re-2: Fitts & Gore


Richard Moore

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:22:49 -0400
From: Meredith Tupper <•••@••.•••>
To:  •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at

RIGHT ON, RIGHT ON, RIGHT ON!!!  The questions 
are quite similar to ones I am asked by well 
meaning but generally clueless people.  Your 
answers are superb.  Well done!



Hi Meredith,

Thanks for your note. Glad you found the posting useful.

I don't like to refer to anyone with a term like 
'clueless', partly because of all the times when 
I've been the clueless one.  You say that people 
ask you questions. That's a start, that's dialog. 
That's better than a situation where people 
'never talk about religion or politics'. In a 
face-to-face situation, it often works better to 
be the one asking the questions, rather than the 
one giving out answers. If you can get someone to 
elaborate on their 'clueless' ideas, and you 
listen attentively, they'll be more likely to 
listen to what you have to say, and you'll be 
better informed about where they're coming from. 
But you probably already know that. ;-)


From: "Claudia Woodward-Rice" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:53:40 -1000

Hi Richard-

While I don't disagree with you at all, I do 
think there is more to our quandary than you 

Most people are "asleep" and if they bother to 
vote at all, they see it as a popularity contest. 
I think this is why we have so few people worth 
voting for on the ballot too.  The requirements 
of the activity, such as it has become, are made 
for folks like Clinton.  Gore is probably a 
better version, but he is from the same 
world-view: stuck in conventionality, too worried 
about describing the situation to look for any 
causes, and probably too timid to effect any 

Of the 6 billions people we have to co-exist 
withŠ..the vast majority are simplistic, easily 
led, and frozen in the headlights of life.  All 
of us who notice the economic scams killing the 
planet are just not enough to make any difference 
UNLESS we are gifted with a charismatic clear 
thinker/speaker who can evoke the common good as 
a worthwhile goal.  (History has given us a few. 
They're usually slaughtered.  One wonders if the 
NSA is busy strangling them in their cradles even 

But it really doesn't do much good to attack 
those who can at least define symptoms. It is the 
first step to diagnosis- which Catherine has done 
very eloquently. I've sent her article all over 
the place, and I'm sure plenty of others have 
too.  Her main message was about hopelessness. 
We must choose to reject it and soldier on.



Hi Claudia,

One can wake from a dream, and find oneself in 
yet another dream -- dreams within dreams. There 
are many layers to the onion, and many red pills. 

      "The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's
       profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the
       illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just
       take down the scenery, pull back the curtains, and you will
       see the brick wall at the back of the theater."
       -- Frank Zappa

Do you really see hope in the election system? In 
one of my chapters I look into our party 
electoral system, and at the origins of the 
system in the Constitution. This is by no means 
original, but the conclusion I come to is that 
the system -- even working at its best -- is 
designed, and functions, to support rule by 
elites. That's how it has always functioned 
historically, and that's what the US Founding 
Fathers, for example, had in mind. They said so 
explicitly. And it's not just America, it's the 
same in the other 'democracies', and the same 
thing was true way back in the Roman Republic, 
before the days of the Empire. And yet each time, 
all around the world, we blame ourselves, as 
voters, for the outcomes. We keep hoping the 
dream of democracy will become real 'next time', 
when we'll be 'better organized' and people will 
be 'better informed'. It ain't never gonna happen 
folks. Never has. Never will. We need to wake up 
from this trance, this 'veil of light' of false 

Are you sure the vast majority of people are 
simplistic? And are you sure we want a 
charismatic leader? I can see that the two ideas 
go together. If we're mostly simplistic, then a 
strong leader gives us some hope for salvation. 
But in my experience people aren't simplistic. I 
doubt if you would consider most of your close 
friends to be simplistic. Partly that would be 
because you've selected your friends, but it 
would also be because you've gotten to know them. 
People appear to be simplistic if our only 
exchanges with them are superficial, particularly 
if we already disagree with them on important 
issues. One of the most central ideas in my book 
-- and I learned this from Tom Atlee and the 
folks he introduced me to -- is that there are 
better ways to engage in dialog, deeper ways, and 
that when those ways are followed no one is any 
longer seen by anyone else as being simplistic. 
Instead we come to realize that we are more the 
same than we are different, and that there is a 
bit of wisdom in everyone.

Looking for a leader is a declaration of 
powerlessness. It is an affirmation of being 
simplistic -- sheep in need of a shepherd. That's 
one of the reasons why Christianity, with its 
message about 'needing salvation', goes hand in 
hand with empire and elite rule. Are you a sheep 
in hope of greener pastures, under a wiser 
shepherd? You'll get what you deserve, and be 
duly fleeced. When there are sheep waiting to be 
led, the staff of shepherd is typically seized by 
the strong and ambitious -- seldom do the wise 
and virtuous get their hands on it.

