College Point Residents Coalition Homeless Shelter Protesters Sort Of Take a Step in the Right Direction or Did They?

From QNC article June 4, 2019:  They say it’s time for him to go: At latest rally, College Point residents call for mayor to quit over shelter plan

To use as the slogan "solutions not shelters" and calling for Mayor De blasio to resign is a step in the right direction. Force De blasio to explain his homeless shelter policy even better would be to make De blasio explain the failure of his policy in an ever expanding mass of homeless people coming into the city and ever increasing cost of housing.

But unfortunately, one step in the right direction is followed by cucks of the CPRC not taking a firm stand but making a scampering retreat for the tall grass of progressive "nice moderate people who care about the homeless too" with a vague, unspecified something policy "solution" but really think the shelters are necessary but ought to go somewhere else. That shelter would be a disaster for College Point real estate values, you know! Once the predators of city government and other neighborhood activist groups pick up the scent of NIMBY and moderate liberal cowardice, really wanting the shelters in someone else's backyard instead, forget about forming any cartel with the other activists despite their reassurances of solidarity or bluffing the city. You're on a solo suicide mission. Big mistake.

Then there is the multicultural problem that leads to the Byzantine General's problem where different groups involved in a common cause may have their own interests and agendas and will likely betray each other. This is, for the city, an easily exploitable weakness as one ethnic or identity group may be quietly approached and a separate deal made in return for that group's cooperation. This is the very reason for the city's love of multiculturalism and seeding homeless shelters throughout the lesser outer boroughs- there cannot be any cultural commonality, no deeper ancestral roots in the community to really care about it, differences in mixing high trust/low trust cultures, etc. and therefore no complete agreement on principles or ability to form unified opposition. Notice how the Asians pictured carry banners written in Chinese characters and ask if this demonstrates any solidarity with the non-Asian groups involved. In the end, it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost.

The next mistake is they stop short of asking why should working class and middle class people who work hard and barely make ends meet in a high cost of living city be expected to subsidize a free living for ever more imported Democrat voters, citizens or not. This would be the only line of attack that has any chance of crossing racial/ethnic/identity or neighborhood lines and providing any solidarity. Unfortunately, this is not for all too faint of heart, overly image conscious moderate liberals. They are sadly too afraid of insipid retorts of being called "mean spirited" or "racist" and not at all cognizant of the fact that they will face these and other puerile epithets even with the meekest protest. The pharisaical cargo cult that is the progressive left will not tolerate even the least whimpered questioning of their holy scriptures without burning these heretics at the stake.

Instead the CPRC uses that threadbare old "but it's for the children!" thing which is just too old and overused a cliche to be of any effect here. This a sure sign of a group that either has nothing of any substance to say or is too frightened of criticism to talk about serious issues. As the progressive rulers of this city invented and cynically use this same "but it's for the children" ploy themselves, the old saying "don't bullshit the bullshitter" comes to mind. Besides, it's pathetic, really, hiding behind children.

So in the end, these calls for De blasio to step down come off as hollow and flimsy bluff and the protests will continue to fail. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, the CPRC knows neither their enemy nor themselves and are doomed to defeat. The best CPRC can hope for is the shelter be moved several blocks away and with fewer homeless housed there, assuming the city fully keeps to this agreement. To call this a victory is to delude oneself.

The effectiveness of the politicos named as allies in the article will depend on how the CPRC approaches them. If as the CPRC being in charge of the situation in as such that these three men will be voted out of office if they fail, the electeds will honestly work to keep their jobs. Or if the CPRC approaches the electeds as supplicants begging a favor of their acknowledged masters, then said electeds will cut a deal with the city that will primarily benefit their own interests and will throw only a sop to the CPRC.



Donald Cavaioli

Note to College Point and Other Towns in Queens: Your Homeless Shelter Protests Will Fail and Here's Why

https://www.timesledger.com/stories/2019/3/cpshelterrally_2019_01_18_q.html?utm_source=20190115&utm_medium=email&utm_content=College+Point+residents+take+their+homeless+shelter+fight+to+City+Hall&utm_campaign=newsletter

The above link is to a Times Ledger story from last January 15th as College Point residents are protesting a proposed homeless shelter. This protest and the others like it will all fail and for the same reason: You cannot debate or protest any subject when you accept the fundamental premises of your opponent. There is no debate in such a case, there only quibbling over minor details.
 The first and most effective action taken should really be to stop voting for liberal Democrats however, I digress.

So here's the mistake all these homeless shelter protests make: They accept the premise that there is a need for these homeless shelters and that the tax payers must finance them and must have them in someone's neighborhood. Just not in their neighborhood.

First of all, this isn't protesting or debating, it is quibbling over where the shelters are placed with feeble excuses about amenities, infrastructure and the like. Our fellow citizens from other neighborhoods or the other boroughs will not be persuaded to support the protester's cause because it appears like NIMBY College Point is simply trying to toss the hot potato of the homeless shelter into someone else's lap. And they sure as hell don't want it either. Trivial bickering and whining with city officials will not win friends and influence people. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, you're just a group of noisy pests. Forget support from the mainstream news media as they are deep in the pockets of the political and managerial ruling class and will toe the official narrative without question. Expect no articles in support of the protest or even a sympathetic mention if it goes against official government policy.

In order for these protests to be successful, it is necessary to garner wide-spread support for the cause that will get elected politicians nervous about their re-election chances.

Secondly, there is the power dynamic between the residents and city officials. Accepting the basic premise of the necessity of the homeless shelters puts College Point residents into the position of supplicants begging the city to not put a shelter in their neighborhood and having to explain their reasons to the city. City officials are now in the position of the boss with the power to grant your plea or refuse it. If the supplicant's plea is denied, there is no recourse.

Further, understand also that working within the system and playing by the rules set up by that system is a losing proposition. The rules exist and are designed to protect the system and the ruling class here only plays by these rules or will break the rules when it suits them. It should also be anticipated that our managerial overlords will employ such dirty tricks as planting saboteurs in the protest who will say and do outrageous and offensive things as a way of discrediting the protest with news media people primed and ready to film it.

Now consider a successful protest.
Consider the Vietnam anti war protests. The protesters wanted all U.S. soldiers withdrawn, not arguing over troop numbers, where they were deployed or the rules of engagement. U.S. out of Vietnam now was the stated goal.

First we see that the protesters have taken an opposite position of the Johnson administration. The protesters are forcing President Johnson and his advisors to explain and justify the war (officially a police action) in Vietnam to the American people. The protesters are in charge of the situation and the President of the United States is a subordinate forced to explain himself which he was unable to do nor even to articulate how or when victory could be achieved. The light at the end of the tunnel rhetoric quickly wore thin. The result of the protests was that Lyndon Johnson faced serious opposition from within his own party and was forced not to run for re-election. Richard Nixon was then elected on the promise of withdrawing from Vietnam. A successful protest that changed U.S. policy.

Another more recent successful example of advocacy is the National Rifle Association. The NRA opposes all gun control proposals, no compromise. This type of stance prevents the left's slowly cooking the frog incrementalism of asking for small concessions one after the other until they completely achieve their goal. Take the opposite position and concede or yield nothing. Compromise is seen by the left as backing down and once you start backing down to them, you will never stop backing down until you are completely defeated. Nice guy moderates don't finish last, they are crushed.

In conclusion, again the first action taken should really be to stop voting liberal Democrat. But if protests are in order, they should not be over placement of homeless shelters but that there should not be any tax payer funded homeless shelters at all. Take the opposite stance and force city officials to explain why the working people who have enough trouble making ends meet should finance an ever growing population of homeless people from around the country. We can concede to state hospitals for the psychologically disabled (like we once had, thanks Geraldo) who cannot care for themselves but the rest should be seen to by churches and privately run charities. If you can't take this position, at least as rhetoric used in protests, because you're a prog or too much a stay-in-the-liberal-herd normie then why bother protesting at all. Just suck it up.


Donald Cavaioli