A Movie Is Born: James Wolcott’s “Lucking Out” Is a Book of Cinematic Proportions

By Al Giordano

If James Wolcott’s Lucking Out: My Life of Getting Down and Semi-Dirty in Seventies New York (2011, Doubleday) becomes, deservedly, a movie, it will be an edgier East Coast cousin of Cameron Crowe’s Almost Famous. This coming-of-age story brings to resurrected life the “semi-dirty” portals and characters through which a young writer evolved to become one of America’s foremost cultural critics, on the cusp of waves that his own prose helped to create.

Imagine if instead of cutting his teeth on redneck jam bands like the Allman Brothers for the pretentious Rolling Stone editor Ben Fong-Torres, a writer had come up as the fledgling critic who sat at the bar at CBGBs scribbling John-the-Baptist prophecies on napkins to herald the coming of Patti Smith and Talking Heads, navigating the story through the shark-infested newsroom of the Village Voice (my god, it was as cutthroat as I’d always imagined it: “nobody at the Voice told you anything for your own good unless he was up to no good,” recalls Wolcott: “like the gangster families in The Godfather, the Voice convulsed into feuds every few years to purge the bad blood and begin a fresh cycle of animosities”), so that 14- and 15-year-old New York boys and girls, your correspondent included, could gobble up his prose and race down the Bowery for a front-table and a sloe gin fizz (we were never, ever, carded) in the opening rounds of what came to be known, later, but not yet, as “Punk.”

The wunderkind Crowe had Lester Bangs as a mentor, true, but Wolcott, we learn from Lucking Out, was caught in a love triangle with that brilliant and bombastic music critic and a mutual girlfriend during the final months of Bangs’ life. In the same 1973 when a 16-year-old Crowe was roaming the longhair frat halls of the Hyatt in Hollywood, the proverbial “Riot House” of established seventies rock stars and groupies, a 21-year-old Wolcott was waiting endlessly, over and over again, for Tom Verlaine and Richard Lloyd of Television to get their guitars stringed to taste (“it always took them forever to tune up, bent over their guitars like car mechanics over a tricky transmission”). There, he would often step out the CBGB’s gate onto the sidewalk at the Bowery and Bleeker Street for some air. Let’s go take that walk with him, for Wolcott’s is a pen with superpowers – the kind that Stan Lee and Jack King Kirby assigned to the Marvel heroes that inspired our scribe as a boy – that transports the reader to places and times of legend:

“If nothing else, the seventies in New York taught me situational awareness, a vital attribute for every slow-moving mammal prone to daydreaming. Like so many who came to see Patti, I would sometimes glide backward to the street when the opening band began tormenting their guitars after tuning up on each other’s nerves for five or ten minutes. It wasn’t like cooling your heels out on the piazza. Bottles would be dropped from the Palace Hotel men’s shelter above CBGB’s, their green and clear glass smashing on the sidewalk, some of them exploding with pee, the contents recycled from the beer or Thunderbird that the bottles formerly contained. It wasn’t a nightly occurrence, but it happened often enough to keep you limber. Scraggly panhandlers who didn’t bother to work up an inventive line of patter to go with their outstretched palms would pester anyone stationary, even though the CBGB’s customers themselves were the very portrait of slim pickings and linty pockets. Abuse was shouted from passing cars, on general principle, not for anything in particular, and the occasional curiosity-seeker or casual-date couple would serenade by, open the front door for a peek, and get a face-ful of inchoate racket blasting from the stage – all the deterrence they needed to keep moving to find a different lovebird destination, assuming they weren’t eaten by cannibals before they got to Canal Street.”

That “situational awareness” would, in real life, prepare some of us to live and navigate in places like Mexico City, Sao Paulo or the Lacandon Jungle, but it readied Wolcott for an even scarier place: the offices of the New York media. Over the subsequent decades he has deliciously taken down the mighty knowns and risen up the worthy unknowns as a widely-read critic of – you name it – movies, music, television, politics, news media, bloggers, and classical ballet, among other contact sports for the Voice, Esquire, The New Yorker, New York mag, The New York Review of Books and his current longtime gig at Vanity Fair.

Too many of the “New York media elite” occupy its overpaid cubicle spaces and column inches with formulaic, banal, effete and careerist drivel. But every rule has an exception and mine, as a reader, is Wolcott. Reading his prose is as flavorful a venture as chomping on a slice of Joe’s Pizza on Sixth Avenue, and, no, not because he may have once in a while tossed a few literary bouquets my way. There are plenty who have been generous with praise toward this bad boy but if they have a new book out I still cross the street when I see them coming, cowering in horrific fear that they’re going to ask me to review it, which, gasp, would mean I’d have to read the damn thing first. I don’t even like books anymore! I used to love them, but then books, much like New York, changed.

I spend too many hours already racing through the well-lit hallways of the Internet, so the last thing I want to do during leisure time is stress these eyes even more. And if you’ve walked into any of the chain bookstores that have supplanted the mom-and-pop ones, you may, too, have noticed that fiction died in the 1980s and that nonfiction didn’t last much longer. It had been more than two years since I read any book, prior to Lucking Out, and I confess that I’m proud of to be part of such illiterati. Books come out too slow to be timely, and the publishing houses churn them out according to formulaic focus-group research of what book buyers think will bring them status, make them seem smart, or get them laid if they leave the product lying around the coffee table. The thousands of books that once cluttered up this mind were either sold on Rivington Street or given away before my ugly divorce with them. Books are heavy and clunky. They don’t fit in a pen drive. And if adventure is your calling you eventually conclude that they must be cut like ballast from Phileas Fogg’s balloon.

Yet when a review copy of Lucking Out arrived last week, conveniently while I was in New York (we don’t give out the address of the Narco Newsroom to publishing houses, because then they consider it permission keep sending all kinds of crap), I ripped open the padded envelope like a kid on xmas day. I knew it would bring me back through the doors of CBGB’s (Wolcott calls it “the only place where my memories are three-dimensional,”) and felt that tingly sensation I had each time I stepped across the threshold, with my high school buddies Philip Shelley, Emily Wasserman, Jon Frankel, Kathy Lamantia, Billy Johnson – people who remain in, or have returned to, my off-screen life 35 years later, none of us ever having quite recovered from such formative experiences – and so many more, into its long, dark cavern as a teenager. A truly great writer just published a book about events in seventies New York that he and I were party to, although we sat in separate sections of the bar, and that was enough to keep me in bathrobe all day on Saturday to devour its 258 pages. I opened the book around 8 a.m. and only got around to having breakfast at three in the afternoon. My hardcover-devouring girlfriend - who slipped an egg-and-cheese sandwich in the slot under the door - says that Wolcott should get the Nobel in literature for his contribution to world literacy: he got Al to read a book. “I’ve never seen you smile like that,” she said, “while reading something,” which is more often than not, a duty or a chore.

It’s been fifteen years since I’ve liked a book (there have been many) about those over-hyped days at CBGB’s, a place and time where everybody claims to have been, but when you ask a question that begs details, it turns out they saw it in a YouTube video or in a magazine. You could have fit us all into a thimble, truth be told (as I was boasting with Wasserman and her Brooklyn pals the other day, “there are photos of Emily and I at CBGB’s in 1975.” And that still isn’t considered credible until one adds, authoritatively, “and they’re on Facebook.”)

Fifteen years ago I wrote an impassioned Boston Phoenix review for Legs McNeil and Gillian McCain’s Please Kill Me: An Oral History of Punk (1996). The previous winter I had enjoyed a bit of a re-run as a court scribe on the bus with the Patti Smith Group on her comeback tour with Bob Dylan, when Verlaine taught me the secret to better guitar playing – “drink a lot of coffee,” he said, pausing his phrases like Miles Davis’ silence-between-the-notes. (Then-media critic for the Voice, Cynthia Cotts, later commented, “that tour destroyed you as an employable commodity in this industry: you learned from Patti that you could become a kind of rock star yourself simply by acting like one.”)

My punk encore did indeed, very quickly, lead my journalism career to go up in self-immolation that year. Those moments were the Tunisian street vendor to my own personal Egyptian revolution, which spit me out of Boston and New York and hurtled me south of the border. Yet, in October, November and December of 1995, in Patti’s entourage, I was merely sweeping up the hallowed ground that Wolcott had trail-blazed twenty-one years prior: He had reported, for the Voice, on the night that Dylan showed up at CBGB’s to bestow his Excalibur sword to Patti, back in 1974, a glistening passage of prose that is revived for three pages of Lucking Out.

It’s so much fun to read Wolcott give a bit of justice in column inches to David Byrne and the Franzes of Talking Heads, and to Verlaine, art-rockers of “punk,” who were inexplicably granted slight billing by Please Kill Me. Wolcott writes of his crush on the (married, therefore perfectly untouchable) Tina Franz and his excited visit to the apartment where the Talking Heads lived back in the day:

“Byrne’s ambition was harder to spot at first because his voice broke like a choirboy’s and his head was always bobbling or askew, not Fixed in Purpose or rapture-lost. He was as willful as Verlaine, but his willfulness woke outward, toward the honeycombed world, whereas Verlaine’s narrowed to a shrinking portion of what he sought and fought to control. Byrne’s very accessibility, his approachability, set him apart from Verlaine and (later) Patti, whose don’t-bother-me-I’m-an-artist signs on their faces deterred those who might idly come knocking. One night a CBGB’s regular named Valerie, a gorgeous speed freak whose chat accelerated into gibberish the longer she hung at the bar, said to me, spotting Byrne, ‘I’m going to pick him up and swing him around.’ ‘That I’d like to see,’ I said. As David headed toward the stage area, nodding his bashful hellos, Valerie grabbed him around the chest in a skilled grappling move and twirled him around, and as he spun, he said, ‘Whoa!’ like a teenager on an amusement park ride, and when he stopped, he pretended to act a little dizzy, as if bopped on the head by a fuzzy hammer. Had she tried that with Lou Reed, he might have burst into mummy dust.”

Don’t even try to tell me that this book wouldn’t make a wonderful movie, if only so somewhere from the back row of Heaven’s Cineplex, Pauline Kael might see it and review it.

Kael was Wolcott’s mentor, and his memories of being taken in by, and learning the craft of criticism from, Kael dominate pages 53 to 104 of Lucking Out. Despite that the book gifted me a worthy reunion to my own times (and who doesn’t love a good jaunt down Amnesia Lane?), the Kael section was my favorite part of Wolcott’s latest work. It was a worthy homage to a mentor by a student, but, more tellingly, it stands as an eternal paean to, and roadmap for, the very concept of a mentor-protégé relationship. Unlike so many opportunistic what-have-you-done-for-me-lately ingrates, Wolcott remains fiercely loyal to his most important teacher and guide, a decade after Kael (1919-2001) passed away.

Movies may have been produced in Hollywood, but in the seventies (a golden age when directors enjoyed a renaissance of artistic freedom to control their own flick, a concept that, alas, does not exist today) they had to get through the lofty trenches of a few choice New York movie critics, generally, to have any hope of box office success. Kael was among the most influential, writing from her country house in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, in the Berkshire Mountains, and commuting to the offices of The New Yorker (staying at the Royalton Hotel at 44 W. 44th street, and only at the Algonquin when the Royalton was full) for her six-month-a-year shift at the cinema desk. If there is a magazine, today, that would let a critic work for six months a year, I’d like to know about it.

Kael was much like those great seventies film directors in that she ran her own show. Movie companies would hold private screenings for her, to which she would bring a posse of fellow and sister critics, and other friends, to watch (always a “movie,” she detested calling them film, which she said was just a kind of tape that one put in a camera). In 1974, the 22-year-old Wolcott received an unsolicited phone call from the 53-year-old Kael, who invited him along for the ride simply because she liked his writing in the Voice. In the following years, Wolcott would go through various, as he called them, “serial monogamous” relationships with girlfriends until later meeting his wife, but the section about Kael in Lucking Out is a romantic platonic love story between the author and a unique New York character; authentically Big Apple, because Kael really didn’t care who she offended when expressing her opinion on their work (“she was blaspheming everything the New York Times Arts and Leisure section held hallow,” Wolcott recalls). After reading Lucking Out, I’m in love with Kael, too.

Reading those 51 pages on Wolcott’s years of opening doors for the five-foot-tall dynamo, of carrying Kael’s briefcase, and of walking her home to the Randolph after so many nights of film screenings followed by Algonquin round tables with her posse, I couldn’t help but be reminded of a scene from one of the Jurassic Park movies (not being schooled in cinema, I couldn’t tell you which one), in which a baby T-Rex is taught to kill its prey by its mother and Junior proceeds to bite off the head of one of the bad guys.

Over the years, Wolcott’s own critiques have exasperated actors, directors, musicians, choreographers, dancers, journalists, bloggers, politicians, and the agents, handlers and moneymen behind them. At times I wince when he savages some of my favorite artists and their art (Bertolucci’s 1900? the CBGB’s-born Blondie? and it takes a lot of guts to have publicly yawned, as he did, at a sacred icon like Bruce Springsteen at the precise moment when he emerged to conquer rock and roll), but mostly I’ve taken great vicarious delight in watching Wolcott turn effete snobs that pose as leftist or rightist gatekeepers into piñatas: Ellen Willis (cough), Newt Gingrich (double cough), Susan Sontag (hack, wheeze)… Lou Reed! Look up the word “iconoclast,” kids: Wolcott’s photo is in the Pictionary.

A particularly entertaining takedown of Reed, the former Velvet Underground front man, already an icon by 32, in Lucking Out, informs as it pleases. The point of the writing, in fact, was not to knock down Reed (although it does, like a bowling pin in a Bronx lane on a Saturday morning) but to rise up Reed’s ex-partner in creating the Warhol Factory soundtrack, John Cale, who once drunkenly strangled Wolcott with his hands along the bar at CBGB’s, over a misunderstanding on the slurred pronunciation of “Molson”:

“I didn’t take it personally. There was no repeat performance.  In fact he (Cale) was unfailingly genial and chatty whenever I ran into him, and his presence on the scene, despite the sporadic aggro-surges, cast a more generous corona than that of his former co-pilot, Lou Reed, whose cool-as-shit sarcasms seemed to come out of a private loop of Bob Dylan’s surlier moments from Don’t Look Back projected on the inside of his sunglasses…

“One night Lisa Robinson, rock journalist extraordinaire, came up to me with the winged-Mercury enthusiasm of someone with some really good gossip to share and asked: ‘So, did you hear what just happened? Verlaine confiscated Lou’s tape recorder. Went up to him and demanded that he fork it over.’ Which Lou did, like a shoplifter surrendering a pack of cigs.”

For a decade or more after those years, our scene and we were forgotten: old news, yawn. We used to say, you had to be there, and I often got the idea that we were received like shell-shocked ‘Nam vets by people who didn’t ask and didn’t want to hear what it was like over there. Kurt Cobain would eventually generate some interest from a later generation, but New York “punk” got all rolled up, in popular culture, with other things that were really nothing like it: the British version of “punk,” the West Coast one, a “new wave” market niche along with artless “hardcore” and corresponding fashion statements associated with spiked hair and such. Thanks to Lucking Out (like Please Kill Me, before it, for which Wolcott’s book serves as a long overdue addendum reviving important parts that somehow got left on Legs’ and Gillian’s cutting-room-floor), the kernel of the idea is now better preserved. The 1970s works of the author and a precious few colleagues fast-forwarded us and prepared us to have Wolcott’s “situational awareness” that is now a survival skill in this treacherous media-dictated future that we live in, when Verlaine’s pioneering act – one just didn’t even consider taking away an icon’s tape recorder back then; Tom did – gave us a clue and pointed us toward the present-day skills we need.

Wolcott didn’t write only about these young pre-cyber culture jammers. And this is the most interesting twist in a book that begins with a 20-year-old cub reporter dropping out of college and coming to New York from the Maryland-Delaware border with nothing but a recommendation letter from Norman Mailer (given, it was not exactly “nothing,” but it still carried no guarantees). In Lucking Out, we read not only what he learned in his New York salad days, but more importantly, how he learned it, from his magnum-teacher Pauline Kael. In the pages of this book, we then watch Wolcott apply that knowledge in his first lasting journalistic venture: the promotion of Patti Smith and the CBGB’s scene around her, before it was clear that any of it was going anywhere.

Lucking Out teaches us all to be critics, with the proviso that the greatest thing a critic does is not to tear down, but to build up. All the tantalizing takedowns that authentic critics make merely establish the ground upon which, when they find something or someone really worthwhile to raise up, they can open the space for something truly new and interesting to happen. See that guy or gal in the back row of the theater, the one who hates everything that sucks and even some things that we don’t want to suck? Well he or she suddenly really likes something now! Let’s go see what the fuss is about!

Back to what the student, Wolcott, sponged-in from the mentor, Kael:

“One thing I learned from Pauline was that when something hits you that high and hard, you have to be able to travel wherever the point of impact takes you and be willing to go to the wall with your enthusiasm and over it if need be, even if you look foolish or ‘carried away,’ because your first shot at writing about it may be the only chance to make people care. It’s better to be thumpingly wrong than a muffled drum with a measured beat.”

And, thus, as Wolcott puts it, “leaning on the throttle to hurry up the future,” we read in this book an excerpt from his 1974 Voice piece that proclaims boldly that unsigned and largely unknown Patti Smith is the next big thing, a “knockout performer: funny, spooky, a true off-the-wall original. Like the character in Dickens, she do the police in different voices,” and the young writer went out on a very long limb to proclaim: “skinny schizzy Patti is on her way to becoming the wild mustang of American rock.”

There is no yardstick available on this mortal plane to measure whether Patti’s triumphs then happened because young Wolcott, the critic, wrote it. But nor is there any way at all to prove that it would have happened had the critic not done so. These things are in the realm of reasonable doubt from both sides of the pessimist-optimist divide. Such is the life of a critic. The crowd is always eager to blame you for killing something, but averse to credit you with the midwifery of anything demonstrably inspiring.

Beyond the secret histories from Kael to Cale, Lucking Out adds Wolcott’s memoirs of corners of seventies New York that had never captured my imagination: Classical ballet and porn among them. (His odes to the NYC pornography industry quickly segue into a theme of more personal interest: sex in Manhattan, even if I’m grateful that while all those guys were whacking away their afternoons in XXX theaters in Ye Olde Times Square, not a single one was, at that precise moment, competing for a real-life gal’s attention). But Wolcott does pull the dirty trick of making me think that maybe one day I’ll load up on nicotine gum and actually enter Lincoln Center – if they’d have me, I don’t know – to see what all his dancy-prancy fuss is about. That’s another sign of a great writer: one that can make you curious about matters that previously held zero interest.

I will assign Lucking Out to my own students and protégés, and not only to wave his pages on Kael in the air shouting, “this is how a mentor should be treated!”

And speaking of “lucking out,” a couple of weeks ago, while ushering some participants of a workshop on journalism and civil resistance through the Occupy Wall Street encampment at Zuccotti Park (as we entered, Narco News TV director Greg Berger wondered who we’d run into and I confessed that in previous visits I had seen more than a few annoying activists from previous misadventures that I had the “situational awareness” to skillfully avoid), the first person I ran into was Jim Wolcott, chatting with one of the occupy media committee organizers. “I knew you’d be here,” he said, which was a good use of dry humor since he knows I live South of the Border. We talked about the challenges of finding the different-drummer stories in an event that has had been under a pack-media magnifying glass (who have written too much about drummers there, anyway), and he graciously gave his sage time to some of the scholars from our workshop. I have no idea what his coming Vanity Fair story on “occupy” will say, but I find myself clicking refresh waiting for it to happen.

When recounting the turf wars, rivalries and catty dialogue among the New York media newsrooms and hangouts, Wolcott extends a generous appreciation to just how vicious so many of the divas there had been to him and to each other:

“I resented being bullyragged for making a fool of myself because making a fool of yourself was one of the hard-earned liberties Norman Mailer had fought for in his boxing trunks. But I have to say, I don’t regret my days in gladiator school. Having your ego slapped around a bit helped the blood circulate and would prove a superb conditioning program for a future sub-career in blogging, where a tough hide would come in handy every time the Hellmouth opened. Every time I’m abused online with a battery of scurrilous remarks of a personal nature, I’m able to let them bounce off like rubber erasers, having been called an asshole by professionals, experts in the field.”

That counsel is pure gold for new and future generations of writers and critics. If I had a 35-cent New York City seventies subway token for every time a present-day blogger or aspiring journalist threw a whining tantrum when, for a change, he or she were at the receiving end of a critique or a putdown, I’d be able to buy the Huffington Post and the New York Times just to be able to padlock the doors and put them all out of their wussy pack-journalism misery.

So, you want to be a writer? A critic, you say? Then you can’t give a fuck about what people say about you after you’ve fired your keypad and crestfallen their fragile egos (or those of their sacred cows). In the few times we’ve spoken, Wolcott has struck me as gentle and sensitive, much more of an officer and a gentleman than Pauline Kael (“tough” she used to say when someone objected to her words, Wolcott remembers, often followed by “shit”).  Really, he comes off more as the sort of mensch that rescues stray kittens from alleyways in his spare time, later to appear in his prose as the house ocicats of a tea-totaling domestic bliss. And yet I suspect in that uptown apartment he sometimes lets us peek into that one can still regularly hear the Jay Dee Daugherty backbeat to Patti Smith’s annunciation of “the sea of possibility… seize the possibility!”, a credo for authentic writers and critics anywhere.

Kael, the subject of his greatest homage to date, was able to summon and forge a healthy sense of detachment out of her young charge. One gets the sense that the brickbats and cruelties fired back at New York’s greatest surviving critic might sometimes hurt Wolcott’s feelings, but that his big liberal East Coast heart is gym-toned and plated with enough Bowery grit to save him from the trap of pulling punches or turning the volume down the next time he sits down at the keypad in his lifetime duel against the bores.

And for once, when, someday, some cinematic genius in Hollywood makes an irresistible motion picture out of Lucking Out, bringing its ageless, history-making characters to life on the screen, I’ll be able to murmur across some hissy uptown cocktail party salon, “but the movie wasn’t as good as the book,” and then let drop that I reviewed the original on its route to the left coast, with the immeasurable ever-so-New-Yorker suggestion, unspoken but hinted nonetheless as subtly as a sock in the nose, that perhaps this very review planted that idea in the director’s head. I’d never be able to prove it. And you’d never be able to disprove it.

That’s the magic to being a critic. Wolcott is the Merlin who has rescued and tended to those hexes and spells during decades in which the art of criticism has been battered and obscured by mercenaries who, try as they might, are no longer worthy to lift the sword from the stone. When we could distinguish between “uptown” and “downtown” and Fourteenth Street was still a kind of national border, he was able to traverse both sides and cross-pollinate between them. Now that all Manhattan has been annexed by uptown, and everything and almost everyone truly downtown was extinguished, pushed to the sides, or ran like hell, he’s still crossing the Bitfrost between Asgard and Midgard, mythical representations popularized by the Marvel comics that he soaked up as a kid. Today, this working class autodidact from Maryland patrols the streets of New York much like his childhood heroes, avenging the never-ending crime waves of banality that make the Son-of-Sam years look like a holiday. On second thought, he’s not Merlin. Wolcott isn’t old enough – he’s not even gray – for such a stuffy Arthurian role. In a media industry of mere mortals, look over there: he’s the dude with the hammer of Thor in his hands. I can’t wait to see where he hurls it next.


NNTV: “Hungry for Justice” Deploys Humor (and Food!) vs. Drug War

By Al Giordano

It’s no secret that the war on drugs has inflicted more pain, death and suffering on Mexico than any people should ever have to bear. Headlines daily proclaim the latest casualties – 50,000 human beings murdered by criminals, soldiers and police in less than five years – and yet the prohibitionist policy that causes the mayhem remains, so far, intact. The international media reports the same story over and over again in different configurations – a murder here, a mass grave there, another seizure of the South American cocaine that flows through Mexico toward the gringo’s nose (we are told that it breaks the previous record of last month’s record seizure, and await next month's even more triumphant claim), and a series of “cartel” bosses with comicbook villain names served up as if they, and not governments, are the real kingpins of this disaster – and yet very little attention is offered, comparatively, to the real story happening south of the US Border: That everyday Mexicans, especially the family members of these 50,000 dead, have organized themselves into a national movement over the past seven months to end the violence and the drug war that brings it.

For example, the poet and journalist Javier Sicilia – around whom this vibrant Mexican movement has risen up after the assassination of his son last March – is in Washington DC today, with other drug war victims, where he testified before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States, documenting this tragedy, and not a single story has yet appeared in US wire services, daily newspapers, national TV or radio newscasts, about it. They have entire offices, news bureaus and paid reporters in Washington, but not a word is spoken.

International human rights and “press freedom” groups regularly put out press releases denouncing the latest murder or violation, and almost nobody pays them any mind either. Some activists do the same, but they can shout from every mountain about 50,000 dead, even in the country next-door, and the only response is typically the echo of one’s own voice across the barren canyon.

I have an idea of why that is. It is related to Robert J. Lifton’s theory of “psychic numbing” that he pioneered during the Cold War and its nuclear arms race. (Indeed, such numbing impeded and delayed movements to end the threat of nuclear war for decades: it took a citizen movement not against nuclear arms, but against nuclear power plants, in the late 1970s, to re-sensitize American public opinion to the overall atomic threat, creating the opening for the national nuclear weapons freeze movement of the 1980s; a movement that, if nothing else, convinced the people of the Soviet Union that most Americans didn't want to incinerate them with cruise missiles, and, once losing that fear, began to address their domestic grievances.)

Paul Slovic advanced Lifton’s ideas when he wrote about “genocide neglect”:

“Most people are caring and will exert great effort to rescue individual victims whose needy plight comes to their attention. These same good people, however, often become numbly indifferent to the plight of individuals who are ‘one of many’ in a much greater problem. Why does this occur?”

The same dynamic has numbed policy makers, media organizations and American public opinion alike to the wholesale violence of the drug war in Mexico. And yet if you know any activist or person who has tried to tell you about what is happening down south, you have likely heard them spout mainly the statistical body count and bloody horror stories from the latest headlines, to the point of being really, really annoying. Too many well-meaning people seem to think that if they just tell you how terrible something is that you will want to right that wrong and fix that injustice. Then they often berate you for not being as "caring" and "compassionate" a person as they. But think about it: when was the last time a statistic or a guilt-trip got you off your ass to do anything?

And this is one of the values of Javier Sicilia: one human being’s pain, and his ability to articulate it in words to which most humans can relate, has re-sensitized so much of the Mexican population so that it can begin to confront the drug war that is the source of so many of the evils it confronts every day. It has reduced the numbing. And from the story of one, well told, quickly came others: that of Julian LeBaron, of Teresa Carmona, of Maria Herrera and so many others whose individual stories break through the numbing that the activist-speak recitation of numbers could not touch.

We’ve reported each step of this movement in detail on these pages, stressing these individual human stories, but never from the perspective of merely denouncing that something awful has happened to them and their loved ones. Narco News reporters devote our labor, instead, to the stories of how people gather and organize to create justice where there is none. When reporters come to us proposing to write about, say, a political prisoner who recently went to jail, our response is “find the family members or friends or organizations that are campaigning to get him or her out of prison. Tell the reader how they are organizing. We’re not here to depress people! People are already depressed and it immobilizes them! Find the ray of hope in this story that helps us see that something can be and is being done to change the story.”

That’s because after so many years of doing this work we’ve learned that denouncing evil alone accomplishes nothing to fix any problem, and it in fact dulls and numbs and creates even more fear even among everyday people who may have thought about taking action, but feel too overwhelmed, or fearful, to do so. Lifton’s “psychic numbing” and Slovic’s concept of “genocide neglect” explain perfectly why 50,000 murders in Mexico produce a collective sigh or yawn (a non-response that also deepens the despair and numbness of public opinion about the drug war).

Sometimes a story of a terrible violence or injustice does crack through the numbing and arouses public response. Such was the case on December 22, 1997, when paramilitary soldiers assassinated 45 indigenous men, women, elders and children as they prayed in a church in the Mexican state of Chiapas. What made the Acteal story different than so many tragic cases of violence is that it was a community that had already begun to organize its own autonomy in how it farmed and worked, how it ate, how it educated its children, how it healed its ill, without accepting any money from the government. It was for this reason that its residents – already, in 1997, avowed practitioners of nonviolence – were massacred.

On September 15 of this year, the Caravan of Peace of family members of drug war victims stopped in Acteal. Authentic journalists Greg Berger and Marta Molina were there reporting it for Narco News. They returned inspired to tell the story of what they saw and heard. Molina wrote the story about it and, working with young audio technicians from the community, recorded everything that had happened. Berger videotaped. During the hours that the community awaited the caravan, they interviewed community members, and recorded the ceremonies and words when the caravan arrived. In subsequent days they caught up with LeBaron, Carmona, Herrera and other family members of drug war victims who had been there that night, who told compellingly of how meeting the people of Acteal had inspired and taught them about their own struggle.

The challenge then was to do something with the video and audio that would be seen by many people, to share the story beyond the “already converted,” to bring the story to people not already in the struggle. And online video has greater potential than text to accomplish that. Still, scores of videos have been produced about the peace caravans and protests of the Mexican movement, a lot of them repeat the "50,000 dead" script but tend to only circulate among those already involved in cause. I suggested to Greg that he resurrect one of the characters he has performed in other videos that have “gone viral” - that of a sympathetic, overly-earnest, but hapless North American activist in Mexico - precisely because he makes people laugh and entertained enough by a video so that reporting on life-and-death issues like the violence in Mexico might lessen the “drug war numbing” among viewers. And one of the best ways to get people to let their guard down is to make them laugh.

The result is “Hungry for Justice,” and in short time more than 6,000 viewers have now seen the Spanish version, many of whom are sharing it in their social networks, via email and word of mouth (which is how videos go viral: when somebody says, “hey, you gotta see THIS!” and it passes that way from person to person). The English version has, so far, about one-tenth as many viewers, perhaps because there is not yet a wide grassroots movement in the English speaking world to end the drug war violence in Mexico or in their own countries.

So, we’d like to try a little experiment. Today the English version has 705 viewers. Check it out, by clicking the “play” arrow, on the video atop this page, and then follow these easy and rapid suggestions:

You've seen the video? Good! Did you enjoy it? Did you learn something from it? Now - quick! - think of your friends, co-workers, family members, social networks and email lists that might also want to see this story, and have a few laughs about the character Greg plays – the gringo activist who tags along on Mexican protest caravans for the free food (believe me, we've met people like that!) and learns a powerful lesson when he gets to Acteal. And let’s see how many more English-language viewers we can bring to learn along with our silly gringo connoisseur of Mexican popular cuisine!

It’s also the story about organizing in a push-button culture where media and advertising program us to want immediate results in such an unrealistic hurry that many people become “activists” for a while only to burn out or despair or move on to something else – a danger right now for many “Occupy Wall Street” participants, just as it was for many Americans in the 2007-2008 Obama campaign who confused “yes, we can” with “yes, he can” and now they just pout instead of organize - when “the change” is slow to download.

The inspiring people of Acteal have struggled, now, for 14 years seeking justice for their dead, and still have not obtained it. But look at them! They’re joyous and optimistic in their struggle. They don’t give up. They keep coming and coming, training and bringing new generations up to carry the torch. They see how so much of Mexico is now coming around to their chosen path of nonviolence to bring profound, and not superficial, change. And, in 2011, they’re “fired up and ready to go.”

If after what they’ve suffered they don’t whine and throw tantrums, why should anyone who does have so many of the material advantages most of them don't have, like, say, a computer and Internet access?

And that’s another lesson we’ve learned by reporting alongside social movements, especially in indigenous Mexico: that lasting change requires lasting campaigns and a culture of resistance that infuses all aspects of daily life beyond any protest march or encampment. It’s a lesson we learned again this year from our friends in Egypt who continue dismantling a dictatorship months after they toppled the dictator and after they ended their occupation of Tahrir Square. An authentic struggle, once entered, is entered for life. It is not how we spend a summer vacation or a six month unemployment check. It is so much more than a march or a protest.

Anyway, I’d like to tell you more, but watching that video again just made me hungry. Consider this video food for thought...


Traité du Savoir-Vivre for the Occupy Wall Street Generations

By Al Giordano

Once upon a time, twenty thousand people descended on Wall Street, the capitol of capital, occupied it nonviolently, and won exactly what they demanded.

This is not a fairy tale. It really happened.

This is the story of how it happened. And it is also the story of one of those 20,000 occupiers and how immersing himself in those events at a young age changed the direction of his life. These words are dedicated and addressed to people not so unlike him: any and every individual who is currently occupying Wall Street, or anywhere else, or anyone else who is thinking about doing so.

The truth is that there are two “occupations” going on simultaneously; that which the media is reporting, often badly, which is now a societal spectacle, and the more private and personal occupation by every individual involved. The spectacular protest may not know, or be able to coherently articulate, its own demand or demands as anything other than a shopping list of disembodied causes and issues. But that should not stop any individual involved in it to get to know, embrace and advance upon his and her own more personal demands that brought him and her to occupy Wall Street in the first place.

Wall Street, ahem, isn’t just in your wallet: It’s in everything you own, rent, use, borrow, find or steal. It’s also in the “identities” and roles we put on and take off in each department of our daily lives. And one should never worry as much about the police on the street – there are time-honored tactics for working around them, developed by pioneers in nonviolence, available to every person who wants to learn them – as much as one should be very concerned about the cop in one’s head. There are also tactics available to make that police force – the invading army in our innermost thoughts and fears that polices our very behavior, officers of the psyche that we all have, through unspoken fears, invited into our brains and hearts – retreat and even disappear.

About the Wall Street within each of us and the quest to free ourselves from it: In the years leading up to the general strike that shook Paris and much of France in 1968, the Situationist Raoul Vaneigem published Traité de savoir-vivre à l'usage des jeunes générations (Treatise on Living for the Younger Generations), which when translated to English was titled The Revolution of Everyday Life. It was written for a generation that had been schooled in the Hegelian dialectics of Marxist writings, and plays considerably with that writing style in ways that don’t always make it easy for generations that grew up with cable television and the Internet to read. Vaneigem and others in the Situationist International developed strategies and tactics to take back the terrain and pleasures of daily life while simultaneously destroying the illusion created by “the spectacle” (what might, in Twitterspeak, be called “the media,” today) that propped up a destructive economic system.

If we were to try to put some of the key concepts into Twitterspeak (that is, into phrases of 144 characters or less), we might say:

Occupy your daily life. Occupy your body. Occupy your home. Occupy your building. Occupy your neighborhood. Occupy YOUR STREET. Occupy your own head! Occupy your own media. Occupy your own school. Occupy your own workplace. Occupy your own time. Occupy your own space. Occupy your own life story! Yes, it requires collaboration with others to win those terrains back. But they're not the people already protesting. They're the authentic 99 percent. The ones right next to you already.

Or maybe they’re not right next to you. In a world where the advertising industry shouts that “everybody is connected,” that’s really to distract from the alienation imposed by an over-mediated technological society. Maybe your family, your relationship, your classroom, your workplace, your home, your building, your neighbors are so caught up in dysfunction and the food chain of domination of one person over another that everything within you screams for an EXIT sign and that you must go out and find that place where you can see a path to begin to drive Wall Street out of your body, the cop out of your head, and the imposed loneliness of residing in a technological “paradise” out of your aching heart. Maybe, just maybe, that’s what brings you to occupy Wall Street.

Let me tell you about the kid who once did occupy Wall Street. Some of my friends know him. And, no, his name is not Steve Jobs.

The Wall Street Occupation that Won

The Wall Street occupation that won happened on October 28 and 29 of 1979, and in case you don’t believe it, here is the poster that called them there:

This poster was made before there was such a thing called Photoshop. You can see that the letters are uneven. They were pasted onto a 23 x 17 inch layout board with hot wax. There were only two colors, black and green, on the white poster paper, in order to save on costs. There were no color photocopiers then. It had to be produced at a print shop. The event had no Facebook page and no Twitter account. How did they get 20,000 occupiers to Wall Street, then? To spread the call, community organizers visited each other, made telephone calls from landlines, put stamps on envelopes, and passed the poster and other materials printed on paper from hand to hand.

Community organizing? What was that? “It was kind of like social networking, except there was no Internet,” notes Renny Cushing, organizer and theorist of the 1979 Take It to Wall Street occupation. “You went to people’s homes, sat around their kitchen tables. You listened to their concerns and ideas. You were able to correct bad information they had gotten from the media.”

Cushing had done this organizing in his hometown of Seabrook, New Hampshire, where construction began on a twin nuclear power plant in 1976. He and the other organizers in fact used the word “occupation” to describe a series of escalating nonviolent actions in which, first, 18 people, later 180, and later 1,414 people were arrested for trespassing on the nuke construction site. From that local movement, sprang a regional movement, and soon, a national movement against nuclear power that had local organized bases wherever nuclear facilities existed or had been proposed.

That poster made its way up a country road in the Berkshire mountains of Western Massachusetts. A 19-year-old community organizer who had recently launched a campaign to close the Yankee Atomic plant in the town of Rowe was learning to chop firewood to prepare for the winter ahead. He wasn’t from there. He was a city kid from New York who had dropped out of school to throw himself into the anti-nuke movement. So, this wood-chopping thing wasn’t easy. It was one of the skills outside of his own experience that he had to learn, among others, not only to heat his $25-a-month rented cabin, but also to live as the local people he wanted to organize lived, another thing that organizers did.

What did he learn from that poster? That on Sunday, October 28, there would be a “legal rally.” And that on Monday, October 29, there would be “Nonviolent Civil Disobedience” at the NY Stock Exchange, and that “Non-violence training is required.”

The story of this kid is just one of 20,000 stories of that Wall Street occupation more than three decades ago.

The Capitol of Capital

He saw the two addresses on the poster: That of the original P.O. Box of the former Clamshell Alliance, and that of the War Resisters League in New York. He really liked the idea for this protest and occupation: It combined his experiences as a Big Apple youth and as a rural organizer, and drew a common cause from the two. The problems he’d seen and known in both places each had economic causes. The buck stopped where it began: at Wall Street. And when the sun went down and he came inside in to fire up the woodstove, he picked up his guitar and started to write lyrics on a yellow legal pad and compose a song to promote that action: “Take it to Wall Street/In New York Town/Just pull up in your limousine and sit yourself right down/Take a seat on the exchange with the bulls and the bears/It’s the capitol of capital/The buck stops there…”

He penned the first verse about the struggle he was in, to organize a popular civil resistance to an operating nuclear plant in the Berkshires. He wrote the second verse about how banks redlined his old Bronx neighborhood (a process by which speculators starve a neighborhood of building improvement loans, creating slums, forcing down property values, and then buy up the real estate at a lower cost before gentrifying the neighborhood in a way that displaces the old residents with newer, wealthier ones who pay top dollar). And he made the third verse out of oral history; about the Great Depression he had heard of from his grandparents, and their suffering after the October 29, 1929 crash of the stock exchange…

Where do we draw the line/Against this kind of violence?/It’s where the Berkshires and the Bronx draw our alliance… Take it to Wall Street!

For the 19-year-old, these were not things he had learned in school or from books. They had been part of his lived experience. And each of them had their roots in a financial system that helped a greedy few take from a hardworking many. “Take it to Wall Street” made perfect sense to him. Why didn’t we think of it sooner!

And so a day or two before that October rally he took a Greyhound bus back to the city of his birth to participate in that Wall Street occupation. From the Port Authority bus terminal he took the subway to the West Village and practically ran down Bleeker Street with his guitar case in hand and then up the stairs at 339 Lafayette Street. The people there, organizing the protest, were mostly older than him. Some had trained him in nonviolent civil disobedience. Others had been arrested with him at the gates of nuclear facilities in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut. A few had heard him sing at small coffeehouses throughout New England, a habit which didn’t pay the bills as much as dishwashing, restaurant cooking, or silkscreen printing did, but was nonetheless part of how this kid had cobbled together enough rent and food money to be able to follow his passion for organizing. There were “movement heavies” there, who had written books or worked at desks in peace organizations. There were also people, typically of the “sixties generation” whom he felt he rubbed the wrong way. They would show up at anti-nuke rallies waving tie-dye banners, trying to relive, he supposed, the Summer of Love, while he was of the punk rock generation that didn’t believe in any of that shit. He’d show up at those same marches, fresh from the barber shop, in a lumberjack jacket with an American flag lapel pin, and try to talk with them about “getting real people involved.” Their eyes would glaze over. He believed that their cause was his cause, but he did not yet feel a sense of agency in their meetings, or that their movement was really his movement, too.

I can imagine that there are individuals occupying Wall Street right now that might feel much the same: You believe in the cause. Maybe you’re camping out in Zuccotti Park, participating in work groups, have found some small role to play in this larger thing. But maybe you find some of the language, or preconceptions, or ways of doing things, of the activists a little off-putting or alienating. Maybe the long consensus process meetings look similar to the floor of the stock exchange to you: “Unsafe space, sell!” “Ideology, buy!” “Watch what you say, sell!” “Drumming circle, buy!” “Wearing a shirt, sell!” “New identity for sale, buy!” “Look at ME! Buy, buy, BUY!” There are Wall Streets and markets within every protest, too.

Anyway, back to the kid who had come up the stairs at 339 Lafayette Street. He mentioned to those organizers of the Wall Street protests that he had written a song to promote the protest. Some of them expressed zero interest at all. But some others from New England who had known him and his music or his organizing said, “let’s hear it” and so he played it for them. When he finished, the group applauded and invited him to sing it on stage during the rally, where Pete Seeger and other topical singers were also going to perform. This was all, of course, very exciting for the youth. To have piece of it, a role to play, a big one!, in a movement much larger than himself: he would have been happy just to attend the rally and join the sit-in at the stock exchange and go to jail if need be. To be able to return to his city and share his own song with many people brought almost too much ecstasy to contain. He worked off all that bouncing-off-the-walls energy that night with an open guitar case on MacDougal Street, singing for coins, and encouraging all who would stop and listen to attend Sunday’s rally.

Sunday arrived and by noon 20,000 people had arrived for the Take It to Wall Street rally. (The NY Times had reported that it was only 2,000 people; some things never change.) He sang his song and people really seemed to like it. They paid attention. They sang along. They applauded. (After all, getting a few minutes on stage at a political event isn’t by itself a guarantee that people won’t talk through your song or speech. When you have a chance at people’s attention, you’d better make it entertaining and fun for them. Otherwise you’re wasting their time.) He felt enfranchised, more part of “the movement” than he had before.

The next day, as trading was about to open at the New York Stock Exchange building, an army of NYPD officers surrounded each of the entrances. “Affinity groups” of a dozen or a half-dozen participants – the organizing cell groups of these actions – chose their entrance and sat down, as they were trained. Some sang freedom songs from the Civil Rights movements. Others held hands in silence. Our 19-year-old kid had another plan. He wanted to get himself arrested inside the stock exchange, where twelve years earlier the first Wall Street occupation took place, in 1967, when Abbie Hoffman brought some news reporters with him on what was then tours of the building, for tourists and grade school classes. There, from the balcony, Abbie dumped bags of dollar bills down onto the floor and trading came to a stop as runners and brokers fought each other to collect the bills. Newsweek and other media reported on the spectacle, which not only exposed the institution’s innate greed, but more importantly, ridiculed it, stripping away its mythical power.

Our youngster came to the main entrance and saw an affinity group of people seated on the steps, some whom were people he knew. He had put on a three-piece suit that morning with a tie and came up to them and loudly asked them to move so he could “go to work.” But the theater was snuffed out when they simply laughed and somebody said his name aloud and he was exposed before the police as another protester. So he went to another entrance, around the corner, looked for and found an affinity group that didn’t have anyone he recognized. He walked up to them and looked across them at the line of police. “Officer! Officer! Will you please get these hippies out of my way? I need to go to work!” These protesters were horrified. They began chanting at him, now a symbol of the enemy. And some police officers actually helped him step across and over them into the building. In the lobby of the building, however, there were security guards who asked to see his stock exchange ID. His goose was evidently cooked. So he turned around to the other NYSE employees in line and said, “You have to stop investing in nuclear power! Every dollar you invest in a nuclear plant will be lost! We will stop you in Seabrook! We will stop you at Shoreham! We will stop you at Indian Point!” At which point NYPD officers were ushered in and placed the kid in the suit under arrest. As trained, he fell limp and made the police carry him out of the building where the people he had just called “hippies” suddenly realized he was one of them. And he joined many of the one thousand-plus civilly disobedient occupiers – a smaller group than the 20,000 legal rally participants – in jamming up the New York City night courts by refusing to provide his name to authorities until all the “John and Jane Does” were released. Others who did give their names faced trials for “disorderly conduct” that would bring something like a $100 fine.

Within months the financial industry did indeed begin to question the profitability of investing in nuclear power. Demonstrations, occupations, citizen lawsuits and increasing public awareness about nuclear accidents (the Three Mile Island accident had happened in March 1979) and nuclear waste were bringing Congressional hearings and bad publicity. It would be too much of a stretch to say that the 1979 Wall Street occupation had any direct cause on that effect. Its influence came through another route altogether: By, for the first time, focusing the anti-nuke movement’s attention and learning on the economic problems with nuclear power, the local and grassroots sectors of the movement increasingly began to organize on that front: They challenged rate increases by utility companies, blaming them on nuclear plant construction cost overruns. In that they found new allies among labor and consumer organizations, including some that had very advanced door-to-door canvassing operations going. The nuclear issue quickly turned from one of morality or environment or averting disaster to, also, a bread-and-butter pocketbook issue for working people struggling to pay power bills.

The 1979 Wall Street occupation – it only lasted for two days! – is historic not because of the occupation itself, but, rather, because it inspired a change in the movement’s direction and language, bringing it more coherently in line with everyday people’s daily life concerns and worries, which are not about the environment or the morality of what we do as a society to future generations, but about next month’s bills and making ends meet. This helped shift public opinion more solidly against nuclear power, and many opportunistic state Attorneys General began filing lawsuits against utility rate increases. That nearly bankrupted some public utilities. The great economic “ratings” houses began to tick down their grades on the nuclear industry’s health as an investment. And dozens of nukes that had been proposed were cancelled.

And I would like to be able to say that this is a fairy tale where everyone “lived happily ever after.” But movements, even those that win, like life, are not like that. The truth is that the Wall Street occupation in 1979 was also the regional anti-nuclear movement’s last gasp.

Yes, it destroyed the nuclear industry in the United States. But, like a mother who dies in childbirth, it gave its own life to do so.

Death by Consensus Process

Every heroic story, by law, should disclose the messy and depressing process by which the heroes only became heroes because their first strategy or tactics had failed miserably and they were forced to change course. After all, really, isn’t that what turns an everyday person into a hero? It’s the wisdom to cease repeating what didn’t work over and over again, learn from those mistakes, and try something else.

Do you want to know the real reason why the anti-nuclear movement went to occupy Wall Street? It happened because others who sought to coopt and seize that movement toward different goals chased that movement and those who built it out of the very terrain they had created.

Think about the aforementioned occupations, in New Hampshire, of the Seabrook nuke site: 18 arrests in 1976, 180 later in 1976 and 1,414 in May 1977. This is a good example of the term “sequencing of tactics.” These actions were organized by a group called the Clamshell Alliance, a coalition of local anti-nuclear organizations throughout the six states of New England, each of which had grievances with nuclear facilities near them. The Seabrook nuke project was the industry’s new kid on the block: the one that hadn’t been built yet.

Environmental groups had sued in courts to stop the Seabrook construction, and had failed in those courts. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on that tactic, and it didn’t work.

A then 20-something Renny Cushing and other Seabrook residents decided to try a different approach: Community organizing. And through a vote in the New England style “Town Meeting” form of government (in which the voters of a municipality assemble in public and vote, not by secret ballot, but in open view), the people of Seabrook had voted to oppose the construction of the nuke. Then it was no longer just an environmental issue. It was a matter of democracy itself. The people had voted, fair and square, the American way, and rejected the proposal for their town. From that point on, public opinion kept moving their way. They made their cause, thus, also a pro-democracy one.

The strong and organized local base of the movement was the foundation that allowed all the rest to happen. The organizers were smart about that. Why were only 18 people arrested in the first occupation? Because the Clamshell Alliance decided that action would be limited only to New Hampshire residents. Everyone who participated in that and the subsequent occupations was required to go through a full day nonviolence training session. This requirement not only helped the encounters with the police and courts happen more effectively from a public relations standpoint. It also helped create a shared culture of resistance among all participants. The same was true of the southern Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Nonviolence training was key to fomenting self-discipline and teamwork among the participants, two qualities of movements that win.

