't forget to stock up on AK-47s in your 
self-reliant group, and unfortunately, that won't be enough to save 
you. Once you are marked as a 'food target', they'll keep coming back 
in larger numbers until they eventually overpower you, or you run out 
of ammo -- and they won't be taking prisoners or leaving any food 

If you are expecting collapse, I think joining the Army would be a 
smarter move than joining a commune. In the martial law scenario, 
you'd be near the front of the line for food distributions. And if 
the Army collapses as well, you'd have your weapon, your buddies, and 
your training -- just what you need to start an armed band.

Personally, I think our efforts need to aimed at avoiding collapse, 
even if that seems like a thin hope, because the alternative offers 
no hope at all, unless you like the Army option.



Posting archives:
Escaping the Matrix website:
cyberjournal website:

How We the People can change the world:

Community Democracy Framework:

Film treatment: A Compelling Necessity

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