Friends,
Wow! I got more responses to this posting than any I can
remember. The inspiration came into my head by itself, but in
another sense it can be seen as an attempt to translate the
ideas of harmonization into the language of those who are in
the business, so to speak, of sharing their ideas with others.
Harmonization is about listening to 'the others', connecting
with them on a human level, and then approaching the problems
of the day as a joint project. The important first step here
is the listening part, and that's what I focused on in the
posting. If we really listen, we will make the human
connection - that's a natural human thing. And if we make the
connection, we will naturally work on our problems together
jointly - that's also a natural human thing.
What gives this scenario problems is the fact that listening
turns out to be very difficult for most of us. In addition,
the way meetings (face-to-face) and forums (online) are
usually set up, the focus is on issues and agendas, rather
than deep listening and human connections. Such dialogs find
themselves then dealing with conflicts among people's
conclusions, rather than looking for agreements among their
underlying concerns.
I have not given up hope for harmonization within the context
of online communications, but my experience so far - and what
I've learned of others' experiences - indicates that the
online context does not provide sufficient support to enable
harmonization-style dialog.
There's something about seeing people's faces, hearing their
voices, and seeing their body language, that communicates
important signals, perhaps emotional information, that can't
be conveyed with written words. In addition, being in a
dedicated place for a dedicated time adds a focus to people's
attention, a continuity to their thought processes - and a
shared spirit and energy - that isn't there when the same
people, isolated, devote scattered moments of attention to a
forum dialog. And even in the face-to-face context, an
experienced facilitator seems to be required for the process
to work. Harmonization is difficult not because it is
unnatural to us as humans, but because it is counter to our
current dominance-based, competitive culture. Nonetheless, for
us now, it is difficult.
So here we are in an online forum trying, ironically, to do
something useful with these ideas. I'll try to keep
'harmonization' in mind as I comment in our dialog below.
(Sorry, I wasn't able to get to all messages that came in.)
---
But before we do that, I have a request: I want to include
lots of links (URLs) in my book in the "Resources" section.
What I'm looking for are sites that either corroborate
material in the book (for skeptics) or that offer additional
information regarding topics discussed in the book. The range
of topics is broad, everything from pre-history to sociology
to economics to current events, etc. Of course I've been busy
with google, but if any of you have any favorite sites you'd
like to recommend, please let me know!
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:57:52 +0200
From: Gabriel Pickard <>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
This is a good posting, i can very much encourage you down this line!
greetings, Gabriel
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "jack 2019" <>
To: •••@••.•••:
Subject: RE: A message to all those who have "something to say"
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 12:37:54 -0800
and those words were from a good heart.
jimmy
www.subbionic.com
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 15:50:35 -0500
To: •••@••.•••
From: Cameron McLaughlin <>
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
Unfortunately the opposing viewpoints are not held by
open-minded people who are open to persuasion. We are dealing
with ideologues who cling to their own beliefs and tune out
anyone and anything that might threaten or challenge them. As
they begin to awaken to the horror that is the reality of life
in the US, they will cling even more tenaciously to those
beliefs. Such is the psychopathology of conservatives, who
tend to be rigid and lack the cognitive resources to process
dissonant information. They tend to be completely uninterested
in any position or worldview except their own. Such is the
nature of the beast; and the beast is becoming increasingly
vicious.
I would like to think that listening is the answer, but sadly
it isn't when those doing the talking will not listen in
return--or when they insist on the intellectual equivalent of
screaming to drown out any unwelcome ideas.
---------------------
Hi Cameron,
Thank you for your comment. I know exactly what you mean. When
we try to persuade conservatives to change their beliefs, we
get soundly rebuffed. I've noticed that as well. On the other
hand, we must admit that conservatives have no better success
getting us to change our beliefs. We might say that in our
tenacity we are being well-informed, while in theirs they are
simply being stubborn, but they might see it the other way
around. Indeed, the way they seem to see it is that we have been
brainwashed by liberal professors and the liberal media!
We all have a good explanation for why 'the others' won't 'see
the light'.
The kind of listening I am suggesting we try is a different
kind of listening, and in a different kind of dialog. You
describe a debate scenario, and the kind of listening that
occurs in debate dialog - 'listening to retort'. As I
suggested above, such dialog deals with "conflicts among
people's conclusions, rather than looking for agreements among
their underlying concerns".
I think a very common 'underlying concern', for people on all
parts of the cultural spectrum, if we are honest, is a feeling
of powerlessness. We may have different explanations for what
oppresses us, we may even blame one another, but we all know
in our hearts that we have little control over the conditions
that control our lives, let alone over the course of society.
In fact, one of the reasons liberals feel powerless is because
of all those conservative voters, and visa versa. When we get
together we immediately try to convert one another. If instead
we could get down to the shared experience of powerlessness,
we could have a different kind of dialog. "So you think we are
the ones who have power? That's funny, I always thought it was
you guys."
I don't mean to focus on 'powerlessness' as being the
archetypal shared concern. The point is that on the important
things - quality of life, security of job, neighborhood
safety, our family's health, world peace, etc. - we all really
want the same things. Somehow we need to tap into that common
core. There's something about our usual modes of dialog that
prevents this.
thanks again,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Philip Snow" <>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 22:57:33 +0100
Well, I have skimmed your stuff for some time now [via I think
MER, originally] - & now you have literally asked for it.
Another "faction" ....So here it is! My unpublished ramble
through history. Unedited etc...
I am a professional wildlife artist/illustrator/writer, now
born-again Christian & ex-new-ager/hippie/"road-to-the
east"/occultist/drug crazed loonhead etc!
Sincerely hoping you will read my rant, check it out where
ever possible - & rid your tortured mind of "religious"
stereotypes! Philip Snow
-------------
Hi Philip,
I suppose your response is exactly what I was looking for!
Someone from outside the choir! Please tell me why a
born-again Christian has been putting up with rkm rants. I'd
like to look at your "unpublished ramble" but my MSWord could
not open your file. Perhaps you could send as PDF?
yours,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 17:59:30 -0700
From: Alan
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
Yeah. Very good message. This has been my line for years. But no
one wants to do this, because (I think) doing it -- doing it well
and effectively -- requires some serious introspection and
self-criticism. Everyone recoils at confronting their own inner
monsters and skeletons. Which is perfectly understandable: it is
hard and uncomfortable work.
If you are serious about this you might consider starting by
responding to the material I sent you last January.
Sincerely,
Alan
-------
Hi Alan,
Sorry, I was too swamped at the time to look at your
material. I looked it over now. Interesting stuff. You
certainly did provide a response to my query at the time, i.e.
a 'characterization of the liberal mentality'. Perhaps we'll
get back to that thread one of these days.
In this current discussion, the issue is not to "cure"
liberals and conservatives of their neuroses. The issue is
about pursuing useful dialog - despite our various neuroses
and differences in beliefs. In this context then, we don't
necessarily need to face our inner monsters and skeletons.
cheers,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom" <>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 21:47:32 -0500
Thanks Richard; very refreshing. You'd think folks would see something so
obvious for themselves. For anybody who is already seeing things that way,
this is a nice validation.
I have to admit though that trying to listen to fascists, neo-nazis, rabid
Reaganites, and Straussian lobotomites does tend to give me a bit of a
headache now and then.
Seriously though, it is about confronting our own foibles and shortcomings
and it can't really be about anything else. Listening to others may be the
best mirror available to us.
-----------
Hi Tom,
Your comments are along similar lines to those of Alan, above.
Again, in the kind of dialog I'm talking about, it is OK that
we have foibles and shortcomings. Do we really think we'll
ever escape having them? They seem to be part of the human
condition. Ruling elites have foibles and shortcoming, and yet
they manage to work together well enough to run the world.
Collaboration is not about agreeing on everything, or about
being perfect, it is simply about learning how to work
together.
cheers,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 16:31:26 -0700
To: •••@••.•••
From: Dan Brook <>
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
Coincidentally, I just had an article of mine published
related to this very topic. Enjoy!---Dan
Open Our Ears: Listening for a Change
By Dan Brook
http://www.jewishmag.co.il/90mag/listen/listen.htm
------------------
Hi Dan,
Good article, thanks! You talk about "active listening",
which is an important skill. In your paper, you seem to be
focusing on the value of this skill for people in 'teaching'
roles (rabbis, counsellors, teachers, etc.). And you say:
We also need to realize that learning is always a cumulative
process, and so while whatever we may say to any given person,
at any given time, may not have any immediate discernable
effect, it may in fact sometimes have very positive
consequences which will manifest at a later time, even if we
may be unaware of it. Teachers already know that; everyday
political activists need to recognize this truism as well.
Our topics are indeed related, but not quite the same. You are
talking about situations where there is 'one who knows' and
'one who is learning'. In this context, 'active listening' is a useful
skill for the teacher to possess, the better to communicate
the lesson in terms the learner can relate to.
My topic is about the kind of listening that is useful when
none of us 'knows' the answers, and we need to work together
to find answers. And it's about the kind of listening that is
required for us to discover that we don't have the answers,
at least not answers that are acceptable to everyone concerned.
cheers,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: focuri vii <>
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
To: •••@••.•••
Dear Richard,
I think age is important, so I think that children are the
hope of this planet. If we can go around the education system
somehow, they will be able to listen and understand. But THEY
( I' mean...the establishment) know this! Last year I had the
idea of launching a space on the web paid by myself where
14-17 years old can store their own websites. The theme being
the globalization. Doing some research I found out that
Procter and Gamble (just one example) already sponsored
projects in schools about civic education and other global
issues!!! I have other examples too.
I want to say that for an adult is somehow hard to change his
mind mostly if he belongs to a class...but children are the
main target of the establishment and I discovered this by
myself! Also it's easy to fall into cynicism at an early age,
so it's very important to send a message of constructive
thinking not just opposition. Unfortunately the tons of
gadgets on the market are damaging youth minds. As always
money power is insidious mostly when is used by specialists!
Just telling the truth isn't enough it's important to have
solid strategy to pass the truth. Not a totalitarian one but
the truth that People must think. As Orwell shown in 1984 the
most dangerous weapon is the thinking.
As always I appreciate your extraordinary commitment
stefan bocioaca
---------
Hi Stefan,
Thanks for your message. I admire the work you are doing with
youth, supporting them in their creativity. I also see
children as the hope of the planet, but from a slightly
different perspective. On the one hand they inspire us with
hope, when we see their native joy, beauty, spontaneity,
creativity, and uniqueness. It reminds us that regimentation
is not the natural human condition. On the other hand, they
give us hope for the long-term future of the world - if we can
give them a sane world, they will be able to thrive in it.
But it is us who must give them a sane world. We cannot pass
that job on to our kids. Fortunately, we don't need to 'change
our minds' or escape from our 'class' in order to get on with
the job. We simply need to learn how to work together, which
requires dialoging together, which requires listening to each
other as people. We can do it; we're just not used to doing
it. The issue is collaboration more than it is truth. We can
build a barn together without agreeing on theology.
best regards,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "John Lowry" <>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 17:56:07 -0700
Richard,
Again I agree with what you say, but put it differently:
Birds fly. Fish swim. People talk. We all do so to fulfill
some vital life function - ours is collaboration.
The "fundamentalists" currently have the organizing edge
because we don't get that church and state are inseparable -
both deal with how we live.
Democracy has become our religion - where each person is
honored as a member of the group. Listening is the work of
this theocratic democracy. It is how we practice our faith.
Stay well,
John
---------
Hi John,
Are you talking about how things work or about how you'd like
to see them work? It seems to me that in a real democracy, we
would accept everyone as an "honored member of the group", and
listening would be "our work" as we "collaborate" - in dealing
dealing with the "vital life functions" of our society.
I don't, however, see these things operating today. I see
factions gathering unto themselves with little dialog, or
understanding, or listening, between them.
cheers,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Greg Coleridge
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 21:43:27 EDT
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
To: •••@••.•••
I appreciate these words.
Greg Coleridge
Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee
-----------
Dear Greg,
I'm especially glad to hear from you! As a conservative high
school student, I was invited to a weekend youth camp run by
the AFSC. It was my first serious exposure to non-mainstream
thinking, and a very mind-opening experience. Most important,
they weren't trying to indoctrinate us; they were helping us
to think for ourselves by considering other ways of looking at
things. I had a later experience, where I attended an AFSC
annual conference in San Francisco. I couldn't believe it, but
they had a panel composed of Israelis and Palestinians - and
they were engaging in useful dialog!
You folks at AFSC are way ahead of me as regards this
listening stuff. What I'm working on is how that kind of
dialog can enable a transformational movement and become the
basis of a liberated democratic society. I hope to hear more
from you.
all the best,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Blum
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 00:00:49 EDT
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
To: •••@••.•••
Richard,
Well, I just listened to you and I don't agree at all. I get
the opposing views to my politics every single day. I listen
to NPR and read the Washington Post, which is opposition
enough, but in addition both report a lot on people and groups
to their right (while ignoring the radical left). Something I
wrote for my newsletter (The Anti-Empire Report) a while ago
may be relevant:
"Preaching to the converted" ... "Preaching to the choir" ...
That's what speakers and writers and other activists are
repeatedly told they're doing; i.e., saying the same old thing
to the same old people, just spinning their wheels. But long
experience as speaker, writer and activist in the area of
foreign policy tells me it just ain't so.
From the questions and comments I regularly get from my
audiences, via email and in person, and from other people's
audiences where I'm in attendance, I can plainly see that
there are numerous significant gaps and misconceptions in the
choir's thinking, often leaving them confused, unable to
understand or see through the next government lie or shell
game, unknowing or forgetful of what happened in the past that
illuminates the present, or knowing the facts but unable to
apply them at the appropriate moment, vulnerable to being led
astray by the next person who offers a specious argument that
opposes what they currently believe, or think they believe.
As cynical as others or themselves may think they are, they
frequently are not cynical enough about the power elite's
motivations, underestimating the government's capacity for
perfidy, clinging to the belief that their government means
well and doesn't lie directly in their face; while others of
the choir are much too cynical, conspiracy theorists to a
ridiculous degree -- their inability to access my website at
any time must be the work of the CIA, they inform me; hardly
any political figure ever dies a natural death; any US policy
toward any country is based on oil (or some similar
manifestation of "vulgar Marxism").
In sum, with all of the above, their hearts may be in the
right place, but their heads need working on. And in any
event, very few people are actually born into the choir; they
achieve choir membership only after being preached to,
multiple times.
--------------
Hi Bill,
Of course I agree with you, and my own writing typically comes
from a similar perspective, although we might draw the line of
'appropriate cynicism' at slightly different places.
But again, I'm trying here to get us to look at a different
kind of dialog and a different kind of listening. Listening to
people, not media, and dialog about people's concerns, not
their political positions.
Let me share an experience, which I've mentioned elsewhere,
that illustrates what I mean. I was talking to a middle-class
couple at an airport, and the topic of politics came up. She
said, "He and I are at opposite poles; I'm a raving liberal,
and he's a strong conservative. We never agree on anything
political". So I asked him, "What is it you want from
politics?" His answer was, basically, "I want honesty and
integrity from politicians." I asked her the same question,
and she said, basically, "I want government to do a better job
for the people." So I said to both of them, "OK, you want
integrity and you want better service. I don't see any
disagreement." This caught them a bit off balance; for the
moment at least, they seemed to understand one another in a
different way than before.
yours,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Fred Burks" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 19:28:38 -0700
Right on, Richard! I'm very much in agreement with you!
Best wishes, Fred
Explore these empowering websites coordinated by Fred:
Every person in the world has a heart :
http://www.momentoflove.org
Revealing major cover-ups & working together
for the good of all:
http://www.WantToKnow.info -
Building a Global Community for All
http://www.gcforall.org
Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects
us all:
http://www.weboflove.org
Together, we are building a brighter future based on love and cooperation
Subscribe to Fred's email list of inspiration and education (one email per
week) by sending an email to •••@••.••• with "subscribe 1" in
the subject line. Subscribe to his list of insider information on deep
cover-ups (one email every two or three days) by typing "subscribe deep" in
the subject line.
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "John Bunzl" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:18:04 +0100
Hi Richard,
Very much appreciate and support your desire for a new
listening approach, and when reading your message, I
immediately wondered if you are familiar with Spiral Dynamics
Integral (http://www.spiraldynamics.net)? Essentially, this
describes a holarchy (evolution) of worldviews and shows how
human beings from all cultures - both individually and
collectively - tend to evolve through the levels of that
holarchy. Each more evolved worldview-level does not, however,
"replace" its predecessor but instead "transcends and
includes" it into a wider, deeper and more encompassing new
worldview.
Different people are, according to Spiral Dynamics, at
different levels in the holarchy and that accounts for their
disagreements and apparent inability to achieve any meaningful
consensus. But when one can identify where they're 'at' in the
holarchy, and one can see the holarchy as a natural part of
our cultural evolution, things start to make much more sense
and one can see why the disagreements are occurring and one
has some idea of why there is a blockage and what might be
needed to dislodge it!
But even knowing this will not necessarily result in you or I
immediately becoming more successful in our 'faction
building', for part of the dynamic of change is that there is
always stiff resistance to it. That's why change, if and when
it comes, is often sudden, cataclysmic and unexpected. In that
respect, those of us working for deep change cannot hope to
change minds en masse. We can only hope to lodge in the minds
of a relatively small but sufficient number of people a memory
of an available concept or idea (a "Meme") which, once the
threat of global catastrophe eventually looms large in the
minds of the broad mass of people (especially those in the
rich countries) and they become really desperate for a way to
avoid imminent melt-down, they might just perhaps remember
your concept and take it up in earnest instead of
substantially ignoring it as they do now.
Either way, 'faction-building' will always be a natural part
of the process. For without trying to build factions, you
cannot plant and propagate your Meme. Just as nasty viruses
spread by infecting more and more people, so beneficial Memes
need to spread in a similar way!
An even more encompassing 'Full Monty' explanation of all the
above which includes Spiral Dynamics is offered by Ken Wilber
in 'Sex, Ecology, Spirituality'. A much shortened summary is
offered by KW in 'A Theory of Everything'. But knowing you,
Richard, I'd imagine you'd be happier going for the Full
Monty....
all the best
John
[http://simpol.org]
-------
Hi John,
Nice to hear from you. You speak of the "dynamic of change"
and the necessity of faction-building as a natural part of
that process. If we look at the history of civilization, we
find consistent evidence for your perspective. For the fact is
that civilization has been the story of competing factions,
and competing elites, in a continual struggle for dominance,
within societies and among societies.
What I'm looking for is a way to escape from this pattern. I
do not think escape can be achieved by all of us becoming
enlightened first, because I see more forces pushing us away
from enlightenment than toward it. And I don't think we can
escape through the emergence of a dominant enlightened
faction, such as Cultural Creatives, because our political and
mass-propaganda systems are set up precisely to prevent such a
development.
In the end, I hope, Wilbur will turn out to be right - we are
entering a new, 'inevitable' age of human evolution. But it
will come true only if we make it happen. We need to accept
that we are OK as we are; we don't need to become different
people in order to build a better world. Of course most of us
feel that WE are OK in this way, but that THEY still aren't
ready. I suggest that this is an illusion, an illusion which
is fed by inadequate communication.
The meme I'm looking for is not a meme about right-policy, but
a meme about the possibility of collaboration.
looking forward to continued dialog,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Don Bethune
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: A message to all those who have "something to say"
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:45:23 +1200
Dear Richard,
While I empathise with the good intentions behind this
philosophical line, it also has a built-in handicap, thanks to
institutions that we should be able to trust as being pro-
humanity. We run stories in Electronz
[http://www.electronz.cjb.net/] from time to time which
highlight examples the blatant "Dumbing down of the public",
which starts well down in primary schools and continues right
through life.Thanks to news media "control".
Because of this, and the mental saturation with mythology on
many fundamental issues that a lot of people can neither see
clearly through , nor make 'helpful' suggestions about, which
are factually based. eg: We have a copy of a letter signed
by the NZ Finance Minister stating that banks only lend
deposits, and that if a government central bank created any
credit apart from notes and coins, it would initiate an
inflationary spiral and economic disaster. While these are
misleading fiction, people believing what the minister says
cannot be expected to make valid proposals in those areas,
which illustrates the invisible limitations that many if not
most people live under.
It is very relevant that in the Great Depression several new
political organisations came into existence and blossomed ,
based predominantly, not on expert opinions, but discussions
in the wide spread house or cottage meetings. This may in its
way be what you are proposing; but in the modern world most
community minded people are so "flat to the boards" that their
ability to find time to participate in such meetings is
definitely limited.
Regardless of that, keep up your good work, pushing forward.
Cheers. Don Bethune
-----------
Hi Don,
Yes, in your final paragraph you are getting to the theme I am
wanting to pursue here.
We may be "flat to the boards", but weren't conditions even
worse in the Great Depression? Why were people then able to
work together in creative ways? I don't think they were more
enlightened, and I don't think they had capabilities we lack
today. What they had was the understanding that no one was
going to help them and they needed to help themselves. Once
they realized that, they were able to do it.
I believe that we are in the same situation today. The
difference is that us frogs today are being slow boiled, while
back in the Depression, the frogs were thrown into boiling water
all of a sudden. We have been numbed to the nature of our
condition and don't respond as they did.
There is no one in power, or who could gain power, who is
going to help us. The political system, by its very nature, is
rigged against us. Once we realize that we need to save
ourselves - all of us together - we can begin the job.
cheers,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 21:28:33 +0800
To: •••@••.•••
From: Betty Daly-King <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say"
Richard,
A netpal and I were just writing about this. The thing is we
know what the antagonists think and where they are coming from
because they've got the mainline news medium to express their
point of view. Thank goodness for cyberjournals that by-pass
them.
Get a load of this! A friend from America told me once that
CIA funded peace action in USA. The Chart in Part II
graphically shows how peace action taps back to big power,
money groups. In Australia our peace groups struggle for
funds - pity. We could turn their dollars to better use,
couldn't we? Betty
http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/articles/30
http://scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00043.htm
Regulated Resistance, Parts I and II
By Charles Shaw
Editor newtopiamagazine.net
---
Dear Betty,
Who then are the "antagonists"? You say the media expresses
"their" point of view. Are you referring to conservatives in
general, or are you referring to the elites who run the media
and the government? If the former, then it is interesting that
conservatives consider the same media to be liberal biased. If
the latter, then I would tend to agree with you.
The words of Carolyn Chute come to mind:
It ain't left or right. It's up and down. Here we all are down
here struggling while the Corporate Elite are all up there
having a nice day!
As for manipulation of popular movements; that is to be expected.
The manipulation of factions is the means by which we are controlled.
all the best,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephanie McDowall
To: undisclosed recipients
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 4:53 PM
Subject: FW: A message to all those who have "something to say"
See Richard Moore's article below my musings.
Many times during each week as I read the emails which I
receive and scroll around the internet to my favorite sites I
wish I was much much smarter. I would like to be able to
remember everything I read, who wrote it and be able to
analyze with greater skill and come up with reasonable answers
or at least plans for actions that would solve the problems we
are all so concerned about. I have many friends who succeed
at this far better than I do.
As I read what Richard Moore wrote below I was thinking to
myself, well don't we all get an earful on a daily basis as
to what the other side is thinking through the media?
We don't though. The people who purport to represent the
other side are never really honest. Instead, they are busy
trying to manipulate all sides and they do not care about any
group except for an extremely small number of people who
happen to count.In the West this seems to be the
multi-nationals and the huge corporations.
The majority of the lower, middle, and upper middle classes do
not count a damn and neither does the lower upper. All are
expendable.
One of my friends is quite correct when he talks about class
and workers. The divisions that have been created amongst us
are all artificial.
How do we get people to recognize this? Someone tell me
please.
After we listen and understand where others are coming from
who think differently than we do ...then what? How do we find
the means to communicate with "the others" when we can't get
the editors of the media to give us any means of expressing
our views and hence communicating with the others?
Fear must be a motivating factor in all of this. Fear of
loosing what one has through higher taxes etc. Imagine if we
had a truly FAIR taxation system throughout the West.
Steph
------
Hi Steph,
Thanks for forwarding on the material
How do we get people to recognize that the divisions are
artificial? I suggest we can do that by demonstrating it, by
talking to people across those divisions. The means of that
communication is not going to be the media; that would be
counter to the purpose of the media. Personally, I believe the
place that communication needs to happen is in our own
communities, on a face-to-face basis.
cheers,
rkm
--
============================================================
If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website
(http://cyberjournal.org) or try out our low-traffic, moderated email
list by sending a message to:
•••@••.•••
You are encouraged to forward any material from the lists or the website,
provided it is for non-commercial use and you include the source and
this disclaimer.
Richard Moore (rkm)
Wexford, Ireland
"Escaping The Matrix -
Global Transformation:
WHY WE NEED IT, AND HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE IT ", old draft:
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/rkmGlblTrans.html
_____________________________
"...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the
suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the
Reichstag fire."
- Srdja Trifkovic
There is not a problem with the system.
The system is the problem.
Faith in ourselves - not gods, ideologies, leaders, or programs.
_____________________________
cj list archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj
newslog list archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog
_____________________________
Informative links:
http://www.indymedia.org/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/
http://www.greenleft.org.au/index.htm
http://www.MiddleEast.org
http://www.rachel.org
http://www.truthout.org
http://www.williambowles.info/monthly_index/
http://www.zmag.org
http://www.co-intelligence.org
============================================================
Share: