re: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1438&lists=newslog -------------------------------------------------------- From: •••@••.••• Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:27:44 EDT Subject: Re: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at To: •••@••.••• I disagree with your assessment of where Al Gore is coming from. He wants nothing but to point out the environmental damage that is being done to this planet. To ask for more of him is unrealistic! I do agree with the sources you mention at the end, and I do agree that it is the responsibility of each one of us to wake up!!! When and if we do, it will then be easy to turn things around----there are a great deal more of us than there are of 'them' !! That is where we need to concentrate our efforts! ----------- Dear BE, Thanks for writing. Can you be so sure of where Al Gore is coming from? I can't be sure myself, what is in his plastic heart, but I'll point out a few things. First, politicians, except for a few like Ron Paul and Cynthia McKenna, trade on their ability to lie (It's the same here in Ireland, in Britain, and in the EU). Basically, they are a form of con artist. That's their job: sell a program to the voters with a big smile. Clinton was a kind of archetype for that, and more Iraqis died during his regime than since the more recent invasion, and he sold out our sovereignty to NAFTA, while he pretended to be a 'liberal crusader'. For such reasons, I wouldn't believe anything Gore says. He might say true things sometimes, but that's incidental to his mission and to the truth. Whenever someone gets taken by a con artist, they usually tell the police: "He seemed so nice, so honest, so trustable." That's part of the art. That's the difference between a con artist and a simple thief. Second, what's so wonderful about a documentary on global warming? Is there anyone in some remote region of the Bayou swamps who doesn't already know about global warming? Don't they watch the first-run movies? Don't they see any of the enviro-tv-docs or weather reports? I'd say Gore's film is an easy shot, an easy way to regain popularity among liberals by someone shamed by surrendering the Presidency without a fight to a fascist who had lost the election. He could have taken on something controversial, like the war in Iraq, but no, he chose a crowd pleaser. Third, there is the obvious fact, at least as I see it, that Gore is launching his Presidential campaign with this film. The neocons are being dumped, it seems, by the 'realists' and they need a PR face to smile the smile and talk the talk while they consolidate the gains made under Bush. To me, that is what the film is about, pure and simple. The rest is colored bubbles. Finally, Catherine is not saying we should expect more of Gore, rather she is saying we are fools (i.e., asleep) to expect anything of Gore, or of the political system as it operates. that's how i see it, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:08:38 -0500 From: Catherine Austin Fitts <•••@••.•••> To: •••@••.••• Subject: Re: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at Richard: Wow. Thanks for the plug. I just put a review of your book up at my blog: http://votesolari.com/catherinesblog/ and I am personally encouraging the serious people in our network to read it. More later. I am driving to Montana from California today, In cahoots, Catherine ----------- Hi Catherine, Thanks so much for your help getting the word out about ETM. The net is a powerful vehicle for disseminating information, and it functions by means of thousands of 'quality filters' and 'spreading nodes'. I like the sound of 'the serious people in our network'. please stay in touch, rkm ps> I'd like to recommend that people take a look at your website: http://www.solari.com/learn/ The Solari Opportunity is to transform our world by withdrawing our deposits, purchases, investments and attention from banks, media, companies, and other institutions who are not acting in our best interests, and to shift them to activities led and financed by people aligned with our values... -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:27:58 -0700 From: "Christapher C. Cogswell" <•••@••.•••> Subject: RE: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at To: <•••@••.•••> Hi Richard, Very glad to have connected you two! ;-) She is a real force to be reckoned with - and so are you! Christapher -------- me glad too :-) rkm -------------------------------------------------------- From: R Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:13:57 EDT Subject: Re: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at To: •••@••.••• Richard, Much of the article is very good, but the author's comments about the gold standard are extremely debatable, to put it mildly. Just what we need, incentives for mining gold, one of the most polluting of the extraction industries. Also, though I haven't seen one of the movies she mentions. "From Freedom to Fascism," the following critique of it tells me it has some very serious problems and appears to be basically a radical right wing propaganda film. Finally, if FTW has problems with Scholars for 9/11 Truth, what are they? Do FTW people claim to be better scholars? On what grounds? -R ------ Hi R, I'm not sure what to make of your comments. You seem to be picking on small points, points not central to Catherine's message, and I can't help suspecting this is symptomatic of a more fundamental discomfort on your part with the piece...'protesteth too much about too little'. I find myself wanting to identify and respond to that presumed deeper discomfort, rather than debate gold standards, right-wing films, and internal truth-movement squabbles. (I'm not in total agreement with Catherine, or anyone else, on every point, btw). I think there is ample reason for many people to be uncomfortable with Catherine's essay. She is attacking liberalism -- attacking such beliefs as 'the system works', 'the system can be fixed'. She's implying that choosing between Dems and Repubs is a waste of time. She's asking us to 'wake up' to the fact that we must think outside of these boxes. It seems to me that dialog on these main points would be useful. As regards FTW and Russo's film, I would say this. I have a friend who is one of those born-again types, thinks evolution never happened, thinks Bush is one of God's chosen, etc. Any attempt to expose her to contrary information is dismissed with a condescending laugh. If God said it, why be silly and question it? One might say she has a closed mind, has her head buried in the sand -- and is missing important stuff about the world that she shouldn't be missing. Liberals, on the other hand, typically pride themselves on being open minded. But are they? Do they not also have ways of avoiding exposure to certain kinds of information? Is their filter any more sensible than my friend's filter? Is their head any less buried in the sand? How can they be sure they aren't also missing things they shouldn't be missing? I view FTW as a publication channel - a 'spreading node'. There are various contributors, with various messages. Some make sense and some don't. In that way it's like CNN, or BBC, except that one can find more useful information on FTW (and Rense and others), provided one uses judgement and selectivity there, just as one must also with CNN or BBC, or any other channel. You seem to be suggesting that we should count it against Catherine, that her piece went out over the FTW channel. And the FTW channel is to be dismissed, because you disagree with some of its editorial positions. By that same standard, none of us should ever watch the news on CNN or BBC - talk about editors having trouble with Scholars for 9/11 Truth! Talk about questionable scholarship! (e.g., WMD's) Why is it that the mainstream media survives the liberal's filter, as a useful channel, albeit taken with a grain of salt? Where's the consistency here? Isn't TV owned and controlled by self-serving corporations? I'm beginning to suspect that the filters of the bible-believer and the liberal may not be all that different. I'm beginning to think that both are about 'belonging to a group', 'conforming to a belief system', and 'not appearing foolish'. The same sociology stuff that operates on the school yard, and in the fashion magazines. If my friends would consider me a nut if I believed 911 was an inside job, then I won't look at any information that might tempt me -- I must not listen to Satan. just some thoughts, rkm -------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:53:59 -0500 (CDT) From: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: Catherine Austin Fitts: Al Gore ain't where it's at To: •••@••.••• Hi Richard, What are you hoping to accomplish in our lifetime by telling people not to see Gore's film and the like? --------- Hi new combat, What I'm hoping to accomplish is to wake people up to the fact that the system cannot be repaired and must be replaced. Anyone who sees hope in Gore's film is clearly still asleep in a very dangerous way, a way that promulgates the world-destroying system. As a result of what I'm saying I hope people DO see the film, but that they are able to see through it, to glimpse between the frames, to see the man behind the curtain. peace, rkm -- -------------------------------------------------------- Escaping the Matrix website http://escapingthematrix.org/ cyberjournal website http://cyberjournal.org subscribe cyberjournal list mailto:•••@••.••• Posting archives http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/ Blogs: cyberjournal forum http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/ Achieving real democracy http://harmonization.blogspot.com/ for readers of ETM http://matrixreaders.blogspot.com/ Community Empowerment http://empowermentinitiatives.blogspot.com/ Blogger made easy http://quaylargo.com/help/ezblogger.html
