Are You A Terrorist? or The Church Of The Capitalist Police State Of America

What the hell is a "terrorist"?

I went online to try to get at least a broad definition of what constitutes a "terrorist" and the best I could come up with was something to the effect of "someone or some group that uses violent means on a—sometimes civilian—population in order to utilize fear in the spread of some ideology or crusade. Then I went to a real world context and tried to remember how "terrorists" have been presented to me in the media and in my own social interactions. I figured maybe I could find some common denominator there.

The media was the easy one. Every station or outlet already has some well-defined political leaning and cannot see the greater context of socio-political events because they are an essential part of it; no one notices something cultural until someone draws attention to it. (That's how we figure out our paradigms.) By and large the right and left wing organizations will both call lots of people terrorists whether they be ISIS soldiers in Iraq; "extremists" from Pakistan; Al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. Sometimes though you will have some talking head on a 24 hour news channel who will get so riled up by a guest or off their own ego (I'm looking at you O'Reily and Hannity) that they call anyone they disagree with a "terrorist."

When Occupy Wall Street was filling parks from the Shore to the Bay they were deemed terrorists by the right-wing media; The Tea Party has more than once been labeled a "terrorist organization" on MSNBC. They spew shit at each other like they are both ends of the Human Centipede. Apparently to cable news networks a "terrorist" is defined as a politically or socially motivated group or individual who engages in some form of public display to make a point or demand a change, whether it be rallies and protests or jihad and suicide bombings. Now I hope I don't have to point out the quite sizable distance between a protest and a suicide bombing, but it needs to be considered that pundits of both sides of a very influential form of media get away with lumping social activists in with jihadis.

What surprises me most is the trickle down name-calling. I hope that I have presented a good enough case to convince you of the conniving nature of the cable news narrative so that you understand just how much of a population control experiment it is. Our cultural paradigm has such a thick skin that we cannot see past the source of our angst.

I recently wrote a piece about the conflict in Gaza and how I could not believe the depths of morality that a government can sink to in purposefully wiping out civilians in its expansion effort. I also noted in that piece that the Israel/Palestine conflict has colonial roots and how it was only after a western occupation—aka at the barrel of a western tank—that the Israeli government was able to even establish a state. The US has then been propping up that occupation for more than half a century. So, according to the US narrative Israel is the good guy, right?

Now if we go back to the beginning of this piece we can figure out who in this scenario fits the description of terrorist. Israel is this situation a) is a group, b) that is politically and/or religiously motivated, c) uses violence in the forms of a relentless air and ground assaults, d) uses that violence on civilians, and e) uses fear of its superior arms to intimidate the occupants of the world's largest prison cell.  Sure, Hamas fits most of that same description, but they are barely able to put up a fight in the first place. They are so desperate that they have even taken to firing from civilian areas to keep Goliath off the scent. That's shameful, but I also understand because I can see that a true Gazan defense or assault is a joke. In case you weren't aware Gaza doesn't have a military. The only resistance at all to a massacre by a western devil are these men with rockets. If your husband or wife was buried under rubble 100 ft. deep then you might reconsider whom you support too. Either way Hamas is no match for the mighty Israel sitting tight inside their iron dome with Netanyahu on his iron throne with his iron will bringing iron obedience. So, who are the terrorists?

Would you not resist such an occupation? I bet you would and I even have a good ol' fashioned anecdote to illustrate my point: Cliven Bundy. Here we have an old white man who wears a cowboy hat and stirrups, waves an American flag while refusing to acknowledge its referents existence, and talks about race relations like he lives in the eighteenth century. This man grazed his cattle on public land for decades without paying the mandated grazing fees. He figured if he didn't acknowledge the existence of the federal government then he didn't owe it any money. (If only we all lived in such a fantasy world.) Now when he refused the pay the fees federal officers planned to come to his ranch to confiscate his cattle as payment. This story got out on right wing television and consequently the Internet. When it got to Fox News there was a torrent of support flooding in from all over the country (and magnified by the mouths of the talking heads) from self-proclaimed resistors who would be willing to take up arms to keep the federal government off their "friend's" land. The feds showed up and so did the "freedom fighters". The government backed down and the white dissidents celebrated their manly show of strength, but what they failed to realize is that they had become the very thing they always claimed to detest— extremists. Who were the terrorists in this situation?

Now think about Afghanistan. The entire justification of the war was to neutralize Al-Qaeda and Taliban networks. Who was in that terrorist network? Men (by and large) who had been leading a tribal life for centuries and succeeding until this western style government-at-the-edge-of-a-sword oligarchy came in to their land to demand allegiance. When they resisted they became part of a wider population of people who have been faced with a choice: assimilate or die. When they declined our offer of western "enlightenment"  (through the mouths of marionettes) then they instantly become part of the enemy. Who are the great enemy? The terrorists. Oh, and they are Muslim too? Perfect! That'll make a great headline. "The Islamic Extremists Strike Again!" it'll say on the Cooper Blitzer O'Hannity Report.

The definition of "terrorist" that we have been fed by the media doesn't seem to incorporate the seismic shift in power that results when an invading army or a central government invades a relatively unarmed country. What once was your land isn't anymore. Now someone else claims to own it and he has a gun pointed at you if you disagree. It was ok for Cliven Bundy and his bunch to raise arms against the federal government of the United States of America; it is apparently not ok to be a poor brown farmer whose only choice is "give up the way you have lived for centuries and live like us. If you don't we'll kill you, your family, and your village and spin it as "collateral damage" on the evening news." Between the Afghan oppressed and the privileged horse riding, gun-totting, NRA card-carrying, living-in-a-dream-world conservative cattle rancher who is the real extremist?

It seems to me that the real terrorists are those who use their overwhelming force to intimidate populations into submission and using fear as the balancing factor of dissent. This is consistent in Israel, Syria, Egypt, and the good ol' United States of America. That's right folks we have a whole branch of order bringers right here at home that are state sponsored and funded —the police.

They maintain an order that is defined by them (often times in conflict with the actual law), is profitable, and based on fear. Modern police tactics are more military than protection these days. And why wouldn't they want to be? They are supplied with military surpluses such as riot gear and tanks and are dressed up like they are auditioning for RoboCop. It's a basic principle of bored humans that if you have a toy you want to play with it. So they use their power and ability to circumvent the law to harass and imprison entire people groups for offenses no more harmful than drinking a beer. Yet the means used to arrest and incarnate this person more often than not looks more like a UFC match than a civil restraint. And they get away with it with impunity. So they cruise through the streets in their new air-conditioned American made pigmobiles like a possessed wolf sniffing out his kill. Why do they hide in darkness to surprise you? Because they want you to be afraid.

"That's right, you've heard the stories! You know all those stories about black and brown boys and men being viciously beaten and sometimes killed by an army designed to make you afraid of it… and we got away with it. So watch your back."

Signed sincerely, The Undercurrent Of Every Police Interaction You Have Ever Had.

That's what you get to do when you are police: you get to go to work, put on battle armor, and cruise the streets in fast fancy cars to search for prey to try out your new toys out on. And god help anyone who makes them mad because they have a blank check and will write your name in at any time. That's a real base of fear and it is all courtesy of the Church of the Capitalist Police State. Like the Afghan farmer if you disagree with the new order then you can get ready to have hell and all its army descend on your house, kick your door in, and black bag you down to a dark alley where you will never been seen again. That's fear; that's power; that's terrorism.

The eternal civilized conflict is pitted between an invading force against a person who stands their ground. That's the way it has been and that's the way it always will be and if you resist you will be given a scarlet letter—a red crescent— to inform the watching world what you have been labeled as—a terrorist.

PS- I wonder how long it will take for this post to get me on that terror watch list? Am I the millionth-and-first customer? Do I win the prize? My picture in the cross hairs of a flying robot of death?

Addendum: I do want to acknowledge that there are people in this world—truly evil people—who indeed terrorize peoples, villages, cities, and countries with the reckless abandon that is nothing short of the possession of the devil himself. I acknowledge that these people exist and deserve the name and to be treated as such. I just don't think that every Muslim or farmer who resists central control of his families land should be lumped into the same category. There is a sizable gap between a resistor and a terrorist. The reason for so much hate in the world—especially in the American narrative—is the failure to notice the distinction. Great change is hindered by blind obedience to dogma. My thesis is simple: be wise and discern your enemy and so that you learn to recognize friend from foe.

The Virtual Agora: Why Digital Democracy Is A Vital Next Step In Human Organization

Thesis: Virtual direct democracy can be and already has become an effective tool to combat the top down hierarchies of the corporate/political oligarchy of the 21st century civilization machine. By utilizing open source and free platforms organizers can remove many of the stumbling blocks of participation that result from the capitalist condition and can horizontally create and develop organic resistance and alternatives. 

About Me: My name is Larry Swetman. I am an artist, writer, and self-labeled radical who lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. I have spent the past few years organizing in the Global People's Movement from within its Occupy offshoot. I worked primarily out of Philly, but also spent a good amount of time organizing nationally and internationally with InterOccupy. I was of the first volunteers that helped the craft and develop the process with InterOccupy which was used to organize many events from regional/national/global solidarity actions, the 2012 Occupy National Gathering, and most recently Occupy Sandy . 

My Aim: I want to empower you. I am not sharing these experiences for any sort of validation or glory. I want to show you that anyone can use these systems and processes to organize in their own communities so that we can have our toolboxes ready to fight back against the oligarchy-behemoth before it swallows us whole. After all, genocide is marching west through Gaza as I post this; how shall we respond?

What? 

Before we get into the processes we need to evaluate what the tools are. We primarily use three tools: a phone, email, and maestro. The first two are self-explanatory; The third may be new to you. The maestro conference call system is a tool that allows us to thread together multiple phone lines and structure a conversation in a way that reflects the principles that formed the backbone of the general assemblies of the worldwide protest camps. 

It allows a facilitator (or more, if desired) and tech assistant (again, and more if necessary depending on the volume of the call) to structure the conversation. A digital interface allows the facilitator and TA to a) see the names and hands (more on the latter later) of the people who have called in (though some choose to remain anonymous), b) mute and unmute specific microphones so that folks don't talk over each other, c) break the call down into subgroups so that specific conversations can be had without taking up all of the space of the call. The interface also has many other minute options that make conversations easier to structure such as timers, notification sounds, and a staff chat so that the organizers of the call can share information such as "Hey, caller X is having difficulty hearing can you take them into a private subgroup and help them fix their problem?" 

Additionally, there is also a participation dashboard that callers with access to a computer can see information posted by the facilitators of the call such as agenda, graphs, links, phone lists, sign ups etc. Lastly, when folks sign up for the calls they enter their email address. Maestro makes it possible to gather these emails en masse so that follow up information such as call notes can be sent with ease. 

The entire purpose of the system is to streamline access and level the ground on which organization happens. 

How?

The keen observer may have picked up on the potential for the facilitator and TA to dictate the terms of the call. After all, they have the mute capabilities, the responsibility to call on folks, and the general power to direct the flow of conversation. The keen observer would be right to question this power which is why we worked very hard on the process by which these happen. We wanted to make sure that the facilitator and TA were empowering conversations, not dictating them.

The processes were modeled on the structure of the General Assemblies which were prevalent in almost of all of the global protest camps from the past few years. At the beginning of the call the facilitator explains a technical feature by which numbers on the telephone key pad of the user correlates to a designation on the interface on which the facilitator works. Generally, they correspond as follows:

1- "Raise hand" to get put on "stack" (or a list that is ordered according to progressive principles, meaning that traditionally marginalized voices are given priority over typically dominant groups).

2- "Twinkles" which means that someone wants to show support for what someone is saying. Typically, the facilitator will tell the speaker when someone or multiple people are showing support. Also, in a similar vein the 2 is used for a "yes" vote in a poll or vote.

3- "Down Twinkles" which means the someone wants to express that they do not like what someone is saying. Again, the facilitator will usually tell the group when such feelings are expressed. The 3 is also generally used as a "no" vote in a poll or vote.

4- "Direct Response": One must remember that the goal of these calls is a conversation. However, when the facilitator is given the authority to structure the conversation they need to know when someone needs to speak directly to what is being addressed or has a new idea. Otherwise, the conversations would be muddled at best and incoherent at worst. New ideas usually use the number 1, but when someone needs to address something someone just said then they press 4 and go to the top of the stack (or list). Though, again, progressive principles are followed. If someone is speaking often then the facilitator may put them farther down on the direct response list so that others can be heard as well. 

5- "Technical Difficulties" or "Point of Process": The 5 is mostly used when someone either is having trouble with some technical aspect of the call such as not being able to hear or their buttons not registering on the interface. Some groups also use this number to give the facilitator feedback on keeping to process above. For example, if the community is having a discussion about X and someone on the call starts talking about Y then someone may press 5 to express that Y is off topic at which point it is the responsibility of the facilitator to bring the conversation back to its original point and continue through the stack. The facilitator will usually address 5's as soon as they come up. 

These five buttons and six designations are designed to empower the group to maintain power over the flow of conversation while allowing the facilitator and TA to moderate it. The facilitator will usually refrain from offering points in the discussion and if they must put themselves at the bottom of the stack. The experienced facilitator is usually very cautious in their role because of the inherent power to direct the flow of conversation. 

Why?

The prima facie reason for structuring calls this way is to make them as horizontal as possible. The Global People's Movement--it seems to me--is built around the idea that those in power have built up a hierarchy of power that systematically permeates throughout our civilization and society that makes participation in movements difficult. By using telephones and the internet we are effectively removing a lot of the barriers to participation that a lot of people face. When someone does not have to travel then they are a) more likely to participate and b) do not have to take much time out of their already busy lives. If the stated goals of the People's Movement are to include the everyday person then the hardships of those people must be presupposed. In the capitalist world the everyday person works 1/3 of their lives and sleeps another 1/3 which only leaves them 1/3 for their passions, desires, and projects. Lay on top of that the constant strain of working for ends meat (and sometimes less) and the population is automatically divided into those with the privilege to participate and those without. Calls can remove this barrier at least in some capacity, at least in initial exposure.

Secondly, civilization has been segregated by the oligarchy into many different--sometimes conflicting--subgroups based on anything from race, class, and creed to nationality or religion. A lot of these designations are interpreted and assumed visually. By removing the visual component it is a lot harder to segregate a group; you cannot divide what you cannot see. Even gender can be a grey area when all a facilitator has to go is a name and a voice. Therefore, by holding conversations in the virtual agora the capacity exists to temporarily remove the illusions that the powerful have created to divide us. 

Why is access and equality so important in this setting? Because only mass participation and cooperation can foil the plots of the oligarchy. The global wealth empire is based on the fact that people are different and therefore should be treated different. While it is true that every person is as unique as a snowflake in a superstorm, it is also true that the Earth is a biosphere in which we are all a part. We all have a responsibility to act in a manner befitting the continuing evolution of the human race. Harmony can only be achieved through cooperation and sustainability. However, civilization is structured into divisions with certain privileges granted to some and oppressions to others. To overcome these sets of have's and have not's a system must to devised to break down the dividing wall of hostility and level the playing field for all those affected--namely everyone. 

The virtual agora has the capacity--assuming the painstaking and vigilant work of evolving the processes to meet the needs of all involved--to make cooperation accessible to everyone with access to a phone. That last piece is always going to be a stumbling block; how do we make the process accessible to everyone? But that is a problem that can only be solved by the willing participation of those with the capacity to use their privilege to address it. 

So what?

This technology is in its infancy. There can come a day when technologies can be made to make access to virtual democratic platforms very cheap and more efficient. When that day comes then perhaps true participatory democracy will be possible. In the meantime, we can use what we have now to theorize, plan, and execute plans to beckon that day. People are struggling more and more everyday and have been for centuries under the weight of Empire. War, famine, greed, and poverty. By using tools like virtual agoras we can in some small way effect the world around us by practicing the world we want to see in real time. You never know, the ideas in the mind of a few may produce a vision for the many to rally around, but they will need access. Currently, such ideas are usually limited to the rich, connected, and elite. They then exert their power from the top until their venom trickles down to where we small fish fry. 

