subscriber comments


Richard Moore

From: "Robert E. Reynolds" 
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: some good news from the Supreme Court...
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:39:40 -0400

I realize that most of the media is playing this as a victory
for civil rights, but is it?

The administration had two victories:

l. The Court upheld the right of the president to declare
prisoners as enemy combatants and hold them without trial
subject only to the prisoner filing an action to prove he was
not an enemy combatant. --<snip>--

2.  They deferred the most important case, Padilla until after
the election on a technicality created by the Dept. of
Justice.  --<snip>--

I'm afraid I don't see this as a victory, but rather as
another step down the road to a dictatorship.

bob reynolds, orange park fl

From: "Sharon Coxen" 
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The transformational imperative and we the people
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 19:30:24 -0700

Dear Richard,

At the heart of your proposal for transformation lies a single
fundamental principle - that we as humans must take
responsibility....for ourselves thus ultimately each other.  
You have addressed this well from the perspective of 
communities and nations.  Please take this one step further to
the local of local levels and share the personal
transformations that also must take place to facilitate the
whole .

Kind regards,


Dear Sharon,

I'm not sure which personal transformation you have in mind.

My own view is that that there is no personal transformation
that needs to precede social transformation. Indeed, that's
one of the main points I was trying to make in that last
chapter. There's nothing in our current psychological make up
that prevents us from cooperating to build a new world. What
is lacking is the application of appropriate processes /
gatherings in which we can learn to listen to one another, and
realize that everyone is part of 'us' and has a contribution
to make. In learning to take responsibility for self
governance, personal transformations will occur--but they
do not need to occur in advance, and they are very unlikely
to occur in advance. 

There are many people, particularly those who strongly
emphasize Gaia consciousness, who believe that people
generally need to undergo a profound personal transformation
of consciousness before humanity will be ready to enter a new
age. I see that as the equivalent of blaming an animal for
being in a zoo because it has failed to have a personal
transformation. Domination and exploitation are not the core
of human nature, but are rather a corrupted version of human
nature. In our hierarchical societies the elites at the top
have power, and power corrupts. We do not need to change
human nature to address this problem, we need only
eliminate positions of power in our societies.


From: "John Bunzl" 
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The transformational imperative and we the people
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 09:47:02 +0100
X-Priority: 3

Hi Richard!

Thank you for another very interesting, well-written and
thoughtful essay.

As I was reading your comments about hierarchy, I wondered
whether you had read Ken Wilber's "Sex, Ecology,
Spirituality"? (or his shorter "A Theory of Everything").
These would, I think offer an alternative view which you might
find quite useful.

Also, take a look at the work of Elisabet Sahtouris which you
might also find helpful.

One of the key problems with our movement, I feel, is its
phobia about hierarchy. It needs to realise that not ALL
hierarchies are bad and that, rather, you can have "dominator"
(bad, oppressive, unsustainable) hierarchies just as you can
have "actualising" (healthy, stable, nurturing) hierarchies
or, as some call them, "holarchies". It's only the DOMINATOR
hierarchies we need to fight, not ALL hierarchies! If we try
to fight ALL hierarchies we miss the point, and thus we'll
continue, I think, to miss our target of transformation.

When one has an understanding of actualising
hierarchies/holarchies, one can start to see the mutual
(though apparently paradoxical) link between smallness and
bigness, between larger scales of cooperation FACILITATING
greater small-scale autonomy, and so on. Without such an
understanding, our movement will, I suggest, remain prey to
what Wilber calls "boomeritis" and "flatland".

Look forward to your comments.
all the best


Dear John,

I am familiar with the notion of holarchies and of mapping
self-actualizing biological models onto society. I think those
are interesting ideas, but I find them a bit fuzzy, and I
don't think they reflect an adequate understanding of
political dynamics. Indeed, none of those authors seems to pay
much attention to political science. Since as far back as the
first Sumerian civilization, some 6,000 years ago, there have
been attempts by self-actualizing leaders to reform dominator
hierarchies into actualizing holarchies. It has never lasted.
A non-dominator political hierarchy turns out to be an
unstable system configuration. It's like a top set spinning on
a slanted table--you can put it up there all right, but it
will eventually fall off.

