Jedi Hill (Alchemist Jedi)

I help Visionaries Fund their Vision by helping them overcome their fears!!!

JH: Nice to meet you, John. I am a big fan of people taking personal responsibility. What legacy do you intend to create?

JE: The blueprint for self-governance in the Information Economy.

JH: Blueprint for self-governance that might go along nicely with my New Atlantis Project.

JE: What is the New Atlantis Project?

JH: My vision is a world where everyone can thrive instead of fighting to survive. I plan on leading the world by creating an independent island country using the world’s plastic trash as its base.

As far as what I’d like to see happen in America is to win the Libertarian presidential nomination in 2024 along with the presidency so we can work on restoring freedom to the country.

JE: So, you are going to a gyre to collect the plastic and use solar to melt it?

JH: No, I’ll be shipping plastic waste to factories in order to recycle into giant lego-like blocks that will link together for the base of the island. Yes, I ran in 2020 for the libertarian presidential nomination and I plan to again in 2024.

JE: Why not just use fishing nets?

JH: People have tried that it’s not very efficient for the plastic collection. It’s faster to use the plastic trash gathered on land at the moment. What is your involvement with the libertarian party?

JE: Not much, in agorist mode now… how did you become a libertarian… may I ask?

JH: I never fit with the ideas of the duopoly and when Ron Paul ran for president he was the only one talking sense.

JE: When he ran as a republican? or libertarian?

JH: The 2008 run. I remember seeing him in 1988 but I was only 6 at the time so didn’t really understand it all back then. 

JE: I have heard that before…What is it about Ron Paul that reached you?

JH: Someone who also has a mind towards holistic health. eliminating the federal reserve and fiat currency. He was also the only peace candidate. Go back to the constitution and limit the power of government.

There were others but those we the big ones that caught my attention.

JE: Yes, I understand… May I ask your age? I am 65.

JH: 39

JE: Do you own a boat?

JH: No did some sailing when I was younger; hunting for a nice sailboat now.

JE: What do you think of the “Sailing the Farm” book and intentional community?

JH: That looks like an interesting book first I heard of it. I’m looking for an 80-100′ boat as 30′ is way too small for me.

JE: Here borrow my copy…

JH: Thank you for the book.

JE: What do think of the French Polynesia seasteading project?

JH: It was a nice try. I know they are now attempting to do something similar in Panama. Honestly, they need to be outside of the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) along one of the main shipping lanes if they want to make any real progress.

JE: If I were younger I would be a sea gypsy… start out with the Great Loop… then do the Caribbean… Would New Atlantis be stationary?

JH: No, it will be floating; the plan is to make it navigable like a ship.

JE: If I ever ran for president… I would do the great loop. stopping every day or so for a campaign stop… the boat would show the technology… like a moving museum. How can I help you?

JH: Think of who you know that might have engineering skills or has resources to help move things forwards.

JE: I could introduce you to Daniel E. Twedt. He has this vision for Permatrails… Many agorist have a single fixed location… These Permatrails would be a series of farms about a day’s journey apart.

What did you learn from your Presidential Campaign?

JH: That the libertarian party is just as corrupt as the duopoly and it takes money to win.

JE: I bet you have a story to tell! The Libertarian Party is just as corrupt as the duplicity?

JH: As a candidate, we got a list of delegate names and addresses. Once the convention was switched to digital some candidates were given a different list that included phone numbers and email addresses of delegates creating an extremely biased playing field.

JE: Some got more or better information than others?

JH: Yes, some got more and better information

JE: How much does it cost to win?

JH: You could buy the libertarian presidential nomination easily for between $50-100k

JE: I thought the Koch brothers bought the whole thing for $500,000 in 1980; that would be deflation! I am so sorry… You thought they would be fair?

JH: I’m not, I learned more about how things work and what I have to overcome in order to win in 2024

JE: What do you have to overcome to win in 2024?

JH: Get more news publicity, pay for delegates trips to the convention,

JE: What does it cost to pay for a delegate trip?

JH: Say $1,000 per delegate to cover their ticket and hotel, as Gary Johnson did in 2016.

JE: How will you get more publicity?

JH: Well for publicity I’m working on my 2nd book and building a real estate business to bring more jobs to my area as well as affordable housing.

JE: What do you think of the private, and charter cities movements?

JH: I like the private and charter cities; it’s a step in the right direction. They have the potential for lower taxes and more autonomy as opposed to big government oversight; more local focus.

JE: Yes, what do you think of the SEZ law in Nevada? In Nevada desert, a technology firm aims to be a government

JH: Yea I saw that; it depends on which entity runs it; some of those tech companies are straight up dictators

JE: Yes, the most oppressive force in some friends’ life is the Tech firm they work for! That was what was so neat about Florida… a developer like Disney… could just buy up some swamp land… and make whatever he wanted.

