Their goal is to beat us into submission.

[Avalux]

Not in traditionally savage ways of course, but psychologically. There's no blood and in some ways, it's more damaging.

The psychological message they sent us with their 'win' last night is this:

"Protesting doesn't work. Give up, shut up and figure out that we're going to win, always. We lie, we cheat, we steal and there's nothing you can do to stop us."

That's the message they want us to not only understand, but believe and obey. So are we going to listen to them?

HELL NO!

[tularetom]

1. You may say that and I agree with you

Unfortunately the leaders of our party do not seem to feel the same sense of resentment that we do.

[Avalux]

3. Here's the thing about that.

I'm starting to believe the leaders of our party are 'them'. They're on top and get their share of the cash...why would they want to actually stop the way things are done?

[WingDinger]

2. We usually are too cool for outbursts, protesting and talking loudly.

We have been defined by the right as passive, polite and gentile. And we bought it. Till we get loud, rude and hostile, in large numbers, we will continue to be punching bags. Liberals need to redefine themselves as tough, committed and pissed as hell.,

[Avalux]

5. You're correct.

The dichotomy drives me nuts. We have been defined that way, while the right is defined as gun-toting, tough talking, SOBs. Yet they while how they're always being victimized and in the minority, and it works.

See post #4 for some real protest pics....

[Scootaloo]

11. No, that's not the right's definition; that's OUR definition

It's painful to admit for a lot of people I'm sure, but the left in America is still stuck in the 60's. The hippy mentality still dominates the entire process. And that means passive, polite "protest" that consists of puppet shows, drum circles, and witty folk songs. I'm sure that if we could find a way to protest with a carrot cake, we'd do that. It's this idea that we all need to be these humming, gentle, saintly Gandhi-like people to get anything done. Like we have to be "above the fray."

Gandhi's message worked because he had a couple million super pissed-off Indians standing behind him providing an "option B" if the British didn't want to listen to the man.

Boomers, love you guys, but really... it didn't work. We need to look back at your grandparents and how they got shit done. Here's how they protested Wall Street:
[img][/img]

Awww yeeeah.
[img][/img]

[Scootaloo]

4. Except they're sort of right

"That "Protesting doesn't work" bit? Let me show you something.

This is how they protest in Greece:
[img][/img]

This is how they protest in China:
[img][/img]

This is how they protest in Brazil:
[img][/img]

This is how they protest in Iran:
[img][/img]

This is how they protest in India:
[img][/img]

This is how they protest in Israel:
[img][/img]

This is how they protest in Canada:
[img][/img]

This is how they protest in Mexico:
[img][/img]

...And this is how we protest in America:
[img][/img]

While I'm sure our hearts are in the right place, it looks like our asses would much rather be on the couch.

[Avalux]

6. Yes, our hearts are in the right place...

and it's not good enough. Great post, thanks.

[Blue_Tires]

15. fwiw I went to an antiwar protest in '03 that was easily as big as the Israel photo

but the media had a hard-on for the invasion (in the heyday of W's "For us or against us&quot , so they downplayed it

[Scootaloo]

16. Not to sound glib, but it's not the size that matters, it's what you do with it

I was trapped in Alaska in '03, so I didn't get to jump into any of those protests. But I saw 'em, and sure, they were big.

The trouble is, as you say, the fix was in; war was a guarantee, and nothing short of dragging the leaders of the nation out of their offices and throwing them on public trial was going to stop it.

Thing is... that could have been done. Swear to god, numbers like that? Maybe not a literal dragging-out, but with a little prep (someone brought sandwiches, right?) it could have easily surrounded 1600 Pennsylvania avenue and locked the city of Washington down.

Instead it was a bunch of people showing up to look cool and "with it" for a day. Even if that wasn't their intent (and I'm sure most were very earnest about their protest) that WAS the end effect. Same problem with the anti-war efforts in the 60's. It turned into a parade, a sort of ethics fashion show.

Protest is not a way to say "I am dissatisfied with the current situation" - that's what discourse is for. Protest is for saying "FUCK YOU I WON'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!" - and when you're firing that cannon, you need to do something to SHOW you won't take it anymore. You need to cause disruption. Block the roads, lay siege to the offices. Swear to god it seems that the biggest concern of American protestors today is not blocking a single minute of traffic.

Occupy started off on the right foot, but seems to have quickly become just another fashion show.

[Blue_Tires]

17. I'm pretty sure the biggest concern of Amercan protestors is not giving

the cops that ONE iota of justification to move in and knock some skulls and arrest everyone (which blocking traffic would certainly do)...

Yeah, places like Athens protestors come ready to throw down with their gasmasks, protective clothing, molotovs, etc., but in the U.S. not everyone comes ready for an altercation...There may be a time in the future when Americans are all desperate enough to clash with the cops or storm buildings in each protest, but we haven't reached that point yet...

and FWIW the Civil Rights movement was passive and nonviolent, and it needed to be...The anti-war efforts in the 60s turned into an ethics fashion show? Don't tell that to anyone who remembers Kent State...

[Scootaloo]

18. The civil rights movement was non-violent

But to say it was "passive" is just fucking shameful. The keystone of the civil rights movements was - again - disruption. Agitation. Getting twenty like-minded fellows and "occupying" a restaurant, illegally, with full knowledge that the cops are going to bust your head? That's so far removed from "passive" that I really have no idea where you even get the idea. Fighting court battles for a decade for your kids' right to go to a good school, even when you are getting death threats, when your kids' friends are being bombed in church, that's not passive.

If you are in a state of constant retreat, you will make no gains. It's that simple. And thanks to "Okay guys, officer friendly says we have to stand five feet from the curb. Now ten feet. Now we have to go down the street. Okay, we're being dispersed, everyone say bye-bye to officer friendly!" mentality, that's where we are - constant retreat.

If you're not willing to disrupt, then you're not willing to protest. Stay home, take care of your kids, and hope the people who are willing are out there.

[Blue_Tires]

20. When I say "passive"

I mean "Not storming the drugstore counter by force, armed to the teeth" (that's what I consider an aggressive takeover--maybe my wording is off)

And if people want to regularly "disrupt" at protests, they need to be aware that the media will demonize them to the point of only focusing on the disruptions and arrests as opposed to the political message...Not a good thing if a certain movement is trying to draw undecided to their cause...You also need to re-think exactly what you'd want the "disruption" to accomplish, other than getting increased attention (usually the wrong type), and how it will get you closer to your political goal...

[Scootaloo]

22. That's called a "Straw man"

I'm talking about disruption, not violence. When I say "lay siege to the offices," I mean exactly that. Block 'em off. That was the idea of pickets and sit-down strikes, and is the basis behind the methods of occupy. You step into their spaces and force them to deal with you if they want access. It's aggressive, but it's not violence.

We need aggression. We need to show some teeth.

[Blue_Tires]

23. ok...I'm getting your meaning of the plan now...

Invade space, force the one-percenters at least acknowledge the movement, and then what?

Forgive me; my brain likes to work backwards -- I like to think of a final goal (political in this case), and work backward step-by-step all the way to my present situation...

[marions ghost]

7. Agree

these are ruthless people who have no concept of compromise. They want total dominance. They want one-party rule. They will use everything at their disposal to win.

And a lot of Americans just go along with it...

How do we keep up the momentum with so much less money and power....?

[AverageJoe90]

8. I'm afraid that if things really don't work out, a violent revolution may be inevitable. nt

[hifiguy]

13. "Those who make peaceful evolution impossible

make violent revolution inevitable." - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

[AverageJoe90]

21. And I agree 100% with that.

And we do have a chance to beat this back even with Citizens(Plutocrats, really.) United throwing every urine-soaked dollar they can at Mitt Robme.
We can't give up and we have to keep fighting. Now is the time to learn valuable lessons from our loss in WI yesterday. Because if we throw in the towel then the worst-case scenario WILL happen. And that just wouldn't be acceptable.

[marions ghost]

14. If you have only one party with any power

and people feel more and more oppressed, there will be more frustration and a breaking point will come. When enough people realize that we are being screwed...

I don't want to see that, but I am convinced that the forces against us will stop at nothing to achieve their ends--ie. domination and control of the US.

Maybe a meteor will hit in the North Atlantic and we won't have to worry about it...

[hamsterjill]

9. Yes, literally "submission"

If you are female...




I echo your "Hell No!"

[Avalux]

12. I am, and Thank You n/t

[Skidmore]

10. There is that element but they can always count on the left to kneecap each other.

And that is what I'm sick of.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

19. yes, that is the goal. they had to slap down Wisconsin hard,

as a deterrent to the rest of the country. Anyone who refuses to believe even in the possibility they stole this election is really not understanding how high the stakes were for the RW, tea party, and the corporatists . They would do whatever it took to "win" this- to beat us down and make an example of us

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

24. How can we beat them if we can't even unify? The Republicans are in lock-step. Sadly...

they win because they work together. They are unified! Us? We sit and blame each other, not THEM!