An Open Letter to Anti-War Protesters
 

On Wednesday, March 5th, a few hundred of you at Stanford University participated in a 'National Student Strike' against an attack on Saddam Hussein's murderous regime. This mass hooky was sponsored nation-wide by an organization calling itself the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition; locally, it was purportedly organized by a collection of Stanford student organizations called the Coalition of Students Against War, closely affiliated with the Stanford Community for Peace and Justice. Others have already shown the links between the national front groups and shadowy Stalinist organizations like the Worker's World Party. The same sort of thing is true locally. To find out who really ran the show at Stanford, one simply has to go to the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition's website, and search the list of participating campuses. There, the Stanford organizers are plainly listed as the Stanford Labor Action Coalition and the Young Communist League - the youth branch of the Communist Party, U.S.A.

For the full article click here or click the link below...

The article was written by someone who has been on the inside of protests...


An Open Letter to Anti-War Protesters

Thanks Michael.....
 

For confirming what I had already suspected!...Am I the only person who thought it a bit strange that these protests occured all over the world at the same time?...They were quite obviously well organized and now we know by whom...Thanks for the enlightenment!....Rooster

On Wednesday, March 5th, a few hundred of
> you at Stanford University participated in a
> 'National Student Strike' against an attack
> on Saddam Hussein's murderous regime. This
> mass hooky was sponsored nation-wide by an
> organization calling itself the National
> Youth and Student Peace Coalition; locally,
> it was purportedly organized by a collection
> of Stanford student organizations called the
> Coalition of Students Against War, closely
> affiliated with the Stanford Community for
> Peace and Justice. Others have already shown
> the links between the national front groups
> and shadowy Stalinist organizations like the
> Worker's World Party. The same sort of thing
> is true locally. To find out who really ran
> the show at Stanford, one simply has to go
> to the National Youth and Student Peace
> Coalition's website, and search the list of
> participating campuses. There, the Stanford
> organizers are plainly listed as the
> Stanford Labor Action Coalition and the
> Young Communist League - the youth branch of
> the Communist Party, U.S.A.

> For the full article click here or click
> the link below...

> The article was written by someone who has
> been on the inside of protests...




"Rocking Chair Wisdom"

Possible problems
 

Hi Michael,

In the article, he seems to jump from saying that the protestors at Stanford were organized by "Communists" and "Stalinists" to implying that all the protests were organized by "Communists" and "Stalinists". However, he doesn't seem to provide any evidence for making that big leap.

For example, let's say I know that some of my customers like jazz music. Does that mean, then, that ALL of my customers like jazz music? Of course not. Just because SOME of my customers like jazz music, it does not then follow that ALL of my customers like jazz music.

The leap he makes seems to be similar to this one. He doesn't seem to back it by any evidence.

He also says that when he was a "communist", he just used people. Then he seems to imply that ALL "communists" do this - another leap which seems not backed by any evidence.

For example, let's say I used to be a supporter of California dividing into two separate states - into Northern California and Southern California. (This is an issue occasionally talked about a little bit in Northern California.) Let's say I used to lie and cheat to people to support this issue. Does that mean that EVERYONE who supports this issue is a liar and a cheater? Of course it does not.

I'm definitely not a "communist" (otherwise I wouldn't be running a marketing forum!) - but the article seems to make some leaps of logic which doesn't seem to have been backed by any evidence.

As others have said - protesting is part of the right to free speech. Rather than deal with the issues the protests raise, it is usually easier to simply "label" the protestors with a label. This seems to simply be a way of trying to avoid dealing with the issues, because to actually deal with the issues is much more complex and difficult.

- Dien Rice

Possible solutions...
 

> In the article, he seems to jump from saying
> that the protestors at Stanford were
> organized by "Communists" and
> "Stalinists" to implying that all
> the protests were organized by
> "Communists" and
> "Stalinists". However, he doesn't
> seem to provide any evidence for making that
> big leap.

I didn't read it as all protests being organized by communists. I read it as follows...

Communists get idea.

Communists influence and warm non-communists to the idea.

Non-communists carry out the idea (protest).

Thus, the communists have use the non-communists as a tool to do their dirty work. And they (the communists) would do this by using people.

To put this into the North Cal vs South Cal example you gave...

You would lie and cheat to get people on your side and to verbalize the cause. They, having been duped by you to your cause, go about pushing it in their honest, though naive, ways.

> For example, let's say I know that some of
> my customers like jazz music. Does that
> mean, then, that ALL of my customers like
> jazz music? Of course not. Just because SOME
> of my customers like jazz music, it does not
> then follow that ALL of my customers like
> jazz music.

> The leap he makes seems to be similar to
> this one. He doesn't seem to back it by any
> evidence.

The evidence is that the good honest protestors are taking part in a protest which had been organized by people who belong to the communist party. And he gave that evidence.

> He also says that when he was a
> "communist", he just used people.
> Then he seems to imply that ALL
> "communists" do this - another
> leap which seems not backed by any evidence.

I didn't read it as that. I read it as, he "used" people during the organizing of the protests. Any reason to get people to do his bidding to serve his goals which were the goals of those who had his ear.

I didn't read it that all communists did this... only those "higher ups" who did the organizing.

> I'm definitely not a "communist"
> (otherwise I wouldn't be running a marketing
> forum!) - but the article seems to make some
> leaps of logic which he doesn't seem to have
> been backed by any evidence.

I thought he backed it pretty well. Certain communists lie and cheat to get others to do their dirty work - whether those others are communists or not - by using the influence of the affinity groups they belong to.

The evidence was presented by providing the details of who organized the event(s).

> As others have said - protesting is part of
> the right to free speech. Rather than deal
> with the issues the protests raise, it is
> usually easier to simply "label"
> the protestors with a label. This seems to
> simply be a way of trying to avoid dealing
> with the issues, because to actually deal
> with the issues is much more complex and
> difficult.

You raise a very interesting observation. Now let me throw it back into the pot...

It is far easier to protest against something and pick it apart WITHOUT offering a viable alternative.

The Church of Scientology documents on dealing with those who might be against their agenda encourages discrediting as opposed to fixing.

In other words... and as it would relate to this current crisis with Iraq... try and discredit those at the head (Bush, Blair, etc.) by making a big deal out of little things that are usually not the case (keep on talking about a war for oil when it isn't, talk about innocent people being hurt/killed, etc.), and accuse them (Bush, Blair, etc.) of things which they spend time responding to. And basically mislead and misdirect the whole crisis and turn it from what it is to something else.

The inspectors' job is to verify the destruction of weapons. That has been turned on its head as a job to find them. Each "breach" is considered minor (even though they all add up - it's the boiling frog thing) and instead of being about disarming Iraq for material breach it is being pushed towards being about inspectors. The focus is attempted to be diverted away from the real issue.

Another good "trick" is to often just up and change it.

The question isn't whether Iraq is in breach, the question is how much more time do we give the inspectors to do their work which seems to be making progress.

It's not about taking care of Iraq and ridding the world of a murderous dictator, it's about the US quest to have some control over oil output from the middle east while limiting the enemy's access to a free and clear sea port.

In both of the above examples, I diverted away from the Real item and said instead, what the question really was. And thus can easily change the focus. Politicians use this trick all the time - if you pay close attention.

In other words... the object of the protests is to make those in power waste time and effort defending their stance on subjects which have nothing to do with the real situation.

If people are not discredited, then sources of information are to be discredited. The idea is to discredit the source of the information without ever discrediting the information itself.

One rebuttal the Scientologists are trained to say goes something like this...

"You're a Scientologist? I heard you guys deny your members from getting together with no Scientologists. Is that true?

"Where did you hear that?"

"It was in the newspaper."

"Which one?"

"The Home Town Daily"

"Oh, the home town daily. They also reported 'false report inserted here'. So they aren't very reliable source of information, are they? Besides, you don't believe everything you read in the newspaper do you? They always exagerate things, don't they?"

Notice, the question was never answered and instead, the source of the info was questioned to cast doubt on its credibility. The implication is... if the source loses cred then the info must also be wrong.

Another element is to ignore the things which would put an end to your arguement.

In the case of the protestors...

What about all the people Saddam has killed with bio/chem/normal weapons?

What about his using oil money to build monuments to himself while denying his people proper medical treatment?

What about going against every UN resolution since this all began 12 years ago?

What about his declaration which has been PROVEN to lack a lot of information. And the lies of "we do not have those kinds of weapons" only to be discovered to have them?

What about blowing up Kuwait oil fields? The worst environmental thing ever and you worry about someone cutting down a tree in your neighborhood with govt permission.

What about.... you get the idea.

All these FACTS are conveniently ignored by the protestors. And they only concentrate on elements that misdirect from the real issue.

The protest organizers also are aware of the "crowd mind" as opposed to the mind of the individual. A person is smart. People are dumb.

And then there are those who infiltrate an otherwise peaceful march and turn it into violence. I've seen footage of it. It's incredible how such a small handful of people (less than ten) can suddenly get a crowd of thousands to turn violent.

Good discussion.

Michael Ross

You're welcome (DNO)
 

DNO means Do Not Open the post contains no message.