Now you have to get government permission to cut down a tree… I hear.

JH: Disney is an interesting case; that’s one of the most micromanaged places on the planet

JE: Yes, that is what I hear… just so they don’t stop me from leaving hehe. I was hoping Smart Cities would be used to provide more freedom…. now I am not sure… What do you think?

JH: I think it’s testing for social currency like china to see how much people are willing to be controlled.

JE: Want to plug your book?

JH: You’re more than welcome to check it out yourself you can download a copy for free at

JE: Does it tell me how to turn lead into gold?

JH: No, but it shows how to transform the way you think and reprogram the subconscious mind.

12. Skywriting and earth writing

Peace activists pledge resistance against U.S. military intervention in Central America, 1984-1990

In the early 1980s, it was no secret that United States president Ronald Reagan would use any means necessary to end or prevent the influence of Communism and the Soviet Union around the globe.

The two countries had been engaged in a bitter ideological struggle since the end of World War II, and each sought to expand their influence to other, mostly developing nations.

From Central America to Sub-Saharan Africa to the Middle East, the U.S. pursued a foreign policy that made frequent use of military aid—open and clandestine—to countries suspected of either showing or being vulnerable to Soviet influence.

While Reagan was one of the era’s most outspoken and influential anti-Communists, his foreign policy by no means represented an exception to Western, particularly U.S., relations towards the regions like Central America.

Like Reagan, multinational corporations operating in Central America  (many based in the U.S.) viewed the spread of Communism as a threat to their interests; low levels of regulation and taxes on business in developing nations friendly to the United States made for a safe business environment for such corporations. 

Furthermore, U.S. influence, either monetary or physical, had been operating for over a century in the region, well predating the Cold War. In the 1980s, one country—Nicaragua—was feared by peace activists to become the site of the next Cold War battlefield: it began to look more and more like the U.S. would pursue a full-scale invasion to overthrow the country’s leftist Sandinista government, or Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN).

Another concern to peace activists was increasing aid to Contra fighters, an umbrella term for any number of organizations carrying out guerrilla warfare against the FSLN operating in and around Nicaragua; they were notorious for human rights violations and attacks on civilians.

In 1980 and ’81, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) attempted to unite the disparate groups so that it could more effectively administer aid. In January of 1982, the Reagan administration secretly granted the CIA $19 million in military aid to recruit and train Contras.

This would be one of the first in a series of supports the administration would give to the Contras in exchange for their opposition to the FSLN. Aside from flagrant human rights abuses, Contra activity and U.S. support for it was seen by many activists as a sign of things to come; if they could not curb the FSLN to U.S. and industry’s liking, a U.S. invasion would be all the more likely.

At the 1983 annual meeting of the New Abolitionist Covenant, an amalgamation of Christian peace activists, the group decided to take action against ever-escalating U.S. military involvement in Latin America, a policy which had dramatically increased since the Reagan administration took office in 1981. 7,000 U.S. troops had invaded the island of Grenada in order to overthrow Maurice Bishop’s leftist government.

The Covenant’s 53 members feared that this “intervention,” along with the administration’s increasingly hawkish rhetoric, would result in a massive U.S. offensive.

In response, Covenant members Jim Wallis and Jim Rice drafted “A Promise of Resistance,” in which they vowed as Christians to physically obstruct any U.S. invasion of the country.

The letter, published in Sojourners magazine (of which Wallis was an editor), also called upon Christians throughout the country, in case of invasion, to nonviolently occupy congressional offices until the Congress moved to end the invasion.

The magazine sent a copy of the letter to all Congress-people, the Departments of State and Defense, the CIA, and to President Reagan, and each Covenant member presented it personally to the peace group they worked with at home.

After receiving support and input from a number of peace organizations, the Covenant published in Sojourner’s August issue an edited document called the “Pledge of Resistance,” which placed less emphasis on traveling to Nicaragua to nonviolently prevent a U.S. invasion.

It also gave readers contact information for seven regional Witness for Peace chapters that volunteered to serve as regional coordinators for the circulation and implementation of the Pledge.

After reading the letter, Berkeley graduate student Ken Butigan, with the support of David Hartsough of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) began again reworking the document to reach a larger, perhaps less faith based community, as well as to refocus efforts on action in the United States.

He then gathered the support of groups working on a wide variety of issues, including feminists and anti-nuclear activists, to create a coalition committed to the ideals outlined in the document and to taking action in support of them.

In October of 1984, Butigan and allies rallied for the first public signing of the document in front of the San Francisco Federal Building. The event included 700 people signing the Pledge, with many giving testimonies of their reasoning to the crowd.

A number of participants cited religious reasons. Later that month, Sojourners hosted a meeting for peace and justice groups to discuss the Pledge’s implementation.

Citing the San Francisco action, Butigan, speaking on behalf of the AFSC and its allies, called for a highly public, organized and decentralized model of organization, as well as an option for Pledge signers to wage legal protest in addition to civil disobedience.

Coming out of this meeting, the number of regional coordinating offices was expanded from 7 to 10, and Butigan published Basta! No Mandate for War, an instructional pamphlet for local Pledge chapters incorporating new ideological and logistical details for the campaign.

Local activists began to organize more Pledge groups across the country. They sponsored nonviolent direct action trainings, collected signatures, and organized affinity groups.

By the end of 1984, less than 3 months after the San Francisco action, organizers nationwide had collected 42,352 signatures, with half of signers pledging civil disobedience.

College campuses as well as such organizations as the National Lawyers Guild and the Jewish Peace Fellowship continued to publicly endorse the document, and Sojourners sent copies of the collected signatures to the State Department.

The San Francisco Pledge chapter began to enact “peace maneuvers” outside of the city’s Federal Building, a guerrilla theater performance pre-enacting the response of Pledge signers to a possible U.S. invasion in Nicaragua.

Pressure mounted on the U.S. government. The U.S. Congress refused President Reagan’s request for $14 million in aid to right wing Contra fighters, partly because they were known to perform illegal executions (often involving civilians). 

The Reagan administration then imposed an economic embargo on the Nicaragua. In retaliation, Pledge groups across the country planned and executed acts of civil disobedience across 80 cities in 16 states, with over 10,000 demonstrators and 2,000 arrestees.

In June of 1985, the Congress approved $27 million in aid to Contra fighters. In response, the national Pledge leadership expanded its focus from direct U.S. intervention to aid to Contra warfare and carried out massive demonstrations in 42 states, with 1,200 arrested for acts of civil disobedience.

By September, 80,000 people had signed the Pledge and agreed to resist U.S. funding of extra-judicial killings in all of Central America. While Pledge leadership had a clearly defined focus on Nicaragua, the Pledge itself provided something of an umbrella for civil disobedience actions by peace groups and individuals concerned with the larger Central American region.

Many took up action around El Salvador and Guatemala, two more countries negatively impacted by U.S. aid. For instance, the allied group Witness for Peace acted mostly around Nicaragua, but other allies such as CISPES focused almost exclusively on issues in El Salvador even as Pledge leaders redefined goals in relation to Nicaragua.

The wide reach of the Pledge manifested itself not only in issues, but also in tactics, with a number of groups carrying out autonomous actions separate from national leadership. Sources on the Pledge are often unclear as to which actions were which, though all were undertaken in solidarity with and fulfillment of the original Pledge.

All furthered the larger goal of a peaceful Central America, and served to fit Nicaragua—the Pledge leaders’ focus—within that narrative. Throughout 1986 regional chapters led both a massive expansion in Pledge involvement and an escalation of tactics. Activists occupied congressional offices, blocked gates to facilities training Contra fighters and blocked highways and airplane runways, through marches and sit-ins.

Pledge signers showed up en mass to candidates’ campaign appearances in order to bring Contra aid to the attention of potential voters. Around Christmastime, activists also flooded shopping malls to drop banners and sing politicized holiday carols.

In February 1987, U.S. National Guard troops were deployed to Honduras, just north of Nicaragua. Pledge activists staged vigils outside of Congressional offices and mass-mailed legislators’ mailboxes with letters of protest.

An “April Mobilization” brought together activists fighting both U.S. support for Contra fighters and apartheid South Africa; 567 were arrested at the CIA headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Next came a “Summer of Resistance” where protesters blockaded roads and railways to military bases. The Reagan administration, now restricted by Congress from fully supporting the Contras fighting the Nicaraguan government, found a way to evade Congressional decision – to send aid to the Contras by way of Iran. 

When Congress found out about this move – probably illegal and unconstitutional – Congress convened lengthy hearings about the matter. A group of peace-minded U.S. Armed Forces veterans held a three-month vigil outside the Congressional hearings.

In August, the same group of military veterans embarked on a forty-day hunger strike where they blockaded train tracks near Concord, California. During the blockade, one veteran, Brian Wilson, was amputated by an oncoming train. 

Wilson’s injury increased participation in the blockade campaign, drawing the support of Pentagon whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg and folk singer Joan Baez among other celebrities.

On a rotating basis, an energized group of roughly 1,000 protesters in a human blockade succeeded in blocking arms shipments to the Concord base for over two years.

Because the campaigners across the U.S. stepped up their activity in 1987, 1,200 were arrested in acts of civil disobedience. In February and March of 1988, activists involved in the Pledge’s “Days of Decision” helped to successfully block the passage of two White House proposals for aid to Contra-fighters.

The Reagan administration then sent an additional 3200 troops to Honduras. In the following months, because the campaigners saw increasing U.S. military presence in Honduras as a prelude to a Nicaraguan intervention, 900 activists were arrested in 150 cities throughout the country with 30 military bases targeted with nonviolent direct action for their support of ongoing armed conflicts in Central America.

That October 1988, 500 demonstrators took on the Pentagon itself, blocking entrances, occupying the building’s heliport and planting 500 crosses on the lawn to represent those killed by U.S. support for and instigation of the conflicts.

The U.S. increased its funding to the military of the right wing government of El Salvador; in response, 1,452 people committed civil disobedience and were arrested in November and December.

President Reagan’s eight-year presidency ended in 1988. Reagan had not succeeded in overthrowing the Nicaraguan government by means of the Contra military action, nor had he launched a direct U.S. invasion. 

In 1989 the number of active Pledge chapters dwindled.  The movement continued, however, because U.S. military support for right-wing governments in other countries in Central America remained active under Reagan’s successor.

Expecting this would be the case, Pledge chapters organized a wave of actions around the January 1989 inauguration of Reagan’s successor and former vice president, George H.W. Bush.

The month of May saw banner drops at national monuments in Washington D.C. and cultural attractions in other large cities. Finally, in March of 1990, demonstrators commemorated the tenth anniversary of Oscar Romero’s assassination by U.S.-backed forces with a 15,000 person-strong march on the capital in which 580 protestors were arrested.

While U.S. aid continued to right wing military forces in Central America, the Pledge of Resistance was one of many campaigns in the U.S. Central American peace movement that succeeded in making such support a national issue, and an invasion of Nicaragua, or the overthrow of the Nicaraguan government by Contra forces, a political impossibility for the Reagan and Bush administrations.

From the Global Non-Violent Action Database.

Colombian women use sex strike to demand gangster disarmament (Huelga de Piernas Cruzadas), 2006: Non-violent tactic #11 Records, Radio, and Television

  • 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.

Non-violent Tactic #10 Newspapers and journals; Mongolians win multi-party democracy, 1989-1990

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.

From the Global Non-violent Action Database

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.

From Global Non-Violent Action Database


How did you become a libertarian?

Ayn Rand, then Austrian Economics

What kind of libertarian are you?

A full advocate of don’t hit, don’t steal: the Non-Aggression Principle

What would you like to see happen? What is your vision for your country and the world?

Decentralization, a la Bitcoin, across all realms: education, defense, money, health, and media

How do you see these changes occurring?

People buy bitcoin, opt out of the fiat standard, then a forcing function takes hold

What can Self-Determination Advocates do to help?

Read the Bitcoin Standard or otherwise take the first step toward self-governance.

Spencer C. Underwood

I’m just an individual with Autism who likes to share truth and humor.

Lives in Kennedale, Texas

Many libertarians in Kennedale?

There are maybe one or two Libertarians in Kennedale… I believe one of them runs a not-for-profit farm that is sorta run like a food bank…

Do you communicate with him? Do you get together to chat?

Quite honestly, no we don’t really chat. I’ve never been out to his garden before. The man who runs the farm has a page on Facebook, it’s called The Garden of Eden.

You can look it up or I can go to the page and invite you to like it.

Sure, so, how do you keep up with the movement… and make a contribution?

Here is the page…

The Garden of Eden

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, 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. 

Where Can You Go Now… Freest Countries

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.

Ireland 7

United Kingdom 17

Puerto Rico 17 (US)

Chile 30

Martinique 33 (France)

Panama 40

Costa Rica 42

Albania 43

Bahamas 45

Armenia 47

Jamaica 53

North Macedonia 55

South Africa 68

Dominican Republic 57

Botswana 58

Bosnia and Hersegovina 59

Serbia 59

Paraguay 64

Ecuador 66

Ghana 72

El Salvador 73

Honduras 79

Belize 80

Namibia 80

Colombia 86

Mexico 86

Brazil 88

Bolivia 91

Kenya 93

Zambia 96

Lebanon 97

Haiti 98

Belarus 99

Burkino Faso 102

Uganda 104

Nicaragua 106

Liberia 112

Kuwait 113

Tanzania 117

Sierra Leone 122

Guinea-Bissau 126

Gabon 127

Togo 128

Nigeria 131

Tunisia 132

Mali 137

Pakistan 140

Chad 141

Zimbabwe 141

Republic of the Congo 143

Mauritania 150

The Democratic Republic of the Congo 151

The Central African Republic 153

Egypt 157

Sudan 161