Bill Barr’s Biggest Lie

What do you think was Barr’s biggest lie? 

As I see it, most reporting, commentary, and legislators have missed the mark on that question. And many news reports, such as Judy Woodruff on the Newshour, have reported his most important lie as if it were fact. 

During this week’s hearing, for example, Barr said:

“But the question just been asking raises a point I wanted to say when Senator Hirono was talking, which is, how did we get to the point here where the evidence is now that the President was falsely accused of colluding with the Russians, and accused of being treasonous, and accused of being a Russian agent, and the evidence now is that was without a basis, and two years of his administration have been dominated by the allegations that have now been proven false? And, you know, to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think that the Mueller report had found the opposite.”

However, AP FACT CHECK, “Trump, Barr distort Mueller report findings,” reports:

The Mueller report said the investigation did not find a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, saying it had not collected sufficient evidence “to establish” or sustain criminal charges….

The special counsel wrote that he “cannot rule out the possibility” that unavailable information could have cast a different light on the investigation’s findings….

The report also makes clear the investigation did not assess whether “collusion” occurred because it is not a legal term. The investigation found multiple contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia,…

Failing to prove that X was true does not mean that X was proven false. To make that mistake must have been intentional.

Self Care

By Penn Garvin
Originally posted in the Broadsheet, a rural PA newsletter

There is self care of oneself and there is also self care of the movement.  Self care of the movement means that we look closely at (1) how we treat each other (2) how we support each other (3) how we give each other permission to rest, relax and have fun (4) how we hold each other accountable for saying what we do and doing what we say (5) how we model a movement that those not presently involved are drawn to be a part of and (6) how we come through this difficult period of time better and not bitter. With all else we have to do it may seem difficult to also do this work of self care.  However, in order to build a strong and lasting movement, it is critical to all the other work we do.  

Keep tuned for more information about self care in the upcoming Broadsheets. We will look at each of the topics listed above with questions that you can use for discussion in your organizations and groups. For more information and to have someone come to your group, please contact Penn.


As I wrote above we are going to look at each of these topics individually.  I would suggest that you think of your own reactions to what is written below and then ask for time at your next meeting (if you are a part of an organization or group) and share this information and have a discussion.This is part of a larger article written by a friend of mine who lives and works politically in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is hoping that folks will sign on to a declaration called “Americans for Humanity.”  If you want more information, please contact me and I will send you the 8-page document. What follows can seem rather harsh but please dig deep inside yourself and see where there are grains of truth and then talk with others. The first step to making change is always to be honest and name the problem.


David Brooks on the Social Fabric

Backed by the Aspen Institute, David Brooks launched Weave: The Social Fabric Project to nurture what he considers to be a growing social movement. In his New York Times column, “A Nation of Weavers,” Brooks argues that this grassroots movement addresses “our lack of healthy connection to each other, our inability to see the full dignity of each other, and the resulting culture of fear, distrust, tribalism, shaming and strife.” He believes this movement will “usher in a social transformation by reweaving the fabric of reciprocity and trust.” Through these Weavers, he says, “renewal is building, relationship by relationship, community by community. It will spread and spread as the sparks fly upward.”

Brooks moves in the right direction, but stops short. He aims to go below the surface, but neglects root causes. He wants to address the “whole person,” but fragments the individual.

Brooks rightly argues that “America’s social fabric is being ripped to shreds.” And he’s right to lament the recent emergence of “hyperindividualism” and affirm “radical mutuality” — that is, the belief “we are all completely equal, regardless of where society ranks us,” which leads us to “love across boundaries, listen patiently, see deeply and make someone feel known.”

But Brooks is wrong to affirm “an ethos that puts relationship over self.” That separation violates holism. Rather, an integrated balance is possible, as when Christians say: Love yourself as you love others. And Buddhists say: Neither selfishness nor self-sacrifice.

Read more

An Argument for the Declaration

An Argument for the Declaration
By Wade Lee Hudson

Activists undermine progress. Deep-seated tendencies reinforce fragmentation and drive away potential recruits. These divisive impulses, rooted in biological instincts inflamed by our hyper-competitive society, weaken our power.

Not everyone suffers from the same weaknesses, but most are burdened with many. “Americans for Humanity: A Declaration” aims to help overcome these barriers to personal, social, and political growth.

These personal problems include:

read more

Report on “Americans for Humanity: A Declaration” – 1/30/19

A prominent author, editor, and activist wrote:

I’ve been going back through our past e-mail exchanges. A quick check. I am assuming that you wrote both of these pieces. Is that correct?

…If you are the author of this material, you are a person I want to know and would welcome the opportunity to explore with you your strategy for engaging the world in the discussions you seek to foster. I suspect that writing declarations or manifestos may not be the best way to proceed.

I replied:

I just now saw your email, which is very encouraging. Yes, holding you in very high regard, I would welcome the opportunity for us to get to know each other and explore strategies for engaging the world. I see “Americans for Humanity: A Declaration” or some similar brief manifesto merely as a first step. Soon I plan to review New Power: How Power Works in Our Hyperconnected World — and How to Make It Work for You by Jeremy Heimans and Henry Tims. When I read it months ago, I was very impressed….

We plan a Skype call tomorrow.

A prominent academic and activist wrote:

This is great! I could sign it if it were edited to qualify the language in the item that references pressuring the government to implement policies supported by “strong majorities” so that we are *explicitly* here talking about “dignity-based,” “humanity-based” or otherwise valued-aligned policies backed by strong majorities. As you know, majorities are sometimes part of the problem in a democratic society (as regards unpopular or vulnerable minorities).

I replied:

Great to hear. Good point about majorities. Previously I’ve qualified the idea with “compassionate,” but overlooked the issue this time. Does that work? That word is used elsewhere only once, so using it here would not be too redundant. It would read: pressures Washington to implement compassionate policies supported by strong majorities of the American people.

A young, dynamic grassroots activist wrote:

I think this is amazing. It should be turned into a sticker or postcard people can use.

I replied:

Good to hear. Great idea. I’ll share it with a respondent who offered to help with graphics. Maybe the three of us will be able to collaborate if and when the Declaration is final and goes live.

Another activist responded:

Thanks for continuing to work on this. This is exactly the kind of document that would be affixed to the wall of a meeting or community room for an organization I’d actually be inspired to join. However, just seeing the document itself would not be sufficient for me to have confidence that the organization truly lives by these ideals….

A long-term associate from the East Coast commented:

Wade, I’ve put suggested additions or replacements in caps and deletions in brackets. My hesitation in responding to this declaration is that i have a full plate and, though i can send emails or info, I don’t see room for additional activism….

I replied:

I substituted “accomplishments” for “gains.” Thanks. But the other suggestions don’t quite work for me. I included all of your suggestions in the Log, however, so maybe others will second some of them.

A long-term prominent peace activist and author commented:

I would be happy to sign it, but would strongly encourage that we include something like commit to living in a world where  the US ends all the wars and threats of wars the US is involved in around the world and sign and agrees to the abide by the international treaty to abolish all nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, and agree to commit to solving all disputes by mediation, negotiation and justice for all parties in all conflicts.

International relations is an important issue, so email this led to a series of exchanges. The latest draft of the declaration now includes:

nurtures supportive relationships with other countries, backs their right to self-determination, and encourages the peaceful resolution of conflicts with mediation and negotiation.

A long-term correspondent wrote:

I don’t agree with every word but every word isn’t important to me.  We’re kindred spirits who desire to live our lives in accord with life-affirming principles like these.  I understand that you want to organize people around peace and love and fairness in this declaration. I’m grateful to know you and be in a circle of people that values these principles.   I support you and would sign this statement without change…. I’m planning a trip to CA around September to bury my father-in-laws ashes in Salinas. Perhaps we can get together then?

Another long-term activist emailed:

These are of course wonderful aspirations for a sane world! I am glad to sign, but can’t do anything else.

Another respondent commented:

Maybe missing more on the link between the way we treat the environment and each other, but it’s a good start! And I would sign it. Thanks for pursuing this project.

I replied:

I’m glad you would sign and appreciate the appreciation. I made a note on “The Case for “Americans for Humanity: A Declaration about your good point: “Maybe missing more on the link between the way we treat the environment and each other.”

I’m sending this report to the 28 of the 32 respondents who expressed strong interest in the project (most of the others were supportive but too busy to participate now). All comments and my responses are included in the Declaration Dialog Log. The latest draft will always be Americans for Humanity: A Declaration.

The response so far heartens me considerably. Many seasoned activists and several academics have offered strong support. Thanks again to all of you, including those who suggested changes that have helped improve the declaration. I’ll be back in touch soon.

Democrats, Border Walls, and Social Polarization

As Lilliana Mason reports in her shocking, disturbing Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became our Identity (2018), many scientific studies prove that human beings are afflicted with a deep-seated instinct to polarize into highly competitive, mean-spirited tribes. Emotions rooted in the body associated with politics and sports are remarkably similar. Those powerful feelings, often unconscious, can distort reality and undermine ethical behavior. Winning becomes primary, consequences secondary.

In order to win, polarized tribes will sacrifice their own self-interest as well as the needs of others. Tribal members enjoy seeing opponents suffer even if they themselves don’t benefit. Their unconscious bias results in destructive discrimination and produces a self-reinforcing downward spiral. Rather than reach agreement on how to relieve suffering, they prefer to fight win-or-lose symbolic, ideological battles over abstractions like “the government,” “capitalism,” or “the wall.” Meanwhile four percent of the world’s children die by the age of five and the planet is burning up.

Mason argues that both Republicans and Democrats are examples.

Clearly, for Donald Trump, winning is everything, regardless of consequences. He will do anything to claim victory, even if the claim is false. He’s the ultimate polarizer. His motivations are transparent.

But Democrats are prone to the same weaknesses, as reflected in how they have handled the the government shutdown and the Kavanagh hearings. They also can be too dedicated to winning the next election, without enough regard for consequences.

Concerning the shutdown that’s inflicting serious harm, the Democratic response to Trump’s demand for “a wall” has been “no wall,” resulting in a zero-sum battle that leaves little room for compromise. As summed up by

Democrats are refusing to give Trump the political win…. When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said “no wall” — not now, not ever — she meant it….  It’s a symbol of Trump’s political ascension…. Pelosi says Democrats will never vote for “the wall.”… [She said] a wall is an immorality…. As long as Trump’s “wall” — the campaign rallying cry — is the centerpiece of the White House’s border security demand, don’t expect Democrats to engage.  [Many Democrats] have said they would never vote for another mile of fencing.

Over the past two years, [for Trump] the wall has become “see-through” and perhaps less contiguous…. To Trump, it’s all a wall…. For Democrats, that’s the problem.

Democrats are vehemently opposed to a border wall not necessarily because they oppose physical barriers along the border, but because backing it would be seen as the equivalent of backing one of Trump’s racist campaign promises.

A more rational position for the Democrats to have taken would have been:

We’ve voted for scattered steel fences before. We might vote for more in the future. But we will not negotiate the issue during a government shutdown. And we oppose 230 miles of more steel fences.

But if enough Democrats oppose funding for even one more mile of fencing, they may have the power to block any compromise on this issue, as the Freedom Caucus has held sway in the Republican Party.

The mainstream media profit by aggravating this conflict with superficial reports that focus on “the wall” vs. “no wall.” To my knowledge, neither the Times, the Post, the network news, nor the Newshour have reported on this issue with the depth and detail it requires.

Now, in his Jan. 19 televised address, Trump said, “To physically secure our border, the plan includes $5.7 billion for a strategic deployment of physical barriers, or a wall. This is not a 2,000 mile concrete structure from sea to sea. These are steel barriers in high priority locations.” With this move, he may have given the Democrats an offer it will be hard from them to accept without contradicting their no-wall absolutism.  

Commenting on this shift, Robert Kuttner said, “He has already back-pedaled on his demand for a literal concrete wall. In the endgame, he can term a mix of electronic surveillance and some actual barriers a ‘wall,’ and declare victory.” But will the Democrats backpedal too?

The Kavanagh hearings are another example of Democrats prioritizing electoral victories and disregarding human costs. Shortly after the hearings, in “Why Didn’t the Democrats Stop the Nomination?” I wrote:

If the Democrats had hammered away at the many lies told by Kavanaugh under oath, they may have stopped the nomination…. But they didn’t. So the network news, including PBS, hardly touched on [that issue] during the days leading up to the vote. Why didn’t the Democrats concentrate on the lies? One possibility is that the focus on sexual assault…will bring more women to the polls. …If that scenario is accurate and it helps the Democrats next month to win an overwhelming majority in the House … were those tactics justified?

Also suspicious was Senator Dianne Feinstein’s holding on to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s letter  charging Kavanagh with sexual assault, rather than giving it to the FBI before their confidential background check closed. Some Democrats have acknowledged that decision gave Republicans fodder to accuse the Democrats of playing dirty tricks by using the issue as an “ace in the hole.”

Moreover, the Democrats did not pass on to Dr. Ford the Republicans’ offer to go to California to interview her privately. When the committee asked her if that offer had been communicated to her, she replied, “I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and … been happy to speak with you out there.”

As it turned out, the hearings proved to be a public spectacle and, according to post-election analysis, they did help the Democrats win suburban districts and take back the House. Was the suffering and danger inflicted on Dr. Ford worth gaining that edge?

If one or both of the major political parties splinter, that development could open the door to more bipartisan compromise. Militant factions could still push to get more support for their minority positions. But bipartisan majorities could better enact supermajority opinions. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. Otherwise, irrational battles are likely to continue and may worsen.

The Republicans, the Democrats, and the media are products of the System. The upward mobility escalator — and efforts to be “a star” and dominate “inferiors” — nurture bias, discrimination, and scapegoating. Rather than admitting points of agreement and compromising, winning is more important.

In the meantime, our best hope may be for a popular movement that helps people transcend the System’s conditioning. As is the case with racial implicit bias, a strong commitment to self-awareness and conscious self-control can help reverse divisiveness.

As Mason puts it, “the power of winning is very strong,” but we can learn to “enjoy our own social-group identities without wishing harm upon others.” By enhancing self-esteem, positive self-images, and peer support, we can liberate our higher angels.

Declaration Dialog

Twelve subscribers to my lists offered valuable (positive) feedback to the first two drafts of “A Declaration for Compassionate Community.” Those drafts with revision marks are posted here. A log of the feedback and my responses is posted here.

Those reflections prompted me to make changes and re-organize the document as a pledge (see below) that opens with “next steps” that everyone can take immediately, and concludes with the declaration of support for the growth of a popular movement. The new title is “Americans for Humanity: A Pledge.” Aiming to make it as short as possible, on my own initiative I’ve also deleted some of the initial content.

What do you think of this option? Suggested changes?

My plan is to send this draft to the same subscribers and incorporate suggested changes so long as they are forthcoming.

Then, if and when there’s strong consensus, I’ll seek feedback from many individuals not on those lists — and ask you to do the same with people you know.

The goal is to make the statement as good as possible.

Then, if and when there is strong support for the latest draft and no more substantial suggested changes are being submitted, we can consider whether and how to circulate it for endorsement.

Americans for Humanity
A Pledge
(1/10/19 Draft)

As an inhabitant of the United States of America, I will:

  • Serve humanity, the environment, and life itself.
  • Improve my emotional reactions;
  • Examine myself honestly;
  • Avoid oppressive or disrespectful behavior;
  • Support others with their personal and spiritual growth;
  • Welcome support from others.
  • Strengthen my sense of myself as a member of the human family.
  • Affirm personal identities based on characteristics such as race and gender.
  • Oppose efforts to dominate others due to their identity.
  • Respect the essential equality of all human beings.
  • Rely on love and trust rather than hate and fear.
  • Channel anger productively.
  • Promote partnerships that empower people.
  • Support individual rights and the rule of law.
  • Nurture democracy throughout society.
  • Honor America’s achievements, criticize its failures, and help realize its ideals.
  • Help transform the United States into a compassionate community.
  • Encourage the growth of a popular movement that embraces these values and:
    • Fully represents and gives voice to the American people.
    • Attracts people with face-to-face community and caring friendships.
    • Supports members who want to form small teams that share meals, strengthen connections, and plan other activities.
    • Pressures Washington to implement policies supported by strong majorities of the American people.
    • Engages in nonviolent civil disobedience and consumer boycotts when needed.
    • Cooperates with movements in other countries that also serve humanity, the environment, and life itself.

To sign, click here



  1. The latest version of this pledge will always be at
  2. An archive of email comments without authors identified will be at

The American Dream, Redefined

Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations by Amy Chua is a valuable, challenging book. The American Dream, however, is more complicated than Chua acknowledges.

Chua affirms a self-critical American Dream “that recognizes past failure.” She also rightly criticizes those who reduce America to “a nation founded on genocide and on the backs of slaves.” She writes:

In America, it’s the progressive elites who have taken it upon themselves to expose the American Dream as false. This is their form of tribalism…[which] creates a virtuous Us and a demonized Them.

Her point is well-taken. Progressives often express a holier-than-thou attitude toward typical Americans and do not adopt a balanced stance toward America’s strengths and weaknesses.

Chua’s less judgmental perspective declares that “generations seeking justice have done so for the promise of America….  [which] allows — indeed, gains strength from allowing — all those subgroup identities to flourish…. “ She proposes strengthening America’s identity as the only nation that is not based on ethnicity, but rather is an inclusive “super-group” with everyone “united by their common humanity and love of liberty.” She believes:

It’s not enough that we view one another as fellow human beings; we need to view one another as fellow Americans. And for that we need to collectively find a national identity capacious enough to resonate with, and hold together as one people, Americans of all sorts…. What holds the United States together is the American Dream.

But her definition of the American Dream is mistakenly rooted in the pursuit of great wealth. She says:

America’s have-nots don’t have wealth — many of them want it, or want their children to have a shot at it, even if they think the system is “rigged” against them. Whether black, white, or Latino, poor and working-class Americans hunger for the old-fashioned American Dream….

The original dream, however, merely affirmed the gradual accumulation of modest wealth. Freelance writer James Truslow Adams popularized the phrase “American Dream” in his Epic of America which defined the term as “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement.” If the American Dream were limited to that “land of opportunity,” hardly anyone would object.

Later, however, the discovery of gold triggered the dream of instant wealth, which became a key feature of the American mind. The advent of mass advertising and the introduction of television aggravated hyper-competitive consumerism, materialism, cheating, corruption, and selfishness.

The desire for comfort and security evolved into a passion for obscene wealth. “To keep up with the Jones’” became “to get ahead” — by any means necessary. The mantra “greed is good” became widely accepted. To climb social ladders and look down on those below became society’s driving force. Television programs like the top-rated “Survivor” — where contestants progressively eliminate other contestants until one wins the million-dollar prize — symbolize this competitive consumerism. In sports, “It’s not whether you win or lose that counts but how you play the game” became “winning is everything.”

Richard Easterlin and Eileen M Crimmins found that from 1970 to 1987 the percentage of college freshmen who aimed to be very well off financially increased from 37% to 75%, while the percentage who aimed to develop a meaningful philosophy of life decreased from 65% to 37% during a similar time period.

The American Dream is now based on the belief that every child faces few barriers and has a good chance to rise from humble origins to enormous wealth. Americans discount the advantages and disadvantages inherited at birth and neglect the importance of luck, cheating, and extreme selfish ambition. Unlike Europeans, most Americans do not acknowledge that forces beyond personal control greatly influence success. Rather, they believe people are almost always rewarded for hard work and skill — and they themselves feel shame if they are not.

But throughout our history, most Americans have never risen far above their parents’ status. White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg documents how “upward mobility” has always been a myth. Worse yet, Isenberg reports that the American Dream has been based on assumptions of moral superiority.

In the British colonies, John Winthrop, a seventeenth-century leader of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, summed up a basic principle for his newly forming community when he declared, “God Almightie in his most holy and wise providence hath soe disposed the Condition of mankind, as in all times some must be rich some poor, some high and eminent in power and dignitie; others mean and in subjection.”

Later, John Adams, the second President of the United States, reinforced that point when he affirmed the “passion for distinction in the ranks and the order of society” and declared, “There must be one, indeed, who is the last and lowest of the human species.” Or, as the Tibetan Buddhist saying put it: “Envy toward the above, competitiveness toward the equal, and contempt toward the lower.”

Isenberg believes the myth of upward mobility affects who we are and how “we judge people by the way they’re dressed, by the way they talk, by the unwritten codes of class behavior.” Contempt toward those who are lower on the ladder of success, envy and resentment toward those who are higher, shame for “failing,” and fear of those deemed a threat are widespread.

The result is fragmenting social discord, a dilemma neglected by Chua. These tensions undermine the unity she seeks. As summed up by, “Healthy levels of competition can help improve self-esteem and increase enjoyment of life.” However, obsessive competition (which has become more common) “may lead to perfectionism, chronic feelings of inadequacy, or mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety.”

In the 1960s, the counterculture rejected the dehumanizing version of the American Dream and its “corporate technostructure … that reduced everyday life to a hamster cage of earning and spending,” as Jackson Lears expressed it. Chua would have done well to pay more attention to that critique.

The American Dream has included four beliefs: 1) equal opportunity; 2) the ability to advance; 3) a passion to get very rich, and; 4) assumptions of moral superiority. A productive redefinition of the American Dream would affirm the first two and set aside the others. A healthy dream would avoid obsession with great wealth and moralistic judgments toward those who are less “successful.”

Establishing economic security for all could help assure an equal opportunity to a good life, enable those who want to do so to gain more income, and enable many Americans to choose a simple lifestyle that leaves time for meaningful activities that do not generate income.

Then, the American Dream could better serve humanity, the environment, and life itself.

NOTE: Excerpts from Political Tribes are posted here.

Americans for Humanity

Would you sign and ask others to sign the following — if it is circulated as is?  Do you have suggested changes?  You can email private comments to <wadehudson0726ATgmailDOTcom> or post them publicly as a comment below.
Thanks, Wade

Americans for Humanity:
A Declaration for Compassionate Community
(1/3/19 Draft)

I support the growth of a popular movement that:

  • Serves humanity, the environment, and life itself.

  • Fully represents and gives voice to the American people.

  • Helps transform the United States into a compassionate community.

  • Pressures Washington to implement policies supported by strong majorities of the American people.

  • Engages in nonviolent civil disobedience and consumer boycotts when needed.

  • Aims to get big money out of politics.

  • Seeks to establish economic security for all, assure living-wage job opportunities, reduce inequality, and ensure that the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes.

  • Supports individual rights and the rule of law.

  • Nurtures democracy throughout society.

  • Promotes partnerships that empower people.

  • Respects the essential equality of all human beings.

  • Encourages everyone to identify strongly as a member of the human family.

  • Affirms personal identities based on characteristics such as race and gender.

  • Opposes efforts to dominate others due to their identity.

  • Relies on love and trust rather than hate and fear.

  • Channels anger productively.

  • Attracts people with face-to-face community and caring friendships.

  • Encourages members to:

    • improve their emotional reactions;

    • engage in honest self-examination;

    • support each other with their personal and spiritual growth;

    • avoid oppressive or disrespectful behavior.

  • Supports members who want to form small teams that share meals, strengthen connections, and plan other activities.

  • Cooperates with movements in other countries that also serve humanity, the environment, and life itself.


  1. The plan is to informally circulate this draft until March 1 and ask for feedback.
  2. Incorporate feedback and aim for general consensus.
  3. If strong support emerges, circulate the final declaration after March 1, ask people to sign it and ask others to sign it.
  4. After May 1, invite all signers to discuss next steps with one another.
  5. An established organization might then adopt the project, assume ownership of the domain name, and recruit other organizations as partners.
  6. The latest version of the declaration will always be at
  7. An archive of email comments without authors identified will be at
  8. Public comments will be at
  9. A list of people who’ve said they would sign and ask others to sign this declaration — if it is circulated as is — is maintained at

Transforming the World: A Scenario

Dedicated to humanity, the environment, and life itself, the Purple Alliance pushes for new national policies that are supported by a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

As part of the Earth Community, the Alliance promotes democracy, respects the rights of individuals, opposes the tyranny of the majority, and pushes political parties to back proposals that have supermajority backing while also pursuing their other principles.

The Alliance affirms the value of compassionate personal identities based on political party, ideology, theology, nation, race, gender, geography, or other factors. At the same time, the Alliance encourages strong identification as a member of the human family.

From this perspective, the Alliance promotes the nonviolent transform-the-world movement, opposes one group disrespecting or dominating another group based on superficial characteristics, and supports the use of force to restrain people who violate the rights of others….

Read more.