pre-Phoenix dialog…


Richard Moore

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:37:43 -0800
From: Robert Bolman <>
To:  •••@••.•••
Subject: The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis

The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis
by Richard K. Moore
Global Research, December 27, 2007

Hey Richard,

Robert Bolman here in Eugene.....

I just finished reading the above referenced 
piece and feel that your analysis is pretty spot 
on.  But I have a question about the very nature 
of "conspiracy".

So many things that we in this circle may read or 
write make it sound like there's a big conspiracy 
to do all these bad things.  That there are 
sinister men behind closed doors making all kinds 
of plans.....  But that implies that those 
conspiring against us are either extremely evil 
people or astonishingly adept at talking 
themselves into believing nonsense.  I tend to 
believe that it's the latter.  I have a hard time 
believing that even Dick Cheney wakes up in the 
morning and looks at himself in the mirror and 
says, "Gee, I sure am a bad person.  In fact, 
today I'm going to try to become even more bad." 
Yet I do believe that even the most brilliant 
people are capable of enthusiastically believing 
utter nonsense.  Look at Hitler.  He was a pretty 
smart guy.

But another thing to consider in how these 
"conspiracies" manage to happen is to consider 
the very nature of "conspiracy".  Is it possible 
that what we pass off as bad people making 
sinister plans resulting in a "conspiracy" is 
actually a much more amorphous, loose-knit 
phenomenon?  Is it possible that various 
different players in in the global scene can all 
make and implement their various decisions and 
that no single decision is THAT sinister, but 
when the sum total of all the various decisions 
comes together, the end result is very sinister 
indeed?  If we could articulate a way that that 
could happen, it would make our conspiracy 
theories much more plausible to the skeptical.

Interested in your thoughts,


Hi Rob,

My thoughts you shall have.

No, it is not possible that it's an amorphous 
process. It is what it is; it is not possible for 
it to be something else at the same time.

This has nothing to do with theories of any kind, 
conspiracy or otherwise. The simple fact is that 
the USA operates just like a corporation, with 
control firmly in the hands of the Board of 
Directors. The Board of Directors in this case 
are the same as the Board of Directors of the 
Federal Reserve Bank of New York. And yes, they 
are sinister men who meet behind closed doors and 
make all kinds of plans. Anyone who doesn't know 
this needs to do a little research. It doesn't 
take much.  You might start by watching "The 
Money Masters":

And no, this does not imply that "those 
conspiring against us are either extremely evil 
people or astonishingly adept at talking 
themselves into believing nonsense". It simply 
implies that their self-interest is different 
than ours, and they don't give a damn about us. I 
call that evil, but they think of it as the 
natural law of the jungle - if they weren't on 
top someone else would be. The policies they 
pursue are not nonsense at all, they just aren't 
good for humanity. They make lots of sense to 
those who benefit.


From: "Jeff Keiffer" <>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:05:20 -0500
Subject: Re: What to expect from the next US Administration

Hi Richard,

Always good to read your posts; informative as always.

While there is much to be concerned with in the 
US I have also noticed a small but growing 
people's movement to make changes for the better 
here in the US.  I have been a member to several 
organizations with a green agenda and while the 
federal government continues to do the bidding of 
the big polluting corporations that only care 
about their bottom lines; many people have 
organized to make themselves and their local 
communities greener. Local governments have begun 
offering incentives to people to buy hybrids, 
solar panels, more energy efficient appliances, 
etc.  I have also seen a green movement in the 
auto industry where smaller car companies are 
flaunting the powers that be and making fully 
electric cars (see Tesla or Aptera).  I believe 
this movement will only grow because many 
Americans are concerned and waking up to the fact 
that we do need to wean ourselves off foreign oil 
and I have begun to notice that many Americans 
are beginning to turn to the Internet for their 
information.  There is also a strong populist 
movement supporting candidates running for 
president like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul and 
while the mainstream media either makes fun of 
them or ignores them completely they are getting 
their word out and people are taking notice.

There is always the fear of another 9/11 attack 
and Bush declaring himself dictator and that 
leave me to wonder how many Americans would be 
willing to stand up and fight their own 
government.  I believe many would stand up and 
fight and there are even states that would 
declare their independence from the US (Vermont, 
possibly California) and that would eventually 
lead to another civil war (though in my mind it 
would be a revolutionary war to free ourselves 
from another King George).

There are signs of change but I can only hope 
that it continues and that Americans continue to 
awaken to what is really going on in their 




Hi Jeff,

You are quite right to point to all the people 
who are 'making changes for the better' - but 
you're underestimating them!  I'd say it is a 
MASS movement, not a 'small but growing' 
movement. Besides all the things people do as 
individuals, there are literally thousands of 
activist groups devoted to such changes. 
Particularly after Gore's film,  everyone and 
their brother seems to be change conscious.

We can take great hope and comfort in this mass 
support that exists for change. HOWEVER, we must 
be careful not to fool ourselves about whether or 
not that support and energy is actually 
accomplishing anything as yet. The mass 
consciousness around change is POTENTIALLY 
powerful, but solar panels, hybrid cars, 
minimizing your travel, and efficient appliances 
do nothing whatever to move us toward 
sustainability. Such things amount to throwing 
the deck chairs off the Titanic, in the hope that 
will lighten the ship and keep it from sinking. 
The problem is not the passengers or the 
furniture, the problem is the ship itself - the 
infrastructures of our societies. They have hit 
an iceberg - the finiteness of the Earth - and we 
are beginning to sink.

It is very important to understand that the 
mission of Gore and his ilk has nothing whatever 
to do with responding to the crises that face us, 
quite the opposite. What they are doing, and 
quite successfully, is co-opting all that 'change 
energy', and channeling it in such a way as to 
enable the continuance of 'business as usual', to 
enable the destructive engines of our 
growth-driven industrial society to continue 
purring along. Hybrid cars, for example, are no 
help whatsoever; we need to transform our 
transport systems from cars and trucks to modern, 
efficient, rail systems. We need similar radical 
transformations in every one of our 
infrastructures and production methods. Nothing 
less will reverse our relentless drive toward 
collapse. Gore and his ilk understand this very 

There will be no civil war, there will be no 
secessions, and there will be no Presidents like 
Ron Paul. Those, I'm sorry to say, are idle 

optimism + realism,

From: •••@••.•••
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:55:18 EST
Subject: Re: What to expect from the next US Administration
To: •••@••.•••

Hi Richard,

rkm:  <<In this context, the net consequence of a major biofuel agenda comes
down to intentional genocide. In order to provide marginally more
fuel to the over-consuming industrialized nations, untold millions
will starve in the third world, in addition to those untold millions
that are already starving. The marginal energy gain is so small by
comparison, that we must accept that the biofuels agenda is PRIMARILY
about genocide. >>

What about the motivation derived from various 
corporations making lots of money from biofuels?



Hi Bill,

Let's not confuse the cart with the horse. Of 
course investors will jump into any available 
market, just as ants will swarm to honey. The 
ultimate perpetrator of the swarming is the one 
who placed the honey, the ants are purely 
reactive. The market for biofuels is being 
created by government action, and by the 
manipulation of oil prices, and the only reliable 
way to judge the motivation of the men behind the 
curtain is by the long range implications of 
their actions.


From: "Claudia Rice" <>
To: "rkm" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: post-xmas dialog...

Hi Richard:

check out  Power versus Liberty: Madison, Hamilton, Wilson, and Jefferson
by James H. Read 
for an interesting discussion of our Founders 
differing views.

I don't know that we'll ever get power out of the 
equation but if we can figure out how to be self 
reliant and cooperative adults with similar 
children, we'll probably have an advantage to 
pass along to those who come after.  It's ironic 
that the cooperative skills we used to become 
such a widespread species are now so hard to come 



Hi Claudia,

Thanks for the Founding Fathers link. 
Unfortunately, the Hamiltonian wing prevailed.

No Claudia, we do not need to wait a generation 
to begin cooperating. We are all quite capable of 
cooperating. If you want to measure how good we 
are at cooperating, look at how people behave 
within a progressive corporation like Apple or 
Microsoft. I worked at Apple for over five years, 
and the spirit of cooperation was amazing, among 
individuals and among teams. We did not go 
through any 'cooperation training', we simply 
found ourselves in an environment where 
cooperation was encouraged, and where the 
corporate culture was more about 'making the 
company a winner' than it was about 'moving up 
the ladder'.

We have not lost the skills, we simply have very 
little opportunity, or perceived need, to 
exercise them in our non-work life. One of the 
problems of the capitalist system is that gives 
us everything we need! We don't need to carpool, 
because we can all afford a car. We don't need to 
agree on what to watch on TV, because we each 
have our own TV in our room. We don't need to 
build a school together, because the government 
gives us one. We don't need to cook a meal 
together, or even eat together, because we can 
each pop something the the microwave when we're 
hungry. In an instant-gratification society, why 
bother with cooperating?

What we need to do is to put our cooperative 
skills to use. We need to launch collaborative 
initiatives. More and more I'm convinced that it 
doesn't particularly matter what the objective of 
an initiative might be, what matters is the 
dialog processes, and decision-making processes, 
that are used in the endeavor. If 'wise 
processes' are used, that take into account 
everyone's ideas and concerns, then the endeavor 
will naturally evolve toward enlightened 
objectives, regardless of what brought the people 
together in the first place.

Unfortunately, most of our popular initiatives 
have no dialog awareness whatsoever. Instead of 
evolving they remain statically oriented around 
some pre-determined agenda and way of operating. 
I'm working with one organization that is typical 
of many. They have a reasonably promising agenda, 
and a fairly large group of members spread 
worldwide. What do they do with those members? 
They send them newsletters and ask them for 
donations. That's about it. They might survey 
them about policy, but they don't try to engage 
them in creative dialog about moving the 
organization forward more effectively. I'm 
working with them now to organize a 'wise dialog' 
conference, involving a cross section of their 


Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:33:41 +0100
From: Earl <>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: post-xmas dialog...

Hi Richard,

It's been some time since I last contacted you, 
but I am still a faithful reader.

Congratulations on being published on Global 
Research, and then given the honor of 'Best 
Article of the Year'.   Another favorite resource 
of mine.

Keep on doing the wonderful work.

Best wishes for the New Year and the future,

Earl Duthler


Thanks Earl :-)

From: "John Lowry" <>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: post-xmas dialog...
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:59:58 -0800

rkm >...delegating power does not work as a formula
for democracy.

Delegating power, or "authority," or 
"responsibility," cannot be done.  Each of these 
must be assumed or taken, hopefully with the 
consent of those affected, but force works too, 
for a while.

Your new mission sounds like a management 
consultants' pitch, like MacKensey (sp?). 
Appropriate to the time of course....

Star well,



Hi John,

You first comment mystifies me. I have no idea what you're trying to say. :-(

Well, yes, the new mission is similar to that of 
a management consultant or a facilitator. All of 
us seek to increase the effectiveness of groups 
through the use of better process and 
communications. In my case, however, the services 
are free and I'm aiming to empower the people 
involved, more than the organization they belong 


Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:55:34 EST
To: •••@••.•••
From: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: post-xmas dialog...


Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:41:23 -0500
Subject: Re: dialog + new website
From: Greg Coleridge <>
To: <•••@••.•••>


A truly excellent piece! Very succinct.

Might I recommend a couple of articles examining the myth of democracy and
ways to democratize the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution: Pull the Curtain
First of two articles on the U.S. Constitution
Winter 2007
By What Authority, published by the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy

A U.S. Constitution with DEMOCRACY IN MIND
Second of two articles on the U.S. Constitution
By What Authority, published by the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy
Spring, 2007

Greg Coleridge
Economic Justice & Empowerment Program
Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee
[a Quaker social action organization]

To: <•••@••.•••>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:52:05 -0600
From: "Howard Switzer" <>
Subject: Re: * rkm issues a New Year's Challenge *


thank you for the work...

I've been talking to my colleges in the Green 
Party, I'm a delegate from TN on the National 
Council, for some time now about such an 
intervention.  The GP is divided and is held 
completely at bay with internal conflict over the 
large state small state representation issue and 
over the fact that the party voted to support one 
of its own instead of Ralph Nader in the 2004 
election.  Most of the GP seems pretty good but 
there is a divisive faction that is raising hell 
all the time and the elected leadership hasn't 
been able to handle it very well and so far has 
ignored my suggestions for a facilitated effort 
to get the party unified so it can move on.  It 
may be that the minority faction refuses all 
mediation.  But ever since I read your book, 
Richard, and the Facilitators Manual, I have been 
talking about this.  We need to do something that 
will make us smarter.  The vision you have about 
how this might spread community to community is 
why I encourage GP members at the local level to 
become conveners in their communities etc etc. 
But they've got to all get on the same page first 
it seems to me and learn to respect one another. 
Decentralizing the economy is one of the 10 key 
planks in their platform but the minority faction 
seems to want to be top down, one right way. 
....I don't know, maybe its a COINTELPRO 

Howard Switzer, Architect


Hi Howard,

Congratulations! You are the only person who 
responded to my challenge!  I was quite surprised 
at that. I guess no one else has any problems.

