readers comments re: Reichstag 2001, writing projects


Richard Moore

Bcc: colleagues

From: "Makere Stewart-Harawira (FOA EDU)" <•••@••.•••>
To: "'Richard K. Moore '" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: The 9-11 cover-up - Reichstag 2001
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:59:45 +1300 

Kia ora Richard

Like many many of us, I have been bombarded with every
possible piece of evidence that has come to light since the
day when, beginning at what was 1.30am here in New Zealand,
I sat and watched the coverage on CNN News. I don't remember
now at what point it was that I watched the US president, or
should it be, pseudo-President, sitting in the classroom
after being told that planes had hit the World trade Centre
but I clearly remember my comment right then that clearly,
he already knew and that something was very, very, badly

I very much appreciate your introductory remarks to the
Bulletin that you just sent. Like everything else that comes
my way on this matter, it will be forwarded to all of my
contacts that I know are not already on similar lists.

As we say in Maori, kua tae te wa, the time has come indeed.
The greatest moment of choice perhaps that humankind has
collectively ever had to make. It has come to the point
that the survival of the planet itself depends upon our
willingness, our commitment, to speaking the truth at every
venue and in every forum, to refusing to allow this mockery
to proceed unchecked, and to making necessary sacrifices.

If there is a global war, this is it. This is the global war
against terrorism in which we are all, must all, be
participants. The war against humanity, the war against
truth and justice, the war against what can only be
understood as utter evil.

Thank you again Richard for your work.


Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 21:19:12 -0500
Sender: "Kevin A. Carson" <•••@••.•••>
From: "Kevin A. Carson" <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: RE: What next for rkm??


I would love to see a print collection of your articles
(maybe the ones catalogued at New Dawn), with "Escaping the
Matrix" as an introduction.  Or maybe you could take the
material in those articles and integrate it into the
framework of _Globalization and the Revolutionary

I've seen several things that tie in with your basic theme
in the last-named work.  One is a chapter in Harry Boyte's
_The Backyard Revolution_, which is documented with dozens
of articles from the business press in the early-mid 70s on
the impending capital shortage and the need for drastic
policy changes to shift resources from consumption to

I think one thing that sheds light on the shift in elite
thinking in the 1970s is Thomas Ferguson's _Golden Rule_. 
He argues for two competing elite factions in the 1930s: 
labor-intensive, domestic oriented industry (for which the
NAM was a good proxy); and capital-intensive,
export-oriented industry. The latter was the dominant
faction until the 1970s, and was the base of support for the
New Deal and the Bretton Woods system.  They supported the
Wagner Act because labor costs were a minor part of their
total costs, and they were willing to pay higher wages in
return for an agreement by which the union bureaucrats would
enforce labor discipline and let the managers manage. What
had been going on with the auto sit-downs and the West Coast
dockworkers' strikes, etc., had been a genuine revolution. 
The Wagner Act tamed this revolution and brought workers
under the control of people like George Meany. This kind of
dovetails with the Domhoff analysis of the New Deal (in _The
Power Elite and the State_, I think).

But by the 1970s, the faction of the elite that had backed
the New Deal had become institutionally tied to TNCs, and
ceased to think of themselves as American capital operating
overseas.  And ironically, it was the old NAM union-busting
reactionaries who appealed to an ersatz populism in fighting
the globalist assault on their protected domestic
industry--e.g. the textile industry's support for Pat

Regarding your exchange with Bill Blum on conspiracy:  what
you said about conspiracy being more likely because this is
a crisis time sounds a lot like Immanuel Wallerstein's
thesis about the rise of capitalism (it was imposed by
pre-capitalist elites to maintain their position as the old
manorial class system threatened to evolve into something
more egalitarian).  I don't know if you've read it, but
Hilaire Belloc's _Servile State_ arrives at a similar
conclusion from a distributist perspective.  (I am
forwarding, under separate cover, a chapter in a pamphlet of
mine that deals with these themes). I would mention also
that the concentration of power in centralized, hierarchical
organizations, with circulating and interlocking leadership
(as described by elite theory sociologists) makes conspiracy
more feasible.

I admit I am skeptical about active conspiracies to organize
events on a large scale, because they involve too much
complexity and too many participants--even with the
corporate press, there is just too much danger of discovery.
 But negative conspiracies are another matter.  As with the
_Day of Deceit_ scenario of Pearl Harbor, what happened on
9-11 didn't require large-scale organization of events.  All
it required was a few gatekeepers to keep the national
security community from responding effectively to an
expected attack (in much the same way that FDR needed only
Admiral McCollum and a few other hand-picked gatekeepers in
the high command to degrade the armed forces' ability to
forestall Pearl Harbor). For the most part, though, I think
the elite acts as it does because, given its conventional
wisdom, it can't imagine doing anything else.

Well, this is getting kind of long.  But your work has
really been helpful to me, and I wish you the best of luck
in getting it to a wider audience.