I remain convinced that the path to democracy and
sustainability, if one exists, must lie in the direction of
non-hierarchy. By non-hierarchy, I mean that there can be no
institution of authority, no group of people who are empowered
to make decisions on behalf of others. In the chapter
"Democracy, localism, and sustainability" I will try to show
that non-hierarchical systems are possible, that they can deal
effectively with large-scale issues, and that they can be
expected to remain stable over time.  The two URL's below show
an earlier (1999) attempt to explore those ideas.

best regards,

 From: J Fadiman
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 03:28:19 EDT
Subject: Re: William Greider reports on the coup...
To: •••@••.•••

nice item- passed it on to better lists than mine.
let their heads roll ( off their necks)

( and of course love, peace and compassion for all living

 From: "Patrick Hickey" 
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: William Greider reports on the coup...
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 05:25:09 -0700
X-Priority: 3

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the very interesting information!  I will save it
in my files.

 From: Evelyn
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 15:36:50 EDT
Subject: Re: Beware the Liberal War On Terror
To: •••@••.•••

I don't think I mentioned it before, but I am going to the
Democratic Convention as a Delegate. It MIGHT give me the
opportunity to question motives further, and to see how far  
what has been said is "politics", how much is rhetoric on the
part of the news media, which chooses, many times to either
report poorly, or to tuck away news and views in obscure
corners. It should be a most interesting experience.


Evelyn - let us know what happens - rkm

From: "Butler Crittenden, Ph.D." 
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Beware the Liberal War On Terror
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:37:37 -0700
X-Priority: 3

      rkm> "Personally, I make the choice not to send in an absentee
        ballot. I'd rather protest the charade of democracy than
        exercise my little difference against Bush. But I respect
        those whose logic pushes them into electoral seriousness. And
        I must admit to inconsistency: I do vote here in Ireland
        because it seems more real in a smaller society. But I must
        admit the system is fundamentally the same or even worse
        here--all control is centralized in Dublin, including the
        police force."

Richard, the time has come to re-think eschewing
your vote in the U.S., even assuming you'd get
your absentee ballot from California, which is seen
as a safe state for Kerry.

Like many others, I've considered not voting, voting
for a third-party candidate, and writing-in your name
-- all to avoid voting for Kerry or Bu$h. I'm still not
likely to vote for Nancy Pelosi or whomever of the
peas-in-a-pod California Democrat senators is up for
re-election -- so disaffiliated I am from mainstream
Democrats. But if I can hold my nose and vote for
Kerry, in hopes that his election can be the beginning
of regime change in the U.S., then so can you. If you
can stand the inconsistency of Ireland, then gut up
and stand the inconsistency of the U.S.

I don't think very many of us on your list see voting
as "electoral seriousness". Surely we all know that
at this point in American history voting is a highly
delusional activity -- where we pretend it makes a
difference. The hard, endless, often thankless work of
formulating new ideas and convincing others to think
about necessary changes, or at least new approaches,
is what we can take seriously. But the irony of voting
is that occasionally it makes a difference regarding 
the hard work you're all about, and the reason we 
love you so and listen to you. Don't let us down now.




Sorry, I don't see Kerry as a regime change but rather as a
regime consolidation. He challenges neither the War on
Terrorism, nor the Patriot Acts, nor the general policy of
imperialism.  His platform seems to be mainly that he can
pursue these agendas more competently than Bush. While Bush
remains President, we progressives can view the fascist
innovations as being an aberration brought in by the radical
neocons. Once Kerry gets in those innovations will gain
considerable legitimacy, given that someone who supports them
has received an electoral mandate.

best regards,

 From: "Abati" 
To: <•••@••.•••>
Cc: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Beware the Liberal War On Terror
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 13:11:22 -0500

Do hear Bill Moyer's recent talk?

Please get current, so the info. you disseminate will be
accurate and on-point.  If real objectivity is your goal.

Go:  Click Archives select June 22, 9 pm,
"Voices At Work".  FF appox. 16 min. into the show.

