I’ve got health care.

DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) doesn’t affect me.

I’ve got a job.

I’m not an immigrant.

Addressing the question “if it doesn’t affect me directly, why should I care?”, it’s crucial to understand the broader impact of community organizations. Understanding and evaluating community organizations requires a multifaceted approach. By considering their effectiveness, transparency, coalition-building efforts, and legitimacy indicators, you can make informed decisions about which organizations to support and engage with. Remember that while an organization’s impact may not always be immediately apparent to you personally, their work often contributes to broader societal improvements that can benefit everyone in the long term.

For full article We Need Organizations CLICK HERE

For full article CLICK HERE

IN TIMES OF TRUMP DISMANTLING AMERICAN GOVERNMENT 

Comprehensive Strategies to Regain Control and Protect Democratic Institutions from Systematic Dismantling

# Immediate Action Strategies

The success of these strategies depends on coordinated action across multiple sectors and sustained commitment to democratic principles. The research suggests that combining legal mechanisms, civil society action, and international support provides the most effective approach to protecting and restoring democratic institutions.

Comprehensive Strategies to Regain Control and Protect Democratic Institutions from Systematic Dismantling

Freedom of Assembly – A Constitutional Right

# Immediate Action Strategies

## 1. Legal and Constitutional Mechanisms

– Utilize judicial review to challenge unconstitutional executive actions, as established by Marbury v. Madison [[1]]

– Leverage existing checks and balances systems to limit executive overreach [[2]]

– Employ legislative oversight tools, including:

  – Congressional hearings

  – Investigations

  – Strategic use of funding controls [[2]]

## 2. Civil Society Response

– Engage with organizations like Civil Service Strong and Partnership for Public Service that specifically work to protect civil service [[3]]

– Support watchdog organizations and legal advocacy groups like Protect Democracy [[4]]

– Mobilize grassroots movements and civil society organizations to:

  – Monitor government actions

  – Expose corruption

  – Lobby for governance reforms [[5]]

## 3. Institutional Protection Measures

### Government Workforce Protection

– Support initiatives defending civil service against political interference

– Work with unions and professional associations to protect government employees

– Document and challenge illegal terminations or restructuring [[3]]

### Democratic Process Protection

– Safeguard election integrity through:

  – Protection against voter suppression

  – Combating disinformation

  – Maintaining election infrastructure [[6]]

## 4. International Cooperation and Support

– Engage with international organizations like International IDEA and UNDP’s Democratic Governance [[7]]

– Utilize international pressure and accountability mechanisms

– Learn from other democracies’ experiences in resisting authoritarian attempts [[8]]

# Long-term Strategic Approaches

## 1. Develop a National Democracy Strategy

– Create a comprehensive plan integrating democracy protection into:

  – Economic policy

  – Social policy

  – Technology policy

  – Diplomatic relations

  – Military considerations [[9]]

## 2. Build Cross-sector Alliances

– Form coalitions between:

  – Civil society organizations

  – Legal professionals

  – Academic institutions

  – Business leaders

  – Pro-democracy politicians [[10]]

## 3. Public Education and Engagement

– Launch public awareness campaigns about democratic institutions

– Educate citizens about their rights and democratic processes

– Foster civic participation and engagement [[5]]

## 4. Media and Technology Strategy

– Support independent journalism

– Combat disinformation through fact-checking initiatives

– Engage technology companies in protecting democratic processes [[11]]

# Success Indicators from Historical Examples

Historical examples show that democratic institutions can recover from systematic dismantling attempts. Key lessons include:

1. **Post-WWII Germany and Japan**: Successful reconstruction required:

– Strong constitutional frameworks

– International support

– Economic rebuilding

– Democratic institution building [[12]]

2. **Eastern European Transitions**: Demonstrated the importance of:

– Civil society movements

– International support

– Economic reforms

– Democratic constitution development [[12]]

# Current Public Support

Recent data shows potential for successful resistance:

– High public demand for government reform (49% Democrats, 83% Republicans) [[13]]

– Strong electoral responses against anti-democratic actions

– Growing concern about institutional integrity across political spectrums [[14]]

The success of these strategies depends on coordinated action across multiple sectors and sustained commitment to democratic principles. The research suggests that combining legal mechanisms, civil society action, and international support provides the most effective approach to protecting and restoring democratic institutions.

The phrase “the good old days” typically refers to a nostalgic longing for a past time that individuals perceive as better or simpler than the present. However, the meaning and implications of this phrase can vary significantly depending on the context and the speaker’s perspective: personal memories, cultural context, privilege and exclusion, selective memory, dissatisfaction with modernity. The Good Old Days

timeline: the Last 100 Years

To compare the last century, let’s break this down into key categories: cost of living, wages, population, culture (movies, slang, toys, hairstyles, clothing), and the experiences of marginalized groups highlighting changes over time and providing context for marginalized communities where relevant.

1. Cost of Living and Housing

• 1925: The average cost of a home in the U.S. was around $6,000. Rent was about $20–$60 per month, depending on location. The cost of living was significantly lower, but wages were also much smaller [1].
• 2025: The median home price in the U.S. is now over $400,000, with rent averaging $1,700 per month. Housing costs have skyrocketed, making homeownership increasingly difficult for younger generations.

Marginalized Communities:

In 1925, Black Americans and other marginalized groups faced systemic barriers to homeownership due to redlining and discriminatory lending practices. These inequities persist today, with racial wealth gaps making it harder for marginalized groups to afford homes.

2. Minimum Wage and Wages

• 1925: There was no federal minimum wage in the U.S. until 1938, when it was set at $0.25/hour. Many workers, especially women and minorities, earned far less in informal or agricultural jobs.
• 2025: The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour, though many states have higher rates. However, adjusted for inflation, wages have stagnated since the 1970s, meaning purchasing power has barely increased.

Marginalized Communities:

Historically, women, immigrants, and Black workers were often excluded from wage protections. Today, these groups are still overrepresented in low-wage industries, such as service and caregiving jobs, where wage growth has been slow.

3. World Population

• 1925: The global population was approximately 2 billion.
• 2025: The world population is now over 8 billion, with significant growth in Asia and Africa.

Marginalized Communities:

Population growth has brought challenges like resource scarcity and climate change, which disproportionately affect marginalized communities in developing nations.

4. Movies and Entertainment

• 1925: Silent films dominated, with stars like Charlie Chaplin and Clara Bow. A movie ticket cost $0.25–$0.50. Popular films included The Gold Rush (1925).
• 2025: Movie tickets now average $10–$15. Streaming services dominate entertainment, but blockbuster films like Avatar: The Way of Water (2022) still draw crowds.

Marginalized Communities:

In 1925, Hollywood largely excluded Black actors and other minorities, relegating them to stereotypical roles. Today, representation has improved, but disparities remain in opportunities and pay.

5. Toys and Games

• 1925: Popular toys included teddy bears, yo-yos, and tin soldiers. These were simple and often handmade.
• 2025: Toys are now high-tech, with video games, drones, and AI-powered gadgets dominating the market.

Marginalized Communities:

In the 1920s, toys often reflected societal norms, with few options representing diverse cultures. Today, there’s a growing push for inclusive toys, such as dolls with different skin tones and abilities.

6. Slang Terms

• 1925: Popular slang included terms like “bee’s knees” (something great) and “cat’s pajamas” (something stylish).
• 2025: Modern slang is heavily influenced by internet culture, with terms like “slay” (to succeed) and “vibe” (a mood or feeling).

Marginalized Communities:

Slang has often originated in marginalized communities, particularly Black and LGBTQ+ cultures, before being adopted by mainstream society.

7. Hairstyles and Clothing

• 1925: Women embraced the bob haircut and flapper dresses, symbolizing liberation. Men wore tailored suits and hats.
• 2025: Hairstyles are diverse, with natural hair movements celebrating Black hair textures. Clothing trends are casual, with athleisure dominating.

Marginalized Communities:

In the 1920s, Black women faced pressure to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. Today, natural hair movements challenge these norms, promoting acceptance of diverse styles.

8. Marginalized Communities: Then and Now

• 1925: Segregation, lack of voting rights, and systemic discrimination defined the experiences of many marginalized groups. Women had just gained the right to vote in 1920, but opportunities were limited.
• 2025: While progress has been made, systemic inequities persist. Wage gaps, housing discrimination, and underrepresentation in media and politics continue to affect marginalized groups.

Black and White

Population Trends Over the Last 100 Years

1. Early 20th Century (1920s-1950s):

• In the early 20th century, the U.S. population was overwhelmingly white, with white Americans making up approximately 90% of the population. Immigration policies, such as the Immigration Act of 1924, heavily restricted non-European immigration, reinforcing this demographic dominance.
• People of color, including African Americans, Native Americans, and smaller populations of Asian and Hispanic Americans, made up a much smaller percentage of the population.

1. Mid-20th Century (1960s-1980s):

• The Civil Rights Movement and changes in immigration laws, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, began to reshape the racial makeup of the U.S. population.
• The African American population grew steadily, while immigration from Latin America and Asia increased significantly, diversifying the population further.

1. Late 20th Century (1990s-2000s):

• By the 1990s, the percentage of white Americans began to decline as immigration surged and birth rates among people of color outpaced those of white Americans.
• The Hispanic/Latino population, in particular, grew rapidly, becoming the largest minority group in the U.S.

Current Trends and Projections

1. Current Demographics:

• As of the 2020 Census, non-Hispanic white Americans made up about 57.8% of the population, a significant decline from the 1960s when they accounted for over 85% [1].
• People of color, including Hispanic/Latino, Black, Asian, and multiracial individuals, now make up a growing share of the population. For example, children of color became the majority of U.S. youth by 2020 [2].

1. Future Projections:

• The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2045, non-Hispanic white Americans will fall below 50% of the total population, making the U.S. a “majority-minority” nation[3].
• This shift is driven by higher birth rates among people of color and the aging of the white population. Generation Z is expected to be the last generation with a white majority, while Generation Alpha (born after 2010) will grow up in a majority-minority society [3].

Key Factors Driving These Changes

Immigration from Latin America, Asia, and Africa has been a major driver of population growth among people of color since the mid-20th century. Birth rates among Hispanic and Black populations have historically been higher than those of white Americans, contributing to the demographic shift. The white population is aging rapidly, with lower birth rates and higher mortality rates compared to other racial and ethnic groups.

The strongman leaders, oligarchs and White Christian nationalists have declared war on Blacks. The only way we will survive is to build coalitions. What are your thoughts on the demographics above?

Over the last century, the U.S. has transitioned from a predominantly white nation to one of increasing racial and ethnic diversity. This trend is expected to continue, with people of color projected to outnumber white Americans by 2045. The only way Black people will survive is to build a broad coalition with people of color, lower economic communities and the internationally disenfranchised.

When the choice is tyranny or revolution, to keep your head in the sand is to choose tyranny. If you choose revolution the question is nonviolent or violent.

THE SCENARIO

1. A presidential candidate has won the election and gained control over all branches of government.
2. The new administration refuses to follow court rulings and historical norms.
3. Democratic processes and checks and balances have broken down.
4. The leadership style is modeled after authoritarian regimes like Russia, North Korea, and China.

This situation represents a significant threat to democratic institutions and the rule of law, which are fundamental to a functioning democracy

Can We Trust This Man?

OPTIONS FOR GRASSROOTS MOVEMENTS

Thorough preparation—medical waivers, property checklists, legal contacts—minimizes harm and maximizes impact…….Organized, pre-notified actions are safer and more effective than spur-of-the-moment protests.

Attorney Jeffry Finer speaks to Spokane Raging Grannies workshop: CLICK LINK Navigating Civil Disobedience

In such a scenario, grassroots movements and civil society organizations face a critical decision: whether to accept the new regime or to resist. Based on historical examples and research on civil resistance, there are several potential courses of action:

1. Nonviolent Revolution

Historically, nonviolent revolutions have been more successful and led to more stable democratic outcomes than violent uprisings. Research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan has shown that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to succeed as violent ones.

Strategies for nonviolent revolution could include:

a) Mass Mobilization: Organizing large-scale protests, strikes, and boycotts to demonstrate widespread opposition to the regime. This was effectively used in the Philippines People Power Revolution (1986) and the U.S. Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1960s).

b) Civil Disobedience: Engaging in coordinated acts of nonviolent resistance, such as sit-ins, blockades, or refusal to pay taxes. The Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi successfully employed these tactics.

c) Alternative Institutions: Creating parallel governance structures or “shadow governments” to challenge the legitimacy of the regime and provide essential services to the population.

d) International Solidarity: Appealing to international organizations and foreign governments for support and sanctions against the regime. This strategy was crucial in the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement.

2. Civic Engagement and Grassroots Organizing

Even in challenging political environments, there are legal and peaceful methods to resist authoritarianism:

a) Stakeholder Engagement: Identifying and mobilizing key stakeholders who can influence the political process.

b) Effective Communication: Using clear, consistent messaging to articulate grievances and demands.

c) Technology and Social Media: Leveraging digital platforms for organizing, information sharing, and mobilizing support.

d) Educational Interventions: Implementing programs to promote civic engagement and democratic values.

e) Building Trust and Relationships: Establishing networks of trust within communities to strengthen resistance efforts.

3. Seeking International Support

Grassroots movements can appeal to international democratic support systems and diplomatic channels:

a) International Organizations: Engaging with bodies like the UN, OSCE, and International IDEA to highlight democratic backsliding and seek support.

b) Foreign Diplomatic Pressure: Encouraging democratic nations to exert diplomatic pressure on the regime, similar to Sweden’s “Drive for Democracy” initiative.

c) NGO Partnerships: Collaborating with international NGOs like Freedom House to document and publicize human rights violations and democratic erosion.

Violent Revolution as a Last Resort

While violent revolution might seem like an option, it’s important to note that:

1. Violent uprisings are statistically less likely to succeed than nonviolent movements.
2. They often lead to prolonged conflict and instability.
3. Violent revolutions can delegitimize the movement in the eyes of both domestic and international observers.
4. They may provide justification for increased repression by the regime.

Related thoughts for your consideration from a Facebook reel:

Conclusion

In the face of democratic breakdown and the rise of authoritarianism, grassroots movements have historically been most successful when employing nonviolent strategies. These strategies, combined with effective civic engagement and international support, offer the best chance for restoring democratic norms and institutions.

The choice between accepting tyranny and forming a revolution is a complex one, with significant consequences. However, the historical record suggests that nonviolent revolutions, when well-organized and widely supported, can be effective in challenging even the most entrenched authoritarian regimes.

It’s crucial for grassroots movements to carefully consider their options, build broad coalitions, and maintain a commitment to nonviolent tactics to maximize their chances of success and minimize the risk of further destabilization or violence.

By Robert Lloyd

When the choice is tyranny or revolution, to keep your head in the sand is to choose tyranny. If you choose revolution the question is nonviolent or violent.

The Scenario

1. A presidential candidate has won the election and gained control over all branches of government.
2. The new administration refuses to follow court rulings and historical norms.
3. Democratic processes and checks and balances have broken down.
4. The leadership style is modeled after authoritarian regimes like Russia, North Korea, and China.

This situation represents a significant threat to democratic institutions and the rule of law, which are fundamental to a functioning democracy.

Options for Grassroots Movements

In such a scenario, grassroots movements and civil society organizations face a critical decision: whether to accept the new regime or to resist. Based on historical examples and research on civil resistance, there are several potential courses of action:

1. Nonviolent Revolution

Historically, nonviolent revolutions have been more successful and led to more stable democratic outcomes than violent uprisings. Research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan has shown that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to succeed as violent ones.

Strategies for nonviolent revolution could include:

a) Mass Mobilization: Organizing large-scale protests, strikes, and boycotts to demonstrate widespread opposition to the regime. This was effectively used in the Philippines People Power Revolution (1986) and the U.S. Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1960s).

b) Civil Disobedience: Engaging in coordinated acts of nonviolent resistance, such as sit-ins, blockades, or refusal to pay taxes. The Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi successfully employed these tactics.

c) Alternative Institutions: Creating parallel governance structures or “shadow governments” to challenge the legitimacy of the regime and provide essential services to the population.

d) International Solidarity: Appealing to international organizations and foreign governments for support and sanctions against the regime. This strategy was crucial in the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement.

2. Civic Engagement and Grassroots Organizing

Even in challenging political environments, there are legal and peaceful methods to resist authoritarianism:

a) Stakeholder Engagement: Identifying and mobilizing key stakeholders who can influence the political process.

b) Effective Communication: Using clear, consistent messaging to articulate grievances and demands.

c) Technology and Social Media: Leveraging digital platforms for organizing, information sharing, and mobilizing support.

d) Educational Interventions: Implementing programs to promote civic engagement and democratic values.

e) Building Trust and Relationships: Establishing networks of trust within communities to strengthen resistance efforts.

3. Seeking International Support

Grassroots movements can appeal to international democratic support systems and diplomatic channels:

a) International Organizations: Engaging with bodies like the UN, OSCE, and International IDEA to highlight democratic backsliding and seek support.

b) Foreign Diplomatic Pressure: Encouraging democratic nations to exert diplomatic pressure on the regime, similar to Sweden’s “Drive for Democracy” initiative.

c) NGO Partnerships: Collaborating with international NGOs like Freedom House to document and publicize human rights violations and democratic erosion.

Violent Revolution as a Last Resort

While violent revolution might seem like an option, it’s important to note that:

1. Violent uprisings are statistically less likely to succeed than nonviolent movements.
2. They often lead to prolonged conflict and instability.
3. Violent revolutions can delegitimize the movement in the eyes of both domestic and international observers.
4. They may provide justification for increased repression by the regime.

Conclusion

In the face of democratic breakdown and the rise of authoritarianism, grassroots movements have historically been most successful when employing nonviolent strategies. These strategies, combined with effective civic engagement and international support, offer the best chance for restoring democratic norms and institutions.

The choice between accepting tyranny and forming a revolution is a complex one, with significant consequences. However, the historical record suggests that nonviolent revolutions, when well-organized and widely supported, can be effective in challenging even the most entrenched authoritarian regimes.

It’s crucial for grassroots movements to carefully consider their options, build broad coalitions, and maintain a commitment to nonviolent tactics to maximize their chances of success and minimize the risk of further destabilization or violence.

When tyranny and revolution appear to be the choices, which do you think we ought to choose? The choice should be made with deep thought. If you keep your head in the sand and refuse to recognize the current conditions, you have chosen tyranny.

By Robert Lloyd

When the choice is tyranny or revolution, to keep your head in the sand is to choose tyranny. If you choose revolution the question is nonviolent or violent.

The Scenario

1. A presidential candidate has won the election and gained control over all branches of government.
2. The new administration refuses to follow court rulings and historical norms.
3. Democratic processes and checks and balances have broken down.
4. The leadership style is modeled after authoritarian regimes like Russia, North Korea, and China.

This situation represents a significant threat to democratic institutions and the rule of law, which are fundamental to a functioning democracy.

Options for Grassroots Movements

In such a scenario, grassroots movements and civil society organizations face a critical decision: whether to accept the new regime or to resist. Based on historical examples and research on civil resistance, there are several potential courses of action:

1. Nonviolent Revolution

Historically, nonviolent revolutions have been more successful and led to more stable democratic outcomes than violent uprisings. Research by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan has shown that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to succeed as violent ones.

Strategies for nonviolent revolution could include:

a) Mass Mobilization: Organizing large-scale protests, strikes, and boycotts to demonstrate widespread opposition to the regime. This was effectively used in the Philippines People Power Revolution (1986) and the U.S. Civil Rights Movement (1950s-1960s).

b) Civil Disobedience: Engaging in coordinated acts of nonviolent resistance, such as sit-ins, blockades, or refusal to pay taxes. The Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi successfully employed these tactics.

c) Alternative Institutions: Creating parallel governance structures or “shadow governments” to challenge the legitimacy of the regime and provide essential services to the population.

d) International Solidarity: Appealing to international organizations and foreign governments for support and sanctions against the regime. This strategy was crucial in the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement.

2. Civic Engagement and Grassroots Organizing

Even in challenging political environments, there are legal and peaceful methods to resist authoritarianism:

a) Stakeholder Engagement: Identifying and mobilizing key stakeholders who can influence the political process.

b) Effective Communication: Using clear, consistent messaging to articulate grievances and demands.

c) Technology and Social Media: Leveraging digital platforms for organizing, information sharing, and mobilizing support.

d) Educational Interventions: Implementing programs to promote civic engagement and democratic values.

e) Building Trust and Relationships: Establishing networks of trust within communities to strengthen resistance efforts.

3. Seeking International Support

Grassroots movements can appeal to international democratic support systems and diplomatic channels:

a) International Organizations: Engaging with bodies like the UN, OSCE, and International IDEA to highlight democratic backsliding and seek support.

b) Foreign Diplomatic Pressure: Encouraging democratic nations to exert diplomatic pressure on the regime, similar to Sweden’s “Drive for Democracy” initiative.

c) NGO Partnerships: Collaborating with international NGOs like Freedom House to document and publicize human rights violations and democratic erosion.

Violent Revolution as a Last Resort

While violent revolution might seem like an option, it’s important to note that:

1. Violent uprisings are statistically less likely to succeed than nonviolent movements.
2. They often lead to prolonged conflict and instability.
3. Violent revolutions can delegitimize the movement in the eyes of both domestic and international observers.
4. They may provide justification for increased repression by the regime. https://www.facebook.com/share/r/17TFpc6tdu/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Conclusion

In the face of democratic breakdown and the rise of authoritarianism, grassroots movements have historically been most successful when employing nonviolent strategies. These strategies, combined with effective civic engagement and international support, offer the best chance for restoring democratic norms and institutions.

The choice between accepting tyranny and forming a revolution is a complex one, with significant consequences. However, the historical record suggests that nonviolent revolutions, when well-organized and widely supported, can be effective in challenging even the most entrenched authoritarian regimes.

It’s crucial for grassroots movements to carefully consider their options, build broad coalitions, and maintain a commitment to nonviolent tactics to maximize their chances of success and minimize the risk of further destabilization or violence.

When tyranny and revolution appear to be the choices, which do you think we ought to choose? The choice should be made with deep thought. If you keep your head in the sand and refuse to recognize the current conditions, you have chosen tyranny.

But if you choose revolution the question is nonviolent or violent.

JOIN FIGHTING FEAR

Visit the Empowerment page. It provides examples of how you can be empowered. Feel free to look around 4comculture.com. Please also do research outside of the site.

We have many styles but we are uniting. For unity with purpose. Buy a sign place it in your yard or window let us know that you’re with us.

The exhibition is a subtle reminder of where bigotry begins. I am placing myself outside my comfort zone in order to build my path to tolerance as an artist and a human being. I’ve often heard it said that we are all in this together.  Now I am seeking a consensus on where we can build common ground, around issues that we can support together. If you would like to help build a grassroots movement click on the image below and print it. Gather signatures and email addresses and mail them to: Robert Lloyd 3314 S. Grand Blvd. Spokane WA 99203.

Those of you in the Spokane area who have seen the show and would like to receive a print collect at least 25 signatures and email addresses and bring the list to the reception on Oct 4 4:30 – 6 pm at the JFK Library at Eastern Washington University. You will receive an unframed 11×14 matted print at the end of the show.

Rev. Walter Kendricks, Pres. of SCAR (Spokane Community Against Racism)

Cecily Wright, Chairwoman of the Spokane County Republican Party, invited James Allsup, alt-right provocateur and member of Identity Evropa, to speak before Republican legislators and office holders at a Northwest Grassroots meeting in the Spokane Valley. The Rev. Walter Kendricks MC’d a demonstration at the Spokane County Courthouse where speakers expressed their disapproval and to asked for the resignation of these Republican politicians. The demonstrators also condemned all those who invited him, listened to him, and did not walk out or stand up against white supremacists and their message.

This Is How I Saw It: Our Concerned Citizens

Click to view slideshow.

Photos by Robert J. Lloyd

See the Spokesman Review article by Chad Sokol:

Spokane GOP chairwoman defends alt-right provocateur James Allsup at tea party meeting

This Is How Allsup Is To Be Seen:

Here is what Allsup is about

“We cannot podcast, livestream, or tweet our way to victory,” said Allsup. “We can only change consciousness so much before we have to start changing the political infrastructure.”

This change, according to Allsup, started with taking over vacant seats in Republican offices. “The Republican party is comprised largely of white, aging, baby-boomers,” he said. “And as baby-boomers age out, the positions they hold will become vacant all throughout society and somebody will have to fill them.

This doesn’t just include elected offices but state representatives, county commissioners, precinct officers, and county party chairs as well. Allsup himself was a precinct officer; he said it takes up about five hours of his time per week.”

For all the publicity alt-right groups receive for cross burnings and tiki-torch protests, their ultimate goal is to become invisible, inserting themselves into the mainstream political process. Groups like I.E. adopt the business casual uniforms of polo shirts and khakis, and have strict rules against using “vulgar language” or mentioning “divisive topics” like National Socialism or the Third Reich. The rule prohibiting “vulgar language” states that “in order to foster a more positive culture for our people’s future, the use of crude and unbecoming language is not permitted. This includes, without limitation, excessive cursing, and any use of vulgar racial epithets.”

From: My Weekend With White Nationalists by Samuel Argyle June 18, 2018

Video of Allsup’s speech

First Thursday Meeting At East Central Community Center Aug 2nd 10 AM 500 S Stone St.

Information on First Thursday Coffee Discussion

“This” is our Values:

Can We Get Consensus On This?

We believe in justice for all * We believe in lifting up the disadvantaged * We believe in dismantling unjust criminalization systems * We believe in equal protection under the law * We believe in ending poverty * We believe in ending systemic racism * We believe in ending the war economy * We believe in ending ecological devastation * We believe in building unity across lines of division * We believe in a moral narrative that is concerned with how society treats the marginalized * We believe in transforming the political, economic, and moral structures of our society * We believe in working toward non-partisan goals * We believe in sustained moral direct action * We believe in nonviolence

“We” are the supporters.

If you are a supporter, please type the following in the Leave a Comment box:

I am a supporter of these principles.
Signature
Organization

We would like to evaluate the commitment level of our supporters. Are they Actors, Allies, or Accomplices? You can help us by canvasing friends and organizations with this form. Click for printable form.

See below for definitions of Actor, Ally, and Accomplice.

Accomplice

The actions of an Accomplice are meant to directly challenge institutionalized racism, colonization, and White supremacy by blocking or impeding racist people, policies, and structures. Realizing that our freedoms and liberations are bound together, retreat or withdrawal in the face of oppressive structures is not an option.  Accomplices’ actions are informed by, directed and often coordinated with leaders who are Black, Brown First Nations/Indigenous Peoples, and/or People of Color. Accomplices actively listen with respect, and understand that oppressed people are not monolithic in their tactics and beliefs. Accomplices aren’t motivated by personal guilt or shame. They are not emotionally fragile. Accomplices build trust through consent and being accountable – this means not acting in isolation where there is no accountability.