Revelations of the NYC protesters......

...By a protester who protested the protesters!

Published on August 31, 2004 By couchman In Current Events

The date.... August 29th, the time..bout 11 am, the place...New York City; against the backdrop of America's key city, a legion of protesters hit the streets in an effort to show their disgust with everything from the War on Terror, the Invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan, American Superpower status (ecconomicly and militarily) and a host of other "perceived " wrongs against the world. In fact there wasn't any area left un-protested from religion to gay rights to the military being nothing more than killers of civilians. But in the protesters minds...all roads lead to the Bush administration. The "protest" march was organised by United for Peace and Justice...another far-left group associated with the likes of International A.N.S.W.E.R., and Code Pink...but these were some of the big names...but there were others...and although we in this country have the right to assemble peacefully...the protesters were anything but that.

How do I know...simple I was there walking along with them...protesting as they were...shouting as they were...pointing at my sign like they did...feeling euphoric in part like they did for exercising my right to peaceful protest. One little( or big) difference is that while they were protesting nearly everything under the sun having to do with America, the President, capitalism, etc....Myself...along with bout 300 others decided to give the media..and the thousands of onlookers lining the sides of the route what the protesters were really like. Now Initially we planned on slipping in to the protest enmass....but police wouldnt allow us in recommending that we follow them from the back out of concern for our saftey. Never known to do the safe thing....we essentially began breaking into small groups and sending them down a few blocks from out gathering point...after bout 20 mins of this...my group entered the protesters....noticing another of our groups a short distance ahead we moved casually and steady till we reached them...it took bout a block and a half before the Tainted Kool-Aid drinking people realized who we were...it was only a matter of time before a clusterfuck was in effect...slowly they began with questioning our rights..and my parentage...then it was the chanting of colorful slurs...personally being called a skin head (and here I thought the shaved head look was in...go figure) but the worst hit us in the form of black clad, bandana covering their face thugs....they began violently attacking our group in waves...and quite a few of us were pulled bout 20ft away from the group to be encircled and assaulted by them...this includes the women of our group....so much for the unwritten rule of not hitting women....`the reports from all of our mini-groups came out the same....attempts at luring our members out to be "interviewed" only to become gang assaulted....while some of the media got it covered on camera....we got every punch, kick, spitting, attempts at stealing/destroying our signs/flags on both still and video as we had our own people spread out through the whole route and with each group...

When it became apparent that we were in danger of being seriously hurt....the NYPD to their credit swept in to create a barrier around us and move us out of the danger zone. They repeated this several times until all our groups made it out of the useful idiot zone. For a while after that, we split into 2 large groups with one at the end of the route...for my group...we stayed at the back and hung around talking to the cops (who had no love for the protesters...fist bumps were done in some instances) giving interviews to a wide array of "reporters" smiling and joking for a bit with all....that is till the "cardboard coffin" march began to pass us....several in our group were current active duty military and had been in Iraq/Afghan so this upset them...they sat there saluting for over an hour...the rest of us right hands over our hearts...most of us including the soldiers/marines with us were in tears. The protesters found this somehow a laughing matter and preceeded to make light of it. So much for showing respect for those who died while serving...but then if they had any respect for those who have served or are currently...they would never have dont it in the first place.

While myself and the other members of Protest Warrior knew full well what we were getting into...what we uncovered only reaffirmed our previous conclusions. They routinely use thug tactics to silence any dissent...any idea they might find even remotely opposite of theirs. They believe America is the root cause of all the evils of the world and find patriotism revolting. While we think they are completely off their rocker as it were...we would defend their right to their opins and their right to peacefully assemble...but I am at a loss as to why they constantly omit "Peacefully" from their mission statement...must be an oversight.

One final note...my friend Karl was one of a few of us carrying a flag...the one he was carrying was an American flag given to him by a vetrans group and had sentimental value....he was attacked during the march by no less than 5 leftist thugs who restrained him while they yanked it out of his hands....the last thing we all saw after their repeated spitting on it and tearing it up was an attempt to set it on fire. I often wonder if since Im republican and accused of being a storm trooper, why the left uses stromtrooper tactics with their own thugs when we didnt even attempt to steal their signs, rip their flags up ( there were many flags they carried, cuba, ussr,iran, syrian,north korean....and no I'm not making this up)...might be we are better than they...we atleast respect peaceful yet intelligent debate....too bad we found that those left-wing protesters we're somewhat lacking in both!

........Craig

Comments (Page 4)

couchman

on Sep 04, 2004

Why do the left have to scream so loudly, why do they find themselves segregated in college campuses and smoke infested, bean bag littered lounge rooms across America - because the left in your country hasn't had any mainstream acceptance in decades

What can I say bout this quote...except that its assumption is woefully wrong....the left are not segregated in colleges and for that you are way out in left field( pardon the pun)...actually it is the conservatives on campuses around the nation that have found it hard to organise....although this is slowly changing....the left even during the vietnam war were not segregated....so you listed an erroneous statement....

As to mainstream acceptance again you have screwed the pooch as it were....as this statement is very hollow....granted the majority of americans find their views very naive...they do find acceptance all over....look at hollywood, mtv, npr, aclu,.

You guys ended all that when you decided that shooting unionists would be a good idea.

...Kindly please explain this

Most of that time you were too scared of the red menace raining ruin upon your heads or wallowing in your own opulence.

......Okay putz...last I checked most of the world were concerned by the soviets including us...scared is not the term to use...and if it werent for the US putting its own cities and civilians into the firing line of the soviets for nearly 50 years...where would western europe be?I am getting sick and tired as most americans that hear the US is the blame for the world ills...this not only doesnt represent reality...but it's just sorry old line ....

messybuu

on Sep 04, 2004

I don't even know what it is that you are asking? I was talking about the intent of the protest. One calls for peace, the other calls for bloodshed, both, in protest, are usually violent.

It sounds as though they're just as bad. I don't see how somebody who preaches peace but practices violence is any different than somebody who preaches violence and practices violence, except that they're more hypocritical than the latter group.

notsohighlyevolved

on Sep 05, 2004

Conservatives are everywhere. They are the supposed "silent majority". Progressive liberalism, what is commonly labelled as the "new left", is known as such because it strives for situations that are not yet actualised. We are surrounded by social conservatism, by economic rationalism, by military intervention, everyday. It is the way of the world as it stands. Progressive liberalism is still an idea and therefore finds as its natural habitat university campuses and adjacent discourse and speculation. The tenets of conservative ideology is actually in practice. If it wasn't it would defeat the categorisation of this politics as conservative, conservative politics being an attempted, and often successful, retention of what is already existent, a defence of tradition. Conservative ideology finds its practice in corporate boardrooms, churches, political institutions, the military, the judiciary, the majority of the media...basically all the institutions of Western society. Educational institutions are basically the one place where Progressive Liberalism, or the New-Left, can find structural support for something that is still, essentially, nascent and unorganised.

they do find acceptance all over....look at hollywood, mtv, npr, aclu

Do you realise what percentage of the American population you're referring to? The cultural elite is what you're referring to and they are called the cultural elite because of their size. An elite is never in the majority. As far as the NPR and the ACLU are concerned, one is a public broadcasting organisation and will never have the muscle of the major networks. And are you saying that the ACLU, with a membership of 20,000, is a mainstream voice. A sizeable membership, that is sure, but hardly mainstream. The NRA, by way of comparison, in 2000 had a membership of 3.6 million. Producers and actors unions in America have a combined membership of just over 100,000. Remember that number 3.6million.

You guys ended all that when you decided that shooting unionists would be a good idea.

...Kindly please explain this

Refer yourself to the Battle of Rincon Hill, the Matewan Massacre, the Memorial Day massacre, Bloody Friday, etc

and if it werent for the US putting its own cities and civilians into the firing line of the soviets for nearly 50 years...where would western europe be?

During the Cold War not one bullet was fired on American soil. Comparison - 3 million die in Vietnam, over I million die in Korea, 1.8 million in Afghanistan, 75,000 dead in Nicaragua, etc. Most casualties in the "Cold" war were not American. Not one country attacked the United States during the Cold War.

The Cuban Missile crisis was the closest you got. America must have finally felt a little of what the USSR was feeling with Nukes in Turkey and most of Western Europe pointed squarely in their direction. There was no parity as far as nuclear force was concerned. When Detente was established under Nixon, the US outgunned the USSR by several to one, if not hundreds taking into account MIRV's. The fear was constructed and politically expedient. So well constructed, in fact, that those in power believed it themselves.

And most of the world wasn't as concerned about the USSR as you guys were. The Western Europeans were more concerned about the Communist parties in their own countries, made up of their own compatriots. Italy, France and Greece, if democracy was allowed, might have tumbled into Communist party control. But, as Yugoslavia, China and Vietnam proved, just because a country was under communist control, did not mean that it bent to the will of the USSR.

Marco

couchman

on Sep 05, 2004

just because a country was under communist control, did not mean that it bent to the will of the USSR.

Please tell that to all the members of the eastern eurpean countries...I'm sure they will (not) agree with you

Most casualties in the "Cold" war were not American. Not one country attacked the United States during the Cold War.

Did you miss the meaning of Cold War?

notsohighlyevolved

on Sep 06, 2004

Please tell that to all the members of the eastern eurpean countries...I'm sure they will (not) agree with you

They were all countries that did NOT fall under the control of local communist parties. They were essentially given to the USSR at the Yalta conference. The allies had the upper hand but decided not to push the issue. All other communist countries were essentially autonomous. The Chinese hated the Russians, the Vietnamese hated the Chinese, the Cubans accepted Russian aid but moved into Angola against the wishes of the USSR and went their own way, except when they could profit from USSR/US tensions. American accusations that the USSR was heavily backing the central American states was proven to be nothing more than conjecture, and the USSR did nothing to prevent the massacres that occured there with US backing.

The fact is the USSR was never strong enough to impose its will outside of its meaningless sphere of influence. It had enough problems dealing with Hungary and Czechoslovakia. When it moved into Afghanistan it got its ass kicked.

Did you miss the meaning of Cold War?

If you believe in that euphemism, by all means, it was a cold war. How many Americans died in Vietnam? 55,000. Korea? 33,000. That sounds pretty hot to me.

Both the US and the USSR chose the third world as the theatre of war for the "cold" war, knowing that attacking the home soil of their enemies would lead to assured mutual destruction. The US and the USSR never officially met in battle (even though Russian pilots were shot down in Korea and Vietnam, and they surely had men on the ground as well), and the US heavily outweighed the USSR when it came to international intervention.

Why?

Because the US could and the USSR couldn't.

The USSR was never really defeated, it just imploded, buried under its own economic and political hubris.

Marco

Draginol

on Sep 06, 2004

Wow, this is really amazing historical revisionism.

Do you knwo the history of the Korean war? Stalin gave the okay to Kim to invade. You make it sound like the US was this international war monger while the USSR was somehow a dundering innocent on the world stage.

Official records have shown Soviet support for the communist government in Nicaragua along with funding for insurgents throughout the region. Cuba, backed by the Soviet Union, also took a hand and even extended its insurgence into Africa.

Eastern Europe wasn't exactly living the high life under the boot of the Soviet Union. To argue otherwise is really, well just let me know if you really believe that Eastern Europe wasn't dominated by the Soviet Union so I can just ignore you from now on.

When I was a kid, we had the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging above us. Now, that's largely gone. My kids don't have to worry about a Cuban Missile crisis or a Day after (sure, anything's possible but it's so unlikely that he might as well worry about an asteroid collission).

The USSR was an agressive militaristic empire. Thank goodness it's gone - no thanks to the naivete of the far left protesters like the ones we saw in NY last week.

couchman

on Sep 06, 2004

The USSR was an agressive militaristic empire. Thank goodness it's gone - no thanks to the naivete of the far left protesters like the ones we saw in NY last week.

Draginol.....I have to agree whole heartedly with your statement.....

Must be why Daniel Ortega flew to Moscow the day after John Kerry flew back to the states in an effort to reaffirm his commitment to the Soviets....unless one believes Notsohighlyevoled's revisionist history...in which Ortegas trip to Moscow was just a vacation.....

notsohighlyevolved

on Sep 07, 2004

Please note, I never included North Korea as an autonomous communist country. The Soviets had as much hand in the formation of the DPKR in the north as the US had in the demolition of the People's comittees in the South. The US went as far as giving control of South Korea to the Japanese until they could land a military force. The US asked to divide Korea at the 38th parallel and the Soviets conveniently agreed when they could have taken the whole peninsula.

Draginol, you seem to have missed my main argument - that it is a mistake to assume tha, during the cold war, the Communist countries formed a cohesive "bloc" that fell under the directives of the USSR. The USSR could only impose its will absolutely within the Warsaw pact countries. There are many instances of Communist countries outside the warsaw bloc acting independentaly, and even contrary to the wishes of the USSR.

The Sandinistas could not have turned anywhere else. The US had embargoed the country and was proactively trying to undermine the country's economy (in this it succeeded, even going as far as mining Nicaraguas commercial harbour). The US used its influence within the world's financial institutions, including the World Bank, to undermine Nicaragua's credit rating and access to loans and funding.

As far as aiding other Central American countries, the USSR always helped communist causes, but did not instigate them. Even then the aid was paltry at best. What the US claimed as shipments of arms requisitioned for the invasion of other central american countries were actually for self defence. At the time self defence was necessary given the insugency (funded illegally by Reagan) being carried out by the Contras. Of course they turned to the USSR for aid. But the fact remains that they had to ask.

Cuba, backed by the Soviet Union, also took a hand and even extended its insurgence into Africa

This was mainly with Cuban initiative. The Cuban's sent 12,000 troops into Angola while the USSR sent none, only advisors and equipment. This intervention was mainly in reaction to the invasion by South Africa that was largely financed by the US. You also forget the the popular support for the MPLA.

It would also serve you well to recall that almost all movements supported by the USSR were nationalistic independence movements that were born of post-colonial political situations. Because of the poverty and prior subjugation and expolitation under Colonial (almost in all cases, capitalist - France, Britain, etc) rule, these countries naturally turned to leftist forms of governance and economics. Therefore the most obvious choice for them, as far as aid was concerned, was the USSR.

On the other hand, the US was all too often allied with the colonial masters in their effort to squash independence movements.

I never asserted that Eastern Europe was living the high life. I asserted that the third world communist countries were not in the same position of Eastern Europe. In fact, i argued that their collective situations were entirely different from Eastern Europe. I also brought to your attention that Soviet control of Eastern Europe was only possible with Western collaboration. Everyone at Yalta and Potsdam conveniently forgot the Atlantic Charter and effectively handed over Eastern Europe to Stalin. Poland was forgotten so easily.

The USSR was an agressive militaristic empire. Thank goodness it's gone - no thanks to the naivete of the far left protesters like the ones we saw in NY last week.

Based on the evidence, so was the US. All though there is no defence of what the USSR did to Eastern Europe, we can not forget that they lost 20 million lives in the Second World war, while the US lost approx 400,000. Their economy had been devastated, while America's had doubled in the war years. They had come under attack by both Germany and Japan, the former being quickly rearmed by the US. More importantly, the Allies agreed to it, effectively accomplises to whatever happened afterwards.

Ortega's trip was a plea for aid in a time of immense hardship, seeing that the US was so extremely helpful. Remember, Nixon visited China in 1972. What would you make of that! Of course he visited Moscow. He was getting aid from them. that is one thing. It is an entirely different ball game when you claim that the trip and the aid was really the machinations of a master plan to take over the whole of Central America and then march on to the States. The USSR had problems closer to home that demanded their attention and they realised that the Americas firmly fell into the American sphere of influence. They would help as far as their balancing of relations with the US wouldn't be interefered with.

These were essentially the wars and problems of Central America. The Soviets gave aid, but never to the extent and with as much direct interference as the US.

Marco

Bungy32

on Sep 07, 2004

I don't support the kind of violence that you experienced in your counter-protest. I also don't support that folks probably stood by and let more radical protestors respond to you with violence. At the same time, I think it is a mistake to let the actions of a few serve as the description fo the 250-500K people protesting in NY. The Left is a rainbow mix of different groups who are committed to a wide array of issues and who deploy a wide array of tactics. Among them include Buddhists and Quakers and other pacifists who would NEVER engage in violence against counter-protestors.

But yes, there are also anarchists and others who have come to believe that peaceful protest is not enough. Their anger is high. Their belief in "direct action" is firm. Their tendency to oversimplify issues in search of an enemy to squelch is as strong as, well, yours apparently.

Sweeping generalizations get us nowhere. I work on a campus that has effectively squelched student protest (from both sides, but mostly on the Left) by constraining free speech to an incredibly small and non-central free-speech area (taking a tactic from the Bush Administration's playbook). Protests on the Left regularly meet with regulations and restrictions. Our chancellor recently tried to block domestic partner benefits because he thinks homosexuality is a sin. There were outcries as well as support for him. Meanwhile, students at a war protest die-in were brought up before the judicial review board in part beacuse they used fake blood made with corn syrup, apparently therefore vandalizing the paving stones.

The real evidence of your story is that tempers are hot and the country is clearly not only divided but also hot under the collar. Even if Bush wins in November, he ignores this anger at his (and our!) peril!

couchman

on Sep 08, 2004

These were essentially the wars and problems of Central America. The Soviets gave aid, but never to the extent and with as much direct interference as the US.

Gee must have missed the cuban advisors in south and central america....the cubans were the soviets proxies in this region of the world and as such their goals were a mirror image of each other....

One point that is intresting to make with regards to the cold war was the infiltraition and outright use by the Soviets,Chinese, Cubans, etc. of the very same groups in the America's and Europe that opposed the US and the west....Protested US and Nato troop deployments in Europe...and anything else the KGB and its respective mirror agencies from the communists wanted....this isnt conjecter or flights of fancy....this is hard fact....Yuri Andropov (former KGB head and future leader of the USSR) lead this anti-west/US agenda....one funny note is the resurgence of some of the same groups protesting the US again with regards to the War on Terror...albeit without their funding from their former masters....I wonder where their funding is coming from now...be intresting to find out

couchman

on Sep 08, 2004

The Left is a rainbow mix of different groups who are committed to a wide array of issues and who deploy a wide array of tactics. Among them include Buddhists and Quakers and other pacifists who would NEVER engage in violence against counter-protestors.

Well I'm intrested in the several polls taken of the protesters which put only bout 35% - 38% of them who support a Democrocy and Free Market Ecconomy...the rest fell into the passe' beliefs of Socialism and Communism, Anarchism, Pacifism....which gives creedence to the Utopian make-up of the protesters....frankly its high time they come down to reality..which given their perpensity for rehashed cold war rhetoric is not likely

notsohighlyevolved

on Sep 08, 2004

Gee must have missed the cuban advisors in south and central america....the cubans were the soviets proxies in this region of the world and as such their goals were a mirror image of each other....

The Cubans were much more interested in international intervention in the area than the Soviet Union. In the case of Angola, the USSR became involved because of the prodding and requests of the Cubans, not the other way around. The USSR was much more interested in shoring up their own position and taking care of economic and political instability in their own sphere. This was basically the foundation of Detente. The USSR realised it could not compete, economically or militarily with the US.

This is not to say that they did not have any influence in the Third World, that they didn't attempt to influence the Third World, but not to the extent the US claimed and not to the extent that other revolutionary countries, such as Cuba and China (so called Soviet proxies), would have liked. In fact, the USSR and China were involved in something very close to competition in Southern Africa.

One point that is interesting to make with regards to the cold war was the infiltration and outright use by the Soviets, Chinese, Cubans, etc. of the very same groups in the America's and Europe that opposed the US and the west....

Usually, except in the case of Eastern Europe and the Middle East, there was no infiltration, but cases of Third World independence movements requesting Soviet aid. They had already chosen socialist or leftist principles as the best way to reconstruct their countries, so obviously they naturally gravitated towards the USSR.

The USSR took advantage of already occurring political developments in the Third World, while the US actively fought against the current situations and political trends (irrespective of what the people wanted) in these countries. They would not allow them to form left wing governments for no other reason other than their leftist leanings.

The USSR tried a more direct interventionist policy in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe and failed miserably. They could not even succeed closer to home, while the US had a great deal of success everywhere they did not resort to out right military intervention.

Which leads me back to the main thrust of my argument. The USSR was never as big a threat as the US made them out to be. It was convenient for successive US administrations to perpetuate this myth (even though many genuinely believed it, in spite of contrary evidence, thinking the cost of not believing it would be too great) for both foreign and domestic policy reasons.

Which brings us to the current administration and conservatism in general. Once again we have a malignant external threat that renders dissent and protest unpatriotic. It solidifies the need (illusory or not) for a conservative mainstream willing to back the administration no matter what the cost, no matter what the reality.

This makes conservatism the voice of the mainstream, of the politically expedient in a time of "crisis" and danger. The only channel allowed that is truly national in nature in times like this, for voices that are outside of the mainstream, or as you put it "leftist" (even though i stand by my assertions that this is a misnomer), are non-mainstream channels like protests, independent media and other media, such as the arts.

You guys have a voice, and it is a powerful one, the government of the United States of America, and a plethora of media organisations. For Pete’s sake, allow us ours.

Marco

couchman

on Sep 08, 2004

except in the case of Eastern Europe and the Middle East, there was no infiltration

Suggest you do bit more of research there....the fact that anti-US groups with ties to the KGB and its soviet bloc proxies is a reality...facts to back this up are KGB files withing their archives opened up or leaked to the press..former head of Romanian intelligence, who defected to the west...has stated as much more that once...but I guess he was wrong...the KGB files were clerical errors....

You guys have a voice, and it is a powerful one, the government of the United States of America, and a plethora of media organisations. For Pete’s sake, allow us ours.

Depends who "us" is....if its members of the useful idiot mentality..then no ...if its members of those advocating turning the US into a socialist utopian nation..then no...if its those who in the aftermath of 9-11 sought to shift the blame to "perceived" wrongs of past and present US foreign policy as the real cause instead of the murdering bastards who were responsible and their financial puppet masters...then no...(by the way I see the same horseshit mentality being used in the wake of the horror of the school takeover in russia blaming it on Chetsnyan sepratists is very hollow)...than the answer is no....time for the left to wake up....

notsohighlyevolved

on Sep 09, 2004

What group's are you talking about? I find it hard to believe that the USSR would have to infiltrate governments that were actively asking for their help.

It heartens me to think that you can say "no" as much as you like and it won't make a damned difference. The constitution's Yes trumps your No everytime. Thank Christ for that.

Marco

Draginol

on Sep 09, 2004

Wow, you really are quite a communist sympathizer. I kept thinking I was just mis-reading your posts, notso, but wow, I didn't think there were still communist sympathizers out there.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!