A good friend, Louis Urban Kohler and I have been in touch because we share horror at the development of a Jewish Nazi regime in Palestine. Just as the German Nazi regime was considered illegitimate by much of the world at the close of World War II and dissolved by the militarily victorious powers, I believe the nation-state of Israel is also increasingly seen to be illegitimate and deserving of dissolution. The destruction of Palestine should be stopped and the land returned to its indigenous peoples. There is a fairly brief sketch for doing this without any further bloodshed, torture, theft or suffering of any of the peoples involved, including the would-be Jewish Zionist conquerors. 
Urban and I were in contact via the internet for the better part of a decade before he suddenly showed up in Oaxaca 16 Nov 2008, and e-mailed me right away. We met that evening for a long talk. After that first (and only) person-to-person encounter, Urban dropped from my radar for about fourteen months until I received his letter of 18 March 2010. Both of us were furious over the intense Israeli military slaughter in Gaza (27 Dec 2008 - 19 Jan 2009). Urban was about ready to challenge his Jewish friends in his home city in Oregon, who brooked no criticism of Israel’s actions and who in the past had been responsible for his losing employment. In less than two weeks we exchanged eight substantial e-mails, linked to in endnote  of this paper.
That burst of correspondence was followed by a nine-month hiatus in our contact, which ended when I wrote Urban:
Hello Urban, I hope this finds you in good health and spirits, despite the collapsing U.S. social structure. The times, as Woody Guthrie said, are a-changing. I’m eager to have them change at a faster rate, and in a different direction. That brief burst of e-mails back and forth between us from your first note on 18 March 2010 until my note of 05 April 2010 left several issues hanging, that I’d like to pursue. The main reason I didn’t get back to you earlier is that I got involved, in my effort to find a small group of people in whose honesty, human compassion and knowledgeability I could feel confident, with one individual in particular, Israel Shamir, who I now believe I badly misjudged. I was caught up with him and people attracted to his position, from which I’m just now in the process of escaping. And I’m still not totally free, but free enough to resume my earlier efforts, which of course included the exchange of thoughts with you.
I’ve tried to put our “burst of correspondance” in order so that we can refer to it conveniently. I think it’s mostly OK, but if you find errors you can let me know and I’ll correct them. The items are listed in endnote 2, at  In addition to these 8 items . . . I’ve also put up your first letter as a Microsoft .doc file (the highlighted parts show up with more contrast than in the .htm files).
I would like to pursue the “Ron Paul” issue, because I think many good decent folks have likely been impressed, as you were, by the slick film, “The Money Masters”. produced/narrated by Bill Still. In my second reply to your 1st letter I now put the information that I think must be taken seriously in dramatic bold highlight. I recall that you were very busy during that short period of our exchange, with so many calls about a vehicle you had put up for sale that you stopped answering your phone. Have you picked up on the question of Lyndon H. LaRouche and his outfit’s roles in supporting the film? He was long associated with the so-called Progressive Labor Party, may well still be involved, and its weekly publication Challenge. A lot of their criticism of the capitalist system is valid, although I
don’t care for their hard-left Communist line rhetoric. But I’m quite certain that anything LaRouche supports is no damn good, such as promoting nuclear reactors as an answer to the supposed “energy shortage”. In a word, I think his position is truly fascist. With a slight attempt to dress it up in populist language.
I’m going to publicize some of this fairly soon and would like your input. All best wishes, —George
---On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:23:43 -0500, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:---
Hello George, I will strongly second Beatrice Mott’s comment about falsified scholarship. “Money Masters” is a problem, and seemed to have done a pivot relative to what they advocate. There are worse sources of arsenic in terms of recognition. Being that my major focus has been economics for a while, it is a profession and a nominal science which has been essentially bought through the influence of the US Federal Reserve. There are numerous ways that a legitimate scientific process has been corrupted in favor of ideology.
A current popular example is Ellen Brown. Her primary device is less about documentation than using an inverted form of induction, whereby she chooses her goal and then argues her way towards establishing a sort of plausibility. I’m told that she also uses a high peercentage of LaRouche-related sources, in place of higher quality sources. The problem with Brown is that she has largely captured the approval of the nominal left, though her proposal for “change” is even contrary to her declared intent in the beginning of the book Web of Debt. Pop-economics, as poorly researched as it is is only different in degree from conventional economics. As such pop-economics is largely captured as a domain by the illiterate, but always toward defeating the process of legitimate reform before it can be established. I have no proof of direct backers for the pop-level economics from excessively well funded sources with a direct interest in preventing reform at all cost.
The community currency/community exchange movement is largely dominated by people like Brown, such as Thomas Greco whose primary cedibility seems to be from the repetition of a radical libertaian ideology, in very much a Paulista sort of way and the chanting of various buzz words like “community,” “freedom,” “trust,” and so forth. I offer this as a further demonstration of how the marginally literate can be misled.
The recent Kucinich “NEED” bill is actually a very strange bit of conceptual miscegination. Though he has included the American Monetary Institute proposal he has tied it to the expectation of a consequent effect toward increasing employment. The point being that under the current sovereign, fiat currency, the Federal goverment could simply begin to issue debt free money to support the creation of jobs on a countra-cyclical basis. The other odd part of Kucinich’s bill is his timing, when he has had the AMI proposal in his hands for at least two years relative to legislative packaging. Kucinich sponsorship and the problematic economics may have also been a sort of political compromise to the Paulistas. Even so in the current culture of right extremism the legislation has very little chance of being approved by Congress of the no-hope, no-change president.
If anyone is interested I can share a concept for economic change which is both practical and an educational process, and is applicable on a local basis. I have extensively researched the related domains, and have integrated the best information and reasoning available. While this is far a field from critiquing political Zionism, the process is similar. The Money Masters as it has been improved over the years, is really only useful as an entry point, and a toxic one at that. Part of the over-arching issue is that our culture has been narrowed by various means to produce a process of dys-education. The “social” sciences tend to be more dominated by ideology and open inquiry. Key in all of this has been the emphsis upon conformity as if “socialization” was a synonym, rather than focusing upon capacity for humanitarianism and sustainability.
Please, feel free to mention my name in good faith. In regard, Tadit Anderson
Oaxaca, Mexico, Tuesday 11 January 2011
Dear Tadit, Your offer to “share a concept for economic change which is both practical and an educational process and is applicable on a local basis” is appealing, even to someone like myself who advocates a world social order without buying and selling, and thus without need for money. That you’ve done a careful thorough investigation I have no doubt. You say that though this is very different from critiquing political Zionism, the process is similar. Rationally I could probably agree with you, but mere rationality doesn’t satisfy the passionate urgency I feel to stop the global tragedy — what I see as the imminent threat to the human species. I’m willing to skip some of the finer details in coming to a conclusion if the urgency is sufficient. Your commitment to the logic seems greater.
As you know, I first became involved with Susie Purtee (Columbus, Ohio) and her associates in my desire to understand “middle America”, and subsequently with another dissatisfied American, David Bailie (Boston, Massachusetts). Although fruitful in so far as my understanding of contemporary U.S. society goes, both efforts to communicate ended at impasses.
In a real sense, my efforts to communicate even with people largely in the same ideological group as myself also seem to be failing. Specifically, I have put forward a proposal that I think offers the possibility of avoiding the catastrophic collapse of the ecosphere (and with it of the human population), and have sought commentary. So far as I know, not a single person has even read my admittedly utopian but quite carefully thought-out discussion, let alone offered criticism. It is as though all my “Western” friends are simply uninterested in non-Western conceptualizations of how society might be structured. This is a clear failure on my part, my inability to stir any response other than silence. I think I have had my eyes opened by the indigenous Oaxacan cultures I’ve experienced in my dozen-plus years in Mexico, but my friends, all of whom are literate, seem to be culturally blinded in the way that Einstein famously warned against. His statement was
“A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty . . . We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” (emphasis added) I used it in one of my essays, “Out of the mental prison!”, some years ago. It’s at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Grass/Infra/Infra-9.htm.
