Forgive me if, as I suspect, I don't fully understand your point here. I don't see how large scale, organized and peaceful public dissent, such as Rachel seemed to advocate and which I think will be a necessary part of the broader public response, reinforces the positions and power of the establishment. Nor do you explain this.
Forgive me if, as I suspect, I don't fully understand your point here. I don't see how large scale, organized and peaceful public dissent, such as Rachel seemed to advocate and which I think will be a necessary part of the broader public response, reinforces the positions and power of the establishment. Nor do you explain this.
Keep in mind, I am not advocating for 'frantically, violently protesting'.... I specifically mention nonviolent protest. Such as Gandhi helped inspire and organize. And such as led to the eventual U.S. withdrawal from Viet Nam. (of which I was part.)
There are two purposes for this: one, to wake up / educate the rest of the public and give them the courage to join. Second, to embarrass & weaken that establishment, by making it clear that the leadership lacks the public support and mandate to continue policies (such as warfare, massive military spending and its resultant massive indebtedness (now est. at a bit under $100K per American citizen).
You speak of "reality", yet then say, "No. If we want 'that' then we just do it. We don't need it rubber stamped by any government at all. "
As if you, and some undefined "we" already can somehow control foreign policy, what $$ the U.S. sends and to whom, what trade agreements this nation holds with others, how the money flows between financial institutions, etc. Is there some magic wand that gives such power? Or perhaps you can illustrate what you have in mind with a successful example in history?
Forgive me if, as I suspect, I don't fully understand your point here. I don't see how large scale, organized and peaceful public dissent, such as Rachel seemed to advocate and which I think will be a necessary part of the broader public response, reinforces the positions and power of the establishment. Nor do you explain this.
Keep in mind, I am not advocating for 'frantically, violently protesting'.... I specifically mention nonviolent protest. Such as Gandhi helped inspire and organize. And such as led to the eventual U.S. withdrawal from Viet Nam. (of which I was part.)
There are two purposes for this: one, to wake up / educate the rest of the public and give them the courage to join. Second, to embarrass & weaken that establishment, by making it clear that the leadership lacks the public support and mandate to continue policies (such as warfare, massive military spending and its resultant massive indebtedness (now est. at a bit under $100K per American citizen).
You speak of "reality", yet then say, "No. If we want 'that' then we just do it. We don't need it rubber stamped by any government at all. "
As if you, and some undefined "we" already can somehow control foreign policy, what $$ the U.S. sends and to whom, what trade agreements this nation holds with others, how the money flows between financial institutions, etc. Is there some magic wand that gives such power? Or perhaps you can illustrate what you have in mind with a successful example in history?