Here's my response to your situation. I wouldn't 
worry about the Green Party as such. Parties are 
a bad idea; they're divisive. And I wouldn't 
focus on convening Wisdom Councils. That turns 
out to be a very slow-moving process. What I 
would suggest is to gather together a group of 
Greens, in a facilitated session, and have 
everyone bring up their concerns about the Green 
Party. Let that lead where it will lead. You 
won't be the only one with doubts and with ideas.


To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Thanks from John Addyson
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:49:19 -0500

Hello Richard,

Thank you for your kind response.

Consider me a slow learner, but the challenges 
that you have set forth make sense.  After much 
soul searching I, too, have come to the 
conclusion that if meaningful change is to come, 
it must start at the the local level.  Humankind 
has survived through the centuries living in this 
very manner: families meld into tribes, tribes 
meld into confederations, and this understandably 
works best when members of the community realize 
that everyone's survival depends upon the mutual 
cooperation of all the members, and not just an 
unfortunate few. But I am stating the obvious.

You are correct in saying that the internet 
scares the hell out of the puppet masters who 
manipulate the events that shape our world.  More 
and more of us in the trenches are beginning to 
realize this important fact.  In this era of 
on-line communication, I sense that we have now 
gone past what I call the Identification Phase. 
The Identification Phase, in my estimation, 
lasted for about 10-years (say, 1995 to 2005). 
It consisted of folks from all walks of life 
sharing their stories, comparing notes, and 
formulating an understanding of how power, money, 
and information, was used to benefit the few, 
while oppressing the many.  This was a crucial 
time, not to mention a lengthy process.  In one 
respect, many of us were amateur sleuths, trying 
to piece together a crime scene from sketchy--and 
often conflicting--pieces of information.  As we 
know so well, an accomplished criminal is a 
master at covering his tracks; indeed, in the 
commission of a crime mistakes are made, but when 
the criminal controls the police department and 
the judicial system, the task of bringing the 
truth to light of day is darn near impossible. 
In my view, you have been instrumental in piecing 
together an accurate picture of how this 
ingenious system of power and control works.

I am probably not alone in saying this, but when 
my wake up call came in 2003, and when I 
discovered that our key political, religious, and 
financial leaders were nothing more than "made" 
members of a sophisticated criminal enterprise, I 
grew depressed realizing that the fairy tales 
impressed upon me from kindergarten on were 
nothing more than bald-faced lies.  I went 
through all of those emotional passages that 
Elizabeth Kubler Ross identified in his works on 
death and dying.  But I realized, however, that 
lashing out at the system would accomplish very 
little.  I felt that creating a website that 
hosted a series of negative rants and tirades 
against the system would be, at best, preaching 
to the choir, and merely adding to the despair 
and hopelessness that many of us fee.

So the perplexing question that weighed heavily 
upon my mind for the past several years was: "How 
can I make a positive difference?"  Believe me, 
the answers did not come overnight, because it 
took several years to formulate a fundamental 
understanding of how I fit into this matrix of 
domination and control.

Perhaps Occam's Razor holds true in addressing 
these complex issues.  The simplest 
solution/answer may be the best approach; that 
is, change must start with the individual.  If 
transformation is to work, pardon the pun, it 
must be an inside job.  In future 
correspondences, I would like to share a couple 
of small success stories with you in how we (my 
family) have taken steps to circumvent the 
matrix, and find more meaningful lives in the 

Lastly, I hope that my little sermonette does not 
read like an overly emotional, sappy tome.  But 
as you have so eloquently written, the exchange 
of meaningful dialog leads to self-discovery and 

Best wishes, Richard.

John Addyson
Pennsylvania, USA


Hi John,

Thanks sharing your thoughts, and I look forward 
to hearing of your success stories.

I agree that the transformation must start with 
the individual. And the transformation that is 
needed has to do with empowerment and action, 
rather than with 'realizations' or 
'enlightenment'. It has to do with not relying on 
any government or organization  - or anyone but 
yourself - to be the agent of change. And when I 
say 'agent of change' I am NOT talking about 
changing your lifestyle. I'm talking about 
getting out there and creating change in society.


Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 09:27:06 +0100
From: Hélène CONNOR
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: * rkm: Has capitalism passed its peak? *

Dear Richard,

Difficult to write an article on that topic that 
would put "smiles on faces" as you say, but you 
could try... as it ends in too pessimist a 
manner. You usually give a glimpse of hope and it 
is appreciated since we don't want to demobilize 
our friends.

Brazil also has become too aware in building its 
biofuel program (since 1973) to let itself go and 
become enslaved to such a trade. At least I think 

Thank you for all your research and work which we 
are in the habit on spreading to our 
international lists.

Have a fruitful and happy year 2008!


Hi Helene,

Why would I want to put smiles on people's faces? 
Demobilization is what most people need most, to 
re-evaluate what they're about. If people were 
doing the right things we wouldn't be in this 

If Brazil is so savvy, why did Lulu sign a major deal to grow biofuels?

smile when there's something to smile about :-)

From: HTomHOK
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 13:16:07 EST
Subject: Re: * rkm: Has capitalism passed its peak? *
To: •••@••.•••
X-Virus-Status: Clean

Richard, I believe that  knowledge of the past is 
essential to understanding the present.  Sometime 
ago I ran onto a letter from Keynes to Roosevelt 
that sheds a lot of light on the present: "An 
Open Letter to President Roosevelt".

The letter was written early during the Great 
Depression, but apparently was mostly ignored by 
Roosevelt for several years, although I believe 
Keynes and Roosevelt must have communicated 
during the interim.  From this letter I have 
reasoned the cause of the depression as being the 
introduction of too many machines to replace 
workers, resulting in massive unemployment. 
Keynes' suggested solution to unemployment seems 
to bear this out.

One of the more interesting aspects of the letter 
is the desire of Keynes, and likely Roosevelt, to 
find a way out of the depression leaving the 
existing social system, capitalism, intact.  As 
Keynes points out, the failure to do this would 
have likely resulted in capitalism being replaced 
by another economic system.  It is my assumption 
that placing this concern in the first paragraph 
indicates it as being of paramount importance to 
both Keynes and Roosevelt.

It is later in the letter that Keynes explains 
the "pump-priming" justified by war theory, i.e. 
the start of the military-industrial complex.  If 
you will recall, in 1948 the economy started down 
hill again and McCarthy, a kook drunkard, started 
his communist fear mongering that led to the cold 
war.  The cold war was just as effective as a 
shooting war in justifying huge deficits.  It 
provided millions of jobs producing non-consumer 
goods, and served as a life support for 
capitalism while also creating the fear required 
to control the Russian people.

You may already have the Keynes letter and have 
made your own analysis of it, but I believe it is 
worth review at this particular time.



Hi Tom,

Thanks for sharing your research & thinking. 
Certainly the preservation of the system, and 
particularly the primacy of banks, was foremost 
in Roosevelt's mind. He comes from an old banking 
family. Keynes was an idealist, a quite different 
kettle of fish.

If the Depression had been caused by too many 
machines it never would have ended. The level of 
industrial automation has only increased since 
then. The Depression was intentionally created by 
the Federal Reserve, as a way of increasing its 
control over the economy, and of enriching its 
private owners by enabling them to buy up assets 
at bargain prices.

The postwar boom, that lasted into the sixties, 
was not primarily about  a war economy, that 
didn't come until the Vietnam build-up. The 
postwar boom was about industrial exports, and 
about investments and developments in the Global 
South ('Free World'). The purpose of the Cold War 
rhetoric was to fool the American People into 
interpreting US imperialism as being a 'defense 
against a threat', ie communism. The Communist 
Threat has now been replaced by the Muslim 
Threat, and again it is a made-up enemy to 
distract from imperialism.


From: •••@••.•••
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:14:00 EST
Subject: Anti-Empire Report, January 13, 2008

Anti-Empire Report, January 13, 2008

To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
From: Andrea Lea <>
Subject: Fwd: NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist - Paul being smeared
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:38:57 -0500

Hi Richard,

You need to say more about Ron Paul rather than 
the other candidates, with the possible exception 
of Dennis Kucinich (who can't make the difference 
that Ron Paul can) or Cynthia McKinney, the 
former Congresswoman from Georgia who told the 
truth when do one else would speak up. Of course, 
it cost her dearly but I understand she is the 
latest addition to the Presidential race.



Hi Andrea,

My interest in the election is strictly limited 
to interpreting what it means. I have no interest 
in influencing anyone's votes, as the whole 
political process is a waste of time. I have 
posted some things to newslog about Ron Paul, as 
examples of how the system is rigged.


From: BEGoodman
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:18:34 EST
Subject: Fwd: Top Censored News Stories of 2007 
as Judged by Respected University Rese...

This is a DYNAMITE site for all the stories NOT published by the media.

Pick and choose which ones interest you most and cut them out, in full.

But my suggestion is to forward ALL of this to as 
many as you possibly can so that the suppressed 
news will no longer be hidden.

Love and Peace,



cyberjournal archives:

Escaping the Matrix:

The Phoenix Project:

rkm blog: "How We the People can change the world":

The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis

Community Democracy Framework:

newslog archives:

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