I doubt U will want to save this and or pass it on; but just
in case I'm wrong: What solutions do you propose, to address
and reverse the Program of The Treasonist Junta in control of
the rains of government and the mightiest war machine on the




Thanks for the Moyers update.

I don't think the general direction being pursued by the junta 
can be changed without a total transformation of civilization. 
That's why I'm working on my current book.


 From: •••@••.•••
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 17:10:52 EDT
Subject: Re: Beware the Liberal War On Terror
To: •••@••.•••

all sensible as usual and the larger picture is that Kerry is
no answer but it is a slowing down of the worst of it.

But not to vote is a vote for Bush- pure and simple.  Not
always, not in general but right now this time. A vote of
Nader is a vote for Bush. A non-vote a vote for Bush,. that's
why the Bush people are helping Nader get onto the ballot in
Swing states. They understand that you're being turned off to
he process is a big win for their agenda.  It worked last

Assuming you're still registered in California -it won't
matter in terms of the national electoral vote count, but it
is a strong statement and one I'd like you to rethink. no one
will give a damn about your not voting except that it is a
very strong part of the Republican way to win elections. We
know that a dirty election turns off voters, but when the
Republicans know that their base won't be turned off, it is a
very successful way to lower turn out which always favors the

You are a real voice now to your list and well beyond.
Consider that while every vote doesn't count, every intention

With Kerry in, the left can begin to do more than fight
desperate fight after desperate fight. In a hundred years it
won't matter but then again neither will you.

with affection always  Jim



If we are realistic, I think it is clear that Kerry will win
by a considerable margin. "Fahrenheit 9-11" will contribute a
lot to that, as will the covert campaign by Intelligence and
Pentagon insiders to discredit Bush and the neocons, as
reported by Greider and others, and as launched by the release
of the staged torture photos. The Nader vote will be
electorally insignificant, but the larger it is the louder
will be the expression of general disgust with the mainstream
parties. If I was going to vote in this election, it would probably
be for Nader.

we each must do what we need to do,

 From: "Butler Crittenden, Ph.D." 
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Pat Buchanan interviews Nader
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 10:55:56 -0700
X-Priority: 3

So, Ralph f'ing Nader is cozying-up to Pat Buchanan. I wonder
if Pat is part of the program to get Nader on the ballot in
swing states, and assure that enough RumpUgly bucks flow
Nader's way, in a dirty trick to help Geo f'ing Bu$h get
reelected. Lamentably, Nader has his head screwed on straight
but is totally blind and doesn't care if he costs the Dems the
election -- AGAIN!

"TAC: Is there any circumstance in which you can come to an
arrangement with Kerry campaign not to run?

"RN: The time to drop out is before you drop in. You cannot
build a national campaign and get tens of thousands of
volunteers working their hearts out and then in October feed
the cynicism of American politics by cutting some sort of
deal. The answer is no."

Lest anyone get confused, here's a block of articles from the
most recent "The American Conservative".
---<snip of articles showing how misinformed conservatives are>---


Butler, hello again,

Emotions are evidently riding high. I appreciate you sharing
that aspect of your sentiments.

Do you really blame Nader for Bush's victory? After what
happened in Florida and the Supreme Court?

From my perspective, and with no disrespect, I see your
judgement, like Jim's, as being clouded by undue fear. Bush
isn't going to win. His administration has pissed off too many
people in high places and he's become a liability to the
establishment. We have no reason to allow ourselves to be
herded by fear into the corral of the mainstream parties.
There is safe room for those with a radical analysis to vote
for someone who is attempting to offer a radical alternative.

Without undue fear, I don't think you'd be quite so quick to
imagine a diabolical conspiracy behind Nader's attempt to find
common ground among diverse constituencies. It is only by
finding common ground between left and right, black and white,
men and women, etc., that we can hope to create a democratic
society. It is divisiveness that enables elites to rule. As
long as progressives think in terms of defeating the right
then they are trapped in an adversarial game that only elites
can win.

warm regards,


If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website
( 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
    "...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.
"Zen of Global Transformation" home page:

QuayLargo discussion forum:

cj list archives:

newslog list archives:
Informative links: