--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
LISTEN UP DON'T ERASE UNTIL YOU READ THIS! GRANNYD
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: strike Date: Tue, 21
Jan 2003 23:09:52 -0800 From: Dot Fisher-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: List suppressed
Hi, everybody....This general strike idea is yeasting
internationally....keep spreading it....why not Feb. 14?
The Time for Talking Is Over
The Time for Talking Is Over
We must oppose this war as we have never opposed one before
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 7th January 2003
The rest of Europe must be wondering whether Britain has gone into
hibernation. At the end of this month our Prime Minister is likely to
announce the decision he made months ago, that Britain will follow
the US into Iraq. If so, then two or three weeks later, the war will
begin. Unless the UN inspectors find something before January 27,
this will be a war without even the flimsiest of pretexts: an
unprovoked attack whose purpose is to enhance the wealth and power of
an American kleptocracy. Far from promoting peace, it could be the
first in a series of imperial wars. The gravest global crisis since
the end of the Cold War is three weeks away, and most of us seem to
be asking why someone else doesn't do something about it.
It is not often that the people of these islands have an opportunity
to change the course of world events. Bush knows that the Americans'
approval of his war depends, in part, upon its credibility overseas:
opinion polls have shown that many of those who would support an
international attack would withdraw that support if they perceived
that the US was acting alone. An international attack, in this case,
means an attack supported by Britain. If Blair pulled out, Bush could
be forced to think again. Blair will pull out only if he perceives
that the political cost of sticking with Bush is greater than the
cost of deserting him. Bush's war, in other words, depends upon our
indifference. As Gramsci remarked, "what comes to pass does so not so
much because a few people want it to happen, as because the mass of
citizens abdicate their responsibility and let things be".
There are several reasons why most British people do not seem
prepared to act. New military technology has removed the need for a
draft, so the otherwise unengaged young men who might have become the
core of the resistance movement are left to blast imaginary enemies
on their Gameboys. The economy is still growing, so underlying
resentment towards the government is muted; yet we perceive our jobs
and prospects to be insecure, so we are reluctant to expose ourselves
to trouble.
It also seems that many people who might have contested this war
simply can't believe it's happening. If, paradoxically, we were
facing a real threat from a real enemy, the debate would have seemed
more urgent. But if Blair had told us that we had to go to war to
stop Saruman of Isengard from sending his orcs against the good
people of Rohan, it would scarcely seem less plausible than the
threat of Saddam of Iraq dropping bombs on America.
These factors may explain our feebleness. They don't excuse it. It is
true that our chances of stopping this war are slight: both men
appear determined to proceed, with or without evidence or cause. But
to imagine that protest is useless if it doesn't lead to an immediate
cessation is to misunderstand its purpose and power. Even if we
cannot stop the attack upon Iraq, we must ensure that it becomes so
politically costly that there will never be another like it. And this
means that the usual demos will no longer suffice.
There have, so far, been many well-organised and determined protests,
and several more are planned over the next six weeks. On January 18,
demonstrators will seek to blockade the armed forces' joint
headquarters at Northwood, in North London. Three days later,
there'll be a mass lobby of parliament; at 6pm on the day the war is
announced, protesters will gather in almost every town centre in
Britain. On February 15, there'll be a massive rally in London. These
actions are critically important, as they'll demonstrate the level of
public opposition. But they're unlikely, by themselves, to provoke
one of Blair's famous sweats. We must raise the temperature.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has already tried one bold and
unprecedented measure: seeking to persuade the courts to rule that
attacking Iraq without a new UN resolution would be illegal. But on
December 17th, the judges decided that they do not have the power to
interpret the existing resolution. It seems that we now have few
options but to launch a massive, though non-violent, campaign of
disruption.
CND and the Stop the War Coalition have suggested an hour's stoppage
on the day after the war begins. Many activists are now talking about
building on this, and seeking to provoke wider strike action, or even
a general strike.
This is, of course, difficult and dangerous. Some general strikes
have been effective, forcing the tsar to agree to a constitution and
a legislative assembly in 1905, for example, reversing the Kapp
Putsch in Berlin in 1920, and overthrowing the Khuri regime in
Lebanon in 1952. Others have been counter-productive, in some cases
disastrous. When the French general strike was broken in 1920, the
labour movement all but collapsed. Mussolini used the announcement of
a general strike in 1922 to represent himself as the only man capable
of restoring order; he seized power, with the king's blessing, after
the fascists had routed the strikers and burnt down the Socialist
Party headquarters. If we call for a strike and almost everyone goes
to work, Blair will see this as a sign that he can do as he pleases.
But this is the scale on which we should be thinking. If we cannot
mobilise the workforce, there are still plenty of means of
concentrating politicians' minds. We could, for example, consider
blocking the roads down which Blair and his key ministers must travel
to meet their appointments, disrupting the speeches they make and
blockading the most important public buildings. Hundreds of us are
likely to be arrested, but that, as the Vietnam protesters found,
serves only to generate public interest. Non-violence, however, is
critical: nothing did more harm to the anti-war movement in the late
1960s than the Days of Rage organised in Chicago by the Weathermen.
But peaceful, well-focused and widespread nuisance, even if it
irritates other members of the public, forces the issue to the front
of people's minds, and ensures that no one can contemplate the war
without also contemplating the opposition to the war. We must oblige
people to recognise that something unprecedented in recent times is
taking place, that Bush, assisted by Blair's moral slipstreaming, is
seeking to summon a war from a largely peaceful world. We will fail
unless we stage a political drama commensurate with the scale of the
threat.
All this will, of course, be costly. But there comes a point at which
political commitment is meaningless unless you are prepared to act on
it. According to the latest opinion poll, some 42% of British people
- against the 38% who support it - want to stop this war. But if our
action is confined to shaking our heads at the television set, Blair
might as well have a universal mandate. Are you out there? Or are you
waiting for someone else to act on your behalf?
Details of the actions already planned can be found at www.stopwar.org.uk
7th January 2003
--
--
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Fight Censorship at WBAI: http://www.wbai.net
WBAI 99.5 FM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WBAIelections
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
New Pacifica Working Group
http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica
'Save Our Stations!'
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
