-------------------------------------------------------- From: "Marc Bombois" <•••@••.•••> To: "rkm" <•••@••.•••> Subject: denial Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:54:44 -0700 > "In the aftermath of 9-11 we can see how very determined US elites are to employ any means necessary in pursuit of their own designs on world domination during the endgame of the petroleum economy. They are introducing fascism at home and they have declared themselves above the law internationally. They have abandoned the last remnants of balanced coverage in their mass media, and now lie as blatantly as Goebbels ever did." Richard, I like the way you keep hitting the nail on the head. I've been trying to fathom why the elite are so successful. You'd think that people would be more outraged and put a stop to this blatant oppression and corruption. But we seem to be frozen in denial. Perhaps it's because people are basically good and socially we assume that others are too. I think the mistake that society is making is to extend this courtesy to the elite, to the point that most of us (?) are unable to consider the truth. So how do we break through this rigid denial? Is their anything we can do now or must we wait for total hopelessness? We have no qualms about demonizing the elite, but how can we get others to consider the facts? Struggling along, Marc Bombois ------------- Dear Mark, Your explanation for denial was once expressed by a famous person, one who qualifies as an expert on the matter: "The great masses of the people in the very bottom of their heart tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil...therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big." -- Adolph Hitler, as quoted by William Blum in "Rogue State, A Guide to the World's Only Superpower," p. 11. As I see it, we cannot begin to be effective until we accept total hopelessness. That is the starting point. As long as you have hope for making the prison better, then you are part of the prison. Only when you begin planning your escape do you make yourself part of the outside world. Which facts are useful for others to consider? This is a question that constantly plagues me. Like others, I publish 'revelations' about elite chicanery and I share behind-the-scenes news reports. I feel like that 'needs to be done'. But it's not enough. Those are 'little' facts. We need to somehow get people to look at the 'big' facts -- there is not a problem with the system, THE SYSTEM IS THE PROBLEM. Bob Ocegueda continues on your theme... rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:52:50 +0200 From: Bob Ocegueda <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: dialog Hi Richard, I just recently came across a quote in the MakeThemAccountable.com daily news summary that clarifies, for me, some of the reasons for the effectiveness of propaganda to immobilize the population. "Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all." -- Michael Rivero Thus, "we need to be in TOTAL DESPAIR & HOPELESSNESS. Only then can the new world germinate." works because we reach a point where we have more to loose by not being aware than by opening our eyes and seeing what is happening. It seems to me that we are rapidly approaching that time. Looking forward to that new day. Bob ----------- Dear Bob, Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that Rivero hits the nail on the head. The propaganda is too blatant and full of holes for 'lack of information' to be the cause of so many heads in the sand. rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: NGOs, Accountability & Democracy To: •••@••.••• From: •••@••.••• Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:50:26 -0400 Hi Richard, Just wanted to find out what your opinion is of the recently begun movement for a true Democracy in the U.S. Here is the link to it: http://ni4d.us/ Sincerely, Jeff --------- Dear Jeff, I followed the URL. Found this... > For the first time in history, Americans can vote electronically for a proposed law --- the National Initiative for Democracy. Philadelphia II, a nonprofit corporation, is conducting this national election, on behalf of Americans so that the people can empower themselves as lawmakers with procedures permitting citizens to legislate in every government jurisdiction of the United States, finally creating a government "by the people, with a de facto "Legislature of the People." > The Act establishes deliberative legislative procedures for the People and creates an administrative agency (the Electoral Trust) to implement those procedures on behalf of the People, independent of representative governments. In my view, these folks are sincere but they are going in entirely the wrong direction.. They're trying to come up with yet-another centralized regime, only this time they intend to avoid corruption. That's like trying to raise a Lion, but one that will never be hungry or want to kill. It's contrary to nature. They are thinking inside the box, and the box is unsalvageable. sorry, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- To: •••@••.••• From: Tom Atlee <•••@••.•••> Subject: re: Martin Rees' book OUR LAST CENTURY (in the US: OUR LAST HOUR) ---<snips ahead>--- ... as bad as nuclear weapons are, they require vast resources and technical capacity to produce,maintain and use. Although they can be stolen or made by trained, dedicated and resourceful terrorist groups, terrorist use of nuclear weapons would impact cities, not the entire planet. Only the hundreds of weapons in national arsenals could produce the global holocaust that would destroy civilization and bring about a deadly radioactive "nuclear winter." The same limitation, however, is not true of emerging developments in biotechnology, robotics, nanotechnology (the science of building objects -- including tiny machines -- atom by atom) and computing power. The new possibility presented by these rapidly developing -- and merging -- technologies is that within a few decades they could well empower INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS to intentionally or accidentally create and let loose highly destructive and, most importantly, SELF-REPLICATING entities -- real or mechanical life forms. Once the wrong self-replicating microbe or micro-robot goes forth and multiplies, it may be incredibly difficult to stop.... ...[Rees] offers a democratic suggestion: "No decision to go ahead with an experiment with a conceivable 'Doomsday downside' should be made unless the general public (or a representative group of them) is satisfied that the risk is below what they collectively regard as an acceptable threshold. It isn't good enough to make a slapdash estimate of even the tiniest risk of destroying the world."... -------- Dear Tom, You seem to be nominating these new technologies for the title of "Danger Most Likely to Kill Us Off". You may be right. And this particular danger seems to increase your own sense of urgency to find a solution. There's no harm in that. There is no way, however, that the "general public" will be permitted to decide about R&D projects under our current political system. That proposal is in the "If Only" category. Personally, I have no interest in debating which danger is the most threatening. We are surrounded by a host of dangers, any one of which will kill us off eventually. If we eliminated 80% of those dangers, my sense of urgency to find an overall solution would be undiminished -- we would still be living under life-threatening conditions. As Rees suggests, the solution to his specific problem lies in the direction of democracy. He is suggesting that the common sense of everyday people is superior to the decision processes that guide our current society. This is a view you and I both agree with. If we want to solve any of our problems, we need to find a way to create genuinely democratic societies worldwide. You and I, from our different perspectives, are each seeking a path to true democracy. Your path involves deliberative processes (Wisdom Councils and the like) within the current political system. I believe that path is not viable. Just like the "National Initiative for Democracy", you are thinking inside the box -- a box which is by its nature a prison and can never be anything else. --- The basic difference in our perspectives, I believe, has to do with our understanding of the role of elites. In particular, the relationship between elites and 'the system'. Above I have referred to 'the system' as a 'box' and as a 'prison'. To you and me and 'the rest of us' that is exactly what it is -- an imprisoning box. But to top elites it is not a prison but an instrument -- an instrument of mass imprisonment. When we attempt reform, we are trying to use the rules of the system to compel elites to give up some of their control over us. In many cases our actions are simply ineffective. In those cases where reform efforts begin to bear fruit, then elites simply change the rules. Like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. Just this morning I received a posting from Rachel's Weekly. The Subject line reads, "EXTREME THREAT TO CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS". As you no doubt know, class action lawsuits have been the most effective tool in attempts to go after corporations for pollution and other abuses. For decades this tool has been used, as memorialized in the film "Erin Brockovich" . New legislation, being pushed through Congress by 475 corporate lobbyists, will basically eliminate this tool. THAT IS HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS -- to empower elites and imprison the rest of us. Consider some of the postings you've sent out on your list recently, all of them about elites changing the rules: "Urgent petition on major attack on democracy" "Election Manipulation Info & Links" "Conservative attack on NGOs" "FCC ruling's potential electoral impact" And then there's the 9-11 Reichstag Fire, and the subsequent gutting of the US Constitution. In one fell swoop elites eliminated what many would consider to be history's greatest democratic achievement. YOU CANNOT WIN AGAINST THE QUEEN OF HEARTS - not when you play her at her own game. I am not offering you here any kind of brilliant analysis. I'm simply pointing out the obvious. Just as The Emperor Has No Clothes, so we can all see that Elites Cannot Be Tamed By Reform. Indeed Reform itself has become one of their major tools of oppression, in the guise of Free Trade and Market Forces. Reform -- changing the rules -- is THEIR GAME. If we want to make a difference, we've got to move outside the box, we've got to start playing OUR OWN GAME. --- I enthusiastically support your work because you are getting the word out about consensus, facilitation, and the emergence of collaborative synergy & community wisdom. I believe those are the empowering tools that can help us create our own salvation. They are the processes that enable us to create OUR OWN GAME. You are doing as much as anyone I know to promulgate these tools -- more power to you. I disagree about where these processes could be best applied, but so what? Neither you nor I will be in a position to determine how they are used -- when and if they catch on big time. That will be determined by other forces, and I hope those turn out to be the forces of true democracy -- spontaneous, bottom-up, non-hierarchical, community based -- and OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM. best regards, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: •••@••.••• Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:31:51 EDT Subject: Re: Not Roger To: •••@••.••• In a message dated 7/2/2003 , •••@••.••• wrote: > The popularity of Roger Moore's books and films -- in the midst of hyper patriotism and military conflict -- can be taken as a symbol of the doubt that must linger in their minds. >> Don't you mean "Michael Moore"? ---- > Yes of course. No, I think you meant Richard Moore. ------------- Dear Bill, Thank you sir. Yes, it'd give me great pleasure to give them doubt, to make them worry. But alas I don't show up on their radar. Blessings to you folks who put out books and films that actually get some wide circulation. all the best, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: •••@••.••• Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:53:28 EDT Subject: Re: Not Roger To: •••@••.••• On AOL forums a huge 85% is anti Bush Strange, polls saying 60% pro --------- Strange only if you think the system works as advertised on TV. If we see only a few 'strange' things, then perhaps we can dismiss them as anomalies. But when every day is filled with 'strange' things then we must re-assess our understanding of how the system really works. Mass-media published polls are an instrument of disinformation, not information. Disgusting but not strange. cheers, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: "John Bunzl" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: Localism, Consensus, and Transformation Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 08:54:19 +0100 Dear Richard and Tom, It's interesting to observe your exchanges on localism, hierarchy, etc. Is it not so that it is not a question of either local or global approaches but a question of both? And with respect to hierarchy, Richard, may I suggest that your apparent view that all hierarchy is always necessarily bad is incorrect. For do we not have to distinguish between 'dominator' and 'actualising' hierarchies? In the case of the former, that is what we have in the world today; i.e. an EXPLOITATIVE hierarchy (what I refer to in my book as "the quasi- dictatorship of global destructive competition"). But an actualising hierarchy (eg. atoms, molecules, cells, and so on upwards) is an ENABLING hierarchy; i.e. one where the lower orders benefit from the higher order cooperation. Similarly, the higher orders of the organism as a whole benefit from the diversity of its lower order parts. Your body would be another example. --<snip>-- [John goes on with references to Ken Wilbur and Elizabet Sahtouris, re: evolutionary biology.] John Bunzl - Director International Simultaneous Policy Organisation (ISPO) http://www.simpol.org -------------------- Dear John, Thanks, once again, for your dialog. I draw opposite conclusions from your examples. The organization of cells in the body is indeed ENABLING, but enabling of what? What is enabled is the coherent activity of the organism as-a-whole -- not the actualization of the individual cells. When cells do not serve an assigned function, they are removed from the body by the immune system or other enforcement mechanisms. The cells are then degraded into their constituent parts and recycled by other organisms in the environment. Cells are fodder for the benefit of the Greater Organisms, the Tops of the Food Chain. As a metaphor for society, the body represents totalitarianism. The subservience of the Individual to the needs of the State. "The Fatherland", "The Reich", "Holy Russia" -- these are the images of a Greater Organism, conjured up to inspire sacrifice and subservience by the individual to the needs of the Hierarchical Centralized State. --- I would select different examples from the literature on evolutionary biology. What is more interesting to me is the evolution of cooperation among autonomous organisms and species. The inter-dependence and cooperation between bee and flower, prey species and predator species, rain forest and resident species . This is all autonomous; it happens in the micro transactions; it is not hierarchical. And it leads to Gaia -- a vibrant non-hierarchical organism of organisms. There is a grand coherence to nature, an evolving fabric of interactions and mutual benefit. It is not a dog-eat-dog competitive jungle in the sense implied by Simplistic Darwinism. This is the beautiful insight of modern biology -- an insight known from childhood by every member of any aboriginal society. --- As I see it, you are confusing hierarchy with organization. Hierarchy is one form of organization. Voluntary collaboration is another. The pursuit of a strong UN is an attempt to find a solution in terms of still-more hierarchy. Voluntary collaboration among nations goes in a more non-hierarchical direction. SP seems to aim somewhere in between. Later in your comments you say: > Humans, through a process like SP, can intentionally and consciously decide to introduce simultaneous global governance to prevent destructive competition. And they can design constraints that do not restrict independence and freedom any more than is necessary to provide the benefits of cooperation... I would suggest a more positive vision. Instead of 'global governance to prevent destructive competition', I would talk about 'global liberation to enable productive collaboration'. Instead of 'designing constraints' I would talk about 'designing processes of collaboration'. Some external constraints on societies may be necessary, but we need to be very careful in defining them, and in thinking about how they would be enforced. The more constraints you set out, the more frequently enforcement would be required, and the greater the hierarchical apparatus. As I see it, the main constraint we need is a taboo against external interference in the affairs of any society. In support of that, I would suggest a related taboo against offensive armaments, and the ownership (direct or indirect) of property or resources by non-residents of a society. Those are the kinds of things I would like to see nations agree on -- and those are things that would serve the mutual benefit of national populations and national prosperity. But there is something missing here. Who is it that represents nations? Through SP you hope to enlist the power of popular political pressure, but ultimately it is official governments that would or would not make SP happen. The problem with this is that national governments do not represent the interests of their populations. They represent the interests of political and economic elites, domestic and international. Through a collaborative initiative like SP, national elites might hope to reshuffle the deck of geopolitical power -- but it would not be for the benefit of you and me. In order for SP to be transformative, the participating players need to be transformed first. A New Deal for national elites is not where it's at. When nations are democratic, then they can enter into useful collaborative arrangements with one another. Before that we will see only rearrangements in the Boards of Directors who run the world for their own benefit. --- I support your work because you are building international links and promoting thinking outside the box of currently imposed international structures. Your work inspires a sense of empowerment -- that collective voluntary action can SOMEHOW overcome hierarchical control (WTO, IMF, free-trade treaties). As I understand it, your current efforts are focused around outreach -- getting lots of people around the world to sign up to as SP subscribers. I presume the intention is to create a growing constituency that could be politically effective as a pressure group pushing for consideration of SP by governments. I would suggest an additional focus. Permit me to sketch a rough scenario. Let's assume that by now you have a few dozen (at least) staunch SP supporters in each of several nations. You announce a Mock Global SP Conference -- where your subscribers in each nation pretend to be their nation's official representatives. They caucus in each nation with the intent of sending a delegation to your global Mock Conference. Each caucus aims to bring to the conference proposals for the contents of the Simltaneous Policy. At the the global conference, the delegations sit down together to try to work out a consensus understanding of what should be the substance of the SP agreement. As you might predict, my process suggestion for these caucuses and conference would be along the lines of Dynamic Facilitation. I would foresee outcomes of such an undertaking that would advance SP's agenda and lead to other kinds of progress as well. Within the context of SP, the exercise would build solidarity in the organization and also help define the substance of the elusive SP agreement. From my perspective, the desirable outcome would be the promulgation of the consensus concept, regardless of any immediate objectives. yours, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 09:19:41 -0400 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Aaron Koleszar <•••@••.•••> Subject: Weapons of Mass Destruction Search Results Hi folks. this is peculiar... don't know how it works. 1. Go to: http://www.google.ca 2. Type: weapons of mass destruction into the search box. 3. Click on the button labelled "I'm feeling lucky" (not the "search google.ca" button) if you would prefer to skip these steps, just scroll down this email (the following website is displayed as microsoft's "This Website cannot be displayed" page) http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ ______________________________________________________ These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed The weapons you are looking for are currently unavailable. The country might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your weapons inspectors mandate. Please try the following: Click the "Regime change" button, or try again later. <http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1841198390/weaponsofmass-21> If you are George Bush and typed the country's name in the address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly. (IRAQ). To check your weapons inspector settings, click the UN menu, and then click Weapons Inspector Options. On the Security Council tab, click Consensus. The settings should match those provided by your government or NATO. If the Security Council has enabled it, The United States of America can examine your country and automatically discover Weapons of Mass Destruction. If you would like to use the CIA to try and discover them, click "Detect weapons" <http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/074325239X/weaponsofmass-21> Some countries require 128 thousand troops to liberate them. Click the Panic menu and then click About US foreign policy to determine what regime they will install. If you are an Old European Country trying to protect your interests, make sure your options are left wide open as long as possible. Click the Tools menu, and then click on League of Nations. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Head in the Sand section and check settings for your exports to Iraq. Click the "Bomb" button if you are Donald Rumsfeld. <http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000053W4Z/weaponsofmass-21> "Cannot find weapons or CIA Error" Iraqi Explorer ______________________________________________________ -- ============================================================================ There is not a problem with the system. The system is the problem. cyberjournal home page: http://cyberjournal.org "Zen of Global Transformation" home page: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ QuayLargo discussion forum: http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ShowChat/?ScreenName=ShowThreads cj list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj newslog list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog 'Truthout' excellent news source: http://www.truthout.org subscribe addresses for cj list: •••@••.••• •••@••.••• ============================================================================
Share: