Talking points are emerging.

[mmonk]

Identifying the phases of Gandhi's message: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”, it looks like the "fight you" phase is beginning.

Some of that is because of some mixed messaging from Occupy Wall Street because that is the nature of a people first driven to protest because of conditions. But after driving between appointments listening to Ed Schultz's show, here is what I'm begining to hear from Washington and the political puditry:

First is no clear message.
Second is go vote.
Third is attempts to separate this from the Wisconsin movement and why they should concentrate on ballot fights.
And fourth, politicians saying they have some points but there are some anarchists in the crowd.

The message of the Wall Street crowd seems to be to paint the protesters as hooligan idiots.

The message so far from Occupy Wall Street has been the 1% have crashed the economy and behaved badly but have not been investigated or held accountable. The other is the social injustice.


Just some observations of mine. Feel free to add any. Thanks.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Add:

The System is broken.

Let's see what grows...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Add:

Or dies...

[patrice]

13. Are you volunteering to find out which yourself? Or will that be up to someone else? If so, do

you intend to ask them which they'd prefer to do?

[mmonk]

4. Thanks.

Agreed. All of this is a symptom of a broken system.

[CTyankee]

3. It looks like it is shaping up this way. HOwever, some pundits are beginning to listen.

And for them, it's not "hooligan idiots" but "what is their message?"

Soon that too will fade away and then we'll get down to it. As these protests carry on and messages become clear, they will have to fight that. It won't be so easy. If authorities overreach, and god help us we have another Kent State, then they've gotta serious problem. There will be grudging acceptance of some points raised, but by then events will have thrust us forward. The pundit class will lose control of the message. It's anybody's guess what will happen then but here's a possible scenario:

A leader steps forward. Most likely not someone new to the political class, but a good solid progressive. Who knows, a Sherrod Brown? Mature but not too old, intelligent and honest. Stuff can happen around that kind of leadership and we'll see if we move forward from that point or have some horrible catastrophe happen to the entire movement.

Hope for the best...

[tridim]

5. Are they going to fight us by dropping heavy pallets of cash on our heads?

Or are they going to do something incredbly stupid like hire Blackwater?

[mmonk]

6. Blackwater would certainly turn things dark in America.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. My dough is on "ignore the whole thing."

Can it hold?

[tridim]

15. Seems like that is the current stategery

It won't work now that we have real citizen media.

We need to stop giving them our money, it's the only thing they care about.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. "..some anarchists in the crowd." Gandhi WAS an Anarchist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_India

“The state evil is not the cause but the effect of social evil, just as the sea-waves are the effect not the cause of the storm. The only way of curing the disease is by removing the cause itself."

"The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy. That State is the best governed which is governed the least."

In Gandhi's view, violence is the source of social problems, and the state is the manifestation of this violence. Hence he concluded that "hat state is perfect and non-violent where the people are governed the least. The nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a democracy based on nonviolence."<1> For Gandhi, the way to achieve such a state of total nonviolence (ahimsa) was changing of the people's minds rather than changing the state which governs people. Self-governance (swaraj) is the principle behind his theory of satyagraha. This swaraj starts from the individual, then moves outward to the village level, and then to the national level; the basic principle is the moral autonomy of the individual is above all other considerations.<1>

Gandhi’s admiration for collective liberation started from the very anarchic notion of individualism. According to Gandhi, the conscience of the individual is the only legitimate form of government. Gandhi averred that "Swaraj will be an absurdity if individuals have to surrender their judgment to a majority." He opined that a single good opinion is far better and beneficial than that of the majority of the population if the majority opinion is unsound. Due to this swaraj individualism, he rejected both parliamentary politics and their instrument of legitimization, political parties. According to swaraj individualism the notion that the individual exists for the good of the larger organization had to be discarded in favor of the notion that the larger organization exists for the good of the individual, and one must always be free to leave and to dissent.<1> Gandhi also considered Leo Tolstoy's book, The Kingdom of God is Within You, a book about practical anarchist organization, as the text to have the most influence in his life.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. Anarchism in India + Wiki

"C'mon, man!"

[Renew Deal]

9. CNN did a hit piece on this already

http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/03/occupy-wall-street-seriously

[kctim]

10. Would not be this way IF they truly represented the 99%

[mmonk]

12. Reality's message.

[SomethingFishy]

14. True...

If you take out the Tea Baggers who, if nothing else, love to stand up against their own best interests, that brings us down to about 79%. Then you have to figure there are a few Democrats who actually like the way things are going. Democrats who think that after Wall Street brought us the collapse of the economy the wisest move would be to put them in charge of the economy so it doesn't happen again for a least a couple years. Down to 75%. Ok and there are probably a few who are just completely clueless so lets knock that down to 70%.

Now that is not an impressive number. 70%. I mean who gives a shit that 70% of the people in this country want Social Justice and a monetary system that does not fuck over the worker in favor of the shareholder. But hey everyone needs a hobby.

[kctim]

23. Way off and the lack of support shows that

Recent elections and polls show that we are pretty much a nation split on ideology.

The Tea Party, whom you have no idea what is in their best interest, make up about 20% of the Republican Party. They disagree with the corporate bailouts, but they blame government.
Moderate Republicans make up the remaining 80% of the Party. Most are probably also unhappy with the actions of Wall Street, but they more than likely want to clean out the ones who are actually criminal, but not get rid of Wall Street. They also are probably turned off by the other 'declarations' such as animal rights, torture, death penalty etc...

Liberals/progressives make up about 20% of the Democratic Party, and they are the ones who are mostly part of the protest.
Moderate Democrats make up the remaining 80% of the Party. Most are unhappy with the Wall Street corruption, but do not care so much about the other 'declarations.'


IMO, liberals/progressives make up about 90% of the protesters and the remaining 10% are stragglers such as Paulites and curious moderates.
At best, the protests are representative of about 20-30% of the population. Not 99%.

[mmonk]

25. The protest represents the interests of the 99%.

Much of the 99% do not know what is in their best interest. They are products of a propagandized society. The "moderate" Democrats are part of the reason we have reached this stage.

[kctim]

27. Sorry

but you do not know what is in other peoples best interest.

What you THINK would be best for them is one thing, what they KNOW is best for them, is another.

The majority of Americans understand and respect this, which is why the majority of Americans do not fall in lockstep with the liberal or conservative wings of their party. This is why the majority of Americans are moderates.

Therefore, the protests represent only the OPINIONS of the protesters and ONLY what they think is in their own best interest.

[JCMach1]

16. We are the same around the world...: the 1% are America's Mubarak

The protests should not end until their power is broken and they are put on trial!

[mmonk]

17. Arab Spring to American Autumn.

In the end, it's nature is the same.

[ixion]

18. politicians and pundits are part of the problem

and should be reduced to street sweepers.

[mmonk]

20. A jobs program of distinction.

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Political and media professionals will get hot under the collar

because they feel they are entitled to be 'the voice of the people' and to get wealthy from it. When pundits and politicians see a threat to their cornering of the information and networking markets, when there's a movement that has no need for them, an alternative voice rising up for millions, of course they will grab for their panic words, they have concerns, bills, and damn it, it is their job to do the talking.
They are in need of a constantly dynamic narrative moving toward a resolution, Occupy Wall St has no such need. They are in need of big stories with good pictures, timed for the prime slot and doubled for sweeps. Occupy Wall Street does not care about the ratings, Occupy Wall Street has no ad time to hawk, no book to promote.
The media and the politicians NEED the election theatrics to be a long lasting lock on the the Top Story, they need to vent spleen about meaningless momentary 'contenders' and fill dead air with hot air. They need the election to be the only show in town. Occupy Wall Street does not want to be the only show in town. No need for that. The media will serve Occupy Wall Street,not the other way around, and that in itself has them ready to burst at the seams.

Occupy Wall Street is the story. This 'news' media only knows how to be the story. They are longing for form to this event so that they can define and limit and challenge it, or on the other hand profit by it, get some ratings from it. Occupy Wall Street is the story, and the story must be covered, the story does not cover the media. And the pundits, not being reporters and having no idea how to cover anything are stymied and without the proper tools and skills to go out there, look at it and tell their audiences what they see. The pundits want talking points. Occupy Wall Street thinks talking points are part of the problem.
The professional protesters of the airwaves are scared of redundancy at the hands of the rest of us.

"And these children that you shit on
As they try to change their world
Are immune to your consultations
Aware what they're going through."
David Bowie.

[robdogbucky]

21. Update./....

Live Blog for #OccupyWallStreet: Day Eighteen, ‘A Beautiful Democracy in All This’

By: Kevin Gosztola Tuesday October 4, 2011 8:59 am

Since the weekend, the amount of media coverage has increased substantially. The discussion of it all seems to be evolving among the commentators, hacks and pundits in the establishment media. It used to be that the occupiers were disorganized. That has had little effect on the ability of the movement to grow.

Then the issue of disorganization became an issue about a lack of demands. Members of the media requested demands as if the occupiers somehow are holding the economy or US politics hostage and they must produce so something can be done and people can move on. And now, the media is deconstructing the launching of occupations in communities across the country by asking whether what is forming is the “liberal Tea Party” or not.

Nothing captures how the media just doesn’t get it like this question from CNN anchor Susanne Malveaux to CNN Business Correspondent Alison Kosik,



“I understand this is a group that’s kind of a bit disorganized, to say the least. It’s not clear who is actually participating. But tell us who is behind these protests. And really, what are they protesting? What’s the main point here, if there is one?”



The question is garbled amalgamation of all the talking points critics have had toward the occupation. Casting doubt as to whether the occupiers have a point or not is a clear sign of ignorance. The main point could not be more obvious. I’ll give Malveaux a hint. It has to do with Wall Street...


http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2011/10/04/live-blog-for-occupywallstreet-day-eighteen-a-beautiful-democracy-in-all-this/

[mmonk]

22. Thanks.

[Gregorian]

24. Of course. And our message needs to be to ignore the media's messages.

Back in the 70's a friend had a bumper sticker that read "Ignore alien commands". I don't think many people realized just what we meant by it. We were already looking at the way news media was tending to move.

[Quantess]

26. Go vote? What's that gonna do?

We weren't allowed to vote on the the wall street bailouts.