--------------------------------------------------------
From: J
To: "'Richard Moore'" <•••@••.•••>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:17:20 +0100
Thought the dialogue and your responses on the Jane Austin Fitts
piece on Gore were excellent ...and very diplomatic. The feedback
does demonstrate just how deeply entrenched the matrix is in some
apparently enlightened individuals. I'm coming more and more to the
view that the best way (perhaps the only way) to attack the soft
underbelly of the matrix is by a thorough re-visiting of the history
of the past century and exposing it as it truly is. Much energy is
being expended by enlightened individuals attempting to second guess
what the Money Power are presently up to - will be up to next - when
a big, concerted effort to clearly define exactly how they got us
here would be hugely more enlightening for We the people.
I'm not suggesting that dialogue around questions such as, 'What do
you think is going on?' aren't important, but your discussions some
time ago with Korten, which to me were the most important and
significant of all, just seemed to peter out with little further
added. There is and always has been a path out there and all that's
needed for We the people to see it, walk it, is that it be cleared
and exposed. Clearing that path, inch by inch, of the deliberately
created Matrix camouflage laid over it in the past 150 years is
absolutely crucial - and can be done.
-------
Hi J,
I agree with you about the importance of 'clearing the path' of
recent history. People's model of history -- even if they don't think
they have one -- largely determines how they interpret the meaning of
events.
Consider 911 for example. When that event occurred, I was aware of
three things: First, there had never been a terrorist attack by
foreigners on American soil, nor would such an attack make any sense.
Second, every war in which America has been involved was enabled by
either a faked or arranged 'incident' (Tonkin Gulf, Pearl Harbor,
etc. etc.). Third, the mainstream media has always enthusiastically
collaborated, wittingly or not, with these deceptions. Given that
awareness, or mindset, and seeing the amazing collapsing towers on
TV, I immediately suspected: "This looks like our Reichstag Fire".
The early announcements that "It was Al Qaeda" only encouraged this
suspicion, as it seemed far too early to be sure what happened, if it
had really been a terrorist attack, catching everyone totally by
surprise.
If one was not aware of the consistent 'incident' pattern in US
history, that gives one quite a different mindset. Given that
mindset, and seeing what appears to be a totally unprecedented and
shocking event, there is no reason not to assume that TV is telling
us what really happened. When Al Qaeda is named, that seems to add
substance to the charge of terrorism, it suggests that hard evidence
has been found.
From a psychological point of view, first impressions are extremely
important. That creates the 'mental set' which colors how we see
things subsequently. With my mental set, I continued to notice clues
of an inside job, and when real evidence started emerging, I was
ready to look at it with an open mind. Someone with the other mental
set, soaking in the initial TV explanation, would be noticing instead
additional 'evidence' of terrorism, and when suggestions of 'inside
job' came along, they'd think the people were deranged conspiracy
theorists: it would be silly to look at that evidence seriously.
---
I would like to spend less time talking about 'What do you think is
going on?', and more time on moving forward with the ideas in ETM:
developing empowered communities. People have responded favorably to
the book, but I don't know of any who have responded with initiatives
based on the ideas.
My theory is that the the book will bear real fruit -- of the
initiative variety -- when it comes to the attention of some group of
'concerned citizens' in a community. It doesn't matter what they're
concerned about, but if they understand the ideas in the book they
might be tempted to pursue a 'harmonization' approach to furthering
their concern. Finding a facilitator and a bit of fundraising would
not be particularly difficult tasks, compared with other kinds of
concerned-citizen campaigns.
---
As for my responses being 'diplomatic', that seems to be in the eye
of the beholder. 'R' was not happy with my comments, although we are
now resuming dialog. (See below).
thanks for your message,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:17:51 +1200
From: A
To: "Richard Moore quaylago" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: re your reply to -R on the Al Gore film thread - powerfully well put!!
