weekend dialog


Richard Moore

From: "John Graversgaard" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Escaping the Matrix: The Red Pill
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 01:05:51 +0100

Thanks for the good thoughts, good for a seeking mind.

Try also to learn from the development in Mexico..I just talked to a 
friend coming back from Mexico, where a peoples movement is gaining 
ground in a country destroyed by corrupt politicians and greedy 

Commandante Marcos from the Zapatista and other progressives are 
travelling in the villages...not speaking to people.....but 
listening! This is a movement outside of the hierarchical established 
system...and will hopefully sweep it aside!

Best wishes
John Graversgaard


Hi John,

Thanks for the encouraging news. It seems that grassroots democracy 
is cropping up all over Uncle Sam's "backyard". He must be really 


From: "Brian Hill" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Congress is selling out the Internet
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 22:08:04 -0700
Organization: Institute  for Cultural Ecology

Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to

gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality

prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you
based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon.com doesn't have to outbid
Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer.

Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Many of

them take campaign checks from big telecom companies and are on the
verge of selling out to people like AT&T's CEO, who openly says, "The
internet can't be free."

The free and open Internet is under siege--can you sign this petition
letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network
Neutrality? Click here:


A list of all the ways you might be affected by Net Neutrality is
located on the bottom of this link:



Brian - thanks. We probably won't realize quite how important the 
open net is until after we lose it.


Delivered-To: •••@••.•••
From: "Brian Hill" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: atrophied UN & co-opted UN NGO movement
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 21:47:21 -0700
Organization: Institute  for Cultural Ecology

Here's my immediate response to the question about NGO co-optation by 
TNCs/nation states:

Remembering back to the early 90's, the Rio Earth Summit, when NGOs 
burst onto the scene demanding a place for peoples, not just 
corporations masquerading as nation states, there was great hope that 
the UN would finally become a unity and co-operation of nations.  In 
the half decade that followed NGOs blossomed from the grass roots up, 
but as soon as the financial houses that fund global nation states 
got wind of this grass roots of the world movement huge grants were 
appropriated to leading environmental and human rights groups to 
maintain the status quo through endless studies and conferences where 
proposals were presented which would never achieve consensus, thus 
maintaining the status quo.  But in the later 90s, corporate NGOs 
appeared, thus further diluting grass roots efforts.

Nevertheless, there are two positive outcomes from this era of NGO 
influence; (1) grass roots groups of the world were networked, and 
(2) the studies and consensual agreements, even though never enacted, 
were produced and remain as unfinished work for when the grass roots 
of the world do unite and make their agreements known to the UN 
General Assembly and the rest of the world.

Brian Hill


thanks - nice to see a silver lining once in a while - rkm

Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:41:58 +1200
From: "James Samuel" <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Our Future Prospects


I have posted this into my blog archives.
You might not find it without this link.




Hi James,

A very good essay. I recommend it.


Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 14:19:15 -0400
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
From: Allan Balliett <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Zero More: A Call for Mass Revolt

Richard - I agree that something must be done, but tax revolts are 
thoroughly legislated against and tax revolt organizers are singled 
out for rapid and severe punishment. Anyone who takes part in a tax 
revolt will be subject to serious fines and penalties with will 
become astronomical overnight and the law of the land provides a 
clear path for the Feds to seize your property towards the bill, 
garnish your wages, barters, etc until the bill is paid. This is not 
the way to go, in fact, I seriously have to question the motives of 
ANYONE who would suggest such a step, since it's a clear way to 
single out radicals while putting them in a very vulnerable 
position...with existing laws.

On the other hand, I'm with this writer in terms of 'something must 
be done.' Isn't it sufficient to arrange a mass boycott of ONE 
mulitnational mulit-brand conglomerate and simply spend no more money 
with them en masse? This would not affect or conference nor our 
standard of living but would kink the tail of a big tiger in a way 
that might make them think that the current administration was not 
operating in the best interests of Big Capital.

There are no explicit laws against this sort of organization, but it 
will have impact.

Am I making sense?


Hi Allan,

I find considerable encouragement in the fact that so many people are 
thinking seriously about "What can we do?". There are no good easy 
answers to this question, but the fact so many people are asking it 
creates a constituency for effective change initiatives as they come 

My own view is that any attempt to influence the current regime 
cannot be effective, and in fact serves to perpetuate the regime. We 
the people are like children, with little knowledge of history, 
re-inventing each generation movements which have been attempted 
countless times in the past. The regime is like a seasoned parent, 
well able to manage such predictable rebellions.


Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 14:18:19 -0400
From: "richard lamborne" <•••@••.•••>
To: "Richard Moore" <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: Zero More: A Call for Mass Revolt

At the Nuremburg Trials, it was determined that obeying and following 
orders were not excuses for immoral/criminal behavior on the part of 
the subordinate. We all understand that. One is culpable for 
following an illegal/immoral order.

Today, because the justification/rationale (both legal and moral) for 
attacking the sovereign nation of Iraq was based upon proven 
forgeries, lies, and malfeasances of all sorts, it should be 
concluded that every soldier, regardless of rank, who is willfully 
inflicting death and harm on any Iraqi citizen should be in violation 
of the Nuremberg accords, and is criminally liable. The (popular) 
idea of "supporting our troops" is aiding and abetting an 
international crime. Is it not? We either have laws or we don't.

The anti-war movement of the 60s -- yes pinko at its core, but so 
what -- had it right. Viet Nam was an illegal "war", we had no legal 
or moral business being there. And (painfully) any soldier killing a 
Vietnamese citizen was in fact a "murderer". That was the logic. 
That's what all of the marching was about. It had nothing to do with 
advancing some commie agenda. It was an illegal, immoral war, and as 
citizens we had the RIGHT and OBLIGATION, to oppose it (if you like, 
using the Nuremberg Trial as the precedent). If you going to have a 
war, declare a war. The US of A (whoever that is?) has not declared 
"war" since 1941. To "pretend" to be at war, without declaring such 
is what? What is it?

Today, as a republic, what can we do about Strangelove and Merkin? By 
supporting (again) an illegal, immoral excursion into another country 
based upon lies and deceit, we are de facto aiding and abetting 
criminal behavior. We are all criminals. And as criminals, what 
should we do?!

We need to turn ourselves in! Millions of us need to go to 
Washington, make a mass citizen's arrest, and turn ourselves over to 
the authorities. If this gesture were to be carried out (like it 
would have in the 60s), this pretend war, and their next great 
adventure into Syria or Iran, would be thwarted. You end it by being 
moral and lawful.

When the accumulation of money and prestige is the motor driving a 
society, it becomes self-consumptive. Because we are all so busy 
consuming and acquiring, the energy and CREATIVITY necessary to stand 
up as a Republic has been plowed under. In the 60s, it was in full 



Hi Richard,

I particularly like your comments because you are in some sense 
'harmonizing' between leftish thinking and rightish thinking..."It 
had nothing to do with advancing some commie agenda. It was an 
illegal, immoral war, and as citizens we had the RIGHT and 
OBLIGATION, to oppose it". And again, you are one more person 
thinking creatively about "What can we do?".

Re/ Nuremburg: The only thing determined there was that victors have 
the power to punish the defeated using whatever rationale they 
choose. The trials were pure hypocrisy. They were also a cover up, 
punishing functionaries while those who pulled the strings were 
thinking about how to invest their war profits.


Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 06:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Diana Skipworth <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Fwd: Richard Cohen
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>

Dear Richard,

The local paper printed the following letter today (with spelling corrections).


Note: forwarded message attached.

Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Diana Skipworth <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Richard Cohen
To: The Daily Herald Fencepost <•••@••.•••>

To the Editor:

I would like to comment on the impossibility of Mr. Cohen's following 
statement:  "The military has both a constitutional duty and a solemn 
obligation to its troops to be candid with the American people."  I 
think truth has nothing to do with public policies adopted by the 
United States and inflicted upon the American people, often to their 
detriment.  To those Americans concerned about Iraq and the price of 
oil, I would like to quote a few observations made by Howard Zinn, in 
his article, "America's Blinders:"

"...President Polk lied to the nation about the reason for going to 
war with Mexico in 1846."

"...President McKinley lied in 1898 about the reason for invading Cuba."

"...President Woodrow Wilson lied about the reasons for intering the 
First World War."

"Everyone lied about Vietnam-Kennedy about the extent of our 
involvement, Johnson about the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon about the secret 
bombing of Cambodia, all of them claiming it was to keep South 
Vietnam free of communism, but really wanting to keep South Vietnam 
as an American outpost at the edge of the Asian continent."

I can give many more examples, but my point is to say it would seem 
one job of the US President is to lie.  After all, would you 
encourage your son or daughter to enlist in the US Army to conquer 
Mexico for the rich, or kill Filipinos to grow US pineapples?


Diana Skipworth
228 Richards Street
Geneva, IL  60134  630-208-0192


Good one Diana. Truth vs. the Matrix. - rkm

From: •••@••.•••
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 23:57:58 EDT
Subject: Re: Fidel & Chavez: a dramatic rescue
To: •••@••.•••

very interesting article, especially Fidel wide knowledge and 
erudition. image having a president who knows more than how to sign 
his name.



Yes, a real leader instead of a charlatan puppet. Rare indeed.


Escaping the Matrix website     http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website            http://cyberjournal.org
blog:   cyberjournal forum      http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/
blog:   Achieving real democracy        http://harmonization.blogspot.com/
blog:   for readers of ETM      http://matrixreaders.blogspot.com/

blog:   Community Empowerment   http://empowermentinitiatives.blogspot.com/

Blogger made easy               http://quaylargo.com/help/ezblogger.html

subscribe cyberjournal list     mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives