Right on target Al. Methinks the reason why the hoi polloi in Oz have
abandoned hope of changing anything is much the same as that in the USofA -
they are led to believe by the forces ranged against them, that the forces
ranged against them are much too powerful; that is how the KGB worked in
Russia. The KGB has since admitted that they never had either the resources,
nor the power, to have eyes and ears everywhere; where their real power lay
was in giving the illusion - the belief - that the fable was true!
The dictatorship in Oz is no different to the KGB; the proofs that they do
not hold the real power, but instead THE PEOPLE do, was: the amount of guns
that are now in Oz since little 'honest' flak-jaks campaign to disarm us -
there are more not less guns and, gun crimes never diminished one whit -
also, the pleading and crawling of the incumbents, whose sphincters stuck
out in fear so far that washers could be cut from their ring-pieces leading
up to the election, and the desperate attempt by 'clinchin Minchin' to
change the 1, 2, 2, 2,... rule, as they knew there was a real probability of
the whole lot being chucked out. Hanson scared the piss out of them.
They fear THE PEOPLE alright; the hard part is to convince the sheeple that
they do have the upper hand. Some major victory over THE SYSTEM is needed I
believe, to give the mob a taste of blood; once they see the beast is
wounded and it is easy prey, maybe then they will go in for the kill. Ditto
Russia and the supposed power of the KGB!
Now this will really get up the noses of the dreamy do-gooders but, if it
could be proved that a foreign power sent in a squad of hired killers to
murder Australian citizens for political purposes - namely to disarm THE
PEOPLE to bulldoze a way for the Fourth Reich of the Rich to do as they
please with 'the poor' (or as Noam chomsky calls it: 'The Welfare State for
the Rich'), then that might just provide the blood-lust needed to start a
feeding-frenzy.
I believe it can be proved that, even if Tweedledum and Tweedledee had no
prior knowledge of what was planned for Port Arthur and Martin Bryant, then
when they did find out, they made mileage out of the murders for their own
and their paymasters ends - they condoned and covered up for the murderers.
Now for the proof: The joker with the long blonde hair running from the
crime scene and changing magazines as he runs, captured on video and,
supposedly the murderer, is not Martin Bryant - we now have photographic
evidence of this, and the proof has been sent to politicians throughout
Australia; never saw it in the corporate media? You will not either, not
until they are forced to say something.
If you want the photo to see for yourself that 'blondie' is not Bryant, you
can have a copy (the same one that has been sent to the pollies) posted to
you by sending your name and address with $15 to: Joe Vialls (a persecuted
and truly poor bloke for trying to expose the thing) 45 Merlin Drive;
Carine, WA., 6020.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, 8 November 1998 10:17 PM
Subject: RE: Organising people
>[TE]
>True (kinda). Definately the best way to increase participation is with
>tangible victories and benifits. Particularly poor people make very
>harsh and very necessary assessments of their options in terms of cost
>and benifit. This is fair enough. Only with wealth can you afford to
>repeat Uni, lose a job or suffer other possible consequences from
>failing to focus on your individual life. Realistically collective
>action has to show that it can work and is worth the risk.
>
>[AL]
>Above seems to be central problem for "Neither". Even leaving aside
>questions of poverty and "risk" most people see no prospect of
>sufficient "tangible victories and benefits" from a campaign to smash
>the two party state to make it worth the trouble as opposed to getting
>on with one's individual life and/or concentrating on other political
>activities.
>
>I believe the goal is winnable, necessary and would be of great benefit
>to all other desirable political goals and that the feedback from the
>1996 campaign showed this clearly. However most of my friends involved
>in that campaign have not felt sufficiently enthused to do much about it
>and in that atmosphere I have not even taken the obvious minimum steps
>to write a series of clear explanations of why it is winnable, why it is
>necessary, what the benefits would be and how we could go about winning.
>
>My hope is that others will start work on that in this mailing list and
>the knowledge that there are at least a few of us doing so seriously
>will encourage each of those already convinced it is worth doing
>(including myself) to do the work required to convince others. That is
>clearly a necessary step which should result in interesting web pages
>and other publications for wider publication. I suggest we should focus
>on it.
>
>[TE]
>However I believe their are other impediments to the poor being
>political. None of these are inate or biological. The most significant
>one is the violent power of the state. I consider it a big lie that the
>"Hippys" and Activists of the 60's, and 70's merely mellowed or saw a
>lack of benifit in political organisation. Instead their leaders were
>jailed and silenced, beaten and killed. Their publications were banned
>and their employment terminated. There is little mystery as to why many
>poor people do not get organised or why poor organisations fail to
>transform society so often. Genuine emotional, social, financial and
>physical sanctions as well as all the military tactics of preventing
>communication, controlling information and corrupting spokespeople are
>deployed against the oppressed who attempt to organise.
>
>[AL]
>This simply isn't true in Australia (as opposed to some third world
>countries).
>There was some fairly mild repression here in the 1960s (mild beatings,
>nobody killed, occasional gaol, more widespread but still marginal loss
>of career prospects that would not seriously discourage anyone except
>careerists). Most of the direct state repression was via drug busts etc
>- not banning publications. That mild repression was certainly not the
>explanation for the movement dying out here. On the contrary it was
>easily dealt with and helped stimulate it.
>
>Nor was the "ordinary" presssures of capitalist society which push
>people to look for individual solutions rather than collective action
>that might interfere with their job prospects etc sufficient to explain
>why a movement which developed despite (and because of) those pressures
>died out.
>
>Since that period (now 3 decades ago) there has been even less overt
>repression and
>although increased unemployment etc adds to the "ordinary" pressures of
>capitalism it does not explain why people who were active then see "a
>lack of benifit in political organisation" now.
>Nor does it explain why the same age group that was active then has not
>become active now, even if the previous generation had "mellowed".
>
>Mythological claims about state repression only get in the way of
>analysing the real problems.
>
>We can publish whatever we like without the slightest fear of those
>publications being banned or being gaoled for doing so. Moreover we have
>easier facilities for doing so via the internet than ever before in
>history. Tactics for "preventing communication" and "controlling
>information" are less feasible than before. (Concerns about social
>pressure and job discrimination etc are easily met by anonymous
>publication).
>
>The real problem is not having much to say.
>
>"Corrupting spokespeople" has some relevance to that as a whole caste of
>government funded do-gooders was created from the Whitlam period on
>which has had a serious impact. But the real problem has been the
>ideological bankruptcy of "left" politics.
>
>Central to that has been the failure to draw a line of demarcation from
>the ALP and the various pseudo-left ideas promoted by that caste, which
>are widely regarded as being "left".
>
>A fight to smash the two party state necessarily involves a sharp break
>with the ALP and the caste that backs it. This is a necessity for any
>serious left politics to emerge. It is achievable now because their
>convergence with the Coalition has made them more unpopular than ever
>before.
>
>We cannot build a real alternative yet. But we can force a major change
>from the current completely bankrupt two party state to an opening up of
>political debate. Nobody is hammering them from the left (the
>pseudo-left has no desire to and perhaps others fear strengthening the
>right - which amounts to accepting ALP/pseudo-left claims that there is
>something fundamentally more progressive about the ALP et al than their
>opponents). By simply raising the banner of overt hostility to the two
>party state and providing a focus for organization against it I believe
>we can make a major contribution.
>
>PS Sorry - still haven't caught up with old messages.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general
discussion.
>
>To unsubscribe click here
Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
>To subscribe click here
Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
>
>For information and archives goto
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