I don't write to you often, as you know - you're wonderfully busy and
don't need more help from me. But I can't resist telling you how much
I appreciated the clear direct and to-the-point manner of your reply
to -R on the "Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at"
thread. Very very well put. I wish I had managed that sort of
clarity of expression in replying to people who criticised and were
"put off" by the documentary film "The Controlling Interest" on the
role and function of the multinational corporations made by
California Newsreel in the late seventies (- '78?) The "liberal"
crowd didn't "like" it, and had similar - or at least analogous -
responses. All on peripheral and minor points, with some red
herrings tossed in between as well --- because they were extremely
discomfited, to put it mildly, by the major message and thrust of
that film. ( Durkheim was it ? - who sugested that the class position
one holds in a culture tends to determine, or at least has a lot to
do with, the perspective one has on local and world events? My memory
of 'details' grows dimmer, as I age, and my overall view gets much
sharper. I wonder what comes next ?!! )
-------
Hi A,
Interesting that you mention 'Controlling Interest'. I rented that
film when it came out and showed to the folks at a hi-tech research
center. In that case, they responded favorably. The word
'globalization' hadn't come along yet -- the film was well ahead of
its time, and its style was very good -- much better than Michael
Moore, though not nearly as well promoted. I wonder if they've
produced an update?
---
I've also noticed the pattern: "peripheral and minor points, with
some red herrings tossed in between". This seems to be 'looking for
an excuse to dismiss'. I also notice that people can adamantly deny
that they are being dismissive. In addition, many seem to resent
being labelled a 'liberal'. R, for example, responded like this:
Give me a break, Richard. First, I started out by saying
that much of the article was "VERY GOOD". Did I need to
make additional positive statements of gushing praise to
make it clear that I meant what I said? My comments amounted
to what was intended and should have been understood as a
strong compliment followed by challenges on a just a few
points, though ones the author clearly regarded as
important.
I believe these remarks are entirely sincere. Indeed they may be
honest at a deep level -- I can't see inside R's head. But since we
aren't identifying R -- and with sincere apologies to R -- I'm going
to go with my gut diagnosis: The urge to dismiss is being suppressed
above, and what we see is an unconscious attempt at rationalization.
One indicator of this is the strong defensive tone (methinks thou
doth protesteth too loudly).
If we look back at R's original message, we see one phrase in praise
("Much of the article is very good...") followed by "but", and a
paragraph of objections. The objections are indeed "peripheral and
minor points, with some red herrings tossed in between", and they
are also rather strongly worded. If someone were to read those
objections first, they would be likely to conclude that Catherine's
piece isn't worth looking at, because it is tainted by very
misleading material. I can't help interpreting this as dismissive
behavior, albeit unconscious.
Why did R, assuming my diagnosis is right so far, feel the need to
dismiss Catherine's article? Let's explore your theory on this: His
"class position" caused him to be "extremely discomfited" with what
she had to say.
Discomfited: uneasy or perplexed
-- thefreedictionary.com
What did she have to say? Catherine's primary message was that the
system is run by a bunch of gangsters, and that Gore is a willing and
deceitful accomplice -- a gangster in progressive clothing. It is
easy to see why someone could be perplexed by this message if (a)
they believe that our only hope lies in reforming the system, or (b)
they believe that their livelihood is tied up with the continued
operation of the system. Both of these things would seem to be true
for a great many middle-class liberals and progressives.
And yet, if such people are well-informed, they also know that much
of what Catherine says makes sense. This creates an internal conflict
that makes one even more perplexed and uneasy. One can either make
the leap -- swallow the red pill -- and consider Catherine's main
message seriously, or else one feels a need to take the blue pill: to
somehow put these perplexing ideas out of ones mind. By grasping on
to minor defects, one can then dismiss the article by, "It's a mixed
bag -- better to move on to more solid material". And, to avoid
discussion of the perplexing central issues which have some grain of
truth, one can precede the dismissal with: "Much of the article is
very good...".
---
R continues:
Second, where the hell do you get the idea that I'm a
liberal? That's insulting and ignorant. I've never
considered or called myself a liberal. I'm a radical, which
means in part that I don't hesitate to question anything and
everything that strikes me as deserving of being questioned
This brings in a different line of discussion. No longer are we
dealing with psychological speculation, but rather with definitions:
What is a liberal? What is a radical?
My understanding of a 'radical', in the context of the political
spectrum, is someone who believes that the system needs to be
radically changed -- and that reform is a waste of time. Such a
person may generally have an open mind, but about their radical
position they have made up their mind. They are largely 'committed'
to some line of reasoning and some set of conclusions. (btw: radicals
can be very dismissive of contrary theories from other radicals).
My understanding of liberals is much more difficult to pin down. I
think "don't hesitate to question anything" is a fairly central
principle of liberalism. The big thing is always to be open minded,
never doctrinaire, always hip, never to be hoodwinked by a snake-oil
salesman, never to be committed to believing something that might be
disproved. We might note that liberalism had its origins in the
Enlightenment, in the rejection of the divine authority of the Church
and the Crown. Liberalism is about 'open reason' being better than
'belief in doctrine'. That's a good starting point, but if it
paralyzes one from ever reaching important conclusions about life and
the world, it can be ultimately disempowering.
Another principle that seems to be central to liberalism is a belief
in 'human progress', along with: a belief in 'system progress': "Not
only have human lives steadily improved, since cave man days, but our
systems of governance have gotten better and better over time. They
aren't perfect yet, but progress will continue. Radicals would throw
the baby out with the bath water, threatening our continuing
progress. They are too impulsive and impatient."
Catherine is attacking the belief in 'system progress', by equating
our governance to gangsterism. She is also being a bit doctrinaire
about her beliefs, which makes her 'fair game' to liberal critique.
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: R
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:53:17 EDT
To: •••@••.•••
I won't comment further except to say that I'm very disturbed by the
blatant dishonesty involved in both the Russo film itself, as pointed
out by both the NYT writer and Jim Senyszyn, and the marketing of it,
as pointed out in the NYT review
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/movies/31russ.html). Russo's
dishonesty is so egregious as to cause me to be dismissive of the
entire film on that basis alone. If there is a good case to be made
against the Federal Reserve -- and I assume there is -- I want to
hear it from someone who cares deeply about factual accuracy, as I
know you do but Russo clearly does not. (Were you aware, by the way,
that Russo sought the Libertarian Party presidential candidacy in
2004? Like other libertarians, he believes the best way to deal with
the problems of the world is to make governments as small and
powerless as possible so we can be saved by the magic of the
marketplace.)
I must say that I do have serious doubts about the theory that the
Fed is at the root of our problems. That strikes me as
panacea/conspiracy thinking of a kind that is neither very helpful in
understanding our predicament in all its complexity (as your book
attempts much more seriously and thoughtfully to do) nor helpful in
seeking workable means for getting us out of our predicament. As bad
as the Fed may be, it's hard to imagine what can be done to get rid
of it right now. I can't imagine that even the slickest and most
cleverly marketed propaganda efforts will do the trick. Meanwhile,
many other things can be done that, I'm certain, have a much better
chance of succeeding. I'll be sending out some information in the
next day or two about a couple of new initiatives that I believe are
especially promising.
---
Hello again R,
I haven't seen Russo's film, and from what I've read I suspect you
may be correct in your assessment. I'd still like to see it however,
to judge for myself all of what he has to say. I found LOTS of fault
with Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, but overall I think it was
useful for people to see, and I learned a thing or two from it.
You note that Russo's "dishonesty is so egregious as to cause me to
be dismissive of the entire film on that basis alone". And you
confidently provide a NYT article as evidence. That's fair enough,
but do consider that the NY Times frequently exhibits egregious
dishonesty, and yet we still use it as a resource. Indeed I find the
article you cite to be itself egregious. Not that it doesn't contain
some truths, as Russo's film probably does as well, but it is
intentionally deceptive on many points. You also dismiss Russo
because you disagree with his libertarian views and connections. Why
not dismiss the NY Times based on disagreement with its editorial
positions, and its connections to corporate and financial elites?
So again I'm led to the conclusion that liberals have a particular
'ostrich mechanism' for hiding their heads in the sand to avoid
seeing anything that would challenge their faith in the basic
validity of the system and of progress. That mechanism masquerades as
a 'critical mind', selectively applied. Please understand, R, that
this analysis is not about you personally, and may not actually apply
to you. I wouldn't be writing this if I had not encountered this same
kind of dialog many times before, and if I did not think these issues
are important for us to examine. Your particular articulation is well
written, which is why I've pounced on it, and the words do permit the
kind of interpretations I'm pursuing, whether or not that's what you
intended.