We are dreaming that we are sheep. We can tell we 
are dreaming, because when we look around we 
don't see each other, we see instead a herd (the 
simplistic ones). We are conditioned to believe 
that society is made up of 'the citizen' and the 
'the state'. As 'citizen' we make up our 
individual mind and we vote, and then everything 
else is handled by the state. A society made up 
of 'citizens' -- anonymous individuals -- is a 
herd, and the state is its shepherd. The dream of 
being sheep is part of the trance of false 

We need to wake up from our sheep dream, and 
remember our true nature as free people. We are 
descended not from meek pasture animals but from 
bold primates. Bold, but highly cooperative and 
interdependent. Our nature is not to be one of a 
grazing herd, but to be a unique contributing 
member of an organized social unit. Our success 
as a species came not from our capacity as 
individuals, but from our combined, synergistic 
capacity as part of an organized and cooperative 
group. What bound us together was not the 
authority of a state, but mutual benefit and a 
strong sense of belonging, as an equal, to what 
can be thought of as an extended 'family' -- 
where each is concerned for the welfare of all, 
and everyone is expected to carry their own 

If we want to wake up from being sheep, and find 
our empowerment as free and self-governing 
people, we need to find a way to re-create strong 
community at the local level -- communities that 
have a sense of what they're about, and where 
everyone's voice is heard. Such communities give 
power and voice to each of us, as individuals, in 
a way that anonymous 'citizenship' never can. And 
such communities are capable of having a voice in 
the larger society, unlike an anonymous 

Pursuing strong community represents a radical 
shift, indeed a paradigm shift, in what we 
understand by 'effective activism'. Protests, for 
example, work against community -- by affirming 
that power rests in the state, and by drawing us 
away from community and into special-interest 
groups. Identifying with causes or political 
parties divides society into camps, Us vs. Them. 
Strong community is based on inclusiveness -- not 
special-interests but on the interests of the 
whole community, of each and every member. When 
everyone's voice is heard, then everyone has a 
reason to identify with their community, to 
participate in its process, to support its shared 
objectives -- and to experience a sense of 
belonging and empowerment that is absent in a 
herd society.

In two of my chapters I talk about some of the 
tools and processes that are available for 
pursuing strong community. Where these approaches 
have been tried, the results have been very 
promising, surprisingly so even to the 
organizers. Simply by participating in 'deep 
dialog', and without any agenda or political 
context, people have come out with a sense of 
empowerment and community, and they have 
spontaneously characterized their experience with 
the phrase "We the People". But so far there has 
not been (that I know of) a persistent effort to 
use these approaches on an ongoing basis in any 
community. As I see it, this is where we can find 
the leading-edge of activism, of societal 
transformation, and of the next stage in human 

best regards,

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:21:01 -0400
To: •••@••.•••
From: Judyth <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at

Given the propagandists who seem to run the 
American media machine, I can't help thinking 
it's a good thing when a politician with some 
degree of ex-officio credibility takes the 
message to the public that global warming is a 
real problem and needs real solutions which will 
only come when everyday people put everyday 
pressure on the politicos to stop messing around 
and do something constructive.


Hi Judyth,

Sorry to excerpt your message, but you summed up 
your main points very neatly in the one paragraph.

I can understand your optimism here, and I have 
felt that as well from politicians in the past. 
But as I've watched the follow-through, over 
time, I've learned to evaluate with a somewhat 
cynical eye. I can never forget, for example, how 
LBJ campaigned on the basis of keeping us out of 
Vietnam. In the case of Gore, we need to remember 
that he is still part of the power community -- 
he is not like a Jimmy Carter, pursuing good 
works as a retired outsider. Gore is still an 
important player for the Democrats, either as a 
candidate or as a campaign speaker. We need to 
keep in mind that he was a supporter of NAFTA and 
the sanctions against Iraq, and that he rolled 
over in the illegal 'election' of Bush. He's a 
team player, and he's not on our team. We need to 
take these things into account in assessing what 
his 'good works' are likely to indicate.

Up to now the official US position on global 
warming has been outright denial -- "Warming? 
What warming?". This has created a growing 
political tension, a situation where an 
increasing number of people want to see the 
absurd position changed. This creates the 
opportunity for a classic political maneuver, the 
old 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis' trick. First 
a problem is acknowledged (global warming: the 
thesis). Then we are offered a 'solution' to that 
problem, and later we find that the solution 
accomplishes other things for 'them', while not 
solving the original problem.  Nonetheless, this 
maneuver relieves the political tension and leads 
people to believe 'something is finally being 
done.' We can see already that the maneuver is 
beginning to work -- based on enthusiasm for the 
film -- even before there have been any changes 
in legislation or policy.

'Doing something bold about global warming', and 
similar 'progressive initiatives', would be a 
very good focus for a Democrat campaign. It would 
help avoid real issues, such as the Patriot Acts, 
Diebold machines, DU weapons, aggressive warfare, 
and the loss of sovereignty to globalization. 
What would we eventually get as a 'solution'? I 
don't know but it wouldn't be anything like what 
is needed, which would include among other things 
an end to the paradigm of economic growth. We 
might get things like taxes on commuters, 
subsidies for hydrogen cars (which only displace 
the problem to hydrogen factories), and most 
likely a resurgence in the development in nuclear 
power -- which has just recently become official 
policy in the UK.

beware of Greeks bearing gifts,

Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:01:20 -0400
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
From: Allan Balliett <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at

My question is this: why didn't he do a film on 
voting machines or on polling station 
manipulation? If not the first film, why is he 
not promising that now? Why the hell are we going 
silently into the not so good night this fall, 





Escaping the Matrix website
cyberjournal website  
subscribe cyberjournal list     mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives      
   cyberjournal forum 
   Achieving real democracy
   for readers of ETM 
   Community Empowerment
   Blogger made easy