I know that being “culturally blinded” can be accurately applied to me. My reaction to an idea that I think is wildly impossible to take seriously is to dismiss it without discussion. For example, there’s a man, Joost van Steenis email@example.com, who believes that there should be a “Spending Limit of 200,000 euro in one year”. If this were enforced by law it would, he believes, eliminate the excessive power of the hyper-rich. Somehow I got on his mailing list. After a couple of exchanges I wanted to discontinue trying to counter his fantasy for “fixing the world”, and asked to discontinue the exchange. Probably the reason I’ve been unable to stimulate any interest in my idea for “fixing the world” is because people think I’m “off the wall” for fantasizing that instead of a world of aggression and violence, we humans could make it into a world of love and mutual aid, of simple living, honest labor and respect for all people from the youngest to the oldest.
It’s also true, Tadit, that although I have a lot of respect for your work and your commitment to honest discourse, and intended to study your remarkably good website, I’ve put it off and put it off because other things seemed more pressing. Your site, Re-Imagining Economics, at http://www.economics.arawakcity.org/, remains on the stove, but hasn’t made it to the front burner for my serious study. So, Tadit, that’s my current situation. Of course I’ll keep trying.
With all best wishes, --George
Subject: Re: Picking up the threads
Date: Friday, January 14, 2011 6:05 AM
From: Louis Urban Kohler
Hi George, glad we’re back in touch. I’ve continued my quest for insight about the financial world and its effects on our politics, policies and the lives of the masses. My research and activities have widened, and I find an amazing array of sincere and astute analysis trying to make sense of it all and raise widening awareness. Right now I’m “teaching” my fourth course on materials related to the nature and function of our money, and it has been very rewarding in terms of what I have learned myself in the process. I’m learning to sift and combine and compare and validate, so that there is no danger of one source with a hidden agenda being able to “cop my head” as we used to say in my hippy days. I take presentations such as those by Bill Still at face value, and look at facts they emphasize and how well they correlate and harmonize with efforts of others. I plan to take a break from this one-track focus and teach a Spring course based on the book; “1421, the year China Discovered America” — just to see what happens if I ease off from my long standing obsession. I will make time in the next week to look at the set of our notes you sent. Meanwhile let me know more on what focus input from me should have — what issues or . . .
Subject: Re: Towards a humanitarian dissolution of the Nazi Israeli Zionist State
Date: Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:02 PM
From: Eric Pottenger firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi George, sorry my response to your email took so long. I’ve just finished reading all of the materials you’ve attached — not just your manifesto on “Israel/Palestine” — but also your lengthy and ongoing correspondence with Louis Urban Kohler. Mostly I would merely like to give my impressions about the whole money issue that keeps bobbing to the surface, as I tend to agree with Urban that the money-creating power of the fed was/is foundational to creating and maintaining the modern edifice of global domination/power concentration, which each of us wants destroyed, regardless of where we feel the principle blame lies.
After reading your “manifesto,” it is clear to me that we both want the same basic outcome for humanity. (very well written by the way.) I think Urban does, too. This is important, as it means we can get to the next level of discussion — realizing how to “get there,” while dealing with the world as it is. Many challenges. Differing perspectives. Hidden truths. Choices on tactics. What information to use, what to discard.
I can say that The Money Masters opened up a few doors for me. And I suggest that if you have questions about the veracity of this or that claim, follow up with your own research, as I did. My perspective is certainly not equal to Bill Still’s, and yet I have found his presentation invaluable. I’m certain that if you spent some quality time considering the angles, you will find use for the information as well.
Overall, very good work George, your statement on “Israel/Palestine” that is. It is always reassuring for me to read a fair, sane voice addressing such ugly truths. It’s easy to become a monster while trying to help, I read many such instances on the internet all the time. It’s sad. And yet being a part of open and free information is like watching the world [learning] to walk for the first time, with many stumbles along the way. I hope I’m right. I hope we all learn to be courageous, smart and decent. Until that time, we absolutely need reasonable voices, careful voices, those with maturity and wisdom, able to lead by example. Anyway, it’s very late and I’m tired. Off to bed. I’m a working stiff these days, don’t spend as much time rabble-rousing online as I once did. But for you I am always here to help, provided you don’t mind waiting. Take care —Eric
Oaxaca, Mexico, Saturday 15 January 2011
Hi Eric, Your letter is one of the most encouraging pieces of mail I've received in a long time. Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to respond at considerable length. Tadit Anderson also responded. I imagine he copied that note to you. He is very active with his own website and likely did not take time to read my proposed resolution as you did. I very much appreciate your effort. Each of us — you, Tadit, Urban and I — is convinced that money is a key tool for societal control, and none of us accepts the way that power is used.
Subject: No subject
Date: Friday, January 28, 2011 5:03 PM
From: George Salzman email@example.com
To: Tadit Anderson firstname.lastname@example.org, Louis Urban Kohler email@example.com, Eric Pottenger firstname.lastname@example.org, Beatrice Mott email@example.com
Oaxaca, Mexico, Thursday 28 January 2011
Dear Tadit, Louis, Eric and Beatrice,* I’ve been slow getting back to some of the topics under consideration only because I’m not very efficient, and there’s a lot of ordinary but time-consuming stuff, like going to the market to buy food, that I have to take care of almost every day.
If any of you know a working address for Beatrice Mott I would appreciate having it. Mail sent to her at beatrice.mott(at)yahoo.com was not accepted. I got notice from Yahoo that there is no such account.
As I wrote you, Tadit, I would be very interested to know what you are thinking about regarding a concept for economic change. Your opinion about the film “The Money Masters” is probably much closer to mine than Louis’ take on it. Had you, Louis, been aware of the role of Lyndon LaRouche in the production of that Bill Still’s film? Since I wrote you, have you got any other information that would cause you to question the intent of the film?
Eric, like Louis, has some favorable comments on the value of the film. To all of you, is there a way to discover the funding sources for LaRouche’s organization and projects? Obviously, I’m very suspicious. Another question: Who is Bill Still? A professional actor for hire? Also, last evening I found that the producer was attorney Patrick S. J. Carmack, and that William T. Still was the director and narrator. A Wikipedia page calls the film a 1995 documentary. Google also gave some really vile pages of an “Eric Hufschmid” [http://www.erichufschmid.net/Money-Masters.html]. My take on him is that he is not only strongly anti-Zionist (as I am) but that he is a rabid Jew-hater. Unlike Lyndon LaRouche, who comes on smooth, Hufschmid is an out-and-out “kill-em-all” hater of “The only good Jew is a dead Jew” variety. My suspicion is that LaRouche is the more dangerous backer of the neo-liberal drive for out and out fascism. I want to return to the film and watch it in its entirety. Thus far I’ve seen only the first portion, perhaps 35-45 minutes or so.
I’m posting a record of our exchange. It’s at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2011-01-26.htm. If there are any errors, important points omitted, or suggested improvements, please let me know. Sincerely, with all best wishes --George
*[firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, and email@example.com]
Date: Friday, January 28, 2011 7:57 PM
From: Eric Pottenger firstname.lastname@example.org
To: George Salzman email@example.com
Cc: Tadit Anderson firstname.lastname@example.org, Louis Urban Kohler email@example.com, Beatrice Mott firstname.lastname@example.org
George, what is the basis for you connecting this film to Lyndon LaRouche? I wasn’t aware of any connection — although I could be wrong. Whatever the case, the ideas in the film have a much longer history than LaRouche, tracing back to the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 and even before. There are indeed many “rabid Jew-haters” that are caretakers of this type of information, although that doesn’t necessarily make the information bad. The subject at hand is banks and a criminal monopoly on currency-creation, a means for wealthy bankers to control the purse-strings of this economy and that of the world. Of course a topic of this sort will attract all sorts of seemingly-unsavory people, like the Jew-haters, although it will also attract someone like me, someone that comes from a failing American auto town, a former Christian in my childhood, a former communist, a former atheist, a former lots-of-things, now attempting to undo my affiliations and identifications — I think identity is usually harmful — merely hoping (through all these experiences) to attain the answers as to how individuals — the world over — can obtain the means and freedoms to attain something like self-knowledge, or the ability to explore this wonderful planet in peace — ultimately a loving aim. Is my aim in opposition to the aims of the Jew-haters or that of the LaRouche people? Maybe . . . probably . . . mostly . . . certainly foundationally. And although I recognize these differences, I don’t think these differences are relevant unless they are actually relevant. Wouldn’t you agree? Haven’t you ever learned something valuable from a Jew-hater? Or attempted to see what it is that he’s looking at? Of course. You are also critical of Jewish culture and Jewish people. To me it seems irresponsible to scrap the whole edifice of any worldview because there are parts of it we don’t like. My basic questions, probably like your’s and Louis’s and others’, center around identifying, understanding, and undermining the primary obstacles that stand between “us” and my entirely sane goals. And so the question is whether the information is sound is the only concern for me. Is the federal reserve a private banking cartel? Was the plan hatched in secret by banking monopolists and their professional technocrats in 1910? What is the federal reserve achieving by its being in existence? These are the questions the film forces one to grapple with. Hopefully the perspective one comes away with will still be one’s own.
Also, regarding your queries about the identity of Bill Still or his role in the film, my understanding is that the film is more the project of Patrick Carmack, although Bill Still was/is a proponent of the information he’s putting out.
Ultimately I would love to have a challenging discussion about the issue of money and currency-creation, and what place it has in the larger discussion of globalism, poverty, war, ignorance, injustice, etc. Unfortunately this is a topic on which there is too little discussion. I would like fresh ideas. Get back to me when you can. --Eric
Date: Friday, January 28, 2011 9:10 PM
From: Tadit Anderson email@example.com
To: George Salzman firstname.lastname@example.org, Eric Pottenger email@example.com
Cc: Louis Urban Kohler firstname.lastname@example.org, Beatrice Mott email@example.com
All, While much of the history presented within the Money Masters videos seems to be accurate, and generally not common knowledge, there are other sources which should be considered. At the minimum the LaRouche-ites need to be compared to an even more complete monetary history. Stephen Zarlenga’s The Lost Science of Money is one source. And there are additional sources not covered by the MM videos which certain anthropologists have covered and several Keynesian and post Keynesian economic historians have covered. Here I include Michael Hudson’s efforts in this direction as well as L. Randall Wray. The issue ends up breaking down to how thorough the historical coverage is and what proposals are presented as reforms.
My largest problem with the MM videos is that their proposal for reform has actually changed from the earlier and rougher production to the present version. At this point the proposal has moved from restoring the sovereign control of sovereign currencies toward 100% reserve. Why this transiton happened seems to be a result of additional money being supplied to the MM process. The majority of people addressing monetary issues have been amateurs and have demonstrated weak scholarship. Zarlenga stands a bit in the middle of the range, Hudson, Wray, and others tend to the high side.
I have included monetary reform as a necessary element of economic reform for about ten years. The web-site Re-Imagining Economics has been functioning for over two years at this point. Part of the reason that the domain of monetary theory has been orphaned, is exactly because serious discussion has been systematically discouraged, including the promotion of dis-information funded by various sources. In this regard the majority of the economics academy in the US has been captured by the US Federal Reserve. Though the history of banking has evidenced the participation of old wealth to characterize the institutional capture as being led by Jews is essentially a variety of mob-baiting often funded by the non-Jewish old wealth.
The details of how Bernie Madoff was treated both before his exposure as a fraud and afterwards goes to a relatively closed ethnic group acting to protect and sheild its own, without acting to police it own. Some of Madoff’s primary victims were Jewish dominated or Israeli related funds, the Mossad Retirement Fund was one of his victims. Why he is still alive is a mystery. He also exploited many greed-driven individuals and foundation with no substantial connections to the conventional Jewish community. I generally agree with Greg’s [Who is Greg? --G.S.] more non-sectarian approach, and admit that great percentage of people seem to rely upon such simplicities, in part to avoid the effort required by a more critical approach. For now, --Tadit
Subject: Re: Good post Eric
Date: Friday, January 28, 2011 11:15 PM
From: Louis Urban Kohler firstname.lastname@example.org,
To: George Salzman email@example.com, Eric Pottenger firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: Tadit Anderson email@example.com, Beatrice Mott firstname.lastname@example.org
Eric, I really enjoyed your email to me and a couple of other friends of George Salzman. You seem reasonable and intelligent. I’ve been studying the money system and its impact on our world for several decades, and my interest has really been building in the past few years. I will participate in any discussion that arises in this group, and gladly offer and defend my own opinions as well as gladly consider, honor, and respond to others.
I’ve been pretty busy, having taken on the task of conducting a series of classes at a “Lifelong Learning Institute.” I’m in over my head, but getting better at it, now in my second year. The Classes have been “Funny Money” I & II, “Bubbles and Conspiracy,” and the current class is about the book “Lords of Finance; the Bankers Who Broke the World.” Spring Term the class will be on John Maynard Keynes. Because of my keen interest combined with an open-ness that results from my lack of firm grip on this very elusive content, my classes have been wide open with a great diversity of discussion, and each term gets wilder, more interesting and more satisfying. We are definitely on a subject of enormous interest. I now spend hours per day on this project, and am very open to input from any direction. It’s all part of me learning the content as well as learning to respect and understand a wide variety of angles on this fascinating and critical part of human culture.
I feel I know George quite well, and wondered why he was concerned about a possible association of the work of Bill Still with Lyndon LaRouche. I think as you said the information and the situation certainly pre-date any possible involvement of Larouche, and I didn’t find his hand visible. (even after George mentioned it) But here’s an interesting anecdote. About nine years ago MONEYMASTERS (the original 3-1/2 hour program) was first brought to my attention. A friend had checked it out from the video store. I watched it, ordered a copy, watched several times more, then googled the title to see what else I could find related to this story, which I found incredible. Well, what was REALLY incredible was the amount of “Jew-hating” material that came up from googling that! It was so ugly and stupid that I just wanted to run from it. Certainly no-one googling MONEYMASTERS and finding this offal would want to see any more. I was totally flabbergasted. The kind of trash I found bore NO resemblance to the carefully constructed documentary, MONEYMASTERS. And it wasn't from just one source. It was so trashy and repetitious that I finally concluded it had been an orchestrated campaign to turn away people who had gotten wind of the documentary. Some time later (maybe years) it occurred to me to have another look at what google would turn up. Guess what? It was gone! There were some intelligent attempts to discredit, but nothing offensive and blatantly, stupidly “anti-Jew” like I had found in 2002.
There are many Zioninsts in the town where I live, and they discourage any criticism of Israel, of course. Many of them are within my circle of friends and acquaintances. I myself do not shy away from expressing my opinions, even though, as I’ve described to George, I have been severely punished for some of them — ostracized, fired from a job, etc. Anyone who’s ever heard of Norman Finkelstein would not be surprised at this. When I told one Zionist acquaintance about the documentary MONEYMASTERS he immediately said “It’s anti-Semitic.” I was honestly taken aback. I said I had seen it several times and had not noticed anything remotely resembling anti-Semitism. I asked when he had watched it, and if he would watch it again with me. He said he’s only seen a little bit of it, but enough to know it’s anti-Semitic. I asked what he had seen and he said “They mention the Rothschilds, don’t they?” That was all he had to go on, demonstrating the futility of standing up to that kind of mind-set. Well that’s a bit of a tangent I suppose. MONEYMASTERS is but one of many thorough and well-meaning earnest treatments of this important subject. The video MONEY AS DEBT by Paul Grignon — an original version and more recent updates . . . plus ongoing work many find valuable. Also something called themoneyfix.org. — all of this is available on google video, etc. — along with at least part of the recent Bill Still work called "OZ" or something like that.
I’m behind schedule I just realized. — gotta run . . . Looking forward to any response. —Urban
PS another related very thorough work is Chris Martenson’s Crash Course and follow up work by him.
Eric Pottenger email@example.com
Tadit Anderson firstname.lastname@example.org
Louis Urban Kohler email@example.com
Beatrice Mott firstname.lastname@example.org
George Salzman email@example.com
Oaxaca, Mexico, Saturday 29 January 2011
Dear Friends, Since my e-mail yesterday to you, I’ve received replies from each of you, Eric, Tadit and Louis. Your notes are now added to the posting at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2011-01-26.htm, followed by this answer from me.
I’m finding this very useful for clarifying my thoughts about how to proceed. From my perspective the most significant development is the truly massive outpouring of popular rage and refusal to obey in the predominantly nominally Muslim nations of the “greater Middle East”. What I find most inspiring is the strength of the youthful cohorts in the national groupings that are in revolt, in much of the Islamic Middle East. If there is to be a humane future for humanity it will be born in young people who refuse to be dictated to by the programmed “managers” of society, young people who insist on being free, autonomous human beings. I’m struck by the fact that your letters force me, if I am to answer them in the spirit in which you wrote them, to focus more on the quantification — the measurement of social parameters — than on the spirited, perhaps not completely rational but emotionally driving zest of the young Tunesians, Egyptians, and, hopefully, more and more of the people whose lives are still mainly more in the future than are ours . . .
Correspondence ongoing. Will add it here.
 Sketch for a humane resolution of the Palestine/Israel conflict. http://site.www.
umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/t/2010-11-13.htm. The proposal for ending the conflict without vengeance or any further avoidable suffering, although at first blush sounds unbelievable, is also on the minds of the most humane Palestinian leaders. See for example the letter by Palestinian-American Mazin Qumsiyeh, “To liberate Palestine: courage”, in the weekly Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram at http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1032/op152.htm.
 Louis Urban Kohler. An introduction to this exchange, which focussed on the coercion by Jewish friends that LUK experienced, is in “Exchange of thoughts with Louis Urban Kohler, a Gentile American friend”, the fifth item in the list of eight below:
— Louis Urban Kohler's 1st letter (#1):
— My initial reply to LUK's letter #1:
— My second reply (#2) to LUK's letter #1:
— #3 LUK's reply to #2:
— Exchange of thoughts with Louis Urban Kohler, a Gentile American friend:
— #4 My reply to #3:
— #5 LUK's reply to #4:
— #6 My reply to #5:
 A correction: When I wrote, “So far as I know, not a single person has even read my admittedly utopian but quite carefully thought-out discussion, let alone offered criticism”, on 11 or 12 Jan 2011, it was true. On 15 Jan a letter from Eric Pottenger told me he’d read it and liked it.
George Salzman is a former American Jew living in Oaxaca, Mexico, an Emeritus Prof of Physics, Univ of Massachusetts-Boston.
All comments and criticisms are welcome. <firstname.lastname@example.org>