Re: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain’t where it’s at


Richard Moore


From: •••@••.•••
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:27:44 EDT
Subject: Re: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at
To: •••@••.•••

I disagree with your assessment of where Al Gore is coming from.  He 
wants nothing but to point out the environmental damage that is being 
done to this planet.  To ask for more of him is unrealistic!

I do agree with the sources you mention at the end, and I do agree 
that it is the responsibility of each  one of us to wake up!!! When 
and if we do, it will then be easy to turn things around----there are 
a great deal more of us than there are of 'them' !! That is where we 
need to concentrate our efforts!


Dear BE,

Thanks for writing.

Can you be so sure of where Al Gore is coming from? I can't be sure 
myself, what is in his plastic heart, but I'll point out a few things.

First, politicians, except for a few like Ron Paul and Cynthia 
McKenna, trade on their ability to lie (It's the same here in 
Ireland, in Britain, and in the EU). Basically, they are a form of 
con artist. That's their job: sell a program to the voters with a big 
smile. Clinton was a kind of archetype for that, and more Iraqis died 
during his regime than since the more recent invasion, and he sold 
out our sovereignty to NAFTA, while he pretended to be a 'liberal 
crusader'. For such reasons, I wouldn't believe anything Gore says. 
He might say true things sometimes, but that's incidental to his 
mission and to the truth. Whenever someone gets taken by a con 
artist, they usually tell the police: "He seemed so nice, so honest, 
so trustable." That's part of the art. That's the difference between 
a con artist and a simple thief.

Second, what's so wonderful about a documentary on global warming? Is 
there anyone in some remote region of the Bayou swamps who doesn't 
already know about global warming? Don't they watch the first-run 
movies? Don't they see any of the enviro-tv-docs or weather reports? 
I'd say Gore's film is an easy shot, an easy way to regain popularity 
among liberals by someone shamed by surrendering the Presidency 
without a fight to a fascist who had lost the election. He could have 
taken on something controversial, like the war in Iraq, but no, he 
chose a crowd pleaser.

Third, there is the obvious fact, at least as I see it, that Gore is 
launching his Presidential campaign with this film. The neocons are 
being dumped, it seems, by the 'realists' and they need a PR face to 
smile the smile and talk the talk while they consolidate the gains 
made under Bush. To me, that is what the film is about, pure and 
simple. The rest is colored bubbles.

Finally, Catherine is not saying we should expect more of Gore, 
rather she is saying we are fools (i.e., asleep) to expect anything 
of Gore, or of the political system as it operates.

that's how i see it,

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:08:38 -0500
From: Catherine Austin Fitts <•••@••.•••>
To:  •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at


Wow. Thanks for the plug.

I just put a review of your book up at my blog:
and I am personally encouraging the serious people in our network to read it.

More later. I am driving to Montana from California today,

In cahoots,



Hi Catherine,

Thanks so much for your help getting the word out about ETM. The net 
is a powerful vehicle for disseminating information, and it functions 
by means of thousands of 'quality filters' and 'spreading nodes'. I 
like the sound of 'the serious people in our network'.

please stay in touch,

ps> I'd like to recommend that people take a look at your website:

     The Solari Opportunity is to transform our world by
     withdrawing our deposits, purchases, investments and
     attention from banks, media, companies, and other
     institutions who are not acting in our best interests, and
     to shift them to activities led and financed by people
     aligned with our values...

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:27:58 -0700
From: "Christapher C. Cogswell" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at
To: <•••@••.•••>

Hi Richard,

Very glad to have connected you two! ;-)  She is a real force to be reckoned
with - and so are you!  Christapher


me glad too :-)

From: R
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:13:57 EDT
Subject: Re: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at
To: •••@••.•••


Much of the article is very good, but the author's comments about the 
gold standard are extremely debatable, to put it mildly. Just what we 
need, incentives for mining gold, one of the most polluting of the 
extraction industries. Also, though I haven't seen one of the movies 
she mentions. "From Freedom to Fascism," the following critique of it 
tells me it has some very serious problems and appears to be 
basically a radical right wing propaganda film. Finally, if FTW has 
problems with Scholars for 9/11 Truth, what are they? Do FTW people 
claim to be better scholars? On what grounds?



Hi R,

I'm not sure what to make of your comments. You seem to be picking on 
small points, points not central to Catherine's message, and I can't 
help suspecting this is symptomatic of a more fundamental discomfort 
on your part with the piece...'protesteth too much about too little'. 
I find myself wanting to identify and respond to that presumed deeper 
discomfort, rather than debate gold standards, right-wing films, and 
internal truth-movement squabbles. (I'm not in total agreement with 
Catherine, or anyone else, on every point, btw).

I think there is ample reason for many people to be uncomfortable 
with Catherine's essay. She is attacking liberalism -- attacking such 
beliefs as 'the system works', 'the system can be fixed'. She's 
implying that choosing between Dems and Repubs is a waste of time. 
She's asking us to 'wake up' to the fact that we must think outside 
of these boxes. It seems to me that dialog on these main points would 
be useful.

As regards FTW and Russo's film, I would say this. I have a friend 
who is one of those born-again types, thinks evolution never 
happened, thinks Bush is one of God's chosen, etc. Any attempt to 
expose her to contrary information is dismissed with a condescending 
laugh. If God said it, why be silly and question it? One might say 
she has a closed mind, has her head buried in the sand -- and is 
missing important stuff about the world that she shouldn't be 
missing. Liberals, on the other hand, typically pride themselves on 
being open minded. But are they? Do they not also have ways of 
avoiding exposure to certain kinds of information? Is their filter 
any more sensible than my friend's filter? Is their head any less 
buried in the sand? How can they be sure they aren't also missing 
things they shouldn't be missing?

I view FTW as a publication channel - a 'spreading node'. There are 
various contributors, with various messages. Some make sense and some 
don't. In that way it's like CNN, or BBC, except that one can find 
more useful information on FTW (and Rense and others), provided one 
uses judgement and selectivity there, just as one must also with CNN 
or BBC, or any other channel. You seem to be suggesting that we 
should count it against Catherine, that her piece went out over the 
FTW channel. And the FTW channel is to be dismissed, because you 
disagree with some of its editorial positions.  By that same 
standard, none of us should ever watch the news on CNN or BBC - talk 
about editors having trouble with Scholars for 9/11 Truth! Talk about 
questionable scholarship! (e.g., WMD's)

Why is it that the mainstream media survives the liberal's filter, as 
a useful channel, albeit taken with a grain of salt? Where's the 
consistency here? Isn't TV owned and controlled by self-serving 

I'm beginning to suspect that the filters of the bible-believer and 
the liberal may not be all that different. I'm beginning to think 
that both are about 'belonging to a group', 'conforming to a belief 
system', and 'not appearing foolish'. The same sociology stuff that 
operates on the school yard, and in the fashion magazines. If my 
friends would consider me a nut if I believed 911 was an inside job, 
then I won't look at any information that might tempt me -- I must 
not listen to Satan.

just some thoughts,

Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:53:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at
To: •••@••.•••

Hi Richard,

What are you hoping to accomplish in our lifetime by telling people 
not to see Gore's film and the like?


Hi new combat,

What I'm hoping to accomplish is to wake people up to the fact that 
the system cannot be repaired and must be replaced. Anyone who sees 
hope in Gore's film is clearly still asleep in a very dangerous way, 
a way that promulgates the world-destroying system. As a result of 
what I'm saying I hope people DO see the film, but that they are able 
to see through it, to glimpse between the frames, to see the man 
behind the curtain.



Escaping the Matrix website
cyberjournal website  
subscribe cyberjournal list     mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives      
   cyberjournal forum 
   Achieving real democracy
   for readers of ETM 
   Community Empowerment
   Blogger made easy