Anthony Judge’s Episteme

64 Questions for the Environmental Conservationists of the World:
raising the question as to why they are not effectively addressed

In this powerful listing of 64 questions, Anthony Judge effectively exposes the blindspots and limitations of the contemporary episteme of the top leadership of contemporary humankind related to environmental crises, and their supporters. Is this a bubble he hopes to prick? What are the speculative scenarios of how humankind might recover after this bubble collapses, given that the majority of humans live in a bubble where these environmental concerns are either absent or not high priority? This but one of many powerful essays beautifully presented by Judge.

I just had the insight that the “reality” revealed by these questions is more a BARRIER to epistemic shift than an old episteme/paradigm resisting being replaced.

I resonate strongly with Judge, as I have long attempted to call attention to how “OUR BEST MINDS” often block advancement, because of their “arrogance” of “superior insight”. Example: much of the current economic/political crises results from the gross inadequacy of the “left”, “progressive”, “liberals”, and “enlightened”. These “saviors” dogmatically assume that their take on “REALITY” is sufficiently “objectively true”, that they can devote all their effort and attention in opposing their “enemies” (who block progress). As a “student” in The History and Philosophy of Science, I am well aware of human limitations on the pure objectivity of SCIENCE – while, at the same time, i energetically defend the “scientific episteme” from its many distractors and attackers.

What is Judge’s new episteme “on which he stands to prick” the old episteme? Can we detect limitations of this, new, episteme, and possibly create a new process of “guided epistemic emergence” – but, in no way being “controlled”.

I speculate that Judge’s new episteme assumes “humankind” to be represented by the best, current scientific evidence of humans, human behavior, and human systems. I speculate that a set of unconscious assumptions limit/block the integration of many separate findings related to humankind and how it might change. That is, much of the component knowledge for the next episteme already exists, but its “integration” is “blocked”. Exploration and explication of this is beyond the scope of this doc, but I look forward to engaging others on this learning expedition. I have some suggested paths to take, that are open to critique, and I am open to learn about other paths.

To bring closure to this doc, I ask: Would you expect these 64 questions – IF STUDIED AND DEBATED by those we might address – to lead to their abandoning their limiting episteme? I claim that the “human nature” of contemporary humankind would make such a happening highly unlikely. How might the 64 questions be perceived, deferentially? Does the communication infrastructure today enable dialogs/discourses/deliberations that permit/limit requisite learning/organizing cycles to emerge as a viable movement? Informing is not sufficient action, we need a process that “seafs informing”, and much more. (seaf = support/enable/augment/facilitate).

I don’t criticize Judge for composing such a quality probe to prick our contemporary epistemic bubble (related to our Climate Crisis). Such compositions are also what I am limited in doing. We must discover action regimes that transcends writing/reading – communicating/informing. The emergent conceptual schemes I write about, UPLIFT and OLLO, are a call to do more and differently. How might a few persons catalyze exponentially growing (real human) processes imagined in UPLIFT and OLLO.

The above was composed 14 days ago, shortly after my reading the 64 questions. As I just read and edited the above text, I was aware that “I had not stated”, what was necessary to make it comprehensible. And, what was not stated, can’t be “stated”! I can’t INFORM you of what is needed. This, is in essence, what I was trying to say.

We comprehend sems (semiotic structures) we perceive within “contexts” that are never experienced at the moment of experiencing meaning. This context can be analogous, in metaphor,  to a complex pattern, a “sysnet” (system/network) of “nodes, links, enablers, & constraints” that is beyond description or explication.

As I write, I find myself sneaking up on another vital & recent insight – from a new direction. I have posted a few essays related to this insight, but haven’t been able to properly explicate it – if it is possible.

I will copy/paste here part of a recent email reply, related to an essay “The Real Problem” by Anil K Seth  , where I was motivated to attempt summarizing this insight:

Might we separate our study of humankind, independently from our study of material reality? Recently I’ve been exploring a nu meta-perspective: humankind has aspects distinct from material reality (material reality includes biological aspects of human persons). My position is that the concepts and “wrlds” of experience refer back only to reports (authored) by humans. This includes all scientific reports and philosophical analyses. Each report is dependent on contexts, often unconscious and if followed, refer back to other reports. This claims MORE than that all we experience are patterns in our body/brains, influenced by material reality. The phenomenon of humankind is “written on the substrate of material reality”, with qualia meaningful only to humankind.

Contemporary social/societal reality (The Trump Phenomenon) is revealing this. There are no FACTS about humankind, of the kind in material reality. All news is “fake” in the sense that it can’t refer back to a material event,  but only to a collection of contradictory reports and analyses, themselves referring back to historical contextual reports.

For tribal humans, without significant reports, material reality was adequately approximated by brain/consciousness. With our semfields of reports (sems = semiotic structures) and ultra complex societal systems (unobservable, although referred to in language as if observable) in highly dysfunctional modes of organization (called Civilizations) our brains can no longer adequately function to approximate material reality (which we cannot access directly).

The trigger to this was the rise of visual languages, where information was liberated from its prior embeddment in matter/energy systems. The text on this screen is not embedded in matter/energy structures. As far as we know, this is unique to humans on Earth (but likely elsewhere in other biospheres).  The analysis of information presented in this email ignores this significant distinction.  Consciously we live in our inner/woven/integrated/autopoietic “wrlds”, where sems are part of our perceptual reality. As adults, our interpretation of direct perception of material reality is now interpreted in terms of our semfields. Yet, there are many humans who have very limited semfields, except for TV, radio and cell phones.

Sems have the unique character of being capable of accurate reproduction of pattern. Through gestures, all humans can come to agree on the identity of the patterns on a sem; even though they may not share interpretations. For humankind, sems assume the permanence of atoms in material reality (although without the structure).

This associates with another vital insight. The challenge of “Humankind fixing Climate Change”, is distinct (but dependent on) The challenge of “Humans fixing Humankind”. Read my post on Project DRAWDOWN. Most of Judge’s 64 questions relate to the former challenge. Some of his questions relate to how to “get” humans to act “rightly”, but there seems no query about significantly changing humankind.


(composed 7/13/2017 7:00-11:49 AM)
(first posted 8/18/2017)
(first edit 8/20/2017)

INSIGHT: Although
Objective Reality can’t be Directly Experienced,
Some Objective Information can be Known.

Social Systems have partial Objectivity.

notes on my documents:

Again, a ramble – a seemingly random walk through the mind of Larry/nuet. Please, join me on this walk, follow my path of symbolic crumbs, my temporary semfield. Artists and musicians (artists of the auditory) are permitted to present discrete products for perception, enjoyment, and possible enlightenment. This is even permitted for authors of fiction. So-called “non-fiction” texts, however, are always judged in “subjective context”.

Readers of my docs don’t know of the temporal pattern in their creation. I start a linear composition; although each new section may result from a spontaneous insight during the writing of the prior section, and the relationship between sections may not clear. I often go back and expand and edit; adding depth. Although I grok a common context for any doc, when I read it; this cannot be expected for others.

On writing this intro after writing much of what follows, I realize — I just lost what I was to add. This FORGETTING may also play a role for others attempting to comprehend my text. When I read and write, what I have just prior read is not accessible. I am never actually “conscious of the whole”. Although I believe that such “consciousness of wholes” is an illusion, I speculate that others (with mental imagery) may actually experience the content of what they are sensing at the moment – in real context with conscious experiences of immediately past content, in superimposed mental imagery.

Whenever I compose a document, such as this, I am also generating new insights – some of which I attempt to report, while other insights may effect what I write.

What I do write is spontaneously emergent from my subconscious. I may sit for moments between writing sentences, but usually not having concrete thoughts. I observe myself starting to type as verbal thoughts accompany my typing. What I will type has been determined before I type, and I sub-vocally verbalize what I read with my eyes. My typing/reading lags a fraction of a second behind my verbalizing – but both are but unfolding of behavioral programs from nuet. Having a perceived emergent sentence input back to nuet will often result in spontaneous actions to edit. Usually the edit generalizes the sentence, attempting to make it more “precise”. I am aware that this style of writing is very difficult for others to read, let alone comprehend.

Ideally, these composed semfields should be the focus of interactive dialog among readers in their movement towards collective comprehension. This may or may not include my participation in the dialog.

In an ideal metaphor: my documents (semfields) might be imagined as a complex set of paintings and short video sequences. They unfortunately have an imposed order-for-processing, that may not be useful for every reader. Some readers will face too many new terms and acronyms, a situation I often face when reading philosophical texts.


A few different incidents triggered the slow emergence (a few days unfolding) of this insight:

1) Reading parts of The Knowledge Illusion by Steven Sloman and Phillip Fernbach , in context with concurrently inching through The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. Both are recent (2017) publications. Both books reported on knowledge that supports my thinking (related to Up2Met), but the four authors don’t appear to have, yet, experienced the fundamental insight: Humankind’s Collective Knowledge/Beliefs in WhoWeAre is Fundamentally and Dangerously Flawed. Although exposing many myths about humankind, they write within the context of many false assumptions about “human nature” and humankind.

2) The accelerating fragmentation (well beyond polarization and ….) of “wrlds within worlds” and the deep and seemingly intractable siloing of the very best minds.

3) The breakdowns of my personal systems: body, conscious mind (Larry’s senility), family & friends, habitat, online network of contacts – with no personal agency to reverse this trend. All this in context with the apparent accelerating breakdown of human and societal systems – with no apparent acknowledgement of, let alone viable movements to rectify, this trend. Time is very short, if my unique insights (a system of nu memes with a potentially very positive option to secure the multi-millennial survival/thrival of Humanity/Gaia) are to become active within human discourse.

4) In context with these personal and existential Crises-of-Crises, I re-examine my possible status as a “unique savant”, specially gifted to minimize some of the effects of our human limitations, making Larry/nuet a potentially useful TOOL to be used by humankind, providing a tentative “map” for the transition from humankind to humanity. This unique status was recently greatly enhanced by the discovery that Larry has/does exhibit behavior indicative of the some – but not all – traits for the Autism Spectrum or Asbergers Syndrome .  My long time known lack of mental imagery in all sensory modalities makes me an exception within Autism/Asperger; but my inability to view myself as a member of a social category is very real (objective), and significant for others (to know) to better comprehend my insights.


This insight is shifting me away from a bias that may have been blocking the comprehension of others to my primary insight.

My bias was in my emotional/intuitive support of “Subjectivity over Objectivity”. My whole behavior/thinking reflected this bias, even though I explicitly sought to present a balanced parity between these two crude perspectives of what we label “REALITY” (a conceptual scheme too slippery to grab hold of).

RELATIVITY might be better contrasted with OBJECTIVITY, too sketch this bias. Everything is not all Relative! What is “Objective” in my Up2Met proposal/model, given that I believe we can’t directly experience Objective Reality?


I am also shifting in my exploration of my difficulty in sharing my larger conceptual schemes. I take note, from The Knowledge Illusion, that collective comprehension of major conceptual schemes are located in intimate, communicating groups, and NOT within the knowledge/minds of individual participants. That individuals believe they actually posses explicit knowledge content can be empirically demonstrated as illusion.

I recognize that I never have had a group attentive to the conceptual schemes that have been emerging within Larry/nuet over these eight decades. I may have temporarily participated in such knowledge exploring groups on other, more limited, content.


This may be a condition for many persons of “genius”. The recent TV series, Genius – featuring Einstein – illustrated his difficulty in “relating personally” with others. Fortunately, Einstein’s radical insights – initially strongly rejected by the then scientific establishment – were in physics and thus capable of eventual empirical confirmation. This foundation in empirical science permits scientific discourse groups to cohere about objective, observable entities – The Scientific Literature, including data. Relevant scientific discourse is not only mind-to-mind about mental ideas, but also mind-to-mind about shared, concrete observables: texts, including math and data representations.

This “shared confirmation” process used in the material sciences is not nearly as strong in the human sciences, and often absent or warped in discourse about so-called “real events in the real world” as conveyed in the various media.

My proposal that humankind shift its foundation for human sciences to sems and semfields, and away from the illusionary “objective reality consciously observed” provides a possible resolution of our dilemma. This proposal is not easy to implement, let alone comprehend.

Larry’s wrld, named “nuet”, and its dominant model of “personal-to-societal-reality-change” I label “Up2Met”, has emerged with little positive feedback from others. Up2Met has been woven from multiple, significant inputs from many others (by reading and conversation) – over my lifetime. What is unique about Up2Met are the nu relationships that nuet wove between the content nodes from others. Also, each node in Up2Met has been modified by their interactivity within emergent nuet. Thus every term I use in my texts may have a different meaning for others, than I have for myself. The lack of positive feedback and deep dialog with others has resulted in an isolation of Up2Met from useful dialog with others.

I need to search for and explore work on such “SHARED KNOWLEDGE GROUPS”, and their differences. Scientific groups, as contrasted with other groups: ideological, political, economic, intelligence, media, military, religious, artistic, hobby, pathological, etc. What has been the impact (and forecasted impacts) of technology on these groups and their performance? How might insights about SHARED KNOWLEDGE GROUPS assist us in comprehending and responding to the fragmentation of humankind as being revealed by The Trump Phenomenon?

The shift in the conceptual scheme about “terms/words and their meanings in usage” as demonstrated in the 2013 masterpiece, Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, Doug Hofstadter & Emmanuel Sander has yet to be recognized, acknowledged, and integrated.


For many years my focus has been on PERSONAL vs SOCIETAL systems, with lesser attention to SOCIAL systems. I now recognize that this is partly due to my inability to emotionally feel authentic membership in social systems or societal categories.

I have never experienced myself as a son, brother, father, parent, husband, friend, student, teacher, scientist, futurist, American, male, short, N-years old, etc. I comprehend these categories. As not experiencing mental imagery, I also don’t experience emotional empathy – IN THE WAY OTHERS DO.

I learned of my lack of mental imagery when I actually had a brief visual image (at age 22), and learned what I was missing. Since then, I have scientifically explored mental imagery. I now am learning that my empathy is not missing, but focused on “conceptualizations” about human situations and not on “personal relationships”. Indeed, I am driven to be behaviorally submissive to other’s imposed constraints; even though I may often object verbally. Indeed, my brief emotional outbursts are always an automatic response to being “dissed”. I don’t first consciously notice being dissed; those thoughts come after the emotional outburst has done its damage. My emotional outbursts often lead to emotional outbursts from others, although often not by their SHOUTING, which they perceive as thus, not emotional. The analysis written here emerged as I wrote, although much content is old.

The Objectivity of Social Groups was clarified, for me, in The Knowledge Illusion. Yet, this can only be experienced AUTOPOETICALLY (Maturana & Varela) in the context of personal “wrlds” – we only experience patterns in our biological dynamics. For example, Damasio’s insight that emotions are experiences of specific body changes.

It is now apparent to me, that the person who recommended the book to me, has his dominant reality focused on personal relationships and social groups. His attention to individuals is to their accomplishments and not their “persons”.

I have long been aware of the unconscious dance between persons in direct sensory contact with each other; anthropologically, and more recently via mirror neurons. I was drawn to John Lilly’s insight about the objective reality of DYADS: two persons locked in an intimate dance. Once I explored the objectivity of relationship vs entity-in-relationships. I came to view them as complementarities (ala quantum physics). Recently I have explored this in terms of NODES and LINKS, and the distinctions between SYSTEMS and NETWORKS.

I have always let there be an opening to the total subjectivity of wrlds via possible “psychic events”: a “direct” influence of one mind on another mind – bypassing the sensory systems. There are two levels for this. (1) a pattern in one brain can be imposed on another brain through a new type of coupling, with both persons actually consciously experiencing the same. (2) The dynamics of the pattern in one brain can be influenced by patterns in another brain; but not as far as imposing patterns. There may be weak evidence for (2), but I doubt (1) will ever be observed. Partly because, for me, the momentary conscious experience has no reality beyond being a pattern in an emergent, larger process. I seriously question the objective existence of “consciousness”, as a “spiritual-like entity”, that may even survive biological death. My rejection results from the total lack of positive evidence AND the psychological explanations for the ideological reasons for such beliefs. I also reject the “superiority” of “consciousness” on aesthetic grounds – it is an ugly concept, for me.

I witness I ramble, as usual, straying away from any “point” – that others often accuse me of never making. Maybe I don’t believe in the objectivity of points.


This will be the last content added to this doc. There will be minor edits. This is already too long for relaxed reading. Most readers will quickly shift to skim mode, if not starting with that mode. Faced today with a virtual infinity of relevant information, and using presentation media emphasizing short pieces (the extreme being tweets), no one can give needed attention to any document.

Yet, we must – in some ways – seaf the emergence of NU WAYS to interact and “progress”.

Conversation is an inadequate mode, except for simple, mundane objectives – or the simple but positive enjoyment of verbal dancing.
Facilitated/Mediated conversation can be useful for limited objectives. However, without accounting for the cognitive diversity of participants (which is not seafed with today’s technology), the objectives are further limited. This includes diverse cultural and personal differences that give enhanced authority to some participants over others.
Writing, Reading, and comment exchanges – also valuable for some domains – is also limiting.

Humankind has emerged processes for sharing complex conceptual schemes. We loosely label them “EDUCATION” and “R&D”. What characterize both is the deep integration of learning and organizing – emergent within a specific group of persons, over time. Persons change (learn) as their pattern of interactivity changes (organizes). I have labeled this cycling process OLLO: Organizing-for-Learning-&=Learning-for-Organizing.

What was missing in my prior attempts at explicating OLLO was specific attention to the group and the distinction between COLLECTIVE knowledge and INDIVIDUAL knowledge. In spite of my intention to attend to networks (over nodes/systems) I was maintaining bias towards personal knowledge and agency. This was reinforced by my attention to the wrlds vs worlds distinction – as vital as it is.

I am again reminded of my addiction to composing/reading, to the abandonment of creating/emerging Structure/Processes for OLLO. Texts about OLLO won’t bring OLLO to being. I use the term “composing”, instead of “writing” for what I do – and am doing at this moment. There is an element of creating/emerging – but hardly systematic. I (we) need to be far more systematic in our processes, related to our objectives and goals. We continue under the illusion that the BEST of what we are DOING will be adequate – while the EVIDENCE is very clear that much more & different IS NEEDED.

Another, related theme/domain:


>> metaphor re Humankind-to-HUMANITY<<
Horse or Tractor
It makes a difference
when we need to
Maintain or Train or Heal/Repair.

HUMAN PROBLEMS AREN’T REAL ……………….. In the sense that problems in the material world are real.

The “reality” of problems with human social systems is that they are arbitrarily defined within contexts assumed fixed. A proper resolution of a human social/societal difficulty may be best gained by shifting the context. However, when such difficulties are categorized as “problems in the material sciences” (where the context, the laws of physics, is never questioned), seeking shifts in contexts is not imagined, let alone considered.

Again, I consider human problems with biology – including neuroscience – within material science. This issue becomes clear with the sharp distinction between material reality (up from physics) and the realities of humankind (where reports comprise the empirical base).

A variation of this would be to assert THERE ARE NO FACTS IN HUMANKIND. There is no foundation for truth, no bottom. Wherever you are, there is always further interpretation and uncertainty. As discussed later & elsewhere, the foundation for humankind are sems, semiotic structures, to which all can agree on the identity of static visual patterns – but these must always be interpreted, which always depends on contexts, which will always differ.

Example: There are many challenges in making one’s living space meet one’s desires and needs. The material context includes the building, itself. The context might shift mildly, by considering renovation of the building. A bigger shift would be to seek a different building to make your home or worksite. Here the immediate constraints (contexts) are material, but their choice is arbitrary (including to live “in the wild”).

Resolutions to Humankind’s most serious challenges are blocked by the unconscious assumption that economic, governance, and political (group decision making) systems follow fixed laws (ideologies) akin to the laws of physics. Those who propose different assumptions are treated as pseudo-science and charlatans by scientists: ridiculed and oppressed.

Contemporary reporting of news and analyses clearly reflects this confusion, if one is open to perceive it. Even the most lucid, intelligent, and “evidence based” analyses are out-of-context (re, a greater whole where alternatives exist).


Confusing:[This issue cannot be resolved by simply “changing persons”. This issue is rooted in the material reality of human biology and neuroscience, where the material structure of human persons limits their behavior and mental processes – even with their vast diversity of cognition.]

Human intuition depends on a wired-in context for perception and behavior IN A WRLD, of discrete objects and events that “follow” the laws of so-called “naive reality”. We have discovered that the “directly unobservable very small” don’t “follow” these laws, but “follow” different laws (of quantum physics). I speculate that societal systems (e.g., nation states and corporations) may also not “follow” the laws upon which our intuitions are based. That is, humankind (the contemporary “whole” of everything “human”) need not “follow” the laws of physics or logic. This is not to claim there are no regular and useful patterns in humankind. Rather, our challenge is to discover these patterns and learn to use them for us to transit beyond humankind, via creative emergence to a radically nu configuration of human systems we might call HUMANITY.

Humans, being “free” from the constraints of physics-type-laws has long been a spiritual fantasy – however improperly conceptualized and blindly believed, leading us to contemporary humankind with all its dysfunctions (in civilizations beyond tribes). This is not claiming that we can violate laws of physics. Rather, that much of what we imagine/believe are governed by the laws of material science – actually, are independent of these laws. Also, our “need” to adhere to the laws of material reality (when facing challenges within humankind) are not consciously conceptual with intention; but are automatic, unconscious, and never critically evaluated. In other words, we assume a reality about ourselves that is false, and that constrains our “freedom” to act in more advantageous ways (for the multi-millennial survival/thrival of Humanity/Gaia).

Elsewhere I have proposed that humans, with the slow emergence of visual languages, have liberated information from all prior bondage to matter/energy systems (and thus the constraints of physics). Our sems (semiotic structures) organized as semfields (now accessible via digital, computerized technologies) provides us with an “objective base” to which we can all agree (to be part of our individual woven/constructed wrlds). Although we may have different interpretations (“meanings”) for any given sem, we call all learn to agree on the identity of any specific sem (and their identical reproductions). Sems in HR are analogous to atoms in MR; all atoms ( with the same parameters) have considered identical.

We can’t move to this nu reality so long as we believe our human situations and challenges are like problems of the material sciences. This distinction is related to, but different from, the challenge proposed by The Club of Rome many decades ago when they proposed “problemateques” seeking “solutionateques”. “Problemateques” acknowledged that beyond a limit of Magnitude/Scope/Complexity (MSC), the Problem/Solution (or Question/Answer) paradigms don’t apply. The cliche, “everything is connected to everything”, signifies that the practice of isolating relevant from irrelevant, in defining problems, has very limited domains of applicability.

We are fortunate that our material reality (even in its great MSC) was susceptible to the Problem/Solution paradigm of scientific (laboratory) research. Material reality is “simple” (in its special sense). Humankind is “complex” (in its own unique sense), by not being constrained by the laws of material reality. We have been able to develop Tech6 (a systemic process involving Tools, Techniques, Teams, Tasks, Training, Time) that is applicable for both material and human realities.



Total solar eclipses exist because, at this time in human history, the sun and moon subtend the same arc in the sky – they both have the same apparent diameter – the moon can just cover the sun.  This is a configuration of very low probability – which all scientists (even Carl Sagan) insist must be just a coincidence.  Speculation that there was a “cause” or “purpose” for this sun/moon configuration, just at the time humans were emerging, is a taboo topic.

Although creatures that navigate at night show evidence of detecting North-South direction from the night sky, there is no evidence that creatures other than humans attend to star patterns in the night sky. However, much life behavior is tuned to the moon phases, and to the relative movements of the sun. Dung beetles do orient to the Milky Way.

Speculate, for a moment, that if it were not for the total solar eclipse humans might have been delayed many millennia in attending to the night sky, specifically the star patterns – and thus, the rapid advance of our Sci/Tech civilization would have delayed.

I haven’t yet read of an estimation of the probability that the sun and moon would subtend the same arc, with such precision, during the evolutionary rise of humankind. Theory claims that earlier the moon was closer and is moving away. With the moon closer, solar eclipses would be much more frequent and taken as a regular “weather” phenomenon by creatures living on the earth at that time.  Later, when the moon is further out, there would be no total solar eclipses and no deep darkening.

Those with eyes able to focus on stars still may not attend to the stars.  We often don’t attend to phenomena that don’t influence us and are not “sudden”, to attract our attention. Individual humans probably noticed the stars occasionally, in the clear night sky, but those experiences were never socially relevant.  That is, until they saw the stars in the daytime, during a total solar eclipse. Seeing constellations in daytime that were then seen only in other seasons at night was probably a significant feature.

Animals are fearful of lightning and thunder, as harbingers of trouble. Do animals see rainbows? Animals react to environmental changes, and there is probably lore about animal behavior during eclipses. I expect there is no evidence of other animals forecasting eclipses.

Very early humans probably treated total solar eclipses as they treated storms.  They adapted.  Later, in advanced tribal times with social structure and shamans, the total solar eclipse became significant.  Are there ancient artworks of eclipses?  What records do we have of early shamans and eclipses?  The role of shamans in human history is very significant, but I won’t go into it here.

Shamans and tribal cultures could elevate eclipses to significant religious events. When shamans could predict solar eclipses with some accuracy they could command much more respect. I have read that total solar eclipses could have been forecast approximately, in tribal times, from basic information available to shamans.

The lack of total accuracy was actually advantageous for the shaman.  He would have the tribe perform rituals to keep the eclipse away (the moon eating the sun); if the prediction failed and there was no eclipse, the ritual was successful.  If the ritual failed, more ritual during the eclipse would assist the shaman in bringing back the sun.  Failure of tribal persons to properly perform the ritual would be cited for the reason the eclipse happened.

Although total solar eclipses are rather frequent somewhere on Earth, they are far less frequent at any specific location: averaging about one every 375 years, many generations. Total solar eclipses would be in the lore of a culture, not a periodic occurrence. Partial eclipses would have been more frequent.

Being able to predict solar eclipses motivated some tribal persons, especially shamans, to attend to the details of the night sky, which launched humankind on it path towards sci/tech civilizations.

The stars provide no useful energy to the Earth. The night sky is pure information. There are the fixed pattern of most stars in relation to each other (the constellations) and the uniform rotation of the overall pattern, varying over each evening and over the seasons.

An early phenomenon that attracted explicit human attention was the changing/unchanging patterns of the starry night sky. They invented ways to improve observation and make records. South Sea islanders learned to use the night sky to navigate thousands of miles in open sea – to Hawaii.

The star field was the first example of invariance. The pattern of a constellation (whether lines between stars, or the spaces between the lines – a cultural variation) was fixed. And yet, it changed in a truly regular ways. The night sky was the exemplar of regularity.

Geological and biological features always exhibit variation. Even mountains look different during different weather conditions.  The night sky became the primary phenomenon for the emergence of mathematics and science for millennia.

The retrograde motion of the brightest “stars” (planets) was the first major scientific challenge, which took millennia  to solve – a process that motivated the creation of instruments, observational procedures, data recording, and mathematical representations – scientific tools and techniques that evolved quickly to be applied to other phenomena. Our solar system, not phenomena on Earth’s surface, was the first for humans to “cut their scientific teeth”.

Where might we be if we hadn’t total solar eclipses to prematurely launch us through our scientific, industrial, and now digital revolutions? Would we have electricity, let alone computers?

In NU GENESIS, I speculate that the Earth/Moon system, set for total solar eclipses, was “somehow caused” by Gaia, to provide Gaia/Earth with the technology to avoid the next asteroid caused major extinction.  Gaia recovered (and gained from) each prior extinction; but another major extinction would wipe out all higher life forms (all mammals and birds). This was risky, as the premature technological advancement outstripped our human systems organization, which now threatens a major extinction of our own making. Might this knowledge of our purpose for Gaia motivate us to avoid the disaster ahead?  Abandoning technology is not an option, for it is needed for us to avoid future asteroid collisions. Contemporary science isn’t at a level to discover what may have “caused” the Earth/Moon system to be as it is now. Nor, should a lack of explanation justify scientific establishments from accepting this as a challenge. Unfortunately, established science does just that; as evidenced by the rejection of Continental Drift data, until plate tectonics provided an explanation.

be a useful Creation Myth
to assist us, facing our

COMMENT ON : The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression, by Peter Joseph

Although this book shares with UPLIFT (Up2Met) longterm and significant goals, it is an example of what UPLIFT attempts to reveal has a major flaw – focus on one (or only a few) paradigms as THE “cause/solution”.

The flaw in achieving big goals (ending many problems) with simple (small independent variables) solutions is that the Temporal Implementation of any set of project/objectives to achieve the change requires other changes, not addressed.


The Zeitgeist Movement – (founded by Peter Joseph) does exhibit elements of what I might imagine to occur in an UPLIFT Movement. Exploring their online info (not their 320 page book) I see their focus is primarily about somehow transforming the Capitalist system, with little thought to the organization of a new humanity, beyond a reformed economy and monetary system. To me, that a better humanity will automatically emerge from this socioeconomic transformation is (typical human) naiveté. Joseph seems to have a perspective of sociological determinism, which seems in conflict with his objectives to influence change.


It may appear that UPLIFT also focuses on only one objective:  Uplifting the Distribution of Cognitive Competencies in the Global Human Population, significantly and by means consistent with our best Sci/Tech and accounting for the real potentials/limitations of humankind.

ANY program that doesn’t include a strong emphasis on UPLIFTING, is doomed to failure. The current distribution of Cognitive Competencies in humankind is grossly inadequate to engage our Crisis-of-Crises challenges, with accelerating MSC (Magnitude/Scope/Complexity).

Economic change must and will accompany UPLIFT. UPLIFT accepts the current “state” of humankind and doesn’t propose quick&easy solutions. Magical Awakenings of Everyone is a pipe-dream that blocks viable actions. Economic Centered proposals are also grossly insufficient; although how humans acquire, exchange resources is essential – but shouldn’t be the singular or dominant concern.

Almost everyone concerned with our future propose somewhat specific objectives and goals, while criticizing our current systems and ways.

A human-nature flaw is for humans to confuse stating an objective (solving a problem) as implying they have a solution (to the problem). This is a common delusion. Also, most humans are prone to simple cause-effect solutions; whereas the changes-over-time required by our real challenges involves much greater MSC, and simple causality is inadequate.

Peter Joseph’s intention to remove the class structure of civilization unconsciously implies its continuation, by not facing the impossiblity of most contemporary humans comprehending his goals and operational-plans (if they exist) without significant uplifting, and even be resistant to any attempts to “educate” them.  UPLIFT accepts this challenge. The current epidemic of polarization (The Trump Phenomenon) should illustrate the powerful barrier to change that we face. In this age of silos, informing is a grossly insufficient tactic, in the absence of any coherent strategy for emergence.

Over the decades, I have failed to share the basic insights of UPLIFT (in its many variations) with those who DO respect my mind and DO seek to comprehend, often personal friends or colleagues. The best (historical and contemporary) minds attempting to comprehend human systems change appear unaware of the simplicity of their best efforts. Capitalism vs Alternatives is a cartoon, even when it involves sophisticated mathematics and empirical testing in real systems.

What each individual human “experiences” about the whole of humankind is a highly distorted, tiny fragment – however believed to be their “true and objective wrld”. That Nobel Prize scientists share (at different levels) this same delusion with the uneducated points to a intrinsic limitation of the human brain. This limitation is complex, but might be characterized by Georg Miller’s 7+/-2 Law: limiting the number of independent variables for a “system” a human is capable of attending to in their “realtime” specious present.

Modern humans have invented sophisticated mathematical tools and models to work with and represent systems with far more independent variables. This has not relieved this biological/psychological limitation for holding more compext systems “in our minds”. Nor has our ability to LIST ten to even hundreds of variables, helped. Indeed, it appears that for thinking about real systems (beyond remembering random digits) the limitation is more 2 or 3. Yet, because we can talk about more complex system, we have the delusion that we can “imagine” them and “work with them in our conscious minds”.

Individual humans can have systems with a few more independent variables organized in their “subconscious minds” and move their attention – sequentially – through different sets of 3D perspectives.

My lack of mental imagery (in all sensory modes) appears to have enabled me to move more freely between many, different 3D perspectives and that my subconscious (nuet) has a more general system than others – whose mental imagery limits the scope of their inner wrld. My lack of imagery also enables me to LIVE COMPLEMENTARITY: to not demand any small set of variables to emotionally become an “objective” reality.

Here I begin to wander into the many dimensional reality, for which this mode of discourse is inadequate.



While being motivated to start this composing process, the phrase Epistemic Shift came to mind, with association to the works of Michel Foucault, specifically The Order of Things. That book, is one of the most influential books catalyzing a major step in the emergence of my “epistemic system”. I googled “epistemic shift” and discovered it well in use. I might attribute Foucault for providing me with an introduction to the conceptual scheme, “epistemic shift”, which I quickly identified as a good label for what I was undergoing.

This led to Distinctions between Paradigms and Perspectives (and    Barriers), and between singular shifts, systems of shifts, and cascades of shifts. The term “paradigm” has gained many different meanings since first used by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In my analysis, Kuhn initially used the term “paradigm” to label a habitual social behavior practiced by a given population, usually a scientific “discipline”. Users began to generalize use of the term to include “ideas”, “conceptual schemes”, or “mental perspectives”. Kuhn later began to use the term without distinguishing between “behavior” or “idea”. I find this distinction very important, and use the term “paradigm” in Kuhn’s original sense for a habitual social behavior. Paradigms and Perspectives are usually paired.


What has only recently become sharply explicit, is that these “shifts” occur with great variation between persons, all exposed to a “common milieu” where the shifts are occurring in their conversant population. And, even more importantly, that many populations within 21st Century humankind have not yet undergone these historical shifts.


PARTIAL LIST OF  labels for prior EPISTEMIC SHIFTS (rough)

Classical Space + Time to SpaceTime Relativity
Classical Reality to Quantum Reality
Linear Thinking to Non Linear Thinking
Separate Origins to Evolution (of Species) – All Life is Related
Geocentric to Heliocentric
Resemblances to Temporal Order (Foucault)
Opinion & Belief to Formal Empiricism & Science
Oral to Visual Languages
Hunting/Gathering to Agriculture
Reading as Ritual to Silent Reading is OK
Social to Societal
Geometric to Algebraic to Computerized Math
Many gods to Father GOD to Spirituality/Atheism
After-Life  to  No After-Life
2D to 3D Perspective in Art
Esoteric Myths to Scientific Causation
Males Superior to Gender Equality
Children as Little Adults to Stage Development
Humans Rule/Own their Environments to Humans Part of Gaia

We need to sort these into those relating to the external world and those related to human systems; although they are never fully independent.

What is important, is not to assume that all humans have made each shift. There are populations of humans who continue to live in the old epistemes. Some of the new epistemes are held by a minority of humans.

Is this long prologue necessary?  We need to better comprehend prior epistemic shifts if we are to explore whether we are now experiencing a new shift – possibly greater and somewhat different from prior shifts.

Here I will assume we have explored prior shifts, and I will jump in with reports of what Larry/nuet groks as a new “Epistemic Shift” emerging

I haven’t yet attempted to analyze how much I have already integrated with some of these nu shifts, and how much I am speculating (in the context of old epistemes) the coming shifts – evidenced by the turmoil contemporary within humankind’s Crisis-of-Crises.


Somewhere I read that the shift to gender equality, among the scientifically knowledgeable, was motivated by the science of genetics. Once it was recognized that both mother and father contribute “equally” to the traits of their offspring, both parents must be cared for. With the prior metaphor of Father=Seed & Mother=Soil, the genders could be treated differently, with the primary traits in the Seed. After Darwin and genetics we learned that both genders contribute seeds.

What we don’t yet know, because it has never been a query: What persons and populations don’t know this scientific fact and it’s implications. What is the distribution of these epistemic differences in the global population? I would wager the vast majority of 21st Century humankind don’t comprehend this.

The point of this illustration is that a shift in knowledge (source of traits) can catalyze major shifts in behavior among those accepting this knowledge. That full gender equality doesn’t yet exist in this small population (scientifically knowledgeable) demonstrates that we must consider multiple and interacting shifts to result in the bigger changes we desire.

[The latest Google flap about gender differences illustrates the sensitivity to this issue. There may be greater depth to the comments by the fired employee than is reported by the MSM. In an RT article, it is claimed that the author called for the removal of discrimination due to imagined differences, to account for real differences (what they are is controversial), and in particular – is in support of equal wages for genders. RT and CNN are both propaganda arms of their respective nations. If so, this illustrates how our epistemes influence our perception and how few actually read what they are willing to comment on. I have just read the Google memo – which explicitly mentions “echo chambers” in Google.  I see a battle of epistemes, requiring deep and careful analysis – and not summary judgement. This is epistemic, in the same sense that the current debate about racial/ethnic quotas in college admissions, is rooted in epistemes, although also involving socio-economic variables and personal vs collective “rights”.]


humankind to HUMANITY (h2H)

This is a symbol (h2H) I will use to label the whole system of shifts we are now within. I cannot “define” it briefly; nor describe different features without shifting the focus from the whole to that part being described. When doing this, each part is experienced by the learner in their old (epistemic) context. From the perspective of the new whole (once comprehended), each part is comprehended differently (than before); with modified relationships between the “parts”. “Whole/Part” is a crude metaphor for the process I refer to.

Given all that has been and is happening, we should expect to be undergoing major epistemic shifts.  Yet, most persons who report significant, life-changing “paradigm shifts” DON’T ANTICIPATE any further such PERSONAL shifts. We never imagine a nesting of Platonic Caves.



I speculate that this epistemic shift is more characterized by the positive interference of the different component paradigm/perspective shifts. than by the component paradigm/perspective shifts, themselves. The pattern in the network of related nodes (paradigm/perspective shifts) will be one characterization/identity of this “doozy” of a shift – should we survive it and later examine it in retrospect. It will involve many more paradigm/perspective shifts, with more interactions between shifts.

Vernor Vinge’s claim that Post-Singularity Reality will be incomprehensible to Pre-Singularity humans applies to the nu epistemic shift we are undergoing. This proves true in the fact that all science (speculative) fiction of the distant future is populated by 20th Century humans (in all their diversity) – even when they are given special traits or powers. Do we resist the fundamental shifts that are our potential and need because we can’t imagine the resultant “state” after the shift? How can we learn to TRUST uncertain change?

The meanings of many older terms change after epistemic shifts; with new distinctions and differentiations. New terms will be coined to label new concepts. Only some by explicit design. Some concepts (re terms) were known to a few; but unknown to many and seldom applied.



(very rough)

Human Cognitive Diversity

Mental Imagery Diversity
Lacking Mental Imagery
Memory Style Diversity
Creativity Diversity
Specious Present Diversity
Consider Impact: Brain Matures until age 26
Reconsider: Infant & Child Development
Persons are S/R Mechanisms with Their Environments
Creativity Emits/Emerges, not in Response – but in Context
7 +/- 2 bandwidth limit – independent variables in specious present
Confabulated Experiential Coherence
Humankind more than a Species – Class or Order
Languaging: Power & Limitations; Evolution/Emergence
Confusions about Consciousness

Humankind vs Material Reality

Information Liberation – Sems & Semfields
Wrlds within Worlds -Autopoiesis & Others
Sci/Tech of Humankind different from Sci/Tech of Material Reality
Sci/Tech of Humankind far inferior to Sci/Tech of Material reality

Sci/Tech of Material Reality  == cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, neurosciences, molecular biology, genetics  – where whole human persons are not components of systems studied.

Molecular – Beads, Strings, Fabrics
Metaphors – Pros & Cons
Mathematical: Theories vs Poetry

Sci/Tech of Humankind  == psychology, education, medicine, sociology, economics, political science  – where whole human persons are components of systems studied.

Fake Realities – There are no Humankind Sci/Tech Facts
Personal / Social / Societal
Complementarity of Perspectives
Epistemes / Paradigms / Perspectives / Barriers
~50 Human Limitations Recognized, but Ignored
Quman – Societal Reality and (Quantum-like) Weirdness
Beyond Education – LQE (Learners for Quality Education)
Beyond Economic/Political Centrism
Beyond Individualism/Collectivism
Real Creative Agency vs Illusion of Free Will
Relevant Knowledge Ignored by Elites & Decision Makers
Comprehending Belief
Processing Structure / Structuring Process
Owning Children: Parental/Child/Social Rights?
Denial of Potential for Future PERSONAL Major Paradigm Shifts
Preserving Traditions
Rituals as Habit-Breaking Performances

reeee seaf galdee nu

criteria for action = relevant/effective/efficient/enjoyable/elegant
help = support/enable/augment/facilitate
change = grow/adapt/learn/develop/evolve/emerge
NU = name for Humanity after Up2Met
here&now contains pasts and futures
Transformation vs Emergence
Spiral Dynamics – Stages of Development
Conceptual Schemes
Nested/Networked Participatory Apps
Nu Visual Languages & Apps
Goal = Intended Consequence of System of Successful Objectives
Distinguish & Apply: Formative vs Summative Evaluations


Cultural/Societal Metamorphosis
Bootstrap Uplift Scaffolding
Colab Studios
Scripting Performance / Performing Scripts
humankind to HUMANITY (h2H)
Nu Genesis Myth
Earth Changes BEYOND Climate Changes
Multi-Billennial Survival/Thrival of Humanity/Gaia
Ownership vs Operational Management
This Great Day – a transition model
Releasing Blocked Exponentially Emergent Potential



FeedPast Bootstrapping
Holistic Determination
Nu Genesis
New Phenomena Discovered
Planetary Semfields – Uplifting Other Species (David Brin)
Contact with “Alien” Planetary Semfields
Significant Life Extension
Genetic/Bio Engineering of Humans
Humanity & Intelligent Machines





A FREE PRESS – examined

I did it again. I started to reply to an email from Linda (7/22/17) about Spicer, lies and her being thankful that we have a free press. This activated nuet to compose a very long reply. Too long to send, and it needed editing, so it was saved, and forgotten. Now (8/4/17) I discovered my draft reply, and chose to post it on my blog, edit, and inform others. So, here goes.


It seems like months, but only 3 days ago Linda replied to an email with reference to Spicer’s “lies” and how she is thankful that we have a free press. There is still, no country (not the nation) that I would prefer to live in than that located between Mexico and Canada. Yet, I immediately composed most of what follows about the myth of the free press in the USA. I then forgot it, only to discover it, and do minor edits.  I think I intended it to be a blog post. No time for this at the moment – maybe later. (7/25/17)

Although we have no FREE PRESS, fully in the USA; a really FREE PRESS doesn’t exist anywhere. However, here in the USA we have (at least now) an INTERNET within which we can (by searching) find a very vast range of “points of view”.  I know some is censored, but don’t know what. Other nations censor for their majority; but CYBERSPACE remains OPEN from anywhere – If you know how [I may be wrong].  This is about to change.

As to our “free” press. Absolutely nowhere in our MSM (Main Stream Media) can you find an article about 9/11 that is NOT THE ESTABLISHMENT’S CONSPIRACY THEORY (Ben Laden did it), as their accepted story. Stories about “Inside Jobs” are censored from all MSM; except that talk of a 911 conspiracy is ridiculed in the MSM.

Indeed, the MSM continues to badmouth even the concept of real conspiracies. Periodically there are diversionary reports, such as the Saudi involvement – to confuse the issue. Trump’s crazy claim about seeing, on TV, hundreds of Arabs dancing  to 911 (ridiculed by the liberal press) was probably because he saw a report of five Israeli/Jewish young men taking selfies with the tower’s collapse as background, in New Jersey. This story soon became unavailable, even online – but I had read different versions, some claiming they were Mossad agents.   But, here it is. Trump (for once) did see something, but gave it his own meaning and exaggeration.

The same applies to ANY reporting of the political assassinations in the late 20th century proposing that they weren’t ALL by lone, deranged gunmen. “Over-whelming evidence” (but not all to be trusted) that 911 and the assassinations were NOT as the official theories claim IS AVAILABLE ON OUR INTERNET. But, the confirmable FACT that it is there CAN’T appear in our MSM (from CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and the CBS, NBC, ABC news channels). Even independent journals, like our Tucson Weekly, don’t dare cover these stories. USA corporate collusion with Nazi corporations up to, and even during WWII doesn’t make MSM news.  IBM maintained the German “computers” that kept their accurate records of the Holocaust killings, during WWII.  Allen Dulles was in Switzerland during most of WWII, working with many Nazis, who he respected. Dulles facilitated the Chief of Nazi Intelligence, Reinhard Gehlen,  to first become head of West German Intelligence, and later – in the USA, to work with the CIA.  It is rationalized that this was necessary for our Cold War conflicts with the USSR.

American history, on our MSM, is a massive whitewash. However, all this information IS AVAILABLE in published books in the USA – but you must look for them.  I have been using “press” as Main Stream newspapers, journals, popular books, and TV news & analyses. TV entertainment programming is also a powerful source for pro-USA propaganda.

NOTE ON CENSORSHIP IN THE USA: Letting “delicate” information have limited access, but limiting its distribution in the MSM is a more secure means of censorship that blanket book-burning. Authorities can keep track of this, when “in the open”; rather than driving it “underground”.

Also forbidden from our whole MSM is that the final count in our recent (21st Century) presidential elections have all been hacked.  USA elections are sophisticatededly rigged, not by fake voters (as Trump claims, via project CrossCheck) but by subtle tinkering with the final count in a few key states.  The MSM will report on voter suppression. Evidence (not available on MSM) is strong that George W. Bush LOST BOTH his presidential elections. Evidence is strong that Hillary won the MA primary (over Obama) by rigging ONLY those voting sites that used computerized vote tallying methods, where she had business interests in those voting systems. That OUR ELECTIONS may not be valid is a taboo topic in our MSM. Trump’s claims of voter fraud are such outlandish lies that the MSM can report on them – as a diversion for the REAL VOTE-COUNT manipulation (which I speculate gave Trump his “victory” – the Russian intervention wasn’t enough). Such talk by Trump strengthens the larger coverup that our elections are no longer valid. Search The Internet about Media Censorship, while it is still permitted in the USA.

Some of the above stories may be fabricated, as there are many “conspiracy stories” in the kook literature. But, you can’t debate these in the MSM, let alone acknowledge the controversies. Note that 911TRUTH and the Kennedy assassinations are often pointed out, in our MSM, listed among the more outlandish conspiracies. I speculate that Alex Jones is a Deep State agent to propagate crazy conspiracy theories to mask real conspiracy theories, in his INFOWARS. Trump consults Alex Jones and INFOWARS looks less “crazy” now that Trump is POTUS. Alex Jones started out covering what might have been valid conspiracies – then he went crazy. Did the FEDs make him an offer he couldn’t refuse?

Recently I viewed a NEWSWEEK online piece on Alex Jones, making fun of his conspiracies. The first three were a sandwich. Between conspiracy theories: Sandy Hook (that the massacre of children was a hoax) and PizzaGate (that Hillary ran a child sex ring at a pizza parlor) was the 9/11TRUTH hypothesis. Think on the contrast, and the intent of the juxtaposition.

INTO THE BUZZSAW: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press, edited by Kristina Borjesson (2004) is an informative read. What I remember is the chapter of how TV news programs, already scheduled, will suddenly be canceled because of government pressure – sometimes on the day of their presentation.

Some major authors of deep expose may “deal” with authorities, to be permitted to criticize – so long as they support specific key government coverups. Noam Chomsky avoids commenting on 9/11TRUTH, focusing only on how we pushed them to attack us.  I think I read an article by Chomsky being strongly against all criticism of the government sponsored conspiracy theory about 911; but that is no longer on his list. Did I imagine it?  What is clear is that there is no record of any Chomsky statements on 9/11 INSIDE JOB CONSPIRACIES.  Much earlier, radical newsletter author I.F. Stone, did the same “in defense” of Oswald being the lone assassin of JFK. Their “articles” were so out of character and hinted (to me) that they were fake. I know I read that article and was disturbed. IF Stone on 12/09/1963 on JFK, where he assumes Oswald the assassin. On 10/05/1964 IF Stone wrote in defense of the Warren committee report and attacked its critics. It was this issue that disturbed me.  The Internet has become valuable.  ALL OF I.F.STONE.

We DO HAVE SOME STRONG FREEDOMS IN THE USA, but we are not the most free country.


In my new model of reality, contrasting Material Reality (e.g. physics2biology) with Human Reality (Humankind), there is no TRUE or FAKE.   Within humankind, the “empirical bases” are  symbolic patterns (e.g., text reports & videos) – all requiring INTERPRETATION, which then depends on unconscious/assumed CONTEXTS (which are, themselves, supposedly based on a system of other “reports”).

Spicer lies within your accepted contexts, but is viewed as sharing the truth in the contexts of Trump supporters -to whom he was speaking. He was not speaking to you.

What might presenting a set of videos showing Trump uttering logically contradictory messages MEAN to a Trump supporting viewer? What if the viewer has not been educated about “logic”?  In “logic” courses we learned how most humans frequently accept logical fallacies as truth. Our brains are not wired to logic!

Who has the top authority to claim that LOGIC must dominate in all discourse? Such “authority” is assumed by those versed in modern science. The contemporary anti-science and anti-logic movements follow a “libertarian” opinion that individual human “free will” IS PRIMARY.  There is no available GOD or Cosmic Court to judge between Science and Libertarian doctrines.

Is there a MATERIAL FACT about Russian collusion with the Trump Team in the 2016 elections?  There may be, but within the discourse within Humankind, there is no consensus as how to judge “evidence” or “facts”. Trump supporters REJECT y/our reality, and reject any higher reality which might judge their reality. Thus, any appeal to “factual evidence” cannot work within humankind, as currently situated.

We might look back to history, to times BEFORE logic and scientific evidence were part of the consensual context of some humans.  Both have NEVER been part of the context of the majority of humans. That we BELIEVE in logic and science is no guarantee that the whole of humankind will ever share those beliefs. Up2Met is a possible program to optimize humankind for survival/thrival – not make it “objectively pure”.

To me, this Trump Phenomenon, can open our minds to these “modern assumptions”, now challenged. What many of us are alerted to, is that the “facts” accepted during the Obama administration by Obama supporters, is as FAKE as those proposed by Trump. What is the “truth” about Libya and the Ukraine?   I “like” most of what I view on MSNBC; except, what rankles my emotions, are their (to me) out-right “lies” about Libya and Ukraine. I don’t know WHAT REALLY HAPPENED THERE. I do know I have read very strongly contradictory reports, from which my analysis of THESE REPORTS, leads me to the conclusion that Hillary and Barack are possibly guilty of war crimes. Yet, I accept most of the reporting by MSNBC about Trump and crew.

There are other analysts, who I still respect on most matters. However, in their support to exposure of the evils of The Deep State (including the Clintons and Obama); they (with strong emotional language) also view CNN and MSNBC as totally fake (deep evil) news {Rachael Maddow is their arch-enemy}. They claim that there was NO/Zero Russian involvement in our elections, and that anything Trump offers is better than insured nuclear war with Russia, if the Deep State prevails.

It astounds me how such quality minds can entail such blindspots. It is NOT that MSNBC/CNN maybe/maybenot  contributing to nuclear holocaust. This IS a concern. Rather, it his how everyone is susceptible of biased thinking and seem unable to accept their own potential for bias.

These are not just the rantings of Larry/nuet. There are many excellent books on how we humans really process. The most recent, which is very complex and needs deep reading, is :

The Enigma of Reason, Hugo Mercier & Dan Sperber
SCIENCE review pp 589 12May2017



On 7/22/2017 12:21 PM, Linda Ellinor wrote:

Larry:  Check out the Sean Spicer article about how he will be remembered…it seems in line with your latest Nuet post about false flags.  I can not even imagine having to be in Sean’s shoes and needing to lie to the American public as part of your job!!

Thank god we still have a free press…or at least it seems like a last vestige…even if it isn’t totally free, we do get some actual news and reporting about the lies coming from on high.
Linda Ellinor


Larry’s History with Politics – including NCNP Chicago 1967 & DFL Minneapolis 1968 & Black Panthers DC 1970

Tom, and others who may read this. Again, I got carried away – ideas leading to ideas, insights leading to insights.

Just read the two pieces about  Gayle   McLaughlin , from the urls below; and her promotion letter to Tom. I applaud her for her innovative work, and wish I could imagine a route where a new-politics might be able to transform our disintegrating system. Driving out corporate sponsorship is a commendable achievement and a very worthy objective. As we look beyond the surface of money and economics, we need to look beyond the surface of politics: it is far from what it appears. We both seek deeper essences, but possibly not enough.

After devoting about 8 hours to composing part of what follows, I re-read Gayle and realize that her goal is not being elected as Lt-Gov of California. Her campaign is primarily a means for her to UPLIFT the communities she engages. She might even “ignite tinder”, mobilize virally, and be elected. Mobilizing, UPLIFTING, and Organizing citizenry is our common goal, towards which achieving many, diverse objectives, lead.

How might I contribute/participate? As I ask this about any human endeavor, I run up against our inadequate knowledge about how we vary very significantly in our cognitive functioning and how these effect our changing – and how our cognitive systems might themselves change and be changed. Unfortunately, most “social projects” attempt to re-organize (transform) patterns of human behavior that involves minimal change in an individual’s cognitive system.  At most we ask persons to learn a few facts and to perform a few skills. Indeed, for those elites seeking to maintain control over populations, this minimum is their maximum change to permit. Fundamental improvement in the cognitive processing of populations seriously threatens rulers who depend on masses with limited capacities.

For human change activists, such as Gayle, the cognitive diversity of humans presents a formidable challenge. We currently lack the knowledge needed, in requisite detail, to ensure viable programs. Projects can easily “go wrong” due to unexpected consequences. Effective strategies must be long term and experimental. Learning to do better next time must have as high priority as achieving behavioral objectives, this time. This is very difficult in real-time politics.


Queries, which my long comments, below (about my personal experiences with innovative politics) relate: What does a mobilized, uplifted, and organized citizenry DO? Do they “play politics” with their contemporary systems? Do they attempt to fix, reform, or transform – themselves, communities, organizations, countries & populations, and the whole of humankind? What are some speculative strategies to do this? What if our Crisis-of-Crises blocks all transformation, but requires “metamorphosis”? How do we explore these queries, while facing our daily challenges?

When in Minneapolis (1964-1970) I was deep participating in innovative election politics. My conclusion then, and now, is that THE SYSTEM is structured so that the types and levels of significant change we desire are impossible to achieve – without very radically changing the WHOLE SYSTEM.

Small innovations may appear, but the gains are eventually lost. More is needed, from beyond the political system, to spread and sustain innovations. This doesn’t mean we don’t work to improve, to give us better foundations for more significant, future changes (and to avoid greater suppression of political activity). Sometimes, we may simply experiment, to learn about tactics. But, we cannot look to a growing accumulation of small innovations to “magically come together and do the big job”.


I probably have shared my own experience with politics, elsewhere – but am motivated to record it here, again. After, I return to discussing current politics.

Minneapolis in the late 1960 was a hotbed of new political innovation, where I was very active. We had quite a few mavericks running for different offices as well as radical type activity organizing from the precinct level upward. My involvement started when a contingent from the DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor) party (the main democratic party in MN) attended (as MN State Representative) the National Conference for New Politics convention over the Labor Day Weekend, 8/31 to 9/4, 1967 in Chicago.

DFL : Through WWII Minnesota had a socialist state government, through the Farmer-Labor Party. Hubert Humphrey deceptively organized a merger of the small Democratic Party with the much larger FL party. Then he red-baited the FL leadership. HH was much hated in Minnesota, so I learned after moving there.

For a mix of reasons, I had been invited, in the summer of 1967, to be part of the steering committee for that convention; but primarily because of my creating The Minnesota Peace Cooperative (with 4 others). The MPC was a social media org before the computer. MPC attempted to organize ARM CHAIR ACTIVITY mediated by phone and snailmail. We started this when we discovered that a 1966 poll indicated that one-third of Minnesotans favored unilateral withdrawal from the Vietnam War. We provided a monthly mailing of an 8/5×11 envelop full of info sheets contributed by the MPC membership and a list of scheduled activities to a exponentially growing membership. The mailings were funded by the sale of Peace Stamps. Our mailing list was enormous, when we turned it over the The Clergy & Lay Against the Vietnam War. We asked each new member to pay for the mailing to four others. Initially the membership grew exponentially. But, we lacked the dialog exchange between members, which needed computers and an internet. The growth rate slowed.

National Conference for New Politics was a “national” org, hosted from from New York (later we learned of their “Marxist” orientation – which was not obvious during the convention – which got those of us on the steering committee later being investigated by Congressional committees – the hearings were abandoned before I was called). Representatives (with voting ability) came to the convention from all radical organizations: peace, non-violence, black, Chicano, women, labor unions, farmers, immigrants, and organizations such as SDS, SNSC. We were charged with impacting the 1968 presidential election.

Prior to the convention, our Minneapolis contingent canvased house-to-house, informing residents about our (contingent’s) platform for M.L. King and Ben Spock as POTUS and VP. We asked, if it were possible to get them on the ballot, would they vote for them. A great many said yes. We drove to Chicago, very excited.

The NCNP (National Conference for New Politics) at Chicago was a circus. First off, A black Chicago gang (gangs were going “political” at that time) set up their own Black Caucus and siphoned off ALL black representatives to “their” convention at another location in Chicago. They sent their black psychopaths as representatives to our steering committee meetings – as we tried to progress with our own convention – without black.

The blacks joined our convention in the last day and shifted the program for the elections to their preference: NO NATIONAL TICKET. New York and California had their own separate, and different tickets. I was part of a group that pushed for an independent King/Spock ticket – with my personal strategy to leave many candidate posts vacant and invite progressive (& liberal) Democrats and Republicans to run with the King/Spock ticket. Fre comprehended this. For the radical blacks, MLK was far too conservative. SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) opposed ALL political activity.

I have enjoyed, just now, . exploring NCNP at Chicago on The Internet. I learned much that I didn’t know, having been immersed in the process – daytime at the conference and much of each night with the steering committee, trying to make the conference meaningful. The ending of the conference was high farce. Whites gathered in the main auditorium to wait the return of the blacks. They arrived in colorful African regalia, marching down the aisles and up on the stage. James Forman of SNCC (recently returned from a secret trip to South Africa – Mandala was serving his 8th of 27 years in prison), a large man, gave a long and passionate speech surrounded by a body guard of massive black men. After the speech, we were asked to stand, raise our fists in the air, and shout “EE-KU-RU”. I, and most of the Minnesota delegation remained sitting; but the vast majority of the white (and other ethnics) rose to their call.

I just now learned that this was the time SNCC and The Black Panther Party were exploring merging – which explains a lot. The NCNP may have provided an “environment” for the dialog about the role of “violence” in the movement. Most of us white Minnesotans were grossly unaware of the diversity and struggle within the Black Movements at that very time.

If I remember correctly, Stokley Carmichael was a member of the steering committee (the meetings before the conference). Quoting from within: “Declassifed documents show a plan was launched to undermine the SNCC-Panther merger, as well as to “bad-jacket” Carmichael as a CIA agent. Both efforts were largely successful: Carmichael was expelled from SNCC that year, and the rival Panthers began to denounce him.”

Reading reports now, I realize how very much was missed and masked by these theatrical antics. The discussions and dialogs over the many days were as exciting and informative as any I have experienced in scientific conferences. Contrary to the reports I have just read, and as part of the steering committee, this was a serious attempt by most participants to explore our options. Skimming Forman’s speech, a few minute ago, I realize that we “whites” were more attentive to the Vietnam War and not yet tuned to the oppression of blacks in the USA and South Africa.

I visited Capetown in 1962 on my return from Antarctica (the year Mandela was arrested, but I saw very few blacks). My attention then was how Capetown was bilingual, English and Afrikaner, with very sharp divides between the two white populations – which appeared to hate each other. For years I felt South Africa would be the last nation for the whites to share governance with the blacks. I, and my fellow white Minnesotans had not experienced the personal suppression experienced by the blacks. We seldom feared for our lives.

In the 1968 presidential election, I pulled the lever for Nixon. I walked from my apartment to my voting site in Minneapolis. I pulled the curtain and began shouting about having no choice but criminals to vote for. I said I might vomit over the voting machine. Poll managers asked if I was OK. I pulled the lever for Nixon and left. The Humphrey Machine had to be stopped. Nixon was bad, but Humphrey might have been worse. Analyses of The Deep State claim that who is POTUS makes little difference on many issues. Things Obama permitted happen and what he failed to do (and could have done), in retrospect, make me wonder at my luke-warm “support” of him during his two terms. Today, Barak and Hillary are probably guildy of war crimes re Libya.

Woodstock  August 1969, was a welcome interlude – although it was full of political overtones. My youngest brother David flew from NYC to Minneapolis and we drove back to attend the Woodstock Festival, before a family reunion in Boston.

To make this events list more complete, I also attended  the 8/28/1963, March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where I was fortunate to be near MLK when he delivered his famous “dream” speech. I was in a contingent accompanying Rev. William Sloane Coffin from Yale – going to DC from New Haven by rail. Although the event planning began in 1961, as it approached many of us saw it as a protest to JFK to “get serious”.  Many judgeships were being appointed to racists. When JFK was unable to stop the march, he gave his famous 6/11/1963 “civil rights address” – attempting to co-opt the march to be viewed as supporting his policies. 

I have a “memory” of an earlier march, that I cannot find reference to online.  I think data for an event in late 1962, a march from Harlem to the UN, in protest to the Vietnam War, although it might have been early 1963. USA involvement in Vietnam dates back to 1954, although the first protests are dated in 1963. What I have long “remembered” was that the New York City Police were very friendly to the march and supported our leafleting.  I had returned to the USA in May, 1962, after more than a year in the Antarctic. Actually, I had been our of regular news from Sept 1960 to May 1962. News for the whole of 1961 was via ham radio, and that was reduced to garbled Morse Code for two months mid 1961. However, I took many books with me and kept informed.  On my trip back to the USA, Spring 1962, as only civilian passenger on the icebreaker USS Arneb, I got on the wrong side of the captain by defending Castro in Cuba. This led to minor concerns about being “disappeared” overboard – as I was “educating” the Naval officers. I can’t determine whether I was reading about Vietnam while in the Antarctic.

My earliest source for Vietnam was journalist Bernard Fall. Fall warned against US involvement in 1954. The very first protests against U.S. involvement in Vietnam were in 1945, when United States Merchant Marine sailors condemned the U.S. government for the use of U.S. merchant ships to transport French troops to “subjugate the native population” of Vietnam.   I own the first edition of  Fall’s Two Vietnams, published 01/01/1963 – so I obviously didn’t have it in the Antarctic. However, I did take a collection of back issues of the journal, The Minority of One, to the Antarctic, and Fall may have published there – and which might have been what motivated me to buy his book.


I am reminded of another encounter I had with black militants. On my was from Minneapolis to Boston for the 1970 Christmas holiday. I went to Washington,DC., to attend the Black Panther Constitutional Writing Convention. I was to meet my first wife, Cyndy, there – before our divorce. As I tell about it: They appeared not to be interested with white participation, and seemed quite disorganized.  We went to the rally in the park the first evening, not being able to find out how to register. There, the audience was divided into square blocks standing close together; each block surrounded by rows of large, black men in military garb. Before the speeches the music started, with a song KILL WHITEY. Cyndy and I left, without hearing the speeches. This “memory” (I have no remembrances) probably contains confabulations.

AGAIN, research now reveals my naiveté about these matters. It appears the major constitutional writing convention was in Philadelphia on the Labor Day weekend of 1970, had high white participation and was considered quite successful. The December convention in DC, a followup for ratification, was a disaster, as claimed in the above full report, part quoted here.

Considering the success of the (August) RPCC, plans were announced by the Panthers at its end for a second meeting in Washington DC to ratify the new constitution, tentatively scheduled for November 4.[2] On November 7 an advertisement was run in the Panther newspaper declaring a second Revolutionary People’s Constitutional Convention to take place November 27–29. Difficulties plagued the Washington convention from its inception, with the newly formed DC chapter of the BPP, simultaneously struggling to find a space for the event and suffering from disorganization as a result of the arrest of several of their leaders.[30] The Panthers first attempted to rent space for the convention at the University of Maryland but were rebuffed, and later sought space at the DC National Guard Armory but were once again turned down.[31] Ultimately the Panthers settled an agreement with Howard University for the convention space. However, due to a last minute price dispute with the school, the Convention was set to commence with no clear space for it to take place.[32] Despite this, registration continued at All Souls Unitarian Church. That night a concert was held in Meridian Hill Park (also known as ‘Malcolm X Park’) with approximately 5,000 people in attendance. The Panthers made their dispute with Howard University public and DC Panther leader Elbert Howard called on Panthers and their allies to “liberate Howard University and to make that institution serve the needs of the community.”[33] However Panther pressure was ultimately unsuccessful in getting Howard to yield their space. While some small meeting spaces were offered up around the city, the event was ultimately disorganized and largely unsuccessful.[34][35] At the end of the weekend Huey Newton spoke at St. Stephens of the Incarnation Church and assured attendees that another convention would be held where the constitution would be discussed and finalized.[34] This promise never came to fruition however, as soon after the second RPCC the BPP began to fall victim to internal divides and external law enforcement efforts, and ultimately retracted much of its national efforts to focus on solidifying the Panther base in California. Simultaneously, the deescalation of the Vietnam War brought to a close one of the largest focuses of protest in the 60s and early 70s, and further weakened the power and human numbers wielded by the New Left. Ultimately, the vision set out by attendees of the Philadelphia Revolutionary People’s Constitutional Convention was never fully completed.

Reading this today, I understand how angry many of those working hard for their goal might have felt in face of what was experienced by many as an obstruction by the white establishment. Although it is not reported in the above, there may well have been deliberate sabotage by Federal Agencies. My old theory, was that there had been coup in Panther leadership, which rejected white participation, between Labor Day and Christmas. It was the far-sighted goal of writing a new constitution that interested me, as well as the “rainbow” welcoming attitude of the invitation.  I had hoped to share some of my longer-term insights, as I had tried to do at NCNP in Chicago in 1967. I had also been impressed by the early Panther attitude towards guns and violence: they demonstrated their non-violent right to resist police violence by being armed, as it was their legal right – and their service programs for children and communities.

I am not a pure pacifist. I will do what is needed to defend myself against violence. Another event, poorly remembered. During one evening at a 60’s anti-war protest in Washington, DC (busloads from Minneapolis), in “our” hotel room, we hosted a meeting between two groups with different approaches to “violence”. One group was pure non-violence, trained for passive resistance. The second group supported forceful resistance by the Vietnamese against American violent aggression. I “know” the gathering was peaceful and each group appreciated the other. I have no memory as to how this happened to occur in “our” hotel room – I doubt that I was the organizer.


There was a strange twist about NCNP, in a url. considered an alternative history:  WHAT IF the NCNP (Chicago, 1967) Conference HADN’T BEEN DISRUPTED BY THE FBI. This speculates on what might be different IF the conference had been successful in its political objectives. I fully expect that the FBI was present, but we were never concerned about it at the time. The big disruption was the Black Caucus and the SDS. The Black Caucus occupied many floors of a hotel, spent lavishly, and charged it all to the NCNP. It is difficult to believe the FBI was behind the Black Caucus. Yet, WHAT IF the conference had gone as we had seriously hoped, and we left Chicago united and energized – as those in the Bernie movement were recently.

NCNP was my first great disappointment with politics – but gave it little thought. We Minnesotans returned to Minneapolis, disappointed by Chicago, but ready to “make big waves”. The DFL system in MN built up from precincts; who then controlled districts. We organized and won in all Twin Cities precincts for a radical DFL platform: immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, legalization of abortion, prison reform, economic reform, etc. These platforms were then adopted by the districts in the The Twin Cities. We were flying high. But then we confronted the reality of Hubert Humphrey and THE OLD DEMOCRATS. Somehow, at the state convention, the rural districts had been captured by the HH wing and actually won most of the MN seats at The National Democratic Convention in Chicago (1968) for the HH wing. [Today I don’t remember that I knew or was concerned about the other cities in Minnesota.]  Part of this defeat was a very low participation at the MN State convention by many of the DFL delegates from the cities.

In conflict with the conference, a major rally was held in support of those draft resistors fleeing to Canada, with the help of a strong Minnesota support group (underground railroad) – many who were also delegates to the DFL state convention. Thus, I avoided the Police Riot in the Parks at the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention. Strangely, we were not very strong for McCarthy either. This was my second great disappointment with electoral politics.


Minnesota was also very active when “students” occupied the University for many weeks in response to the Kent State experiment (Would American troops shoot American students? = yes) and the bombing of Cambodia. At the UofMinn, most normal undergraduate courses were suspended and a 300 course Peace College was implemented – until the active support waned and the police raided the student center and the Peace College was shut down. My paper, The Technology of Non-Violent Revolution, was read in some of the Peace College courses.

Soon after we moved to Tucson, I discovered that local politics was totally different. Hardly any precinct activity. To me, Tucson was DEAD, POLITICALLY. I didn’t look too deeply, nor did I know whom to ask. What I did find was of no interest. My naive objective, in coming to Tucson (unemployed) was to establish an LLL community: Living/Loving/Learning – which I had been talking about in Minneapolis. I couldn’t find anyone in Tucson to comprehend me, and my teaming with Eloise and Stephanie (just prior to moving down) gave me no support there. Employment was needed.

I was fortunate in Minneapolis to have become active with many communal processes and groups. I later discovered I don’t have the requisite competencies to create community. I can provide insights to community, but cannot lead. I never actually lead in the political scene in MN and Chicago, although many of my ideas were comprehended and adopted.

During dinner tonight (07/31/17), I had a relevant insight:

Societal systems (e.g., economic/political systems) “exist/function” within a larger “environment”. If this environment is stable or homeostatic, then the societal system will attempt to keep it so – gaining from it while sustaining it. Or, the societal system may be stupid and not know that its behavior within its environment is forcing the environment to change irreversibly. In the past, societal systems usually tried to tame their environments, or understand them only as much so as to navigate within the changes for optimal benefit.

What happens when the environment becomes highly disordered, turbulent, and uncertain? Societal systems in such rapidly changing and unpredictable environments may develop SURFING behavior (ride the waves, don’t try to change the waves). They abandon attempts to control their environments, or even to forecast and plan ahead. Instead, they learn how to “stay on top”.

The USA, since WWII, has attempted to control their environments (which includes the rest of humankind). They were successful in some domains; and have failed greatly in other domains – driving their environments to uncontrollable and unpredictable dysfunction and collapse.

Trump and crew are the new surfers of this instability; indeed they profit from it. They may have gained some help from the “just in time” economy, which also surfs their “economic environments” – with specific (but limited) competencies. Russia under Putin and the oligarchs still attempt to control (my assessment). China may be a different form: launching major longterm changes (building cities without people) that will cause other changes (attracting the rural population) with surfing management. This fits with my recent insight that societal systems have/are shifted/ing from being primarily SYSTEMS to becoming primarily NETWORKS. Societal SysNets.


BACK TO SUPPORTING CONTEMPORARY POLITICIANS. I will vote for Bernie, should he run again. I hope Gayle is successful. I support the BRAND NEW CONGRESS movement (an organization to run a single, quality slate for every congressional office). One of my models for transition (not transformation), in THIS GREAT DAY, has revolutionaries infiltrate most management positions in societal institutions; marking time – as they also work within UPLIFT.  On THIS GREAT DAY, the functional society decouples from the elite FINANCIERS AND POWER BROKERS – who are suddenly ignored. A new coordination of functional management, already developed and ready to implement, shifts in gear and there is NO COLLAPSE. Transformating the material infrastructure becomes a well considered “behavior” of a newly emerging HUMANITY.


Imagine what we would be doing, if all this madness existed BUT there was no threat of disastrous Earth Changes. Humankind would have many more millennia to mature. This is the “reality” of the Climate Deniers. Many philosophers over the ages have believed in the inevitability of human conflict and suffering. Our religions are based on this belief: No Heaven On Earth. Many argue that without the challenges of conflict and suffering, humans would cease to be creative.




The almost universal dismissal of
“utopian visioning”
is scary.

screams the media,
everyone agreeing.

It depends on how “utopia” is defined.
Utopia is not a future state without challenges,
nor a future state of perfection –
as it is so believed, by most.

are practical utopian visionary scenarios,
not future utopian states.



Pictures / Scenes / Stories / Scenarios




================ emails between Tom an Gayle

On 7/29/2017 8:49 PM, Thomas Greco wrote:
> Larry, a case in point.
> I’m forwarding this to you because I’ve met Gayle a couple times, and have great admiration for her abilities and her dedication to social justice and economic equity.
> As the former mayor and Councilperson of Richmond, CA she has demonstrated great ability to lead, and has a remarkable record of achievement.
> She is the kind of unconventional politician we need more of. As Lt. Governor in California, she can have a big impact and I’m doing my small part to get her elected.
> I would encourage you to learn about more about her character, her approach to politics, and what she has managed to achieve. Other politicians might find something there worth emulating. You can find some background on her here,, and here,
> I do not agree with all of her proposals, but I do admire her for the empathy she shows for everyone.
> Best wishes,
> Tom

> Subject: How Californians Change Everything
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:51:28 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Gayle McLaughlin <>
> Reply-To:
> To:
> Our special interest foes are formidable, but as we continue to organize on a statewide level, they will find that our people power is a match for their corporate cash.
> Thomas,
> When reporters write about the race for Lt. Governor in California, they often like to focus on the ceremonial nature of the position. Is the Lt. Governor position even needed?
> My opponents for this position have their own reasons for running – one promises to use it as a bully pulpit to take on Trump. Another is termed out of the legislature.
> My goal is simple but far-reaching. I am using our campaign for Lt. Governor as an opportunity to organize 100 or more California communities for progressive change. And in office, I will continue to do the same. City officials, community leaders, and activists throughout California – up, down, across – are advocating for policies that will transform our environment and our economy. We’re stopping fracking, enacting rent control, protecting immigrants, and creating local living wage laws.
> But we’re fighting divided! Every time a city works to enact rent control, statewide interests can focus their attention on stopping local leaders. When we aim for local environmental regulations, Big Oil focuses its might on stopping change from taking hold. And while corporate-funded state politicians laud their new cap-and-trade bill, we know that it won’t stop dirty fuel extraction and refineries in our towns and cities! Even after one of the greatest environmental disasters in U.S. history at Porter Ranch, where more than 109,000 metric tons of methane gas spewed into our air, state regulators have given the green light for the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility to reopen – forcing Los Angeles County to sue for ongoing closure.
> It’s obviously time for Californians to band together for our future!
> As your Lt. Governor, my job will be work channel the work of leaders across the state to ensure that Sacramento hears US and not just the corporations! It’s time for thousands of local leaders to have a real voice in the Capitol, and for corporate-free candidates to take over the executive and legislative branches of our state government.
> Our foes are formidable, but as we continue to organize on a statewide level, they will find that our people power is a match for their corporate cash. I know that this race will not be easy – polluters, the landlord lobby, private prison profiteers, big insurance, and other special interests are rightly afraid of our combined organizing power and will do everything they can to stop needed reforms.
> Can I count on you today to join my campaign with a grassroots donation? Click here to give.
> Thank you,
> Gayle