Wall Street Protestors: Do they lack a clear message?

[amanda more]

"Be specific. You and the well-intentioned but painfully naive hippies playing frisbie and doing yoga on Wall Street right now sound like a tribe of bloody fools who are screaming at a casino for taking money they voluntarily fed into the slot machine. Either figure out what specifically you're requesting and form a plan to attain it, or STFU already. " from iNow

"You're focused purely on emotional response, and that's not reaching me and others like me" from iNow

So, football fan enthusiasm or disparaging remarks- well that must be analytical but any enthusiasm gushing for peace or light comedy- that is emotional.

The real world does need for all of us to care. That is an emotion. You can decide to own it. And/or -you- may want to reach others.

Is this post dispassionate enough?

[Phi for All]

And the Republican response:

 

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/cain-calls-occupy-wall-street-protesters-ant

 

"I regard the Wall Street protest as a natural outcome of a bad education system, teaching them really dumb ideas," said GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

Nice to know Newt is still very much on message about the privatization of American education.

 

"The proof is quite simply the bankers and the people on Wall Street didn't write these failed policies of the Obama administration," [said Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain]. "So it's a distraction. So many people won't focus on the failed policies of this administration."

Wasn't TARP and the bank bailouts established during the last days of the Bush administration? Did I miss the memo where we're supposed to forget about those eight years?

 

"It's anti-American because to protest Wall Street and the bankers is basically saying you are anti-capitalism. The free market system and capitalism are two of the things that have allowed this nation and this economy to become the biggest in the world." [said Cain]

So, since the Tea Party is protesting American taxes, they're basically saying they're anti-American too. I mean, you know, we have to avoid the double standard, right?

 

 

I think it's sad that these people don't have to work any harder than this to appeal to their base.

[CharonY]

I like it smooth and straight while driving on the road with others, and prefer a similar experience when reading and discussing online. I find these fuzzy lines and sudden turns off-putting.

 

 

Also known as clear communication.

[amanda more]

Also known as clear communication.

As farout as personal attacks have been where various terms have been used against me(although others are quick to take offense at things like terms like "elitism.") and I do appreciate the calling on certain terms by others, this thread has yet to be hijacked totally by those jazzed by all the conspiracy stuff nonsense.

 

This group would actually get this Analogy easily although I am showing my personal elitism by saying that:

 

In person, as faulty, difficult, confused and messy as it appears there definately appears to be an ability to have people like the types on the internet in general with an assist to the "signal to noise ratio." Like iNow thought I was using some kind of irony or something but I do actually mean he has a clear writing style that would make a great book. His command of details benefits that project greatly. In person he would have easier grasped that.

 

The youth are in person. Wow.

 

So, what to do? Had another great time tonight. A good way to judge the answer to the topic question is to do this- show up. That is right -get out of your comfort zone and be a tourist at your local Occupy gathering.

 

Here is a huge plus. We scientists and scientist types are pretty good at observing.

 

One thorny thing. For years and years the signal was obscured by malespeak that I heard a little from one person tonight. And have heard from rightwingers, My take is that males think like fans for a side on a football team. The cheering together is what makes sense to them. Even high IQ can manage to spout terms federal reserve nationalization, fiat money, those-people who lend, you must hate the rich, it is all so complicated but then __________. The internet in spite of googling has made it easier to find likeminded souls in an almost religious ectasy of terms. My take is that this crap is a way to sound powerful as life crashes and is starting to crash for all of us.

 

I work, in person anyway, to get the pain as the message even as I deal with the BS of the message itself..

 

PS That Austin lady was premo. iNow may be able to articulate why what she said to the camera was not a message. Many of the rest of us found it loud and clear. Although, yes not hugely scientific in nature. You can find her- she is getting a ton of youtube hits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[imatfaal]

Amanda - there is an "internet law" within rationalist circles called Poe's law - from the Rationalist Wiki "Poe's Law is an axiom suggesting that it's difficult to distinguish between parodies of religious fundamentalism (or, more generally, parodies of any crackpot or extremist belief) and its genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane."

 

I am afraid I believe your posts have reached this point - this is a thread titled " Wall Street Protestors: Do they lack a clear message?" and your input is so far from being a "clear message" that I find it hard to know if you are ironically trolling this subject or just don't realise that the requests for clarity are not merely a debating tactic.

The youth are in person. Wow.

In person, as faulty, difficult, confused and messy as it appears there definately appears to be an ability to have people like the types on the internet in general with an assist to the "signal to noise ratio."

 

I think that I might agree with you - my doubt on that matter is because I cannot truly ascertain what it is you are saying; and in a thread decrying the lack of clarity in the message this strikes me as ironic and sad.

 

[Genecks]

Lol, they went to the mansions.

[Phi for All]

I think if OWS started out with a clear message and an organized agenda, they wouldn't have created the groundswell of support they have now. I know I probably wouldn't trust its purpose as much. It's probably hindsight, I'll admit, but an immediate sense of clarity would've suggested that they had some puppet-master pulling their strings, a group with a hidden agenda. It's what I think of the Tea Party, so it would have been logical to suspect OWS too, even though they tend to affirm my political stances on various subjects.

[swansont]

I think if OWS started out with a clear message and an organized agenda, they wouldn't have created the groundswell of support they have now. I know I probably wouldn't trust its purpose as much. It's probably hindsight, I'll admit, but an immediate sense of clarity would've suggested that they had some puppet-master pulling their strings, a group with a hidden agenda. It's what I think of the Tea Party, so it would have been logical to suspect OWS too, even though they tend to affirm my political stances on various subjects.

 

The catch-all format of complaints probably is more inclusive, as well.

 

Here's Alan Grayson with a fairly clear message of what OWS seems to be mainly about. If only there were politicians who would latch onto this and declare intent to do something about it, rather than belonging to SUWS (Suck Up to Wall Street)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhrwmJcsfT0

[Phi for All]

If only there were politicians who would latch onto this and declare intent to do something about it, rather than belonging to SUWS (Suck Up to Wall Street)

I think you may have just found jobs for some of those young people in Liberty Park....

[iNow]

Someone just shared this with me elsewhere. It is another set of proposed demands:

 

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/oct/3/picket-occupy-wall-street-protesters-post-manifest/

 

Below is a list of proposed "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS":<continue reading>

[imatfaal]

Apart from the corporation as legal person bit - which I think is recondite and not as simple as they purport - I am pretty much in agreement with those lists. I do not think that for a document trying to be accessible to the general public it could be much more detailed (although it could be phrased in less personal terms and without so many colourful phrasings)

[Phi for All]

Apart from the corporation as legal person bit - which I think is recondite and not as simple as they purport - I am pretty much in agreement with those lists.

See Corporate Personhood. Mitt Romney also touts this in his campaign. Corporations are already set up to provide a barrier to personal penalties; giving them the rights of people further tilts the balance in their favor.

 

I do not think that for a document trying to be accessible to the general public it could be much more detailed (although it could be phrased in less personal terms and without so many colourful phrasings)

I was struck by that myself. My initial take was negative, but I know the majority are probably not going to read in deep detail without something they can personally relate to. I suppose if the colorful phrasings equate to wider readership, it's completely justified.

 

It just touches a nerve with people who've done a great deal of proposals and other professional writing.

[imatfaal]

See Corporate Personhood. Mitt Romney also touts this in his campaign. Corporations are already set up to provide a barrier to personal penalties; giving them the rights of people further tilts the balance in their favor.

 

I was struck by that myself. My initial take was negative, but I know the majority are probably not going to read in deep detail without something they can personally relate to. I suppose if the colorful phrasings equate to wider readership, it's completely justified.

 

It just touches a nerve with people who've done a great deal of proposals and other professional writing.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the move to change corporate personhood (dont like that word) - but I do vaguely remember long lectures on the vaguely philosophical underpinnings of contract law and the need for this artifice and why we hadn't got around to changing it in the 500 years or so since it was first mooted (but to be honest I cannot remember any of the reasons).

[iNow]

"I can't afford my own politician, so I made this sign."

 

 

Some great shots that offer a more visceral sense of what's happening right now:

 

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/10/the_occupy_wall_street_movemen.html

[amanda more]

My message. This is a very egalitarian process, We are being trained to say that. (at our occupy group- hasn't been voted on)

 

 

So here is the first take of -my- clear message of Occupy Wall Street

 

Against violence? For Peace.

For Food Banks.? You're for Food Stamps

Against cops letting seniors get scammed. Against SEC allowing Wall Street to scam us.

Don't want your vote bought. Against corporations stopping candidates with millions.

 

 

 

Want grandchildren to not lose parents. So you are for someone,anyone to offer health access to 55 year old males.

For jobs that then create more jobs. Against firing teachers, hurting education and causing other places they buy from, to fire employees.

For- adding money to get jobs for living, breathing people. Against money dumped into the deadend of corporate banking balance sheets.

 

You are for the 99%. For democracy and the common man.

 

 

You believe in reasoning of problems and doing the result. Not "those that run us" ignoring answers and grabbing cash for themselves instead.

 

For- using above means to avoid Great Depression 2 and if no one does anything and it happens, in favor that we are prepared with food programs in place, just in case.

 

 

 

Get real. Police the laws we have. Stop bad laws and get dollars for prosperity. Prevent catastrophe.

Edited October 13, 2011 by amanda more

[Phi for All]

I don't necessarily disagree with the move to change corporate personhood (dont like that word) - but I do vaguely remember long lectures on the vaguely philosophical underpinnings of contract law and the need for this artifice and why we hadn't got around to changing it in the 500 years or so since it was first mooted (but to be honest I cannot remember any of the reasons).

Corporations started as very limited business instruments. They couldn't even own other businesses. They had strict limitations because the founding fathers knew how powerful a charter from the government could potentially be. After the civil war, businessmen argued for and received equal treatment for corporations that slaves got. Ever since that time, the regulations and restrictions against corporations have been eroded. It's always been small bits at a time, allowing them to do a little bit more, acquire a bit more. And now the biggest of them have so much control they can have their lobbies writing legislation for them in Congress.

 

Not all corporations abuse their power. But even good ones are tempted when legislation in their favor is used by their competitors. You owe it to the stockholders to make as much profit as possible and grow your business. And the competition is fierce.

 

I guess the way to look at it is this: what would you think of a person whose biggest priority in life was earning the most money possible? Extreme, but not so bad I guess. But the more he makes, the more he's able to influence lawmakers to change the laws that restrict him. Now that seems rather harsh. And now understand that this person holds the lives of thousands, maybe millions of people in his hands, all of whom are affected by the decisions he makes. And he may seem to care but his priority is still the money, always the bottom line. If you continue to let him do whatever it takes, some day he could abolish all the restrictions against his actions, and then he can do anything he wants, take anything he wants and kill anyone he wants to keep making more money. Would you still consider that person a person anymore? Or would he be a monster?

[toastywombel]

Corporations started as very limited business instruments. They couldn't even own other businesses. They had strict limitations because the founding fathers knew how powerful a charter from the government could potentially be. After the civil war, businessmen argued for and received equal treatment for corporations that slaves got. Ever since that time, the regulations and restrictions against corporations have been eroded. It's always been small bits at a time, allowing them to do a little bit more, acquire a bit more. And now the biggest of them have so much control they can have their lobbies writing legislation for them in Congress.

 

Not all corporations abuse their power. But even good ones are tempted when legislation in their favor is used by their competitors. You owe it to the stockholders to make as much profit as possible and grow your business. And the competition is fierce.

 

I guess the way to look at it is this: what would you think of a person whose biggest priority in life was earning the most money possible? Extreme, but not so bad I guess. But the more he makes, the more he's able to influence lawmakers to change the laws that restrict him. Now that seems rather harsh. And now understand that this person holds the lives of thousands, maybe millions of people in his hands, all of whom are affected by the decisions he makes. And he may seem to care but his priority is still the money, always the bottom line. If you continue to let him do whatever it takes, some day he could abolish all the restrictions against his actions, and then he can do anything he wants, take anything he wants and kill anyone he wants to keep making more money. Would you still consider that person a person anymore? Or would he be a monster?

 

I think the debate about whether a rich man with power is a monster or not isn't the point. The point is that wealthy corporations and people are able to control the democratic system with loads and loads of money to the extent that it is almost policy making from the corner office. Corporate personhood just makes the previously stated problem worse by allowing wealthy corporations (groups of wealthy people invested in a particular interest) and wealthy individuals to virtually donate unlimited amounts of money to a political cause. Not even mentioning the fact that every election we are presented with a false choice.

[Phi for All]

I think the debate about whether a rich man with power is a monster or not isn't the point. The point is that wealthy corporations and people are able to control the democratic system with loads and loads of money to the extent that it is almost policy making from the corner office. Corporate personhood just makes the previously stated problem worse by allowing wealthy corporations (groups of wealthy people invested in a particular interest) and wealthy individuals to virtually donate unlimited amounts of money to a political cause

Corporate personhood gives corporations the rights of people, while their charters shelter the owners from liability. This is not the equality spoken of in the Bill of Rights. The equation is unbalanced.

 

And you can't discount the fear of reprisal that disagreeing with the politics of the corporation that employs you can engender. It stifles the whole political process.

 

I agree that the debate shouldn't be focused on "the wealthy". I also think some of the other demands should be back-burnered in favor of the major proposals. I've already seen a Tea Party video where they took apart an OWS supporter with a "Pay my college tuition!" poster. If nothing else, I hope this movement can stem the mega-corporation business practices, replace reasonable corporate restrictions and stop the influence of the lobbies.

 

There's also the problem of bills that have extraneous spending attachments to them, that end up making bad laws out of good. Democrats won't vote for a Republican bill unless they get some stuff they want too, and vice versa. If we could fix the current two party deadlock that seems to foster this sort of "compromise", I think it would help.

[JohnB]

Well, it's spread down here, but at least ours know how to get organised.

 

The "Occupy sydney" group have these committees and working groups;

 

Info Desk working group

 

Facilitation working group

 

Logistics working group

 

First Aid & Medical working group

 

Media working group

 

Promotion working group ("It is possible this working group could eventually merge with the Media & Communications working group")

 

Direct Action working group

 

Food working group ("Should not be relied on as your sole source of food")

 

Internet working group

 

Social Networking working group

 

Community Outreach working group

 

Organising committee

 

Police Liaison committee

 

Indigenous Liaison committee ("Occupy Sydney recognises that this camp will take place on the land of the Cardigal people of the Eora nation")

 

Grievance committee

 

Kids & Parents committee

 

Legal committee

 

Arts & Culture committee

 

Peoples Cinema

 

Occupy Sydney Press

 

Occupy Together Info Hub

 

Sustainability committee ("To assess the environmental impacts of Occupy Sydney")

 

Comfort committee

 

Peoples Library

 

Yep, just your average sponteneous grass roots campaign.

 

Oh yes, and ours want the dismantling of the capitalist system so that we can all live in ecologically sustainable communes.

 

 

Edit to add;

 

I must add

I must add

 

that I think

that I think

 

after careful thought

after careful thought

 

and democratic agreement

and democratic agreement

 

that your protestors

that your protestors

 

are mindless drones.

are mindless drones.

Edited October 16, 2011 by JohnB

[toastywombel]

Well, it's spread down here, but at least ours know how to get organised.

 

The "Occupy sydney" group have these committees and working groups;

 

• Info Desk working group

 

• Facilitation working group

 

• Logistics working group

 

• First Aid & Medical working group

 

• Media working group

 

• Promotion working group ("It is possible this working group could eventually merge with the ‘Media & Communications’ working group")

 

• Direct Action working group

 

• Food working group ("Should not be relied on as your sole source of food")

 

• Internet working group

 

• Social Networking working group

 

• Community Outreach working group

 

• Organising committee

 

• Police Liaison committee

 

• Indigenous Liaison committee ("Occupy Sydney recognises that this camp will take place on the land of the Cardigal people of the Eora nation")

 

• Grievance committee

 

• Kids & Parents committee

 

• Legal committee

 

• Arts & Culture committee

 

• People’s Cinema

 

• Occupy Sydney Press

 

• Occupy Together Info Hub

 

• Sustainability committee ("To assess the environmental impacts of Occupy Sydney")

 

• Comfort committee

 

• People’s Library

 

Yep, just your average sponteneous grass roots campaign.

 

Oh yes, and ours want the dismantling of the capitalist system so that we can all live in ecologically sustainable communes.

 

 

Edit to add;

 

I must add

I must add

 

that I think

that I think

 

after careful thought

after careful thought

 

and democratic agreement

and democratic agreement

 

that your protestors

that your protestors

 

are mindless drones.

are mindless drones.

 

Do you really expect to be taken seriously with a post like this?

[JohnB]

Do you really expect to be taken seriously with a post like this?

 

Does the movement expect to be taken seriously when they behave like that? For the love of Thor, something like 70 protestors turned up and they have 25 working groups and committees. That's just a joke.

 

And if you don't understand the mindless repetition of "Brainwashing 101", then I doubt that I can enlighten you. These are the tactics used to create a cult. No more, no less.

[toastywombel]

Does the movement expect to be taken seriously when they behave like that? For the love of Thor, something like 70 protestors turned up and they have 25 working groups and committees. That's just a joke.

 

And if you don't understand the mindless repetition of "Brainwashing 101", then I doubt that I can enlighten you. These are the tactics used to create a cult. No more, no less.

 

Well should I take you seriously when you compare bad organizational skills and the repetition of slogans (which is a commonly used protest technique) to brainwashing and a cult?And actually you said,

No more, no less.

So there is nothing else that the repetition of slogans represent? They are just. . .

Nothing but the tactics used to create a cult. No more, no less.

 

I just see that as an terribly flawed conclusion,

 

One of my professors once said people think rationally when it comes to most things, but when it comes to politics and religion they often fall short of the mark. I think this applies here.

Edited October 17, 2011 by toastywombel

[Phi for All]

Perhaps this is the start for a new thread, but which do you think would be more effective, 1) pushing this large agenda with many points in it and hope you get at least part of it, or 2) focusing on corporate regulation reform, winning that and then using the positive momentum to move to the next item you want fixed?

 

Does the movement expect to be taken seriously when they behave like that? For the love of Thor, something like 70 protestors turned up and they have 25 working groups and committees. That's just a joke.

 

And if you don't understand the mindless repetition of "Brainwashing 101", then I doubt that I can enlighten you. These are the tactics used to create a cult. No more, no less.

I'm not following you. Breaking up the huge amount of work to be done for a major protest requires exactly this kind of effort and organization. Is it just because you disagree with their goals? How would you do this more effectively, if it were something YOU believed in?

 

Corporations aren't bad, but they are focused on one thing. When they ran out of ways to cut costs, they turned to the regulations that were costing them money. They crunched the numbers and found it cheaper to hire lobbyists to affect the regs. But a lot of the regs protect people. We need them back again. Corporations are necessary but not at the cost of what they're doing to make more money.

 

We're way past defending a line we don't want crossed. We need to penalize the corporations and send them back fifteen yards for unnecessary roughness. Hey, a football metaphor!

[JohnB]

Well should I take you seriously when you compare bad organizational skills and the repetition of slogans (which is a commonly used protest technique) to brainwashing and a cult?

 

So people with such bad organisational skills that they think they need 25 committees and working groups to co-ordinate 70 people are the ones you will listen to for advice on how to run a country? If there were 10,000 protestors, they might have justification, but they don't. They only had 700 pledging to turn up anyway, does it take 25 committees to co-ordinate 700? Nope. The protests are supposedly about the organisational structure of the society and only the insane would listen to people with proven poor organisational skills on this topic. Do you take financial advice from the person who's never had a job or from soneone knowledgeable in the field? To me it's the same thing.

 

As to the slogans. The thing here is that it's not slogans. Slogans are, as you say, a standard part of protesting and politics in general. I have no quibble with this. However the repetition of the "Leaders" comments are not slogans, they are a form of affirmation, a totally different thing. People are far easier to influence in a group, you can make them say and do things that they would never do if you tried it on a one to one basis. The use of affirmations is to increase the feeling of "inclusiveness", a person is included in the group because they are repeating the leaders words and is set apart from those who don't. In this particular case, by the frequent use of the words "Democracy" and "Consultation" the crowd member is made to feel that they are "special" because they are part of the group that believes in democracy and consultation. Note that this also gives the crowd member the impression that those who don't repeat the leaders words obviously don't believe in democracy and consultation.

 

Such affirmations also use provocateurs in one way ot another. You either place them in the audience, about 1/3 of the way in around the edges, or you can put them up on stage as a group, or both. This makes the average crowd person think that there are far more people who agree with the speaker than there actually are. It uses "Me Tooism". People like to feel included in a group and since this is what the group is doing, they'll play along.

 

The thing is not to make the crowd think, but to feel. You make them feel "special" or "different" in some way. The public use of affirmations is unusual enough to make those in the crowd feel that they are part of something "new" and "special". By repeating word for word what the leader is saying you are affirming in your own mind that you agree with what the leader is saying. (If you didn't agree, you wouldn't be repeating it, would you?) This makes you feel that the leader is right. Of course, therefore, anybody who disagrees with the leader is automatically wrong and you won't side with them.

 

Environmental groups work the same way. You've got the "cause", "Saving the Planet". What could be a more worthy or higher ideal than that? So the participants are made to feel "special" firstly because they see a problem that threatens the Earth when others don't and secondly because they are "doing something about it". Note that framing the situation in this way forces those opposing into two groups. They by neccessity are either 1) Unenlightened and will see the danger if you explain it to them or 2) Evil because they see the problem and want it to happen. Also, because people like to feel superior in some way to others, which is the basis of most discrimination, the campaigner feels "smarter" or "Enlightened" compared to the average joe because the campaigner with his superior outlook can see what others can't. Therefore he must be more intelligent or insightful, mustn't he? Which is great because that means that the opposition are automatically classed as less intelligent.

 

Do I need to go on, or have you got the picture?

 

Please remember I didn't say it was a cult, I said it was the same tactics used to create one, a subtle but important difference. You use these tactics because they are effective in controlling a crowd. Politics, religion or ideology don't come into it, if you want to control a crowd and get them to agree with the leader and his/her plans, these are the tactics you use. They get people onside and lessen the chances of objections.

 

Slogans are a method of getting your point across in the minimum number of words, affirmations are a method of influencing and controlling a crowd. What I've seen on the youtube vids are affirmations, not slogans.

 

Phi, if 70 or 700 is your idea of a "major protest", then I can't explain it. As I said above, if it was 10,000 then they might have a point, but they were only expecting 700 at most. So I'm calling it severe overkill on the working groups. It's that simple.

 

Part of my attitude towards protestors in general comes from the differences in our political systems. The current protests can be pretty well summed up by "What Do We Want ? " "EVERYONE ELSES STUFF !!" "When Do We want it ?" " NOW !!" "What are We willing to do to earn it ?" ..............(the sound of crickets chirping)

 

Down here the candidates that represent the various parties at election time are voted on by the branches within the electorates. Most branches have about 20 members. If you really want change, then put your people in the branches get your own candidate in the polls. By gaining control of the branches you also gain control of the State and Federal Conferences and get the policies you want to become party policy. It's actually not that hard, but it requires work and effort rather than screaming slogans. Our system gives everyone a fair chance to "Put up or shut up" and since after 30 years of mindless drivel and complaining protests, "rent a rabble" have yet to "Put up", then it's way past time for them to "Shut up".

 

Start a new party, or infiltrate and gain control of an established one, neither are particularly difficult to do, and get what you want enacted. But it will require effort and work and it's so much easier to bleat from the cheap seats. People should get involved and join and guide the political parties, if they don't then someone else will. (Which is what has happened) And now the protestors are sitting down whining about how much they don't like it. Don't like something? Fine! Then get off your arse and actually do something about it rather than bitching and moaning 'cause I'm not listening. Bluntly, if it's your cause and you aren't going to do anything, why should I?

 

[Phi for All]

JohnB, I have to say, I find this absolutely fascinating! I totally understand a lot of what you're saying; nobody wants to help lazy people get ahead. But the nature of this particular protest, as we've been discussing in this very thread, is that it started out kind of vague and uncoordinated, but that has allowed many different groups to identify with it and lend support. It shouldn't be at all surprising that it has attracted a few undesirables. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it also has a few opposition infiltraitors mixed in as well (misspelling intended).

 

But I think you're keying on only the negative aspects and using that to disparage even what is good about this protest.

 

1) You're complaining that this isn't a major protest.

 

It's a protest started half a world away from you. I was surprised when it spread to other cities in the US, and now you're telling me it only has 70 supporters in Australia (btw, articles like this one suggest the numbers for Oz are in the thousands)?! And I think you're keyed on so many committees for 70 people, but what about the workload those 70 people are sharing? 25 committees isn't outrageous for 70 people who are planning on spreading a movement they hope will encourage tens of thousands. Think about it, you're saying it's stupid for them to anticipate growth.

 

2) You're complaining that "People should get involved and join and guide the political parties".

 

I think these people ARE getting involved. They certainly aren't sitting in their homes watching it on TV. Perhaps none of the current political parties represent their stance very well. How do new parties start? How can people who aren't keyed into party politics let their representatives know that they are dissatisfied? You seem to be saying that protest is wrong because it doesn't follow the rules. I don't know about Oz, but in the US we have the right to assemble and associate and express ourselves through free speech, we're encouraged by our constitution to do so to influence the way we're governed. We can't always wait until elections to vote in better representatives, especially when the ones we voted in last time are listening to money instead of us. "I can't afford a lobbyist so I made this sign!"

 

3) You're drawing a generalization between protesters and cults because their tactics look the same.

 

Tell me you don't see the same thing happening in any other group formations in our society. Clubs, associations, even businesses use team spirit and controlling tactics to affect the way the individual sees the group. As you say, these tactics work, whether you're whipping your teammates into a winning frenzy, focusing your protestors into a chanting force, or honing your workforce into a cohesive unit of efficiency and profit.