In recent years, most protests in the United States have had no such requirement. Perhaps the organizations that call on people to join protests feel their numbers will be less if everyone had to spend an additional day, prior to the action, being trained. Maybe others feel it is too “authoritarian” or “exclusive” to require training, or require anything at all. Still others who fetishize violent conflict or rhetoric loathe the very word nonviolence. And so, since the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, activist protests in the US have been plagued by parasitical grouposcules that hide under the skirt of the larger action to act out tactics that put every other participant at greater risk of arrest and harm. They smash store windows by throwing garbage cans at them and taunt cops with the cowardly knowledge that if things get rough they can simply run and hide among the rest of the crowd, letting somebody else receive the brunt of the police response.

Thankfully, the most extreme grouposcules of that nature have not – yet – latched themselves onto the Wall Street occupation. Still, the protests have been marked by a lack of discipline. A September 23 report by Nathan Schneider in Waging Nonviolence, four days into the protest, illuminated this dynamic:

“A terrific storm gathers around the phalanx of police, who shove protesters with hands and sticks, then grab one or two out of the crowd, throw them to the ground, bind their hands in plastic cuffs, and take them away. You can tell who has had nonviolence training before—they go limp, they make no sign of resistance. But others, especially the youngest, will squirm and cry out in pain, inviting the police to push more, hit harder, drag more ruthlessly. There’s the feeling—surely intentional—that anyone could be next. This escalation only reinforces what the police seem to have been told: that what they’re seeing is the beginnings of a riot.”

Almost two weeks later, on October 5, it was evident that the protest’s “general assembly” decision-making body hasn’t seen this as a problem or priority. After the largest march to date – 15,000 union members joined the protest for a day – a white-shirted member of the NYPD brass was captured on video maliciously swinging his nightstick at defenseless protesters. For some reason many of the protesters seem to think that a video of police violence automatically brings public support to a cause. At least one leader of the post-Seattle genre of protests has written so much in a NY Times column: “when police attack peaceful occupiers (and the protesters catch it on camera), it generates tremendous sympathy for the cause.”

That is truly awful advice. It would doom any movement that followed it to abject failure. Entire swathes of the American (and New York) public in fact are prone to cheering the police when they beat up on certain kinds of protesters. Hey, everyone knows that America is a violence-loving society. Why is it such a stretch to understand that much of “the 99 percent” that many protesters claim to speak for actually like to see the cops bust the heads of people they see as different from them? Anybody who has knocked on doors and gotten to know the public beyond their own demographic niches understands that very well already.

If the YouTube video of the October 5 confrontation were widely seen, that would indeed be the response from much of the public. Why? Because the way the protesters responded to the situation – yelling hysterically at the cops in the most visibly disorganized way possible – does not endear the protesters to public opinion. It does quite the opposite. A few chanted “the whole world is watching” while dozens of people with cameras and cell phones elbowed each other for the best shot of the moment. Mainly a lot of screaming and whistleblowing drowned out any sound of substance or meaning from the video. More than 430,000 people have watched that video in just a few days and while the police behaved badly, to many observers the protesters would seem like an unruly and dangerous mob, too.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, no slouch at pandering to public opinion, “gets” this, which is why he does not hesitate to posture against the protesters at every chance the media provides him. Police violence only creates public sympathy when the people they are beating are themselves viewed sympathetically. Any movement has to work very hard to make that happen. It doesn’t come simply because it is deserved. People trained in nonviolence would understand what to do at a moment like that: protesters would sit down, silently, or maybe while seated they’d all sing the same song, and then anything the police do would become magnified and seen as bullying by the wider public. Instead of practicing this easy and basic political ju-jitsu, many Wall Street occupiers seem to think it serves their cause by escalating any conflict with the cops, by fighting stupidity with buffoonery. It’s like getting into a pissing contest with a skunk: everybody ends up smelling badly.

The consensus decision-making process used by the protest’s governing body, a “general assembly” that meets for hours each day, into which anybody can walk in or out at any time at will, may seem like a cute and harmless form of peaceful action. But it actually contributes greatly to the lack of discipline of the revolt. Consensus process is by definition exclusionary to most of “the 99 percent” of the public in whose name these protests are held. That’s because most people are working at jobs or taking care of children all day and don’t have the time, or the interest, in trying to write a declaration by committee-of-hundreds.

Within any venture, there are “doers” and there are “talkers.” Typically, the talkers spend a lot of time discussing and debating what the doers should do. Perhaps this is not the kindest way to say it, but here goes: The world is filled with terribly boring people who can put even bartenders and psychologists to sleep. They’re lonely and we feel bad for them, but nor do we want to spend our days and nights listening to them drone on and on with their inner monologues. Consensus meetings attract this kind of person like flies to shit. They also attract ideologues – the proverbial “socialist with a shopping bag of his own press clippings,” as Lower East Side performance artist Penny Arcade has observed – and also people who love to debate the semantics of language and identity politics ad nauseum.

Meanwhile, what kinds of people don’t like to go to long meetings? Almost everybody in “the 99 percent” hates meetings, but especially community organizers and people with skills who are busy using them to advance the cause. Paradoxically, these are the folks most experienced at doing things and therefore have real lived experience to aid in the development of strategy and tactics. Consensus decision-making processes, however, screen too many of these people out of the game. They wouldn’t be caught dead there. They’re too busy wielding their talents to while away their hours in processes that they already know go on too long.

Those who romanticize “general assemblies” often site their use among many indigenous communities. And there is truth to that: In 35 years of participating and reporting on social movements, the only places I’ve seen it work effectively have been in rural indigenous communities where all the participants share the same language, culture, socio-economic level and line of work, typically, subsistence level farming. (For similar reasons it might also function in a workplace, where everyone is paid for the time and labor spent in meetings.) Among homogeneous groups, it can work. The inverse observation to be made about Occupy Wall Street is that the consensus process has survived for three weeks now only because it maintains and encourages the demographic homogeneity of the core participants: college educated Americans. Its use may in fact reflect a subconscious desire by many participants that the protest remain homogeneous and narrow, a kind of defense mechanism against having to open the cause up to the real 99 percent.

The experience of the Clamshell Alliance and the anti-nuclear movement with consensus process is instructive. Once that movement had brought nonviolent civil disobedience back into popular use, other ideological and political sectors sought to wrestle it away and take power over the movement. Indeed, a kind of coup d’etat occurred in 1979, months before the Wall Street occupation that year, the result of a series of long consensus-seeking meetings on what the next action by the Clamshell would be. A group calling themselves “direct action” advocates (“direct action,” to them, was distinct from “nonviolence” most specifically because those people wanted the movement to bring wire cutters to the next protest to cut the fences around the Seabrook nuke construction site) obsessed on this proposed tactic to the point of fetish. This, despite the fact that the local residents of Seabrook who had provided the farmland and staging areas for previous occupations warned that this escalation of tactics would lose significant public support for the movement at its most local geographic base.

The “direct action” faction – overwhelmingly they were activists, students and ideologues from metropolitan Boston – found, in the consensus process, its wedge to blow up and then take over the name of the Clamshell Alliance, even if it meant losing most of the organized bases that had created and built it. At first they used the power of any person to “block” consensus on any decision (and therefore block any taking of action at all) on any and every proposal that did not include fence cutting. This went on for weeks. It was frustrating for many movement organizers, so much so that, one by one, they walked away and stopped attending the long meetings where the same point got debated over and over again. After almost everybody who had organized the movement had been worn down, the last few adherents to the idea that this fence-cutting nonsense would destroy a lot more than mere fences (it would also wreck the cohesion, unity and public support enjoyed by the movement) eventually “stepped aside.” In consensus-speak, that means they expressed their objection but agreed not to block consensus. It was on that day, in the Marigold Ballroom of Salisbury, Massachusetts, across the state border from Seabrook, that the Clamshell Alliance shattered into splinters and for all practical purposes, was no more.

Eventually the fence-cutters had their day, and it proved a public relations disaster for the movement. Their efforts quickly petered out after that and vanished into nothing at all. The rest of the movement went home. Many participants organized local movements against the nuclear facilities nearest to them.

And what about our 19-year-old kid? What happened with him? The Wall Street occupation of 1979 breathed new inspiration into him. He went back to Western Massachusetts and organized the campaign to close the Rowe nuke. Eight years later it would become the only commercial nuclear plant to be closed before its life expectancy. The plant’s gigantic metal dome and turbine building were taken apart, and all of it except the high level nuclear waste spent fuel rods were carted off to a low-level nuclear waste dump. Where the nuke once stood there is now a grassy field alongside a lake and a hydroelectric dam.

Some say that kid – the one who would play guitar on one day and wear a suit to get arrested on the next, who had to learn to chop wood to be able to organize a rural community – eventually moved to Mexico and today walks alongside social movements, studies their strategies and tactics, and writes about what he sees and hears. He might correct that he only does those things between composing and playing his next song and otherwise serving his daily pleasure. (A California professor who was also part of the 1979 Wall Street occupation recently remembered his experience aloud, and our kid and his song appear there, too.)

I like to think that kid is every kid. And he or she might be sitting on a bench in Zuccotti Park right now, maybe writing a song to promote the cause, maybe strategizing in his or her head about how to occupy his or her own life, win his and her own freedom, drive Wall Street out of his and her own heart and the cop out of his and her own head, and organize somewhere that the real 99 percent live and work to make authentic and victorious movements possible.

You know what was the most inspiring and empowering thing of all about the 1979 Wall Street occupation? It wasn’t the good times (although they were good). It wasn’t even, for that 19-year-old kid, getting to sing his song to the crowd, or having it appreciated and remembered. It wasn’t skirmishing with cops or breaking the NY criminal court system for a night. None of those things would have mattered a whit except for the most important part of the story: It was that the movement won.

“There is no greater high than challenging the system, giving it your all, and winning,” wrote Abbie Hoffman, architect of the first Wall Street occupation in 1967, which had maybe a half-dozen participants. There are so many causes and protests that fought the good fight but lost. And they went into the annals of “youthful indiscretions” of participants who later became politicians and Wall Street stock brokers. The most disempowering thing on earth is losing. But to take on an attainable goal – in 1979 it was “stop nuclear investment” – launch a strategy and sequenced tactics, organize and mobilize people to implement it, and then win: that is the small victory that makes larger ones possible because it empowers and inspires everybody involved.

The last Wall Street occupation didn’t end Wall Street, or capitalism, or greed, or injustice. Even its major advance, stopping a new generation of nuclear plants, was a victory that is today having to be defended all over again (as our friends in Egypt learned, too, this year when they toppled the dictator Mubarak; no victory is permanent, nor in an authentic democracy should anything ever be engraved permanently in stone; all battles entered are, authentically, struggles for life). Yet it is the small victories that lay the groundwork for larger and larger ones, whereas struggling and losing wreaks cynicism, apathy and surrender. Winning a civil resistance, a social movement, a nonviolent struggle, a community organizing campaign profoundly changes the participants. It turns them into winners and transforms them into people who can never, ever be conquered by fear or despair ever again. That is why it is called revolution. It turns everything around, upside-down, and inside, out. It is the motor that evolves the species.

Nobody knows how long the current Wall Street occupation will last or how exactly the media virus that has sprung from it will mutate and spread. It seems that its own core organizers have set up a cumbersome and easily coopted consensus process by which not even they can steer the ship. And has there been any strategic aforethought whatsoever about timing this thing in harmony with the seasons and the weather? As Ezra Pound knew: “Winter is icumin in Lhude sing Goddamn. Raineth drop and staineth slop, And how the wind doth ramm!” By November or December, Lower Manhattan becomes an icy wind tunnel. “We’re staying here and we’re not leaving” therefore isn’t the sort of declaration that inspires public confidence among the 99 percent. Making promises that one can’t keep: Isn’t that what caused us all to lose faith in Wall Street and the rest of today’s institutions in the first place?

Still, every individual involved has immensely more power than a consensus assembly could ever provide to determine how he and she will proceed from here, if and when it seems that everybody else scatters and goes home. That’s the revolution: the one that lives in the hearts of those who immerse themselves in struggles larger than them. The revolution belongs to those who simultaneously develop their own tactics and strategies, and figure out how to sequence them. The revolution comes to those who study what has worked and what hasn’t worked for others who have gone before them, and who organize others into collaborating in that quest, on the most local scale, to win back the terrain of daily life. Occupy that, and the revolution is yours.


NNTV: Mexico's Southern Peace Caravan: Lesson #1

By Al Giordano



In memory of School of Authentic Journalism professor José Mirtenbaum (1948-2011)


South of Mexico City, at 2,700 meters above sea level, is a rural town named San Miguel Topilejo. While technically part of the Federal District known as Mexico City, in its borough of Tlalpan, the 26,000 residents of Topilejo live in a forgotten town, too often abandoned by the municipal government that doesn’t provide the most basic of services (sanitation, water, education, etcetera) at the level it does for the more urban zones of this megalopolis.

Last May, Topilejo, for one night, became the campground for hundreds of participants in a march for peace and against the drug war led by poet and journalist Javier Sicilia, who, weeks earlier, had lost his son to the violence that has claimed, now, more than 50,000 Mexican lives in five years. The locals – many of whom are descendants of the Nahuatl indigenous ethnicity (known as Aztecs in the English-speaking world), some of whom still speak the ancient tongue – prepared tamales, beans, coffee and sandwiches for the walkers on their way to Mexico City from Cuernavaca, Morelos.

Towns like Topilejo don’t see many visitors, and they exist all over Mexico. They do not appear in the Lonely Planet guides for backpacking tourists. They are invisible to the mass media. So the arrival of hundreds of people from other towns and cities marks a significant moment in the daily life of residents, who then get to know their guests, and vice versa, through conversation and breaking bread and tortillas.

In towns like this throughout the country, efforts come and go to improve the life of the community, often they are led by the Catholic church when a liberation theologian is assigned to the local parish, but they are typically met with either indifference or violent repression and a fatigue sets in among the population, a sense of resignation, an apathy borne of the conclusion that nothing can be made to happen. Many men in the community, including fathers of young children, finding no work to support their families, leave like so many other millions of Mexicans to seek employment in the United States or in Mexico’s urban centers. This trend has accelerated since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which lowered the value of the food crops traditionally grown on rural Mexican lands to the extreme where former farms now lay dormant.

Single mothers raise many of the children, who, if lucky, live among extended families; grandmothers, aunts, cousins and older siblings. Many others are abandoned to fate and extreme poverty, where organized crime is happy to press them into service as either providers or consumers of illegal substances.

In other words, Topilejo is a mirror for how so many tens of millions of Mexicans live, unnoticed by governments and media unless and until a bloody massacre or spectacular violence plagues their territory.

The story told in the video, above – filmed and produced impressively on the road, edited in buses and cars on a laptop, by Narco News TV director Greg Berger, in less than two days – is a different one than ever gets told about places like Topilejo. It is a story narrated by the town’s residents about their own accomplishment in recent weeks. It is the story of one of the small victories that has the tendency to inspire, empower and lead to greater triumphs and advances.

It is a story of community organizing; that is, a story about what the people of a town – any town, every town – always could have done for itself if it had only believed in the power of its people to organize and win.

In the video, the townspeople credit the May visit by Sicilia and the marchers with inspiring them to act to force the Mexico City government to comply with a promise to construct a free university in Topilejo for local youths. The promise went unanswered for many years and the locals simply shrugged their shoulders out of the belief that the promises of authorities are almost always broken and nothing can be done about it anyway.

But between May 7 – when Sicilia’s march arrived in Topilejo – and September 9 – when the poet returned, this time, with a bus Caravan of Peace on its way to the Guatemalan border – the townspeople had already achieved that the university will now be constructed, and they invited Sicilia to cut the ribbon at the inaugural ceremony for classrooms that had already been constructed and equipped with desks and chairs and such.

Truth is, neither Sicilia nor the May marchers nor the September caravanistas did anything directly, to our knowledge, to make the university possible. Yet the townspeople in the video credit the movement with a victory that is, properly, their own.

Some might say that this is because the appearance of Mexico’s first walk for peace last May gave them hope. I would correct that, rather, it removed enough of their despair and immobilizing pain to create a space for the people to do for themselves what they – what every town and neighborhood – can do for itself when motivated to do so.

This story, to our knowledge – ten days after it happened – still has not been reported by any other media, not the official press, nor the “alternative media,” many of which had correspondents on the three press buses that attended this September 9 event in this previously forgotten town. See, it’s not a “sexy” story. It doesn’t suggest higher television ratings nor does it fit into the turgid discourse of the “activist press” with its own ideological axes to grind. Rural, indigenous, Mexico is invisible to everyone, it seems, if it does not don a ski-mask. Not even if that corner of rural Mexico is part of Mexico City, where so many of the aforementioned players live only a short trek from it.

What is interesting about this story to us, and the reason we report it to you, is that it suggests what can be made to happen in every Mexican town and neighborhood when the punishing despair wrought by violence is even briefly wiped away. And this is one of the “secret histories” of these caravans by Sicilia and the family members of drug war victims, as they pass through Topilejo and so many other towns and neighborhoods like it. It is the alchemical, contagious, power of a different way to fight. Some call it nonviolence. Others call it civil resistance. Whatever one calls this strategy, it is very different than that which previous movements in this vast country have deployed.

(Narco News correspondent Marta Molina has just published a story about similar alchemical dynamics when the caravan passed last week through another region: Nonviolent Struggle Arrives in the Lands of Guerrero, Mexico: 20,000 March in Acapulco with Javier Sicilia and Drug War Victims, September 14, 2011, Narco News.)

Unlike the long history of aspiring “vanguard” movements – electoral and non-electoral alike – including of the Mexican left, that too often have treated rank-and-file Mexicans as pieces on a chess board to be “mobilized” according to a centralized plan, Sicilia and the movement he inspired seek to treat the peoples of communities like Topilejo as equals with the same capacity to think and do for themselves as the drug war victims and he are, in recent months, trying to do for themselves. It is enough to show up and simply listen, share a meal, exchange ideas (and to the horror of some doctrinaire “activists,” a hug or, gasp, a kiss!) and create a space where everyone can more easily think for themselves – outside the screeching noise machines of media and ideology alike – about their community’s problems and possible solutions. (It was during the May march’s pass through Topilejo that I quoted a friend who said, while there, “It was like watching what we all hoped the Other Campaign of 2006 would become.” Those words now seem prophetic.)

Another truth is that not even everybody who boards the buses on these caravans understands this process of community organizing and how it can be made to happen. Many are learning, some more rapidly than others, or “get” that something different is happening that they want to learn. Still others resist the process of listening, choosing instead to tag along on these ventures because they are the protest du jour or the only circus in town (I’ll be writing more about this phenomenon later in a story about the caravan’s cross through the state of Oaxaca). Some come along to inflict their tired old chants and slogans or the banners with the names of their political organizations into the news photo and video of the caravans. Others see their activism in alternative media as a career move toward gaining the attention of grant-givers, documentary festival prize-givers, or freelance gigs publishing in the national and international media. But they’re the sideshow, so much so they don’t even see the bigger story happening right underneath their noses, not even in communities where impoverished peoples share what little food they have with the traveling visitors who pass through for a night, or an afternoon, or an hour.

One of the emergent roles of Sicilia and the family members of drug war victims who have been trekking through Mexican territory in recent months is that of catalyst; an ingredient that is added to another collection of ingredients that changes the chemical make-up of their union and then moves on, leaving behind something different than it first encountered.

This – according to the testimony of the local residents in this video – is what happened in Topilejo. The visit by a movement four months ago inspired them to do something for themselves, something called community organizing. And while some might view the mere construction of a free university in an abandoned town as insufficient a victory in a land that many observe needs a full-scale revolution or transformation on a national scale, it is a victory nonetheless. And no larger victory ever happened without small triumphs along the path that inspired and built momentum toward even greater change. That’s what community organizing is and does. And now, via Narco News TV, in San Miguel Topilejo, that forgotten rural appendage to the gigantic city of Mexico… you are there.


Announcing NYC Workshop on Organizing Journalism & Civil Resistance

Applications now available for a Three-Day Session, October 21-23, in New York

By Al Giordano

The Narco News School of Authentic Journalism and the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict today announce 24 scholarships for our October 21-23 workshop on Organizing Journalism & Civil Resistance. The session is open to independent journalists and media makers (print, online and video) who report on social movements and seek to be better at it.

Applications can be received via email by writing to NYWorkshop2011@narconews.com and are due by 11:59 p.m. ET on Wednesday, September 21, 2011.

This workshop offers training in the use of video and written and online media to help journalists and media makers report more effectively on social movements, civil resistance, nonviolent campaigns and community organizing so that the messages of those movements can cut through the clouds of mass media confusion. There are many common errors and presumptions through which even sympathetic media makers too often harm such movements. This workshop is also to test some new curriculum for the 2012 School of Authentic Journalism that seeks to inoculate against such media missteps, as well as to share vital reporting skills and increase participants’ knowledge of the strategic and tactical dynamics of social movements.

The event is free to accepted applicants: No tuition will be charged. In addition to training on reporting and writing news stories and making online video and media “go viral,” we’ve assembled an experienced team of organizers, authentic journalists and change makers to seek to answer this question:

From the Arab Spring to Mexico’s unprecedented nonviolent movement to end the drug war that surfaced in 2011, civil resistance is succeeding in countries with extreme state repression and poverty moreso than it is in North America. Why is that? And what can be done to bring the renaissances of civil resistance and authentic journalism to North America, where theoretically there are more freedoms, tools and resources available to aspiring change agents?

In North America, there is so much “activism,” so much “blogging,” so many “protests” and “marches,” and yet our friends in other lands are winning historic battles while few North American movements are making any progress at all.

We believe that the media – not just the big commercial and state-owned media that the public already mistrusts, but also too many in the “blogosphere,” “social media,” and sympathetic “alternative” media that do not understand the strategic dynamics of how movements win and lose – has a lot to do with why so many North American movements fail to achieve the change they seek. “The problem of media” is now the problem of everyone that wants to defend or change our communities and our world. Some of the challenges are easily solved by learning and understanding the common mistakes that well-meaning media-makers and journalists make in reporting movements, and through improvement of our technical skills. Other questions remain unanswered, so we will consult, together, with some unparalleled minds and hands that have won and lost political battles already and learned plenty from the experience. More than just a training session, this workshop will serve as a kind of three-day “think tank” to seek to break further ground in untying the knot with which media inhibits the realization of authentic democracy.

Here are the confirmed participants in this workshop:


Aalam Wassef 

Egyptian viral video maker, musician and blogger, Aalam used various pseudonyms over the past six years to create a multi-faceted guerrilla media campaign – both on and offline – to “create a culture of resistance” in his country. When video director Greg Berger and I traveled to Cairo weeks after the Egyptian revolution to interview the unheralded organizers and media makers that in our view were most responsible for the January 25 revolution and February 11 fall of the dictator Hosni Mubarak, we were blown away by the coherence and strategic thinking of this 40-year-old revolutionary. We thought our own experience at making video and media “go viral” was advanced, but were humbled to meet and interview Aalam, one who had already thought through and implemented techniques we had never heard of in the Western Hemisphere. What’s more, he speaks good English, making his message especially accessible in North America.

A requirement for all applicants to this workshop is to watch three short videos – you will be asked about them on the application form – the first, less than 15 minutes in length, narrated by Aalam:

Four days after we returned from Cairo to Mexico, a new civil resistance broke out there to end the war on drugs. Thanks to so much of what we learned from Aalam and other organizers of the revolution, we were able, at Narco News, to jump in quickly to report that movement more effectively in ways that helped it to grow and strengthen. Now we’re bringing Aalam to the media capital of the world, New York City, where we hope he can inspire and train us to topple a dictator named Media.


Julian LeBaron


Julian seemed to come out of nowhere when in April he arrived in Cuernavaca, Mexico, like a cavalry to the aid of the nascent movement to stop the war on drugs inspired by poet and journalist Javier Sicilia, who on March 27 lost his son to the prohibition-imposed violence. LeBaron, a homebuilder in the border state of Chihuahua, had already lost two family members to kidnappers and his community mounted a nonviolent movement against organized crime. Accompanying Sicilia and other family members of drug war victims in marches and caravans throughout the country, LeBaron – an attentive reader and student of successful nonviolent movements throughout the world – quickly emerged as a key strategist and inspiring public speaker for a movement that has gone national in five months.

This Friday, the Narco News Team will join LeBaron, Sicilia and the rest to report on their ten-day Caravan of the South through Chiapas to the Guatemalan border. A month later, we’ll be in New York with Julian to share these experiences and the lessons learned. The workshop will feature a plenary session during which Catalan journalist Marta Molina - who has reported extensively on this growing Mexican movement – will lead an interview with LeBaron, with an emphasis on strategy, tactics and how movements relate to and make their own media. Like Aalam and our other presenters, Julian will also participate in the workgroups, meals, and other sessions of the workshop.


Jim Lawson

The Rev. Jim Lawson organized the 1960 Nashville sit-ins that inspired the national civil rights movement. His friend, Martin Luther King, Jr., called him “the leading strategist and theorist of nonviolence in the world.” As a professor of the Narco News School of Authentic Journalism he has inspired and trained young media makers from Egypt to Mexico on the difference between organizing and activism and why the former is paramount to winning movements. In a lifetime of organizing, reporting and traveling in many lands, I have not known any person who is still alive that has the knowledge, wisdom, street smarts and organizing experience that Jim brings to any table. In any discussion on movements and media, Jim has the tendency to identify and articulate the “big question” that needs to be asked and that raises the level of the conversation to the strategic and tactical level that all movements and media makers aspire to reach. I never stop learning from Jim. I want others to learn from his experience, too.

For a glimpse of Jim’s message, history and why any aspiring change agent would jump at the chance to learn from him, please watch this video (less than nine minutes long) from the 2010 School of Authentic Journalism on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula:

We’ll also be joined by four experienced North American community organizers who will demonstrate what organizing is and help us understand how to better seek out, identify, and report on organizing campaigns that so often fly under the radar of the media. And we’ll be asking them to help us better know how to organize ourselves as authentic journalists and media makers, too.


Paulina Gonzalez

Paulina has worked for over 15 years leading organizing campaigns to expand worker rights, immigrant rights, and the rights of low income and underrepresented communities of color.  Her work includes coordinating the ‘Dreams Across America’ cross-country train trip in the final push for the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill to provide a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants. Paulina also worked with students and community leaders to organize and take part in civil disobedience protests in Los Angeles against Arizona’s anti-immigrant law SB1070. In her work with UNITE HERE, the union that represents hotel and food service workers, she played a lead campaign role in the successful Santa Monica hotel organizing and living wage campaigns and the LAX Century Blvd. hotel worker living wage campaign. Paulina is Executive Director of SAJE, Strategic Actions for a Just Economy. SAJE is an LA-based economic justice, community development, and popular education center building a powerful voice for residents of South Central Los Angeles.  Under her leadership, SAJE launched an organizing campaign against powerful developer G.H. Palmer that resulted in a groundbreaking Community Benefits Agreement that provides South LA residents with health services, jobs, affordable housing, and small business development--all desperately needed in that historically underserved community.


Renny Cushing

Renny Cushing (left) in Mexico City with Javier Sicilia, May 2010. Photo DR 2010 Marta Molina.

When Renny’s native town of Seabrook, New Hampshire, was threatened by the construction of two nuclear power plants in the 1970s, he co-founded the Clamshell Alliance and helped it grow into a mass movement based on local community organizing (“it was like social networking,” he told the 2011 School of Authentic Journalism in Mexico, “but without the Internet”), intensive training of participants, and a sequenced campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience that made opposition to nuclear power a national cause, and one that halted the orders for new nuclear power plants ever since. (Since the March nuclear disasters in Japan, the global anti-nuclear movement has emerged anew.) After the 1988 murder of his father, Renny began organizing others into an international movement now called Murder Victims Families for Human Rights, opposed to capital punishment.  Last May he teamed up with Javier Sicilia, Julian LeBaron and Mexican family members of murder victims at a Mexico City press conference to announce the participation of US-based organizations in solidarity with the Mexican movement, which began in 2011 taking many of the steps that Renny started years ago. On a personal note, when I was a teenaged community organizer in the Clamshell Alliance, Renny was an inspiration, model and teacher who helped draw me out as an organizer. Now, as a professor of the School of Authentic Journalism, and in the rest of his work, he does the same for a new generation.


Johanna Lawrenson

Johanna Lawrenson (far right) during a plenary session of the 2010 School of Authentic Journalism with (right to left) telephone workers union organizer Marco Vasquez and Narco News correspondents Fernando Leon and Mercedes Osuna. Photo DR 2010 Noah Friedman-Rudovsky.

Johanna is a native New Yorker who organized alongside her husband, the late Abbie Hoffman, for the last 15 years of his life. She founded and led the successful movement in upstate New York and Canada to stop the Army Corps of Engineers from dredging the St. Lawrence River for winter navigation. In my younger years, Johanna and Abbie often invited me to tag along and put me to work as a community organizer in various locales where they taught me how to fight nonviolently and how to win. They were, many know and others do not, pioneers in the martial arts of using the media’s own power and strength against it. Johanna and Abbie were my primary inspirations for founding the School of Authentic Journalism. They put so much time and labor into training and teaching a 20-something me from their one-of-a-kind organizing experience that at a certain age I began to feel duty-bound to similarly invest in the next generations and keep passing the torch. We’ve brought Johanna to the j-school before. Now we’re bringing the j-school to Johanna!


Philippe Duhamel

Philippe has been organizing citizen-based nonviolent action campaigns in the province of Québec, Canada, since the early 1980's. He's currently organizing the One-Generation Moratorium Campaign to stop shale gas development from ruining the St-Lawrence River valley. As part of this campaign, Philippe and friends organized a walk over 700 km that galvanized public opposition such that over 10,000 people walked the streets of Montreal last spring, and forced the Quebec government to announce a full stop to drilling and fracking operations until further notice. Plans for mass civil disobedience are currently under way to make sure it stays that way, for at least twenty years. 

Over nearly thirty years of organizing, Philippe and his incrementally improved strategizing skills helped bring along such victories as: Forcing the Canadian government to bring Maher Arar back home in what has become a cause célèbre of US rendition that forced Canada to compensate Mr. Arar for $10.5 million (2003); Scuttling the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) by forcing the publication of secret negotiating documents through mass civil disobedience (2001); Putting a stop to uranium illegally stolen from Namibia by then Apartheid South Africa from transiting through the Port of Montreal (1986); Discrediting and ending Canada's largest Arms' Dealers Trade Show in Ottawa (1989), and; Forcing Bata shoes to divest from South Africa (1985).

We first met Philippe in 2009 when he came to our workshop on “The Organizing of the President” at the Rowe Conference Center in Massachusetts. It will be great to collaborate with him anew.


Jack Duvall, Hardy Merriman and Althea Middleton-Detzner


We’ll also be joined by some of our friends from the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), our partners in this NY workshop, a nonprofit foundation that became much more widely known this year after the world took notice of how the strategies of civil resistance it promotes were adopted, adapted and utilized in Egypt and other Arab countries.

Jack DuVall, ICNC's director, produced and co-authored the PBS series, “A Force More Powerful,” distributed in Amharic, Arabic, Burmese, English, Farsi, French, Hebrew, Indonesian, Italian, Mandarin, Nepali, Pashto, Polish, Russian, Spanish and Vietnamese, and which found its way to places like LeBaron, Chihuahua, in Mexico, and Cairo, Egypt, among people seeking to organize successful civil resistances and movements. Jack is a human encyclopedia on international civil resistance movements, their histories, strategies and tactics.

Hardy Merriman has worked in the field of strategic nonviolent conflict with organizations such as the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (where is currently a senior advisor) and Gene Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institution.  He writes and presents about nonviolent conflict for organizers, scholars, journalists, members of NGOs and other practitioners. When Hardy was professor at the 2010 School of Authentic Journalism we found that for every problem or challenge a movement faced during our discussions, he had total recall of similar situation that had inflicted other movements in another part of the world and the creative tactics utilized by those who overcame them and succeeded in their goals.

Althea Middleton-Detzner is educational advisor to the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, musician (I stole that photo with the violin from her Facebook page), creative writer, and Spanish speaker who has worked with war refugees in Colombia, environmental defenders in Ecuador and spoke on nonviolent civil resistance in 2009 in Belize at the convention of the Organization of Afro Central Americans (ONECA, in its Spanish initials). She was also a member of the women's soccer team at the University of Cape Town in South Africa and is currently a grad student at the Fletcher International Institute at Tufts University in Massachusetts. A creative thinker and doer, Althea will be part of this event's workgroup on Theater of Resistance (more on that in a moment).

Together with the team of authentic journalists you are about to meet, and the two dozen participants accepted for this workshop, we will return to the question above: How to struggle and win in North America, and how to report such struggles, and what we can learn from victorious civil resistances around the world about how they did it.

Like a TV commercial for kitchen gadgets – unusual ones that, say, might help a movement, a resistance or even a revolution succeed – I’m tempted to say, “But wait! There’s more!”

We’ll also be in NYC with a guerrilla media SWAT Team from the Narco News School of Authentic Journalism, including these valued colleagues:


The School of Authentic Journalism Team in NYC

Greg Berger (far left) and Milena Velis (far right) direct the viral video workgroup at the 2011

School of Authentic Journalism in Morelos, Mexico. DR 2010 Noah Friedman-Rudovsky.

Milena Velis, School of Authentic Journalism graduate (2010) and professor (2011) is an organizer of Philadelphia’s Media Mobilizing Project, one of the few North American projects to which we in the authentic journalism renaissance can relate, because it organizes from below to make its own media rather than engage in the kind of “activism” that merely seeks big media attention (those kinds of projects, we observe, devolve around the dictates of the commercial media and are rendered impotent by them).

This video (less than five minutes long), produced at the 2010 school, introduces the Media Mobilizing Project as of 18 months ago (Milena has many impressive updates to deliver on its journey since then) and is the third required video for applicants to these scholarships:

We especially encourage applicants who have the will to do similar “from below” media organizing in New York, or bring your already existing authentic media projects to such a venture in a town that we believe is ripe for its own version of the MMP, albeit with New Yorker personality and flair. If you apply for this scholarship, make sure to note that in your application.

Greg Berger – known also for the “Gringoyo” character he plays in many of his short films – is a Manhattan (Stuyvesant Town) native, now with 13 years living and working in Mexico making video alongside social movements. He came to our attention through his documentaries on the struggle of the town of Atenco that stopped an international airport and his 2003 classic “Gringothon.” Greg is a 2004 graduate of the school and has been co-director of its video program ever since. In recent years, Greg concluded that the Documentary Industrial Complex dependent on film festivals and awards is a dead-end venture for people who really want to make effective change using video, especially now that the “viral video” capacity online makes it possible to reach so many more viewers. His recent works such as Spring Breakers Without Borders (75,000+ views in English and Spanish) and Jodido Mexico (267,000+ views in Spanish alone) are examples of how viral video strategies create more bang for far fewer bucks to inform, report, and galvanize resistance movements. (Anyone who thinks outrageous humor and parody isn’t “politically correct” should not apply for this scholarship: ‘Nuff Said.) Greg is also co-producer of our series of videos on The Daily Life of Egypt’s Revolution and co-produced with us and others Javier Sicilia’s first video communiqué in Mexico last April, which quickly drew more than 16,000 viewers in Spanish and English and helped to launch a movement in its first days.

Mariana Simoes at the 2010 School of Authentic Journalism in Mérida, Yucatán, México. DR 2010 Noah Friedman-Rudovsky.

Mariana Simoes, Brazilian journalist, organizer and student at Sarah Lawrence College, graduated from the School of Authentic Journalism in 2010 and returned as a professor of investigative journalism in 2011. A superb writer and investigator, she wrote what I consider to be the definitive profile and history of the life of the father of the Authentic Journalism Renaissance, Mexican newspaperman Mario Menéndez. At the New York workshop, Mariana will lead, with yours truly, our presentation on “How to Write a News Story,” as well as participate in the workgroup on media and community organizing.

Quetzal Belmont teaches camera work to Edwin Alvarez at the 2010 School of Authentic Journalism in Mérida, Yucatán, México. DR 2010 Jill Freidberg.

Quetzal Belmont, graduate of the 2004 school and professor in 2010, is a Mexico City video producer and also a recognized performance artist who is one of our house experts on what we call the Theater of Resistance (also a topic for one of the workgroups in NY), a term that more directly means that movements, and media about them, must never be boring and always be fun (something our Egyptian colleagues have reiterated this year in how they created and continue their own revolution).

Marta Molina interviews Javier Sicilia. DR 2011 Terri Bennett.

Marta Molina, of Barcelona and currently reporting from Mexico, has worked and reported alongside civil resistances extensively in her native Catalonia, in Palestine and in Brazil. Fluent in more languages than most of us will ever learn, Marta is also an experienced trainer in nonviolent civil disobedience and a first-rate strategist and tactician. Last May she reported Pilgrimage to the Sources of Javier Sicilia: The Poet Who Is Shaking Mexico. (I’ve known Javier for more than a decade, and I have yet to see a better, more complete and honest profile that provides a clue as to how this “accidental leader” was, in fact, more prepared than almost anyone to inspire a mass movement before tragic events thrust that role upon him.) This will be her first presentation in New York. She is also a student of Situationist theory and praxis. If you don’t know that term, you will after attending this workshop.

Some additional School of Authentic Journalism graduates will attend as presenters-in-training as part of their preparation to teach at the upcoming School of Authentic Journalism, March 21-31, 2012, in Mexico.

Finally, I’ll be there, too. I’m the cat-herder of this oft-nomadic authentic journalism movement, and as with Greg, New York is my hometown. Quite separately we both headed south of the border in the 1990s feeling a bit, ahem, displaced by what had occurred in our homeland, and especially how the media industry has stripped away so much of what we loved about the city and has handed over its territory of daily life to forces that oppose everything good and decent about it. But, with apologies to Robert Hunter, “don’t tell me this town ain’t got no heart.” The secret history and present of the Big Apple remains to be mined and alchemized into a future return to the best of its story.

If you, too, dream that New York shall rise again (that credo may apply to every town, really), and that solving “the problem of media” is a key to getting there, then this workshop may well be for you. If you feel an affinity for the presenters introduced here, the mission of authentic journalism, the goal of more effective civil resistance and reporting of it, and a harmony with our work, we hope you apply.

I’d also like to add a few words, based on our experience of trial-and-error at the School of Authentic Journalism, on what kind of folks, we've learned, should not apply for this scholarship: If you view journalism as a “career” or follow the “freelance imperative” of molding stories and pitches to impress editors in order to get published in official or commercial media (we don’t rule out participants who have worked or work in mainstream media – we’re not opposed to earning a living – but we do filter out those who believe media’s own hype about “objectivity” and similar fish stories), then this Bud’s not for you. We also reject the hubris of too many reporters – themselves inexperienced at organizing social movements – who seem to think that after a few weeks of reporting they are somehow qualified or competent critics of how people organize themselves from below. Those people unwittingly get entire convoys blown up, yet feel no remorse because they think “It’s just part of the job.” Likewise, if you believe that reporting or making media about movements in ways that seek to help, and never, ever hurt, those movements makes one any less of a journalist than one who claims to be “objective,” this workshop is not for you either.

In sum, if you think you already know it all, have little to learn, but view a workshop like this more as an excellent opportunity to “make contacts” to further your career and reach, or as an audition in being an “edgy reporter” to later trampoline into big media stardom, you’re not going to enjoy this workshop at all, I promise you that.

This project is about scouting, recruiting and training those of us who can work in teams, in and alongside movements, to level a media playing field that is already tilted against them (and us, who report from below). This workshop is for those of us who still think we have plenty to learn, much more than we have to teach, and that includes those of us who are professors and presenters. The word “movement” means just that: If we’re not on the move and constantly evolving and improving, we don’t rise to that description at all.

The three-day training session – based on the curriculum of the ten-day School of Authentic Journalism and on the extensive work of ICNC promoting strategic understanding of civil resistance – charges no tuition. Scholarship recipients will be provided materials and meals during its sessions, free of charge, but will not be provided with lodging. The workshop is therefore for people from the New York metropolitan area or for applicants from elsewhere that express their commitment and ability to sponsor (or have their organization support) their own travel to and lodging in New York City.

Participants will learn from media makers experienced in reporting and documenting social movements, civil resistance, community organizing and nonviolent action campaigns, as well as experienced organizers from Egypt, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Europe and the US. The sessions will include:

-       The Strategic Dynamics of Civil Resistance

-       Egypt’s Grassroots Media that Built a Culture of Resistance

-       How to Write a News Story

-       Making Video and News “Go Viral”

-       The Story of Philadelphia’s Media Mobilizing Project

-       Mexico’s Movement Against the War on Drugs

-       Designing Movements and Media to Win

-       Community Organizing and Reporting About It

-       Reporting Under State and Corporate Repression

-       Bringing the Civil Resistance Success Story to North America


As well as workgroup sessions on these themes:

-       Community Organizing Among Media Makers

-       Advanced Civil Resistance and How to Present It

-       Theater of Resistance: Unleashing the Creativity of the People


That’s a lot for two-and-a-half days, isn’t it? So, yes, it is an intensive workshop with a strict clock but also with time to get to know each other, too, during meals and breaks and, optionally, into the later evenings in the city that never sleeps. However, since we are doing this workshop in just one language (English), it’s the equivalent of five days of our bilingual School of Authentic Journalism program, where everything gets consecutively translated in Spanish, too.

Scholarship recipients must agree to attend all sessions of the workshop, from Friday, October 21 at 5 p.m. to Sunday October 23 at 6 p.m. Like the Mexico-based School of Authentic Journalism, the workshop is intensive and participants will be chosen based on previous work and what the application reveals about which applicants are most likely to apply what is learned to making media and journalism that reports effectively alongside social movements. Some participants, based on their work and participation during these sessions, may be invited to the March 2012 School of Authentic Journalism in Mexico.

The workshop is open to applicants of any age, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation or political tendency. You do not need a university degree to be accepted for this workshop. Different from the bilingual School of Authentic Journalism program, the New York sessions – and applications for this scholarship - will be in English. The emphasis is on written journalism (print and online) and production of viral video for the Internet.

To request an application – due Wednesday, September 21 at 11:59 p.m. ET (yes, that’s just two weeks away!) – send an email to NYWorkshop2011@narconews.com 

Recent human events from Egypt to Mexico and elsewhere have demonstrated that movements that make their own media enjoy greater chances of success than those that rely on the commercial or state media to tell their stories. Now we will bring the lessons learned to the media capital of the world, New York, where things can also be made to happen.


Video: Egypt's Other Revolution (It's About You, Too)

By Al Giordano

At present, the Narco News Advance Team is in the Mexican Southeast, preparing our coverage of the upcoming second stage of the Caravan of Solace and the movement against the drug war inspired by Javier Sicilia. From September 8 to 18 we’ll be accompanying Sicilia and other family members of drug war victims and martyrs through the states of Morelos, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Chiapas, crossing the border into Guatemala – where Sicilia tells Narco News he plans to offer an apology to the people of Central America for the maltreatment of their immigrants in Mexican territory – then through Zapatista territory, and the states of Tabasco, Veracruz, Puebla, the state of Mexico and, finally, in Mexico City. These are lands from where we’ve reported extensively for the past 14 years (11 of them via Narco News) and we can report to you already that there is a palpable excitement among many of the movements in the Mexican South for this upcoming visit, including yesterday’s communiqué from Zapatista Subcomandante Marcos reiterating “total support” for Sicilia and the movement (a statement that ought to be humbling to some who have accomplished far less yet who behave as more-radical-than-thou armchair critics of the world’s first ever mass movement to end the war on drugs).

Meanwhile, our second video in a series about the Egyptian revolution – narrated by those who helped make it happen – is now ready, and, in a way, it is precisely relevant to some of the discussions and debates in and around Mexico about whether Sicilia and his allies should collaborate, speak with, (in the most extreme silliness, whether they should “kiss” or “hug”), people with whom they openly disagree. This question was already answered only seven months ago this week in Egypt! And now you can see and hear how it happened, on video. Perhaps it is also relevant to debates and discussions and unanswered questions in your own land, too…

How many news stories, essays, videos and other reports have you seen about the Egyptian Revolution that “began,” according to many breathless reports, on January 25 of this year and culminated in the February 11 resignation of the three-decade dictator Hosni Mubarak? And how many of those reports spoke in fearsome terms about an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood as if it were some monolithic force aspiring to impose an Iran-style theocracy on the country?

Especially while the revolution was going through those key moments, so many pundits warned that if Mubarak were to be removed then the Muslim Brotherhood would take over and bring something even worse. But when School of Authentic Journalism professor Greg Berger and I traveled to Cairo a month after Mubarak was driven from power, and teamed up there with Joe Rizk and other new friends and colleagues to interview, on video, the young people who helped organize that revolution, we gained a completely different perspective on the Muslim Brotherhood, in good part thanks to meeting Mohammad Abbas, the 26-year-old organizer who emerged from that organization and who narrates this video, above, part II in our series on The Daily Life of Egypt’s Revolution.

(If you missed Part I, narrated, in English, by Aalam Wassef, you’ll want to see that, too: Especially if you are a video or media maker, journalist or blogger with dreams of reporting or inspiring fundamental change in your own land: Egypt: How We Did It When the Media Would Not. In addition to everything else it teaches, Part I serves as an excellent guide to how to make your videos or media “go viral” and speak with far more people than you might otherwise reach. For example, if you are putting videos or blog entries online and only getting a few hundred viewers, you're doing something wrong; Aalam explains how, in Egypt, it was done right.)

The interview with Abbas, in Part I of this series, illuminates many untold stories from Tahrir Square and the meetings and community organizing behind the revolution. Perhaps most importantly, Abbas speaks of his own personal experience – our questions focused heavily on getting these talented young organizers to talk in the first person about what they saw, heard, felt and thought during these historic events – as a Muslim who, for the first time, found himself working closely with Christians, secular leftists and others who were not part of the Muslim Brotherhood, many of whom in fact feared its members, and vice versa.

In so much of the developed world (and increasingly “gringotized” or “globalized” movements in the developing world), too much of “activism” has been reduced to seeking out the differences in opinion or culture between people and excluding others based on those divisions: secularists vs. religious people, believers in one god vs. believers in another, and “identity politics” that exclude people of different classes, genders, races, creeds, tendencies and orientations. What Abbas and everyone else we interviewed in Egypt concluded based on their experience organizing a successful revolution (successful, in that it took gigantic leaps forward and continues working today to concretize and advance its gains, because authentic revolutions are not romantic moments in time but permanent works-in-construction), was that the revolution became one only because they dropped their prejudices and fears and learned how to overcome their differences to work together on the goals they shared: the toppling of a dictator, and continuing into the present, the defeat of dictatorship itself.

Abbas speaks glowingly of how the youth of his organizations – politically considered to be on the religious right of his country’s political spectrum – came together with socialists and other radicals and what he learned from them. He talks of his newfound friendship with Coptic Christian organizer Sally Moore, and how they now speak daily and playfully scold each other if one is late in calling on any given day.

This video also shows the evolution of Abbas and many of his colleagues who, after the revolution, set off from the Muslim Brotherhood mothership to form their own new political force in Egyptian politics, laying waste to all the fears and lies that the Brotherhood would be some monolithic dominant force in a more democratic Egypt.

This video presents the story of a revolution within the revolution. And isn’t that always the case with nonviolent revolutions? That the change that occurs is not just up above with the faces and names of those in power, but is also, most profoundly and permanently, in the way that the participants see themselves and act having experienced the most historic of societal changes together.

We went to Egypt, as I’ve mentioned here previously, taking up the goal as expressed in 1963 by the Situationist Raoul Vaneigem, who said:  "By a strange oversight, no historian has ever taken the trouble to study how people actually lived during the most extreme revolutionary moments."

The aftermath of Egypt's revolution finally offered us the opportunity to do just that.

Mohammed Abbas, like Aalam Wassef in Part I of this series, tells us all something about how he and others actually lived during the most extreme of revolutionary moments, and how the revolution, far from being just something external and impersonal for the history books, shook and changed its participants as well.

There are those who say that one cannot change the world unless and until one change’s one’s self. There is a kernel of truth in that, but only if acted upon together with its correlative truth: That one cannot change himself or herself without also immersing one’s self in the moment with others, listening to, learning from, and working together with them. It is there, and only there, that we discover the greater truth about ourselves. The human being is not a nation-state with borders, visas to be stamped and immigration officials to wall itself away from all that is outside of it. This video tells the news story of the Egyptian revolution from the organizer’s perspective of one of the key revolutionaries, but it also tells the story of the revolutionary himself, someone not unlike you or me, born into one culture and set of circumstances, who became more himself by opening himself up to those who come from other cultures and circumstances. Multiply Mohammad Abbas’ story several million times, and there you have the real story of what can be made to happen in an entire nation even under the most repressive of regimes or otherwise difficult circumstances.

User login


RSS Feed