OpEdNews Interviews DUer GuvWurld (Dave Berman) re: ManifestPositivity.org and new book

Part 1

Part 2

Full text reprinted with permission

November 7, 2009 at 21:51:52

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 11/7/09:

Manifest Positivity: Talking with Dave Berman

By Joan Brunwasser

I first encountered Dave Berman after the 2004 Presidential election. He had been writing about election integrity - and the lack of it - for years. I've invited him to talk about what he's up to now. Welcome to OpEdNews, Dave. The subtitle of the second volume of We Do Not Consent* is "Advocacy Journalism for Peaceful Revolution." Could you please define advocacy journalism for our readers? And peaceful revolution, for that matter.

Advocacy journalism means transparent use of media as an organizing tool to create the change we want in the world. The transparency is really key as it sets apart true advocacy journalism from the propaganda of the corporate/military/government/media juggernaut that pretends to be neutral and objective ("fair and balanced") while actually deceptively advocating for parameters of acceptable debate and even the nature of reality. The juggernaut has made truth into a wedge issue by creating a rift in the perception of reality.

Peaceful revolution may sound grandiose but can actually be rather small, sometimes on the individual personal level. With credit to Rebecca Solnit's "Hope In The Dark," I define it as a change in the relationship of power between We The People and the juggernaut. The success of advocacy journalism should be judged entirely by its ability to create the change aimed for. So when we use advocacy journalism successfully, empowering citizen journalists and independent media makers and even communities, we are changing that relationship of power with the juggernaut. In other words, advocacy journalism is inherently a peaceful revolutionary tactic.

Let's go back to something you said about wedge issues. What do you mean exactly by that?

Wedge issues are usually thought of as things like flag burning, affirmative action, gay marriage and abortion. These are reliably trotted out to divide the public and I think this is well understood now. Truth as a wedge issue is more insidious because people on both sides of the rift in the perception of reality are convinced the other side is being deceived. Information falsely sold as “fair and balanced” (it goes way beyond just Fox) is being intentionally used to create the rift as a means of keeping us divided and therefore less likely to unite in peaceful revolution.

Some examples of issues that help create the rift in the perception of reality: election results that can't be proven, yet get reported as fact; the official story of 9/11, which is full of contradictions and scientific impossibilities leaving unasked questions a greater enigma than unanswered ones; devolving matters of science into differences of opinion, such as denial of climate change, the health risks of tobacco, and the health benefits of marijuana. This is all historically classic as the function of propaganda, which is never expected to convince everyone of the same thing but rather to leave the public divided about what is really going on. This is at the heart of what I have called the Cold Civil War.

Can you give us some concrete examples of the ways advocacy journalism can make progress towards peaceful revolution?

Consider the phrase "weapons of mass deception." Say that to anyone and they know you are talking about the corporate media and consolidated control of information. Recognizing that media are being used as a weapon against us, we must then protect and defend ourselves by turning that weapon around and using it as a tool for our own good. Like I said, advocacy journalism is inherently a peaceful revolutionary tactic. Perhaps that is more conceptual than concrete.

More concrete would be the Project-Based Format. This is how I think an advocacy journalism talk show should be run. Ideally it would be web-based video and audio, integrating all available media and social networking tools in an interactive and collaborative program that actually does organizing work, completing public service projects, especially ones that help people and communities create sustainable and equitable ways of life independent of the corporate/military/government/media juggernaut.

I've been talking and writing about this vision for seven years, including in We Do Not Consent, Volume 2. During this time I didn't have the means to directly pursue the talk show so the least I could do was write. I wrote about the work I was doing for election integrity, peace, veterans issues, media reform, and generally strategic thinking about peaceful revolution through advocacy journalism. I recently exited a business partnership that is allowing me take this all to the next level now through my new video website, ManifestPositivity.org, which aims to turn itself into this talk show.

I can't wait to see how this spins out. Let's back up a bit. Could you talk about how you came to activism in the first place, Dave?

I suppose it started for me on November 28, 2000. The Gore/Bush election results were still in the air and I wrote an essay saying the process had made any eventual outcome illegitimate, concluding: “either foreign powers will choose not to recognize our next government or the entire world will be complicit in our illegitimacy. Either way, it would not only serve us right, it will be what we deserve.” Those words were seeds that rooted subsequent years of focus on election integrity, particularly emphasizing the meme that election conditions give us “no basis for confidence” in the reported results.

I co-founded a citizen watchdog group called the Voter Confidence Committee and wrote the Voter Confidence Resolution, which was adopted by the City Council of Arcata, CA. A version derived from that was also adopted in Palo Alto, CA. I worked with election integrity advocates throughout CA and across the country, doing lots of writing, public speaking, and media appearances, my earliest advocacy journalism efforts, chronicled on my first blog, GuvWurld, and distilled into the first We Do Not Consent book. I became a big fan of the Declaration of Independence, which says government legitimacy derives from the Consent of the Governed. Our Consent is now being assumed and taken for granted, rather than sought and given. So We Do Not Consent, my second blog, was always about shattering the assumption of our Consent, and working to withdraw our complicity from the things that do us harm.

Ultimately, this includes staying in a perpetual state of fear and anger, which is constantly stoked by our corporatist, militarist culture of sensationalized consumerism. With inspiration from people like MLK, Gandhi and Michael Franti, as well as personal growth from reading books like Eckhart Tolle's “A New Earth,” and Rob Breszny's “Pronoia,” my work for peaceful revolution now comes from a place of love at ManifestPositivity.org.

Do you feel that the public is frustrated enough to actually see that we have legitimate grounds to disengage from this government which does not represent us? Is that why you include the Declaration of Independence in your book? It's so eerily similar to our present situation.

I agree the patterns of abuse outlined in the Declaration of Independence resemble today's America. I've seen this connection for years, and have been writing and talking about it since I started to see it that way. That's why the Declaration appears in both of my books.

As far as public sentiment, I want to believe enough people have “had enough” to be ready for peaceful revolution on a large transformational scale. Ready or not, climate change and a completely unsustainable economic system requires fundamental change right now. There is a saying that when the people lead, the leaders will follow. So as a matter of strategy, we are better served changing what we ourselves do, rather than continuing the unsuccessful and essentially futile task of asking or lobbying or even demanding change from the corporate/military/government/media juggernaut. A leopard can't change its spots and you can't get blood from a stone. Insert your own metaphor here. Just don't keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Tell our readers about the "least you can do" challenge.

It is really more of an operating strategy than a challenge. The idea is that big picture goals are achieved in a series of steps so plan campaigns and choose tactics by identifying the least you can do, and committing to doing at least that much. When I have a daunting task, or I'm juggling too many things at once, I often pause to find clarity this way about what to do next. It is a great simplifier.

This is also part of getting people involved, overcoming apathy or complacency. You can't ask any less of someone than the least they can do. Now I'm seeing a movement toward “micro-actions” at sites like The Extraordinaries (BeExtra.org) and IfWeRanTheWorld.com. I think this stems from the same premise, asking people to fill their sporadic idle moments with quick acts on cell phone apps. This could represent back-end infrastructure for the type of talk show I'd like to do.

Many people know the name of Malcolm Gladwell's book “The Tipping Point,” but perhaps do not recall the subtitle: “How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.” The least you can do is a strategy meant to consciously cultivate a path to a tipping point. This also involves the three principles of a well chosen goal, meaning choose “least” acts that will: create an immediate tangible impact; cause ripple effects of future influence with a cumulative impact; and address the relationship of power between We The People and the prevailing power structure. As almost a bonus, my experience has been that using this approach repeatedly results in my “least” increasing.

Thanks, Dave. Let's pause here. When we return for the second half of our interview, Dave will explain the philosophy behind Manifest Positivity, how to avoid burnout, and more about withholding consent.

www.ManifestPositivity.org

*both volume one and two are free downloads and available for purchase as paperbacks at ManifestPositivity.org


http://www.opednews.com/articles/Part-Two-Manifest-Positiv-by-Joan-Brunwasser-091108-44.html

November 8, 2009 at 19:56:11

Promoted to Headline (H3) on 11/8/09:

Part Two, Manifest Positivity: Talking with Dave Berman

By Joan Brunwasser

Welcome back for the second half of my interview with Dave Berman. You've been at this for a long time, Dave. How have you been able to maintain your commitment to working for change without getting angry or burning out?

I started out angry and stayed that way for a long time, including intermittent periods of burnout. I think this was somewhat common for many people during this period, unfortunately. Things began to change for me during summer 2008 when I first read Eckhart Tolle's “A New Earth.” Rather quickly, my perspective changed, along with my demeanor and some behavior. I learned to observe my ego and it made me mellower and less prone to stress. I discovered how to calibrate the intensity I project and keep my thoughts from fixating on past and future. I became more present.

“A New Earth” started coming up in conversation with lots of people who had read it. One of them turned me on to Rob Breszny's “Pronoia,” which is the belief the universe is conspiring on your behalf. As with karma, we pay it forward and thus the notion of Manifest Positivity was born. During the end of 2008 I negotiated exiting my business partnership and by the end of January I was free of work obligations. I then visited some family and friends and by the end of April returned home to build ManifestPositivity.org and prepare the new book*.

I've been doing full time public service work since then and having much more fun working for a better world coming from a place of love. My mantra is now “Live to love as much as possible.” I use that when meditating and jogging and it helps me stay present.

There are other changes I've made during this transition. In April, I bought a video camera. So before, my advocacy journalism was mainly writing about what I was doing and now I'm making videos to help other people and groups accomplish their goals. Also, a lot of this is now apolitical, such as The Ink People (TIP) and Humboldt Mediation Services (HMS).

TIP is a 30 year old art and culture incubator that has accepted Manifest Positivity as a DreamMaker program, affording it non-profit status and assistance with organizing and administrative tasks. HMS has been a volunteer community mediation service for 26 years. I just completed my certification to be a mediator. And I didn't just join these groups, I've also been working with them on their marketing and media outreach. Of course you can follow the progress of these projects and others at ManifestPositivity.org.

Tell us more about mediation.

Mediation is a common alternative to the legal system and sometimes the courts refer people for mediation. Many cases come to Humboldt Mediation Services simply because they are known as a low-cost or free volunteer community conflict resolution organization. Some examples of cases are landlord/tenant, parental custody, land ownership, and business partnership dissolution, for which I personally used HMS last year.

I think what I saw most clearly from my recent certification training is that regardless of the source of the dispute, the mediation process is about getting past a communication impasse by helping people hear the other party and be heard by them. As a mediator, I have no vested interest in the outcome and no responsibility for even suggesting solutions. The process itself needs to be trusted to create the space in which people create their own agreements. I can see myself getting additional training and also doing lots more to use media as a tool for doing this kind of dispute resolution.

It sounds like you've found a potent way to avoid burnout. Many of us could learn from that. Let's back up and talk about the We Do Not Consent principle for a moment. It's based on the fact that the public can no longer be confident about the outcomes of our elections, either locally or nationally. Can you talk about why that is so?

We've covered some of this already - the election process itself creates no basis for confidence in the results reported and instead demands our blind trust, assuming our Consent and taking it for granted. This is because vote counting has been outsourced to private corporations using computer code kept secret from the public. Even using paper ballots, but especially without them, these machines provide no way for meaningful recounts and sometimes provide results that are completely non-sensical, such as when there are supposedly more votes than voters or a candidate receives a negative total number of votes.

Essentially, current election conditions make the results unprovable and inherently uncertain. Compounding the problem, the corporate media report these unprovable election results as fact, even though they have not and can not independently verify what they are reporting and have received the information from only one source, which is the government itself.

If we actually had a Democracy, media would be independent of the government and serve as the biggest proponents of all for hand counting paper ballots in the polling places on election night because this would allow media to document the way the reported results have been derived and create a basis for confidence in the outcome where none currently exists.

I don't see election integrity work as activism anymore. It is a public service. The same is true of working for media reform, peace, caring for veterans and everything else explored in We Do Not Consent, Volume 2 and at ManifestPositivity.org. In fact, at this point, I think the audience for my work, really the community with whom I'm collaborating, is much more about the presence and pronoia spiritual (non-religious) approach to social change than the traditional angry activist community. The righteous indignation of We Do Not Consent is entirely justified. However, peaceful revolution requires we proactively build the world we want to live in rather than just opposing the fascists controlling things now.

I went to check out your Manifest Positivity website this afternoon and found all kinds of videos that were uplifting and positive. I watched one on laughter yoga and another on free hugs at a peace festival. I definitely felt those positive vibes floating around. Is that part of what you're trying to accomplish?

Spreading good vibes is definitely part of what I'm trying to accomplish, both for its own sake or as its own goal, and to set an example and show it can be an important part of effective work for change.

I'm having a hard time grasping the concept behind your new project. While I can certainly see that coming at activism from a place of love and positivity is better for the activist than being bitter or burned out, how does that positive activity or mindset translate into actually changing the very messed up world we live in? Is it more in the abstract?

No, this is literal and concrete. The easiest place to start is getting rid of your television. On a bigger level, I've discussed disarming weapons of mass deception through advocacy journalism and creating our own narrative. In this way we can withdraw our complicity of acceptance and perpetuation of the myths that make up the Big Lie, no longer pretending that America is a capitalist democracy with free markets, free speech and free press when in fact America is textbook fascism.

If there is to be Democracy, it is going to have to be local grassroots and ultimately come through municipal civil disobedience, where entire towns or counties or states defy a higher order of government that is attempting to direct actions against the people, most commonly through unfunded mandates. Examples include protecting medical marijuana patients, same-sex marriages, and refusal to legitimize the results of secret corporate vote counting machines (as Andi Novick recently announced that Columbia County, NY Election Commissioner Virginia Martin has pledged).

We seem so far from that now. Yet every journey begins with a first step.

Indeed, every journey does begin with a first step, so hopefully it is a wisely chosen "least you can do" move, like getting rid of the TV, or helping the environment by simply eating less meat.

Well, I don't watch TV. And a while back I did away with waking up to the jolt of bad news delivered by my clock radio. So you could say that I'm on my way down that path.

Congratulations for that. You have withdrawn consent and complicity through a "least you can do" peaceful revolutionary step, directly altering the relationship of power, in this case, that media has over you.

I guess that's true. This has been a treat, Dave. Thanks so much. I look forward to following your progress with ManifestPositivity.org.

***

*Both volume one and two of We Do Not Consent are free downloads and available for purchase as paperbacks at ManifestPositivity.org

Part one of my interview with Dave

Joan Brunwasser is a co-founder of Citizens for Election Reform (CER) which exists for the sole purpose of raising the public awareness of the critical need for election reform. We aim to restore fair, accurate, transparent, secure elections where votes are cast in private and counted in public. Electronic (computerized) voting systems are simply antithetical to democratic principles.

CER set up a lending library to achieve the widespread distribution of the DVD Invisible Ballots: A temptation for electronic vote fraud. Within eighteen months, the project had distributed over 3200 copies across the country and beyond. CER now concentrates on group showings, OpEd pieces, articles, reviews, interviews, discussion sessions, networking, conferences, anything that promotes awareness of this critical problem. Joan has been Election Integrity Editor for OpEdNews since December, 2005. Her articles also appear at RepublicMedia.TV and Scoop.co.nz.

:hi:

Not all but mostly, as I see it. Excellent interview. Thanks for sharing this here.

Here's a key point: "If there is to be Democracy, it is going to have to be local grassroots and ultimately come through municipal civil disobedience, where entire towns or counties or states defy a higher order of government that is attempting to direct actions against the people, most commonly through unfunded mandates. Examples include protecting medical marijuana patients, same-sex marriages, and refusal to legitimize the results of secret corporate vote counting machines (as Andi Novick recently announced that Columbia County, NY Election Commissioner Virginia Martin has pledged)."

I see this as a key element of governance in the future. The national consensus is still strong in terms of symbolism but on particulars there are strong objections based on locality. It's a double edged sword however. Local communities can insist on teaching creationism and banning gay marriages in defiance of a state authority.

One precedent for this is the various anti Iraq war resolutions passed by I think over 200 cities, almost all of the large cities included. That didn't have the force for resistance for a number of reasons but these were resolutions passed by city councils.

I'm reminded of Santa Cruz CA where I spent summers as a child. That enclave had it's own foreign policy and also was defiant on medical marijuana restrictions at the start of that movement.

I see a separatist movement starting on a regional basis first. The Southeastern US is clearly represented by a carnival side show aspiring to be a regional party, the Republicans. Despite their absurdity to many, they don't think they're absurd. Because of voting laws and non participation, these representatives will be emboldened to make a move like Gov. Perry in TX who put secession on the table. Of course, the Texas legislature punished him almost immediately by stripping his personal budget as governor and giving the money to health programs for the handicapped.

That's the crux of it. In any region, you may have a governing class that is not representative of anything close to a majority or even a plurality. They'll keep sniping and try so meting. Lets take the Southeastern states. South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama would be good candidates for a secession action. Then we'd see real street democracy in action. All of those states have significant black populations who would resist not to mention major segments of urban white populations and business interests (who know the federal deal is the best thing ever for them).

We're headed for a big mess. Your idea of localization does have one stellar recommending set of actions - localized economic activity. Borrow from local banks, not the money center giants. Buy from merchants that are local or national outlets that treat workers with dignity. The Walmartization of localities has been a disaster. Localities can also leverage their funds and credit ratings to create their own energy sources. If you have a community with strong local banks (they played no role in the economic troubles) lending to positive local businesses then you create a sense of community and an opening for logical expenditure of public funds on education, energy, etc.

It's a fascinating time and you're tapped into some key concepts on local action as you were on voting and the transparency of the election system.

Hey Autorank, thanks for the kind words and encouragement. Your analysis kind of extrapolates a bit from what is in the interview. Thing is, you're right on.

Good job, as always Guv! Thank you for your service. :)

:hi: