Strike to End War? What Will It Take?

[smiths]

Arnold Toynbee, whose massive A Study of History remains the most comprehensive study of historical cycles, has a great deal to say about what he calls “the schism in society.”
As civilizations tip over the brink into decline, he suggests, one of the core symptoms of decay is a split between the dominant minority and the rest of society.
The dominant minority has lost whatever capacity it once had to inspire loyalty and emulation, but its hold on the institutions of power remains strong enough that it can’t be unseated; the rest of society, alienated from the values of the dominant minority, becomes an “internal proletariat” ripe for alternative values.
When those new values emerge, usually in the form of a new religious movement, they become the framework around which new social patterns begin to coalesce – and about the time this gets well under way, the old social framework of the dying civilization, abandoned from within and assailed from without, comes messily apart.

It’s an intriguing analysis.
One wrinkle Toynbee doesn’t discuss, though, is the fate of the people in between the dominant minority and the emergent internal proletariat.
There are usually quite a few of them; they manage people, information, and resources within the sprawling complexity of a mature civilization; compared to the laboring classes, they have a tolerably high level of wealth and privilege, and even some influence over the political process, though nothing as much as the members of the dominant minority have at their disposal. As the schism in society opens, the ground on which they stand begins to slip away beneath their feet.
On the one hand, many of them find it increasingly hard to believe in the ideals and loyalties that motivated their equivalents in earlier generations; on the other, many of them are unwilling to abandon the concrete privileges and benefits that accrue to them in their current positions.
Some turn to cynicism, others to a range of uneasy attempts to serve two masters, and still others – normally the majority – simply muddle through as best they can.

Eventually, as the new value system takes shape and rises from the bottom of the internal proletariat, a good many of them will break away and align themselves with it, and provide it with the managerial and intellectual resources it needs to fulfill its own trajectory. Until a fairly late stage in the game, though, those who make that leap can count on giving up all the benefits of their place in the social order ...

A great many middle-class people in America and other industrial nations are caught in the familiar bind, no longer committed to the ideals of a declining civilization, but not yet willing to sacrifice the very tangible material benefits they get from their positions in the established order; rejecting the system in their hearts while supporting it with their actions. It’s a very awkward place to be; eventually, it will become intolerable; but until this latter point arrives, a great many people will try to have it both ways.

I’ve come to think that this dynamic lies behind a great many of the less useful cultural shifts and social trends of recent decades, and the habits of thought sketched out in this post are among these. No doubt there were plenty of Romans who responded to the conflicting demands of political and religious authority by rejecting the entire concept of authority, and dismissed the need for boundaries in the half-conscious hope that this evasion would allow them to keep a foot in both worlds while committing to neither. Certainly this sort of thing is very common today. The obsessive fixation on the isolated and supposedly independent ego that pervades contemporary culture, which Christopher Lasch once anatomized in a book more often discussed than read, has many roots; still, I suspect one of the crucial factors driving it is precisely this attempt, on the part of a great many people, to have their cake and eat it too – to enjoy the benefits of the existing order while claiming to despise its principles.

The presupposition of passivity I mentioned at the beginning of this post is one way to deal with the cognitive dissonance of this awkward position. There are already a good many others, and as the forces that are tearing modern industrial civilization apart build around us, there will doubtless be more. To the extent that it’s possible to recognize them for what they are, though, it will be easier to sidestep their more unproductive results and direct effort toward those tasks where it’s still possible to make a difference for the future.

http://www.energybulletin.net/51339

[elfismiles]

Arnold Toynbee, whose massive A Study of History remains the most comprehensive study of historical cycles, has a great deal to say about what he calls “the schism in society.”
As civilizations tip over the brink into decline, he suggests, one of the core symptoms of decay is a split between the dominant minority and the rest of society.
The dominant minority has lost whatever capacity it once had to inspire loyalty and emulation, but its hold on the institutions of power remains strong enough that it can’t be unseated; the rest of society, alienated from the values of the dominant minority, becomes an “internal proletariat” ripe for alternative values.

When those new values emerge, usually in the form of a new religious movement, they become the framework around which new social patterns begin to coalesce – and about the time this gets well under way, the old social framework of the dying civilization, abandoned from within and assailed from without, comes messily apart.

...

A great many middle-class people in America and other industrial nations are caught in the familiar bind, no longer committed to the ideals of a declining civilization, but not yet willing to sacrifice the very tangible material benefits they get from their positions in the established order; rejecting the system in their hearts while supporting it with their actions. It’s a very awkward place to be; eventually, it will become intolerable; but until this latter point arrives, a great many people will try to have it both ways.

http://www.energybulletin.net/51339

[jam.fuse]

Jesus was a working man
And a hero you will hear
Born in the town of Bethlehem
At the turning of the year

When Jesus was a little lad
Streets rang with his name
For he argued with the older men
And put them all to shame

He became a wandering journeyman
And traveled far and wide
And saw how wealth and poverty
existed side by side

He said "Come all you working men
Farmers and weavers too
If you would but stand as one
This world belongs to you..."

-- Ewan MacColl

Why stop at the Washington Mall? I would think an unarmed army (unarmy?) of a hundred thousand or so could successfully occupy the white house and/or capitol hill for a spell.

[elfismiles]

Bring The Guard Home | Bring the Guard Home! It's the Law.
http://www.bringtheguardhome.org

Tenth Amendment Center | Working to limit the power of the federal government
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com

Was just listening to Angela Keaton interview a rep from the 10th Amendment Center (for AntiWar Radio) and they are advocating Civil Disobedience to bring (some) troops home.

10th Amendment Summit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynVbkfXvewU
http://www.youtube.com/user/TenthAmendmentCenter

Nullification: It’s Official.
28. Jan, 2010 Comments (23)




by Derek Sheriff

While speaking to a large crowd of over a thousand people on the campus of Arizona State University last December, Congressman Ron Paul mentioned one thing that might come about as the result of the federal government habitually ignoring the Constitution: Nullification.

About five minutes into the video segment which you’ll find below, he said, “There’s not much attention paid to the Constitution in Washington. There’s not much attention paid to it by our executive branch of government. And we don’t get much protection from our courts. So one thing that might finally happen from this if the people finally feel so frustrated that they can’t get the results out of Washington — They’re going to start thinking about options. They might start thinking about nullification and a few things like that.”



As someone who attended that rally and was doing my best to represent my state’s chapter of The Tenth Amendment Center, I know I cheered very loudly and was very pleased when the rest of the crowd applauded enthusiastically.

For anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept of state nullification, it was the idea expressed by then sitting vice president, Thomas Jefferson, when he authored what came to be called the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. The resolutions made the case that the federal government is a creature of the states and that states have the authority to judge the constitutionality of the federal government’s laws and decrees. He also argued that states should refuse to enforce laws which they deemed unconstitutional.

James Madison wrote a similar resolution for Virginia that same year, in which he asserted that whenever the federal government exceeds its constitutional limits and begins to oppress the citizens of a state, that state’s legislature is duty bound to interpose its power to prevent the federal government from victimizing its people. Very similar to Jefferson’s concept of nullification, Madison’s doctrine of interposition differed in some small but important ways.

These two documents together came to be known as The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (or Resolves), of 1798. Both were written in response to the dreaded Alien and Sedition Acts, and the phrase, “Principles of ‘98″ became shorthand for nullification and / or interposition. Over time, “The Principles of ‘98″ would be invoked by many other states, many times for a variety of issues.

Getting back to Ron Paul’s speech in December at ASU, Congressman Paul qualified his prediction about the revival of nullification by saying the following:

“But my suspicion is that there will never be official nullification or secession, but if the [federal] government continues to fail, and they can’t deliver anything..checks bounce..that we will be forced to take care of ourselves. And we will be forced to almost ignore everything they do.”

Less than a week after the speech I attended at ASU, Congressman Paul was interviewed by Mike Church on his radio show. When Mike asked him what his thoughts were on nullification, Ron Paul responded by saying:

“I think it’s a great idea. It was never really successful in our history. But I think it’s going to grow in importance. And I think it’s going to grow because the government, the federal government will be seen as inept and ineffective. And I think it’ll almost be de facto in the sense that the states will eventually just ignore some of the mandates.”

Here I would like to pause for a moment and point out that I am not usually in the business of disagreeing with Congressman Ron Paul. I would hardly need one hand to count the number of times that I have actually disagreed with him on any issue of real substance. I am a great admirer and supporter of Congressman Paul, who is undoubtedly very supportive of the idea of state nullification, even if he has doubted its efficacy in the past. However, in spite of all this, I would like to make two observations.

First, nullification has, in fact, been somewhat successful in the past and more recently as well. Second, as President Obama loves to say, “Let me be clear”: “Official” nullification has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Before I explain why “official” nullification has already happened, let me briefly give some examples of what nullification is NOT.

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.

So just what IS “official” nullification you might be asking?

Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.

Nullification carries with it the force of state law. It cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the US Constitution. It cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order. It cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court. It is the people of a state asserting their constitutional rights by acting as a political society in their highest sovereign capacity. It is the moderate, middle way that wisely avoids harsh remedies like secession on the one hand and slavish, unlimited submission on the other. It is the constitutional remedy for unconstitutional federal laws.

With the exception of a Constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot oppose (except perhaps rhetorically), a state’s decision to nullify an unconstitutional federal law without resorting to extra-legal measures. But such measures would more than likely backfire, since most Americans still affirm that might does not make right.

There is no question as to whether or when “official” nullification will happen: It has ALREADY HAPPENED. In fact, not only has it happened recently, it has been a success! Perhaps this is why the federal government hopes you will never hear about it. According to the Tenth Amendment Center:

“25 states over the past 2 years have passed resolutions and binding laws denouncing and refusing to implement the Bush-era law [REAL ID Act]..While the law is still on the books in D.C., its implementation has been “delayed” numerous times in response to this massive state resistance, and in practice, is virtually null and void.”

But that’s not all; another example of “official” nullification has occurred in the form of an unlikely states’ rights ally: Medical marijuana.

There was a time when the federal government took the Constitution seriously enough that Congress did what is required in order to enact a nationwide ban on a substance. Even though the experiment would eventually be seen by most Americans as a mistake and a failure, the 18th Amendment was passed and the era known as “Prohibition” began. Four years later, it was repealed.

When it came to marijuana prohibition, however, the feds had another trick up their sleeve. All three branches of the federal government would agree on a very novel, liberal interpretation of the “commerce clause” which would allow them to regulate virtually any substance, including marijuana, even though there’s supposedly no “legal” commerce in the plant. Since that time, the federal government has managed to claim, with a straight face, as it were, that a plant grown in your back yard, never sold, and never leaving your property, is somehow able to be completely banned by the federal government under the interstate “commerce clause.” The only problem with their claim is that the states just aren’t buying it.

Fourteen states have actively refused to comply with federal laws on marijuana, and it looks as if six more are about to join the effort. In a recent blog post, Mark Kreslins observes:

“..medical marijuana now poses a real threat to the enforcement power of the Federal Government. With state after state defying Washington DC over this issue..Washington DC has a choice to make; enforce their laws based on a very liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause by sending thousands of DEA agents into all fifty states…or…look the other way. Thus far, they’ve chosen to look the other way for if they create the appearance of a Federal takeover of police powers in the States, they will fully expose their extra-constitutional behavior and provoke a direct confrontation with the States who will use the 10th Amendment (hopefully) to defend their prerogatives.”

Whatever your view may be regarding marijunana use, medical or otherwise, one thing is apparent: “Official” nullification has happened, and it works! Washington will have to get used to it.

What remains to be seen, however, is whether in addition to “officially” nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, state governments will be willing to use their power to “officially” interpose themselves between agents of the federal government and the people of their state. In the unlikely event that one or more branches of the federal government decides to take extra-legal measures to punish residents of a state for exercising their constitutional rights in defiance of unconstitutional federal laws, will that state’s government have the courage to hamper or even neutralize such extra-legal measures?

There are a whole host of peaceful actions that a state government can adopt if that day comes or appears to be just over the horizon. These measures range from county sheriffs requiring that federal agents receive written permission from the sheriff before acting in their county, to setting up a Federal Tax escrow account, which could potentially de-fund unconstitutional federal activities by requiring that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue.

Besides state interposition, the other thing Washington would have to consider, is whether enough of their agents would actually obey orders to punish people for exercising their constitutional rights. There is a significant chance that enough of them would either publicly or privately decide in advance to ignore such orders. As the probability of this increases, it becomes more likely that Washington will not risk overplaying its hand. The reality is that Washington just doesn’t have the manpower to enforce all their unconstitutional laws if enough states choose to defy them.

Of course, it all depends on the people of the several states: ordinary people like you and I. Although I’ve discovered that there are more elected representatives at the state level who are committed to acting in a courageous and principled manner than I ever dared hope, most of their peers lack such a brave commitment. Most of them will stick their head in the sand or sit on the fence until they determine which way the wind is blowing. And so it’s our opinion, not the opinion of the American people in aggregate, but our opinion as citizens of our respective states, that will influence the decision of our state representatives to either stand tall or to kneel down and knuckle under.

But do you even know the men and women who represent you? I’m not talking about those who represent you in Washington, but rather in Phoenix, Salem, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Denver, Austin, Oklahoma City, Tallahassee, Atlanta, Nashville, Richmond, Harrisburg, Indianapolis, Columbus and Springfield.

If you don’t know them, and you care about our republic, you should make it your highest priority to get to know them and establish rapport with them as soon as possible.

For any of you who really want to preserve our union, and at the same time retain your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, I can’t say it any better than 2008 presidential nominee of the Constitution Party, Chuck Baldwin:

“..it is absolutely obligatory that freedom-minded Americans refocus their attention to electing State legislators, governors, judges and sheriffs who will fearlessly defend their God-given liberties..as plainly and emphatically as I know how to say it, I am telling you: ONLY THE STATES CAN DEFEND OUR LIBERTY NOW! ..this reality means we will have to completely readjust our thinking and priorities.”

Derek Sheriff is an ex-Green Beret turned activist and the State Chapter Coordinator for the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/201 ... -official/

[Cedars of Overburden]

Well, here's my crackpot scheme mostly pasted in from another thread -- (thanks to Elfsmiles who reminded me that this thread exists)

Last fall, I read a story about one of Obama's drone strikes. Don't even remember where they hit, only that X number more civilians were blown up. Seconds thereafter, my boss walks into the office gushing with glee because a gay friend of hers was just appointed to be the assistant undersecretary of something or the other. I experienced a crystalline rage which at the time I managed to hide. She was going on and on -- "just imagine, Nell, a friend of OURS in the White House!"

As I choked down this crytalline rage, something hit me. A general strike probably IS just too hard for softies like us Americans, but what if all the enraged support staff to the liberal establishment went on strike? The secretaries and bookkeepers and etc etc to all the activist groups that stopped everything else and went out campaigning for Obama -- what if we went on strike? Think how very embarassing it would be for them. What if the cooks and maids and gardeners for all the limosine liberals joined in? Think how very embarassing it would be -- no one to cook poor Al Gore's sea bass!

The strike's goal would be to overturn the Democratic/liberal/grassroots activist self-congratulatory so&so "leadership" & to replace them with people who have half a freakin' clue.

I thought I'd pushed this idea down as still too impractical back at Christmas, but it's not leaving me alone. I think these groups have a lot more disgruntled workers than the leadership dreams, but I'm also doubtful that there are enough of us for it to come to much. But if it did, can you imagine the uproar and dismay?

Back to figuring out how to further minimize my puny tax contribution to the war machine. ... but tax planning isn't nearly as satisfying as a lovely little walk out.... and I can't minimize the Social Security cut that the war machine steals.

[Simulist]

What you're saying makes a hell of a lot of sense to me, Yarnell.

[beeline]

.

Good idea Yarnell, IF you could get them to strike. The problem is, most of those people you describe live paycheck to paycheck or less, and most are not union-represented, and therefore don't have access to a strike fund. So a long-term strike would be difficult to organize.

A one-day strike, however....

[Hammer of Los]

Great thread, very interesting responses, love you all.

The ever illuminating and utterly marvelous smiths connects Arnold Toynbee, via Energybulletin, via http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/

I've been checking out the archdruid, he offers a very interesting analysis. I love the new age man. I long ago saw industrial society as presently constituted carried costs that would not be borne forever. But the politicians et al just love to talk about their "progress" don't they. One man's progress is another man's regress I say. And words mean just what I say they mean. I became a kind of techno luddite twenty years ago. It's taken a long time for folk to catch up. I like to live small. Leave no trace, like a man of tao. It's not possible though is it, so I tread gently and quietly. Well, not that quietly, I do write and publish globally right here. I even have the pleasure of not paying taxes. Actually I like to avoid money where possible. And possessions. I've been anti materialist on philosophical, intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual grounds for all my life, intuitively. I like to be left alone to think and read and write. I've never owned a car. I offer my labour to others to use as they see fit for the most part. There is a saint who looks after me. I would have likely been a bum for the most part, otherwise. Actually, I am little more than a bum, as you americans say. If I wasn't a bum, I would perhaps join a monastery.

The Esalen institute did this to me. I blame http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritjof_Capra and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts. So, thanks guys. I needed that revolution of consciousness, I think we all do.

From the The Grand Archdruid, this is insightful;

A world that has nearly seven billion people on it and a rapidly dwindling supply of fossil fuels, after all, has better ways to manage its affairs than those based on the assumption that putting people out of work and replacing them with fossil fuels is the way to prosperity.

Back to Toynbee, I remember reading "The Toynbee Convector," I have read just about everything Bradbury ever wrote. Fascinating stuff. Paging John Titor? Damn synchs. Artificial intelligence? The internet? VALIS? It all connects though, enough to make my head spin often. I sometimes wonder if this is what it feels like to experience an acceleration in the evolution of consciousness.

First, seek to do none harm. That is the only tenet of my Universalist Unitarian Church.

[chump]

Mothers should go on strike, but my mother wanted me to join the military - during the Viet Nam War!

[elfismiles]

BUMPITY

Maybe folks will get inspired by Wisconsin and take the tactic to the next level against international empire.

[23]

Of the people listed, truckers would have the most economic impact. But I haven't met too many anti-war truckers.

Strikes must have a significant economic impact to be successful (thanks for reminding us of that, Egypt). Otherwise, it's just blowing smoke.

The pump of striking must also be primed by returning to military conscription. The military isn't likely to strike, but a conscripted one is less likely to brutalize strikers (thanks again, Egypt). Not to mention that we would probably be less involved in foreign wars.

[Nordic]

Dockworkers could have a huge affect, if they so desired.

Which is why they're trying to build that big one in Mexico now, so they can bypass the American ones.

[8bitagent]

I probably couldnt get more than a small handful of activists to protest the CIA drone attacks that murder hundreds of Pakistani civilians every year, let alone a ton of people.
When so many liberals support these Obama era conflicts, it feels futile. Heck the Tea Party retards seem to hate the government for the WRONG reason.

Shoot, Im sure if we were even successful there would just be a convenient "Yemeni al Qaeda linked homegrown terror attack" to shock the public back to a war mindset.

Hell, I bet they have Anwar al-Awlaki already to claim credit for some hideous attack the powers that be have planned. The destabilization in Yemen is the perfect opportunity for
a massive terror attack that forces the US to invade.

[Nordic]

Heck the Tea Party retards seem to hate the government for the WRONG reason.

That's not an accident.