August 4, 2002
What Can We Do?
In a message dated 8/3/02 11:18:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, L writes:David,
You mentioned recently the column from Sydney, Australia, "Foundations are in Place for Martial Law in the U.S." In the peace activist groups I'm aligned with, it's become simply a matter of grim acceptance that Bush may impose martial law at some point -- whether under cover of another large-scale terrorist attack, or in response to massive demonstrations in response to war on Iraq, or something else. I agree with you, "the more momentum the movement toward martial law gains, the more difficult it will be to stop." My feeling is that this is the crucial time for having effect against that momentum: right now, August 2002.
Everyone who writes me asks for advice on how to make their "No" to war in Iraq known. Congress answers their email, fax and phone campaigns with formula PR letters and the mainstream press won't print dissenting letters. People are enormously frustrated; as one put it, "writing to Congress is exactly like spitting the wind." Our democracy has never been so in danger. I think you wrote once that street protests are no longer useful--a fool's game, I think you said. So what SHOULD people be doing to make their voices heard?
Or in the one-word email I received yesterday, "HOW?"
L
Hi L,
Actually I meant to say that violence is a fool's game. Peaceful street protests are among the things we still can do, although we know they are often infiltrated by government agents who incite violence to justify answering it with their own much more lethal violence. Demonstrations are most effective when kept strictly nonviolent. Gandhi's and King's approach of -- what was it called, "assymetry"? -- is brilliant. Violence the authorities know exactly how to deal with; they are relatively stymied by peaceful assertion of principle.
We need to make full use of all media. The pen is mightier than the sword. Remember the Yippees in 1968 and "media manipulation"? The media can be used to get messages across even though the corporate media try strenuously to block certain kinds of information. In spite of that, they are somewhat predictable in terms of what kinds of stories they are drawn to. We should all be thinking of ways to get our message through the media.
The Yippees ran a pig for president and got some coverage out of that. Jim Morrison of the Doors was an expert in media manipulation. He called the Doors "erotic politicians," and when a Rolling Stone reporter asked him what he meant, he said he used that phrase because he knew it was the kind of phrase that would catch a reporters attention and get him into Time magazine, which it did. When GM attempted to use a Doors song in an Opel commercial Morrison stopped them by saying if they did it he would go on TV and destroy an Opel with a sledgehammer. John Lennon and Yoko Ono had their "Bed In for Peace" because they said since the media followed them around anyway, they would use it to get out a worthwhile message.
It's important to remember that it is primarily the top brass of the corporate media who are diehard supporters of the corporate agenda. As you go farther down the hierarchies you find more real people, often people who tow the corporate line only as far as they have to and are always looking for a way to slip a little bit of subversive truth into their reporting. This is happening more and more as we see the junta's control lines breaking down. The administration has declared war on practically everything outside of its little clique since Day One, and the circle of people who have been hurt is widening daily. With that trend, cracks in the wall will widen and it will eventually give way. You can't destroy trillions of dollars of shareholder wealth without eventually turning many former supporters away from you. They have just hurt too many people.
I think peaceful demonstrations are among the things that can make a difference. The more people the better, the more media attention the better. I would like to see more high-profile people -- celebrities the media like to follow anyway -- speak out against the madness, show up at anti-war rallies, speak their anti-war views to the press.
Everyone should make as much noise as they can, make as many waves as they can using every bit of power they have, including purchasing power. Make calls to government officials, complain as a consumer to corporate officers, boycott products, write letters, send e-mails, speak up whenever there is an opportunity to change someone's mind. We have to be as creative and imaginative as possible and dedicate ourselves constantly and not let ourselves be depressed and become apathetic because of the mis-messages of the corporate media, which are designed to make us feel exactly that way. We have power because we have vast numbers and we are right. We have history on our side.
De Tocqueville divided history into two periods, the aristocratic age and the democratic age. This is a movement of history that is not going to be reversed by a bunch of corporate would-be kings. Democracy and human rights were not given to the people by the rulers, they were seized by the people. And it didn't start, or end, with the U.S., it's a march through history. If people dethroned kings, they sure aren't going to let these jerks rule them. The fall of the Soviet bloc was not a victory of capitalism, it was a defeat of authoritarianism. These self-styled autocrats are not going to succeed. De Tocqueville said, ""Can it be believed that the democracy that has overthrown the feudal system and vanquished kings will retreat before tradesmen and capitalists?"
Here's another quote for you:
"Throughout history, the really fundamental changes in societies have come about not from dictates of governments and the results of battles but through vast numbers of people changing their minds -- sometimes only a little bit.
Some of the changes have amounted to profound transformations -- for instance the transition fomr the Roman Empire to Medieval Europe, or from the Middle Ages to modern times. Others have been more specific, such as the constitution of democratic governments in England and America, or the termination of slavery as an accepted institution. In the latter cases, it is largely a matter of people recalling that no matter how powerful the economic or political or even military institution it persists because it has legitimacy, and that legitimacy comes from the perceptions of people. People give legitimacy and they can take it away. A challenge to legitimacy is probably the most powerful force for change to be found in history.
To the empowering principle that the people can withhold legitimacy, and thus change the world, we now add another: By deliberately chagning the internal image of reality, people can change the world. Perhaps the only limits to the human mind are those we believe in.
-- Willis Harman Global Mind Change
David Cogswell