more dialog re Fitts, Russo, “R”, liberals, etc…


Richard Moore

From: J
To: "'Richard Moore'" <•••@••.•••>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:17:20 +0100

Thought the dialogue and your responses on the Jane Austin Fitts 
piece on Gore were excellent ...and very diplomatic.  The feedback 
does demonstrate just how deeply entrenched the matrix is in some 
apparently enlightened individuals.  I'm coming more and more to the 
view that the best way (perhaps the only way) to attack the soft 
underbelly of the matrix is by a thorough re-visiting of the history 
of the past century and exposing it as it truly is. Much energy is 
being expended by enlightened individuals attempting to second guess 
what the Money Power are presently up to - will be up to next - when 
a big, concerted effort to clearly define exactly how they got us 
here would be hugely more enlightening for We the people.

I'm not suggesting that dialogue around questions such as, 'What do 
you think is going on?' aren't important, but your discussions some 
time ago with Korten, which to me were the most important and 
significant of all, just seemed to peter out with little further 
added. There is and always has been a path out there and all that's 
needed for We the people to see it, walk it, is that it be cleared 
and exposed. Clearing that path, inch by inch, of the deliberately 
created Matrix camouflage laid over it in the past 150 years is 
absolutely crucial - and can be done.


Hi J,

I agree with you about the importance of 'clearing the path' of 
recent history. People's model of history -- even if they don't think 
they have one -- largely determines how they interpret the meaning of 

Consider 911 for example. When that event occurred, I was aware of 
three things: First, there had never been a terrorist attack by 
foreigners on American soil, nor would such an attack make any sense. 
Second, every war in which America has been involved was enabled by 
either a faked or arranged 'incident' (Tonkin Gulf, Pearl Harbor, 
etc. etc.). Third, the mainstream media has always enthusiastically 
collaborated, wittingly or not, with these deceptions. Given that 
awareness, or mindset, and seeing the amazing collapsing towers on 
TV, I immediately suspected: "This looks like our Reichstag Fire". 
The early announcements that "It was Al Qaeda" only encouraged this 
suspicion, as it seemed far too early to be sure what happened, if it 
had really been a terrorist attack, catching everyone totally by 

If one was not aware of the consistent 'incident' pattern in US 
history, that gives one quite a different mindset. Given that 
mindset, and seeing what appears to be a totally unprecedented and 
shocking event, there is no reason not to assume that TV is telling 
us what really happened. When Al Qaeda is named, that seems to add 
substance to the charge of terrorism, it suggests that hard evidence 
has been found.

 From a psychological point of view, first impressions are extremely 
important. That creates the 'mental set' which colors how we see 
things subsequently. With my mental set, I continued to notice clues 
of an inside job, and when real evidence started emerging, I was 
ready to look at it with an open mind. Someone with the other mental 
set, soaking in the initial TV explanation, would be noticing instead 
additional 'evidence' of terrorism, and when suggestions of 'inside 
job' came along, they'd think the people were deranged conspiracy 
theorists: it would be silly to look at that evidence seriously.


I would like to spend less time talking about 'What do you think is 
going on?', and more time on moving forward with the ideas in ETM: 
developing empowered communities. People have responded favorably to 
the book, but I don't know of any who have responded with initiatives 
based on the ideas.

My theory is that the the book will bear real fruit -- of the 
initiative variety -- when it comes to the attention of some group of 
'concerned citizens' in a community. It doesn't matter what they're 
concerned about, but if they understand the ideas in the book they 
might be tempted to pursue a 'harmonization' approach to furthering 
their concern. Finding a facilitator and a bit of fundraising would 
not be particularly difficult tasks, compared with other kinds of 
concerned-citizen campaigns.


As for my responses being 'diplomatic', that seems to be in the eye 
of the beholder. 'R' was not happy with my comments, although we are 
now resuming dialog. (See below).

thanks for your message,

Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:17:51 +1200
From: A
To: "Richard Moore quaylago" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: re your reply to -R on the Al Gore film thread - powerfully well put!!

I don't write to you often, as you know - you're wonderfully busy and 
don't need more help from me. But I can't resist telling you how much 
I appreciated the clear direct and to-the-point manner of your reply 
to -R on the "Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at" 
thread.  Very very well put. I wish I had managed that sort of 
clarity of expression in replying to people who criticised and were 
"put off" by the documentary film "The Controlling Interest" on the 
role and function of the multinational corporations made by 
California Newsreel in the late seventies (- '78?)  The "liberal" 
crowd didn't "like" it, and had similar - or at least analogous - 
responses. All on peripheral and minor points,  with some red 
herrings tossed in between as well --- because they were extremely 
discomfited, to put it mildly, by the major message and thrust of 
that film. ( Durkheim was it ? - who sugested that the class position 
one holds in a culture tends to determine, or at least has a lot to 
do with, the perspective one has on local and world events? My memory 
of 'details' grows dimmer, as I age, and my overall view gets much 
sharper. I wonder what comes next ?!! )


Hi A,

Interesting that you mention 'Controlling Interest'. I rented that 
film when it came out and showed to the folks at a hi-tech research 
center. In that case, they responded favorably. The word 
'globalization' hadn't come along yet -- the film was well ahead of 
its time, and its style was very good -- much better than Michael 
Moore, though not nearly as well promoted. I wonder if they've 
produced an update?


I've also noticed the pattern: "peripheral and minor points,  with 
some red herrings tossed in between". This seems to be 'looking for 
an excuse to dismiss'. I also notice that people can adamantly deny 
that they are being dismissive. In addition, many seem to resent 
being labelled a 'liberal'. R, for example, responded like this:

        Give me a break, Richard. First, I started out by saying
     that much of the article was "VERY GOOD".  Did I need to
     make additional positive statements of gushing praise to
     make it clear that I meant what I said? My comments amounted
     to what was intended and should have been understood as a
     strong compliment followed by challenges on a just a few
     points, though ones the author clearly regarded as

I believe these remarks are entirely sincere. Indeed they may be 
honest at a deep level -- I can't see inside R's head. But since we 
aren't identifying R -- and with sincere apologies to R -- I'm going 
to go with my gut diagnosis: The urge to dismiss is being suppressed 
above, and what we see is an unconscious attempt at rationalization. 
One indicator of this is the strong defensive tone (methinks thou 
doth protesteth too loudly).

If we look back at R's original message, we see one phrase in praise 
("Much of the article is very good...") followed by "but", and a 
paragraph of objections. The objections are indeed "peripheral and 
minor points,  with some red herrings tossed in between", and they 
are also rather strongly worded. If someone were to read those 
objections first, they would be likely to conclude that Catherine's 
piece isn't worth looking at, because it is tainted by very 
misleading material. I can't help interpreting this as dismissive 
behavior, albeit unconscious.

Why did R, assuming my diagnosis is right so far, feel the need to 
dismiss Catherine's article?  Let's explore your theory on this: His 
"class position" caused him to be "extremely discomfited" with what 
she had to say.

                    Discomfited: uneasy or perplexed

What did she have to say? Catherine's primary message was that the 
system is run by a bunch of gangsters, and that Gore is a willing and 
deceitful accomplice -- a gangster in progressive clothing. It is 
easy to see why someone could be perplexed by this message if (a) 
they believe that our only hope lies in reforming the system, or (b) 
they believe that their livelihood is tied up with the continued 
operation of the system. Both of these things would seem to be true 
for a great many middle-class liberals and progressives.

And yet, if such people are well-informed, they also know that much 
of what Catherine says makes sense. This creates an internal conflict 
that makes one even more perplexed and uneasy. One can either make 
the leap -- swallow the red pill -- and consider Catherine's main 
message seriously, or else one feels a need to take the blue pill: to 
somehow put these perplexing ideas out of ones mind. By grasping on 
to minor defects, one can then dismiss the article by, "It's a mixed 
bag -- better to move on to more solid material". And, to avoid 
discussion of the perplexing central issues which have some grain of 
truth, one can precede the dismissal with: "Much of the article is 
very good...".


R continues:

       Second, where the hell do you get the idea that I'm a
     liberal? That's insulting and ignorant. I've never
     considered or called myself a liberal. I'm a radical, which
     means in part that I don't hesitate to question anything and
     everything that strikes me as deserving of being questioned

This brings in a different line of discussion. No longer are we 
dealing with psychological speculation, but rather with definitions: 
What is a liberal? What is a radical?

