Soldier's mother Cindy Sheehan in Bush protest
- Thread starter Bernie Gunther
- Start date
phildwyer said:
and that is what is so wrong with the british people as a whole. Indifference at best.
In my lifetime the british people have only been minded twice to stand up and be counted. Pathetic really.
I cannot believe how blair gets voted back in, and furthermore he is allowed to lie at will, kill at will, and demolish our democratic foundations at will.
Oh boy, when the people wake up...
But that is the question I guess we're asking: Why aren't we taking more action - getting out there etc - as they are in the US? I think recent US actions could show us a thing or two over here, especially their response to the Downing street memo, for instance.Jo/Joe said:
Whether we 'woke up' a long time ago or not, why do people over here seem jaded over the issue now? It just feels that something has shifted, I can't put my finger on anything specific though, it's just a feeling.
As for US response being smaller, I don't think that is at all true. We are no more 'enlightened' on the whole than Americans with regard to what our governments are up to imo. Our marches and protest have been more visible in the past as they are usually concentrated in one place, ie London, whereas in the US you have actions taking place in many, many different cities. Plus the fact that we don't see coverage at all of US protest on our media, despite the fact there has always been a lot. I was on the 1/2 million person march in New York last August for instance - there is a lot of passion against Bush over there, that's for certain.
phildwyer said:
Mate i had to give up newspapers about a year ago after a pretty much lifetime addiction to them. Reason was i simply had to get thaksin out of my consciousness. I have no voice whatsoever against the madman - if i spoke out the best thing would be deportation, the worst death. I love living here too much so i found the only option available to me!
Mind you, i was also fed up with the supineness of british and americans towards their criminal leaders. Those more recent wars i found almost too much to bear. And then both leaders got voted back in.
It's interesting to read about your comments re the people in both countries. Not often someone has their finger on the pulse in more than one country.
Kudos to the americans, but with the rider that it seems it needs a lot of american deaths to get riled.
Humanity seems a concept that barely exists. It's all about nationality. And i fucking hate that.
To conclude, my particular mood in thailand is great! So are the thais. They only want an easy life! I guess it'll be terrible in the south, but hey, they're only muslims, so so what...
fela fan said:
What they need to realize, above all and once and for all, is that Blair is in no sense a socialist or a liberal--he is an arch-reactionary and warmonger, far to the "right" of Thatcher or even Reagan. Personally, I think the main obstacle to people grasping this is the obsolete metaphor of politics as a spectrum leading from "left" to "right." People think in these easy categories, rather than watching what politicians are actually doing.
I too was disgusted by the British voting Blair back--and even more by their hypocritical outrage when London was bombed. Reminded me of the Japanese in WWII putting allied bomber pilots on trial for "war crimes..." But I think you're right, the Brits may be slow to anger, but once they get there, Blair could be in serious trouble. I said years ago that I'd bet on him ending his days in a prison cell, and I still would.
Yeah, that's part of the problem in the UK for sure. People don't know where the heck to turn over here and most probably do not want to admit that there is in fact no difference between the main parties. Tony Blair and his cronies did a right good job on this country with the creation of 'New Labour' didn't theyphildwyer said:
phildwyer said:
Heh, i bloody hope your prediction comes true mate, coz it would be the least that could happen in the name of justice.
Another good post btw. Blair has nothing at all to do with left. I don't even much like those labels anyway. He is simply a war criminal who is overseeing the destruction of what freedoms british people had.
I do hope everyone wakes up at some point.
And yes, it was hypocritical for them to get outraged by a few dozen british deaths on the streets of britain. Mainly so because they effectively have given permission to their leaders to instigate and continue a genocide against the iraqi people.
It's fucking disgraceful what the british do around the world. And our leaders can only do it with their electorate's permission.
Mind you, the way things are going these days, we're nearly in a police state where they'll just do it anyway.
X-77 said:Yeah, that's part of the problem in the UK for sure. People don't know where the heck to turn over here and most probably do not want to admit that there is in fact no difference between the main parties. Tony Blair and his cronies did a right good job on this country with the creation of 'New Labour' didn't they
Yeah, but X, they had no balls man. They could have forced changes in a very real way had they rejected both labour and the tories. By voting the liberals in they would have sent a very clear message that the way of governing for the last few decades is no longer welcome.
But they failed miserably. How many others have the luxury of three choices, yet are too feeble to use them?
Hyper-consumerism and capitalism is to blame imo - the selfishness creeps into every facet of the affected's life; if it doesn't affect them directly and personally, then they'll vote for the guy that gives them the biggest take home at the end of the month.fela fan said:
It would be interesting to see the percentages of people actively involved in anti-war protest on both sides of the lake - anyone got them or shall I go google?!
Jangla said:
But the full picture jangla would need to investigate the reasons for those who marched. I don't recall the exact details now, but i remember almost pulling my hair out at the reasons many on the london march came out for. It certainly wasn't about the genocide being visited on iraqis.
After all, that had begun over ten years previously.
Lib Dems did do well out of Blair's actions though didn't they - In my area Labour lost their seat cos the Lib Dem vote doubled, hence letting the tories in. I think that happened quite a lot. It was about a million votes that NL lost I think?fela fan said:
As for the reasons that people marched - I'd like to say that the majority marched because they didn't want war, plain and simple, and saw right through Blair's bullshitting. I've never really thought that the marchers might have been there for selfish reasons, I hope that's not the case for many of them (although I remember hearing that the BNP called for their supporters to join the big march, but I can't imagine that too many of them were there that day...I hope)
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
fela fan said:
1. I did not vote for Blair and I know many others who did not
2. Blair does not enjoy universal support
3. You insist on claiming that everyone in this country is responsible for Blair, his actions and his re-election. That is not only unfair but inaccurate. Presumably you would aslo hold Tory voters responsible for Blair too.
4. It's fine for you to pontificate thousands of miles away in Thailand, we habve to live here with the cunt. What would you want us all to do? Take up arms? Foment a rebellion? Plot a coup?
nino_savatte said:
1. I wasn't talking about you, or the others who didn't vote for blair.
2. Really? Bloody hell man, i never knew that!
3. I have never, not once, claimed that 'everyone' is responsible for blair. Of course it's unfair, and inaccurate. You wouldn't listen to me then, and you're now proving that again a few months down the line.
4. Why should my voice be worth any less than yours or anyone else's in britain just coz i happen to be a long way away?
Nino, has it not occurred to you that i made the decision to emigrate precisely coz i couldn't cope with the politics in my country?
As for what people should do, good question. Put it into a new thread, and i'll begin to answer you! There's a dearth of decent threads these days, and that actually sounds like a good one.
Finally, for people like yourself, you have my sympathy: i think if i were to be forced back into britain i'd either implode or get jailed. But mate, the bottom line is that we all have choices over our actions. Well, at least british people do. Emigrate man!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
fela fan said:
Let's get something straight: I don't run away when things get tough, I stay and put up a fight.
If you are saying that you don't blame everyone for Blair then you don't make that terribly clear. Indeed, here you make the same sort of claim
That looks like a broad brush stroke to me: in other words, the British people are a single entity who are incapable of putting up a fight. I would therefore direct you to the efforts of Reg Keys and Rose Gentle, the former stood against Blair in his constituency and both are involved in a legal fight to get Blair to answer for his crimes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1551276,00.html
While Cindy Sheehan is enjoying media coverage in the States, Keys and Gentle get the occasional mention but that does not mean that nothing is happening and that we are all defeated.
I disagree with your last point but then you would expect me to disagree.
Oh and please don't patronise me as you have done here
nino_savatte said:
After spending rather more time on the matter than is strictly consistant with mental health, I believe I have isolated the five essential elements of Savattean rhetoric. Allow me to share them with you.
1. The macho exordium. Along the lines of "let's get this straight" or "let me make one thing clear." Generally alternates with:
2. The infuriated obscenity/ over-familiar endearment. A lethal combination, especially as both are just slightly archaic and off-kilter, indicative of a "shut-in" personality or (just possibly) English as a second language. Example: "Cobblers, sunshine."
3. The "onanism" reference. Don't know where this comes from, but a good 75% of Nino's posts feature this allusion. Its never "wanking" or anything, its always "onanism."
4. The "Foucault" reference. Always gnomic, never specific, usually employed as a knock-down indictment of his opponent's knowledge.
5. The lumbering, ponderously sarcastic conclusion. Often signalled as such by Nino's famous catchphrase: "I *don't* think."
Taken together, and shaken up a bit, we have the well-known Savattean technique, or "Nino's Razor" as I have come to think of it. An example, made up almost entirely of genuine quotes from Nino would be:
"Cobblers, sunshine. Let me be absolutely clear about this: I've got your number. Your onanism is splattered all over my screen. Have you ever read Foucault? Power and discourse, boyo, power and discourse. Rollocks, matey. You must be very proud of yourself--I *don't* think!"
Well, it still needs a bit of fine-tuning, but I'm getting there. Within a month I hope to be completely indistinguishable from Nino himself--I *don't* think!
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Cindy Sheehan smear of the day:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7576
PS bigfish, why the fuck are you trying to derail this (and other) threads? If you want to make those accusations, do it someplace where it'd be on topic.
You might even get a reply.
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7576
PS bigfish, why the fuck are you trying to derail this (and other) threads? If you want to make those accusations, do it someplace where it'd be on topic.
You might even get a reply.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
phildwyer said:
Phil, give it a rest.
You're acting like a dandy whose vanity has been pricked.
(and don't say you aren't. Who else would be mug enough to formulate a thesis on Savattean rhetoric other than a wounded fop?
)Hoist by your own petard, darling.
Incidentally, just to give a flavor of the state of debate in the USA, here's the opening of an Op-ed column by Bob Herbert in today's NY Times. The Times is hardly a radical newspaper, I suppose it would be slightly to the right of the Guardian in British terms.
"You have to wonder whether reality ever comes knocking on George W. Bush's door. If it did, would the president with the unsettling demeanor of a boy king even bother to answer? Mr. Bush is the commander in chief who launched a savage war in Iraq and now spends his days happily riding his bicycle in Texas. This is eerie. Scary. Surreal."
Ever seen anything like that about Blair and his war in the Guardian? OK, maybe Robert Fisk in the Independent, but generally the media in the US is *much* more critical of Bush than the UK media is of Blair. And this is reflected in the attitude of the respective populations, with the Brits displaying a truly disgraceful apathy and complacency--clearly exhibited on this threat by Nino Savette's bleating "what would you want us all to do?" Absolutely pathetic, I'm ashamed to be British at times like these.
"You have to wonder whether reality ever comes knocking on George W. Bush's door. If it did, would the president with the unsettling demeanor of a boy king even bother to answer? Mr. Bush is the commander in chief who launched a savage war in Iraq and now spends his days happily riding his bicycle in Texas. This is eerie. Scary. Surreal."
Ever seen anything like that about Blair and his war in the Guardian? OK, maybe Robert Fisk in the Independent, but generally the media in the US is *much* more critical of Bush than the UK media is of Blair. And this is reflected in the attitude of the respective populations, with the Brits displaying a truly disgraceful apathy and complacency--clearly exhibited on this threat by Nino Savette's bleating "what would you want us all to do?" Absolutely pathetic, I'm ashamed to be British at times like these.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
There was me thinking they were general conversational interpolations. Oh well, you learn something new every day!phildwyer said:
I see, so you're obsessing about onanism and using someone else's occasional reference to it as cover. Interesting...
But Foucault is gnomic. That's why we use him in references. You can use Foucault to justify anything because of his gnomicity.
Point of order: That's Gina Yashere's catchphrase.
I think he'd leave the "boyo" bit to you Phil.
I'm a bit worried about you though. Semen splattered on your screen? What would Sigmund say?
ViolentPanda said:
Hang on, I've nearly got it now...
Bollards, hombre. Let's have one point out in the open here: I am not one to run for cover. All of this onanism has seeped through my keyboard. Have you ever read Foucault? Discipline and punish, amigo, discipline and punish, that's all I can say. You must have won a Pulitzer prize for your wit--I *don't* think!
Ach, there's still something missing, that certain inexpressible je ne sais quoi eludes me, but I'll get it right, I will, I will...
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I was with you so far and I pretty much agreed with the reasoning you gave previously about why this was so. To a significant degree, the UK media and Blair's crew are intertwined, whereas most of the US media, with obvious exceptions (like Fox) has always hated Bush's guts, and having been intimidated by his goons for so long, are keen to fuck him up if the chance offers. Something that's not so true of the UK media with regard to Tony Blair, to anything like the same extent apparently.phildwyer said:
I start having a problem, and thinking that you're basically, being a wind-up merchant again, with the following.
If you're trying to raise a clarion call to political action, that's not the way to go about it in my opinion, but who knows. I suppose it might have some sort of useful effect.phildwyer said:
Bernie Gunther said:
No, I wasn't making a call to action. I think, unfortunately, that only more bombs in London will do that successfully. But really, don't you think "disgraceful apathy" or whatever I said is a fair description of the British reaction to the war? Apart from the response to 7/7, which was more along the lines of "Bastards! What have we ever done to them?" which is even worse if you ask me. Compare the Spanish people's proud and passionate reaction to the Madrid bombings--they kicked their bastard of a government out immediately. I wonder whether the kind of near-revolutionary protest and social dislocation that visited the USA during Vietnam would ever be possible in the UK?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Nope. I think it's a fair description of our media when it comes to challenging Blair on this stuff, and I've said so. The crucial difference between Cindy Sheehan and Rose Gentle say, is the reaction of the local media.phildwyer said:
I don't think your viewpoint represents most of the people I've been coming into contact with over the last few weeks though. On the contrary, I think there is deep anger at Blair in at least 1/4 of the population and some serious questioning of the role of Iraq in getting us into this mess going on with at least another 1/2 or so.
The blockage, as discussed sporadically throughout this thread, is that the media are useless or nearly so, that the anti-war movement has largely been captured by the usual suspects and rendered toxic and that the electoral system was not offering us any realistic choices that didn't want to go along with the war, so most of this anger and doubt is just sort of simmering and looking for a suitable release.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Agreed, Bernie. Anyone who truly believes the media are doing even a reasonable job on covering Iraq need only go read the articles on the ME forum. It doesn't take a genius to realise that many of the biggest stories which should have made the headlines simply haven't.
After two years of trawling through thousands of articles on the net and mailing many off to mainstream papers/tv stations I can only assume that the media deliberately ignores many of them. If only half of these had been given the coverage they deserved, the whole momentum behind the anti-war movement wouldnt be as relatively stagnant as it is.
Why hasn't this happened? Well there's the million dollar question.
After two years of trawling through thousands of articles on the net and mailing many off to mainstream papers/tv stations I can only assume that the media deliberately ignores many of them. If only half of these had been given the coverage they deserved, the whole momentum behind the anti-war movement wouldnt be as relatively stagnant as it is.
Why hasn't this happened? Well there's the million dollar question.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I don't think we need imagine a conspiracy to explain why this has failed to happen. (although it might provide easy thrills)Barking_Mad said:
I think for the most part, it's explained fairly well by Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model. That doesn't mean that individual personalities like Blair's propaganda people don't play a role. It's just that their actions are fairly predictable under the model. It's the same old shit, they've just gotten a bit cleverer and a hell of a lot nastier at it.
Bernie Gunther said:
I blame the old school tie. The "leftist" commentators in the British media literally went to school and/or college with the criminals in Blair's government. They are from the same class, have had the same education, view the world in the same way, and they're all good mates. I know some of the columnists who are playing the role of "critics" of Blair personally--as I'm sure many of you do--and I know for a fact that they go off to dinner with Mandy and co at the Gay Hussar just after they've put their latest "criticism" of the government to bed. Its all a facade. In short, if you wait for the media to lead the opposition to the war, you'll wait forever. There *are* other options, you know, despite Nino's claims to impotence.
Similar threads
