WE COULD SPEAK FOR DAYS ON THIS SUBJECT OF POLITICAL ASYMMETRIC WARFARE AND HOW GLOBAL NGOs and corporate non-profits create the environment needed by the 1% in being successful but I want to take one more day to talk about the most important policies currently unfolding.
The top asymmetric warfare tool of the 1% is factionalization----breaking down the power of a solidarity movement of 99%. The 1960s and 1970s were so successful because we had massive protests by several population groups inside the social Democratic Party. Since social Democrats work for ALL SOCIAL AND LABOR JUSTICE ISSUES all these groups protested together for all social issues. We had civil rights protesters joining anti-war protesters---joining women rights protesters----joining disability rights protesters for ONE GREAT BIG MASS OF CONSTANT PROTESTING.
THE #1 TOOL OF LEFT-LEANING ASYMMETRIC WARFARE IS ECONOMIC DISRUPTION OF A CITY/CORPORATION'S REVENUE FLOW.
This is why labor unions have in modern times used labor strikes----this is why the 1% Wall Street corporate pols have made peace agreements with no strikes central in union compromise. Asian International Economic Zones that have unions all have this toothless format that all union members say makes the union weak.
This is why mass protests as we have seen in Baltimore over Trayvon and Freddie were effective in forcing some change even though the Wall Street Baltimore Development 'justice' non-profits truncated that effectiveness. The 1% say----YOU ARE HURTING JOBS AND COMMUNITIES-----We say THERE ARE NO JOBS AND COMMUNITIES AND IF YOU WANT US TO STOP GET OUT OF OUR BALTIMORE CITY HALL AND TAKE YOUR POLS.
The central tool of asymmetric warfare for the 1% during the Obama term has been bringing the rich 1% from foreign nations to break the coalition that was civil rights people of color in the Democratic Party. Now you see the black 1%---the brown 1% ---the Asian 1% each taking what used to be a social Democratic base to far-right Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberalism. As this meme shows-----no matter how much financial strength the 1% of rich, white men allow people to have they don't have the power to keep it when broken into factions.
Wall Street and media use their tools to prevent left-leaning asymmetric warfare by making headlines read------MASS PROTESTS DOWNTOWN CAUSE PEOPLE TO LOSE WAGES AND SCARE NEW CORPORATIONS AWAY. For the union strikes the Wall Street and media crowd have headlines---CITIZENS IN PARIS UNABLE TO GET TO WORK BECAUSE OF MASS RAILWAY STRIKE----PRODUCT SCARCITY BECAUSE LONGSHOREMEN UNION STRIKE.
In Europe where most citizens are tied to unions and/or value the power of citizen asymmetric tools simply adjust their lifestyle around the time it takes a union to strike---they prepare to help the families that take a hit in losing a job----BECAUSE THEY ARE A MORE UNIFIED 99%.
The American people MUST start preparing to make these sacrifices because installing these International Economic Zone global corporate campus/global factory structures next decade will end any choices the American people have.
Solidarity: 99 Percent Elusive
October 19, 2011 8:36 am October 19, 2011 8:36 am
As a lifelong member of the group now known as the 99 percent, and also as someone who hasn’t a prayer of ever breaking into the 1 percent, I know that I should feel a bond with every 99 percenter out there. I know the troubles created by that 1 percent. I’ve been to Zuccotti Park. I get it: 99 = good, 1 = bad.
The DayClyde Haberman offers his take on the news.
But may I just say that in the course of an average day, all too many of my fellow 99 percenters are not keeping faith with their own kind.
Take Starbucks, for some a symbol of corporate predation if ever there was one.
I don’t often go to Starbucks, and when I do I order plain old coffee, nothing that’s been lattéd, macchiatoed, frappucinoed, americanoed, mochaed, mistoed or chaied. Just a small coffee, please. Sorry, make that a tall coffee, in Starbucks talk.
The only special request I ever make of the people behind the counter, a k a the baristas, is to leave room for me to add milk.
They never do that. Never. They always fill the cup to the brim, forcing me to pour some of the coffee into the trash, where it makes a mess. I know that I should be directing all my anger at the company’s high muck-a-mucks. But what’s with the Starbucks 99 percenters? Why can’t they give a fellow traveler a break?
A relatively early supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement was the Transport Workers Union. But if you’re a regular subway rider, you have surely had a conductor close the doors of his express train at the very moment that the local you’re on pulls in across the platform. When it’s not rush hour, and there is a bit of schedule flexibility, couldn’t transit workers cut some slack for 99 percenters wanting to switch trains? Are we not all in this together?
To the best of my knowledge, not a single 1 percenter lives in my neighborhood. Why, then, do some dog-owning 99 percenters there insist on making life unpleasant for their brothers and sisters by refusing to pick up the mess their pets leave on the sidewalk?
For that matter, why does any 99 percenter throw trash into the street or onto the subway tracks when it’s someone at the lower end of the pay range in the 99 percent who will have to sweep up after them?
The ways in which 99 percenters needlessly drive one another crazy are too many to list here. But if you check out Complaint Box, a City Room feature that appears on Mondays, you will see how difficult it can be to achieve the cohesiveness we need in the fight against the 1 percent.
Complaint Box contributors have complained about diners who talk too loudly in restaurants, about people who cut the line at the supermarket, about the generic street fairs selling the same tube socks and funnel cakes, about men who spit on the sidewalk (great expectorations), about loud swearing in public, about people sprawling across two or three seats in the subway, and so on and so forth. Take a look. You’ll see.
If this is how some in the 99 percent routinely behave toward their own, how are they ever going to unite against the 1 percent?
I know, I know, these are not cosmic issues, certainly not compared with what folks are talking about in Zuccotti Park. But even down there, solidarity can be an elusive goal for an old-time 99 percenter.
It was easy to sympathize the other day with the young woman carrying a sign that said, “I don’t want money. I want change.” The heart went out to a middle-aged man engaged in a “Book of Mormon” version of texting: He was tapping away on a Remington manual typewriter. “Just writing,” he said when asked what he was setting to paper.
But it was more difficult to decide if one really wanted to lock arms with the proprietor of a cardboard diorama dotted with tiny figures under the banner “Occupy Legoland.” Or with the young man holding this sign: “Wall St. drank your milk shake.” Huh?
Frankly, even if I knew what he meant, I’m not sure we could get a solid majority of 99 percenters to agree (1) that, yeah, Wall Street did drink our milk shakes, and (2) hey, what are we going to do about it?
This is how manipulative Wall Street and the 1% crowd are ------the American people have been moved to the term 1% vs 99%----I use it myself but I know from where this came and it does not have real left-leaning intentions. America is a social democracy built on racial, religious, cultural diversity----WE ARE A DIVERSE 99%. Social democracy has embraced that diversity and the Equal Protection laws are central to assuring protection of America's diversity. It is no coincidence that the far-right Clinton/Bush/Obama made Equal Protection central in their failure to enforce Federal law or US Constitutional rights because they do not want citizens feeling they can have equity AND BE DIVERSE.
We know the goals of 1% ONE WORLD, ONE RELIGION/ONE LABOR UNION UNDER ONE GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL RULE====seeks to end diversity all over the world. It seeks to create a world 99% wanting to join in this fight of the 1%. Every time I use the term I can feel that Wall Street intention.
Many US factions feel this problem and want to create their own solutions to a 1% Wall Street rich white men rule. Some factions simply resign to join the global labor pool and immigrate. Some factions hold to the belief that one set of 1% is better than others and VOILA---this is why today is far more difficult for the American 99% to come together than in the 1960s-70s. We have lost that feeling if security with the power to hold on to our individual diversity----THIS IS THE CURRENT #1 ASYMMETRIC TOOL OF THE WALL STREET 1% TODAY.
No one can tell another what fight is best for that person BUT we can align fights along the same goals. Simply identifying the 1% and their 5% in any group and working to get rid of them is SOLIDARITY WITH CITIZEN DIVERSITY.
Thinking that ONE WORLD brings that 99% collective will end citizen diversity on a grand scale and I think American citizens as well as Asian or Latino citizens see value in being who they are in this fight against each 1%.
The top left-leaning asymmetric warfare tool is uniting against the 1% in each population group against wealth and power. Simply educate all population groups on public policy and they will know what to do.
Double-edged swords? Collective identity and solidarity in the environment movement
- Clare Saunders*
Perhaps by virtue of its theoretical slipperiness, collective identity is often hailed as an important feature of social movements for the role it plays in unifying activists and organizations, and so helping them to develop shared concerns and engage in collective action. However, this paper argues that collective identity is the result of group rather than movement level processes, and although it can unite activists within a single movement organization, it is not always beneficial for the broader social movement. Although movements consist of networks of activists and organizations that have a broad shared concern, differing collective identities within the movement can actually be quite divisive. Based on case studies of three organizations in the environmental movement, this paper shows that activists who are most committed to an organization with an encompassing collective identity develop a strong sense of solidarity with other activists similarly committed to that organization. The resultant solidarity leads to the construction of a ‘we–them’ dichotomy between organizations within the same movement, increasing the chances of hostility between organizations and factions within the movement.
This paper explores the individual and collective identities of ‘activists’ and ‘organizations’ within the environmental movement.2 It is based on case studies of three environmental movement organizations: Chiswick Wildlife Group (CWG), a local conservation organization in northwest London, the Environmental Direct Action Group (EDAG),3 a London-based radical group that campaigns against climate change, and Friends of the Earth (FoE), which is probably Britain's most influential reformist environmental organization. The organizations were selected because they broadly represent the three main ideological strands of the environmental movement; conservationism, which involves a direct concern for hands-on protection of natural sites, reformism, which seeks to bring about change by incremental reform, and radicalism, which seeks fundamental systemic change and engages in direct action and lifestyle change to achieve it.
To begin with, the paper introduces the theoretical background to identity and solidarity in movements, and then uses the case studies to show how identity and solidarity can affect relationships between and within environmental movement organizations (EMOs), and, more generally, social movement organizations.
Three types of identity are important in the study of social movements: individual, collective and public identities (Jasper 1997: 87). This paper is concerned with individual identity (to the extent that it contributes to and is affected by social movement participation) (Klandermans and De Weerd 2000), and also with collective identity. Despite definitional ‘catholicity’ (Polletta and Jasper 2001: 285) in the literature, most studies of collective identity have suggested that it should be highly valued for its binding effects on social movements. It has been presented as both a process and an outcome, apparently with the potential to allow collective action to occur, to help overcome the free-rider problem (Polletta and Jasper 2001) and to give activists shared senses of meaning and a sense of belonging (Diani 1995; Hetherington 1998). The concept of collective identity is so central to the literature on social movements that it has been suggested that the networks of organizations and individuals that constitute movements cannot be defined as such unless they also share a collective identity (Diani 1992).
Regardless of the importance of collective identities in definitions of movements, there is confusion in the literature over whether ‘collective identity’ is a term best applied to the movement organization (or group) level, or to movements as a whole. As we shall see, the term is more frequently used to refer, and seems better applied, to the group level. Far from uniting movements, this gives collective identity the potential to create conflicts between organizations that define themselves differently, have clashing ideologies, and engage in different styles of protest, even if they, as part of the same movement, share a broad concern.
It will be argued that when an individual becomes thoroughly immersed in a movement organization and where collective identities are encompassing, strong solidarity results. Strong solidarity exists when individuals within a collectivity have shared behaviours that differentiate them from other groups and from societal norms. Strong solidarity is where there is an encompassing collective identity characterized by high levels of commitment from activists who tend to identify solely with a particular movement organization and so develop a cliquey and exclusive culture. Solidarity is weak or absent when activists exhibit few behavioural differences from societal norms and where the organizational culture is easily accessible to outsiders. Organizations with a non-comprehensive collective identity might consist of activists with few commonalities, and who have little commitment to the organization besides, perhaps, an instrumental gain. Non-comprehensive collective identity and weak or non-existent solidarity within a movement organization is not necessarily a bad thing. Rather like Granovetter's (1973) concept of ‘the strength of weak ties’, non-comprehensive collective identities might result in a lack of solidarity between activists within an organization, but do allow for bridges to be built between organizations and across movements with relative ease due to weaker ‘we–them’ distinctions. Unfortunately, encompassing collective identities and strong solidarity can come at the expense of hostile relations with other movement organizations as part of the process of setting and affirming boundaries between the ‘we’ and the ‘them’. In fact it appears that the greater the commitment and individual-identity shift involved in the effective participation within a movement organization, the greater the extent to which collective identities are defended at the expense of other movement organizations. At the extreme, this can result in committed activists fostering lies and misunderstandings about other organizations in an attempt to make their own organization appear superior.
Below you see the 1% Wall Street and their pols creating what will be their asymmetric tool against the 99%----as this article shows political non-profits soared in the 1990s----the Clinton era----with people donating to a single social democratic issue rather than all social democratic PLATFORM issues. The weakened the existing IRS laws on 501c3 and today this is one of my major shouting ----MAJOR 501C3s are not FOLLOWING 501 C3 ELECTION LAWS.
Without coincidence it is the global NGOs and the Wall Street BAltimore Development non-profits that do not follow primary election laws and promote only the establishment candidates. As well, those global Wall Street funders---foundations, developers, global corporate campuses like Hopkins, Wall Street financial, now UnderArmour ----all send those funds to these POLITICAL ISSUE NON-PROFITS and VOILA----Baltimore City Hall pols take all written policy from those global NGO/corporate non-profits. They now control the primary elections with exclusion AND they heavily fund groups pushing the 1% policy issues as in Baltimore.
THIS WAS A 1% WALL STREET GLOBAL POL ASYMMETRIC WARFARE TOOL---FROM CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
Social Democrats support ALL SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM ISSUES----we don't need this factioning.
So this national corporate non-profit called Alliance for Strong Families and Communities locally in Baltimore is heavily funded and comes with a set of policies around societal structures written by the global NGOs and citizens in BAltimore wanting better conditions for families and communities fill these organizations
WHEN THE GLOBAL NGO TIED TO THIS CORPORATE NON-PROFIT IS WORKING TO INSTALL INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONE FAMILY AND COMMUNITIES POLICY.
This is how our religious institutions were brought into this global NGO structure when outsourcing all government agencies brought contract awards to Christian, Jewish, Muslim groups. Wall Street injected its own pseudo-religious structures to fund and install International Economic Zones. This is why I say Goldseker, Catholic Charities, Black Charities are not tied to religions -----they simply funnel revenue to institutions to promote global NGO societal policy.
Move away from these global NGOs and their corporate non-profits and be individual labor and justice activists with your own group of people.
The Alliance for Strong Families and Communities
is a national organization dedicated to achieving a vision of a healthy society and strong communities for all children, adults, and families.
Mixing Politics with Nonprofits
In 1954, Congress imposed a requirement on all 501(c)(3) exempt organizations that they not engage in partisan political activity. Of course, this doesn’t mean that you cannot speak. But it does mean that you cannot campaign.
This strikes me as fair. We receive a tremendous public benefit with our tax exemption and with the fact that people who donate to us can deduct their contributions from taxable income.
Since political contributions are not deductible, there would be no way for the IRS to track the proper or improper use of donated funds if 501(c)(3) organizations were involved in partisan politics.
However, the penalty is severe for not complying, and there is no middle ground. If you do engage in politics, you lose your exemption.
Nevertheless, there are ways for you to engage in the political life of your local communities, states, and national races without running askance of this prohibition. You simply need to know the rules and abide by them.
How to Lose Your Tax Exemption
The rules began to blur in the early 1990s, when religiously based groups became politically active. Two religious organizations actually lost their exemption because the egregiousness of their conduct.
Four days before the 1992 presidential election, The Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, New York took out an ad in two national newspapers urging Christians not to vote for Bill Clinton because of his positions on certain issues. This was the first time in IRS history where a bona fide church’s tax-exempt status was revoked because of its involvement in politics.(1)
Two days before the same election, Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition distributed 40 million distinctly partisan “voter guides” by inserting them in the service bulletins of Christian churches nationwide. The leaflets used highly inflammatory language to insinuate that Democratic candidates for Congress were “unchristian,” and they were credited with changing the outcome in several elections.(2)
Because of who these entities are, the public’s awareness of political activity within the exempt sector has focused on religious organizations. But the proscriptions apply equally well to all organizations with a 501(c)(3) exemption. These and other more recent cases provide us now, in 2006, with clearer guidelines than we had in the 1990s. With the upcoming Congressional races later this year, this is a good time to review what is and is not allowed in the way of political involvement.
Acceptable limits for lobbying, none for politicking. Despite the prohibition against politicking, you may engage in certain public policy and election-related work without jeopardizing your exempt status. There are restrictions on certain kinds of political actions, of course, but the range of what is acceptable is wide enough to give you many opportunities for action without crossing any legal lines.
IRS regulations on the political activities of 501(c)(3) entities can be summarized in three simple rules:
- You can educate the public about political issues and encourage voters to vote. You may issue position papers to the media and work with local coalitions or partnerships on issues of public importance. You can educate and register voters—so long as you do this in a non-partisan manner.
- You may engage in a limited amount of lobbying. Lobbying is defined as advocating for or against specific pieces of legislation. Your lobbying activities must be an “unsubstantial” portion of your overall activities. The IRS has not provided a guideline for exactly what is “unsubstantial,” but experts generally agree that up to 5 percent is acceptable.(3) If you wish to engage at a higher degree of lobbying, you may file an election to be judged on an expenditure basis.(4) Grassroots lobbying activities are an acceptable way to engage in public debate, so long as they remain an “unsubstantial” part of your overall activities.
- You may not engage in partisan political activity. You can do nothing that advocates for or against specific candidates for public office or their political parties. This includes fundraising on behalf of candidates and donating meeting space, among other things. Election-related activities such as candidate questionnaires and forums are acceptable, so long as all major candidates are invited to participate and they are fair in their presentation.
First, keep in mind that the restrictions against political activity apply only to the 501(c)(3) organization as a legal entity and those who speak in its name. An officer or director may freely make partisan statements as an individual, so long as the speaker makes it clear that he/she is not speaking on behalf of the organization.
Second, the political activity prohibition applies only to 501(c)(3) entities. If you feel that advocacy is important enough to do so, you may incorporate a separate nonprofit and get it recognized as a 501(c)(4) social welfare/advocacy organization. Donations to it are not tax deductible. Be sure to keep good records so you can demonstrate to the IRS that there is no illegal crossover between the two entities.
Third, because recent high visibility cases were triggered by the political actions of religious organizations, many of the best guides have been published by and for that sector. I especially recommend a publication issued by the Pew Charitable Trust.(5) It is a concise and clearly written document that is equally applicable to all exempt organizations.
A guide focusing on issues of interest to your agency can be useful to voters who want to know which candidate is most likely to favor issues of importance to you. Until now, there has been little guidance as to what constitutes acceptable limits for voter guides, other than that a truly partisan guide may expose your organization to loss of its exemption.
The best description of how to create an acceptable voter guide has ironically come out of the Christian Coalition case.(6) Since the IRS forced the Coalition to describe its intended process for issuing voter guides as a condition of being reinstated as an exempt entity, that approved process gives us excellent guidance in preparing our own voter guides.
Candidate appearances are, of course, partisan by their very nature. However, if you invite all major candidates to speak, you may hold public forums without violating IRS rules. I was sensitized to the need for fairness some 25 years ago, when a trade association I represented had invited only one candidate to speak at its annual convention. A powerful member of the opposition party happened to be present, and he heatedly noted to the embarrassed conferees that politicians “don’t get mad, they get even.” The opposing candidate was flown in the next day in a private jet at great expense to the organization. I had an extremely fortuitous experience with candidate forums when I was the executive director of Sunburst Inc. of Wisconsin.
Our advisory board at Sunburst Youth Homes invited both candidates to meet with its members, our staff, and members of the community. Only one candidate showed up, so we listened to his presentation with no fear that we had done anything wrong. When that candidate won the election, I paid a visit to him in the State Capitol on our association’s annual lobbying day. I was warmly received and we had a good talk. That is exactly what you want to have happen.
IRS requirements about political activities are reasonable. While they absolutely prohibit campaign involvement and partisan politics, they provide a number of accepted ways for you to become active in the public debate. I hope that you will find within this article the means to make your voice heard in the political marketplace.
I shared a video yesterday of a Wall Street minister being dressed down by our citizen activists and what it included was a good example of cultural spoken word as left-leaning activism. This has been the 99% asymmetric warfare tool forever. Each race has its own spoken word activist voice----the women's and labor movement in the 1960s-70s had its own spoken word culture and we need to embrace and share each population's spoken word activism as social democrats have a platform supporting all these social issues.
Below is a lady with some powerful spoken word----we need more activism in these words that educate on REAL ISSUES and not only on general repression.
WHERE IS THE SPOKEN WORD AGAINST INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONES, HUMAN CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION, GLOBAL FACTORY SWEAT SHOPS----by labor, people of color, women all educating this coming to the US International Economic Zones like Baltimore?
a poet, writer & activist
“As we are fighting, let us not think that activism is something our ancestors did that we cannot do nor some abstract foreign concept in a dusty history book. It is the soul urging to be heard. Activism is born out of human pain attempting to heal itself.
— Fire Angelou
Please educate on REAL public policy issues ----we all know these are repressive times in general for all population groups. Lady Heroin in the video yesterday was doing just that.
Corporate non-profits tied to global NGOs will have citizens using spoken word but never inject the REAL left-leaning activism needed to educate the 99%.
Mandela: A Spoken Word Poet and Social Activist for Women and Girls
12/11/2013 04:49 pm ET | Updated Feb 10, 2014
- Lisa Russell Emmy-winning Filmmaker, Founder of I Sell the Shadow, Global Advocate, Teaching Artist
“It is never my custom to use words lightly. If twenty-seven years in prison have done anything to us, it was to use the silence of solitude to make us understand how precious words are and how real speech is in its impact on the way people live and die.”- Nelson Mandela
As I sit in the Brooklyn-based popular restaurant called Madiba this Human Rights Day at 7am, watching SABC’s live coverage of Nelson Mandela’s funeral, I cannot help but to reflect on the thoughtful words, inspiring speeches and memorable quotes for which this South African hero is known:
- “A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.”
- “There is no easy walk to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through the valley of the shadow of death again and again before we reach the mountaintop of our desires.”
- “I can rest only for a moment, for with freedom comes responsibilities, and I dare not linger, for my long walk is not yet ended.”
In hearing speaker after speaker at Mandela’s funeral recite his most profound quotes, I am reminded that he was not just a politician or world leader - he was a committed social activist and perhaps the world’s most influential spoken word poet.
While he credits his twenty-seven years in solitude as the reason for his appreciation of the power of words and speech, I believe Nelson Mandela was always a poet. In his infamous I Am Prepared to Die speech, that prefaced his ridiculously long time in prison, he acknowledges how storytelling helped develop his character and strong beliefs. Crediting the elders from his youth in the Transkei, who told tales of their ancestors fighting in defense of their land, Mandela had hoped that his own life might give him the privilege of serving his people and contributing in the struggle for freedom. He claims, “this is what motivated me in all that I have done in relation to the charges made against me...”
I, personally, am a big admirer of the spoken word genre. A storyteller through the medium of film, a social activist and a global health advocate, I have also been a teaching artist and mentor for Urban Word NYC which provides free spoken word poetry and creative writing workshops for inner city teens. Considered an outlet for the socially and economically “oppressed” — people of color, poor people, youth, etc. — spoken word poetry is a mixture of performance and activism and poets bring to light the socio-determinants that often affect the health of a people. Originally influenced by the Harlem Renaissance, the blues and the beatniks, contemporary spoken word became popular in the 1960s with the Last Poets and the highlight of the Civil Rights Movement. Today, its popularity continues and has become a worldwide arts and entertainment genre that continues to shed light on controversial topics that deal with race, economics, sex and more political issues such as war, corporate greed, the rise of police states, etc.
In 2007, I had the honor of visiting South Africa for the second time, as I filmed and accompanied three spoken word poets from Brooklyn, NY to Poetry Africa. Considered the largest poetic gathering on the continent, Poetry Africa (run by the Centre for Creative Arts), brings over 20 poets from around Africa and internationally to Durban for 7-10 days each year.
An introduction to Poetry Africa.
I saw for myself how the spoken word resonated with black South Africans who are still struggling with racial and economic inequality. From the plethora of performance spaces, to the participation of young people in street protests, to the sporadic ciphers that would pop up in back street alleys, Durban, South Africa’s poetry performance scene transplanted back me to the NYC poetry community and it was amazing to see such a global interconnectedness through art.
In my own work, I have collaborated with several spoken word artists in my outreach. Their ability to inspire and move a crowd in a live setting greatly enhances the advocacy work I do with a film. I have recruited poets (such as the amazing Mak Manaka from Soweto, South Africa who found poetry and writing after a car accident that left him paralyzed from the waist down and Charlotte “Mama C” O’Neal who is an iconic artist and musician from Tanzania) from Africa for my MDGFive.com new media site that unites artists and activists in maternal health and will also invite poets to participate in my new “I Sell the Shadow” UN/artist development and socially conscious entertainment channel.
Portrait of South African Poetry Performer, Mak Manaka
Mandela, in some ways, was also a feminist poet. In addition to his fight against apartheid and racial injustices, he was also a warrior for women and girls.
“The legacy of oppression weighs heavily on women. As long as women are bound by poverty and as long as they are looked down upon, human rights will lack substance.”
Although these words were spoken over almost two decades ago, they hold true today. The right to a safe delivery, the right of a woman to live free from violence and the right of women to participate meaningfully in political circles will not come to fruition unless the oppression, inequality and poverty of women are addressed. His words lead to incredible changes to benefit women and girls in South Africa. When he took office, the representation of women in South Africa’s parliament rose from 2.7 percent during apartheid to 27 percent and today it’s at 44 percent. During his presidency, Mandela enacted laws that provided free healthcare for women and children and also legalized abortion. He often spoke out against sexual violence. And he led South Africa in becoming a signatory to the Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). His commitment to advocating on behalf of women and girls is one we should strive to emulate and we should hold our politicians to be as accountable in the ways Mandela was on his own accord.
Spoken word poets, Roxy Azari and Tahani Salah, perform “Gutted Fish” about sexual violence against girls.
As we all move from this sad day forward, in remembrance of an outstanding man who struggled his entire life to bring peace and justice for all, through his actions andwords, I hope we as a community can come together to confront the challenges that face the most oppressed, not with a charitable and pity approach, but through a justice and human rights lens as Mandela did.
“When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace. I believe I have made that effort and that is, therefore, why I will sleep for eternity.”
Rest in peace, beloved Madiba.
As an old-school baby boomer activist I am not going to tell young adults what their spoken word should look like but I want to say this
ONE WORLD/ONE RELIGION/ONE LABOR UNION UNDER ONE GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL 1% have their own asymmetric warfare tool in spoken word---it pushes global multiculturalism without ever mentioning US INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONES, HUMAN CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION, GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES AND GLOBAL FACTORIES AS SWEAT SHOP LABOR and the fact all of this is being brought to the US cities via the jobs, jobs, jobs mantra.
ECONOMIC CRASH AND BOND FRAUD SPOKEN WORD BEFORE THE CRASH ACTUALLY OCCURS TO ALLOW MAIN STREET CITIZENS TO PREPARE? A global NGO non-profit would never guide people to that spoken word.
Don't be an Activist [Spoken Word]
Published on Dec 2, 2015
Full captions available through youtube (Click for subtitles)
"Chaz and I believe so much in this video and its need to be shown to our fellow activists and agents of change. In honor of the people that choose to stick out by speaking up, in honor of all the folks that choose the hard path because they understand its the right one. We hope you find fuel from this piece."
- Fong and Chaz
Words to Poem: http://fongtranpoetry.tumblr.com/post...
Published on December 1, 2015
Poem Title: Don't be an Activist
The asymmetric warfare today by the 1% Wall Street and their 5% has been corrupting the election process. If not direct election ballot fraud---then ignoring campaign laws, IRS and FCC election laws. So, WE THE PEOPLE know this system is rigged. They have created a system of media, NGOs and corporate non-profits, institutions that operate their own system of elections----what I call the Wall Street Baltimore Development primary forums and candidate campaign donations. You can tell by candidates for city council having campaign donations from Rawlings-Blake, Jack Young, or any of the global NGO non-profits that those candidates will likely end winning an election.
So, do the 99% simply call it a day saying this cannot be beat? OF COURSE NOT---CITIZENS AROUND THE WORLD FIGHT AND DIE FOR THE POWER OF VOTE--IT MAKES US CITIZENS.
The #1 left-leaning asymmetric warfare strategy to undermine these corrupt elections is this-----MAKE THESE 5% TO THE 1% WANT TO LEAVE OFFICE----WANT TO LEAVE A CORPORATE NON-PROFIT LEADERSHIP----and that comes from constant BIRD-DOGGING. Bird-dogging simply means hitting these 5% where they live, eat, work, play in acts of political activism. Baltimore had a touch of bird-dogging happening but there is absolutely NO SUCH ACTIVISM unless a corporate non-profit promotes it. Know what? All the issues a corporate non-profit promotes are progressive bones if they are not addressing the REAL issues.....US cities as International Economic Zones, Trans Pacific Trade Pact, global human distribution systems as slave trade coming to the US.
WHILE THE 1% MAY USE POLITICAL STANCES TO CAPTURE OUR ELECTIONS WE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER THEIR 5% STICKS AROUND.
Can a Jamal Bryant for example continue in Baltimore if he is BIRD-DOGGED like that video showed? Of course not---he is losing power to control for Wall Street the 99%.
'Have a handfull of folks follow the elected official to all public or campaign events, showing up
with signs and questions'.
HOLDING YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE
MAKE SURE THE REPS WHO VOTED WRONG FEEL THE PRESSURE AND
THANK THOSE WHO VOTED RIGHT
Here are some ideas for accountability organizing tactics. Don’t forget to take advantage of
opportunities like Labor Day, Earth Day, local events and Election time to get your message out to a
§ Generate calls
§ Organizational sign-on letters
§ Letters to the Editor
§ Letterwriting campaigns
§ Meetings with Elected Officials
§ Editorial Board meetings
§ Press conferences
Visits with Elected Officials
(can also be the subject of press conferences)
§ Present “Thank-you” awards, trophies, certificates, fair trade gift baskets (include a bottle of clean
water, locally and unionmade goods, copy of the constitution) to fair trade supporters, throw an
office party for representatives who voted the right way.
§ Present “Job Exporter,” “Family Farm Destroyer,” or “Corporate Deregulator” awards, X Trade
Agreement gift boxes (include dirty water, pink slips, sweatshopmade goods, imported food), or
“Second Chance” cards to representatives who voted wrong.
Other Events with Elected Officials
§ Townhall meetings
§ Offer to take your representative on a tour of “Free Trade Victim City” or “Free Trade Disaster
Area” or “Job Export Zone” – make this offer public, extend an invitation to the press.
§ Publicly challenge your representative to a “NAFTA Jobs Scavenger Hunt”. Ask him or her to
identify X number of jobs in your area that were created by NAFTA.
With all of these, it’s most important to target areas surrounding the Representative’s home or office
as well as the highest traffic areas.
§ Yard sign campaigns
§ Stickering/wheatpasting/fliering campaigns
§ Workplace fliering
§ Convert a pick-up truck into a traveling billboard.
§ Sandwichboards- can be huge pinkslips or just have text. Station people at intersections, outside
the district office, or at public events.
§ Utilize animals (or people in animal costumes) for representatives in rural areas- put a
sandwichboard on someone in a cow costume or encircle a district office with pigs.
§ Have a handfull of folks follow the elected official to all public or campaign events, showing up
with signs and questions.
§ Use puppets, huge pinkslips, or other large visuals.
§ Erect a huge thermometer in a public place which keeps count of jobs lost to NAFTA, jobs/farms
lost in the district, or a huge scale with jobs lost versus gained.
§ Utilize big blown-up visuals of the constitution for democracy/sovereignty argument.
§ Print (Also consider rural and agriculture papers, Spanish, university or other alternative press
where applicable- Don’t forget organizational newsletters)
§ Radio (also consider rural, Spanish or other alternative stations where applicable)
§ Bus stops/Subways
Special Election Time Tactics
All of the actions above take on a heightened impact near election time, but here are some
Additional tactics to consider leading up to Election Day. (Check into election rules first)
§ Make a candidate questionnaire/survey/pledge and ask “Will you oppose the FTAA as it is
currently proposed?” Publicize the results.
§ Go to parades, events, rallies, and debates and let your opinion be known.
§ Make a voter guide – describe each candidate’s stances on trade.
§ Distribute fliers with their voting records
§ Call in to talk radio to ask candidates to state their positions on trade
§ Host a debate or forum
This group below has a good left-leaning asymmetric warfare structure======take a look at what they do but keep it local since Baltimore is that US International Economic Zone they are fighting.
If the 99% of each population group would bird-dog those 5% supporting them and get serious WAKE UP--we cannot reverse this a decade from now after all the installation. It's like protesting outside East Baltimore AFTER all the policies are in place.
California and the World United Against the TPP
– February 15, 2016Posted in: California, News from the FieldProtesters Decry Race-to-the-Bottom Trade Proposal Outside President Obama’s US-ASEAN Economic Summit
Saying the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would lead to a global race-to-the-bottom in wages, working conditions and environmental standards if ever enacted, Californians protested the proposed trade agreement outside an international economic summit with southeast Asian nations’ leaders hosted by President Obama at the Sunnylands Estate in Rancho Mirage, California on February 15, 2016.
“While out-of-touch politicians discuss plans to ratify and even expand the TPP, working people in California and around the globe are uniting to defeat trade deals that offshore jobs, drive down wages and hurt the environment,” said Lua Masumi, California Director for Citizens Trade Campaign. “As a result of public anger, the TPP is already dead-on-arrival in Congress this year and the leading presidential candidates from both parties are also speaking out against it.”
“Governments should be seeking out ways to lift working standards and protect the environment, not how to pit working people against one another,” said T. Santora, Communications Workers of America Local 9003, Legislative and Political Chair of the Southern California Council. “The TPP would force American employers into greater competition with companies exploiting workers paid less than 65 cents an hour in countries like Vietnam. A country could literally set its minimum wage at a dollar a day and still be in compliance with the TPP’s abysmally-weak labor standards. It’s no wonder the TPP’s opposition is so strong.”
The proposed TPP seeks to set rules governing approximately 40% of the global economy, not only on traditional trade matters such as tariffs and quotas, but also financial regulations, medicine patents, energy policy, food safety standards, government procurement preferences and more.
The TPP was signed by the United States and eleven other countries earlier in February 2016, but its ratification faces an uphill battle in Congress. In addition to the United States, other TPP signers participating in the US-ASEAN summit are Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. Prospective TPP members Thailand, Indonesia and The Philippines are also at the summit.
Banging drums, chanting and carrying a giant six-foot globe reading “United Against the TPP,” protesters outside the Sunnyland Estate represented a range of constituencies, from the labor, environmental, consumer, immigrant rights and human rights movements.
“The world cannot afford the TPP,” said Jacob Zehnder, Sierra Club of San Diego Representative. “Beyond just failing to mention the term ‘climate change’ in its thousands of pages, the TPP would provide corporations with new tools for attacking environmental and consumer protections at home and abroad, while simultaneously increasing the export of fracked gas and other climate-disrupting fossil fuels.”
“As you’d expect from a trade deal negotiated behind-closed doors with the aid of hundreds of corporate advisors, while the public and press were shut out, the TPP would put corporate profits ahead of human rights,” said Charlie Carnow, Research Analyst for UNITE HERE Local 11. “The TPP includes several notorious human rights violators, including Brunei, where LGBT individuals and single mothers can be stoned to death under extreme Sharia law, and Malaysia, where huge numbers of ethic minorities are trafficked through the jungle in modern slavery.”
Ignoring the economic, environmental and human rights implications of the proposed agreement, the Obama administration’s latest argument for the TPP is that the pact would help contain Chinese expansion in the Pacific Rim.
“To suggest that the TPP is somehow a bulwark against Chinese expansion in the region is ridiculous,” said Masumi. “TPP countries — including the United States — are going to continue trading with China like gangbusters with or without this agreement. What the TPP is really about is enriching a relative handful of well-connected corporate elites at the expense of nearly everyone else.”
The CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA major strategy in asymmetric warfare against the 99% was the Master Plans in US cities like Baltimore that allowed these cities to crumble and decay----that deliberately refused to rebuild community economies---and that created mass unemployment through economic stagnation and bringing workers from outside the city and state. THAT WAS A 1% ASYMMETRIC STRATEGY because all this creates that pool of citizens pushing to be that 5%.
Americans need to ask----what happens when the 1% move to needing only 2% to support its agenda which will come once International Economic Zones are built? A global militarized police/security force and SMART CITY surveillance leads to total authoritianism and needs only a few to support. Those 2% will not likely be today's American citizens so to those current 5%-----WHERE WILL YOU GO TO BE THE SHOW ME THE MONEY INSIDERS TO THE 1%?
When social Democrats say AN INJUSTICE TO ONE WILL BECOME INJUSTICE FOR ALL----this is what CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and their asymmetric warfare on the 99% intended by allowing our US cities to decay and unemployment become deeper and deeper. This coming economic crash will make this more broader and deeper. That's how the 1% from each population group recruits its 5%---
'You can always hire one half of the poor to KILL THE OTHER HALF .... I'll teach you to speak English with this knife - Duration: 3:02. Michael ... '
The asymmetric warfare from the left-leaning activists is NOT ALLOWING IT TO GET THAT FAR. The failure for the 99% is we are tied to protesting issues after they are installed and this is because global NGOs and corporate non-profits want it that way.
The coming SOCIAL BENEFIT dressed in terrorism and Americans being anti-government. Both Asian and Latin American International Economic Zone nations already have this level of militarized security and surveillance.
I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.
US financier & railroad businessman (1836 - 1892)
This quote is generally attributed to an 19th century railroad tycoon named Jay
Gould, but sadly his robber-baron creed is far from dead. In fact, it is very much
alive and well, hiding behind dark SCOTUS robes decreeing that that "corporations
are people". And the results have been predictably draconian.
This is precisely what is so compelling for the 1%, to push the "Terrorist" meme,
is that it provides "cover" for 1% to "lawfully" hire 1/2 the working class..." to
oppress, neutralize, eliminate whoever it wants to, in broad daylight with impunity,
because, well, because they can; and it's "profitable" from their standpoint to do
so. After all, that's what unfettered corporate capitalism does best, destroy lives,
pollute the air, water, and soil, trample the rights of citizens, extort money from
the poor, etc. and then to crush anyone who questions their authority to do so.
The more time that passes, since Jay Gould, since the 1985 movie by Terry Gilliam
"Brazil" prophetically predicted our sham "War on Terror", 16 years before 911 kicked
this bogus war into hyper-drive, the more this clip from Brazil speaks for itself.
IMHO this is the CORE ISSUE of our time, and it's not going to get any "better"
until this pointless, endless "War on Terror" is called by it's proper name "1%'s
War on We The People". Hell, our own generals tell us that the drone wars are
"creating more terrorists" exponentially, as family member of "collateral damage"
victims vow to get revenge. But aren't there a few "really bad guys" out there
who'd like nothing more than to blow up a shopping mall? The answer to this is
unfortunately "yes"; however, we already had a full-spectrum law enforcement
apparatus in place before 911, before the Patriot Act, before the Dept. of Homeland
Security, before the NDAA paved the way for "indefinite detention" to become the
"law" of the land, eclipsing virtually all constitutional rights of US citizens.
Any actual real terrorists that may exist (who are not double/triple agents with ties
to our own CIA) are only the tip of a huge iceberg of foreign resentment and hatred
of the USA's arrogant imperialistic covert wars of subterfuge, double-dealing and deceit,
and our maniacal militaristic habit of invading other nations when it suits the 1%'s
pocketbooks to do so.
Call me crazy, but that's how I see it. I don't for a minute believe that Obama likes
this any more than most of us on DU, but he does have a lovely family who doesn't
want to see his brains splattered in public. I can't really say I blame him for going
along with it, and I certainly don't envy being him right now, given the fast track to
Dystopia that's becoming the new normal.
<--help! I'm running out of tinfoil.