Friends, Wow! I got more responses to this posting than any I can remember. The inspiration came into my head by itself, but in another sense it can be seen as an attempt to translate the ideas of harmonization into the language of those who are in the business, so to speak, of sharing their ideas with others. Harmonization is about listening to 'the others', connecting with them on a human level, and then approaching the problems of the day as a joint project. The important first step here is the listening part, and that's what I focused on in the posting. If we really listen, we will make the human connection - that's a natural human thing. And if we make the connection, we will naturally work on our problems together jointly - that's also a natural human thing. What gives this scenario problems is the fact that listening turns out to be very difficult for most of us. In addition, the way meetings (face-to-face) and forums (online) are usually set up, the focus is on issues and agendas, rather than deep listening and human connections. Such dialogs find themselves then dealing with conflicts among people's conclusions, rather than looking for agreements among their underlying concerns. I have not given up hope for harmonization within the context of online communications, but my experience so far - and what I've learned of others' experiences - indicates that the online context does not provide sufficient support to enable harmonization-style dialog. There's something about seeing people's faces, hearing their voices, and seeing their body language, that communicates important signals, perhaps emotional information, that can't be conveyed with written words. In addition, being in a dedicated place for a dedicated time adds a focus to people's attention, a continuity to their thought processes - and a shared spirit and energy - that isn't there when the same people, isolated, devote scattered moments of attention to a forum dialog. And even in the face-to-face context, an experienced facilitator seems to be required for the process to work. Harmonization is difficult not because it is unnatural to us as humans, but because it is counter to our current dominance-based, competitive culture. Nonetheless, for us now, it is difficult. So here we are in an online forum trying, ironically, to do something useful with these ideas. I'll try to keep 'harmonization' in mind as I comment in our dialog below. (Sorry, I wasn't able to get to all messages that came in.) --- But before we do that, I have a request: I want to include lots of links (URLs) in my book in the "Resources" section. What I'm looking for are sites that either corroborate material in the book (for skeptics) or that offer additional information regarding topics discussed in the book. The range of topics is broad, everything from pre-history to sociology to economics to current events, etc. Of course I've been busy with google, but if any of you have any favorite sites you'd like to recommend, please let me know! rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:57:52 +0200 From: Gabriel Pickard <> To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say" This is a good posting, i can very much encourage you down this line! greetings, Gabriel -------------------------------------------------------- From: "jack 2019" <> To: •••@••.•••: Subject: RE: A message to all those who have "something to say" Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 12:37:54 -0800 and those words were from a good heart. jimmy www.subbionic.com -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 15:50:35 -0500 To: •••@••.••• From: Cameron McLaughlin <> Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say" Unfortunately the opposing viewpoints are not held by open-minded people who are open to persuasion. We are dealing with ideologues who cling to their own beliefs and tune out anyone and anything that might threaten or challenge them. As they begin to awaken to the horror that is the reality of life in the US, they will cling even more tenaciously to those beliefs. Such is the psychopathology of conservatives, who tend to be rigid and lack the cognitive resources to process dissonant information. They tend to be completely uninterested in any position or worldview except their own. Such is the nature of the beast; and the beast is becoming increasingly vicious. I would like to think that listening is the answer, but sadly it isn't when those doing the talking will not listen in return--or when they insist on the intellectual equivalent of screaming to drown out any unwelcome ideas. --------------------- Hi Cameron, Thank you for your comment. I know exactly what you mean. When we try to persuade conservatives to change their beliefs, we get soundly rebuffed. I've noticed that as well. On the other hand, we must admit that conservatives have no better success getting us to change our beliefs. We might say that in our tenacity we are being well-informed, while in theirs they are simply being stubborn, but they might see it the other way around. Indeed, the way they seem to see it is that we have been brainwashed by liberal professors and the liberal media! We all have a good explanation for why 'the others' won't 'see the light'. The kind of listening I am suggesting we try is a different kind of listening, and in a different kind of dialog. You describe a debate scenario, and the kind of listening that occurs in debate dialog - 'listening to retort'. As I suggested above, such dialog deals with "conflicts among people's conclusions, rather than looking for agreements among their underlying concerns". I think a very common 'underlying concern', for people on all parts of the cultural spectrum, if we are honest, is a feeling of powerlessness. We may have different explanations for what oppresses us, we may even blame one another, but we all know in our hearts that we have little control over the conditions that control our lives, let alone over the course of society. In fact, one of the reasons liberals feel powerless is because of all those conservative voters, and visa versa. When we get together we immediately try to convert one another. If instead we could get down to the shared experience of powerlessness, we could have a different kind of dialog. "So you think we are the ones who have power? That's funny, I always thought it was you guys." I don't mean to focus on 'powerlessness' as being the archetypal shared concern. The point is that on the important things - quality of life, security of job, neighborhood safety, our family's health, world peace, etc. - we all really want the same things. Somehow we need to tap into that common core. There's something about our usual modes of dialog that prevents this. thanks again, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: "Philip Snow" <> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say" Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 22:57:33 +0100 Well, I have skimmed your stuff for some time now [via I think MER, originally] - & now you have literally asked for it. Another "faction" ....So here it is! My unpublished ramble through history. Unedited etc... I am a professional wildlife artist/illustrator/writer, now born-again Christian & ex-new-ager/hippie/"road-to-the east"/occultist/drug crazed loonhead etc! Sincerely hoping you will read my rant, check it out where ever possible - & rid your tortured mind of "religious" stereotypes! Philip Snow ------------- Hi Philip, I suppose your response is exactly what I was looking for! Someone from outside the choir! Please tell me why a born-again Christian has been putting up with rkm rants. I'd like to look at your "unpublished ramble" but my MSWord could not open your file. Perhaps you could send as PDF? yours, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 17:59:30 -0700 From: Alan To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say" Yeah. Very good message. This has been my line for years. But no one wants to do this, because (I think) doing it -- doing it well and effectively -- requires some serious introspection and self-criticism. Everyone recoils at confronting their own inner monsters and skeletons. Which is perfectly understandable: it is hard and uncomfortable work. If you are serious about this you might consider starting by responding to the material I sent you last January. Sincerely, Alan ------- Hi Alan, Sorry, I was too swamped at the time to look at your material. I looked it over now. Interesting stuff. You certainly did provide a response to my query at the time, i.e. a 'characterization of the liberal mentality'. Perhaps we'll get back to that thread one of these days. In this current discussion, the issue is not to "cure" liberals and conservatives of their neuroses. The issue is about pursuing useful dialog - despite our various neuroses and differences in beliefs. In this context then, we don't necessarily need to face our inner monsters and skeletons. cheers, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: "Tom" <> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say" Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 21:47:32 -0500 Thanks Richard; very refreshing. You'd think folks would see something so obvious for themselves. For anybody who is already seeing things that way, this is a nice validation. I have to admit though that trying to listen to fascists, neo-nazis, rabid Reaganites, and Straussian lobotomites does tend to give me a bit of a headache now and then. Seriously though, it is about confronting our own foibles and shortcomings and it can't really be about anything else. Listening to others may be the best mirror available to us. ----------- Hi Tom, Your comments are along similar lines to those of Alan, above. Again, in the kind of dialog I'm talking about, it is OK that we have foibles and shortcomings. Do we really think we'll ever escape having them? They seem to be part of the human condition. Ruling elites have foibles and shortcoming, and yet they manage to work together well enough to run the world. Collaboration is not about agreeing on everything, or about being perfect, it is simply about learning how to work together. cheers, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 16:31:26 -0700 To: •••@••.••• From: Dan Brook <> Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say" Coincidentally, I just had an article of mine published related to this very topic. Enjoy!---Dan Open Our Ears: Listening for a Change By Dan Brook http://www.jewishmag.co.il/90mag/listen/listen.htm ------------------ Hi Dan, Good article, thanks! You talk about "active listening", which is an important skill. In your paper, you seem to be focusing on the value of this skill for people in 'teaching' roles (rabbis, counsellors, teachers, etc.). And you say: We also need to realize that learning is always a cumulative process, and so while whatever we may say to any given person, at any given time, may not have any immediate discernable effect, it may in fact sometimes have very positive consequences which will manifest at a later time, even if we may be unaware of it. Teachers already know that; everyday political activists need to recognize this truism as well. Our topics are indeed related, but not quite the same. You are talking about situations where there is 'one who knows' and 'one who is learning'. In this context, 'active listening' is a useful skill for the teacher to possess, the better to communicate the lesson in terms the learner can relate to. My topic is about the kind of listening that is useful when none of us 'knows' the answers, and we need to work together to find answers. And it's about the kind of listening that is required for us to discover that we don't have the answers, at least not answers that are acceptable to everyone concerned. cheers, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:44:36 -0700 (PDT) From: focuri vii <> Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say" To: •••@••.••• Dear Richard, I think age is important, so I think that children are the hope of this planet. If we can go around the education system somehow, they will be able to listen and understand. But THEY ( I' mean...the establishment) know this! Last year I had the idea of launching a space on the web paid by myself where 14-17 years old can store their own websites. The theme being the globalization. Doing some research I found out that Procter and Gamble (just one example) already sponsored projects in schools about civic education and other global issues!!! I have other examples too. I want to say that for an adult is somehow hard to change his mind mostly if he belongs to a class...but children are the main target of the establishment and I discovered this by myself! Also it's easy to fall into cynicism at an early age, so it's very important to send a message of constructive thinking not just opposition. Unfortunately the tons of gadgets on the market are damaging youth minds. As always money power is insidious mostly when is used by specialists! Just telling the truth isn't enough it's important to have solid strategy to pass the truth. Not a totalitarian one but the truth that People must think. As Orwell shown in 1984 the most dangerous weapon is the thinking. As always I appreciate your extraordinary commitment stefan bocioaca --------- Hi Stefan, Thanks for your message. I admire the work you are doing with youth, supporting them in their creativity. I also see children as the hope of the planet, but from a slightly different perspective. On the one hand they inspire us with hope, when we see their native joy, beauty, spontaneity, creativity, and uniqueness. It reminds us that regimentation is not the natural human condition. On the other hand, they give us hope for the long-term future of the world - if we can give them a sane world, they will be able to thrive in it. But it is us who must give them a sane world. We cannot pass that job on to our kids. Fortunately, we don't need to 'change our minds' or escape from our 'class' in order to get on with the job. We simply need to learn how to work together, which requires dialoging together, which requires listening to each other as people. We can do it; we're just not used to doing it. The issue is collaboration more than it is truth. We can build a barn together without agreeing on theology. best regards, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: "John Lowry" <> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say" Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 17:56:07 -0700 Richard, Again I agree with what you say, but put it differently: Birds fly. Fish swim. People talk. We all do so to fulfill some vital life function - ours is collaboration. The "fundamentalists" currently have the organizing edge because we don't get that church and state are inseparable - both deal with how we live. Democracy has become our religion - where each person is honored as a member of the group. Listening is the work of this theocratic democracy. It is how we practice our faith. Stay well, John --------- Hi John, Are you talking about how things work or about how you'd like to see them work? It seems to me that in a real democracy, we would accept everyone as an "honored member of the group", and listening would be "our work" as we "collaborate" - in dealing dealing with the "vital life functions" of our society. I don't, however, see these things operating today. I see factions gathering unto themselves with little dialog, or understanding, or listening, between them. cheers, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: Greg Coleridge Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 21:43:27 EDT Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say" To: •••@••.••• I appreciate these words. Greg Coleridge Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee ----------- Dear Greg, I'm especially glad to hear from you! As a conservative high school student, I was invited to a weekend youth camp run by the AFSC. It was my first serious exposure to non-mainstream thinking, and a very mind-opening experience. Most important, they weren't trying to indoctrinate us; they were helping us to think for ourselves by considering other ways of looking at things. I had a later experience, where I attended an AFSC annual conference in San Francisco. I couldn't believe it, but they had a panel composed of Israelis and Palestinians - and they were engaging in useful dialog! You folks at AFSC are way ahead of me as regards this listening stuff. What I'm working on is how that kind of dialog can enable a transformational movement and become the basis of a liberated democratic society. I hope to hear more from you. all the best, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Blum Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 00:00:49 EDT Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say" To: •••@••.••• Richard, Well, I just listened to you and I don't agree at all. I get the opposing views to my politics every single day. I listen to NPR and read the Washington Post, which is opposition enough, but in addition both report a lot on people and groups to their right (while ignoring the radical left). Something I wrote for my newsletter (The Anti-Empire Report) a while ago may be relevant: "Preaching to the converted" ... "Preaching to the choir" ... That's what speakers and writers and other activists are repeatedly told they're doing; i.e., saying the same old thing to the same old people, just spinning their wheels. But long experience as speaker, writer and activist in the area of foreign policy tells me it just ain't so. From the questions and comments I regularly get from my audiences, via email and in person, and from other people's audiences where I'm in attendance, I can plainly see that there are numerous significant gaps and misconceptions in the choir's thinking, often leaving them confused, unable to understand or see through the next government lie or shell game, unknowing or forgetful of what happened in the past that illuminates the present, or knowing the facts but unable to apply them at the appropriate moment, vulnerable to being led astray by the next person who offers a specious argument that opposes what they currently believe, or think they believe. As cynical as others or themselves may think they are, they frequently are not cynical enough about the power elite's motivations, underestimating the government's capacity for perfidy, clinging to the belief that their government means well and doesn't lie directly in their face; while others of the choir are much too cynical, conspiracy theorists to a ridiculous degree -- their inability to access my website at any time must be the work of the CIA, they inform me; hardly any political figure ever dies a natural death; any US policy toward any country is based on oil (or some similar manifestation of "vulgar Marxism"). In sum, with all of the above, their hearts may be in the right place, but their heads need working on. And in any event, very few people are actually born into the choir; they achieve choir membership only after being preached to, multiple times. -------------- Hi Bill, Of course I agree with you, and my own writing typically comes from a similar perspective, although we might draw the line of 'appropriate cynicism' at slightly different places. But again, I'm trying here to get us to look at a different kind of dialog and a different kind of listening. Listening to people, not media, and dialog about people's concerns, not their political positions. Let me share an experience, which I've mentioned elsewhere, that illustrates what I mean. I was talking to a middle-class couple at an airport, and the topic of politics came up. She said, "He and I are at opposite poles; I'm a raving liberal, and he's a strong conservative. We never agree on anything political". So I asked him, "What is it you want from politics?" His answer was, basically, "I want honesty and integrity from politicians." I asked her the same question, and she said, basically, "I want government to do a better job for the people." So I said to both of them, "OK, you want integrity and you want better service. I don't see any disagreement." This caught them a bit off balance; for the moment at least, they seemed to understand one another in a different way than before. yours, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: "Fred Burks" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say" Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 19:28:38 -0700 Right on, Richard! I'm very much in agreement with you! Best wishes, Fred Explore these empowering websites coordinated by Fred: Every person in the world has a heart : http://www.momentoflove.org Revealing major cover-ups & working together for the good of all: http://www.WantToKnow.info - Building a Global Community for All http://www.gcforall.org Strengthening the Web of Love that interconnects us all: http://www.weboflove.org Together, we are building a brighter future based on love and cooperation Subscribe to Fred's email list of inspiration and education (one email per week) by sending an email to •••@••.••• with "subscribe 1" in the subject line. Subscribe to his list of insider information on deep cover-ups (one email every two or three days) by typing "subscribe deep" in the subject line. -------------------------------------------------------- From: "John Bunzl" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say" Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 10:18:04 +0100 Hi Richard, Very much appreciate and support your desire for a new listening approach, and when reading your message, I immediately wondered if you are familiar with Spiral Dynamics Integral (http://www.spiraldynamics.net)? Essentially, this describes a holarchy (evolution) of worldviews and shows how human beings from all cultures - both individually and collectively - tend to evolve through the levels of that holarchy. Each more evolved worldview-level does not, however, "replace" its predecessor but instead "transcends and includes" it into a wider, deeper and more encompassing new worldview. Different people are, according to Spiral Dynamics, at different levels in the holarchy and that accounts for their disagreements and apparent inability to achieve any meaningful consensus. But when one can identify where they're 'at' in the holarchy, and one can see the holarchy as a natural part of our cultural evolution, things start to make much more sense and one can see why the disagreements are occurring and one has some idea of why there is a blockage and what might be needed to dislodge it! But even knowing this will not necessarily result in you or I immediately becoming more successful in our 'faction building', for part of the dynamic of change is that there is always stiff resistance to it. That's why change, if and when it comes, is often sudden, cataclysmic and unexpected. In that respect, those of us working for deep change cannot hope to change minds en masse. We can only hope to lodge in the minds of a relatively small but sufficient number of people a memory of an available concept or idea (a "Meme") which, once the threat of global catastrophe eventually looms large in the minds of the broad mass of people (especially those in the rich countries) and they become really desperate for a way to avoid imminent melt-down, they might just perhaps remember your concept and take it up in earnest instead of substantially ignoring it as they do now. Either way, 'faction-building' will always be a natural part of the process. For without trying to build factions, you cannot plant and propagate your Meme. Just as nasty viruses spread by infecting more and more people, so beneficial Memes need to spread in a similar way! An even more encompassing 'Full Monty' explanation of all the above which includes Spiral Dynamics is offered by Ken Wilber in 'Sex, Ecology, Spirituality'. A much shortened summary is offered by KW in 'A Theory of Everything'. But knowing you, Richard, I'd imagine you'd be happier going for the Full Monty.... all the best John [http://simpol.org] ------- Hi John, Nice to hear from you. You speak of the "dynamic of change" and the necessity of faction-building as a natural part of that process. If we look at the history of civilization, we find consistent evidence for your perspective. For the fact is that civilization has been the story of competing factions, and competing elites, in a continual struggle for dominance, within societies and among societies. What I'm looking for is a way to escape from this pattern. I do not think escape can be achieved by all of us becoming enlightened first, because I see more forces pushing us away from enlightenment than toward it. And I don't think we can escape through the emergence of a dominant enlightened faction, such as Cultural Creatives, because our political and mass-propaganda systems are set up precisely to prevent such a development. In the end, I hope, Wilbur will turn out to be right - we are entering a new, 'inevitable' age of human evolution. But it will come true only if we make it happen. We need to accept that we are OK as we are; we don't need to become different people in order to build a better world. Of course most of us feel that WE are OK in this way, but that THEY still aren't ready. I suggest that this is an illusion, an illusion which is fed by inadequate communication. The meme I'm looking for is not a meme about right-policy, but a meme about the possibility of collaboration. looking forward to continued dialog, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: Don Bethune To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: RE: A message to all those who have "something to say" Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 22:45:23 +1200 Dear Richard, While I empathise with the good intentions behind this philosophical line, it also has a built-in handicap, thanks to institutions that we should be able to trust as being pro- humanity. We run stories in Electronz [http://www.electronz.cjb.net/] from time to time which highlight examples the blatant "Dumbing down of the public", which starts well down in primary schools and continues right through life.Thanks to news media "control". Because of this, and the mental saturation with mythology on many fundamental issues that a lot of people can neither see clearly through , nor make 'helpful' suggestions about, which are factually based. eg: We have a copy of a letter signed by the NZ Finance Minister stating that banks only lend deposits, and that if a government central bank created any credit apart from notes and coins, it would initiate an inflationary spiral and economic disaster. While these are misleading fiction, people believing what the minister says cannot be expected to make valid proposals in those areas, which illustrates the invisible limitations that many if not most people live under. It is very relevant that in the Great Depression several new political organisations came into existence and blossomed , based predominantly, not on expert opinions, but discussions in the wide spread house or cottage meetings. This may in its way be what you are proposing; but in the modern world most community minded people are so "flat to the boards" that their ability to find time to participate in such meetings is definitely limited. Regardless of that, keep up your good work, pushing forward. Cheers. Don Bethune ----------- Hi Don, Yes, in your final paragraph you are getting to the theme I am wanting to pursue here. We may be "flat to the boards", but weren't conditions even worse in the Great Depression? Why were people then able to work together in creative ways? I don't think they were more enlightened, and I don't think they had capabilities we lack today. What they had was the understanding that no one was going to help them and they needed to help themselves. Once they realized that, they were able to do it. I believe that we are in the same situation today. The difference is that us frogs today are being slow boiled, while back in the Depression, the frogs were thrown into boiling water all of a sudden. We have been numbed to the nature of our condition and don't respond as they did. There is no one in power, or who could gain power, who is going to help us. The political system, by its very nature, is rigged against us. Once we realize that we need to save ourselves - all of us together - we can begin the job. cheers, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 21:28:33 +0800 To: •••@••.••• From: Betty Daly-King <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: A message to all those who have "something to say" Richard, A netpal and I were just writing about this. The thing is we know what the antagonists think and where they are coming from because they've got the mainline news medium to express their point of view. Thank goodness for cyberjournals that by-pass them. Get a load of this! A friend from America told me once that CIA funded peace action in USA. The Chart in Part II graphically shows how peace action taps back to big power, money groups. In Australia our peace groups struggle for funds - pity. We could turn their dollars to better use, couldn't we? Betty http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/articles/30 http://scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00043.htm Regulated Resistance, Parts I and II By Charles Shaw Editor newtopiamagazine.net --- Dear Betty, Who then are the "antagonists"? You say the media expresses "their" point of view. Are you referring to conservatives in general, or are you referring to the elites who run the media and the government? If the former, then it is interesting that conservatives consider the same media to be liberal biased. If the latter, then I would tend to agree with you. The words of Carolyn Chute come to mind: It ain't left or right. It's up and down. Here we all are down here struggling while the Corporate Elite are all up there having a nice day! As for manipulation of popular movements; that is to be expected. The manipulation of factions is the means by which we are controlled. all the best, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: Stephanie McDowall To: undisclosed recipients Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 4:53 PM Subject: FW: A message to all those who have "something to say" See Richard Moore's article below my musings. Many times during each week as I read the emails which I receive and scroll around the internet to my favorite sites I wish I was much much smarter. I would like to be able to remember everything I read, who wrote it and be able to analyze with greater skill and come up with reasonable answers or at least plans for actions that would solve the problems we are all so concerned about. I have many friends who succeed at this far better than I do. As I read what Richard Moore wrote below I was thinking to myself, well don't we all get an earful on a daily basis as to what the other side is thinking through the media? We don't though. The people who purport to represent the other side are never really honest. Instead, they are busy trying to manipulate all sides and they do not care about any group except for an extremely small number of people who happen to count.In the West this seems to be the multi-nationals and the huge corporations. The majority of the lower, middle, and upper middle classes do not count a damn and neither does the lower upper. All are expendable. One of my friends is quite correct when he talks about class and workers. The divisions that have been created amongst us are all artificial. How do we get people to recognize this? Someone tell me please. After we listen and understand where others are coming from who think differently than we do ...then what? How do we find the means to communicate with "the others" when we can't get the editors of the media to give us any means of expressing our views and hence communicating with the others? Fear must be a motivating factor in all of this. Fear of loosing what one has through higher taxes etc. Imagine if we had a truly FAIR taxation system throughout the West. Steph ------ Hi Steph, Thanks for forwarding on the material How do we get people to recognize that the divisions are artificial? I suggest we can do that by demonstrating it, by talking to people across those divisions. The means of that communication is not going to be the media; that would be counter to the purpose of the media. Personally, I believe the place that communication needs to happen is in our own communities, on a face-to-face basis. cheers, rkm -- ============================================================ If you find this material useful, you might want to check out our website (http://cyberjournal.org) 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 "Escaping The Matrix - Global Transformation: WHY WE NEED IT, AND HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE IT ", old draft: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/rkmGlblTrans.html _____________________________ "...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. _____________________________ cj list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj newslog list archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog _____________________________ Informative links: http://www.indymedia.org/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/ http://www.greenleft.org.au/index.htm http://www.MiddleEast.org http://www.rachel.org http://www.truthout.org http://www.williambowles.info/monthly_index/ http://www.zmag.org http://www.co-intelligence.org ============================================================