[Campaignforrealdemocracy] Peoples Assemblies Everywhere Fwd: [climate09-int] Video: The People's Assembly
Mark Barrett
marknbarrett at googlemail.com
Wed Jan 6 16:42:49 UTC 2010
Thanks for this Sally.
Isn't it as it always has been about making an Exodus, from this world to
the next, Promised Land? :-)
Mark
2010/1/6 info <info at thepeoplespalace.org.uk>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaignforrealdemocracy mailing list
> Campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/campaignforrealdemocracy
>
>
--
"We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet /Yet is there no
man speaketh as we speak in the street.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/campaignforrealdemocracy/attachments/20100106/9bc630d2/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Campaignforrealdemocracy
mailing list