Your paragraph about the Fed enables us to deepen our understanding
of the ostrich mechanism. Here we are not talking about a rejection
of a specific article or film. Instead you are presenting a list of
reasons to avoid looking at information about the Fed, regardless of
its source. Even well-documented sources are not of interest, because
we can't do anything about it "right now". And of course, "sounds
like a conspiracy theory" is enough to dismiss anything. You've
prepared your hole in the sand in advance.
What is so discomfiting about anti-Fed information? That's pretty
clear: the Fed is a main pillar of our system, along with the White
House, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the New York Stock Exchange,
etc. To question the fundamental validity of the Fed is to challenge
the system at a radical level.
OK, enough of that. I don't feel comfortable being so critical, but
these are issues I've wanted to look at for some time.
---
After all of this, I am very encouraged to see your comment:
"understanding our predicament in all its complexity (as your book
attempts much more seriously and thoughtfully to do)". You did not
reject my book! ...even though it propounds the mother of all
conspiracy theories. Not only do I suggest 911 was an inside job, and
talk about the Fed-creation conspiracy, and describe both WWI and
WWII as Anglo-American conspiracies, but I characterize all of
hierarchical civilization up to this day as being basically a
conspiracy of elites against their populations. And yet people
generally, like you, have not been dismissing the book on that basis,
nor even have they been characterizing the book as 'conspiracy
theory' material.
Somehow, I've managed to get this kind of material through people's
'dismissal filters', people who might be likely to dismiss the same
material presented in other ways. I'm not sure how I did that, but
it's certainly what I wanted. I do know that the dialog on this list
has been essential to that endeavor. Partly because of the
information people have shared, and the feedback they've given, and
partly because the various arguments and debates I've had with people
gives me a sense of how people dismiss material, which helped me
minimize the occurrence 'dismissible statements' in the book.
with respect,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:34:31 -0500
From: Catherine Austin Fitts <•••@••.•••>
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: re-2: Fitts & Gore
Richard:
Greetings from Flathead County, Montana.
Excellent discussion.
Our current society is highly centralized. Hence, we have a culture
of celebrities and leaders anointed by big media.
If we want to decentralize, step one is to withdraw from a desire for
this leadership model and envision our lives full of thousands of
authentic leaders with whom we have an intimate connection -- we
listen to them, we support them, we finance them, we buy from them
and we wish them well -- indeed there is ample opportunity for all of
us to be leaders when we feel like it.
On that note, you may enjoy an old article, a bit out of date, but
the topic is subset of our need to wake up and come clean from a
Tapeworm culture -- which we each have the personal power to do:
Sensuality vs. Puritanism:
What Can A Woman Can Do to Help the Solari Index Rise?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0203/S00160.htm
Montana is so beautiful these days, I am at a loss for words to
describe. The beauty of this planet is certainly worth whatever we
can do to be worthy of it,
Best,
Catherine
--------
Hi Catherine,
Nice to hear from you again. You've certainly had an impact on our cj
community. I look forward to your further contributions.
I like your concept of 'thousands of authentic leaders', 'intimate
connection', and mutual inter-benefit. That is empowering stuff. Not
only in the immediate economic sense, but in spreading a general
spirit of empowerment, of being 'at cause' rather than 'at effect',
and of finding empowerment with other people, rather than as an
'individual growth trip'.
best regards,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:18:26 EDT
Subject: Re: re-2: Fitts & Gore
To: •••@••.•••
wise answers to honest open questions.
-----
Hi Jim,
Always nice to hear from you. Your comments are extremely pithy, and
yet they always say a lot. People have indeed been offering 'honest
open' questions and comments, and that makes responding very
difficult. One must, in fairness, dig for equal honesty in
responding. This particular posting took the best part of three days
to put together. It takes a long time to dry fruit, as we used to say
in group.
nice to know you're around
rkm
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the Matrix website http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website http://cyberjournal.org
subscribe cyberjournal list mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
Blogs:
cyberjournal forum http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/
Achieving real democracy http://harmonization.blogspot.com/
for readers of ETM http://matrixreaders.blogspot.com/
Community Empowerment http://empowermentinitiatives.blogspot.com/
Blogger made easy http://quaylargo.com/help/ezblogger.html
Share: