Dear RN list, Au. 26 Carl Chatski, a Renaissance network subscriber, sent us a message to express his strong disapproval of the last posting I sent out on the Y2K issue (Y2K: an opportunity). Carl's message provoked some interesting discussion between Paul Swann (who was quoted extensively in the "Y2K: an opportunity" posting), Richard and I so I have included excerpts from our exchange as well. First Carl's message: Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 18:17:00 -0400 (EDT) From: chatski carl <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: rn - Y2K: an opportunity I can not strongly enough express my dissaproval of this post. It is thoughtless, tasteless, proposes building trusting relationships with criminal organizations, glorifies business, and expounds appeal to authority. But now i get it. If I don't want to go to a concentration camp, overcome my "antipathy" to the nazis. ..<snip> On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Jan Slakov wrote: > ..... > From: Paul Swann <•••@••.•••> > ... > The article is a draft that will be revised and published in 'The Futurist' > (journal of the World Futures Society) in October...... The World Futures Society is a pro-corporate organization which is part of the problem not the solution. > >..Margaret Wheatley and Myron Kellner-Rogers are authors and > > consultants to business. O.K. . Dr. Wheatley's previous book, Leadership & the New > >Science, was recently named one of the 10 best management books ever, > >and it also was voted best management book in 1992 in Industry Week Excuse me "best management book", "Industry Week"????? > >.. again in 1995 by a syndicated management columnist. O.K. ...<snip> > Those of us who would prefer not to have a "techno-fascist" response to > crisis need to overcome any antipathy we might have towards groups such as > the police and the military, which would be responsible for imposing the > "techno-fascist" response, and build links and trusting relationships. HOw > exactly to do this, I'm not sure just now. Here I can make a contribution to you. I'll suggest how. You can become an informant, collaborator, snitch, member of a police sponsored community policeing effort. etc. You are also incorrect, the police and the military, are not responsible for imposing the "techno-fascist" response but are hired by corporations to do so. >.. There's an interesting lesson here about involvement that comes from > the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. ..<snip>.. Many lives were saved and > systems were restored at an unprecedented rate because people from all over > the community worked together > so well. Lives saved? systems? restored?? > > But there's more to this story. One significant player had been > excluded from the preparedness drill, and that was the FBI. Oh No They excluded the FBI !!!! ..<snip> > > The scenario of communities and organizations working together in new > ways demands a very different and immediate response not only from leaders > but from each of us. > We'd like to describe a number of actions that need to begin > immediately. lets be sure to invite Mansanto, Dow as well as the CIA and the FBI!! - Carl Paul Swann replies: From: "patriciaswann" <•••@••.•••> Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 00:59:32 +0100 Dear Richard & Jan, ...<snip> There seems to be considerable confusion about the connections between globalization and y2k, and I feel that it would be helpful to differentiate our concerns about these two issues, if we can. I'm opposed to economic globalization, to the extent that I'm hoping to attend the November conference in the Phillipines. I've studied the elite power structures, have gained some understanding of the monetary system and global economics, support Chomsky's analysis of politics and the media, have communicated with an ex-CIA mind controlled assassin for nearly two years and have no illusions about the 'intelligence' agencies and other law enforcement organizations, and have been active in the human rights field for several years. I know the time of day. In my view, y2k is something else. Yes, it's probable that the NWO manipulators will seek to make the most of the approaching y2k+euro chaos, which must seem like a godsend to those who would have a world government to back up their single global economy. There is of course a permanent need for vigilance and discernment. But there's more to this than globalization. The world is facing what _could_ amount to devastation, with huge loss of life and large scale environmental destruction. If what many analysts consider to be the most likely scenario materialises, we're in for a very rough ride indeed. As I see it, in circumstances such as this we have no option but to assume the worst (in terms of breakdowns in the social infrastructure) and act accordingly. For me this means helping prepare effective forms of economic and political organization that will hopefully meet the needs of post-y2k society. Given the short time available, it seems practical to concentrate efforts on creating alliances between NGOs and other civil society groups who at least have organizational and leadership structures that could be adapted to the situation. In this sense, the time for discussion about the value of grassroots alliances is past, and we now have a finite window of opportunity to take action on creating such alliances. If y2k turns out to be a damp squib, nothing will have been lost through our efforts and much may be gained in terms of building the kind of social structures that we envisage in a fair world. If we miss this opportunity it could be decades or centuries before we have another chance, and in my view this would be a sad waste. It's from this line of reasoning that I'm prepared to withold my usual projections onto _some_ people with military/corporate backgrounds who appear to be making the right noises on y2k. Perhaps I'm naive, but I feel that it's quite possible that the potential magnitude of y2k may give some people in these fields a kind of spiritual conversion experience that sets them off on a more altruistic path. I'm prepared to give such people the benefit of the doubt, rather than condemning them out of hand for their dubious backgrounds, and use my intuition to determine whether they're trying to lead me down the garden path. If things are as dire as some believe them to be, we will all have to rise above our prejudices and learn to work with people who in normal times we would probably not encounter. One thing's for sure - these are not normal times, and normal reactions are no longer appropriate. ..<snip> Regards, Paul Richard sent along some comments too: Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 18:01:56 +0100 From: •••@••.••• (Richard K. Moore) Subject: Re: Y2K Yes it [Y2K] should be taken seriously, and lots of people are doing so. I don't have any good ideas for overcoming it, nor is it precisely clear what the consequences will be. Lots of people claim there will be a major collapse of infrastructures, which could be true. Some people claim this will give us a chance to design a new enlightened society, which is absurd. Some people suggest we should begin organizing a strong civil society, which we should be doing anyway, to achieve democracy. Most likely outcome is military running things (martial law) and perhaps the whole thing used as an excuse to eliminate freedom of press, etc. When things get a lot worse, for this or many other causes, people will realize that "these were the good old days" in terms of political opportunity. rkm I would think all of us could agree most whole-heartedly with Richard's last statement. So much work to do, eh? - find ways to provide for our basic needs which are renewable, readily available and not easy for "the elite" to cut us off from (pretty big order, but much of the "Third (and Fourth) World" manages so there's some hope:-)! - build the supportive links with each other to make informal "non-governmental", enlightened governance a reality The prospect of "the military running things" after any kind of collapse scenario is a disheartening one. I think it is important to remember that "the military" includes human beings and that humans do have this wondrous potential for learning and changing.** Actually, I'm quite sure I read in Hannah Arendt's _Eichmann in Jerusalem_ how the Nazis who got sent to Denmark became "corrupted"; Hitler kept having to send in fresh replacements (and even at that most of Denmark's Jews were saved). Denmark's resistance was remarkably united and sustained. Another thing to do:-) Study the history of resistance and learn from it. (I think this is one of the things Richard intends to help us with in his _Globalization and the Revolutionary Imperative_ book.) all the best, Jan PS ** this wondrous potential for denial too :-(
