Skip to main content

If you're reading these words, then the title of the diary, which I admit is very ambitious, got your attention.  So now my job is to deliver on it.  You'll be the final judge on whether I'm successful at it.

I'll go straight to the essence of what I'm proposing: A powerful and broad-based social justice and anti-corruption campaign focused on overwhelming the damaging influence-peddling impact of billionaires-funded propaganda on our socio-economic system.

The concept I'm proposing in simple to explain, but at the same time it is something which (to my knowledge) has never been done before, and I believe that therein lies its power.

There are really great social justice, progressive, anti-poverty, anti-corruption, civil rights, and clean-government activist organizations in the U.S.  They are all doing great work.  But I'm afraid they are no match for the 24/7 onslaught of influence-peddling propaganda paid for by all manner of shadowy corporatist groups who have not only taken over most of the mass media, but over a debased class of politicians across the country, starting at your local city council, all the way up to Washington, D.C.

In order to muster a powerful and effective front against the parasitic billionaire sociopaths and their myriad of shadowy groups destroying this country, there would have to be a way for all the progressive activist groups to act in concert, in collaboration, against a common set of enemies of democracy, who are indeed acting in concert against the people.

I've been around non-profits and community organizations for years, as a consultant.  Here's one challenge I see: They spend an extraordinary amount of time trying to raise funds so they can accomplish their stated missions and also pay the salary of their executives and the staff.  I'm not criticizing that; that's basically the only way you can run this type of organization.

Because of these "funding" dynamics, many organizations rely on grants from philanthropic organizations, from their local city governments, and from corporations, like AT&T, Comcast, Wells Fargo, etc.  Most progressive organizations also rely heavily on contributions by the public.

These dynamics create certain constraints which at the end render the overall effect of these organizations ineffective in the face of the relentless onslaught of lies, misinformation, and actions being taken by corporatist cartels against the populace.

Each organization then ends up competing for scarce funds and starts depending on "reliable" funding sources, which many times end up being philanthropic groups (themselves funded by the wealthy and corporations), and big business.

Harnessing The Power and Wisdom of The Crowd

I'm aware that many people say that one of the main challenges Occupy Wall Street had was their adherence to the concept of "leaderless" resistance.  Some say that, because if it, it lacked the focus needed to be effective against the so-called 1 percent.

I understand the criticism, and I also understand the reasons for embracing leaderless resistance.  But, regardless, for any movement to be effective, what it can't lack is direction.  There has to be a clear understanding of where we want to go and the direction we need to follow to get there.

After thinking about these challenges for quite some time, here's the idea I came up with:  The formation of a broad-based but highly organized, focused, strategic, and cohesive movement capable of maximizing the power and wisdom of the crowd.

Do you know who the "leader" of the fascistic parasitic sociopathic corporatist/financial criminal cartel who's destroying democracy in the U.S., and Greece, and Spain, and the U.K., and France, and Canada, et al, is?  I will venture to guess that you don't.  I don't know, either, but I do know that "they" are the enemy.

Let's mimic what they're doing, but let's do it in the name of decency, democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution.

We start with 10 "Public Servants."  Each will adopt a nom de guerre (an alias).  They will be highly skilled, educated, professional, with broad experience.  They could come from all walks of life, or socio-economic level, be of any ethnicity.  One could be a retired corporate executive who now sees the light and wants to do good for society; another one could be a homeless man in Los Angeles, but one who is very intelligent and can bring a fresh perspective to the "leadership" group.  Another could be an ad or marketing pro from Madison Avenue.  Another one could be a Kossack, or someone from CREDO, or MoveOn, etc.

These anonymous public servants will serve for, let's say, six months, at which time a new set of 10 will be chosen by the public, and this will happen every six months...

Checks And Balances: There have to be check-and-balance mechanisms to prevent any one person, or faction, from ever being able to take over the group for eternity.

The mission: The mission of this highly dynamic and intelligent group will be to come up with very specific strategies to not only resist the onslaught of the parasitic sociopathic corporatist cartels, but to destroy them completely, total annihilation, in favor of real democracy, of real sustainable free-market principles, of education, and enlightenment in society.

This group will come up with anti-corruption and social justice activism strategies which will then be presented to the people for consideration.  Then we'll move forward after consensus is reached.

I strongly suggest that a very powerful public education and anti-propaganda advertising and marketing campaign be part of the mission.

Finances: Here's where I think this could turn out to be very, very powerful... The sadistic sociopathic billionaires and their corporatist cartels derive their power from money.  That's how they have been able to buy off the treasonous political establishment (of both corrupt parties in the U.S., and much of Europe).

No one person, group of persons, or factions in this model I'm proposing will ever be able to have sole control over the finances.  Not one cent will go to pay for salaries of executives or staff, or office space, or phone bills, etc.  One hundred percent of the funds will be used to help energize a laser-beam with the power of 10,000 suns which we will forthwith aim towards the direction of the criminal sociopathic corporatist/financial cartels who are engaged in looting the country's coffers and destroying democracy.

The public, thus assured, then pours money into the movement.  At all times, the exact balance of the funds available will be public information.  When the "amorphous" group of the "Ten Monks" or public servants decides on a project, it will then present it to the rest of the members for a public vote.  There would have to be a mechanism to prevent right-wing trolls from dirtying the process.

And there you have it!  The issue of easily-identifiable leaders being susceptible to being targeted either through bribery, violence, or intimidation, is removed, while at the same time you harness the power and wisdom of the crowd (the citizens) via the ten elected wisemen (and women), and this creates momentum, and then the concept spreads from country to country... When the corrupt governments on-the-take try to use their fascistic tools they've built--the total information-awareness police state--to continue dominating the population at the behest of their criminal sadistic sociopathic billionaires-funded corporatist/financial cartels, they will be unable to.

The thing would have run away from their control.  And now it's pay-back, baby!  This model, this concept, is meant to help build a global revolution, pronto.

With the ten wisemen (and women) changing every six months, all using assumed nom de guerres (aliases), who are they going to target for bribery or intimidation?  It's a beautiful thing... Like murmurations (see video below).

Action: I want to take what I just explained here to the operation level; I want to get it going now.  I set up a "Social Justice National Ad Campaign" with the purpose of kick-starting this idea; to make it real.  The first thing I'd like to do is to recruit the first ten people to serve the first six month.  Because I'm proposing this idea, I'm going to take the liberty to self-appoint myself as one of the first ten.  But what I really would like to see happen is that we get this going, and after six months I step out of the way and watch this thing take off.  There are practical reasons for this.  Any one person who is able to get something like this going will be targeted; that's a certainty.  So my intention is to hopefully light the match and then get out of the way.  I'm not doing this to be the leader of anything...

Ray Pensador | Email List | Twitter | Facebook | Social Justice National Ad Campaign

Some energy driving us... Murmurations
The current state of affairs.  Let's change it!


Originally posted to Ray Pensador on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:28 AM PST.

Also republished by American Legislative Transparency Project.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Um, so how are we supposed to vette (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    imchange, Ray Pensador, Jim Tietz

    these anonymous leaders if we don't know who they are?  I'm sorry, I just don't get how this is supposed to work.  Can you clarify the selection process please?

    •  It would be something similar to what we do (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crimson Slip

      here at Daily Kos.  Most users here are anonymous.  Most people use pseudonyms, and we don't know their real names, where they work, their races, where they went to school, etc.  And yet, this wonderful community allows people to size each other up, to build reputations, to share their insights and ideas, and to build trust.

      For example, based on what I know about people here, I could easily pick ten people and asked them if they would like to be the first ten to serve.  But I would rather let others do that (as long as you guys leave one little six-month space for me).

      I thought about this idea for years, and I feel confident I can answer any questions to clarify the concept; but most importantly, I'm interested in having others take off with the idea and see where it goes.

      •  Okay, but I need specificity... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador, Emmy

        What is the mechanism for nominating, voting, etc.?

        In other words, where do I go to type in a name for nomination?

        Where is discussion held about this person?

        Where will I click a button to vote?

        What is the time-frame?

        How will you prevent "right-wing trolls" from being nominated / selected?

        Is this all to be done within the confines of DKos or do you have a website setup for this?  How will you drive people to your website?  How will you build consensus that this idea should be followed?  The questions are legion.

        You propose a grand idea.  I know you say you have thought this through, so let's here the details man! :)

        •  I like it! Are you corporate? I can set up the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Crimson Slip

          mechanism covering all your answers at my website,

          The nomination and the voting will be set up there...

          I would set up a forum to start the discussions on the nominations.

          I think Daily Kos is one of the most impactful progressive forums/oranizations in the world, so initially, in order to get this thing going asap, I think we could build on the shared knowledge we have here about different members, and put them forward to be nominated.

          Those nominated could submit an essay as to why we should select them, and then we go ahead and vote.

          Regarding the time frame, I suggest we take about two weeks to get the nominations posted, and then one week to vote.  But I'm open to suggestions on this.

          Regarding prevention of right-wing trolls, I would use a number of anti-spamming tools.  Also as the discussions begin, we'll be able to identify trolls who try to make trouble.  We could elaborate on this more...

          Regarding building consensus, well, what I'm doing here is a first step.  We need a hard-core group of people to back the idea, and then after that, I would gladly offer suggestions regarding outreach.  I have experience in advertising, marketing, and technology, so of course, I have ideas about promoting this concept.

          It could include mainstream advertising and marketing, social media advertising, email newsletters, SEO advertising, rallies, meetings, etc.  

          But keep in mind that as much as I thought about these concepts, I'm only one guy.  I'm trying to have others buy into the concept and contribute their ideas so we can fine-tune it into a powerful and overwhelming force.  I can't do do alone.

          I can set up a prototype of the voting process, and the forums, etc., so people can review and comment until we get it right.

          •  Okay, I'm not convinced but (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ray Pensador

            I'd dare say no-one is convinced at this point.  And as you rightly stated, you're just getting started down the path to convincing us.

            My two-cents, for what it's worth:

            You have the desire to be one of the leaders so lead.

            Put together the website, a fully-functional version.  Build your vision.

            Put together a comprehensive FAQ.  Answer all the questions you receive here and elsewhere with detailed answers.  For example, I asked you about right-wing trolls, you gave me an answer that doesn't really tell me how, specifically, you're going to deal with this answer.  Detail this and put it in your FAQ.

            (As an aside, I frequent the forums of the "patriot" community and the big gun-blogs.  I go to gun shows.  I talk with these types in line at the grocery store.  I speak their language and they have no idea who I really am.  I bring this up because from their perspective, I would be considered a troll if they figured it out, which they won't.  How can you guard against people like me but in your action-space?)

            Set deadlines for nomination, discussion, etc.  Make them realistic ones several months out and hit them.

            Make the website as slick and professional looking as you can.  It's going to cost money but first impressions will be everything here.

            Let people see this is real and they will be more inclined to get on board.

            •  I will do all those things. Regarding the trolls, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Crimson Slip

              I don't think the issue is too hard to address.  When intelligent, sane people are debating an issue in good faith, it comes across in a transparent manner.

              When somebody is not engaged in a good faith effort, and instead has a hidden agenda and opposite purposes, it can be discerned fairly quickly (by perceptive people).

              For example, let's say that an NRA mole join the group just to gather information, etc.  Since what we are standing for is the truth, and the rule of law, and justice, and fairness, and respect for the Constitution, there is no need to act behind close doors; we'll act in public, transparently, for all to see.  In fact, that would be one of the core strengths of the movement.

              So getting back to the supposed NRA troll, what is he going to do?  Spy?  On what?  Everything we're doing is on the open.  If he tries to create trouble by injecting false narratives and fatuous arguments, the rest of the group will be able to see it right away...

              By the way, my vision for this "project" is that it needs to be totally non-partisan, since I believe the two corporate political party establishments are corrupted to the core.

              Yes, I happen to vote Democratic always, but that's another dimension of what I do.  This type of movement would have to be non-partisan, if it is to be regarded as honest.

  •  Every leader says that they (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AnnieR, Ray Pensador

    will step down as soon as it is practicable. But few are willing to actually walk away from power once they achieve it. How can you assure us that you will truly cede control when the time comes? Not to sound untrusting, but none of us wants to overturn our current tyrannical system just to replace it with another tyrant. This is a fair question to ask anyone who proposes to lead a revolution.

    •  I'm pleasantly surprised at your thoughtful (0+ / 0-)

      question, since we usually start interactions in an antagonistic way.  Here's my heartfelt answer to this: The only reason I'm pushing so hard on this idea is because I have been analyzing the challenges we face, for many years now, and I think that if this concept were to be applied it would really bring about a revolutionary change...

      I have no interest in glory, or adulation, or making money out of this, or credit in any way.  I fact, if you think this is a good idea, and are just concerned about my motives, and others share that concern, I would gladly step aside and even give up my initial 6-month role in the ten-person leadership committee.

      Hell, I wouldn't mind if who takes credit for it as long as I see it happen.

      I'm doing this purely out of altruistic intentions.  If others here think it's a good idea and want to run with it, it would really warm my heart.

      •  I have a bad feeling about having (0+ / 0-)

        ten people be in charge of everything. Somehow, they have to be answerable to the people, or we will be their slaves. Lets say they decide that certain members of the prior regime need to pay for their crimes - shouldn't there at least be some check and balance when it comes to the power of the "ten" to imprison or punish?

        •  You lost me there. I'm not sure what you are (0+ / 0-)

          referring to, unless you jest.

          •  The ten people you talk about. (0+ / 0-)

            What makes you think that eventually some of them won't be bad people, and thus why are you not concerned about putting them in charge? Isn't that your idea, to pick 10 people and have them share power?

            •  We will deal with that at the front end, through a (0+ / 0-)

              nomination and voting process, and also by limiting their tenure to six months only.  Bad apples could be quickly identified.  I think the concept has safeguard mechanism built-in.

              •  Unless they themselves have a greater (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ray Pensador

                power that they must answer to (or a constitution), it is only a matter of time before they cancel the six-month thing and install themselves perpetually. You need an enforcement mechanism to ensure that the ten will always do the right thing.

                •  We'll set up some sort of bylaws or founding (0+ / 0-)

                  articles specifying that this rule can never be violated.  Adherents to the movement will vote for ten new members of the leadership committee every six months, and they will act under the supervision of the the voters.

                  •  But what about non-adherents? (0+ / 0-)

                    They don't vote? How are they going to feel about being ruled by an oligarchy that they are not entitled to vote for? I think you need to allow everyone the vote, especially since the prior regime (at least on paper) offered universal suffrage. I myself wouldn't support a revolution that didn't offer a democratic future, including universal suffrage.

  •  Move one rock (0+ / 0-)

    Personal level action- do one thing that moves towards your goals. Then do another.

    In my Main Street days, I would say that all we did was move one rock one foot each day. Nobody thought we were doing much, It was totally below radar, but at the end of a year, a lot of rocks had turned into an outline of the whole building. At which point, other people built the rest of it.  

    So I agree that there are too many small organizations, political and nonprofit, but I don't buy into your proposed solution. It leaves out the first rock-moving of getting people within these organizations to join together. The group you want is already totally busy working towards the goals and not available for a new big idea.

    Start local with whatever organizations you are most involved with and seek projects with partners. The inefficiencies get worked on as needed to get the project done, instead of being the focus. If you start by proposing big changes, like combining organizations, it is really hard to get anywhere.

    TL;DR- organize structure as needed, move toward the goal relentlessly.

    We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. JK Galbraith, 1991

    by Urban Owl on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 10:41:44 AM PST

    •  I thin what you are proposing is the status quo. (0+ / 0-)

      I for one, reject it.  It's time to start thinking outside the box.  It's interesting that you conclude that the type of movement I'm proposing leaves out the established organizations, since my objective is totally contrary to that.

      My vision would be to help bring about a new paradigm, a new space, where all these organizations can join forces, and eventually see ColorofChange, Movon, Daily Kos, CREDO, etc., all working together under this model.

  •  Re non-profits' fund-raising efforts--for a couple (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador

    of years I gave the ACLU about $20. a year--all I could afford. Then I realized that they were spending my $20 on sending me mail and little "gifts" asking me for more money.

    To this day I receive mail from them several times a year asking me to renew my membership.

    My $40 or $60 total didn't help the ACLU as I had intended. Instead those little donations continue to result in a drain on their resources.  

    Now I give through Act Blue and any candidate who starts sending me snail mail gets crossed off my list.

    I wish all worthy organizations would review their small donor policies.

    Sorry for the side issue comment.  I am still thinking about your idea and need to think more before I ask questions.

    Fiscal conservative: a Republican ready to spend $5 to save a dime--especially if that dime is helping a non-donor.

    by Mayfly on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:04:51 AM PST

    •  That's not a side issue. It applies perfectly to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      some of the challenges I've identified myself.  That's why I'm trying to set this up with the idea of distancing myself from the control and access to the funds.

      My idea is that if this concept is embraced by people, that the most important rule be that no one person has control over the funds, or the power.

  •  Me, too. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador

    Sorry, but this idea is broken in the center.  You're instituting a system of selection to pick the people who will exercise power.  This means that the people cannot be anonymous.

    First, it would be no protection -- the mere focus of organizational power shows their "location" to anybody good enough at searching the intertubes.  Like any corporate IT department worth their salt.

    Second, as Crimson just pointed out, there's no accountability before, during, or after their six month assignment.

    Finally, this has to be transparent in all respects.  Great that the funding stays fully visible.  Identities need to be open, also.  For social purposes (e.g. here at DK), "handles" are fine, but there's a reason that the front-pagers post under their real names.  It's part of standing up, in my opinion.

    In a movement of this sort, safety can only be found in numbers.  Early leaders have always paid the price so that others can stand beside them at lower risk.  The key is to scale the effort and spread the risk thinly to each individual.

    This is why the term "leaderless resistance" is an oxymoron.  Movements are comprised of nothing but leaders.

    You write long and deep, my friend.  My comments come from a first read. Frankly, I'm still chewing.  Forgive me if I've misread your points.

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by Jim Tietz on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:20:02 AM PST

    •  Please see my reply to Crimson, above. Something (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jim Tietz

      very important is that overall, I believe that this will work and have put forward a broad overview.  But on specifics, I see no problem with people bringing in their own perspectives.  If people think that the rotating leadership committee should be public, then that's fine with me.

      But very importantly, I do insist that it is extremely important to set up check-and-balance mechanisms to prevent any one person or clique or faction from ever being able to take control.  If that's not there, the whole concept collapses, IMHO.

      •  I agree the system needs to be robust (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador

        A valuable role in the coming discussion will be those who contribute to the "red flag" team... Imagine what could possibly be done to subvert the system so that appropriate defenses (or checks and balances... or feedback loops) are set in place against unintended manipulation.

        Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

        by Jim Tietz on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:36:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here's a sample list of nominees: (0+ / 0-)
  •  Continuous vs Discrete Leadership (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador

    The "leaders" council represents a separation of the ten individuals from the community.  It's "discrete" in that there is an elevation of their status, placing a gap between their position and the others.  It also happens discretely in time... six month periods.

    Why insert these artificial buffers from the "crowd"?  I suggest we instead understand what "response controller" we want between "us" and actions on our behalf by the group.

    There obviously needs to be some mechanism to amalgamate the will of the crowd and there are LOTS of examples from around the web on how to do this.

    Our own DK system of recommends and tips and mojo and diary rescues, etc. has been build over time to provide a community experience that mostly works for most people.  Why not use similar mechanisms to enable group actions that are "managed" and "directed" by the community?

    What lessons can we learn from the myriad of open-source development communities?

    Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

    by Jim Tietz on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 12:30:35 PM PST

    •  I've thought about this long and hard, and that's (0+ / 0-)

      why I came up with the ten-member rotating leadership council.  Here's the challenge.  Most of the population, including everybody here at Daily Kos (myself included) is under the influence of a mind-numbing amount of propaganda, 24/7.

      Because of it, our thought process is "infected" with generalized false narratives, absurdities, and falsehoods.  I consider it to be a very tenuous and generalized mind control or brainwashing situation.

      The crowd itself, as a whole, has the capability and the potential to break through the fog of propaganda, but it needs to channel their energy, focus, and wisdom through some sort of mechanism; thus ten ten-member rotating leadership committee.

      These people would have demonstrated that they are the least susceptible to the effects of the billionaires-funded propaganda, and presumably will be able to take blunt actions to move the agenda forward.

      It's kind of a take on the "representative democracy."  I'm afraid that if you leave the whole thing to the crowd, without the leadership mechanism, people would end up acting on the current news cycle of the latest absurdity of the day, or focusing on this or that dastardly action by this or that right wing or Republican thug.  

      •  Not sure, but it might need a "cold heart" (0+ / 0-)

        By cold heart, I mean that at first blush is seems the only way to avoid the iron law of the oligarchy is to remove humans from the center of the circle.

        The daily thrashing of topics is part of the way the community system is set up.  While you can search old dairies, the "current" stuff lasts hours to a couple of days at most.  The discussion & focus moves on in large part due to the way materials make it onto people's screens.   Add more persistence to subjects that are the focus -- a la wiki sites -- and the flightiness could be mitigated.

        Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

        by Jim Tietz on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 01:38:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site