--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jim Macgregor" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: RE: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:24:45 +0100
Brilliant stuff, Richard.
jim
--------------------------------------------------------
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:49:06 EDT
Subject: Re: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
To: •••@••.•••
thanks richard for once again seeing the larger
context. and writing with great gentleness.
----
Hi Jim,
I don't think others perceive my style as being
gentle. But thanks. I suppose you can say that
because in our group days you've seen an even
more aggressive side of me.
the best
richard
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Tesler <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:57:10 -0700
To: •••@••.•••
Richard,
I don't think the 'consensus' camp is an accurate
portrayal of the scientific consensus.
rkm> First there is the 'consensus camp', those who believe
that global warming is the single greatest problem faced by
humanity,
Who calls it the "single greatest problem"?
That's hyperbolic. But it's up there among the
biggest problems we face.
> that reducing carbon emissions is the solution,
What climatologist says that reducing carbon
emissions is the complete solution?
> and that it can be achieved without changing the system as a whole.
If we wait until the "system as a whole" is "changed" it will be too late.
> Members of this camp tend to be angered by anyone
who questions this position, and outraged at
contrary pieces in the media.
We are angry because the longer we bicker among
ourselves, the more runway we give to good and
bad capital to define the "solutions".
Larry
----
Hi Larry,
Thanks for writing, I appreciate your contributions.
My three 'camps' refer to the general population,
not to climatologists, leaders, etc..
You are correct that I exaggerated the qualities
of the consensus camp a bit. Indeed one can
complain about defining camps at all, as there
are no precise boundaries, everybody is a complex
being, etc. etc. If I had time to review and edit
what I wrote, I would have toned down the
definitions somewhat. But in terms of my overall
thesis, regarding social divisiveness and
co-option, these are really nit-picks, they don't
invalidate my conclusions.
When I said "single greatest problem", I was
trying to get at something a bit more subtle. It
would have been closer to the truth to say
"single most important rallying cry". There's the
feeling that we have a great opportunity now to
'do something useful', in the wake of Gore's
film. We perceive that 'the masses' have woken
up, and that 'politicians are listening'. I'm
trying to point out, from my perspective, that
these are illusions. Politicians are not
'listening', they're co-opting. Bickering among
ourselves, or agreeing among ourselves, will not
affect the outcome, the 'solutions'. Those have
already been selected and are being pursued, to
our detriment, and they will increase global
warming.
As I see it, the most dangerous form of denial is
the belief that we can fix things piecemeal,
without fixing the whole system.
cheers,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:13:24 -0400
From: "Elisabeth Clark" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Richard -- i haven't written for awhile, not for
lack of interest rather just trying to get my
mind around the magnitude of the radical
restructuring of society that is required.
clearly, the puppet-master elites will confuse
the issue of 'necessary response' to climate
change with their partial 'buy-ins' vis à vis Al
Gore activities that are intended to divide and
conquer in a way elites have always carried on.
i thank you for developing the accessible new
paradigm introducing the 3 camps: "consensus,
big-picture and skeptic" as this is exactly the
'scorecard' needed to follow the developments.
i'm providing a link to a CanWest News Service
article depicting an elite attempt to invest in
biofuels as a legitimate response. The project
announces North America's largest biofuel
production initiative developing at lightening
speed. Amazing how quickly "an enviro project"
can initiate with elite support. For the
uninitiated there is not much daylight between
Texas and Alberta concerning the supply and
demand of energy development. Note that one of
the financiers providing equity for the
megaproject is The Carlyle Group, and elite
control doesn't come much bigger than that.
http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id=adba99f5-7b60-44b7-bb53-de2fb6b24acd
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:11:02 -0400
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
From: Tom Schley <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Hi Richard,
Here's something I heard last night on the Robert
Redford Sundance TV Green Channel program.
During a discussion focused on alternative fuels
someone mentioned how much nuclear energy it
would really require for the world to get away
from using fossil fuels. Then they said
something I'd not heard before. If we choose to
use nuclear energy at this increased rate, then
the world would run out of U-238 very quickly (I
believe it was between 10 and 20 years). By
their estimates nuclear power then, could only be
a short term fix. In some ways that is rather
heartening to hear. However, I doubt if the
elites would go for using it up that quickly,
rather wanting to continue the nuclear culture
and need for increased security as long as
possible.
The program went on to say that any increase in
the use of nuclear power is problematical in
already overcrowded Europe.
Best regards,
Tom Schley
--------
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the information. If raising our voices
is of value, we need to be raising them against
the 'solutions' that are being offered for global
warming, not raising them in support of the
media-supported bandwagon around global warming.
I think it is careless to say "If we choose to
use nuclear...". That is implying we live in a
democracy.
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rex Green" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:56:49 -0700
Richard,
I marveled at how you shaped the dialog on global
warming to make it more understandable to the
rest of us. If you keep this up, we should
develop our own mental muscles to quickly discern
how the wealthy elite operate to maintain control
of the world economy and governments.
May I suggest as the next topic, replacing the
Internet with Internet2. I am attaching an
article that illustrates how folks in the know
start telling the rest of us what will be good
for us, when it is really another nail in our
coffin of rights and freedoms. Regarding how a
highly regulated Internet2 will affect everyone's
lives, I predict it will have more impact on how
we live than global warming. My first reaction
to this article was to imagine disappearing from
my communities and do only things I can control
each day. Why try to sneak around their
information controls and just expose yourself as
a potential terrorist.
Certainly, not as many people will develop
anxiety over this change in the Internet as over
global warming. It seems more likely to steal up
behind most of us, then just become part of our
daily routine. Even when some of us are hauled
away for torture, most of us will never hear
about it happening. Frightening!
Attached article:
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WAT20070418&articleId=5423>
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:00:14 -0500
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
From: "A. Gayle Hudgens, PhD" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Richard,
You no doubt spent a great deal of time composing
your message on lessons learned from the recent
discussion and I for one appreciate your
thoughtfulness. I do not, however, agree with
pigeon-holing people. The issues are complex
enough that most of us vary in what we consider
"the single greatest problem faced by humanity"
and indeed whether there is a 'single' problem
that can be said to be "the" greatest problem. Of
the 3 camps you described I did not find one that
fits me. We do indeed face great problems
socially, ecologically, economically,
politically, agriculturally, spiritually, and
psychologically, to list a few challenges. Might
it be wiser to be creating solutions for our
total system of Nature and Society rather than
getting bogged down in the problems and the
details. We need a systems perspective not
analysis paralysis for creating solutions.
One way to begin to do that in this abrupt
climate change interval is to consider the
following questions in assessing the credibility
of information and claims various people make
with regard to global warming science: and
technology:
* Does the information come from peer-reviewed articles
published in reputable scientific journals or reports?
* Does the writer have expertise in the subject being
discussed?
* Is this demonstrated by the writer's list of publications
or citation index?
* Is the writer presenting the balance of evidence?
----
Hi Gayle,
Thanks for writing.
> I do not, however, agree with pigeon-holing people.
My goal is to challenge people to examine their
beliefs, and to look at things from a fresh
perspective. Of course any categorization is
approximate, but that doesn't mean it's not
useful. It often aids analysis to have a 'first
approximation' model, and then to look at
variations from that approximation.
> The issues are complex enough that most of us vary in what
we consider "the single greatest problem faced by humanity"
and indeed whether there is a 'single' problem that can be
said to be "the" greatest problem. Of the 3 camps you
described I did not find one that fits me.
It seems to me that your words resonate fairly
well with the 'big picture' camp:
* Does the information come from peer-reviewed articles
published in reputable scientific journals or reports? [...etc.]
I do not subscribe to these criteria,
particularly not for my own learning. The peer
review process is entirely to conservative and
too politically manipulated. Experts are entirely
too myopic for today's problems. I get more value
out of two articles each arguing a different side
of an issue, rather than one 'balanced' article.
cheers,
richard
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:39:44 -0500
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
From: "A. Gayle Hudgens, PhD" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Perhaps I feel more urgency...
[following an earlier exchange - rkm]
rkm> I believe that analysis continues to be primary up
until the point when people understand what they need to be
doing.
We have a philosophical disagreement, here,
Richard. If you still have my book, Collaborative
Spunk, take a glance at Chapter 3. It is my
conviction that analysis dis-empowers. There is
still a need for analysis, but synthesis and
systems thinking is where we need to be right
now. Otherwise we are taking far too much baggage
with us from our pasts (among other things) to be
able to create solutions.
> Global warming activism is not one of those things, not
any longer. That movement has now been co-opted totally. A
classic case. We have no hope whatever of shifting the
agenda, whatever it might be.
