50-60,000 People Demonstrate In Manchester, UK

Monday October the 9th at 1pm gather outside Parliament on their first day back from the summer reccess to tell them "NO MORE WAR!" See the website link below for more details. Lets make this government listen to us!
 http://www.sackparliament.org.uk

Where did that figure come from?

How long did the die-in last for?

"Labour MP Michael Meacher took to the stage where he told how the British Government is fuelling the war in Iraq rather than trying to stop it"
Why is he supporting the pro-war party then?


"there is absolutely NO public support for a military attack on Iran"
Why is he supporting the pro-war party then?


"George Galloway in usual fashion, stated how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are “two cheeks of the same arsehole”, he also compared Blair’s relationship to Bush as that of Monica Lewinsky’s to Bill Clinton."
All very funny for those with several brain cells.. however the Stop the War placard merely say "GO" in large letters and did not mention Blair or Iraq or the 100,000+ innocent bodies. This shows that they did not bring Baghdad to the streets of Manchester.


"The Stop the war movement should be incredibly proud of itself"
Sorry but it has not stopped the war. Where did the false optimism come from.

They claimed in one of their e-mail that "There is now serious talk of Labour MPs forcing Tony Blair out of office at the conference" but provided no evidence. It is actually looking more like Blair will leave at a time of his own choosing. Blair has said that he doesn't want conference talk over who will succeed him and wants to discuss HIS policy instead.

They did however say this:
"The Labour Party may be about to ditch Blair as its leader to save its own skin but none of his potential replacements, least of all Gordon Brown, has given any indication that, once in power, they plan to end the Blair wars."
..which apart from the fact that Blair will be leaving when he wants to, says it all really.


When Blair leaves at the time of his own choosing it will show the failure of the Stop the War movement.

weeks ago, people were told that "time to go" was chosen because the demo of the 23rd Sep was about demanding the removal of Blair. The officials from the stop-the-war movement informed the mass media to report that the slogan "time to go" referred to removing 'our boys' from Afghanistan and Iraq.

WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MANIPULATION?

The whole "time to go" operation has turned out to be about buying Blair more time. MORE TIME FOR HIM TO LAUNCH HIS WAR AGAINST IRAN.

"I don't approve of Fred and Rose West, but never turn down an invitation to share time with them in their cellar". Who said that? Tony Benn? George Galloway? Michael Meacher? Time to wake up, people.

Did you know that Noam Chomsky is busy doing his best to re-assure people that Bush/Blair would never attack Iran. Time to wake up people.

As we see the end of the last phase before World War 3 begins with Blair's genocide of Iran, Blair's agents become ever more transparent in their actions. They have but one final duty. To buy a little more time for their master.

During Saturday, the BBC was able to proudly report on a demo that WAS NOT about the removal of Blair, but just another anti-war protest. The consequence? The total effect of the demo on the political temperature of the nation was reduced to zero.

Why do you think Galloway said- in meaning- WHY BOTHER REMOVING BLAIR, BROWN WILL BE JUST AS BAD. Who is helped by this message? ANSWER- BLAIR.

Imagine someone saying "why bother removing Thatcher, X will be just as bad". You would understand in a second that this person was an agent of Thatcher using psychology to help the cow stay in power". Why is it so f**king difficult to understand the true purpose of Galloway's words.

Now lets consider the New Reich article to which I am responding.

QUOTE
Police presence was strong but it was clear many police officers were in support of the demonstration, making a refreshing change.
UNQUOTE

jesus christ, could the agent make its nature any more apparent. Yes, of course, Blair's uniformed thugs are really our friends.

QUOTE
Interestingly Meacher did not shy away from describing the Neo-con agenda
UNQUOTE

Yes of course, it's all the fault of johnny foreigner. Blair, who's he?

QUOTE
Also on stage, Tony Benn gave a passionate speech about the false war on Terror and how fear is used to manipulate / condition public opinion.
UNQUOTE

Oh yes, the monster that gave the racist state of Israel the nuclear tech required to build hydrogen bombs, always good to hear from him.

QUOTE
Ben noted “this is the first generation in history that could destroy the human race but also the first generation able to solve its problems”. Inspiring to say the least.
UNQUOTE

How to flatter idiots. Psy-ops 101.

QUOTE
George Galloway in usual fashion, stated how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are “two cheeks of the same arsehole”, he also compared Blair’s relationship to Bush as that of Monica Lewinsky’s to Bill Clinton.
UNQUOTE

Galloway is a VERY important agent of Blair's. Here, Galloway protects Blair by the old 'better the devil you know' trick, and then diffuses the seriousness of Blair's crimes against humanity, and attacks Clinton (important this, since Blair works hand in glove with the republicans) in the same breath. While you are laughing at the surface 'sugar', Blair's medicine has once again nicely slipped down your throat. No-one does it better than Galloway.

QUOTE
For such a sensitive and emotional subject, the day was thoroughly positive and even humorous in parts.
UNQUOTE

It is essential for Blair's agents to ensure that people do NOT take their concerns seriously. Activists MUST be trained to see their actions as a hobby, and 'fun'. This way, the act of 'activism' is fullfilling in and of itself, and no positive results from the activism are required for the participants to feel satisfied. This is the 'morphine' method.

QUOTE
Stop the war movement should be incredibly proud of itself and all those who attended, it has set an example of how to organise a peaceful and positive movement which is sending a strong message and is creating real change. The movement seems very clear and focused, knows what it wants to achieve and understand how to get it.
UNQUOTE

THE ONLY THING THAT THIS ORGANISATION WISHES TO ACIEVE IS THE ASSOCIATION THAT ANTI-WAR = MUSLIM EXTREMIST, AND THAT NO ANTI-WAR PARTY MAY STAND IN SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF SEATS DURING ANY NATION-WIDE ELECTION. In both these aims, the party of Galloway has been 100% successful.

QUOTE
I came away feeling empowered, yet knowing I can do more, and inspired to become more active.
UNQUOTE

A standard piece of psychological manipulation, where the 'first person' reference is actually trying to 'imprint' on you. Reading this, and one could be reading the writings from any of the more advanced 'cults' well advanced in mind-control techniques.

NOW BLAIR HAS THIS OVER, HE CAN GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF BRINGING WORLD WAR ONCE AGAIN TO PLANET EARTH. There is nothing and no-one left with any possibility of stopping him. Blair's proxy war machine has been activated, and preparations are being made even as you read this to destroy Iran.

I want you to do something. I want you to imagine waking up tomorrow to discover that Blair's attack against Iran has begun (in reality, tomorrow is none to likely,but forget that for the purposes of this mind experiment). Who is now in trouble? Blair, or us. Has Blair any problem in dealing with our unhappiness? Do we have even the slightest means to challenge him? Do you think that the West (recently proud to protect the racist state of Israel from challenge over its weapons of genocide) will fail to rally to Blair's side? Do you think that Blair's press will serve YOUR purpose?

You KNOW that day by day, Blair builds an increasing demonisation of muslims. You know that day by day, Blair builds an increasing demonisation of Iran. HIS MOMENTUM BUILDS AND BUILDS AND BUILDS AND BUILDS. Those forces that oppose Blair, to the contrary, get weaker and weaker and weaker. Many of these forces are, in reality, directed by Blair's agents, so that their weakening is trivial for him to achieve.

THE PEOPLE OF NAZI GERMANY WERE AGAINST THE INVASION OF POLAND. The people weren't fools, they never are in the sense of understanding those things that will be horrible for them. They are fools in the sense of not understanding that you can't just identify the bad things in life, but MUST work actively to stop them. Blair has promised to step down ONLY to calm the nerves of a population that instinctively understands that Blair is bringing a World destroying war. The leaders of sheep will ALWAYS tell the sheep whatever lies get them to behave as required.

BLAIR HAS NO REAL OPPONENTS. Hitler had no real opponents, which meant he too had to pretend on occasions that his loyal ministers might be prepared to replace him. Such ideas are frequently used in history to placate the sheep.

With no real opponents, you can now understand why "time to go" was NEVER going to be allowed to represent the removal of Blair. You were fooled into thinking otherwise.

I think the comment above about new reich article could be a bit unfair. I believe that many (if not all) of the Stop the War campaigners have the right intentions and actually want to stop the war. In many cases (probably as with other campaigns) those people have spent many hours of their spare time protesting, attending meetings, organising street stalls etc. I attended meetings of my local Stop the War group for three years so I know (until end last year). Other groups must be the same. If the situation is the same for other groups it is also the case that these groups can be TINY in relation to the rest of the population of the towns they operate in. I think they deserve more support than they are getting.

Of course it is possible that the Stop the War movement is being manipulated - even from within. However that is not proven. That doesn't take away from the fact that I think it could be more effective and have a more realistic outlook. It really is painful to see the mainstream news reports getting away with saying this demonstration was not anti-Blair - whether that was true or not. How can the Stop the War movement have been so ambiguous with their 'time to go' slogan? If even I as a supporter of it cannot tell, if none of the e-mails or the website actually stated that this demonstration was anti-Blair. Those e-mails and website are of course full of references critical of Blair. They can therefore use the defence that their organisation is anti-Blair or many of their supporters are anti-Blair. But couldn't that be a deliberate manipulation as twilight suggests? It would be very possibly part of a plan - feed the most peaceful people in the country, who would otherwise join something more effective, with the messages they want to hear. Imagine the bees in nature, who are attracted by the beautiful flowers (the peaceful messages) and the ever so intoxicating nectar they represent. Then imagine those who hate bees and the flowers. YOU may like the beautiful bees but those in power may not and will form a virtual wall around them - the mainstream media deliberately not reporting on their activities. Does the BBC show the sculpted figure of Brian Haw at a time like this? Does ITV show Barbara Tucker with her beautiful signs? Does Channel 4 show the resilient Steve Jago and his protests? Does SKY News allow the real anti-war viewpoints to be presented? Of course a manipulated (if it is) anti-war movement will say in meetings full of those who are already anti-war that the protest is anti-Blair, otherwise they would not go - the beautiful flowers are needed, remember the bees. It will have no effect due to the virtual wall. Maybe a small number of people near to the demonstration but not on it, may by some unfortunate probability see some of the anti-Blair signs. Those who are nowhere near it will massively outnumber those people. The propaganda of the mainstream media will deal with those people effectively. The Government controls the frequencies used by those broadcast channels. Have any of you anti-war activists wondered why it it is so hard to campaign to some people in your towns, even those people you think should be anti-war but are not. You only have to watch a BBC News report to understand why this is occurring. I have experienced that difficulty - it is like trying to talk to people from a different planet, a place or alternative reality where the crimes of the slaughter in Iraq do not exist, and there is probably no easy answer on how to get around this.

50-60,000 people attended the "anti-war" demo and achieved what? Fuck all. That's about the sum of it. Another wasted day, war happily reigns.

If it was you and your own being bombed, raped and tortured, living in constant fear, you may be willing to do a little more than slowly marching round city streets in accord with the tune your oppressors (and warmonger leaders) are whistling.

Stay in line and everything (war) will be just fine.

i went, was glad to see so many there, the diversity of groups and people, nostalgic to hear 'Tony Tony Tony, Out Out Out!". however, the circular route, the lack of direct action of any kind beyond the sanctioned and symbolic, all seemed to be confirmed by the scant coverage (one photo and no text in the 'Independent') as the indicators of an embedded and totally unhcallenging protest. this is how the state would like us to do it, and it's totally uneffetcive, if subjectively empowering. Tony Benn referred to the victories of peole power in the past, but they did more than obey the sanctions of a police state.

the crowning absurdity however was the STW lackey walking through the march openly asking for contributions to his bucket "to fund the policing for the protest". i had a discussion with him, where he argued that they HAD to pay the police, otherwise "they wouldn't let us protest, like in London when we got surrounded". JESUS! he argued that if they hadn't paid the police "they wouldn't have shut deansgate down for us". i pointed out that 50,000 people might have done that effectively. anyway, it betrayed the true nature of such event, as controlled and stage-managed 'spectacles' safely co-opted by the Spectacle.