OT "outside agitators"

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

Just going to vent for a moment about media bias, in this case regarding the demonstrations currently occurring at several USian universities.

The BBC reports “unclear how many of the demonstrators are students”.

ABC Network news tonight reporting “over half of demonstrators are outside agitators”.

We old phartz remember that “outside agitators” line from the 60s. Very popular among mayors of cities where riots had occurred, to blame “outside agitators” (H Rap Brown made the news a lot in this context), claiming that their own city minority residents were happy and peaceful, until outsiders came in and whipped them up.

We old phartz remember when there were plenty of demonstrations on campuses in the late 60s too. Bernie Sanders was on tonight, noting that he had been arrested when he was part of a group of demonstrators who had occupied the administration building at the University of Chicago.

Rhetorical question: where is it written that, if you are not a student at a university, you are prohibited from adding your voice to a demonstration at that university, regarding an issue you feel strongly about?

What is ABC trying to do with the repeated use of the “outside agitator” line, in their report tonight? Discredit the demonstrations as astroturf?

Meanwhile, “Bebe” offered today, in English, that any and all criticism of him or his government policy is, by default, “antisemitic”. This has the same smell as a former POTUS who tried to delegitimize criticism of his made up wars, imprisonment without legal due process and torture, by saying critics “hate America”.

Seems we have a propaganda war breaking out in the media, as certain forces seek to delegitimize criticism of the way the campaign in Gaza is being managed.
/rant

Carry on with the normal programming.

Steve

11 Likes
2

Mixed with a strong stench of „I will do literally anything to keep in power and thus outside the courtroom and prison cell“.

7 Likes
3

Propaganda on both sides.

The plight of the Palestinians matters to most of us.

That said Hamas could have declared an independent nation in 2007. The reason the group did not do so was to declare an unending war in 2007 against all of Israel. The seeds of war.

When the seeds of war are planted no amount of blame or hope matter.

If Hamas had declared a nation in 2007, the group would have had a lot of pressure on them for open free elections and civil rights. That is something the group does not want.

Remember you can blame more than one party in this conflict.

The US, UK and other powers want a heavily armed Israel. This includes most of the Arab nations wanted a heavily armed Israel. Iran is behind all five wars in the region. Russia is behind Iran.

I get you blame only America. Might be you do not care for knowing much more than that. But other people have free action to make determinations. America does not have power over their free will. Their free will $ucks.

There is an Islamic schism that will create a lot more wars. God comes in peace but man in the name of god comes for war. That has nothing much to do with Israel, the US, or with colonization. It has to do with Islamic leadership.

Not that any of the students care but there are four other miserable wars that are only Muslim against Muslim. Islamic leadership.

Going to college does not mean you are educated. Fake it till you make.

4 Likes
4

ditto

But Bibi is done. On his right if he signs the upcoming agreement his government will be collapsed. In the center if he does not sign the agreement Benny Gantz will collapse the government.

Bibi is in a lose lose situation. He is done.

Gantz will decide things. He must think he has a majority. So it is not just Gantz.

Bibi has proven his point. That was the problem. The Israelis are well aware of the mistake in backing him. In the 11th hour most Israelis have had enough.

If this was an American war it would have been 20 times more violent. If it was an European war of old it would have been 50 times more violent. Save the moralizing please.

1 Like
5

I have no problem with protesting but if you have to take over a public building it seems you might be going to far. But that being said, I bet they wish they were kneeling now, instead of taking over buildings.

Andy

1 Like
6

There is an element of being a spoiled brat.

The people who protested Vietnam got into all sorts of half baked arguments.

Events are decided elsewhere.

The Palestinian cause can not include a disarming of Israel. There are a lot of other players in the region. All of these wars are proxy wars.

1 Like
7

[quote=“steve203, post:1, topic:104631”]
Rhetorical question: where is it written that, if you are not a student at a university, you are prohibited from adding your voice to a demonstration at that university, regarding an issue you feel strongly about?
[/quote]

Here is a link from local U.

https://freespeech.utk.edu/frequently-asked-questions/

Cliff’s Notes: Think of U as a benevolent dictator, free speech but limits on when, what, and where. FWIW, last night 7 students and 2 non-students were arrested for not leaving when protest time was over.

One thing different from the 60s, there are now “professional protestors” that various groups/people hire to “help organize” the riots and take overs.

5 Likes
8

Depends on the university, a private institution is not government, different laws, different rules.

The Captain

3 Likes
9

Not according to your posts. Not according to Netanyahu and his right wing thugs and IDF bigots.

3 Likes
10

The “astroturf” groups have received a lot of notice in recent years, particularly for their fake “grass roots” campaigns against anything that someone will pay them to protest, like demonstrating against “green” initiatives or against DEI policies.

I had not heard that “outside agitator” line in 50 years. It will probably be spread throughout the media, just like the “better than expected” narrative was spread about all the economic data, no matter how bad the numbers were, in early 09. The use of “outside agitators” now is probably the same as 50 years ago: to discredit people demonstrating against injustice. 50 years ago the demonstrations were against the several vectors of racism in the US. Now, the demonstrations are about the management of the war in Gaza.

Steve

2 Likes
11

You are out of touch with many aspects of this. Not just what I say but what actually matters.

3 Likes
12

The Palestinians need to stop Hamas.

3 Likes
13

Actually universities are considered public spaces, and anyone can be on a campus, use the library, or other functions so long as they are not disruptive. They are, of course, subject to usual laws, and perhaps certain restrictions as may be imposed (closing times, etc.) But for they take federal funds they are “public”.

As for this shibboleth of “outside agitators”, I’m flashing back (no, it’s not the acid trips) to the 60’s when that was tossed around so lightly. And of course for the BLM protests. The simple fact is that students feel strongly; they don’t need to import a bunch of “outside agitators” to demonstrate their feelings. And yes, people who are not students are allowed to participate in such demonstrations.

PS: You can get a 2-person camping tent on Amazon for $20, which is more than most students spend on beer on a Friday night, so they don’t really need a large infusion of George Soros cash to set up a bunch of tents. And having participated in several protests (Vietnam, Women’s Rights, Pot legalization) I will opine that half of it is simple student rebellion and the other half is the hope of meeting someone new and getting laid.

5 Likes
14

I was watching an episode of the Good Wife season 3 last night and they had protestors, protesting about Palestine (2011). It’s amazing that part of the country still can’t get their act together, but I guess a 1000 years is just to long to hope for a resolution.

Andy

2 Likes
15

That’s not correct. Private universities aren’t public spaces, and are under no obligation to open themselves up to the public simply by dint of taking federal funds.

Many of them do open up some of their facilities to the public, of course. But that’s like any other private property owner, from your local grocer to the shopping mall. They always have the ability to close any part (or all!) of their campus to the public, or limit who’s allowed to go where.

Public universities are, of course, public property - and thus are subject to different rules. But private universities are not.

(Fondly remembers my first work-study job checking ID’s at one of our campus libraries, which was only open to students and faculty).

3 Likes
16

Ahem. The password is “Agitator.” If you want to join a demonstration, even if you’re way old like, I seem to detect most here are, sure you can go to the college of impudents who really do have better things to do but are not doing them, and join the protest. I have no problem with that. It’s the agitator part that matters here. Maybe “internal” or local" agitators should get more air time?

And of course there is such a thing as outside agitator. Speaking of remembering the 60’s, anybody besides me remember the 1880’s and 1890’s and those Pinkerton Agents and other paid, uhhm, agitators at the Pullman strike & Haymarket Square? (And many others over many years I’m sure?) They are not to be dismissed. Like “conspiracies.” Sometimes it really is a conspiracy.

6 Likes
17

California state universities and colleges do NOT open their libraries to the public, and in my experience always maintain significant regulatory control as to who is present where on campus.

Current protesting and encampents on campuses have two main reasons:

  1. safer and far more comfy than going out in public, however useless for swaying public policy;
  2. a mythic misunderstanding of the big spring 1970 protests that students seem to wish to emulate, as those antecedent campus protests crucially included demands to close colleges so as to free students to go out in public spaces to * lobby and organize against the war* in Vietnam immediately after Nixon/Kissinger expanded the war into Cambodia and Laos.

d fb

4 Likes
18

In my opinion, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for criticism of Israel. It’s damaging to suggest that criticizing Israel = antisemitism. For example, I don’t think occupying Palestinian lands and building new settlements is just. I think it’s counterproductive to lasting peace. Bibi shares culpability for the Hamas attacks in October for his facilitation of giving money to Hamas in order to divide Palestinian leadership in Gaza and the West Bank. This doesn’t make me anti-Semitic.

However, the protesters are not managing their messaging very well. Shouting “Intifada revolution, there is only one solution”, isn’t a good message if you’re trying to convince people you’re not anti-Semitic. Saying that intifada can mean lots of things is intellectually uninformed, or dishonest. Even if protesters are not acting violent, they won’t win people to their side shouting violent things.

I wonder how successful MLK would have been had he peppered “Killing whitey, makes us mighty” into his non-violent protesting.

3 Likes
19

Which, of course, is where the NVA was.

DB2

2 Likes
20

Damn, Bob, do not spout such rancid because irrelevant excuses to me. I have no interest in re-engaging those ancient debates beyond pointing out that most current historians, from campuses to military bases, think our Vietnam engagement was mostly stupid and disastrous, delaying for decades our probably available then, and now extremely valuable, positive relationship with a fully independent Vietnam.

The point of my post was that current on campus student protestors are accomplishing little except a bizarre reenactment of the superficialities of that time, as like the rest of USA society those students have lost knowledge of how to be part of an engaged and reasoning citizenry.

d fb

7 Likes