I note your powerlessness in the above
statements, Richard. In the 60s we also felt
co-opted but did not let that stop us from
pushing for the end of the Viet Nam war, women's
rights, civil rights, environmental
consciousness. While we did not succeed fully and
the struggles continue, we did make some
progress....
> And there's little point in 'raising awareness of the
problem', when the governments say they're on your side.
Raising awareness of the problem is part of the
analysis/caught-in-the-details mindset, imo. My
point. is not about the problem or raising
awareness of it. My point is about creating
solutions, offering people ways to envision a
just, joyful and sustainable future along with
the tools and strategies for getting there as
rapidly as possible -- empowering them in the
process. (Meaningful solutions to global warming
represent a small but critical piece of the
overall outcome. Those solutions, if based on
what we know is required for sustainability, will
also clean up many other problems we face, not
just global warming, if you get my drift here.)
Richard, our goals are probably quite similar.
You've written that ultimately you, too, want a
sustainable society. How well would a dialogue
work for discovering where we agree on what it
will take to reach that goal?
A final note. Sometime email conveys tones that
one does not wish to convey. I trust you can see
that I am supportive of your efforts -- I just
want them to be effective!
Gayle
----
Hi again Gayle,
I do take everything people send in as being
supportive. Otherwise people wouldn't be
subscribers and wouldn't bother.
Gayle> It is my conviction that analysis
dis-empowers. There is still a need for analysis,
but synthesis and systems thinking is where we need
to be right now. Otherwise we are taking far too
much baggage with us from our pasts
Analysis, synthesis, and systems thinking, along
with this kind of dialog, have always been the
equal pillars of my work, and continue to be so
at every stage. As it turns out, my main 'message
to the world' is not about analysis, but about
the virtues of pursuing certain kinds of dialog,
as a way to empower communities and create a
democratic and sustainable world. I'm spending an
increasing amount of my time in collaboration
with various groups pursuing that positive
vision. I also post things about that part of my
work when the opportunity arises. But in general
people on the list don't seem motivated to talk
about the dialog stuff.
As regards 'baggage from the past', I see a lot
of that in the assumptions people have
accumulated, in a lifetime of conditioning by
schools and media, and out of life experiences
channeled by capitalist economics. What I seek to
do on the list, and have from the beginning, is
to challenge some of those assumptions, and try
to get people to turn on their independent
thinking machinery. I think I've had some success
in this endeavor, but the discussion is always at
the leading edge, where new challenges are being
laid down, and is therefore a bit contentious. We
don't talk much about where we're in agreement.
And in challenging assumptions, analysis is
central.
> I note your powerlessness in the above statements, ...
Powerlessness, within the elite-defined context,
is precisely what I'm trying to establish. Or
perhaps I should call it hopelessness. It is from
the realization of hopelessness, within your
current boundaries, that new directions and new
insights can emerge. As long as false hope is
nurtured, one remains confined in ones
boundaries, beating ones head against the same
walls in the same way.
> In the 60s we also felt co-opted but did not let that stop
us from pushing for the end of the Viet Nam war, women's
rights, civil rights, environmental consciousness. While we
did not succeed fully and the struggles continue, we did
make some progress....
This is the kind of assumption that needs
challenging. It seems to me you are assuming what
I would call a 'tug-of-war' model of reform. We
tug, they tug, sometimes we make gains and
sometimes they pull us back. We sometimes gain by
playing the game, and if we didn't play at all,
they'd pull us in the mud entirely.
I was involved in those 60s movements. I went to
marches and carried signs, passed petitions
around the workplace, showed a radical film at
the workplace, and there were miscellaneous other
activities. In some sense it all culminated with
the end of the war, the impeachment proceedings,
Nixon resigning, and the achievement of the EPA,
the Freedom of Information Act, etc. I thought we
had accomplished a lot, and we were entering a
new progressive era. Lots of other people felt
the same way. Books were published based on those
assumptions.
But then came Reagan. How could that be, and so
soon? Thus began the Great Unravelling, not only
of the gains of the 60s, but the postwar gains,
and now even the gains of 1776. This is a process
that I've been watching very closely. It has
caused me to abandon the tug-of-war model of
reform and activism. I see instead a game of
manipulation, where upsurges of popular will are
skillfully managed and contained, and always the
prerogative of elites to make policy remains
unchallenged. We may force a policy change, but
they write the new policy -- they 'give us'
something of their choosing. And what they have
given they can take away. Now that push is coming
to shove, in terms of peak-resources, we are
beginning to see just how much they can take
away. Most of this I've been predicting for many
years -- based on analysis and systems thinking,
along with observation.
In this context activism needs to be seriously
reconsidered. Models from the 60s are baggage
from the past.
> My point is about creating solutions, offering people ways
to envision a just, joyful and sustainable future along with
the tools and strategies for getting there as rapidly as
possible -- empowering them in the process. (Meaningful
solutions to global warming represent a small but critical
piece of the overall outcome. Those solutions, if based on
what we know is required for sustainability, will also clean
up many other problems we face, not just global warming, if
you get my drift here.)
Here we're in complete agreement.
> Richard, our goals are probably quite similar. You've
written that ultimately you, too, want a sustainable
society. How well would a dialogue work for discovering
where we agree on what it will take to reach that goal?
I'd like to see more such dialog.
cheers,
richard
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "M.A. "Omas" Schaefer" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: An Observation
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 03:58:39 -0400
The more I read of your subscribers, the more I
realize that for many of them, global warming has
become the primary means to the end of achieving
social and economic change. If it were really
about greenhouse emissions, they would be
screaming bloody murder about the methane from
grazing cattle and the dire need for all of us to
become vegetarians.
Apparently facts don't matter, but rather, the
social/economic agenda. Nowhere in the arguments
of your readers do I find evidence of
intellectual honesty. Inevitably their arguments
blame capitalism, industry, transportation,
consumerism, etc. Where is the mention that
grazing cattle that must be eliminated, a far
bigger source of greenhouse emissions (if one
cares to go by the facts).
If a boat has multiple leaks, it stands to reason
that the first leak to fix is the biggest one.
It's not a matter of choice, but survival. If
greenhouse emissions are actually a problem, then
the intellectually honest approach would, by
definition, be to plug the biggest leak and start
by turning the entire planet into vegetarians.
When will the activists in the global warming
movement come to their senses and realize that
they are being used as foot soldiers to do the
bidding of the global elite? And in the end we'll
all have to pay the price.
A vote for global warming is a vote for the NWO.
Gee thanks, folks, just what we need to make the
world a better place.
PS. The "consensus" of scientists is one of the
biggest frauds I've ever seen. I'm increasingly
in awe of the stature and numbers of "deniers"
who are coming out of the closet. The latest is
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at MIT.
He can be read in this week's Newsweek magazine.
---
Hi Omas,
I agree with you about scientific consensus being
frequently a fraud, and not just regarding global
warming.
I posted Lindzen's article to newslog:
Richard S. Lindzen: "Global Warming Fears Overblown"
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=2394&lists=newslog
He was immediately attacked on the basis that he
got funding from oil companies:
Lindzen: Newsweek hides Ties to Big Oil
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=2402&lists=newslog
This is of course irrelevant to his arguments,
but if people want to reject something, they'll
grab any easy reason they can find. I'm not
saying I agree with Lindzen, I'm focusing on how
different people respond to various views.
I also posted an article about cows & greenhouse gases:
UN Report on greenhouse gases: Cows worse than cars
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=2413&lists=newslog
cheers,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Sirius" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 03:00:32 +0100
Climate Change and the Sun
Ed Arlt
http://tinyurl.com/39n724
Never mind that the current trends in climate are
nothing new to this planet and have been repeated
over and over again in a very identifiable cyclic
pattern for many many millions of years. What
Gore and Clinton are not talking about is the
evidence that climate, volcanism, tectonic
activity, cratering, and magnetic reversals may
all be correlated. The evidence amassed from
geological history shows irrefutably that there
is a 14.1 million year cycle to the appearance of
large craters on this planet, to tectonic
movement, to sea level changes, and to magnetic
reversals. The magnetic reversals coincide (every
28 million years) with the mass extinctions
evidenced in the fossil record of the
earth...just like a clicking clock (or bomb). And
all of this coincides with the passage of our
solar system through the galactic plane and again
as we reach the furthest point away from the
plane when we reverse direction and head the
other way (the 14.1 million year cycle). All the
planets in our solar system are presently showing
signs of increased temperature. Our solar system
(and the earth with it) is presently passing
through the galactic plane.
---<snip - see URL above for more - rkm>---
-------
Hi Sirius,
The fact that all the planets are heating up is
something we shouldn't be ignoring. This fact
alone calls into question the validity of the
so-called scientific consensus around carbon
emissions.
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:56:38 -0700
From: Philip Feeley <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Reader dialog to 13 April
To: •••@••.•••
I know I wrote about Michael Chrichton's "State
of Fear", but I didn't really believe him - even
with all his footnotes. I've recently picked up
George Monbiot's "Heat", and I find it much more
sensible. I'll be searching for more solution
oriented works from now on.
Cheers,
Phil
-----
Hi Phil,
Just make sure they really are solutions and not palliatives.
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:25:16 -0700
From: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: Reader dialog to 13 April
To: •••@••.•••
rkm> Our 'democratic societies' have evolved over the past
two centuries as the most efficient systems of controlling
populations that have ever existed. Instead of secret police
we have propaganda, the monetary system, and the myth of
democracy. We are born into this system and all apparent
avenues of change are carefully managed against us. The
prisoner is not the warden; we are not the government.
yes, and we can change the "monetary system" by
creating our own community currencies (cc), not
as AN alternative, but as a multicurrency
complement - by doing so, we can then develop
indi media such that it becomes mainstream and
achieve the holy grail of direct democracy.
--<snip>--
i'm surprised that you are unable to see the
potential of community currencies to provide us
with this essential tool to free ourselves -
perhaps you haven't taken it seriously enough or
maybe you, like most others, are unable to see
what it means.
Latest open money material:
from Eric and Ellen Harris-Braun
http://dev.openmoney.info/om.info
see Eric's software developments...
http://dev.openmoney.info/om.info/techne/index.html
try it out...
http://alpha.openmoney.info/om.cgi
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Thomas Greco -- thg" <•••@••.•••>
To: "CIRC" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: New reference source
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:35:22 -0700
Memo to: All
From: Thomas H. Greco, Jr.
I wish to inform you that I have written a research guide on my specialty,
complementary currencies, that has been published by Fields
of Knowledge at:
The Infography about Community Currencies
http://www.infography.com/content/507632641358.html
The Infography appears to be a very good reference resource on a wide range
of topics, and I suggest that you consult it when doing research on any
subject
and consider adding the following link to your blogs and web pages:
The Infography: Research Recommendations from Professors, Librarians, and
Other Subject Specialists
http://www.infography.com/infographysearch.html
I also invite you to keep tabs of developments and information posted on my
blogs.
Regards,
Tom
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Diana Jewell" <•••@••.•••>
To: "'Richard Moore'" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: FW: The global-warming discussion: what are the lessons?
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:47:38 -0700
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Like the famous Pogo quotation, the CyberJournal
series on issues involved in the global-warming
phenomenon has exemplified a similarly
penetrating view of our social predicament. And
as in Pogo's case, with global-warming the enemy
truly is US.
Richard has provided superb facilitation and
analysis in guiding this process, and the
impressive mix of collective wisdom and passion
have undoubtedly raised the levels of
understanding and commitment of all who have
participated, whether as contributors or readers.
However, I wish to respectfully challenge the
group to better understand their own positions,
and those who are opposing or leading (or
misleading) them. In general, I am in very close
agreement with Richard, but I would suggest that
his commitment to being a moderate moderator may
have steered the discussion away from important
issues of a more confrontational and divisive
nature that are just too important to ignore.
But before going there, let me recognize
that there can surely be no disagreement that all
human practices producing ecological damage
should be minimized as soon as possible and as
much as is reasonable [i.e. without causing
involuntary depopulation or driving modern
societies back to pre-industrial standards of
living]. Further, the precautionary principle,
sustainability and stewardship should be
rigorously applied. Of course these principles
address the panoply of ecological devastation
caused by current practices of development, and
if they would be adopted worldwide, the issue of
global-warming should be effectively dealt with.
At this point, however, the primary fixation of
our time is with the 'hot button' issue
of global-warming. Until now, the environmental
movement, which has rapidly emerged within the
First-world middle classes of the past generation
or two, has been only minimally successful, with
only token victories from its struggles to gain
the attention of the political classes and the
broader public, and the corporate class that
always controls the capitalist system [i.e. the
Matrix]. But suddenly the public mind has become
bombarded by media coverage stoking the
global-warming fires of hysteria--while
politicians and corporations have miraculously
embraced this new religion, and are exploiting
green-wash strategies to their strong advantage.
To many of the most vociferous exponents of the
global-warming hysteria, the reasons to exploit
the FEAR factor far outweigh any questions
regarding the veracity of the scientific issues.
To the committed environmentalist, it is a matter
of creed and an unprecedented lever of
opportunity to perhaps save the planet and at
least make it a much better place. To the
born-again green politician, it may be even more
effective and at least more principled than
wrapping oneself in the flag; besides, it's a
powerful diversion from the more intractable
problems of class, imperialism and capitalism.
For the capitalist, it's a chance to improve the
corporate image while benefiting from massive new
public spending and profit opportunities. For
the environmental scientist, it's a windfall
opportunity for research funding, career
advancement, and a chance to play a much more
prominent and respected role in perhaps saving
the world or at least helping to preserve it for
future generations and other species. For the
corporate media mouthpiece, it's a chance to
perform a most worthy and important public
service, and a welcome relief from the steady
diet of political lies, war reports and school
shootings etc.
From this vantage point, it's obvious that there
is no comparable constituency for neutrality or
objectivity on the issue of global-warming [even
BP is now proud to proclaim its plan to become
our energy provider "Beyond Petroleum"]. Hence,
it would seem that there's no reason for any of
us to question the strong consensus on
global-warming that has been swiftly manufactured
by the political and media classes. If the fear
of global-warming is grounded in reality, then it
will truly be the greatest crisis ever confronted
by humankind [unless we stumble upon some quicker
way to destroy ourselves and the planet]. But
even if it is just another over-hyped fear [how
did we ever live through Y2K?], then at least
anything positive that we do will make the world
better.
Either way, the best solution for all is to
act decisively to mitigate or prevent the
potential disaster of global-warming. The fear
factor may or may not be exaggerated, but it's
motivational power should at least produce very
positive results, and might actually be essential
if humankind is to save itself from itself.
Which brings us back to Pogo's revelation: "We
have met the enemy, and he is us."
Let's get serious and really believe that us
really means US, all of us -- even we who are so
enlightened and privileged to be participating in
this CyberJournal dialogue. And let us reflect
upon whether our share of the blame is just
related to our lifestyles, or whether it also
includes our inadequate understanding of the
forces involved, and inability to mobilize
ourselves and others to the most effective social
response to the dangers we face.
While sweeping generalizations are always
somewhat exaggerated, we, and perhaps more
particularly those less enlightened members of
our class, have well earned the designation of
being the enemy of those innocent people and
species who suffer under what people of the
privileged classes have inflicted upon them. And
we enlightened ones have not done anything even
remotely adequate to absolve ourselves from the
collective blame that we must justly bear.
Richard's analysis of the three 'camps' into
which the public perception of global-warming may
be categorized is a fine example of his usual
brilliance! However, while probing the
collective psyches of each camp, he has refrained
from any serious criticisms without which WE
[i.e. the enlightened, caring and privileged
minority] will never be able to get our
collective acts together to save us from
either THEM [the elite rulers, i.e. the main
enemy] or US [i.e. the unwittingly
complicit enemy].
With most of the population divided between the
'consensus camp' (mostly liberals) and 'skeptic
camp' (mostly conservatives), this mirrors the
manufactured political schism which has enabled
elite rule to dominate the people under the guise
of democracy. Elections in western liberal
democracies are typically a choice between
'heads' where they win and 'tails' where
we-the-people lose.
The 'consensus camp' may even be its own worst
enemy, and certainly the worst enemy of the
broader progressive activist movement. The
progressive activist movement has its origins and
primary focus in social justice. It recognizes
the importance of the environmental movement and
the causes for which it fights--but it accurately
sees these to be parallel consequences, in the
natural domain, to those it confronts in the
social domain; it recognizes the capitalist
system of exploitation to be the root cause of
all abuses of nature as well as humanity.
The core of the 'consensus camp' are the 'tree
huggers'. In using this term of disparagement
arising primarily from the 'skeptics camp', the
intent is not to offend those who love trees and
the environment--but rather to challenge them to
ask themselves whether they love nature more than
they love people.
However, the fundamental problem with the
'consensus camp' is not so much the question of
misplaced priorities-but rather that it has
always been and firmly remains issue oriented.
Indeed, the environmental movement generally
needs to become remobilized to address each cause
that comes along. While most of its leading
advocates recognize that their issue-based causes
are all related manifestations of the capitalist
system, and also the existence of parallel social
problems for which other progressive activists
have long been fighting, the leaders of both
camps do nothing constructive to bring both camps
together to wage a unified campaign in common
cause against their/our common enemy.
Environmentalism, which emerged long after the
rise of social activism [i.e. organizationed
labor, humanitarian organizations, socialism,
etc.], has historically served as a highly
effective emotional and organizational instrument
to divide and conquer public opposition to the
ravages of the capitalist system. Indeed there
are some who suspect this to have been one if not
the most important intention of its moneyed
patrons, who through their foundations have
provided a base of funding from its inception.
In any case, this relationship is undoubtedly
well understood by ruling elites, and it is long
overdue for environmentalists to recognize this
fact, and the extent to which their most worthy
intentions are regularly and so
profoundly exploited by ruling elites.
Environmentalism has become the primary arena of
political activism within the so-called western
liberal democracies, and as such, has effectively
served to prop up the undemocratic system of
elite rule, and protect it from the risk that
enlightened activists might focus public
attention and pressure on meaningful democratic
reform that might enable the people to gain
sovereign control over the economy rather than
being condemned to fighting one another in the
hope of becoming its wage slaves.
Even more sadly, environmentalism is an addiction
of only the privileged classes within the
privileged countries. Not surprisingly, the less
fortunate classes can hardly afford to expend
their time, resources and hopes on something that
does not improve their immediate condition. This
allows privileged environmentalists to feel more
self-righteous in dedicating themselves to causes
without immediate social benefit. But in failing
to fix the system itself, their fine and
well-intentioned efforts condemn the underclasses
to further exploitation and hopelessness.
In coming down so hard on environmentalism and
environmentalists, please understand that I'm not
suggesting that environmentalism or
environmentalists are bad, or even wrong.
Indeed, the altruism of environmentalism and
environmentalists deserve our great respect. The
problem is that, in the world we're living in --
i.e. the Matrix -- there is a systemic perversion
which renders environmentalism and
environmentalists both wrong-headed and
antithetical to their own proclaimed interests.
It is in this context that I return to the Pogo
truism as it applies in our situation: "We have
met the enemy, and he is us."
In this view, the primary concern for enlightened
activism is to try to find a way for the
environmental and social activist camps to come
together. They are clearly facing a common
enemy, and divided they are surely being
defeated. At this point, it is only the social
activists who are clear on who and what the real
enemy is, and have some commitment [clearly
declining] to a not very unified effort to fight
that enemy. As such, the prospect for success of
enlightened activism seems now to be marginal,
but we must continue to work both harder and
smarter.
This is why it's not enough for the two
enlightenment activist camps to continue with
polite and semi-respectful co-existence. That
would be complicity in our remaining divided and
conquered -- a state of impotence that ruling
elites will undoubtedly use all means at their
disposal to perpetuate.
To extend on Richard's analysis, what the
'consensus camp' should recognize is that they
have not won--they are being used. It is not the
truth or the merit of their case that has
persuaded elites to change course--it is the
power of the global-warming issue to create FEAR
and to divert the attention of both enlightened
activists and the general public.
As the so-called war on terror
clearly demonstrates, the primary goal of elite
rule is not to win the war, but to maintain
public anxiety at a highest possible level of
FEAR, without end, regardless of the actual level
of danger. And for the thinking public, who
cannot be controlled by the fear of terror which
they recognize to be vastly exaggerated, the fear
of global-warming is the ideal complementary
scare to control the public mind and public
debate. All to protect elite rule from any form
of effective democracy, by diverting public
attention from the real cause onto the 'hot
button' issue, and preoccupation with the urgent
need for bandaids rather than real remedies
for the relentless disease from which we are
suffering.
If the 'consensus camp' comes to recognize these
truths, they may also recognize that their
efforts would be better focused on sharing such
insights with their fellow citizens in the
'skeptics camp', rather than trying to persuade
them of the correctness of their
eco-fundamentalist beliefs. The only 'religious'
belief that people need to guide them in this
world is that elite rule serves elite interests
at the expense of both the people and the planet.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org
Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html
Subscribe cyberjournal list:
•••@••.••• (send blank
message)
Posting archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
Moderator:
•••@••.••• (comments welcome)