However, when access and equality are addressed and the willing have an avenue by which to participate democracy is possible. Again, this technology is in its infancy, but we all have to crawl before we can walk. The virtual agoras can be a help in taking our first steps… if we use them. They are there; they are free. We just need to use them. If you are tired of a world run by the musings and whims of the rich and powerful and have an idea to fix it--let it breathe. Give others a chance to listen, critique, and be inspired. Gather with like minds in a space committed to access and equality and debate how to fight back. For only when we fight back do things change. 

An Open Letter To The University of Pennsylvania

Dear Most Honored Faculty of the University of Pennsylvania,

My name is Larry Swetman. I am an artist, writer, and revolutionary who is interested in attending your school for a degree and certificate in secondary education, but have reached somewhat of a stumbling block. I am writing this letter to you in the hopes that I can make three things clear: 1) that the very education that is the backbone of an ivy league pedigree cannot be based on tally marks of a transcript, 2) that upholding this educational standard should have more to do with wisdom than rules, and 3) that I am more than qualified and would make a welcome addition to your program.

Before I begin my thesis, however, I think it may be best for me to give you a brief background of who I am and how I came to write you this letter. I will be brief for I am sure that you all have much to do, but I will continue in the hopes that your desire to change the world is as symptomatic as mine. (For why else would we all endeavor to teach?)

I grew up very poor, the son of a single mother in Atlanta, GA. I will spare you the shades of the story, but suffice it to say it was a long hard road to reach any sort of educational plateau; it's hard to help your kid with his homework when you both are standing in a breadline. However, fortune favors the tenacious and I was given the chance to go to College.

I decided to go to a Christian Liberal Arts College because I was given a new life when I entered the Church. The life I lived prior to becoming a Christian was wrought with environments saturated with the anger that only flows from desperation. When I entered the Church, though, I heard stories of love and community and thought to myself, "Yeah, this is the way out of hell." Consequently, I undertook a journey to obtain a Bachelor of Arts in Biblical and Theological Studies. Again, I will spare you the minutia of my collegiate story, but suffice to say it was here that I learned how to think, question, and rebel.

I was never satisfied with the neatly packaged ideas that were presented to me; I needed to know why things were/are the way they were/are. Consequently, after obtaining my degree I left the Church on a somewhat transcendental (some may call it spiritual) quest of self-discovery. I immersed myself in philosophy, history, quantum theory, astrophysics, economics, art, sociology, political theory, and a myriad of other subjects until I realized that everything I had been taught was a systematic normalization of the individual based on castes of privilege and oppression. I did not take this knowledge lying down; I took it to the streets.

A few years into College I started to become radicalized. My Alma Mater is a beacon for the conservative cause to the point that they would stand by Governmental-Administrative human rights abuses in the name of divine directive. I started to speak out, write and distribute pamphlets, and protest. It was Desmond Tutu who said that to see injustice and do nothing is to side with the oppressor.

Fast forward to 2011. I had done some time in Seminary before my (self-described) enlightenment and moved to Philadelphia. It was here that I first started to Occupy.

From September 19th, 2011—2 days into the US movement—I committed myself to fighting back. I started by going to Zuccotti Park to set up camp at Occupy Wall Street. I arrived the day that the police violence started and decided to come home and hopefully help set up the movement in Philly. I was there from day 1 of Occupy Philly when we were just a couple of people on a Facebook page trying to kindle a flame. Eventually, it erupted into a fire. Once again I will save you the time of the entire story, but suffice it to say that I was intimately involved from organizing rallies and protests to leading marches; starting a Free university; forming a communication infrastructure to keep the global movement connected; planning national gatherings; occupying bank lobbies; meeting with Governors and Congresspeople to demand certain reforms; speaking on panels from Johns Hopkins to Villanova Universities; and organizing disaster relief when the American Red Cross and FEMA could not get their acts together in New Jersey. And that was just a sampling of the work I did. The papers I have written about my experiences in the social justice movement since then would take up far too much space for this particular letter.

Point being: I have learned more about history, government, economics, geography, sociology, and anthropology in the streets and in self-study over the past three years than I was ever even exposed to as another brick in the wall of the education system.

That last comment finally brings me to the point of my prose: I want to attend your school but do not meet the requirements as laid out by your admissions process. A few of you have even looked over my transcripts (thank you) and evaluated what I would need in order to meet those pre-reqs: basic world history and US; economics; geography; government; anthropology; and sociology courses. So then, what shall I do? Go to a local community College and rack up more debt to take these courses so I meet the prerequisites? Why?

For the last year or so I have been supplementing my real work—as I have laid out above—with working at a teashop in South Philly. I work for $9/hr to pay the bills. I have also recently gotten engaged to a beautiful woman and am trying to start a family. To start that family I have tried to seek self-betterment by going back to school to teach. I have always had a passion to teach and if there is anywhere on the East Coast of the US that needs bright, driven, and inspired teachers who are willing to sacrifice to make the system better, it's Philadelphia. So, I have come to you to obtain the learning necessary to teach the next generation, but, again, I have hit a wall.

I do not have the time or the money to take these courses. In addition to working and starting a family I also maintain my own personal work in the form of writing and making art for my online presence, a necessity in this day and age (www.larryswetman.com). If I were to add to that workload a full year and a half of superfluous classes I would also be adding to financial strain and stress of my marriage for what? So, that I meet requirements on paper? Do I not already meet the requirements? Have I not passed these courses outside of the context of a traditional classroom?

What can I learn of the method of history when my presupposition is already to apply a historical exegesis that takes authorial intent and socio-political context into account? Should I relay the history of the Mujahedeen and how the unification efforts of what we call "Afghanistan" are simply tribal conflicts of resistors who do not want a national government with territorial lines drawn by western oppressors? Shall I connect this story to the CIA funded rise of the Taliban and how it relates to rise of "terrorism"? Shall I write you an essay on how modern terror tactics on derived from early '70s American-backed-and-state-sanctioned terror in Latin America? What more World or US history should I know before I am qualified to teach? How about the genocide of the Native peoples of what we call the "United States?" None of that stuff is taught. I had to learn it on my own, but since I didn't pay for it to be on my transcripts there is no way for you to know.

How about economics? Should we talk about John Locke's theory of private property about how it has inspired the current hierarchical models of authority based on ownership? Can we talk about capitalism and how it has failed the global economy? How about how the world produces more than enough food to feed every person but the supply chain is too broken to work on such levels? How about climate change and the rise of CO2 levels pre-and post-industrial revolution? We could talk about alternatives that aren't in the textbooks as well. In my time working in disaster relief in New Jersey and New York, we developed systems of mutual-aid that brought people and resources to those in need without the use of capital. How about talking about such alternatives? What about how unregulated price manipulators are the reasons for such soaring healthcare costs in the US despite a drop in quality? These are economic issues not taught in textbooks.

How about government? Though I have taken a community College class on American government, I was never taught about the actual political process. How about Citizen's United or McCutcheon? Will the classes teach me how the political process is manipulated by the richest individuals, corporations, and unions to pick the winners before the people ever have a chance to speak? How about the revolving door of staffers to lobbyists that keeps the Oligarchy in tact? I have learned more about government sitting in handcuffs in the back of police paddy wagons than I was ever taught in GOV101.

I could go on from sociology to anthropology talking about the systematic oppression of people of color in this country and its historical connection to slavery, but I will come to the end.

Though I grew up poor my mother tried to instill in me a sense of the so-called "American Dream." "Larry," she used to say, "if you work hard you can be anything you want to be." My experience in the world and seeing those around me has taught that this is a lie. The only reason it is called the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it. Stumbling blocks and inhibitions to progress line the road to the Dream like roadside bombs, waiting for you to slip up and touch them. For then debt can shackle you to normalcy; exhaustion can pacify your dissent; and you can work, consume, sleep, wake up and do it all over again for minimum wage your whole life while the elites fly high on Wall St. and in DC.

However, I am still a fool; I am still a dreamer. I still believe that academia offers a way out of the mire for everyone who is given the opportunity. My mother grew up as a poor orphan and to this day struggles, choosing sometimes between buying her food and getting her medicine. But I still believe there is a better way. I believe that people can make wise choices and though those choices may diverge from the norm they set precedent and consequently slowly change the status quo. How many times has the road less traveled made the difference?

I think I have made a pretty good case that I deserve to be in your program. Sure, I could go to those classes, pay those fees, and get those grades, but for what? I would lose time with my family and be farther in debt—for what? Basically, to make it easier on you all to know that I am qualified to be in your program. I can assure I am. I have stood toe to toe with Governors in their own offices and shamed them into admitting their historical, sociological, and governmental inadequacies; I have been beaten on the streets on Philadelphia and New York by Police Departments designed to maintain systems of oppression at the cost of our communities; and—most importantly to me—I have risen from depths of poverty to do so.

I think what my mama was trying to tell me when she tried to instill that Dream in me was that where there is an opportunity…take it. I need an opportunity. If you all find that I deserve one I can assure you that not only will I graduate your program, but will shine in it. Who knows, I might be able to instill the values of an American Dream—truly believing them—to the next generation and they might change the world.

In all humility I thank you for taking the time to read my story though it's not done yet; there are several chapters to be written. I write this in the hopes that the next one will be entitled…

My Years at UPENN.

Sincerely,

Larry Reginald Swetman

On Social Media PART IV: Organizing and Networking Or The Great Equalizer and The Great Pacifier

So far in my series on social media I have been pretty hard on the Network. I started by ruminating on the possibility of social media being the precursor to the Martix before moving on to examine its use as entertainment and validation. This post however is going to give a nod to the Network because—for better or for worse—it may be the greatest networking and organizing tool ever devised by humanity. From keeping up and reconnecting with old friends to organizing revolutions, social media has created an unprecedented level of access for people to connect across the globe. Whether this is a good or bad thing I will save for PART 5, but for now I would like evaluate some of these uses in the hopes that those who continue to use social media throughout the next decade will use it to bring down corrupt regimes and build real lasting communities.

The most obvious form of networking that is made possible by social media and the Network is access between individual Nodes (if you are joining me for the first time I am using "Node" to designate a point of reference for a person's online identity. I did this instead of using a blasé term like "online identity" because I want to point out that we idealize ourselves online. We paint these pretty pictures and choose just the right words for our posts because we want to open ourselves up to maximum exposure.) Whether we want to entertain or simply be noticed by other Nodes one thing is clear—we want their attention. We want it because the social Network gives us access and the illusion of being connected to them. When our thoughts can be instantly transmitted across the globe then we are eliminating all the space-time it would have otherwise cost to transmit idea X, Y, or Z to all the people in our network. Why have a conversation with one person you haven't spoken to in a decade when you can perfectly craft the same statement and send it blindly to 500 people with ease instead? (The latter seems a lot more efficient, right? I wonder if we would otherwise even tell that one person at all?) Whether to the one or the many I think--at best--we convey these ideas as a means to start a dialogue.

Dialogue has always been my favorite aspect of social media. While I don't think entertainment posts really do this area justice (i.e. "Cosmos" is awesome." or "Where is a good place to eat in West Philly?"  [Followed by comments like: "I know, right?!" or "Abbysina is my jawn!" etc.]), there are however some questions that I find can be much more easily accessed on threads than in the "real world". Recently, I posted an article I wrote entitled "The Table Of Brotherhood Or Race—Can We Talk About It?". It was written as a conversation piece to ask a question—can we talk about this? What ensued after I posted it on social media was an interesting dialogue all its own. It took place in a forum that eliminated the space and time it would have taken several people to get together and talk about it (who probably wouldn't have done so otherwise). Was it a good thing? Maybe. There was of course the emotional dullness of the 1's and 0's of a computer screen and safety of conversing in an online arena, but at least it took place in an equal space. No one could talk over anyone else (though certain vocabulary words still have a way of shutting some people down); no one could yell (though ALL CAPS was always an option for emphasis); and everyone's voice carried equal weight. I am not saying that history was removed or that certain biases still were not brought into the conversation, but the space was everyone's. Such a space created the potential to bring in more voices who would not have otherwise participated in certain conversations because--again, at best--it leveled the playing field. The Network could be the Great Equalizer.

In the same way social media is the ultimate public service announcement. Any organization or institution that does not develop a presence in the Network these days is doomed to failure. Many people get their information solely from social media. There is a reason that Facebook calls it a "News Feed". From breaking news to awareness campaigns and boycotts, social media has created a portal for the instant communication of ideas. However, as I have tried to establish throughout this series, every blessing of social media comes at a price. In this case the cost is the dilution of the passions of the people.

The Network for all its access is not designed as a public forum. It cannot replace the park or agora because there is rarely room for opposing views online. Like attracts like and friend lists inevitably become a—pardon the expression—big circle jerk. When timely issues deserve and desperately need wide public discourse they are instead thrown into rooms of likeminds to be dissected and validated or ravaged. Big mass media outlets have staked their claimed, put down roots, and spread their golden tentacles throughout the Network as well. People's preconceived notions are even reinforced with paid-for banners and ads. Instead of creating debate social media often creates tirades and a circle of reinforcement.

Don't get me wrong. Not all conversations that take place in the Network are paid-for corporate sponsored talking points or circle jerks. Real grassroots initiatives have taken hold as well. Liveblogging has created a level of access and specificity of content that otherwise would be lost to a lot of folks who either cannot or would not attend functions. While sponsored posts are blasted right in front of people's eyes there can also be a plethora of crowdsourced content to compete. In this way the corporate giant can be matched post for post and even drowned out.  Events can also be organized and countless people invited with the click of a button. While this comes with the danger of dilution (I am much less likely to come to an event that someone simply mass invited me to on Facebook than I would be if they called me or sent me a physical invitation. Also, there are SO many events that it is hard to separate the worthwhile ones from the superfluous), it also offers a way to spread the word quickly. Two examples come to mind: The Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street.

The Arab Spring erupted in a blaze of glory so quickly it was hard to keep up. It happened so quickly in large part due to the accessibility and efficiency of social media. For my purposes here I am going to focus on Egypt because I am a little more familiar with what happened there than I am in Tunisia, Bahrain, or Turkey among the many others.

The problems that were endemic in Egyptian society that led to the events of the Arab Spring there were not new. People were being detained, beaten, and oppressed at the hands of a bloody regime for decades before the Movement blossomed. Everyone knew about the abuse, but no one really talked about it. A close Egyptian friend of mine once told me that it used to be essentially taboo to talk about politics. After all what could you do? Then the young people started sharing information on social media. The instant access and ability to share information created waves of education that translated into conversation. Eventually that conversation led to a desire for action, but how could you bring enough people together to make an effective demonstration of strength? Invite them.

Everyone who went down to Tahrir Square did not know each other. As a matter of fact before the great migration to the public space a lot of soon to be comrades would have considered themselves enemies. However, the equal space of the Network provided a platform to share a diversity of ideas that were accessible to all. The idea of resistance was poignant yet big enough to bring millions to the streets. Had the Network not existed then it would have been much more difficult to spread the word. Videos of abuse couldn't have as easily gone viral (because there would be no such thing as "viral"); state television would have shut the protest down; and dissenters would have been rounded up and beaten into submission like they always were before they even got to the Square, but social media made it possible to spread the message so far and so quickly that the government did not have the time, resources, or support to resist.  In the end the masses toppled a dictator all because folks shared an idea that they should resist in the streets and spread the word over the Network.

Secondly, I am a little more familiar with the US partner to the Movement: Occupy Wall Street. Similarly to the Egyptian situation the disease that had infected the American way and led to mass dissent was not new. However, something changed that gave the dissenters a new level of access to each other. There have been many leftist Movements in this country since its inception and even more resistors, but they were not able to reach people with the same audacity of speed that Occupy Wall Street did. It was not long before a couple of tents pitched in New York City became tents pitched across the US. Even the tents were an occupied and crowdsourced idea: Protestors in Spain and other parts of Europe had been occupying their city squares in solidarity with their Egyptian comrades against corruption long before they did on Wall Street. It seemed the whole world was rising up in a similar manner and very quickly. Why? Because we had access to one another and were able to freely share ideas quickly in a public equal space: the Network.

During phase 2 of the Movement—after the camps were demolished—we kept up with each other via social media as well. We started to use the same strategy we had used for the Movement as a whole for individual campaigns: 1) share information, 2) start a conversation, 3) crowdsource a plan, 4) create an invitation, and 5) take the streets. This worked so efficiently because folks did not need to be "activists" to organize or participate. They did not need to feel like they needed some specific knowledge. They simply felt connected because they followed the stories and showed up at events. They felt emboldened to express their rage because they knew that they had comrades long before the event even happened. They could see others supporting the ideas in the form of "likes" and "RSVPs".  Social media created access and a platform.

In the end though social media was the undoing of the Movement for which it breathed life. What started as a tool for a general call to dissent actually provided a platform for passivity. When it became difficult to function in the public forum in the real world due to the old allegiances and the camps being raided and dismantled we began to settle for online correspondence. Daily sit-ins became weekly marches which became monthly assemblies which became online petitions. Our initial surge was due to a volatile level of pressure that had been built up over decades that was made accessible by social media. As that pressure dissipated over time the powers that be were able to capitalize on our divisions and force us into irrelevance. Now a good deal of my friends who I was in the streets, banks, squares, and parks with everyday (myself included) find it satiating enough to share stories on social media in the hopes that the pressure will build up again.

My fear is that the ease of Network posting has become the new public commons and has become an acceptable alternative for public dialogue because, again, very rarely do we engage with those whom we disagree. Social media algorithms do not exist in a vacuum. They are designed by corporations to maximum profits by maximizing exposure. No matter how many "friends" we may have or how many Nodes we are connected to people do not generally like their senses bombarded with principles and ideas that they fundamentally disagree with. Therefore, the Network gives you want: validation of your ideas. We supplement our circle jerk by giving them a hand; we surround ourselves with those who agree with us and pretend like that's building a community. We seem content to be validated. Therefore, the potential for bringing people into the street is pacified by the Network's ability to keep you in your seat.

It has been said that it is a shoddy workman that blames their tools and I have no doubt that social media is one of the greatest tools ever invented for organizing, but, again, it comes at a cost. It seems to have become for the marginally-involved an acceptable alternative for the gritty and grueling real world task of making the world a better place. In this way, the Great Equalizer has become the Great Pacifier.

I was going to end there, but I left out a crucial part of the story and I want to give organizing on social media a fair treatment. It also helped enable one of the most efficient and robust disaster responses in recent memory: Occupy Sandy. Superstorm Sandy—as it has come to be called—was a disaster that no one saw coming. The rising waters and flooding that swept through New York, New Jersey, and parts of Connecticut were far more severe than anyone thought they would be. Hundreds and thousands of people quickly found themselves without homes, electricity, or hope. It happened so totally and quickly that the official disaster response ("Big Response") was not able to keep up. Thankfully, a lot of the lessons that had been learned about how to use social media were able to be utilized.

Within minutes and hours organizers were able to connect to each other and share information about affected areas and needs so that they could start a conversation about how to organize relief hubs for supplies to be delivered and volunteers directed to dispatch. They horizontally crowdsourced a plan and invited the world to join them. Within days the world was stepping up to help the East Coast while the Big Response was still trying to get its pants on. The connections that were able to be maintained within the Network and the access and efficiency of social media were a huge part of the reason Occupy Sandy in New York and New Jersey were able to succeed.

As you can see when social media is used quickly and efficiently in times of great need it is one of the most powerful tools on Earth. However, this power must be constantly checked because it also holds the potential to pacify dissent with the same efficiency that it ignites passions. Extreme access means extreme precautions must be taken to balance social media organizing with real-time "boots on-the-ground" efforts. Otherwise, dire situations that deserve attention may be diluted and lost in the sea of information that the Network contains.

(I should note that I was an organizer with Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Sandy.)

The Table Of Brotherhood Or Race—Can We Talk About It?

I recently read an article written by a dear friend, Christopher "Flood the Drummer" Norris, on race relations that moved me deeply.[1] I had such a poignant mixture of emotions to what he wrote that initially I honestly didn't how to respond. However, I'd like to. I'd really like to engage with this conversation in the public forum and I think that was the point of his article so I have decided to write, but before I begin I want to take his advice and check my privilege at the door. I recognize that my having a voice in this forum on this issue on this Internet with these words takes place in a context and there are many experiences within that context that I cannot speak to, understand, judge, or for which I have the ability to empathize. However, I write this with a hope—perhaps naïve—that I can add something constructive to the conversation. With that said I sincerely hope what I have written here will be taken in the spirit that I have intended it—love.

I am a white male who grew up in neighborhoods that were occupied predominately by people of color. As such I have had a unique experience that I find difficult to talk about these days with white folks and people of color given the systematic structures of oppression that exist that keep me and people who look like me on top by default. However, in Atlanta (where my growing up happened) I found myself in many conversations with people of color about their experiences with oppression. They were never held in forums, town halls, or meetings on community relations; we were just kids talking about life.

In elementary school I remember we talked alot about Dr. King's dream of "sitting down together at the table of brotherhood" and what that meant.[2] We were told the histories of what happened to black folks throughout American history (albeit the condensed, watered down, barely recognizable versions of history that are easier on the privileged stomach), but also that we were to treat each other equally without bias. Therefore, as I grew up I tried to engage folks on these issues. It was never a problem for me to talk about race with people of color or other white folks. I knew shit was fucked up. I saw it. My friends went through it every day and told me about it. It was an open secret that the world treated some people different. My job—it seemed to me—was not to act like the world, but to do my best to sit at that table of brotherhood and talk with the folks sitting there with me about what to do about it.     

Later, I moved to Lookout Mountain, GA/Chattanoooga, TN where I attended a Christian college (that in and of itself being a privilege seeing as how LOTS of people from where I am from where not given the same opportunity [I went to school on scholarships]). I will spare you a lot of details but suffice it to say that I spent a lot of my time there in Churches devoted to racial harmony because they were convinced that—as it is written—"there is neither Jew nor Gentile because [Jesus] broke down the dividing wall of hostility in his flesh." (Ephesians 2:13-18) Now, I know that there is a lot of historical context to explore in that passage and I will gladly do that with anyone who would like, but for our purposes here we took it as a command to be a new people; a new race; a holy race… if not in the world, at least in the Church. We didn't do it perfectly, but we tried. We tried really hard by attempting to be upfront and honest and about our fears, inclinations, assumptions, hopes, and dreams. Now, when I moved to Philly and got involved in the activist scene everything changed...

One poignant example was one of the electrified general assemblies that I facilitated early on at Occupy Philly. A few people of color came to the front of the assembly and demanded the microphone to address a couple of pressing issues they had with our camp. I gave it to them. They accused the Occupy movement of purposefully practicing racism and berated our lack of attention to the causes of the traditionally marginalized. As you might imagine this caused an uproar. When I was given the mic back I attempted to calm the crowd by saying "We aren't racist here!" Two women—one of which who I have worked very closely with since—yelled back "yes, we are!" I didn't know how to respond. I was flabbergasted. "Why?” I thought to myself. I was operating under the assumption that we were there to act and be the change we wanted to see in the world. I couldn't imagine anyone there saying that they wanted to be racist so I couldn't understand their reasoning.

Since, I have come to understand their point. They were telling me and the crowd that racism is inherent and systematic. It is—as a close friend of mine likes to put it—a poison that we can't help but breathe. Like the folks who brought their concerns to the general assembly they were trying to instill in me and us the fact that there are systematic structures that inhibit certain people groups from achieving X, Y, and Z in America and those structures mold our actions and who we are. What I still don't understand is why we are content to let this poison kill us.

The Apostle Paul likened the Holy Spirit to a down payment of things to come in the new world (Ephesians 1:13-14). In other words the very Spirit of God would come upon believers to empower them to be able to live a resurrected life that was a reflection of the world to come which would be characterized by love, righteousness, peace, and joy (Romans 14:17). In other words: (through the Spirit) be the change you want to see in the world. My naive belief was that we, at Occupy Philly's Dilworth Plaza encampment, were trying to model the world we wanted to see. I facilitated as many, if not more, general assemblies than anyone there and I, nor my fellow facilitators, ever—to my knowledge—purposefully prioritized a white male voice over traditionally marginalized and/or oppressed peoples. On the contrary, we tried our best to act (and structure general assemblies) in such a way to empower those voices. Did it work perfectly? No. Hell, no. But was it a step in the right direction?

Here is my issue: I think that purposeful practice of the world we want to see and open dialogue about that world is progress. I think that babies taking their first steps to walk are something to be celebrated not lamented because they cannot run marathons right away. However, so many of my activist friends are so compelled to call out racism that it is all they can see. They are so overwhelmingly convinced of the presence of the poison that they can't smell the fresh air, even when they are temporarily immersed in it. There have been times in activist circles when I have been lambasted for parading my privilege like I don't know I have it when I have been thinking about these issues my whole life and living and loving among many loved ones suffering from it, but I am reprimanded in the moment. By merely expressing an unpopular question (such as "Can we talk about this? Can you help me understand?") I have been told that I am exercising my privilege and not taking into accounts the feelings and experiences of the oppressed. More times than I can count I have been told by activist people of color: "It's not my job to help you understand your privilege— talk to other white people about it." Then how am I (and we, for the matter) to understand? Can the blind lead the blind?

I was taught in Church and in school to love people. It is a spiritual issue for me. But how am I supposed to interact with the issue of systematic racist institutions and attempt to dismantle them over time when every time I attempt it I am put in a box? (The irony of the question does not go over my head) How am I to be an ally when I ask a question and the only answer I get is "that's not my job to figure that out for you—talk to other white people”? What if none of us know? How are the privileged supposed to dismantle racism in a way that reflects the community of the oppressed if the oppressed don't give us guidance? Even if I developed the perfect response to the racist regime it would still be the workings of a white male who has been given a voice on the issue without asking for it.

All of this is why I loved Chris' article. I think that anyone who would call him out with negative titles should look at themselves in a mirror before they pass judgment. I am not a perfect man, far from it. Neither is Chris. But I call that man "brother" because I have the naive belief that we, as people, can make a choice to not be held captive by our pasts but can run to the future together as one because we have purposefully broken down the dividing wall of hostility with our love. If the institutions that America has built are racist then I choose revolution, but I can't do it alone. And I will never know who my comrades are if I cannot talk to them about these issues. Fear is a powerful tool. I believe "the Man" knows that well which is why he keeps the well intentioned divided. But only love will save us; only love can break down the dividing wall of race; only love will bring us together. Whether we choose to practice love is a daily decision and not an easy one because history HAS been unfair; it has enslaved; it has oppressed. But can we do better? I hope so. If not on an institutional level (yet) then at least on a personal level. I'll be waiting at the table of brotherhood for anyone who would join me. I believe this is what Chris is trying to say: let's talk about it openly and honestly until we dismantle the ubiquitous foundations of racism together. Can we?

I submit this to you with the utmost humility. Honestly, I'm scared. I'm afraid this will be taken in a negative way; will be seen as just another expression of privilege; and will be an inhibition to progress. But I don't have a choice. I am so tired. I am so tired of being alienated from my brothers and sisters because of a world that was built without my permission. I submit this to you in the hope that in the spirit of love we will overcome.

---

[1] http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/kt-race-relations-conversations-shit-needs-stop/

[2] http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf