[Campaignforrealdemocracy] Peoples Assemblies Everywhere Fwd: [climate09-int] Video: The People's Assembly
info
info at thepeoplespalace.org.uk
Wed Jan 6 15:58:34 UTC 2010
On the note of celebrity culture taking a stronger hold, I don't think
there is any harm in that, just as long as the celebrities themselves
take responsibility for supporting a global movement for change.
I am now working on getting a city festival at Alexandra Palace and
speaking with influential PRs who have contacts with Harvey Goldsmith
and Sting (and more). My thoughts are that we are all increasingly
aware that the government are not responsible. The next step then is to
realise that we are.
The younger generations have no interest in political parties because
they just do not work. We need to get to some middle ground, leveraging
the power of celebrity culture into the spotlight of The Peoples New
World Order. Taking the intelligent progressive tactics held by groups
such as CRD and blending it with something celebratory not accusatory
that captures the hearts of even the most apathetic.
Changing the dream is something that has been popping into my head (and
out of my mouth) lots of late. That's all we need to do. Stop fighting
and directing our attention at what doesn't work. Stop heading down the
road towards individual monetary gain which is the biggest illusion we
face and start dreaming instead about what we can do together. That is
the new dream and money is simply a tool.
On 21 Dec 2009, at 13:35, Matthew Scott wrote:
>
> Maria
>
> Were X factor for politics to happen, as Simon Cowell has floated, and
> Cameron / Brown welcomed, I’d like to think it would be a leap forward
> but progressive politics often don’t make for soundbites, so the
> challenge would be to ensure public opinion was not manipulated to a
> lower level. We are not starting form a level playing field but from
> a place where the media has polluted to the virtual commons. Nick
> Davis’ book ‘flat earth news’ is good on this and I spotted this quote
> in it from Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, who was the founder of
> modern day PR and advertising:
>
> The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and
> opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
> Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an
> invisible government which is the true ruling power… In almost every
> act of our daily lives.. . In our social conduct and our ethical
> thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…
> who pull the wires which control the public mind
> (Edward Bernays)
>
> My kids loved X factor this year but I worry about all that hype that
> values celebrity going even further into civil society – maybe it is
> coming anyway and we just need to be ready
>
> Best wishes
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> Matthew Scott
>
> CSC Director
>
> 020 7336 9461
>
> Work mobile: 07827 258411
>
> Website: www.communitysectorcoalition.org.uk
>
> This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may
> contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
> disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not
> the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
> in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete
> this e-mail and all attachments from your system.
>
> From: mariastella nash [mailto:mariastellanash at yahoo.com]
> Sent: 21 December 2009 04:29
> To: Reclaiming Spaces; campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org;
> Mark Barrett
> Subject: Re: [Campaignforrealdemocracy] Peoples Assemblies Everywhere
> Fwd: [climate09-int] Video: The People's Assembly
>
> Greetings!
>
> Why not use the power of the internet as well
>
> Look what happened with X-Factor!
> Serious issues could also be addressed via the internet
>
> So come on guys, there is a wealth of knowledge, experience and love
> out there to help all the vulnerable people in the world.
> We who have the electronic ability can make a difference for the
> other people who have no electricity or clean water or good food
>
> Keep onwards and upwards
>
> Maria
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 21/12/09, Mark Barrett <marknbarrett at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> From: Mark Barrett <marknbarrett at googlemail.com>
> Subject: [Campaignforrealdemocracy] Peoples Assemblies Everywhere
> Fwd: [climate09-int] Video: The People's Assembly
> To: "Reclaiming Spaces" <reclaiming-spaces at listi.jpberlin.de>,
> campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org
> Date: Monday, 21 December, 2009, 11:47
> That is precisely the sort of proposals that came out of both CJA and
> CJN's final evaluations. Organise Peoples' Assemblies locally and
> regionally everywhere, then a simultaneous decentralised Assembly
> next summer. Also a call for a global day of action in fall on Climate
> Justice principles. And of course, mobilisations during COP16 in
> Mexico in December. A great spark of hope and a decisive year ahead.
> Olivier
>
>
> Mark Barrett wrote:
> Even more awesome and potentially world historic, would be a regular
> People's Assembly held in every major city and rural neighbourhood of
> the world, at every Town Hall, all at the same time. A visible,
> reachable new society in the making, an unstoppable leverage against
> any decision making that is not in the interests of the whole
> planet AND a low carbon footprint rolled into one.
>
>
> City and Rural Neighbourhoods of the World, Unite!!
> 2009/12/21 Jody Boehnert <jody at eco-labs.org>
>
> Here is a video of our awesome People's Assembly:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGY9ruYpx3o
>
> Jody
>
> Hi Anna
>
> Queries:
> > who decides where the barricades are set?
>
> Do you believe in radical localism (or 'local sovereignty') via
> inclusive, consensus decision-making as a key means to work our way
> out of the environmental crisis? I think that for the huge number
> that do, and - tantalisingly - for the very many others who (though
> not environmentalists) nevertheless also believe the better, freer,
> enlilghtened society begins with the same realisation, for us ( ie us
> vs. everyone who does not believe in that ideal) doesn't the
> barricade sets itself accordingly? People either believe that a vital
> solution to globalisation rests in ordinary people responsibly taking
> control of their immediate resources together, with collective
> stewardship and everyone equally included in decision-making, and
> with federating support for other similar groupings across the
> communities who wish to do the same, or they do not, or they are not
> even aware of the possibility. The clear setting out of those
> barricades, on our terms not theirs as is the case with Copenhagen
> and all the other jamborees would give them the opportunity to decide
> who's side they are on. No?
>
> >how do we set these without enough information being given to the
> "grass roots"?
>
> The barricades would get set by a call out being framed in the terms
> above, so question could turn on "do you believe in an alternative
> society? Another world, built by the grassroots? If so, let's show
> what democracy really looks like.. if so, let's all get ourselves,
> and our groups down to our local town hall, for a global picnic /
> dance / festival / occupation / on such and such day at such and such
> time in response to such and such event. We could use this idea to
> create the space for more autonomy and network building in our local
> areas, while also putting the idea of a new global to local
> sovereignty, the free society in the making into the minds of the
> mainstream, boosting and building and joining up with all the other
> local areas in solidarity. For the environment, for the politics, for
> the economics, for the human rights, for all the socially controlled,
> downtrodden and oppressed. The message is a new start, for a new
> people a new covenant. Maybe a blank placard could be our symbol..?
>
> >Who decides what this information should be.
> this is a lot more complicated than a simple call.
>
> But it's not THAT difficult, is it? As we know, everything, whether
> local or in an anti- conference setting needs to be done with
> groundrules, so why should a call for decentralised joined up
> organising be any different. Democratic inclusion, equality,
> consensus, independence, accountability, transparency etc are a
> given, right? Surely we are by now mostly agreed on what constitutes
> good, democratic practice, aren't we? If not now, after all this
> time, when? Isn't that enough info?
>
> >Who decides whether the call is for 2degrees or 1.5 degrees or 0.8
> degrees which is already bad enough if you are one of the communities
> who are dying of drought or flood.
>
> I'm not saying this is not important, it really is, and we need to
> keep the pressure on. But also I really don't think we can hope for a
> real democratization of the global process (and therefore a new
> urgency and openness to the needs of all in the embryonic global
> governance / regulatory process) until we ourselves get our act
> together as a people (we are the 'global justice people' right?).
>
> And what this means, for me is putting ourselves on the map as a
> people rooted in our communities and not just as a travelling circus
> of resistance, important though that may be. We've won most of the
> arguments about globalisation now, the only thing that's missing is
> the political will and we need to push for that, yes of course. But
> we are much more than this travelling conscience. Much much more. Not
> only are we 'everywhere'; but we always have been; so we are
> everytime too. As a people questing for universal justice we
> transcend space and time.
>
> "take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the
> creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to
> eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a
> stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me,
> I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to
> visit me.’.. ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the
> least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’"
>
> What is new is the force of global technology that allows us to
> communicate, mobilise and thereby publically constitute ourselves
> across the planet. And that is totally unprecedented. But until we
> start using the amazing technological tools at our disposal to create
> a genuinely democratic, visible 'Other' to the capitalist /
> interstate mode of globalisation I really do not think we can expect
> people power to come to its fruition as a force for real change in
> the world. As activists, we are in a ghetto. Maybe the biggest ghetto
> in human history, but a ghetto nevertheless. We need to break out by
> calling upon the highest, and best plan ever, and mobilising according
> to the principles of the society we want to see born. A
> decentralised, joined up movement for the best dream of all, rooted
> in local communities and thereby able to speak to everyone in the
> context of local conditions, would be very difficult to hold back,
> because people would begin to get what we are about. And, eventually
> this localism, pursued properly will reduce emissions as so much of
> what we burn is in transport. And we will become what we are destined
> to be the force for real change at the national, international and
> global level that transforms the world for the good of all. Of course
> it needs to happen quickly to save people, as you suggest, which is
> why I am writing with urgency.
>
> >Who has this right to decide that its Ok if some of us die? who
> decides who dies? sorry I dont think anyone is qualified to make that
> call. how can all be welcome when some of us think its OK to shift
> carbon from one accounting head to another for money : no matter how
> much money.
>
> Sorry I didn't mean to say that everyone is welcome in a simplistic
> sense, although I do think everyone is capable of hearing the truth
> about how we should live and act, and that no-one is damned until the
> final moment of truth either devours or save them. There are those
> who will fight us, as they always have done, and they will of course
> lose. But those who hear the truth of what we say, that the world's
> salvation lies in the making of a new society, built in every local
> community but joined up across the world, not state not market but
> independent civil society; they will come. And they may well come
> from unexpected places - just as the nay sayers will. And the nay
> sayers are the culprits for the deaths you speak of, those who put
> their store in the state and the market place to fix things, or who
> just don't care. And the longer those people drag their feet, the
> longer the process will take, and the more people will unnecessarily
> die, and it is their responsibility, and theirs alone, as it always
> has been.
>
> From the same passage: "All the nations will be gathered before him,
> and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd
> separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his
> right and the goats on his left...Then he will say to those on his
> left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire
> prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave
> me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I
> was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you
> did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look
> after me.’ " http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/25.htm
>
> I know it's unfashionable to say it. But if we are believers we
> should pray for divine assistance to take us out of our ghetto. And
> if we are not, we should call upon whatever force we do believe in to
> come to our collective aid, and then, from there we should start
> trusting that history is on our side, and start mobilising for a new
> society, with completely different values, and new cultural engine at
> heart, and beginning in every community, because there are people
> dying, in all sorts of ways, everywhere.
>
> That's our calling, isn't it?
>
> A Salaam Aleykum
>
> Mark
>
>
> Queries:
> who decides where the barricades are set?
>
> how do we set these without enough information being given to the
> "grass roots"?
>
> Who decides what this information should be.
> this is a lot more complicated than a simple call.
>
> Who decides whether the call is for 2degrees or 1.5 degrees or 0.8
> degrees which is already bad enough if you are one of the communities
> who are dying of drought or flood.
>
> Who has this right to decide that its Ok if some of us die? who
> decides who dies?
> sorry I dont think anyone is qualified to make that call.
> how can all be welcome when some of us think its OK to shift carbon
> from one accounting head to another for money : no matter how much
> money.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Mark Barrett
> <marknbarrett at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> What we need for a paradigm shift is to organise ourselves under one
> banner, in which all are welcome, and across ALL the local
> communities in the world. How many times does it need to be said,
> before we make the simple call out for ALL local groups to converge on
> the local arms of the state at the same time, and then build our
> networks from there, and to do it again and again and again, to build
> local groupings across all th ideological divides, and thereby at
> last to carve out the visible, independent spaces, in every locality,
> where a new sovereignty - based on stewardship - can be realised, so
> then finally everyone can chose which side of the barricade they are
> on, and so the world can no longer misrepresent, or ignore what we
> really stand for?
>
>
> 2009/12/19 >
>
> Dear all
> I am not comfortable truly with the hype of considering anyone
> "winners" in this "game". Please can we stop adopting the language
> of military strategy and corporate manipulation. It affects how we
> perceive and think. We are all losers already. every one has lost
> for the last 25 years at least since climate change was recognised:
> hundreds of species exterminated , already human death tolls and
> suffering have reached incredible levels. We are not trying to win :
> we are trying desperately to salvage life and lives from the wreck of
> greed and hubris. Can we finally stop buying the spin and re-work
> our fundamentals, our approaches and our own thinking? And stop
> being so manic or epressive about what we should have known would be
> a very hard struggle ? We are talking of a paradigm shift here,
> people. Do you really think it is going to come from those in power?
> Anna
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Patrick Bond wrote:
>
>
> (You do the spotting of biases/ignorance.)
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/
> article6961367.ece
>
> 1830 Looking at the latest draft - which is the one Greenpeace must
> have been reacting to, and it does indeed read a bit like a G8
> communique. Let's gut it a bit and try to see who's come out on top
> from the various tussles over the past fortnight. Remember it's only
> a draft.
>
> Firstly the name: Copenhagen Accord. That is stronger than the
> Copenhagen Declaration or somesuch, so it is an international
> agreement, which makes it binding in at least a moral sense.
>
> Winners: the Danes, unless this treaty is trashed in which case they
> might ask for its name to be changed.
>
> There's no explicit binding target on temperature - just a
> recognition of the "scientific view" that limiting temperature rise to
> 2C would "enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate
> change".
>
> Winners: Oil producers. Losers: Small island states, LDCs, the planet
> as a whole
>
> A new clause further down the document says later reviews of the
> Copenhagen Accord would look at a target of 1.5C.
>
> Winners: Tuvalu and the low-lying islands (if that review ever takes
> place)
>
> The parties agree that that deep carbon emission cuts are required,
> according to the science, and "with a view to reduce global emissions
> by 50 per cent in 2050 below 1990 levels, taking into account the
> right to equitable access to atmospheric space".
>
> Winners: the emerging economies including Brazil will be pleased by
> that last clause.
>
> No specific target on "global peaking" (the point at which emissions
> peak - a crucial target for scientists) which the UK had wanted to be
> set at 2020. Instead the text says: "We should co-operate in
> achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as
> possible, recognising that the time frame for peaking will be longer
> in develoing countires and bearing in mind that social and economic
> development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding
> priorities of developing countries..."
>
> Winners: Again, China, Brazil and other emerging economies such as
> India. There's no target on their peaking.
>
> Developed countries commit to reducing their emissions individually
> or jointly by at least 80 per cent by 2050. Individual 2020 targets to
> be listed in an appendix (which is still blank). Verification to be
> rigorous, robust and transparent. The EU was offering the 80 per cent
> target.
>
> Winners: In the longer term, the planet.
>
> But there is no overall target on emission limits or "mitigation
> actions" by major emerging economies, such as China, India and
> Brazil. An earlier draft today set a 15-30 per cent target. Instead
> individual country targets will be listed in an appendix to the
> accord. Countries will be asked to report on their progress every two
> years via national communications - but there's no comeback if
> they're lying.
>
> If countries want international support for their mitigation actions
> - China and Brazil have made clear that they don't - then they face
> international measurement.
>
> Winners: China and Brazil. Losers: US and EU
>
> Caveat: there is a square bracket [Consideration to be inserted US
> and China], which suggests that this battle is not yet over.
>
> Funding: developed countries are promised "scaled up, new and
> additional, predictable and adequate funding" to help them avert and
> cope with climate change. They will get $30 billion in "fast start"
> financing over the next three years and the developed countries also
> "support the goal of mobilising jointly $100 billion a year by 2020.
> This funding will be a mixture of public, private , bilateral and
> multilateral and "alternative" - ie market-based - finance. The
> multilateral funding will be channeled through trust funds on which
> developed and developing countries have equal representation.
>
> Winners: developing countries, especially the Africans and small
> island states. Developed world will be happy to have flexibility in
> funding
>
> There will be a review of this accord and its implementation by 2016,
> including the 1.5C target. But there is no commitment to making it a
> legally binding international treaty and no mention of the next COP
> meeting in Mexico City next year, which an earlier draft had
> suggested should be held within six months.
>
> Winners: China and G77 countries, which wanted to avoid new
> international treaty - but, interestingly, the only mention of the
> Kyoto Protocol, which they want to keep, is in the preamble, which
> endorses the decision that the KP working group should continue its
> work on a new round of commitments by developed countries under that
> pact. That omission could be read both ways.
>
> Overall winners: You do the math.
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> _______________________________________________
> Campaignforrealdemocracy mailing list
> Campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/campaignforrealdemocracy
>
>
> This message has been scanned by vsl mailsafe
> _______________________________________________
> Campaignforrealdemocracy mailing list
> Campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/campaignforrealdemocracy
>
www.thepeoplespalace.org.uk
07989 513 577
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 36931 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/campaignforrealdemocracy/attachments/20100106/ffe2030e/attachment-0001.bin>
More information about the Campaignforrealdemocracy
mailing list