I’ve found the perfect woman…Princess JOY VILLA!

What it would be like in Jefferson

Highlights:

Jury nullification instructions, constitutional republic, state militia, no Lobbyists, no eminent domain, one bill per legislator per year, voting by internet, public school curriculum written by county, trial by jury for everything, no unfunded mandates, taxes spent locally first, zero corporate taxes, federal law enforcement restricted.

---

Reposted from http://www.soj51.net

Policy Statement for the State of Jefferson

General principles:

Liberty first, liberty last, liberty always! Without Liberty, nothing else matters. Without Liberty, you will not be allowed to keep the money. Without Liberty, you will not be allowed to use your property. Without Liberty, you may not be allowed to keep the property. There are aspects of our lives, our property, our business, our culture, in which government has no place. The Constitutional Convention, for Jefferson, will put in place a government which will be strictly limited in scope, size, and power. The Constitution will adhere to the founding principles of this nation. The Jefferson Constitution will bind government, not the people. “We were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights; among those are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Government has only one purpose which is to secure the rights of the governed. John Locke called these rights the Natural Rights of Life, Liberty and Property. Samuel Adams added to Locke, with the statement, “Life, Liberty, and Property together with the means to defend those as best we can.” There will be no eminent domain in Jefferson. People create government to secure the Liberties they hold most dear. Government is our creation and will never be our master. A balanced budget will be a Constitutional mandate. Debt will be limited to dire emergency as defined by 2/3 vote of the legislature, and a majority popular vote. Debt will be limited by Constitution to a term of five years. Unfunded liabilities will be Unconstitutional. Eminent Domain will be Unconstitutional. Jefferson will endeavor and participate in all efforts to regain control over all state lands from Federal management. Jefferson will join efforts headed by the American Lands Council to this end.

Constitution and Government:

Legislative:

The Jefferson Constitution will outline the structure for our new state. Our goal is a state with equal representation for each county in the State Senate. Our Assembly will consist of representation at a ratio of one Assemblyman for each twenty thousand citizens, or less, based upon the State Constitutional Convention. Each and every county, no matter how sparsely populated, will have a minimum of one Legislator in the State Assembly, and will have equal representation in our Senate. Lobbyist will be illegal.

The Jefferson Legislature will meet for 90 days per year. Odd years will be spent creating a two year budget. Jefferson’s budget will be zero sums. In other words, each department or agency will have to justify its budget in its entirety for each budget cycle. Even years will be spent on legislative matters. Each Legislator will only be allowed to introduce one bill per legislative cycle. The Constitution will mandate a periodic review to eliminate superfluous or arbitrary laws or regulations. Bills, by law, must be placed on the Jefferson Legislative website, a minimum of 30 days prior to the vote in the legislature. No amendments will be allowed once the bill has been posted to the website. Each legislator will maintain a website where constituents can “vote” yes, or no, for each legislative bill during the public posting time. The results of those votes shall be archived on the legislator’s website.

Executive:

Jefferson will be led by the Governor. The Governor will be the chief executive of Jefferson and as such, will oversee executive offices and their officials. The Governor will act on behalf of Jefferson in matters of state. The Secretary of State will also act as Lt Governor in the event of absence or incapacity of the Governor. The Secretary of State will be an elected office. The Secretary of State will, oversee elections, articles of incorporation and related affairs. The Secretary of State will also have the duty to vote in the Jefferson Senate in the event of a tie vote.

Judicial Branch:

The Jefferson Supreme Court will be comprised of 7 Justices. These will be elected officers, elected by district, who serve during good behavior for a period of ten years. State Appellate court Judges will be elected officers who will serve during good behavior for a period of four years. Appellate and Supreme Court Judges will be elected by district as apportioned by the Constitutional Convention.

Superior Court Judges will be elected for a period of four years, by each county. A system of Justices of the Peace will adjudicate misdemeanors in each county as well as other duties. Family law and other minor court officers will be selected in a manner approved by each county. Binding arbitration may be conducted by attorneys provided the involved parties are in agreement and sign contracts agreeing to that manner of adjudication.

A trial by jury is an inviolate, inalienable right. Any matter of civil or criminal law with consequences of more than one hundred dollars is to be adjudicated by a jury of the defendant’s peers within the county in which the act took place. State appellate courts will operate by circuit. Appellate Courts will try state responsibility cases in the county in which the act took place, using county residents as a jury pool.

Jury nullification is an inalienable right. Juries shall be instructed appropriately.

Courts and court security will be funded by the state. County Jails are the responsibility of the respective county. Appellate and Supreme Court Opinions can be subject to Executive and Legislative review if so requested within a period of one year following the opinion. Opinions can be reversed if so voted by the legislature and approved by the Executive.

Judicial opinions or rulings are and by Constitution must be limited to the issues at fact, which are being raised by the parties to the action. As a final act to strengthen the rights of the people, the Judicial will recognize the right and fact of Pro Se litigants. Jefferson State will not require its Judges to be lawyers. The right of the people to act in their own defense is an inalienable right and will be respected in the courts of Jefferson as will the right of the jury to nullify.

Taxes and Revenue:

Our system of revenue collection will be unique and will provide checks upon the power of the state and federal government. Our Constitution will codify a system where Counties collect taxes, after which they pass to the state that portion of the dollar which fulfills that counties responsibility for the State operating budget. The State will never be in a position to hold a county hostage with its own money. Unfunded mandates will be unconstitutional. Local decisions requiring local revenue will be made locally. The State will provide input and advice if requested by the county. There will be no state sponsored welfare programs. Welfare will be handled by church groups and community service organizations. Utah has a very successful private welfare organization. We will work toward that end. Federal dollars will be assigned to successful and efficient community, or county organizations to help the needy. Federal dollars, behavioral health dollars will be portioned to community hospitals or County Health organizations. Again, local decisions made locally.

Federal income taxes will be sent to a pass through account held by the state for transmittal to the Federal Government conditioned upon its adherence to Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. We will make every conceivable effort to create a state of affairs through which the Federal Government will not be able to use Jefferson’s money to coerce compliant behavior. Federal monies coming to the states will be apportioned to the counties. One example is Federal Highway money. This revenue is used to fund Cal-Trans. We will give the money to the Counties and the State will only supply engineering advice to maintain State Responsibility roads.

The Financial Model for our new state is on our website, http://www.soj51.net . The model is open. The user can alter tax rates to see what the impacts would be for different counties and different tax rates.

Jefferson will have a zero corporate tax rate designed to encourage innovation and business growth. Jefferson hopes to entice many, if not all of the thousands of businesses which leave California each and every year to relocate to Jefferson.

Our financial model was constructed with the latest budget figures available from California. These figures were not constructed by the Jefferson Committee. They are budget figures used by the State of California.

Agencies, Regulations, and Licensing:

Jefferson intends to dramatically reduce the number and jurisdiction of Executive branch agencies. The various offices of Jefferson will facilitate the dispersal of appropriate federal money to the respective counties, act as advisers, as lead agency during mult-icounty events, and act as arbitrators when counties cannot agree upon actions which affect multiple counties.

In order to facilitate the organization of Jefferson, all valid licenses will be automatically renewed for a period of two years. This will give the State time to establish infrastructure and to determine which licenses will be required, (far fewer than California), and how to ensure continuing education where it is necessary for the health and safety of the public who choose to use those licensed services.

State agencies and their intrusion into the lives of Jeffersonians will be greatly reduced. We do not need, or want, government by staff or agency. Jefferson will have representative government, through Constitutional Republic. The offices of the executive branch will be responsible to the people whom they are supposed to serve. Government malfeasance will be a crime. Breach of the oath of office will be a crime. Abuse of power will be a crime. Any and all alleged infractions resulting, will be the jurisdiction of the County Sheriff for the county affected and the local jurisdiction of the District Attorney and local courts. This will help to ensure that the state will not have unwelcome intrusion into the affairs of any given county, or its citizens. The above applies to all state agencies, offices, and officials.

Examples of State Executive Offices:

Cal Trans will be replaced with the Office of State Engineer. That office will be responsible to provide expertise to counties when it is requested for infrastructure projects, materials acquisition, and related projects. State infrastructure projects will be overseen by this office and work will be contracted locally to the county in which the project is constructed. Federal Highway monies will be distributed to counties for maintenance or construction of State responsibility roads and infrastructure. The State Engineer is also responsible for facilitating, mining, appropriative water rights, and other areas of production of vital importance for the success of the economy of Jefferson.

The State office of Agriculture will be responsible for facilitating and enhancing the production and marketing of Jefferson’s vast agricultural and forestry resources. The Office of Ag will be responsible for agriculture, fish, game and forestry. The Office of Agriculture will lend advice, and resources to a county, if requested. The office of Agriculture will be the lead agency in the event of agricultural emergency, pest invasion, crop blight or event that affects multiple counties.

Office of Education will be responsible to advise and to aid counties, when requested, to obtain materials, supplies, and expertise to construct and to facilitate curriculum which is designed to either aid in entrance to the university system or to provide technical education necessary to the skills, and economic success of the student. County government will largely determine the subject matter of local schools with the input of local citizens. Universities and Community Colleges will flourish as private entities. State expertise will be available upon request. Technical Colleges will also be encouraged as valuable resources to our state and its citizens. Peace Officer Standard Training, facilitated through the Jefferson Department of Justice will have curriculum approved by DOJ but conducted by the University system.

Office of Constitutional Review will be led by the Secretary of Constitutional Review. This is an elected position. There will be no violations, nor any Judicial, legislative, statutory, or regulatory infringement of the rights to self-defense, property, privacy, trial by jury, or any violations of the Declaration of Rights. Jefferson represents personal liberty for all of its citizens. The primary duty of the Secretary of Constitutional Compliance will be to ensure that statutory, judicial, legislative and regulatory processes do not interfere with the inalienable rights of Jefferson.

The Secretary will be responsible to review each and every piece of legislation, regulation, law, and statute prior to its internet posting for public review. This review is designed to ensure that all produce of the government of Jefferson is constitutional and will not infringe upon, nor alter the intent or function of the Jefferson Constitution or the rights of the Citizens as outlined in Article One, the Declaration of Rights. The Office of Constitutional Compliance will be responsible to see that any office or entity, tasked to implement any program, project, or legislation, acts with fiduciary caution, its employees have the proper training, and implementation is fair and balanced. Any act which fails to pass constitutional muster is null and void. Such acts will be sent back to the author for alteration , revision or scrapped altogether. Primary jurisdiction for any judicial appeal to review decisions will be to the Jefferson Supreme Court.

Jefferson Department of Justice will be responsible for multi-county law enforcement operations. County Sheriff’s Departments will each contribute Deputies for temporary duty to Jefferson DOJ. During their time with state service these Deputies can be trained in accident investigation, coroner investigations, forensics and other duties for which counties may lack training resources. JDOJ will oversee the POST academy standards for the university systems of Jefferson. Police Academy training will be conducted by the Community College or University System. JDOJ will be overseen by the States Attorney General. The States Attorney General is an elected officer and will also be the States Solicitor General to the United States Supreme Court. County Sheriffs will be the highest law enforcement officer within Jefferson. Sheriff’s Department will provide all law enforcement for Jefferson, with the exception of incorporated city police forces, by vote of elected city councils. There will be no armed law enforcement in the State of Jefferson except that of the County Sheriff’s. Federal law enforcement will not be allowed to operate in any given county except by one time MOU during emergencies, natural disaster, or time of war and only by consent of the County Sheriff involved. MOU’s, during such emergencies, must be renewed every six months. Should Jefferson require a state law enforcement presence, during an emergency, or for multi county emergency, Counties will contribute deputies. The law enforcement personnel will be under the command of the County Sheriff of the impacted county.

Jefferson State Militia will not participate in the United States National Guard system. Jefferson’s force for defense of State and Nation, during time of invasion or emergency, will be a state militia. Formation and Command structure will be decided by Constitutional Convention. Jefferson Militia will not be available for foreign wars, unless by approval of a vote of the people and the legislature. Jefferson Militia will supervise state firefighting, state office of emergency services, state search and rescue, defense of state and nation, during national emergency. Militia will be available to counties, during times of emergency, or natural disaster, upon request, provided Constitutional mandates are met.

Constitution:

The Constitution of the State of Jefferson will be largely modeled on the Federal Constitution. Article one will be the Declaration of Rights. The inalienable rights of the citizens are inviolate. The rights of Property are paramount to the people of Jefferson. There will be no violations, nor any legislative, statutory, or regulatory infringement of the rights to self-defense, property, privacy, trial by jury, or any violations of the Declaration of Rights. Jefferson represents personal liberty for all of its citizens. The primary duty of the Secretary of Constitutional Compliance will be to ensure that statutory, judicial, legislative and regulatory processes do not interfere with the inalienable rights of Jefferson.

The Jefferson Constitution represents the contract which defines the government created to serve the people. The rights of the people are absolute. The people of Jefferson do not surrender their sovereignty to the government created to serve them.

Our goal is to create a constitution designed to secure liberty for our posterity. Jefferson’s Constitution will be very difficult to change. If we succeed in our endeavor to restore Liberty through Constitutional Republic to Jefferson, we will have fulfilled our mandate, our promise, and our duty to future generations. Please stand with us.

The Time Has Come For 51

Mark Baird
soj51.net

Thank you Russia – Vladimir Putin kills Obama’s attack dog ISIS

---

allstaractivist note: Thank you President Vladimir Putin, for thwarting our president’s treasonous plans. It’s a shame that we have to look to another State for salvation from a threat that our own government created, now wanting to unleash it here in America via Syrian “refugees”. How many traitors do you have to have in America for a condition like this to develop? For those who as yet don’t understand what is going on, here are the Cliffs Notes…

• Al Qaeda evolved into ISIS, different tactics and goals but both hate the United States.
• Obama and his Globalist masters both created and control ISIS in the way a master controls an attack dog let loose to bite people.
• Obama and his Globalist masters want to overthrow Syria’s president Bashar Alassad because Syria is the last holdout preventing them from taking over the Middle East and handing it over to Saudi Arabia. This is the purpose of ISIS, to facilitate fulfillment of the PENAC dream.
• Russia, China and Iran don’t want that to happen because it will cause them problems.
• Vladimir Putin wants Russia to remain free of Globalist control and so is killing their attack dog ISIS.
• Now, “President” Obama has egg on his face because Putin did in one day what he couldn’t nor wouldn’t do in all this time.
• Obama is now disgracing himself by impotently trying to defend his inabilities and denounce Putin’s military strategy.
• Obama and his administration are further showing their treasonous colors by defending Al Qaeda as “moderates”, claiming that Russia is killing the wrong terrorists. Pathetic and disgraceful. We see your true colors Obama, and your Islamic extremest sympathies.
• Vladimir Putin is a member of the Russian Orthodox Church and has professed to be a Christian but is both tolerant and protective of all faiths.
• 200,000 Syrian war refugees that Obama has promised to take in have been found to mostly be jihadist ISIS fighters in disguise.
• Last but not least, the United States Air Force sprays toxic metals on US citizens but can’t hit the side of a barn in Syria while Russia’s Air Force decimates ISIS leadership in one single air strike. No wonder Edward Snowden is over there. For shame my fellow citizens, for shame…

---

 

 

Occupy Peace 09-20-15 Noon Crown and John St Kingston NY

What is Occupy Peace

What is Occupy Peace?

Occupy Peace is unlike any other peace initiative. Formally launching at a rally at noon on September 20, 2015, at the corners of John and Crown Street in historic Kingston, NY, this peace movement is designed to create a platform to hold elected officials accountable for senselessly prompting war. It will drive a nationwide initiative to put peace on the ballot.

How will this get done?

The institute will work with inspiring and peace-minded historians and other experts to create a program that provides the tools to make peace a driving force in the halls of government and in the living rooms of Americans. Most notably, the movement will promote these tenants:

» No foreign entanglements.

» Wage war only when imminent threat exists.

» Zero tolerance for illegal wars based on lies and retreaded failed reasoning.

» Build communities here, not foreign nations elsewhere.

» Let the people vote on whether to fund wars.

The rally to birth a movement

At noon on Sept. 20, 2015, Gerald Celente and the Trends Research Institute will launch Occupy Peace, a movement designed to reinstate the core values that gave birth to this nation and provide the tools for advancing peace and restoring prosperity.

The Occupy Peace rally will take place at the oldest intersection in the United States. At the corners of Crown and John streets in Kingston, NY, stand four pre-Revolutionary War stone structures. Just a half-block away is the Kingston Courthouse, constructed in 1789. The courthouse, and buildings on the site dating to 1683, were the scene of critical episodes in the founding of the country

This movement is not designed to raise good vibes about peace, it is being shaped as a movement with teeth, vision and guts to demand peace in all circumstances except for imminent, measurable threats.

“There is no major, unified peace movement going on in America,” said Celente. “The constant talk from Washington, the presidential candidates and media is war, war and more war. Since George W. Bush launched the War on Terror in 2001, every few years there is a new enemy to attack, another country to invade and occupy, a new enemy to fear and hate.”

Occupy Peace will legally, culturally and strategically push for these guiding principles:

» No foreign entanglements.

» Wage war only when imminent threat exists.

» Zero tolerance for illegal wars based on lies and retreaded failed reasoning.

» Build communities here, not foreign nations elsewhere.

» Let the people vote on whether to fund wars.

The rally, fueled by what we hope are thousands of like-minded individuals gathering to learn how to advance strategy-driven peace initiatives in their communities, will motivate attendees to fight for peace while equipping them with the specific tools to get peace on the ballot.

In Celente’s own words:

“Occupy Peace was created to reinstate the values upon which this nation was founded by honoring thy founding fathers. George Washington, a real commander in chief, was a warrior who led and fought in battles, unlike little chicken hawks today who call themselves commander in chief. …“In his farewell address, Washington was emphatic in his call for no foreign entanglements. “

The notion of first rebuilding America stands no chance when constant talk of war consumes our political and popular mindset, and meaningful dialogue about peace does not exist. Talking about peace, demanding peace, is patriotic. No foreign entanglements is one of the most basic and fundamental principles upon which this country was founded.

Occupy Peace will build a platform for peace. The Trends Research Institute is working with inspiring and peace-minded historians and other experts. We’ll create a program that provides the tools to make peace a driving force in the halls of government and in the living rooms of Americans fed up with politicians, fed up with so-called military experts and fed up with a complacent media.

Where the founding fathers walked…

They were men on the run. They knew that if they were captured they’d be hung. But the dream of an independent American republic, articulated only the year before in the Declaration of Independence, was as strong as it was compelling.

In the wake of the declaration, the 13 American colonies were without a single government institution. When New York’s rebellious leaders gathered to draft the state’s first constitution, they gathered first in New York City.  But the British presence there was strong; New York was becoming the Revolution’s major theater of war.

And so the delegates charged with creating a new state constitution fled to the north, up the verdant Hudson River Valley, first to White Plains, then west to Fishkill and finally, in February, 1777, north to the city of Kingston. There, the rebels began the hard work of drafting a new state constitution and by doing so, building a new country.

Their deliberations spanned vast historical and philosophical realms. But their footsteps took them from a courthouse to a tavern to private homes that were each within five minutes’ walk of the other. The streets they walked and some of the buildings they frequented are still easy to visit.

Two months after the rebels’ arrival in Kingston, on April 20, 1777, the New York State Constitution was ratified in what is now known as the Senate House, on Clinton Street. Three months later, on July 30, George Clinton was sworn in as the first governor of New York State in what is now the Ulster County Courthouse on Wall Street.

The state’s new governing body met for only a month that fall, establishing rules of governance and raising money for the militia. Members of the new government were keenly aware of the northward advance of British forces. On Oct. 6, the news spread that forts Clinton and Montgomery on the Hudson had fallen to the British. Ten days later, the British landed at Kingston; the new government fled further north to what has since become the state capital of Albany.

While the government survived, Kingston suffered a near-fatal blow. British forces under the command of General John Vaughan burned more than 254 homes, barns and public buildings. Vaughan later justified the deed by describing Kingston as “a Nursery for almost every Villain in the country.”

Most of the city’s residents, given ample warning of the attack, escaped with their lives. So too did the “villains” who took the state’s new democratic form of government north to Albany, where it survives to this day.

America’s most historic intersection

Matthewis Persen House
74 John St
Kingston, NY 12401
View larger map

The four stone structures that stand at the corners of Crown and John streets, at the heart of  Kingston’s Stockade National Historic District, constitute the only intersection in the United States with pre-revolutionary stone buildings on all four corners. If those stones could speak, they could tell countless tales of military conquest, revolutionary fervor and most of all, the costs of war — each of the four buildings was burned when the British took Kingston in 1777. Each building has since been carefully restored.

​The Matthewis Persen House stands at the southeast corner of Crown​ ​and John ​streets, a Dutch Colonial house that, like the intersection’s other buildings, has a history that encompasses pre-colonial America.​ ​Its earliest structures date roughly from 1661, when the community was still a Dutch colony.The building was burned at least twice, most notably when by British forces in 1777. Having served generations as the home of tavern keepers, doctors ​and grocers, the Persen House is now operated as Ulster County’s Cultural Heritage Center, where colorful aspects of the county’s teeming history can be found.

Kingston Academy, owned by Gerald Celente and used by the Trends Research Institute for conferences,  was built by the “trustees and freeholders” of the City of Kingston in 1774. Latin,  mathematics and the arts were taught there, until the British struck. Those same trustees and freeholders raced to restore the building’s function, doing so within five months of the attack. The Academy numbered among its students the artist John Vanderlyn, whose most famous work, “The Landing of Columbus,” hangs in the Rotunda of the US Capitol in Washington. The Academy, like all the intersection’s buildings, has been constantly renovated and adapted to myriad uses over the decades. Its most recent transformation was as a conference center for The Trends Research Institute.

Like the other buildings at the intersection, the 1750 Franz Roggen House at 42 Crown St, owned by Celente and home to the institute’s offices,  was built in the Dutch Colonial style. Unlike the other buildings, it has a history that encompasses a macabre legend. After it was torched by the British, the building’s interior was gutted. Local legend has it that the building became a gallows, its structural beams used for public hangings. In 1800, when the building was finally restored,  those “hanging beams” were incorporated in the renovated building. Ever since, the Roggen House has enjoyed a status as one of the city’s most notorious haunted houses.

​With walls that are 20 inches thick and sturdy limestone construction, the Matthew Jansen House, owned by Celente,  did not yield easily to the British torch in 1777. Nevertheless, after the damage it suffered in the conflagration was repaired, it became the residence of several of Kingston’s most prominent doctors. Kingston’s “House of Doctors” also boasts decorative components from the several historical eras it has survived — pediment door overhangs as well as half a dozen Dutch doors. The care with which it has been restored makes the Jansen House one of the city’s most architecturally distinguished buildings.

America needs to take care of Americans, not the world

---

allstaractivist note: To understand what our military is really like inside, check out;

Illuminati Wife Tells All – Part 1 of 4

You can also skip to the bottom of this post for all four embedded videos. The military is behind Gang Stalking since most of what they do are Psy-Ops (Psychological Operations). Mrs. Kay Griggs talks about being “Gaslighted” by military operatives after she blew the whistle. It is also interesting to think that most police departments have “Veteran’s Preference” hiring policies and recruit heavily from the military. The police run Gang Stalking in whatever city you may be in. You can watch a video by Geo-scientist and Targeted Individual Ms. Leuren Moret for more on that. Anyway, this is just a good epilogue to the videos above so that you have a clearer understanding of just how dirty our military is, and just how involved they are in our day to day lives, unseen.

When you think about all that our country needs, Infrastructure, good schools, decent healthcare, jobs, protection for small business, police reform, the list goes on and on, what the hell are we doing in so many other peoples business and doing so much evil crap? Do any of those military bases we have across the globe help us with any of the above? Does any of the trillions of dollars both stolen and wasted benefit us or, a bunch of defense contractor mercenaries doing horrible things in our name? (9/10/2001: Rumsfeld announces $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon). Is making the world our enemy while enriching a bunch of military and corporate gangsters in the process what we want to sacrifice the lives of our children for? What good is it doing the average American? None, that’s the answer, no good at all.

We’ve lost control of the government and the government has total control over us now. We are all slaves that have just about finished their usefulness. We have allowed a small group of evil men and women conspiring in “Think Tanks” to draft federal policy without our input. Their biased academic authority substituting for the will and common sense of we the people. These two organizations below and any other entities that advocate “foreign entanglements” should be banned from effecting policy and be deemed illegal through an amendment to the Constitution.

President George Washington’s warning against us getting involved in any foreign entanglements, including the signing of treaties and military aid, was a sound admonishment back then just as it is now. If you look across the globe to nations who are neutral, at least in terms of military projection, you will find a population healthier, wealthier, and far less violent than ours.

President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned the U.S. about the “military–industrial complex” in his farewell address.

Be that as it may, we have already entered into the abyss that Paul Craig Roberts spoke of below, A FULL FIVE YEARS AGO. We are here now, China is cutting it’s losses and selling our debt, the dollar is about to be dumped as the world’s reserve currency meaning that it will instantly lose anywhere from 10% to 50% of it’s value. President Putin has already propositioned Europe openly to dump the US Dollar. Of course, we will be at war long before that happens. With the three recent massive chemical plant explosions in China, coupled with them now parking three Chinese war ships and two supply ships off the coast of Alaska, it has already begun. Remember, currency wars equal trade wars and trade wars lead to actual war (Military Keynesianism). The Brics nations are coming to destroy us with China and Russia in the lead. The age of the “American Empire” has lead to our destruction and is over. It is important to identify whom else is to blame besides our own ignorance and apathy.

---

Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

Formation	1997
Founder	William Kristol, Robert Kagan
Dissolved	2006
Type	Public policy think tank
Location	Washington, D.C.
Chairman	William Kristol
Directors	Robert Kagan Devon Gaffney Cross Bruce P. Jackson John R. Bolton

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative^[1][2][3] think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan.^[4][5] The PNAC’s stated goal was “to promote American global leadership”.^[6] The organization stated that “American leadership is good both for America and for the world,” and sought to build support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity”.^[7]

Of the twenty-five people who signed the PNAC’s founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.^{[8][9][10][11]} Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War.^{[12][13][14][15]} Academics such as Inderjeet Parmar, Phillip Hammond, and Donald E. Abelson have said PNAC’s influence on the George W. Bush administration has been exaggerated.^[16][17][18]

The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006;^[19] it was replaced by new think-tank Foreign Policy Initiative, co-founded by Kristol and Kagan in 2009.

 

Foreign Policy Initiative

Established	2009
Executive Director	Christopher J. Griffin
Location	Washington, D.C., USA
Website	foreignpolicyi.org

The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is an American think tank. According to its website, the FPI is committed to robust support for democratic allies,^[1] human rights,^[2] a strong American military equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and strengthening America’s global economic competitiveness. The organization was founded in 2009 and is led by Executive Christopher J. Griffin.^[3] FPI is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

FPI’s Board of Directors consists of former Undersecretary of Defense for PolicyEric S. Edelman, Dan Senor, Editor of The Weekly StandardWilliam Kristol and Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Robert Kagan. The latter two were project directors of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.

---

 

George Washington’s Farewell Address

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

America, cast off foreign entanglements and return to the Proclamation of Neutrality!

This article is part of a series about George Washington

Early Life Ancestry Military Career American Revolution Commander in Chief of the Continental Army Valley Forge Battle of Trenton Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention President of the United States First Term Unanimous Election 1st Inauguration Presidency Judiciary Act Whiskey Rebellion Thanksgiving Title Coinage Act Residence Act District of Columbia Second Term Unanimous Reelection 2nd Inauguration Neutrality Act Jay Treaty Farewell Address Legacy Monuments Depictions Papers Library v t e

George Washington’s Farewell Address is a letter written by the first American President, George Washington, to “The People of the United States of America”.^[1] Washington wrote the letter near the end of his second term as President, before his retirement to his home Mount Vernon. Originally published in Daved Claypole’s American Daily Advertiser on September 19, 1796, under the title “The Address of General Washington To The People of The United States on his declining of the Presidency of the United States,” the letter was almost immediately reprinted in newspapers across the country and later in a pamphlet form.^[2] The work was later named a “Farewell Address,” as it was Washington’s valedictory after 20 years of service to the new nation. It is a classic statement of republicanism, warning Americans of the political dangers they can and must avoid if they are to remain true to their values.

Foreign relations and free trade

Washington dedicates a large part of his farewell address to discussing foreign relations, and the dangers of permanent alliances between the United States and foreign nations; so-called ‘foreign entanglements’.^[14] This issue dominated national politics during the French Revolutionary Wars between France and Britain. Federalists favored Britain and the Jeffersonian Republicans favored France. They wanted the U.S. to honor the 1778 Treaty of Alliance, which established the France-American alliance, and aid France. Washington had avoided American involvement in the conflict by issuing the Proclamation of Neutrality, which in turn led to the Neutrality Act of 1794. He clearly tries to further explain his approach to foreign policy and alliances in this portion of the address.

Once again making reference to proper behavior based upon religious doctrine and morality, Washington advocates a policy of good faith and justice towards all nations, and urges the American people to avoid long-term friendly relations or rivalries with any nation. He argues these attachments and animosity toward nations will only cloud the government’s judgment in its foreign policy. Washington argues that longstanding poor relations will only lead to unnecessary wars due to a tendency to blow minor offenses out of proportion when committed by nations viewed as enemies of the United States. He continues this argument by claiming that alliances are likely to draw the United States into wars which have no justification and no benefit to the country beyond simply defending the favored nation. Washington continues his warning on alliances by claiming that they often lead to poor relations with nations who feel that they are not being treated as well as America’s allies, and threaten to influence the American government into making decisions based upon the will of their allies instead of the will of the American people.

Washington makes an extended reference to the dangers of foreign nations who will seek to influence the American people and government. He makes a point to say that he believes both nations who may be considered friendly as well as nations considered enemies will try to influence the government to do their will and it will only be “real patriots” who ignore popular opinion and resist the influence of friendly nations to seek what is best for their own country. Washington had a recent experience with foreign interference, when in 1793 the French ambassador Edmond-Charles Genêt organized demonstrations in support of France, funded soldiers to attack Spanish lands, and commissioned privateers to seize British ships. His mobilization of supporters to sway American opinion in favor of an alliance with France crossed the line and he was ordered to leave.

Washington goes on to urge the American people to take advantage of their isolated position in the world, and avoid attachments and entanglements in foreign affairs, especially those of Europe, which he argues have little or nothing to do with the interests of America. He argues that it makes no sense for the American people to wage war on European soil when their isolated position and unity will allow them to remain neutral and focus on their own affairs. As a result, Washington argues that the country should avoid permanent alliance with all foreign nations, although temporary alliances during times of extreme danger may be necessary, but does say that current treaties should be honored although not extended. (Despite his claim that current alliances should be honored, Washington had in fact through the Proclamation of Neutrality not honored the Treaty of Alliance, which promised aid in case the French were ever attacked by the British.)

Washington wraps up his foreign policy stance by advocating free trade with all nations arguing that trade links should be established naturally and the role of the government should be limited to insuring stable trade, defending the rights of American merchants, and any provisions necessary to insure that the government is able to insure the conventional rules of trade.

 

Proclamation of Neutrality

The Proclamation of Neutrality was a formal announcement issued by U.S. President George Washington in May 1793, declaring the nation neutral in the conflict between France and Great Britain. It threatened legal proceedings against any American providing assistance to any country at war.

Background

News that Revolutionary France had declared war on Great Britain in February 1793, and with this declaration that France, by the country’s own volition, was now at war with all of Europe, did not reach America until the first half of April of that year. President Washington was at Mount Vernon attending the funeral of a nephew when he was given the news. He hurried back to Pennsylvania and summoned an emergency meeting of his cabinet.

In this initial meeting, Washington relayed the news, and gave each member of his cabinet a list of 13 questions. He wanted their answers to these questions, he explained, in time for their meeting the following day. These questions ranged from “Should the United States receive an ambassador from France?” to “Should earlier treaties still apply?” But first and foremost came the question: “Should the United States issue an official proclamation of neutrality?”

Proclamation

Cabinet debate

Washington’s cabinet members agreed that neutrality was essential; the nation was too young and its military was too small to risk any sort of engagement with either France or Britain. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, in particular, saw in this question, as well as in the other twelve, the influence of the Federalists — his political rivals; yet he too agreed a proclamation was in order, though perhaps not an official one.

In a cabinet meeting of January 14, Thomas Jefferson argued that while neutrality was a sine qua non, there was no real need to make a Proclamation of Neutrality either immediately or even officially; perhaps there might be no need for an official declaration at all. The United States could declare its neutrality for a price, Jefferson intimated, “Why not stall and make countries bid for [American] neutrality?”^[1] In response, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton declared that American neutrality was not negotiable. Jefferson eventually resigned from his duty as Secretary of State in disagreement with the Proclamation of Neutrality.

Declaration

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

Whereas it appears that a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands of the one part and France on the other, and the duty and interest of the United States require that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers:

I have therefore thought fit by these presents to declare the disposition of the United States to observe the conduct aforesaid toward those powers respectively, and to exhort and warn the citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever which may in any manner tend to contravene such disposition.

And I do hereby also make known that whosoever of the citizens of the United States shall render himself liable to punishment or forfeiture under the law of nations by committing, aiding, or abetting hostilities against any of the said powers, or by carrying to any of them those articles which are deemed contraband by the modern usage of nations, will not receive the protection of the United States against such punishment or forfeiture; and further, that I have given instructions to those officers to whom it belongs to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons who shall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the law of nations with respect to the powers at war, or any of them.

In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done at the city of Philadelphia, the 22d day of April, 1793, and of the Independence of the United States of America the seventeenth.

By the President:

^[2]

Pacificus-Helvidius debates

The proclamation started a war of pamphlets between Hamilton (writing for the Federalists), and Madison (writing for the Jeffersonian/Republicans). In his seven essays, written under the nom de plume “Pacificus”, Hamilton dealt with objections to the proclamation. Among these were:

• The decree was, in fact, constitutional; for while Congress has the sole right to declare war, it is “the duty of the executive to preserve peace till war is declared.”^[3]
• The Neutrality Proclamation did not violate the United States’ defensive alliance with France, as the Jeffersonians were claiming. The treaty, Hamilton pointed out, was a defensive alliance and did not apply to offensive wars, “and it was France that had declared war upon other European powers”, not the other way around.^[4]
• By siding with France the United States would have left itself open to attacks within American borders by the governments of Britain and Spain stirring up “numerous Indian tribes” influenced by these two governments.

Jefferson, (having read several of the “Pacificus” essays) encouraged James Madison to reply. Madison was initially hesitant. From his Virginia plantation he offered Jefferson excuses as to why he could not write a reply, including that he didn’t have the necessary books and papers to refute “Pacificus”, that the summer heat was “oppressive”, and that he had many houseguests who were wearing out their welcome.^[5] Ultimately Madison agreed to Jefferson’s request, though afterwards he wrote to him, “I have forced myself in to the task of a reply. I can truly say I find it the most grating one I have ever experienced.”^[6]

Writing under the name “Helvidius”, Madison’s five essays showed the animosity that had evolved with the two political factions. He attacked Federalists, and Hamilton in particular, and anyone who supported the Neutrality Proclamation as secret monarchists, declaring: “Several features with the signature of Pacificus were [as of] late published, which have been read with singular pleasure and applause by the foreigners and degenerate citizens among us, who hate our republican government and the French Revolution.”^[6] Madison brought to light the strict constructionist’s view of both the Constitution and the Proclamation, demanding that Congress, not the president, had full authority over all foreign affairs except those areas specified in the Constitution.

References

 

• Chernow, Ron, Alexander Hamilton (Penguin, New York 2004) p. 435
• George Washington (April 22, 1793). “Proclamation 4 – Neutrality of the United States in the War Involving Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands Against France”. Retrieved 2010-10-30.
• “Pacificus No.1” June 29, 1793
• Chernow, Ron, Alexander Hamilton'(Penguin Books, NY) 2004, p.442
• Chernow

 

6. Ralph, Ketcham, James Madison(University of Virginia Press 1971) p.436

External links

• Text of the Proclamation of Neutrality 1793, courtesy: Yale Law School.

[show] v t e George Washington

[show] v t e Foreign relations of the United States

Categories:

• History of the foreign relations of the United States
• 1793 in international relations
• 1793 in the United States
• Presidency of George Washington
• Proclamations
• French Revolutionary Wars

Navigation menu

• Article
• Talk

• Read
• View history

Print/export

• Create a book
• Download as PDF
• Printable version

 

• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers
• Contact Wikipedia
• Developers
• Mobile view

• 
• 

 

 

False Left-Right Paradigm Political Theory (LRP)

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers.”

“Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.”

Former Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) archivist and Georgetown University professor Carroll Quigley, who is known as being President Bill Clinton’s mentor, wrote the above quote in his 1966 book “Tragedy and Hope“—

False Left-Right Paradigm Political Theory

False Left-Right Paradigm: The political theory that members of opposing political parties such as Republican and Democrat deceptively share common interests and goals, as a one body ruling authority over the masses. The two parties act to create divisiveness and influence the general population while keeping control of the political spectrum. The false left-right paradigm political theory is closely related to theory of Inverted totalitarianism and Managed Democracy.

The False Left-Right Paradigm theorizes that opposing political groups use their influence over the establishment media to dramatize party warfare distraction, in grand performances of bureaucratic rivalry meant to propagandize and divide the populace. Psychological deception is coordinated on all levels of politics and fed through controlled media outlets to divert attention away from the ruling class’s hidden agendas. By drawing attention to differences between two political systems, ideologies, races, and classes, the political groups obscure and divide unity among the masses. The tactic creates confusion and frustration among the population, enabling the global elite to increase and consolidate their wealth and power through maintaining an illusion of a two-party system of checks and balances.

 

Activism vs. Slacktivism

Activism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Barricade at the Paris Commune, 1871

Civil rights activists at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, 1963

A Women’s Liberation march in Washington, D.C., 1970

Activism consists of efforts to promote, impede, or direct social, political, economic, or environmental change, or stasis. Various forms of activism range from writing letters to newspapers or politicians, political campaigning, economic activism such as boycotts or preferentially patronizing businesses, rallies, street marches, strikes, sit-ins, and hunger strikes. Research is beginning to explore how activist groups in the United States^[1] and Canada are using social media to facilitate civic engagement and collective action.^[2]

Contents

• 1 Types
• 2 The Internet
• 3 Activism industry
• 4 Methods
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 Further reading

Types

Activists can function in roles as public officials, as in judicial activism. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., introduced the term “judicial activism” in a January 1947 Fortune magazine article titled “The Supreme Court: 1947”.^[3] Activists are also public watchdogs and whistle blowers, attempting to understand all the actions of every form of government that acts in the name of the people: all government must be accountable to oversight and transparency. Activism is an engaged citizenry.

Some activists try to persuade people to change their behavior directly, rather than to persuade governments to change or not to change laws. Other activists try to persuade people to remain the same, in an effort to counter change. The cooperative movement seeks to build new institutions which conform to cooperative principles, and generally does not lobby or protest politically.

As with those who engage in other activities such as singing or running, the term may apply broadly to anyone who engages in it even briefly, or be more narrowly limited to those for whom it is a vocation, habit, or characteristic practice. In the narrower sense, environmental activists that align themselves with Earth First or Road Protestors would commonly be labeled activists, whilst a local community fighting to stop their park or green being sold off or built on would fit the broader application, due to their using similar means to similarly conservative ends. In short, activism is not always an action by Activists.^[4]

The Internet

For more than fourteen years, groups involved in various forms of activism have been using the Internet to advance organizational goals. It has been argued that the Internet helps to increase the speed, reach and effectiveness of activist-related communication as well as mobilization efforts, and as a result has had a positive impact on activism in general.^[2][5][6][7]

Activism industry

The activism industry consists of organizations and individuals engaged in activism. Activism is often done full-time, as part of an organization’s core business. Many organizations in the activism industry are either non profit organizations or non-governmental organizations. Most activist organizations do not manufacture goods.^{[citation needed]}

The term activism industry has often been used to refer to outsourced fundraising operations. However, activist organizations engage in other activities as well.^[8] Lobbying, or the influencing of decisions made by government, is another activist tactic. Many groups, including law firms, have designated staff assigned specifically for lobbying purposes. In the United States, lobbying is regulated by the federal government.^[9]

Many government systems encourage public support of non-profit organizations by granting various forms of tax relief for donations to charitable organizations. Governments may attempt to deny these benefits to activists by restricting the political activity of tax-exempt organizations.

Methods

This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this article to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (February 2012)

The longest running peace vigil in U.S. history, started by activist Thomas in 1981.

• Agitation
• Civil disobedience
• Community building
  • Conflict transformation
  • Cooperative movement
  • Craftivism
  • Grassroots
  • Voluntary simplicity
• Dissident
• Economic activism
  • Boycott
    • Guerrilla gardening (boycott of food- and drug industry)
    • Freeganism
    • Veganism (boycott of animal usage)
    • Vegetarianism (boycott of animal meat usage)
  • Consumer activism
  • Divestment (a.k.a. Disinvestment)
  • Simple living
  • Tax resistance
• Franchise activism
• Lobbying
• Media activism
  • Culture jamming
  • Hacktivism
  • Internet activism
• Nonviolence
• Peace activist and Peace movement
• Political campaigning
• Propaganda
  • Guerrilla communication
• Protest
  • Demonstration
  • Direct action
  • Protest songs
  • Theater for Social Change
• Strike action
• Youth activism
  • Student activism
  • Youth-led media
• Atheist activism

See also

• List of activists
• Advocacy Evaluation
• Advocacy group
• Agitator
• Counterculture of the 1960s
• Cultural Marxism
• Community leader
• Media manipulation
• Restorationism
• Saul Alinsky
• Slacktivism
• Social engineering (political science)
• Social movement
• Virtual volunteering

References

 

• Obar, Jonathan et al. (2012). “Advocacy 2.0: An Analysis of How Advocacy Groups in the United States Perceive and Use Social Media as Tools for Facilitating Civic Engagement and Collective Action”. Journal of Information Policy.
• Obar, Jonathan (2014). “Canadian Advocacy 2.0: A Study of Social Media Use by Social Movement Groups and Activists in Canada”. Canadian Journal of Communication. Retrieved 27 April 2013.
• Keenan Kmiec in a 2004 California Law Review article
• “Introduction to Activism”. Permanent Culture Now. Permanent Culture Now. Retrieved 20 December 2011.
• Ope;, J. A. M. (1999). “From the Streets to the Internet: The Cyber-Diffusion of Contention”. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 566: 132–143. doi:10.1177/000271629956600111.
• Eaton, M. (2010). “Manufacturing Community in an Online Activity Organization: The Rhetoric of MoveOn.org’s E-mails”. Information, Communication and Society 13 (2): 174–192. doi:10.1080/13691180902890125.
• Obar, J. A.; Zube, P.; Lampe, C. (2012). “Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and collective action”. Journal of Information Policy 2: 1–25. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1956352.
• Dana R. Fisher, “The Activism Industry: The Problem with the Left’s Model of Outsourced Grassroots Canvassing“, The American Prospect, 14 September 2006

 

9. New Federal Lobbying Law Reporting Periods Begin

Further reading

• Paul Rogat Loeb, Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time (St Martin’s Press, 2010). ISBN 978-0-312-59537-1.
• Brian Martin. The Controversy Manual (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2014).
• Brian Martin. Doing Good Things Better (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2013)
• Brian Martin. Justice Ignited: The Dynamics of Backfire, (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007).
• Brian Martin with Wendy Varney. Nonviolence Speaks: Communicating against Repression, (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2003).
• Brian Martin. Nonviolence versus capitalism (London: War Resisters’ International, 2001).
• Brian Martin. Technology for Nonviolent Struggle, (London: War Resisters’ International, 2001).
• Brian Martin with Lyn Carson. Random Selection in Politics, (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999).
• Brian Martin. The Whistleblower’s Handbook: How to Be an Effective Resister, (Charlbury, UK: Jon Carpenter; Sydney: Envirobook, 1999). Updated and republished 2013 as Whistleblowing: a practical guide, Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing.
• Randy Shaw, The Activist’s Handbook: A Primer for the 1990s and Beyond (University of California Press, 1996). ISBN 0-520-20317-8.
• David Walls, The Activist’s Almanac: The Concerned Citizen’s Guide to the Leading Advocacy Organizations in America (Simon & Schuster/Fireside, 1993). ISBN 0-671-74634-0.
• Victor Gold, Liberwocky (Thomas Nelson, 2004). ISBN 978-0-7852-6057-8.

[show] v t e Media manipulation

Politics portal Social movements portal

Categories:

• Activism
• Community organizing
• Counterculture of the 1960s

Navigation menu

• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article
• Donate to Wikipedia
• Wikipedia store

Print/export

• Create a book
• Download as PDF
• Printable version

• This page was last modified on 22 May 2015, at 02:41.
• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers
• Contact Wikipedia
• Developers
• Mobile view

• 
• 

---

Slacktivism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Clicktivism)

 

Slacktivism (sometimes slactivism or slackervism) is a portmanteau of the words slacker and activism. The word is usually considered a pejorative term that describes “feel-good” measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little physical or practical effect, other than to make the person doing it feel satisfied that they have contributed. Slacktivism can be defined as the act of showing support for a cause but only truly being beneficial to the egos of people participating in this so-called activism. The acts tend to require minimal personal effort from the slacktivist. The underlying assumption being promoted by the term is that these low-cost efforts substitute for more substantive actions rather than supplementing them, although this assumption has not been borne out by research.^[1]

Many websites and news platforms have integrated social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter into their interface, allowing people to easily “like”, “share” or “tweet” about something interesting they saw on the Internet. People can now express concern about social or political issues with nothing more than the click of a mouse, raising the question of what is actually being accomplished by these “likes” when very little thought or effort is required.^[2]

Slacktivist activities include signing Internet petitions,^[3] joining a community organization without contributing to the organization’s efforts, copying and pasting of social network statuses or messages or altering one’s personal data or avatar on social network services. Research is beginning to explore the connection between the concept and modern activism/advocacy, as groups are increasingly using social media to facilitate civic engagement and collective action.^[4][5]

The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS describes the term “slacktivist”, saying it “posits that people who support a cause by performing simple measures are not truly engaged or devoted to making a change”.^[6]

Contents

• 1 Use of the term
• 2 Criticism of slacktivism
• 3 Defense of slacktivism
• 4 Types
  • 4.1 Clicktivism
  • 4.2 Charity
  • 4.3 Charity as a by-product of purchasing products
  • 4.4 Political
  • 4.5 Sympathy
• 5 Examples
  • 5.1 Kony 2012
  • 5.2 Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping
  • 5.3 Cat cruelty picture 2014
• 6 See also
• 7 References
• 8 Further reading
• 9 External links

Use of the term

The term appears to have been coined by Dwight Ozard and Fred Clark in 1995 at the Cornerstone Festival. The term was meant to shorten the phrase slacker activism, which refers to bottom up activities by young people to affect society on a small, personal scale (such as planting a tree, as opposed to participating in a protest). The term originally had a positive connotation.^[7]

Radio host and political commentator Dan Carlin was using the term on his show in the 1990s and may have coined the present day meaning.^{[citation needed]}

Monty Phan, staff writer for Newsday, was an early user of the term in his 2001 article titled, “On the Net, ‘Slacktivism’/Do-Gooders Flood In-Boxes”.^[8]

An early example of using the term “slacktivism” appeared in Barnaby Feder’s article in The New York Times called “They Weren’t Careful What They Hoped For.” Feder quoted anti-scam crusader Barbara Mikkelson of Snopes.com, who described activities such as those listed above. “It’s all fed by slacktivism … the desire people have to do something good without getting out of their chair”.^[9]

Another example of the term “Slacktivism” appeared in Evgeny Morozov‘s book, Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom (2011). In it Morozov relates slacktivism to the Colding-Jorgensen experiment: In 2009, a Danish psychologist named Colding Jorgensen created a fictitious Facebook group, as part of his research. On the page, he posted an announcement suggesting that the Copenhagen city authorities would be demolishing the historical Stork Fountain. 125 Facebook members joined Jorgensen’s page within the first day, and the number of fans began to grow at a staggering rate, eventually reaching 27,500.^[10] Morozov argues the Colding-Jorgensen experiment reveals a key component of slacktivism: “When communication costs are low, groups can easily spring into action.”^[11] Clay Shirky also similarly characterized slacktivism as “ridiculously easy group forming.”^[11]

Criticism of slacktivism

Yet skepticism of slacktivism’s value certainly exists. Particularly, some argue that it entails an underlying assumption that all problems can be seamlessly fixed using social media, and while this may be true for local issues, slacktivism could prove ineffective for solving global predicaments.^[12] A 2009 NPR piece by Morozov asked whether “the publicity gains gained through this greater reliance on new media [are] worth the organizational losses that traditional activist entities are likely to suffer, as ordinary people would begin to turn away from conventional (and proven) forms of activism.”^[13]

Criticism of slacktivism often involves the idea that internet activities are ineffective, and/or that they prevent or lessen political participation in real life. However, as many studies on slacktivism relate only to a specific case or campaign, it is difficult to find an exact percentage of slacktivist actions that reach a stated goal. Furthermore, many studies also focus on such activism in democratic or open contexts, whereas the act of publicly liking, RSVPing or adopting an avatar or slogan as one’s profile picture can be a defiant act in authoritarian or repressive countries. The Western-centric nature of the critique of slacktivism discounts the impact it can have in authoritarian or repressive contexts.^[14][15] Journalist Courtney C. Radsch argues that even such low level of engagement was an important form of activism for Arab youth before and during the Arab Spring because it was a form of free speech, and could successfully spark mainstream media coverage, such as when a hashtag becomes “a trending topic [it] helps generate media attention, even as it helps organize information. The power of social media to help shape the international news agenda is one of the ways in which they subvert state authority and power.”^[16] In addition, studies suggest that “fears of Internet activities supplanting real life activity are unsubstantiated,” in that they do not cause a negative or positive effect on political participation.^[17]

As slacktivism progresses, technocracy, a form of organizational structure or system of governance where decision makers were selected on the basis of technological knowledge, begins to disappear as nearly anyone and everyone can take part in decision-making and action taking. Digital activism is a dancer to social equality as its ineffective marketing campaigns spread political scepticism and draw attention away from genuinely radical movements.^[18]

Micah White has argued that although slacktivism is typically the easiest route to participation in movements and changes, the novelty of online activism wears off as people begin to realize that their participation created virtually no effect, leading people to lose hope in all forms of activism.^[19]

Malcolm Gladwell, in his October 2010 New Yorker article,^[20] lambasted those who compare social media “revolutions” with actual activism that challenges the status quo ante. He argued that today’s social media campaigns can’t compare with activism that takes place on the ground, using the Greensboro sit-ins as an example of what real, high-risk activism looks like. Gladwell further writes:

As the historian Robert Darnton has written, “The marvels of communication technology in the present have produced a false consciousness about the past—even a sense that communication has no history, or had nothing of importance to consider before the days of television and the Internet.” But there is something else at work here, in the outsized enthusiasm for social media. Fifty years after one of the most extraordinary episodes of social upheaval in American history, we seem to have forgotten what activism is.^[20]

A 2011 study looking at college students found only a small positive correlation between those who engage online in politics on Facebook with those who engage off of it. Those who did engage only did so by posting comments and other low forms of political participation, helping to confirm the slacktivism theoretical model.^[21]

Brian Dunning, in his 2014 podcast, Slactivism: Raising Awareness, argues that the internet activities that slacktivism is associated with, are a waste of time at their best and at their worst are ways to “steal millions of dollars from armchair activists who are persuaded to donate actual money to what they’re told is some useful cause.” He says that most slacktivism campaigns are “based on bad information, bad science, and are hoaxes as often as not.”

He uses the Kony 2012 campaign as an example of how slacktivism can be used as a way to exploit others. The movie asked viewers to send money to the filmmakers rather than African law enforcement. Four months after the movie was released, Invisible Children, the charity who created the film, reported $31.9 million of gross receipts. The money in the end was not used to stop Kony, but rather to make another movie about stopping Kony. Dunning goes as far as to say that raising awareness of Kony was not even useful, as law enforcement groups had been after him for years.

Dunning does state that today, however, slacktivism is generally more benign. He cites Change.org as an example. The site is full of hundreds of thousands of petitions. A person signing one of these online petitions may feel good about himself, but these petitions are generally not binding nor lead to any major change. Dunning suggests that before donating, or even “liking”, a cause one should research the issue and the organization to ensure nothing is misattributed, exaggerated, or wrong.^[22]

An example of a campaign against slacktivism is the advertisement series “Liking Isn’t Helping” created by the international advertisement company Publicis Singapose for a relief organization, Crisis Relief Singapore (CRS). This campaign features images of people struggling or in need, surrounded by many people giving a thumbs up with the caption “Liking isn’t helping.” Though the campaign lacked critical components that would generate success, it made viewers stop and think about their activism habits and question the effect that slacktivism really has.

Defense of slacktivism

In response to Gladwell’s criticism of slacktivism in the New Yorker (see above), Mirani argues that he might be right if activism is defined only as sit-ins, taking direct action, and confrontations on the streets. However, if activism is about arousing awareness of people, changing people’s minds, and influencing opinions across the world, then ‘the revolution will be indeed be tweeted’,^[23] ‘hashtagged’,^[24] and ‘YouTubed’.^[25] In a March 2012 Financial Times article, referring to efforts to address the ongoing violence related to the Lord’s Resistance Army, Matthew Green wrote that the slactivists behind the Kony 2012 video had “achieved more with their 30-minute video than battalions of diplomats, NGO workers and journalists have since the conflict began 26 years ago.”^[26]

Despite the pejorative connotation of the term, a 2011 correlational study conducted by Georgetown University entitled “The Dynamics of Cause Engagement” determined that so-called slacktivists are indeed “more likely to take meaningful actions.”^[27] Notably, “slacktivists participate in more than twice as many activities as people who don’t engage in slacktivism, and their actions “have a higher potential to influence others.”^[27] Cited benefits of slacktivism in achieving clear objectives include creating a secure, low cost, effective means of organizing that is environmentally friendly.^[28] These “social champions” have the ability to directly link social media engagement with responsiveness, leveraging their transparent dialogue into economic, social or political action.^[1] Going along this mindset is Andrew Leonard, a staff writer at Salon, who published an article on the ethics of smartphones and how we use them. Though the means of producing these products go against ethical human rights standards, Leonard encourages the use of smartphones on the basis that the technology they provide can be utilized as a means of changing the problematic situation of their manufacture. The ability to communicate quickly and on a global scale enables the spread of knowledge, such as the conditions that corporations provide to the workers they employ, and the result their widespread manufacturing has on globalization. Leonard argues that phones and tablets can be effective tools in bringing about change through slacktivism, because they allow us to spread knowledge, donate money, and more effectively speak our opinions on important matters.^[29]

Others keep a slightly optimistic outlook on the possibilities of slacktivism while still acknowledging the pitfalls that come with this digital form of protest. Zeynep Tufekci, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina and a faculty associate at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, analyzed the capacity of slacktivism to influence collective group action in a variety of different social movements in a segment of the Berkman Luncheon Series. She acknowledges that digital activism is a great enabler of rising social and political movements, and it is an effective means of enabling differential capacity building for protest. However, she argues that the enhanced ability to rally protest is accompanied by a weakened ability to actually make an impact, as slacktivism can fail to reach the level of protest required in order to bring about change.^[30]

Types

Clicktivism

The term “clicktivism” is sometimes used to describe activists using social media to organise protests. It allows organizations to quantify their success by keeping track of how many “clicked” on their petition or other call to action.^[31] For example, the British group UK Uncut use Twitter and other websites to organise protests and direct action against companies accused of tax avoidance.^[32] This varies from slacktivism in that it merely replaces older ways of communicating a protest’s existence (telephone, word of mouth, leaflets etc.) and does actually involve a real life, physical protest. On the other hand, clicktivism is also sometimes used to describe forms of internet based slacktivism such as signing online petitions or signing and sending form letter emails to politicians or corporate CEOs.

The idea behind clicktivism is that social media allows for a quick and easy way to show support for an organization or cause.^[33] Organization’s main focus has become inflating participation rates by asking less and less of their members/viewers.^[34]

Clicktivism can also be demonstrated by monitoring the success of a campaign by how many “likes” it receives. Clicktivism strives to quantify support, presence and outreach without putting emphasis on real participation. The act of “liking” a photo on Facebook or clicking a petition is in itself symbolic because it demonstrates that the individual is aware of the situation and it shows their peers the opinions and thoughts they have on certain subject matters.

Critics of clicktivism state that this new phenomenon turns social movements to resemble advertising campaigns in which messages are tested, clickthrough rate is recorded, and A/B testing is often done. In order to improve these metrics, messages are reduced to make their “asks easier and actions simpler.” This in turn reduces social action to having members that are a list of email addresses, rather than engaged people.^[35][36]

Charity

Charity slacktivism can be described as actions in support of a cause that take little effort on the part of the individual. Examples of online charity slacktivism include posting a Facebook status to support a cause, “liking” a charity organization’s cause on Facebook, tweeting or retweeting a charity organization’s request for support on Twitter, signing Internet petitions, and posting and sharing YouTube videos about a cause.It can be argued that a person is not “liking” the photo in order to help the person in need, but to feel better about themselves, and to feel like they have done something positive for the person or scene depicted in front of them. This phenomenon has become increasingly popular with individuals whether they are going on trips to help less fortunate people, or by “liking” many posts on Facebook in order to “help” the person in the picture. Examples include the Kony 2012 campaign that exploded briefly in social media in March 2012.^[37]

Examples of offline charity slacktivism include awareness wristbands and paraphernalia in support of causes, such as the Livestrong wristband, as well as bumper stickers and mobile donating.

The term slacktivism is often used to describe the world’s reaction to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. The Red Cross managed to raise $5 million in 2 days via text message donations.^[38] Social media outlets were used to spread the word about the earthquake. The day after the earthquake, CNN reported that four of Twitter’s top topics were related to the Haitian earthquake.^[38]

Charity as a by-product of purchasing products

This is the act of purchasing products that highlight support for a particular cause and advertise that a percentage of the cost of the good will go to the cause. In some instances the donated funds are spread across various entities within one foundation, which in theory helps several deserving areas of the cause. Criticism tends to highlight the thin spread of the donation.^{[citation needed]} An example of this is the Product Red campaign, whereby consumers can buy Red-branded variants of commons products, with a proportion of proceeds going towards fighting AIDS.

A red iPod nano, an example of supporting a charity through buying products

Slacktivists may also purchase a product from a company because it has a history of donating funds to charity, as a way to second-handedly support a cause. For example, a slacktivist may buy Ben and Jerry’s ice cream because its founders invested in the nation’s children, or promoted social and environmental concerns.^[39]

Political

Certain forms of slacktivism have political goals in mind, such as gaining support for a presidential campaign, or signing an internet petition that aims to influence governmental action.

The online petition website Change.org claimed it was attacked by Chinese hackers and brought down in April 2011. Change.org claimed the fact that hackers “felt the need to bring down the website must be seen as a testament to Change.org’s fast-growing success and a vindication of one particular petition: A Call for the Release of Ai Weiwei.”^[40] Ai Weiwei, a noted human rights activist who had been arrested by Chinese authorities in April 2011, was released on 22 June 2011 from Beijing, which was deemed as a victory by Change.org of its online campaign and petition demanding Ai’s release.

Sympathy

Sympathy slacktivism can be observed on social media networks such as Facebook, where users can like pages to support a cause or show support to people in need. Also common in this type of slacktivism is for users to change their profile pictures to one that shows the user’s peers that they care about the topic.^{[citation needed]}

In sympathy slacktivism, images of young children, animals and people seemingly in need are often used to give a sense of credibility to the viewers, making the campaign resonate longer in their memory. Using children in campaigns is often the most effective way of reaching a larger audience due to the fact that most adults, when exposed to the ad, would not be able to ignore a child in need.

An example of sympathy slacktivism is the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet’s campaign “Vi Gillar Olika” (literal translation: “We like different”).^[41] This campaign was launched against xenophobia and racism, something that was a hot topic in Sweden in 2010. The main icon of the campaign was an open hand with the text “Vi Gillar Olika”, an icon that was earlier used in a campaign against bullying.^[42]

Another example was when Facebook users added a Norwegian flag to their pictures after the 2011 Norway attacks in which 77 people were killed. This campaign received attention from the Swedish Moderate Party, who encouraged their supporters to update their profile pictures.^[43]

Examples

Kony 2012

Main article: Kony 2012

Kony 2012 was a campaign created by Invisible Children in the form of a 28-minute video about the dangerous situation of many children in Africa at the hands of Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). The LRA is said to have abducted a total of nearly 60,000 children, brainwashing the boys to fight for them and turning the girls into sex slaves.^[44]

The campaign was used as an experiment to see if an online video could reach such a large audience that it would make a war criminal, Joseph Kony, famous. It became the fastest growing viral video of all time, reaching 100 million views in 6 days. The campaign grew an unprecedented amount of awareness, calling to international leaders as well as the general population.

The reaction and participation to this campaign demonstrates charity slacktivism due to the way in which many viewers responded. The success of the campaign has been attributed mostly by how many people viewed the video rather than the donations received. After watching the video, many viewers felt compelled to take action. This action however took the form of sharing the video and potentially pledging their support.^{[citation needed]}

As described by Sarah Kendzior of Aljazeera:

“The video seemed to embody the slacktivist ethos: viewers oblivious to a complex foreign conflict are made heroic by watching a video, buying a bracelet, hanging a poster. Advocates of Invisible Children’s campaign protested that their desire to catch Kony was sincere, their emotional response to the film genuine – and that the sheer volume of supporters calling for the capture of Joseph Kony constituted a meaningful shift in human rights advocacy.”^[45]

Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping

Main article: Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping

In the weeks following the kidnapping of hundreds of schoolgirls by the organization Boko Haram, the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls began to trend globally on Twitter as the story continued to spread^[46] and by 11 May it had attracted 2.3 million tweets. One such tweet came from the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, holding a sign displaying the hash tag, posted to her official Twitter account, helping to spread the awareness of the kidnapping.^[47] Comparisons have been made between the #BringBackOurGirls campaign and the Kony 2012 campaign.^[48] The campaign was labeled slacktivism by some critics, particularly as the weeks and months passed with no progress being made in recovery of the kidnapped girls.^[49][50]

According to Mkeki Mutah, uncle of one of the kidnapped girls:

“There is a saying: ‘Actions speak louder than words.’ Leaders from around the world came out and said they would assist to bring the girls back, but now we hear nothing. The question I wish to raise is: why? If they knew they would not do anything, they wouldn’t have even made that promise at all. By just coming out to tell the world, I see that as a political game, which it shouldn’t be so far as the girls are concerned.”^[51]

Cat cruelty picture 2014

In 2014, in part thanks to Twitter, a picture of “a laboratory with a lot of cats strapped into frightening-looking racks” was posted with the caption, “Retweet if you say NO to animal testing.” More than 5,000 people spread the message, unaware that at some point, the photo had “been deliberately misattributed by a hoaxer.” This hoaxer took the photo from the Gainesville Sun news website. The cats in the photo had been rescued from an abusive hoarder. Veterinary students at the University of Florida were getting them ready for adoption by spaying and neutering the animals.^[22]

See also

• Avaaz
• Armchair warrior
• Armchair revolutionary
• Cause marketing
• Virtual volunteering, about online volunteering
• Activism 2.0
• Activism

References

 

• Davis, Jesse (27 October 2011). “Cause Marketing: Moving Beyond Corporate Slacktivism”. Retrieved 22 November 2011.
• Carr, David. “Hashtag Activism, and Its Limits.” The New York Times. 25 March 2012
• Snopes.com: Inboxer Rebellion (Internet Petitions) – discusses slacktivism in some detail
• Obar, Jonathan et al. (2012). “Advocacy 2.0: An Analysis of How Advocacy Groups in the United States Perceive and Use Social Media as Tools for Facilitating Civic Engagement and Collective Action”. Journal of Information Policy.
• Obar, Jonathan (2014). “Canadian Advocacy 2.0: A Study of Social Media Use by Social Movement Groups and Activists in Canada”. Canadian Journal of Communication. Retrieved 27 April 2013.
• UNAIDS, UNAIDS OUTLOOK REPORT, July 2010
• Christensen, Henrik Serup (2011). “Political activities on the internet: slacktivism or political participation by other means?”. First Monday 16. Retrieved 3 November 2011.
• Phan, Monty (26 February 2001). “On the Net, “Slacktivism’ / Do-gooders flood in-boxes”. Newsday.
• Feder, Barnaby. (May 29, 2002) “They Weren’t Careful What They Hoped For” The New York Times
• September 23, 2009 at 5:42 pm (2009-09-23). “Stork Fountain Experiment #1: Why Facebook groups are not democratic tools | Virkeligheden”. Virkeligheden.dk. Retrieved 2014-07-24.
• Morozov, Evgeny (2011). The net delusion : the dark side of Internet freedom. New York: PublicAffairs. p. 180.
• Morozov, Evgeny. “From Slacktivism to Activism”. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
• Morozov, Evgeny. “Foreign Policy: Brave New World Of Slacktivism”. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
• Radsch, Courtney (May 2012). “Unveiling the Revolutionaries: Cyberactivism and Women’s Role in the Arab Uprisings” (PDF). Rice University.
• “Cyberactivism and the Arab Revolt: Battles Waged Online and Lessons Learned (Part 1 of 9)”. YouTube. 2011-03-29. Retrieved 2014-07-24.
• Courtney Radsch (Feb 28, 2011). “Double-Edged Sword: Social Media’s Subversive Potential”. Huffington Post.
• Christensen, Henrik Serup. “Political activities on the internet: slacktivism or political participation by other means?”. First Monday. Retrieved 3 November 2011.
• White, Micah. “Clicktivism Is Ruining Leftist Activism“, The Guardian, 12 August 2010, accessed 10 November 2014
• White, Micah. “Clicktivism Is Ruining Leftist Activism“, The Guardian, 12 August 2010
• Gladwell, Malcolm (4 October 2010). “Annals of Innovation – Small Change – Why the revolution will not be tweeted.”. The New Yorker. Retrieved 4 March 2013.
• Vitak, J., Zube, P., Smock, A., Carr, C. T., Ellison, N., & Lampe, C. (2011). It’s Complicated: Facebook Users’ Political Participation in the 2008 Election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(3), 107-114.
• Brian Dunning (17 June 2014). “Slacktivism: Raising Awareness”. Skeptoid. Retrieved 29 December 2014.
• Mirani, Leo (2 October 2010). “Sorry, Malcolm Gladwell, the revolution may well be tweeted”. London: The Guardian.
• Courtney C. Radsch (March 29, 2011). “The Revolutions Will Be Hashtagged: Twitter Turns 5 as the Middle East Demands Democracy”. Huffington Post.
• David Kenner (March 30, 2011). “YouTube Revolutions”. Foreign Policy.
• Matthew Green (2012-03-12). “Let the Kony campaign be just the start”. Financial Times. Retrieved 2012-03-27. (registration required)
• Andresen, Katya. “Why Slacktivism is Underrated”. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
• Leonard, Cindy. “In Defense of “Slacktivism””. Retrieved 1 November 2011.
• Leonard, Andrew. “There Is No Ethical Smartphone” Saloncom RSS. Salon, 23 Feb. 2012. Accessed 7 December 2013
• “Getting from No to Go: Social Media-Fueled Protest Style From Arab Spring to Gezi Protests in Turkey | Berkman Center”. Cyber.law.harvard.edu. 2013-10-15. Retrieved 2014-07-24.
• White, Micah (12 August 2010). “Clicktivism is ruining leftist activism”. London: Guardian. Retrieved 16 November 2011.
• “Clicktivists – a new breed of protestors'”. London Evening Standard Online. 19 January 2011. Retrieved February 11, 2011.
• “What Is Clicktivism?” Clicktivist. Web. 10 Nov. 2014. <http://www.clicktivist.org/what-is-clicktivism/>.
• White, Micah. “Clicktivism Is Ruining Leftist Activism“, The Guardian. 12 August 2010
• White, Micah. “Rejecting Clicktivism”. AdBusters. Retrieved 16 November 2011.
• White, Micah (2010-08-12). “Clicktivism is ruining leftist activism”. The Guardian. Retrieved 2011-11-13.
• Cross, Allison (7 Mar 2012). “Hunt for Ugandan war criminal Joseph Kony video goes viral”. National Post. Retrieved 7 March 2012.
• Cashmore, Pete (14 January 2010). “Haiti quake relief: How technology helps”. CNN. Retrieved 4 March 2013.
• Mangold, W.; David Faulds (2009). “Social media: The new hybrid element of the”. Business Horizons: 357–365.
• Daniel. “Chinese Hackers Vindicate “Slacktivism””. ProjectQuinn.
• “Vi gillar olika | Aftonbladet”. Aftonbladet.se. 2014-01-18. Retrieved 2014-07-24.
• sv:Rör inte min kompis
• Namn obligatorisk. “Deltagande med det norska folket | Moderaterna i Upplands-Bro”. Moderaterna.net. Retrieved 2014-07-24.
• Curtis, Polly, and Tom McCarthy. “Kony 2012: What’s the Real Story?“, The Guardian. 8 Mar. 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2014
• Kendzior, Sarah. “The Subjectivity of Slacktivism“, Aljazeera, 5 April 2012, accessed 10 November 2014
• Abubakar, Aminu; Levs, Josh (5 May 2014). “‘I will sell them,’ Boko Haram leader says of kidnapped Nigerian girls”. CNN. Retrieved 5 May 2014.
• Litoff, Alyssa (6 May 2014). “International ‘Bring Back Our Girls’ Becomes Rallying Cry for Kidnapped Nigerian Schoolgirls”. ABC News. Retrieved 7 May 2014.
• http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/05/20/the_depressing_reason_why_hashtag_campaigns_like_stopkony_and_bringbackourgirls.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/06/is-bringbackourgirls-helping/
• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/14/nigeria-girls-kidnapped-5-months_n_5791622.html

 

51. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/10/abandonment-bring-back-our-girls-2014101494119446698.html

Further reading

• Feder, Barnaby. (May 29, 2002) “They Weren’t Careful What They Hoped For” The New York Times.
• Phan, Monty. (Feb 27, 2001) “On the Net, ‘Slacktivisim’/Do-Gooders Flood In-Boxes.” Newsday. Page A.08.
• Observer Magazine: Armchair Warrior
• Foreign Policy magazine: The brave new world of slacktivism
• Peña-López, I. (2013). “Casual Politics: From slacktivism to emergent movements and pattern recognition“

External links

• NPR on slacktivism

Categories:

• Activism by type
• Pejorative terms for people

Navigation menu

• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article
• Donate to Wikipedia
• Wikipedia store

Print/export

• Create a book
• Download as PDF
• Printable version

• This page was last modified on 24 August 2015, at 23:32.
• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers
• Contact Wikipedia
• Developers
• Mobile view

• 
• 

Enemy Of The Reich: The Noor Inayat Khan Story

Enemy of the Reich

A Muslim Woman Defies the Nazis In WW II Paris

Ready to enjoy the full length film right now?

---

allstaractivist note: I had seen the previews of this movie a while ago and very much wanted to go see it but then got distracted by Gang Stalker attacks. Until yesterday, I had forgotten about the film but then came across a Facebook post of an old friend. I am ashamed to admit that before this film, I knew nothing of Muslims during the Nazi period. This film shows that not all Muslims agreed with Hitler. Even though I am not of the Islamic faith, I honor and appreciate every individual’s struggle for freedom. Ms. Khan’s story is all the more admirable as she was an Islamic woman of faith. Ms Khan displayed strength, courage and integrity, qualities both contrary to and far beyond her culture’s expectations.

---

Throughout the 1930’s, an unimaginable evil tore through Europe, as Hitler’s Third Reich terrorized its way to domination. During these tumultuous times, a young Muslim woman living in Paris found her calling. Noor Inayat Khan grew up in a home that fostered faith and hope. Leading with her heart, she overcame her quiet nature and joined Winston Churchill’s covert operation to give the Allies a new chance at victory. This is her story.

About the Film

Noor Inayat Khan was the daughter of a spiritual teacher from India, Hazrat Inayat Khan, and his American wife, Ora Ray Baker. After Noor’s birth in Moscow in 1914, the family moved first to England and then to Paris, where she was raised.

In 1940, the Nazis invaded France and twenty-five year old Noor fled with her family to England. There she joined Britain’s Women’s Auxiliary Air Force and trained as a wireless operator. In early 1943, she began her assignment as a covert agent, joining Winston Churchill’s Special Operations Executive (SOE). The SOE worked with the French resistance fighters to sabotage industry and railroads in preparation for the D-Day invasions, after which they would co-ordinate attacks on the German army behind enemy lines, tying down troops and  diverting the Germans from the invading Allied troops. From Paris, Noor Inayat Khan secretly transmitted critical information back to Britain.

In the next four months she was often the only link between the U.K. and the French Resistance. She was pursued by the Gestapo and finally betrayed by French collaborators. The Nazis arrested her and imprisoned her in Paris, where she fought back against her captors and escaped twice. Finally, she was sent to the infamous Dachau concentration camp in Germany where she was executed shortly before the end of WWII.

The British and French subsequently awarded her their highest civilian honors.

Alex Kronemer and Michael Wolfe
Executive Producers

Rob Gardner
Producer and Director

Academy Award
Winning Actress
Helen Mirren, Narrator

Why This Film?

There are thousands of films about WW II but the Muslim story is largely missing. Our aim is to share a story about a hero who was unique in her own right: growing up in a household with American and Indian roots. Noor’s childhood was rich with inclusion and openness to all people, even as nationalism and ethnic genocide was on the rise across Europe. Noor’s story is something that everyone can relate to and everyone can identify with. The power of her story will enable people to see Muslims, and particularly Muslim women, in a new light.

Noor’s identity as a Muslim woman did not stop her from signing up to join the fight against the Nazis. Motivated by her faith, Noor’s worldview was based on a respect for all faiths against Hitler’s ideology of ethnic and religious extermination.

During a time in which debate and conversation about who Muslim women are and what they stand for, we, as a community, struggle to bring to the forefront examples and stories of strong Muslim women in unconventional situations. We rarely get the opportunity to share a story about strong Muslim women as widely in the public sphere as we’d like, and it’s up to us to tell these stories. Noor’s story has the potential to reach millions.

Noor’s heroic story will be timely in its message, offering both Muslim communities and mainstream communities the chance to gain a better understanding of who Muslims are. The film brings dramatic reenactments, directed by the three time Emmy winner and Academy Award Nominee, Director Rob Gardner to entertain audiences. The docudrama approach supplements this footage with interviews from leading scholars on Noor’s biography and World War II.

 

 

Not an endorsement, just my artistic appreciation of Muslim culture’s more esthetically beautiful elements. I am devoutly Christian but respect and admire people of faith, who do so in kind.

 

I’ve finally figured out why I’m being Gang Stalked

allstaractivist note: As you may know, Gang Stalking is the illegal continuation of the FBI’s counter intelligence program known as COINTELPRO.

Although Gang Stalking has metastasized to include many additional government agencies, as well as private contractors alike, it’s original purpose was to destroy the Black Panther Party and specifically, their free breakfast program for pre-school children. It was thought by the then Director of the FBI, the infamous J. Edgar Hoover, that the free breakfast program was actually an indoctrination program to brainwash kids.

Today, Gang Stalking is a comprehensive mechanism for both social and political control, a “shadow government” if you will.

In 1974 at the age of six years old, I became a Targeted Individual. How does a four year old become a Targeted Individual you ask? Simple, you enjoy the eating of scrambled eggs, bacon and fresh milk that just happened to be provided by the Black Panthers and their historic “Head Start” program for pre-school age children.

I remember those hearty and delicious breakfasts where we sat at a simple fold out table in the middle of a very large and dilapidated gymnasium, I don’t remember ever being talked to about anything at all. The young, light skinned black afro wearing lady simply walked around with a carton of milk while we ate, she never said a word. I was always bewildered as to what it was all about except that the food was so good I didn’t care. I came to look forward to the delicious and filling breakfast everyday, especially since we all got to ride tricycles as fast as we wanted afterward. Thats all we did, pile in everyday to the huge, cold and empty gymnasium (except for the long table and little chairs), eat our food until full and then ride tricycles afterward with gleeful abandon. I was sad when it ended and grieved for a long time, mornings were then a disappointment. I would ask my mom if we were going to “the place” and she had to tell me no, they didn’t have money anymore.

Indoctrination camp? You fucking pieces of shit.

For the past forty three (43) years my life has been interfered with ever since.

---

---

Honoring the 44th Anniversary of the Black Panther’s Free Breakfast Program

• Written by Marc Mascarenhas-Swan
• Friday, 18 January 2013 15:54

First day back at school, and I couldn’t help but think of, and thank, the Black Panthers, when my 8 year old daughter went to go and collect the free breakfast for her class from the cafeteria. She handed out, Whole Grain Banana Bread, Low Fat Milk, and Gala Apples, pretty simple stuff really. What I love even more than the healthy food they serve, is that all the kids are offered some; not just the kids from families that qualify for free or subsidized meals, because singling out and stigmatizing kids for needing support just isn’t cool. But like the 8 hour work day, weekends, and free education, things like free breakfast in schools don’t just happen.

You can’t work for justice on an empty stomach 44 years ago, in January 1969, the Black Panther’s launched their Free Breakfast Program for children. The program rapidly expanded from feeding a handful of kids in an Oakland church, to serving over 10,000 a day before they went to school. It spoke volumes about both the deep need in the black community, and the reach and capacity of the party nationally.“As the Party’s community survival programs entered a planning stage that year, we began planning the Free Breakfast for School Children Program. Mrs. Beckford-Smith and I undertook the necessary research to facilitate the program’s opening. This included consulting with nutritionists to determine what a healthy breakfast menu should include, having the church parish hall and kitchen inspected by the health department and fire marshal to certify that we met the necessary health and safety codesIt was the first nationally organized breakfast program in the United States, either in the public or private sector”Father Earl A. Neill – Co-organizer of the first Black Panther Breakfast ProgramIt marked not only the first program of its kind in the US, but indicated a sharp shift in the political direction of the Black Panther Party. For its first few years the Party had been focused on armed self defense, and patrolling the police. The shift toward survival programs was caused by multiple factors. The arrest and death of party militants, the inadequacy of community based services in their neighborhoods, and seeing the need to connect more deeply and practically with the community. Not without internal struggle , the Black Panther Party moved, in the words of scholar Alondra Nelson, “From Self Defense to Self Determination”.“The food component of the BPP was a big part of our organizing, this included our free breakfast program.. Because one thing you can guarantee in an oppressed community, is that you’re going to find hunger. The fact the United States has more food than we need, and folks are still going hungry is a shame, it was a shame then, and it’s a shame now.”Melvin Dickson –Organizer for free meals program for the Black Panther Party in East Oakland

The work became so effective, it drew the ire of the director of the FBI:

“The BCP (Breakfast for Children Program) promotes at least tacit support for the BPP (Black Panther Party) among naive individuals .. . And, what is more distressing, provides the BPP with a ready audience composed of highly impressionable youths.. . . Consequently, the BCP represents the best and most influential activity going for the BPP and, as such, is potentially the greatest threat to efforts by authorities to neutralize the BPP and destroy what it stands for. “

J Edgar Hoover, May 15, 1969

As a consequence of the FBI’s concerns, public authorities clamped down on the programs, and they made an effort to control them by requiring filing with authorities, and compliance with various state regulations. This was often beyond the modest means of the party members running the programs, or counter to the spirit and ideals of the work.

All these programs ended with the demise of the BPP, the same conditions of harassment and infiltration that tore the Panthers apart, also prevented their social programs from being sustained. As their programs folded, some ideas, like the Breakfast program were taken up by the state and institutionalized.

“There was an effort to curb their social programs by trying to force them to get various state licenses, which went against what they were trying to do which was create this organic thing. It created a lot of red tape. Their breakfast program became the Head Start program. Their ideas were taken up by the state and institutionalized.”

Alondra Nelson – Author Body and Soul: The Black Panther Party and the Fight against Medical Discrimination.

So in 1975 the National School Breakfast program was launched, serving free or reduced priced breakfasts to kids in need every school day. Can we argue that this was a direct result of the Black Panthers work, it’s hard to say? But it is clear that the Black Panther Free Breakfast Program scared and embarrassed the state, and highlighted the gross and endemic racialized inequalities inherent in U.S. society.

The Panthers focused their attention on the construction of institutions that provided for the communites needs. Because they knew the state response would be inadequate or non-existent, because it was an arena to politicize their community, and because they were interested in the development of a new society.

“All these programs satisfy the deep needs of the community but they are not solutions to our problems. That is why we call them survival programs, meaning survival pending revolution. We say that the survival program of the Black Panther Party is like the survival kit of a sailor stranded on a raft. It helps him to sustain himself until he can get completely out of that situation. So the survival programs are not answers or solutions, but they will help us to organize the community around a true analysis and understanding of their situation. When consciousness and understanding is raised to a high level then the community will seize the time and deliver themselves from the boot of their oppressors. If they have a need we will serve their needs and attempt to get them to understand the true reasons why they are in need in such an incredibly rich land.”

To Die for the People (Book of essays) – Huey Newton

The path toward fundamental, positive societal transformation is not a straight one. Full of obstacles, turns and steep hills. Co-optation doesn’t have to mean that we are losing, on the contrary it can mean that we are winning. What is crucial is that we remember who fought the battles, and reclaim our history by telling our children.

In the face of intertwined economic and ecological catastrophes, learning from and applying the lessons of those who built politicized, community controlled institutions of self reliance, and furthermore through them contested for power, may be our best hope for survival.

Marc was born and bred in England and buttered in the San Francisco Bay Area. He likes to strategize around, and build political and pragmatic unity between those sectors fighting for social, racial and economic justice, and those that are building grassroots, democratic, economic solutions. He has two amazing kids that he tries to spend as much time as possible with.

Click for an explanation of what a “Banana Republic” is on Wise Geek.

Handing out business cards to publicize my blog, The All Star Activist

allstaractivist note: Funny story. Yesterday I had a CT scan ordered by my ENT here at Doctor’s Hospital in San Pablo, California. Since Gang Stalkers heavily recruit medical personnel to wrangle poisoned TI’s, I expected to encounter some stalkers. Lab Techs, LVN’s, Doctors, Nurses, administrators, etc. Anyway, after I’m done with the CT scan, I figure that I’ll run through the hospital handing out cards before I leave. I get on the elevator and go to the fourth floor. When I step out I can see this is one of the floors in transition from the shutdown and there are no patients there. I see only suits and scrubs, no white uniforms. Everyone looks at me all at once, probably expecting someone they know. I quickly get back on the elevator going down and two men in scrubs get on with me. I see my chance. “Have you guys ever heard of a thing called Gang Stalking?” I ask. The unmasked tech immediately says “Yeah, that’s where I send people to harass my ex wife.” I burst out laughing and then proceeded to clumsily go through the rest of my pitch, now totally thrown off but amused. The masked tech is just glaring at me viciously but they are both at rapt attention and listening to me every word. When I finish my pitch, the tech that made the first crack starts to get off and leans in close to my face with a mischievous grin. He then emphatically says, “Well, I’ll take a look at your blog and then I’ll send them to come look you up!” with a wry grin on his face.  I cracked up.

That’s what is so fun about talking to people about real stuff like this, you never know what you’re going to get.

For the intrepid, life is an adventure! 🙂

 

 

---

 

For about the past month I’ve made it a point to hand out at least two business cards with my blog address on them, every time I go out. For the most part, reception has been positive. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether the person that I gave the card to actually visited my blog or not but I must say, stats do seem to be rising.

When I approach a person, I try to figure out which post on my blog might interest them. Most of the time my guesses have been fairly accurate however, I’m observing something interesting that I never would have suspected. You see, I think the graphics on my business card are pretty ugly. In making the design, I thought it best to make the card look like the blog as much as possible. Aesthetics were secondary. Much to my surprise, the complexity of the design with all it’s strange little images, kind of hypnotizes the person that I give it to. The person stands there mesmerized, intensely looking at the card trying to figure out what it all means! In that space of time I get the chance to talk to them and give my pitch. I never would have figured the design that I consider ugly would have that effect. I have learned that if I talk softly and gently, by the time they look up from the card I have their full and pliant attention.

I’ve also found it effective to ask them a couple of questions like “did you know this…?” or “have you heard of so and so…?”. Making a joke or laughing at one of their’s (and I’ve encountered a few quick wits out there) is the most effective. The only people that I’ve had refuse my card in over 50 handed out so far, are medical personnel.  If the person seems really interested and strikes up a conversation, I’ll give them a couple of more cards to give to others.

I’m thinking about printing some pamphlets on two or three different subjects to accompany the cards to be handed out in front of stores or where people are congregated. I’ve even considered including some sort of small gift, like a keychain or something. When times were better, I used to find all sorts small items discarded by stores as surplus but alas, the economy is in decline now. I plan to devote entire days to just handing out cards and talking to people. One thing I won’t do is place cards under people’s windshield wipers, I’m only going to distribute by presenting to an actual person. I think it has a far greater effect.