My understanding of a 'radical', in the context of the political 
spectrum, is someone who believes that the system needs to be 
radically changed -- and that reform is a waste of time. Such a 
person may generally have an open mind, but about their radical 
position they have made up their mind. They are largely 'committed' 
to some line of reasoning and some set of conclusions. (btw: radicals 
can be very dismissive of contrary theories from other radicals).

My understanding of liberals is much more difficult to pin down. I 
think "don't hesitate to question anything" is a fairly central 
principle of liberalism. The big thing is always to be open minded, 
never doctrinaire, always hip, never to be hoodwinked by a snake-oil 
salesman, never to be committed to believing something that might be 
disproved.  We might note that liberalism had its origins in the 
Enlightenment, in the rejection of the divine authority of the Church 
and the Crown. Liberalism is about 'open reason' being better than 
'belief in doctrine'. That's a good starting point, but if it 
paralyzes one from ever reaching important conclusions about life and 
the world, it can be ultimately disempowering.

Another principle that seems to be central to liberalism is a belief 
in 'human progress', along with: a belief in 'system progress': "Not 
only have human lives steadily improved, since cave man days, but our 
systems of governance have gotten better and better over time. They 
aren't perfect yet, but progress will continue. Radicals would throw 
the baby out with the bath water, threatening our continuing 
progress. They are too impulsive and impatient."

Catherine is attacking the belief in 'system progress', by equating 
our governance to gangsterism. She is also being a bit doctrinaire 
about her beliefs, which makes her 'fair game' to liberal critique.


From: R
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:53:17 EDT
To: •••@••.•••

I won't comment further except to say that I'm very disturbed by the 
blatant dishonesty involved in both the Russo film itself, as pointed 
out by both the NYT writer and Jim Senyszyn, and the marketing of it, 
as pointed out in the NYT review 
( Russo's 
dishonesty is so egregious as to cause me to be dismissive of the 
entire film on that basis alone. If there is a good case to be made 
against the Federal Reserve -- and I assume there is -- I want to 
hear it from someone who cares deeply about factual accuracy, as I 
know you do but Russo clearly does not. (Were you aware, by the way, 
that Russo sought the Libertarian Party presidential candidacy in 
2004? Like other libertarians, he believes the best way to deal with 
the problems of the world is to make governments as small and 
powerless as possible so we can be saved by the magic of the 

I must say that I do have serious doubts about the theory that the 
Fed is at the root of our problems. That strikes me as 
panacea/conspiracy thinking of a kind that is neither very helpful in 
understanding our predicament in all its complexity (as your book 
attempts much more seriously and thoughtfully to do) nor helpful in 
seeking workable means for getting us out of our predicament. As bad 
as the Fed may be, it's hard to imagine what can be done to get rid 
of it right now. I can't imagine that even the slickest and most 
cleverly marketed propaganda efforts will do the trick. Meanwhile, 
many other things can be done that, I'm certain, have a much better 
chance of succeeding. I'll be sending out some information in the 
next day or two about a couple of new initiatives that I believe are 
especially promising.


Hello again R,

I haven't seen Russo's film, and from what I've read I suspect you 
may be correct in your assessment. I'd still like to see it however, 
to judge for myself all of what he has to say. I found LOTS of fault 
with Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, but overall I think it was 
useful for people to see, and I learned a thing or two from it.

You note that Russo's "dishonesty is so egregious as to cause me to 
be dismissive of the entire film on that basis alone". And you 
confidently provide a NYT article as evidence. That's fair enough, 
but do consider that the NY Times frequently exhibits egregious 
dishonesty, and yet we still use it as a resource. Indeed I find the 
article you cite to be itself egregious. Not that it doesn't contain 
some truths, as Russo's film probably does as well, but it is 
intentionally deceptive on many points. You also dismiss Russo 
because you disagree with his libertarian views and connections. Why 
not dismiss the NY Times based on disagreement with its editorial 
positions, and its connections to corporate and financial elites?

So again I'm led to the conclusion that liberals have a particular 
'ostrich mechanism' for hiding their heads in the sand to avoid 
seeing anything that would challenge their faith in the basic 
validity of the system and of progress. That mechanism masquerades as 
a 'critical mind', selectively applied. Please understand, R, that 
this analysis is not about you personally, and may not actually apply 
to you. I wouldn't be writing this if I had not encountered this same 
kind of dialog many times before, and if I did not think these issues 
are important for us to examine. Your particular articulation is well 
written, which is why I've pounced on it, and the words do permit the 
kind of interpretations I'm pursuing, whether or not that's what you 

Your paragraph about the Fed enables us to deepen our understanding 
of the ostrich mechanism. Here we are not talking about a rejection 
of a specific article or film. Instead you are presenting a list of 
reasons to avoid looking at information about the Fed, regardless of 
its source. Even well-documented sources are not of interest, because 
we can't do anything about it "right now". And of course, "sounds 
like a conspiracy theory" is enough to dismiss anything. You've 
prepared your hole in the sand in advance.

What is so discomfiting about anti-Fed information? That's pretty 
clear: the Fed is a main pillar of our system, along with the White 
House, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the New York Stock Exchange, 
etc. To question the fundamental validity of the Fed is to challenge 
the system at a radical level.

OK, enough of that. I don't feel comfortable being so critical, but 
these are issues I've wanted to look at for some time.


After all of this, I am very encouraged to see your comment: 
"understanding our predicament in all its complexity (as your book 
attempts much more seriously and thoughtfully to do)". You did not 
reject my book! ...even though it propounds the mother of all 
conspiracy theories. Not only do I suggest 911 was an inside job, and 
talk about the Fed-creation conspiracy, and describe both WWI and 
WWII as Anglo-American conspiracies, but I characterize all of 
hierarchical civilization up to this day as being basically a 
conspiracy of elites against their populations. And yet people 
generally, like you, have not been dismissing the book on that basis, 
nor even have they been characterizing the book as 'conspiracy 
theory' material.

Somehow, I've managed to get this kind of material through people's 
'dismissal filters', people who might be likely to dismiss the same 
material presented in other ways. I'm not sure how I did that, but 
it's certainly what I wanted. I do know that the dialog on this list 
has been essential to that endeavor. Partly because of the 
information people have shared, and the feedback they've given, and 
partly because the various arguments and debates I've had with people 
gives me a sense of how people dismiss material, which helped me 
minimize the occurrence 'dismissible statements' in the book.

with respect,

Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:34:31 -0500
From: Catherine Austin Fitts <•••@••.•••>
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
To:  •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: re-2: Fitts & Gore


Greetings from Flathead County, Montana.

Excellent discussion.

Our current society is highly centralized. Hence, we have a culture 
of celebrities and leaders anointed by big media.

If we want to decentralize, step one is to withdraw from a desire for 
this leadership model and envision our lives full of thousands of 
authentic leaders with whom we have an intimate connection -- we 
listen to them, we support them, we finance them, we buy from them 
and we wish them well -- indeed there is ample opportunity for all of 
us to be leaders when we feel like it.

On that note, you may enjoy an old article, a bit out of date, but 
the topic is subset of our need to wake up and come clean from a 
Tapeworm culture -- which we each have the personal power to do:

Sensuality vs. Puritanism:
What Can A Woman Can Do to Help the Solari Index Rise?

Montana is so beautiful these days, I am at a loss for words to 
describe. The beauty of this planet is certainly worth whatever we 
can do to be worthy of it,




Hi Catherine,

Nice to hear from you again. You've certainly had an impact on our cj 
community. I look forward to your further contributions.

I like your concept of 'thousands of authentic leaders', 'intimate 
connection', and mutual inter-benefit. That is empowering stuff. Not 
only in the immediate economic sense, but in spreading a general 
spirit of empowerment, of being 'at cause' rather than 'at effect', 
and of finding empowerment with other people, rather than as an 
'individual growth trip'.

best regards,

From: •••@••.•••
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:18:26 EDT
Subject: Re: re-2: Fitts & Gore
To: •••@••.•••

wise answers to honest open questions.


Hi Jim,

Always nice to hear from you. Your comments are extremely pithy, and 
yet they always say a lot. People have indeed been offering 'honest 
open' questions and comments, and that makes responding very 
difficult. One must, in fairness, dig for equal honesty in 
responding. This particular posting took the best part of three days 
to put together. It takes a long time to dry fruit, as we used to say 
in group.

nice to know you're around

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