radio stations played rap song conveying the demands of the strike
In early September 2006, a group of Colombian women, the partners of local gangsters, declared a sex strike. Their demand was that gang members turn in their weapons to the municipal government and agree to begin a vocational training program.
The strike began during a meeting in which twenty-five women from different neighborhoods came together to oppose the violence of their partners or spouses.
Said Julio Cesar Gomez, the security official in the city of Pereira’s local government, “this is about changing the cultural parameters: Some women thought that men wearing fatigues and holding guns looked more attractive, and most men are members of gangs not because of financial necessity but because killing is associated with power and sexual seduction.”
The striking women, partners of pandilleros and pistoleros (gangsters and gunmen) worked in collaboration with Gomez and the municipal government.
Pereira was considered one of Colombia’s most dangerous cities; in 2005, there were 488 homicides in the city, along with a per capita rate of 97 murders per 100,000 residents, twice the national average.
Pereira is a small city, with only around 300,000 residents. “We want them to know that violence is not sexy,” said Jennifer Bayer, 18, the girlfriend of a gang member.
She and at least two-dozen other women (some reports say up to 100 women participated) promised to continue the sex strike until their demands were met.
They benefitted from much public support – one month earlier, on 18 August, 140,000 people had voted in favor of disarming the civilians – which also extended to air time on the radio.
On September 11, the women released a rap song that was widely played on radio stations all over the city, with the chorus, “Como mujer, mucho valemos / que no nos deslumbre, un hombre violento / porque con ellos, mucho perdemos. / Yo elijo cómo, dónde, cuándo me entrego. / Todas unidas lo lograremos / contra los violentos, las piernas cerremos. / Paro sexual, / paro sexual”
(“as women, we have much worth / a violent man will not dazzle us / because with them, we all lose. / I will chose how, where, when I surrender. / All together, we will win / against the violent ones, with our legs crossed. / Stop sex work, / stop sex work!”)
While none of the news articles mention an end date for the strike, the results were very clear. The Guardian reports, by “2010 the city’s murder rate saw the steepest decline in Colombia, down by 26.5%.”
Columnists attribute this rapid decline to the action of these women years earlier.
I became a Libertarian when we moved to Denver at age 13. This is the birthplace of the Party. I’m a strong fiscal conservative, and socially liberal (what happens between consenting adults is none of my business), I am not the aggressor, but I will defend myself from the aggression type of Libertarian.
I believe in capitalism and I believe that if you choose to not participate in it, you should not be penalized. I would like to see more politicians voted out and not replaced. I would like to see the IRS disbanded and done away with.
I would like to see our military protect our borders. I would like to see more very local control and “leaders” held to a strict term limit, I would like to see no one above the age of 70 in public office, they are out of touch with the rest of the country.
I would like to see it much easier to start and run a small business, and the removal of most regulations and “fees” associated with starting up a small business. I most of all would like to see EVERYTHING privatized.
I struggle to see these changes ever occurring as the OWNERS of this country will never let it happen. This is why we must strive for sea steading. Self-Determination advocates can help by being involved in local government and getting involved with the actual Libertarian party to advance the agenda of taking over and leaving everyone alone.
In 1921 the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party (MPRP) came to power and soon aligned the country with the USSR. Until this democracy campaign in 1989, the MPRP ruled Mongolia through a constitutionally-sanctioned single-party government.
By the mid-1980’s, pro-reform sentiments and movements were spreading in Eastern Europe, especially at the universities. However, Mongolians remained isolated from all of this except for the few students who could afford to study abroad in Eastern Europe.
Although Jambyn Batmunkh, who came to power following a 1984 coup, enacted very limited reforms and a large part of the party had become more sympathetic to reforms, no significant reforms had been made.
Nonetheless, by 1989, students had begun organizing underground meetings and secretly putting up posters that protested the ruling party’s monopoly on power.
On December 10, 1989—by no accident concurrent with International Human Rights Day—the opposition group that would soon become the Mongolian Democratic Union (MDU) held its first open demonstration in Sukhbaatar Square with 200 people in attendance.
Although opposition groups had held clandestine meetings for the past few years, and had posted placards calling for democracy around Ulan Bator, they had never done so openly, let alone in the same square that housed the Khural—or parliament—and where the MPRP held their many pro-regime rallies and celebrations.
The demands at this initial rally were small compared to what they would become, with demonstrators holding signs calling for openness, the honoring of human rights, and freedom of the press.
The speeches of opposition that day were also accompanied by music from the rock group Khonkh. After the December 10 demonstration the campaigners officially formed the MDU and began to hold meetings, drawing more and more supporters every day.
Meanwhile the MPRP Politburo was already showing initial signs of reform by expressing their support of openness and restructuring, although they did not officially instate these policies.
On December 17, the MDU held another rally at Sukhbaatar Square, this time attended by 2,000 people, ten times the number at the first demonstration.
Having developed greater support and better organization, the group presented the Politburo with a petition of specific goals. In particular, they called for free, multi-party elections and a market economy to replace the failed, centrally planned economy.
They continued their demands for basic human rights, openness, and freedom of the press. As the MDU held regular demonstrations in Sukhbaatar Square throughout December, the support for the movement continued to grow and to incorporate a membership that was more representative of the Mongolian population.
MDU representatives recruited mineworkers in the city of Erdenet, who were spurred by their disdain for the Soviet control of the mine. This same anti-Soviet inclination was beginning to emerge in the movement as a whole.
On January 14, the MDU held a meeting of 1,000 people in the Lenin Museum in Ulan Bator. This was part of a series of meetings for open discussion that expressed the possibility of true democracy in Mongolian society.
Later in the month, continuing to weaken the MPRP’s hold on the population, the MDU gained the support of the Mongolian Journalists’ Union—which was then renamed the Mongolian Democratic Journalists’ Union—representing a possible shift towards free press.
On January 21, which was a day normally celebrated by communist governments to commemorate Lenin, the MDU’s new coordinating committee organized another huge rally.
Thousands of supporters joined this rally, celebrating Mongolian nationalism and culture instead of the communist hero. Rather than singing the MPRP songs that normally resounded in Sukhbaatar Square, the protesters—which now represented Mongolians from rural areas, small towns, large cities, and all classes—sang traditional Mongolian folk songs honoring the Mongolian conqueror, Genghis Khan.
Throughout January and February the Mongolian Politburo was unable to reach a solution for ending the emergent popular protest. They knew that violent repression would be looked down upon by the USSR, especially after the frenzy around the repression at Tienanmen Square in China.
And yet, every day the MPRP government was losing legitimacy. In mid-February, as an affront to the constitutionally sanctioned single-party rule, leaders of the MDU formed several new political parties, including the Mongolian Democratic Party and the National Progressive Party.
Additionally, the MPRP control of the media was loosening further as opposition journalists began to publish newspapers without governmental approval.
Protesters, having gained popular approval from Mongolian nationalists, dismantled the statue of Stalin that sat before the Mongolian National Library on February 22.
In another hugely symbolic action, ten MDU members, who were dressed in outlawed traditional clothing, launched a hunger strike in Sukhbaatar Square on March 7, 1990.
The hunger strike was new to Mongolia and was greeted with some curiosity, but paired with the traditional clothing it became a national symbol.
Throughout the day supporters gathered and marched in the square, students stopped schoolwork, and Buddhist monks came to show their support for the hunger strikers.
In towns throughout Mongolia, including Erdenet, workers held short sympathy strikes in conjunction with the actions in central Sukhbaatar Square.
The still divided Politburo attempted to negotiate an end to the hunger strike that day, still hopeful to avoid any violent repression. The hunger strikers, however, claimed that they would not stop until their demands were met.
Support for the strikers and their demands continued to grow throughout the day. With so many people now in support of the democratic movement, the MDU began to lose some control over the crowd.
On the second day of the hunger strike some protesters stole cars and buses and drove throughout Ulan Bator yelling anti-Soviet and anti-MPRP slogans.
In several instances campaigners even used violence and vandalism, despite the leadership’s continued advocacy for nonviolence. Nonetheless, the Politburo continued to refuse the use of forceful repression for fear of its negative effects.
On March 9, confronted by the widespread support for the hunger strikers and the ensuing chaos, the entire Politburo announced its resignation. This allowed the Mongolian parliament to put forth new governmental reforms and new MPRP leadership.
The parliament held meetings with MDU members and representatives from newly formed civil groups throughout the country in the following days, and after several days the parliament also officially ended constitutional support for single-party rule and elected a new Politburo made up of younger, reform-minded members.
Meanwhile, the MDU continued to hold rallies. Because of their continued actions, when police finally arrested protesters for the first time in early April, the MDU was ready to contest the arrests with a second hunger strike that eventually succeeded in freeing the imprisoned campaigners.
By the end of April the number of people attending rallies had surpassed 40,000, several opposition parties had held their first congresses, and the parliament continued to reform the MPRP government.
