Antiwar movement

[ClydeCoulter]

I think a lot of the "movements" have learned that they will be co-opted by agents provocateur. A "Peace" rally turns into a destruction of property to make them look bad for the cameras.

edit: Because, to the media, a burning cop car is worse than people dying 6k miles away.

 

[anaconda]

It has been 14 years of war. Should not we have some strong antiwar movement ? Is everybody in favor ? What are we missing ?

T.V., Newsweek, People, and The Council On Foreign Relations won. No more anti-war.

 

[Americans1st]

It has been 14 years of war. Should not we have some strong antiwar movement ? Is everybody in favor ? What are we missing ?

The media is pro war and therefore will not support any movement in that direction.

 

[wizardwatson]

The media is pro war and therefore will not support any movement in that direction.

This forum is part of the media isn't it?

Google definition of "MEDIA"

1.
plural form of medium.
2.
the main means of mass communication (especially television, radio, newspapers, and the Internet) regarded collectively

You just posted a mass message for everyone reading. Therefore you are an agent of the media.

Are you pro-war?

Because I am not, even though I am part of the "media".

Therefore your statement that the media is pro-war is false. The media is filled with pro and anti-war people.

timosman is questioning and you are lying to him. Are you ignorant of the true causes of war and oppression?

So the answer to timosman's question is likely related to lack of a means to determine who is and who isn't pro-war.

We've found it.

 

[brandon]

The wars we are in have been massively scaled back to my understanding. The president has negotiated peaceful relations with Cuba and is now working on Iran. Things are better than they were. The peace movement had partial success.

 

[wizardwatson]

The wars we are in have been massively scaled back to my understanding. The president has negotiated peaceful relations with Cuba and is now working on Iran. Things are better than they were. The peace movement had partial success.

Who cares? The question of the thread is where is the movement? And what is lacking in getting it going.

What are we missing?

You've been here almost as long as me. You should be a ninja by now.

I like your signature. Why do you keep it?

I think the opposition would like to make this place a synagogue of Satan.

Too bad the Wizard keeps the flame.

 

[wizardwatson]

There's nothing wrong with people thinking we are nuts. It's a strength in this environment, not a weakness. Those who would seek to destroy us believe that the mentally ill desecrate the objectives by destroying credibility.

But in the empire of lies, controlled by liars, what value is credibility and popularity?

The answer is not to fight the label of "nuts".

The answer is to embrace it and roast yourself in the flame of perfection.

But for now, a little sunlight and fearlessness will do.

 

[Lucille]

Republican voters love war so they're a nonstarter. All the left really cares about is redistribution of wealth. If/when there's a Republican in the WH, the left will pretend to want peace again but only because they live to bitch.

 

[wizardwatson]

Republican voters love war so they're a nonstarter. All the left really cares about is redistribution of wealth. If/when there's a Republican in the WH, the left will pretend to want peace again but only because they live to bitch.

And to which of these nonstarter groups do you belong? The anonymous gatekeeper group?

Or do you simply like to go around making blanket statements about imaginary groups of people furthering the group think mentality this movement was predicated on destroying at it's inception.

This thread is about what is missing. Do you have any insight into the problem identified in the OP?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Wiz, you're doing it again. You can't just change what a person "means" in their comment to something you can attack.

When one refers to "media" they are usually, here, referring to the Mass Media. The media that has a loud voice, coordinated across multiple channels feeding propaganda daily.

You know that, but pretend otherwise so that you can attack.

The "mass media" is good at twisting words and ideas, as well as taking things out of context, and there are those that learn to do the same in the "little media mouth".

 

[Americans1st]

This forum is part of the media isn't it?



You just posted a mass message for everyone reading. Therefore you are an agent of the media.

Are you pro-war?

Because I am not, even though I am part of the "media".

Therefore your statement that the media is pro-war is false. The media is filled with pro and anti-war people.

timosman is questioning and you are lying to him. Are you ignorant of the true causes of war and oppression?

So the answer to timosman's question is likely related to lack of a means to determine who is and who isn't pro-war.

We've found it.

Oh stop it already. Every media outlet is owned by pro war people. The polite term is Zionist. Every network is pushing the terrorism, Iran nukes propaganda 24/7.

 

[Lucille]

What is this, I don't even...

And to which of these nonstarter groups do you belong? The anonymous gatekeeper group?

Or do you simply like to go around making blanket statements about imaginary groups of people furthering the group think mentality this movement was predicated on destroying at it's inception.

This thread is about what is missing. Do you have any insight into the problem identified in the OP?

You need more insight? OK. There is no solution, political or otherwise. The welfare-warfare-police state will continue on until it runs out of money, and nothing short of a mass tax protest will make a damn but of difference (and even then, Americans love war, plus TIIC have the filthy fed and Grandma Yellen et al. to keep it all going). If you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention.

"Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes."
--Alexander Haig

 

[JK/SEA]

the 'media' has sanitized war. Start showing the blood and guts and start a draft and the 'anti-war' peeps might wake up again...

dreaming i know...

 

[wizardwatson]

Oh stop it already. Every media outlet is owned by pro war people. The polite term is Zionist. Every network is pushing the terrorism, Iran nukes propaganda 24/7.

Is RonPaulForums.com owned by pro-war people?

Simple question. If yes, then why are you here? If no, then you support a lie by stating that every media outlet is owned by pro war people.

 

[wizardwatson]

the 'media' has sanitized war. Start showing the blood and guts and start a draft and the 'anti-war' peeps might wake up again...

dreaming i know...

Ironic that you say you are dreaming.

It implies perhaps you are one of the sleeping people you are referring to.

I'm anti-war. Seems pretty obvious what to do.

 

[wizardwatson]

Wiz, you're doing it again. You can't just change what a person "means" in their comment to something you can attack.

When one refers to "media" they are usually, here, referring to the Mass Media. The media that has a loud voice, coordinated across multiple channels feeding propaganda daily.

You know that, but pretend otherwise so that you can attack.

The "mass media" is good at twisting words and ideas, as well as taking things out of context, and there are those that learn to do the same in the "little media mouth".

So all mass media is pro-war. Then not all media is pro-war. Since not all media is pro-war that can't be the reason that the antiwar movement has not coalesced. We are in a purported anti-war media. And yet where is there an anti-war formation of anti-war belief systems?

What philosophy or ethical system is anti-war that we could rally around.

I'm trying to stay on topic. I gave my opinion in my first post on this thread and it hasn't changed. You all gave your opinions and I'm showing that they lack foundation. The problem isn't because "the media" is to blame. The problem is that those who claim they are anti-war only admire the idea. They don't know what the philosophical or ethical position is or truly requires.

Rand Paul believes this. But even though I don't support Rand really, I still understand his positions better than anyone on this forum.

I'm not changing meaning. I'm forcing you to clarify because being sloppy is evidence that you're simply repeating buzz slogans...

"The media is controlling the universe, we're helpless, derp, derp...."

...instead of thinking critically.

 

[wizardwatson]

You need more insight? OK. There is no solution, political or otherwise. The welfare-warfare-police state will continue on until it runs out of money, and nothing short of a mass tax protest will make a damn but of difference (and even then, Americans love war, plus TIIC have the filthy fed and Grandma Yellen et al. to keep it all going). If you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention.

"Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes."
--Alexander Haig

This is grassroots central. When I say Rand is a liar in Rand Paul Forum I get moderator messages telling me to go away.

Why should it be different in grassroots central when someone is saying that it's all pointless? What is your intent in saying that it is impossible to achieve anything with a movement towards anti-war?

"There is no solution, political or otherwise."

Then why did you join this anti-war movement in 2007? Were you trying to change it into something else? Just trying to understand your intent.

Are you just strictly Nockian and plan to rebuild from the ashes? I know many people around here read like one person, watch a few videos and sit on their duff. Can't judge you really more than the next guy.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

So all mass media is pro-war. Then not all media is pro-war. Since not all media is pro-war that can't be the reason that the antiwar movement has not coalesced. We are in a purported anti-war media. And yet where is there an anti-war formation of anti-war belief systems?

What philosophy or ethical system is anti-war that we could rally around.

I'm trying to stay on topic. I gave my opinion in my first post on this thread and it hasn't changed. You all gave your opinions and I'm showing that they lack foundation. The problem isn't because "the media" is to blame. The problem is that those who claim they are anti-war only admire the idea. They don't know what the philosophical or ethical position is or truly requires.

Rand Paul believes this. But even though I don't support Rand really, I still understand his positions better than anyone on this forum.

I'm not changing meaning. I'm forcing you to clarify because being sloppy is evidence that you're simply repeating buzz slogans...

"The media is controlling the universe, we're helpless, derp, derp...."

...instead of thinking critically.

You may need to get a smaller brush to stroke over the forum or persons that you refer to.

Here was my first post, and it has substance, asshole.

I think a lot of the "movements" have learned that they will be co-opted by agents provocateur. A "Peace" rally turns into a destruction of property to make them look bad for the cameras.

edit: Because, to the media, a burning cop car is worse than people dying 6k miles away.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

@Wiz,
Where's your "movement" that those that are philosophically pure can join? Are you having a rally, or reaching out to the blind at heart?

 

[wizardwatson]

You may need to get a smaller brush to stroke over the forum or persons that you refer to.

Here was my first post, and it has substance, asshole.

Who are you defending exactly? The "group". I'm not interested in the movement "label" but the substance. In the very post you reference you talk about agents. Hence the need to specifically have a method to decide the boundaries of who really is in and who is not.

@Wiz,
Where's your "movement" that those that are philosophically pure can join? Are you having a rally, or reaching out to the blind at heart?

Well, it's officially right here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution

If you agreed to the premise, you would be the third one.

Let me ask you this. What do you think-if the philosophy was as sound as I think it is-the magic number of people would be before people on this forum not joined exactly but became "intrigued" enough to actually pay attention and read if there is something to it.

Yes, only two people right now. But we have communicated the premise. It's not hard to see. But it requires an educated mind.

Here are the 8 threads I'm tracking now that this has started.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-reputation-system-to-minimize-cyber-bullying

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...g-the-constitution-and-starting-a-micronation

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477167-Antiwar-movement

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...d.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471555-A-lawful-and-peaceful-revolution

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?471836-WTC-really-had-concrete-core-(split-thread)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?478559-Split-derail-about-immigration

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?473730-Constitutional-Intent-Baltimore-thread-split

If this trend actually manifests the actual threads don't matter, but all these are related from my perspective. The main one is Chris'. I'm tracking only these right now as I don't have time to be everywhere. I do browse and comment normally if I have spare time and something clicks. But These 8 I'm focusing on this phenomenon. But the mechanisms of how transparent social networks operate it'd be more efficient I think if the true members were all in the same map/threads. I call it a map to enforce the idea. But just a list of where we try to dominate the narrative.