A wide range of politicians and media outlets have described the alleged Russian interference in the last US presidential election (by way of hacking) as representing a direct threat to American democracy and even to national security itself. Of course, the irony behind these concerns about the interference of foreign nations in the domestic political affairs of the United States is that the US has blatantly interfered in the elections of many other nations, with methods that include not only financial support to preferred parties and the circulation of propaganda but also assassinations and overthrows of even democratically elected regimes. Indeed, the US has a long criminal history of meddling into the political affairs of other nations — a history that spans at least a century and, since the end of World War II, extends into all regions of the globe, including western parliamentary polities. This interview with Noam Chomsky reminds us that the United States is no stranger to election interference; in fact, it is an expert in this arena.
C. J. Polychroniou: Noam, the US intelligence agencies have accused Russia of interference in the US presidential election in order to boost Trump’s chances, and some leading Democrats have actually gone on record saying that the Kremlin’s canny operatives changed the election outcome. What’s your reaction to all this talk in Washington and among media pundits about Russian cyber and propaganda efforts to influence the outcome of the presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor?
Noam Chomsky: Much of the world must be astonished — if they are not collapsing in laughter — while watching the performances in high places and in media concerning Russian efforts to influence an American election, a familiar US government specialty as far back as we choose to trace the practice. There is, however, merit in the claim that this case is different in character: By US standards, the Russian efforts are so meager as to barely elicit notice.
Let’s talk about the long history of US meddling in foreign political affairs, which has always been morally and politically justified as the spread of American style-democracy throughout the world.
The history of US foreign policy, especially after World War II, is pretty much defined by the subversion and overthrow of foreign regimes, including parliamentary regimes, and the resort to violence to destroy popular organizations that might offer the majority of the population an opportunity to enter the political arena.
Following the Second World War, the United States was committed to restoring the traditional conservative order. To achieve this aim, it was necessary to destroy the anti-fascist resistance, often in favor of Nazi and fascist collaborators, to weaken unions and other popular organizations, and to block the threat of radical democracy and social reform, which were live options under the conditions of the time. These policies were pursued worldwide: in Asia, including South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Indochina and crucially, Japan; in Europe, including Greece, Italy, France and crucially, Germany; in Latin America, including what the CIA took to be the most severe threats at the time, “radical nationalism” in Guatemala and Bolivia.
Sometimes the task required considerable brutality. In South Korea, about 100,000 people were killed in the late 1940s by security forces installed and directed by the United States. This was before the Korean war, which Jon Halliday and Bruce Cumings describe as “in essence” a phase — marked by massive outside intervention — in “a civil war fought between two domestic forces: a revolutionary nationalist movement, which had its roots in tough anti-colonial struggle, and a conservative movement tied to the status quo, especially to an unequal land system,” restored to power under the US occupation. In Greece in the same years, hundreds of thousands were killed, tortured, imprisoned or expelled in the course of a counterinsurgency operation, organized and directed by the United States, which restored traditional elites to power, including Nazi collaborators, and suppressed the peasant- and worker-based communist-led forces that had fought the Nazis. In the industrial societies, the same essential goals were realized, but by less violent means.
Woorden worden meestal gebruikt in combinatie met andere woorden: in verband met, houden van, zich afvragen of, boodschappen doen, hard werken, prettige vakantie. Zoals uit deze voorbeelden blijkt, kunnen diverse woordsoorten (voorzetsels, zelfstandige naamwoorden, werkwoorden, bijwoorden, voegwoorden, bijvoeglijke naamwoorden) combinaties aangaan. Omdat in het Nederlands zelfstandige naamwoorden en werkwoorden de twee meest voorkomende woordsoorten zijn, ligt het voor de hand dat combinaties van deze twee woordsoorten zeer frequent zijn.
In Nederlandse woordenboeken kan men woordcombinaties vinden. Maar woordenboeken, hoe uitgebreid ook, geven maar een zeer beperkte weergave van het totale taalaanbod. Dat geldt voor alle aspecten van een taal en dus ook voor de combinatie zelfstandig naamwoord + werkwoord. Daarvan wordt, ook in de grootste woordenboeken, maar een kleine gedeelte opgenomen. En behalve beperkt, is de vermelding nogal willekeurig en soms onlogisch. Criteria voor het al dan niet opnemen van verbindingen worden nergens genoemd.
Door mijn werkzaamheden als docent Nederlands als tweede taal en als vreemde taal was het mij duidelijk geworden dat voor anderstaligen – ook voor de vergevorderden – het gebruik van de juiste combinatie van zelfstandig naamwoord en werkwoord moeilijk is. Daarnaast was er het gegeven dat deze categorie, maar ook hun docenten en de samenstellers van lesmateriaal, niet konden beschikken over een degelijk overzicht van genoemde combinaties. Dat leidde in 2003 (herdruk 2006) tot de publicatie van het Combinatiewoordenboek van Nederlandse substantieven met hun vaste verba. De doelgroep was in de eerste plaats de anderstalige, maar tegelijkertijd wilde het Combinatiewoordenboek een min of meer volledig woordenboek zijn. Dat had iets tweeslachtigs.
In deze derde uitgave is resoluut gekozen voor een algemeen woordenboek dat voor het Nederlands een beschrijving probeert te geven van de gangbare vaste verbindingen tussen zelfstandige naamwoorden en werkwoorden: geld beleggen, uit de regering treden, een ruit sneuvelt, een vis spartelt, de vlag hangt slap, de tafel staat ergens, smeergeld krijgen. Ten opzichte van de eerste en de tweede druk betekent dit dat de beperkingen die daar waren ingegeven door de niet-Nederlandstalige gebruiker zijn komen te vervallen. Deze beperkingen hadden te maken met het totale aanbod van werkwoorden, met het aanbod van synonieme werkwoorden en met het aanbod van werkwoorden die tot het formele taalgebruik behoren. Het gevolg van genoemde verruiming is dat deze derde druk ruim 15.000 werkwoorden meer telt dan de twee voorafgaande, een toename van meer dan 30%. Het totaal aantal werkwoorden, gekoppeld aan een zelfstandig naamwoord, bedraagt nu 52.623.
Een aantal lemmaʼs (zelfstandige naamwoorden) is in de derde druk niet meer opgenomen. Dat betreft hoofdzakelijk zelfstandige naamwoorden die deel uitmaakten van de in de derde druk niet meer teruggekeerde groepen ʻbeeld- en geluidsdragers’, ʻleestekens’, ʻmuziekinstrumenten’ en ‘uitgaansmogelijkheden’. Er zijn slechts acht nieuwe substantieven aan de derde druk toegevoegd: beleg (militair), bezit, bezitting, bodem, collecte, dam, dijk, eigendom en ziekenhuis. Daarmee bedraagt in deze derde druk het totaal aantal behandelde zelfstandige naamwoorden (lemmaʼs) ongeveer 2800.
Maatschappijleer is er om de leerlingen te laten functioneren in de samenleving. Een interview met Henk A. Becker
Prof.dr. Henk A. Becker (1933) kijkt opgewekt naar de toekomst. Natuurlijk, ook hij weet dat het er op dit moment niet alleen maar rooskleurig aan toegaat in de samenleving, maar hij ziet de contouren van een nieuwe generatie in opkomst waar hij een positief levensbeeld aan durft te ontlenen.
Auke van der Berg: U noemde een paar keer dat er een schok gaat komen met de nieuwe generatie twintigers. Wat voor schok?
Henk Becker: Dat ze, bijna alle leden van Generatie Z, ongelooflijk meer kennis en vaardigheden ten aanzien van het hanteren van computers hebben dan de vorige generaties.
Daar kunnen ze feitelijk gebruik van maken bijvoorbeeld door ook in het Engels te werken terwijl ze in Nederland zitten. Je kunt je brood verdienen. Of denk aan de jonge Roemenen die programmeren voor Nederlandse ondernemingen. Wat voor die Nederlandse ondernemingen uiteraard belangrijk is omdat de salarissen daar aanmerkelijk lager zijn.
Dat is een praktische vertaling. Het is ook de generatie die op grote schaal de mogelijkheid heeft om op verschillende manieren kennis tot zich nemen. Wat voor invloed heeft dat?
Daardoor zullen ze veel meer dingen kunnen uitvoeren. Op een andere manier geld verdienen dan vorige generaties. Dat studenten via digitale communicatiemiddelen eenzame ouderen begeleiden. De mogelijkheden om je maatschappelijk nuttig te maken, om geld te verdienen, zijn enorm uitgebreid.
Is daar uw optimisme op gestoeld? Ondanks deze warrige tijden.
Ja, omdat de mogelijkheden om actief te zijn, om je geld te verdienen om een reputatie op te bouwen, zo ongelooflijk zijn toegenomen. Daar zit het positieve in.
Maar dit is ook de tijd waarin we worden geconfronteerd met een overvloed aan informatie, op allerlei niveaus. Wat voor invloed heeft dat op ons gedrag?
Dat is onderzoek voor specialisten. Maar voor iedereen in de samenleving, die bijna iedere dag het woord generatie tegenkomt, is het één van de denkwerelden waarmee hij zijn omgeving begrijpt. En waarmee hij op die omgeving inspeelt.
Hoe leer je daarmee om te gaan?
Door te kiezen voor maatschappijleer. Maatschappijleer is er om de leerlingen te laten functioneren in de samenleving. Het moet één van de belangrijkste vakken worden.
Het vak is op de achtergrond geraakt omdat het relatief makkelijk is op het eindexamen. Wis- en natuurkunde is moeilijk omdat het moeilijk is. En de scholen gebruiken het om discipline af te dwingen.
U bent één van de belangrijkste gezichten van het vakgebied Generatie sociologie. Wat is dat, Generatie sociologie?
Generatie sociologie is een onderdeel van de empirische sociologie. Door generaties in te voegen komt er de tijdsdimensie bij in de discussies en publicaties.
Het boeiendste beeld om aan te geven dat er een tijdsdimensie is, is dat van de python. De slang die een groot aantal konijnen ingeslikt heeft. Langzamerhand schuiven die konijnen door dat slangenlichaam heen. Wat betekent dat de kenmerken van een generatie in de loop van de tijden veranderen omdat de leden ouder worden. Dat proces moet je in de gaten houden.
Het vakgebied kreeg voet aan de grond door het essay Das Problem der Generationen van de Hongaars-Duitse socioloog Karl Mannheim. Mannheim stelde dat een generatie een objectieve sociale formatie is, een aanwijsbare groep in de samenleving. Een gezamelijk beleefde historische gebeurtenis zorgt voor binding binnen een leeftijdsgroep. Zijn essay was het antwoord op allerlei esoterische gedachten over de Zeitgeist die toendertijd in zwang waren. Van Generationsimpuls naar Generationszusammenhang zou je samenvattend kunnen zeggen.
Generatie sociologie is boeiend, maar ook gecompliceerd. Je hebt niet één beeld van een generatie dat hetzelfde is. Je moet denken aan een doos waarin meerdere beelden zitten die langzaam in de tijd opschuiven. Daar zitten ook vaak de vergissingen in het weergeven van de zaak.
Het is een enorm breed terrein waar je je mee bezighoudt. Je hebt gedetailleerde beschrijvingen, bijvoorbeeld van het Centraal Planbureau of het Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Daarnaast heb je vereenvoudigde beelden, zogenaamde idealisaties. Wat je in de kranten tegenkomt, zijn meestal idealisaties. Dus de kenmerken van een groep.
In het algemeen spraakgebruik kom je het woord generatie dagelijks tegen. Of de vereenvoudiging, leeftijdscategorieën. De dertigers, veertigers, enzovoorts. Iedereen die in de samenleving functioneert, is in zekere mate generatie-socioloog, zou je kunnen zeggen.
Spinoza Lecture 2016 – Amsterdam, November 27
Part 1 ~ Personal meaning
It’s an honour to address the Spinozakring in Amsterdam on Spinozadag. As a young man, I was living in Belfast during the darkest years of the terrorist Troubles, when I set out for Trinity College, in Dublin to begin 5 years of post-graduate research on the subject: “Spinoza’s Ethics and the Meaning of Life.”
What followed was an unequal struggle – Spinoza was even more challenging than I thought – and I didn’t find the meaning of life. In the process, I struggled, mentally. No one I met seemed the slightest bit interested in Spinoza and the more I read and understood The Ethics, the more isolated, anxious and remote from everyday life I became – as if I was going in one direction and everyone else was headed in another.
And during those difficult years, I learned new ways of thinking and Being – perspectives and insights on life and the human condition. Things that have stayed with me to this day; that made me who I am; and that will – I hope – play an important part in my future. After much difficulty, I learned to see and understand the world the way Spinoza saw it.
Spinoza became my anchor – my reference – for exploring life — a beacon of intellectual strength and independence. ‘The Philosopher of Amsterdam” – became my cultural hero in Belfast – not only for his philosophy, but for his character. And just as he was an outsider in his community, so was I.
I learned that the concept of Unity – of living with an attitude towards One-ness, cohesion, and cooperation — was central to Spinoza’s thinking and that his greatest work, The Ethics, described a path to a radical form of mental health through three mutually reinforcing forms of unity, designed to cure three kinds of division.
The first step is to heal and unite the divided self, to overcome conflicted and self-harming emotions, using his psychology; the second, is to unite us with others in strong bonds of friendship, guided by his radical humanism; the third, a cure for ontological alienation in moments of insight when our drop-consciousness joins in an oceanic experience with the eternal.
These three perspectives on human existence – the psychological, the pragmatic and the metaphysical – define why Spinoza’s thinking is so powerful.
Part 2 ~ The two truths
And this brings us to the tension at the centre of his Ethics – and indeed, the terrible contradiction at the heart of the human condition – one that generates so much religious superstition and metaphysical speculation. I’ll try and put this as clearly as possible.
The first self-evident truth of the human condition is the subjective truth of Being, how we feel as we look outwards onto the world. We’ve already beaten astronomical odds to arrive as self-conscious beings and sense the significance of our moment. The truth of our individual identity – that we are separate and distinct from everything else – places us at the centre of our universe. We instinctively prioritize our needs and drives, those we love and care for, and the projects we value. Above all, we want our chance at life to continue.
The second self-evident truth – and it is just as mysterious — is that none of this matters. From the perspective of timeless eternity, whether we live or die, whether our projects succeed or fail, what we want for ourselves and others, means nothing. Everything we value – including our lives – will be taken from us, often brutally, no matter how hard we fight, how much we care, or how good or valuable we are to Mankind. If you want to believe our lives and hopes matter in some objective way, chose a religion, but don’t read Spinoza to find the answer.
These two truths represent life and death, or more accurately, time and eternity. They’re at war with each other and define the drama of the human condition. Their conflict inspires great art, writing, theatre and music — acts of courage, love and self-sacrifice. But it also drives the dark side – depression, meaninglessness, war, suicide …. and violent extremism. The conflict is resolved in death, in that the second truth always wins – and we, as individuals – must surrender. But, it’s our defiance, our stubborn striving to hold our identity in the face of inevitable loss that makes the human condition feel like a restless, if not urgent, roller-coaster ride.
Like many great thinkers, Spinoza tries to reconcile these two truths… and he does it beautifully. He teaches us how both perspectives, both truths can be held and experienced simultaneously. He shows us a way to bring them together as a lived experience – purely for the love, strength and peace of mind — it brings us. This is his magic.
His Ethics has gifted us a strange, extraordinary, philosophy; – of this world, and yet not of this world – that makes it one of the truly great philosophical masterpieces.
Monika Palmberger ~ How Generations Remember. Conflicting Histories And Shared Memories In Post-War Bosnia And Herzegovina
From: Introduction: Researching Memory and Generation
[…] The title of this book, How Generations Remember, is an allusion to the title of Paul Connerton’s seminal book, How Societies Remember (1989). In his book, Connerton opens up a timely discussion going beyond the textual and discursive understanding of remembering by concentrating on embodied/habitual memory and ritual aspects of memory. In terms of the study of generations he thus mainly discusses generations as transmitters or receivers of group memory. Although Connerton’s pioneering contribution to the study of memory is unquestioned, by focusing on how memory is passed down through the generations he primarily answers the question of how group memory is conveyed and sustained. This emphasis on transmission and persistence leaves open the question of where to locate the individual, the agent, the force and possibility for reflexivity and change (Argenti and Schramm 2010; Shaw 2010). My study, in concentrating on the role of generational positioning, reveals that past experiences inform present stances, but also shows that it is the actor in the present that gives meaning to the past. This is also true for narratives of the past that are passed on from older to younger generations, and are then scrutinised and contextualised by the latter. It is suggested that people’s sense of continuity can deal with the inconsistencies that arise with this transfer between generations. It is this field of tension between collective and personal, and between persistence and change that is central in the discussion of generational positioning in this book.
Dowload book: http://link.springer.com/book/
The African Studies Centre Leiden is the only multidisciplinary academic knowledge institute in the Netherlands devoted entirely to the study of Africa. It has an extensive library that is open to the general public. The ASCL is an interfaculty institute of Leiden University.
The ASCL adheres to the so-called Berlin Declaration on free access to electronic publications, which means that all ASCL publications are available in open access as far as possible. The African Studies Collection, ASCL Working Papers, African Studies Abstracts Online, ASCL Info Sheets and African Public Administration and Management, which are all published directly by the ASCL, can be downloaded free of charge from this website. There is an embargo period for books published by external publishers but when this has expired, these can also be downloaded from the ASCL website free of charge.
More Open Access publications:
If the world had any ends, British Honduras would certainly be one of them. It is not on the way from anywhere to anywhere else’ (Aldous Huxley 1984:21).
When I had to do fieldwork in the Caribbean region for my final research several years ago, someone from the department of cultural Anthropology in Utrecht in the Netherlands asked me why I didn’t go to Belize. My answer to his question was at that time quite significant: ‘Belize??’ I had no idea where it was and could not picture it at all.
Libraries that I visited in the Netherlands hardly provided any solace. Most of the books on Central America hardly mentioned Belize. Booth and Walker describe the position of the country as follows in ‘Understanding Central-America’: ‘Though Belize is technically Central America, that English-speaking microstate has a history that is fairly distinct from that of the other states in the region. At present this tiny republic, which only became formally independent from Great-Britain in 1981, does not figure significantly in the ‘Central American’ problem’ (1993:3).
The fact that Belize receives little attention in literature on Central America underlines the peripheral position of the country in this region. Some authors qualify it as part of the Caribbean world; others primarily see Belize as a member of the British Commonwealth. Besides that it is also seen as part of the Central American context. The Formation of a colonial Society (1977) by the English sociologist Nigel O. Bolland was the first scientific work on Belize that I was able to acquire. The Belize Guide (1989) by Paul Glassman provided me with a tourist orientated view of this ‘wonderland of strange people and things’ (Glassman 1989:1). Collecting sustaining literature was and remains a tiresome adventure. Slowly but surely my list of literature expanded.
My knowledge of the region was limited. Reactions from others also confirmed that Belize is a country with a slight reputation. For example, I still remember being corrected by someone from a travel agency. After asking the gentleman if a direct flight to Belize existed, he answered somewhat pityingly: ‘Sir, you must mean Benin´. In my circle of friends, Belize also turned out to be unheard of. The neighboring countries Guatemala and Mexico are better known. An important reason for this is that the media informs people of the most important happenings in these countries. This information is often clarified using maps of the area on which Guatemala and Mexico, but also Belize, are marked. Nonetheless, time and time again Belize turns out to be a country that does not appeal to the imagination.
The comments I heard from tourists coming in from Mexico or Guatemala are notable. ´This is a culture shock´, ´where are the Indians´, ´this doesn´t look at all like Central America´, ´it´s surprising how well you can get by with English here, that was not like that at all in Mexico´. Many of the tourists that come from Mexico quickly go through Belize city on their way to one of the islands off the coast of Belize where they relax for a few days before going to Guatemala. Most of the tourists coming into Belize from Tikal (Guatemala) spend a night in San Ignacio, comment on the fact that everything is so expensive, and quickly travel on to Chetumal (Mexico) the next day.
Belize is a country that lies hidden between two countries with a certain reputation. I do not really think that it is an exaggeration to state that Belize is something of a fictitious end of the world, as formulated by Huxley. In order to obtain an impression of the country, in which this research took place, the next section gives a general idea of the topographic and climatic characteristics. Besides that, the compilation of the population, the constitutional and political situation, the economic position, the religious context and the multi-lingual structure of the country are discussed successively. Furthermore, it is essential to provide an outline of the historic context in which the various ethnic groups in Belize have taken in their place. In other words: How has this country come to be so multi-ethnic?
Belize, A Central American Country on the Periphery
On 21 September 1981, the former British Honduras becomes independent. This date is the formal end of a process of independence that took seventeen years. In 1964, British Honduras of the time received the right to an internal self-government and in 1973 the name of the country was changed to Belize. With an area of 22,965 km2, Belize is the second smallest country in Central America. El Salvador is smaller (21,393 km2), but has considerably more inhabitants with it’s population of 5.889,000. According to the census of 1991, Belize has just 189,392 (Central Statistical Office 1992). This comes down to eight inhabitants per square kilometer, whereas El Salvador has 275 inhabitants per square kilometer. With that, the two countries are each other’s opposites in Central America, Belize is the most sparsely populated and El Salvador the most densely.
Belize borders on Mexico in the north, on Guatemala in the west and the south, and on the east the country borders on the Caribbean Sea. The area along the coast consists mostly of marshland with dense mangrove forests, mouths of rivers, lagoons and, every now and again, a sandy beach. Countless small and large rivers, that have played a crucial part in the infrastructure throughout the centuries, run through the country. Much of the wood chopped in the inland found and finds its way towards its destination at the coast via these waterways. It can rain abundantly in Belize in the months May to November, especially in the south, and then the waterways swell up to become rapid rivers.
The climatic conditions in Belize vary from tropical in the south to subtropical in the north. The climate is warm and the temperature varies between twenty-seven and forty degrees Celsius. It was especially the humidity, with an average of 85% in the southern part of the country that drew heavily on the physical condition of this researcher. The country officially has two seasons. The dry season, that lasts from November to June, and the wet season from June to November. During the wet season, tropical depressions regularly develop in the Caribbean region that reveal themselves as hurricanes. For this reason, this season is also called the hurricane season. This destructive force of nature has hit Belize several times in this century. The hurricanes of 1931, 1955 and 1961 have not failed to leave behind a trail of disaster.
The season in which it is relatively dryer than the rest of the year takes up a few months in the north (February to May), while in the south it only lasts several weeks (Dobson 1973:4). In fact, there is no telling what the weather will do in Belize. A Belizean friend of mine says the following on this matter: ‘We have two seasons here, a dry and a wet season; they generally take place on one and the same day’. Read more
The Spinoza Web is a website that seeks to make the Dutch philosopher Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) accessible to a wide range of users from interested novices to advanced scholars, and everything in between. It is a continually developing, active project whose success depends on its users. Please contact us with feedback, suggestions, and ideas!
At present our website offers two points of entry. The ‘Timeline Experience’ tells the story of Spinoza, using rich graphic and other supporting material through which the user can navigate to enter and experience his very world. The ‘Database Search’ is a gateway to an enormous repository for the study of Spinoza, whose goal is eventually to assemble all first-hand documentation pertaining to him. Attractively designed without compromising on scholarly standards, our website promotes a source-based contextual approach to Spinoza who, revered and reviled, has had countless rumours and myths attached to his name over the course of the centuries.
The Spinoza Web is a creation of the ‘Spinoza’s Web’-project of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Utrecht University, funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). It traces back to an early initiative of its main executive, Jeroen van de Ven, and was implemented by the project’s principal investigator, Piet Steenbakkers, who had entertained a long-time wish for a website dedicated to Spinoza. In 2014 postdoctoral researcher Albert Gootjes joined their ranks in a largely advisory capacity. Later that year the team commissioned the Rotterdam-based advertising agency Nijgh, which gladly welcomed the new challenge of combining creative inspiration with scholarly rigour.
After extensive planning and user tests, November 2016 saw the beta release of The Spinoza Web, notably featuring the ‘Timeline Experience’ and Database with entries largely based on the historical and bibliographical research by Jeroen van de Ven. Subsequent releases are scheduled to boost the ‘Database Search’ by making available in open access Spinoza’s writings both in their original editions and in an authoritative English translation. Further plans include the addition of an interactive element facilitating Spinoza studies. To help us realize our pursuits, we welcome all contributions including but not limited to financial support. Potential contributors are encouraged to get in touch using the Contact page.
We see an organized anti worker, anti minority, anti immigrant, anti woman, anti LGBTQ, anti ecological, pro imperial, incarceration minded, surveillance employing, authoritarian reaction proliferating around the world. It calls itself right wing populist but is arguably more accurately termed neofascist. It preys on fear as well as often warranted anger. It manipulates and misleads with false promises and outright lies. It is trying to create an international alliance. Courageous responses are emerging and will proliferate around issue after issue, and in country after country. These responses will challenge the unworthy emotions, the vicious lies, and the vile policies. They will reject right wing rollback and repression. But to ward off an international, multi issue, reactionary assault shouldn’t we be internationalist and multi issue? Shouldn’t we reject reaction but also seek positive, forward looking, inspiring progress? To those ends:
We stand for the growing activism on behalf of progressive change around the world, and their positive campaigns for a better world, and we stand against the rising reactionary usurpers of power around the world and their lies, manipulations, and policies.
We stand for peace, human rights, and international law against the conditions, mentalities, institutions, weapons and dissemination of weapons that breed and nurture war and injustice.
We stand for healthcare, education, housing, and jobs against war and military spending.
We stand for internationalism, indigenous, and native rights, and a democratic foreign policy against empire, dictatorship, and political and religious fundamentalism.
We stand for justice against economic, political, and cultural institutions that promote huge economic and power inequalities, corporate domination, privatization, wage slavery, racism, gender and sexual hierarchy, and the devolution of human kindness and wisdom under assault by celebrated authority and enforced passivity.
We stand for democracy and autonomy against authoritarianism and subjugation. We stand for prisoner rights against prison profiteering. We stand for participation against surveillance. We stand for freedom and equity against repression and control.
We stand for national sovereignty against occupation and apartheid. We oppose overtly brutal regimes everywhere. We oppose less overtly brutal but still horribly constricting electoral subversion, government and corporate surveillance, and mass media manipulation.
We stand for equity against exploitation by corporations of their workers and consumers and by empires of subordinated countries. We stand for solidarity of and with the poor and the excluded everywhere.
We stand for diversity against homogeneity and for dignity against racism. We stand for multi-cultural, internationalist, community rights, against cultural, economic, and social repression of immigrants and other subordinated communities in our own countries and around the world.
We stand for gender equality against misogyny and machismo. We stand for sexual freedom against sexual repression, homogenization, homophobia, and transphobia.
We stand for ecological wisdom against the destruction of forests, soil, water, environmental resources, and the biodiversity on which all life depends. We stand for ecological sanity against ecological suicide.
We stand for a world whose political, economic, and social institutions foster solidarity, promote equity, maximize participation, celebrate diversity, and encourage full democracy.
We will not be a least common denominator single issue or single focus coalition. We will be a massive movement of movements with a huge range of concerns, ideas, and aims, united by what we stand for and against.
We will enjoy and be strengthened by shared respect and mutual aid while we together reject sectarian hostilities and posturing.
We stand for and pledge to work for peace and justice.
We the initial signers of this “We Stand” statement, listed to the left of this page, upon reaching a critical mass of total signers will consult all signers and collectively discuss and use vote tallying from all signers to join with many other emerging efforts to arrive at more specific demands for warding off reaction, winning worthy gains in the present, and developing grounds upon which to pursue more fundamental changes in the future.
Gaining further numbers, we will all together begin, if we haven’t already, coalescing with our neighbors and work and schoolmates to explore how to best fight against reaction and for our positive demands.
After culling significant shared experiences if possible we will begin to hold gatherings and even conventions in our various countries to join with others to create lasting organizational vehicles and program to continue pursuing our collective agendas.
We initial signers, will seek support, promote unity, and collectively facilitate the emergence of effective means for collective participatory policy-making and program development by all signers as best we can.