Finally, on May 10, 1990, the parliament declared that free, multi-party elections would be held in July. Although the Communist Party did in fact win nearly ¾ of the seats in that election, hardliners were replaced by reformists in the party.
Mongolia’s time as a single-party, Communist dictatorship had come to an end. In 1996 the Communists lost their majority in the government.
“I became a libertarian after Obama’s second election I think. The current bloated govt needs to be reduced by 90%
It would be ideal if the governments got out of everyone’s way and let the free market work without interference.
The lockdowns are causing far more damage than the virus. The governments are out of control.”
Nonviolent Tactic #9 Leaflets, pamphlets, and books
This can also include webpages and internet media
Nisqually and Puyallup Native Americans win fishing rights through “fish-ins”, 1964-1970
Native Americans have long had to fight with the American government for recognition of their rights to land and to resources. Fishing rights were, however, one of the few rights Native Americans of Washington State thought they had secured.
In 1853, Native American tribes of the Pacific Northwest were stripped of most of their land and resources and forced onto reservations. Because the Washington State Governor did not want to have to supply food for the Native American tribes, he agreed to include a clause in the land agreement treaties that guaranteed fishing rights to Native Americans on fish runs throughout the State.
There was little dispute over this right over the next hundred years. However, in the 1940s and 50s, fish supplies began to dwindle due to commercial over-fishing.
Despite their guaranteed fishing rights, Native American fishers were restricted to a repeatedly shrinking area of fish runs. Most court cases of that era sided with the government, resulting in the denial of Native American rights.
Those who ignored the new laws were at risk of arrest and confiscation of their fishing materials. As the situation worsened and the livelihood of many Native Americans were put at risk, opposition to the new fishing laws began to form.
Tribe members began organizing themselves to protest the denial of their rights and to re-secure their lawful ability to fish throughout Washington State.
Throughout the early 1960s, Native Americans organized a few unsuccessful protests and marches against the new fishing laws. Many used the courts to fight for their case, but judges almost never ruled in their favor.
On January 24, 1964, one of these many cases resulted in a ruling that temporarily banned Nisqually Indians from engaging in any off-reservations fishing, even on normally unrestricted areas.
This harsh ruling spurred Nisqually Indians to action. Members of the Nisqually and Puyallup tribes formed the Survival of the American Indian Association (SAIA).
The Association formed a partnership with the National Indian Youth Council (NIYC); together, they worked to publicize their cause and win back their rights through civil disobedience.
The campaign’s main form of protest was heavily influenced by the civil rights movement that was occurring in other parts of the United States. Nisqually and Puyallup protesters staged ‘fish-ins’—illegal fishing at Frank’s landing, a settlement in Puget Sound where fishing was restricted.
The group, which was seen as radical, was disavowed by leaders of both the Nisqually and Puyallup tribes. Through the NIYC’s funds, the campaign was able to use the mass media to widely publicize their cause.
February 27, 1964 marked the campaign’s first fish-in. The media, which described the new tactic as a rise of a ‘more sophisticated’ type of Native American protest, began to show some empathy for their cause.
Also, Jack Tanner, a well-known attorney for the NAACP, agreed to defend protesters who were arrested during the campaign. His involvement with the campaign legitimized it by linking it to the civil rights movement.
On March 2, the campaign got its first big publicity boost when actor Marlon Brando and Episcopal Minister John Yaryan were arrested at a fish-in. To maximize exposure of the arrests, campaign leaders woke reporters at 2:00AM to ensure that they would not miss the arrests take place.
Campaign leaders were well aware that the key to their success would be in gaining as much publicity as possible so as to sway public opinion. Gaining the support of a famous actor like Marlon Brando would ensure that media sources would cover the event, and that the general public would take notice.
The next day, 1000 Native Americans, accompanied by Brando, marched to the capital building in Olympia, Washington. The Governor agreed to meet with Brando and several leaders of the campaign, but no settlement was reached.
Over the course of the year, the campaign continued to stage fish-ins and to maintain a high level of publicity. In October of 1965, several tense fish-ins resulted in violent conflicts between police officers and protesters.
Both sides engaged in violence and both sides accused the other of brutality. Despite the violence, support for the campaign continued to grow. In November, the Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Olympia voiced his support for the campaign and made a donation to SAIA.
Other churches throughout Washington also made donations and pledges of support. The ACLU agreed to defend protesters charged during the fish-ins, and the American Friends Service Committee also voiced their support.
Dick Gregory, an African-American comedian, traveled to Frank’s Landing to participate in the protests. His arrest at the fish-ins raised publicity once more.
During 1966 and 1967, the campaign continued to stage fish-ins, but protests slowed and publicity dwindled. In September of 1968, leaders of the campaign decided it was time for a big push that would bring the protests back to the public’s attention.
Up until that point, fish-ins had mostly lasted for a single day. Leaders decided to stage a continual five-day fish-in, starting on September 4, 1968. The fish-in group included many non-Natives, such as members of the Washington Peace and Freedom Party, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Socialist Workers’ Party.
Over the next few days, hundreds turned out to witness the arrests of several of the protesters. The fish-in grew in length from five days to several months.
The trials and arrests of protesters created massive publicity, and public opinion seemed finally to be turning. Publicity of the fish-ins remained high as tensions between police and protesters rose and clashes escalated.
The leaders of the Nisqually and Puyallup tribes reversed their position and began supporting the campaign. They set up an armed ‘police force’ around the fish-ins as defense against police presence.
A police raid of the fish-ins in September of 1970 resulted in the most violent clash between protesters and police to date. However, in a huge success for campaigners, all Native Americans who were arrested for interfering with the police were acquitted.
Even more importantly, Attorney Stanley Pitkin, who had witnessed the violent police raid, later filed the court case U.S. v. Washington. This landmark case, which was eventually resolved in 1974, acknowledged the Native Americans’ equal share of the fisheries.
The ruling granted Federal support for the Native Americans in maintaining their fishing rights, and guaranteed Native Americans the right to regulate their own fisheries.
Although the campaign’s success did not follow immediately from the protests, the fish-ins raised public awareness of the issue and caused the eventual court case that ruled in their favor.
The campaigners’ incredible endurance and media savvy brought momentum and attention to the protests and enabled Nisqually and Puyallup tribe members to protect rights guaranteed to them over a century before.
How I keep up with the movement is by getting my information from anything other than Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and most local news stations. Most of the info coming from those news stations are controlled and scripted.
They all lie! The only way to hear the word of Libertarianism is connecting with like minds, becoming friends with them, then just sharing information and learning from one another.
So, you do that one on one?
Sometimes I do, but for the most part, I just share things from alternative media pages, like Natural News.com, Del Bigtree, Ben Swann, The Philosopher, John Stossel, Etc.
What have you learned from them?
A lot. I’ve learned stuff about what a Libertarian is and isn’t, how our television basically brainwashes people to believe the official narrative and never question anything…
Trust me, John, I could write you a book about the size of the Holy Bible if I wanted to, LOL!!! I’m curious. How did you come about being a Libertarian?
When I was about 10 I watched a movie: “What a Way to Go.” It mentioned Thoreau and Walden. I finally read it as a high school freshman. The copy I got from the library also had, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience.”
Then when I was a senior the school shrink told me about “The Fountainhead” by Ayn Rand.
How about you?
I heard about Ron Paul in 2008 and his platform about drug legalization… then fast forward a couple of years later on when I met a guy who used to be in the Army, he fought in the Gulf War in the early 90s.
He had schooled me in on the Federal Reserve being a private entity and how FRNs are printed out of thin air. He also told me a little bit about Geoengineering or better known as chemtrails and Genetically modified organisms in our foods that we eat.
After that moment and a little research on my own was when I came to realize that I was a Libertarian.
What was it that you researched?
Just about what my friend was telling me at the time. At first and in my head I thought that maybe he was just a little crazy, but he explained to me what Geoengineering was…
He asked me if I ever looked up at the sky and explained to me that sometimes you’ll see thick white, milky trails in the sky that comes out of the airplane exhaust.
Sometimes it’s just thin contrails that only last a minute but other times those trails will stay in the sky for a few hours.
What is geoengineering?
Geoengineering definition: The deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth’s climate, in an attempt to counteract the effects of global warming.
If you do a Google search, it should give you this definition towards the top of the page.
so what does that have to do with jet exhaust?
It’s usually the US military and its planes who have the chemical ingredients in its jet exhaust that is doing the spraying, you’ll also find chemtrails to be most prevalent in the American southwest.
If this doesn’t answer your question, then I can give you a link that will answer most of your questions.
Why are they spraying those chemicals, to fight climate change?
Climate change, solar radiation management, and human population control…
how do you feel about that?
I feel horrible. It absolutely makes me sick to see that the gov’t is being able to get away with such sorcery. There are all kinds of toxic metals in Chemtrails and they try to you in public school science books that it’s just contrails.
What if libertarians were labeled terrorists and you decided to get outa Dodge… an extended vacation? According to Kayak there are 77 countries open to travel now. I could only find 56 of them. On the right I added the Human Freedom Index ranking.
Used to be you could hide from coercion in the mountains and wetlands. That has become harder recently. So, some agorists have started a mobile nautical existence. The easiest place to do that is the American Great Loop.
The Great Loop is a continuous waterway that recreational mariners can travel that includes part of the Atlantic, Gulf Intracoastal Waterways, the Great Lakes, Canadian Heritage Canals, and the inland rivers of America’s heartland.
The next place that is easy to explore is the Caribbean. You can Island hop the Caribean only spending one night out to sea. Then there are the European Rivers and Canal System, the Aegean islands, and the greater Mediterranean.
Don’t forget the Scandanavian countries and Islands. In Asia, Malaysia has 878 islands, The Philipines 7640, Indonesia 17,508. Often the outlying islands have much more freedom than the main islands.
As one of the world’s most prolific DVD bootleggers, Hyram “Big Hy” Strachman of New York was responsible for distributing thousands upon thousands of illegally copied movies.
And despite the fact that for years he’d treated U.S. copyright law like so much Charmin scented two-ply, the government never laid a hand on him. Maybe that’s because he was rapidly approaching his 100th birthday.
Or perhaps it was because he never kept a single solitary dime from the potentially lucrative crimes he committed, and instead donated each and every rom-com, action flick, and Rob Schneider vehicle that he burned off to soldiers overseas during the height of our involvement in the Middle East.
“Here’s just the ticket to help some poor young man pass the time in a dusty foreign land; 300 episodes of Father Dowling Mysteries.” Once you factor in all the postage and blank disks, plus the price on that seven-disc duplicator rig seen above, Strachman probably spent somewhere in the area of $30,000 of his own money in the commission of his transgressions.
So as far as being a commercially successful techno-bandit goes, he was pretty much a wash. But to the men and women stuck out in the middle of hostile territory, where the height of entertainment might be wagering the day’s MRE on how many camel spiders they can shake out of their boots in the morning, the service Big Hy provided was damn near Robin Hood-ish.
He received numerous accolades from grateful service members, both enlisted and brass, which as you can see resulted in several areas of his home looking like a shrine to Apollo Creed’s fashion sense. “I love the smell of online piracy on a massive scale in the morning.”
Strachman could hardly claim senility or ignorance as an excuse since he always made sure to cover his tracks by quickly destroying the master discs once the replication process was complete, and keeping no copies for himself.
He also claimed to have never once fabricated anything store-bought and to have begun his bootlegging career by buying knockoffs from the vendors at NYC’s Penn Station. He said that his motivation for all of this came from both a missed sense of camaraderie that developed during his time spent in the Pacific theater during WWII and out of a need for something to occupy his time after his wife passed away.
So he bought himself some professional-grade equipment, maybe took a class or two at a nearby learning annex, then grew out his fingernails like a sassy receptionist in order to more easily separate the hundreds of discs he began copying each day.
And again, he knew full well what he was doing, and was crystal clear about the risks involved. But he was also aware that the authorities probably weren’t too thrilled about the PR nightmare that likely would have ensued if they came down too hard on him, as made evident during this interview with Alan Schwarz of the New York Times: “It’s not the right thing to do, but I did it. If I were younger, maybe I’d be spending time in the hoosegow.”
“Not to say that I wouldn’t know how to shank a bitch.” Big Hy’s son thinks that his dad’s admittedly shady hobby did wonders for his mental well-being, and gave him a reason to get out of bed in the morning.
Movie industry insiders weren’t nearly as pleased, however, claiming (rightfully) that these activities take money away not just from wealthy actors and directors, but also from the blue-collar types working behind the camera.
But before you start lamenting for all the starving key grips and best boys wandering the wastelands of downtown Burbank, you should realize a couple of things here.
First, it’s not like troops stationed in places like Afghanistan would have been buying movie tickets anyway, unless there’s some hidden IMAX multiplex in a Tora Bora cave that nobody talks about.
And frankly, Hy did the job that the movie industry should have been doing all along. See, studios actually do donate films to the military, but it’s always in reel-to-reel, projector-only form.
This makes their product more difficult to copy, but also ignores the fact that just about everyone in a war zone nowadays would much rather watch movies on their laptops.
You know, since a “theatergoing experience” in some places is sometimes just another way of saying “target-rich environment.”