Strike! The Plot Against Civilization pp. 268-272

 

The working people of the world are vastly outclassed in conflicts by the powers that be. In US history we can look at the Coal Wars, when the US military was used to protect the interests of coal companies by literally bombing the striking miners with planes. The US diverted military resources fighting World War I to attack its own citizens. Open conflict is inadvisable in these cases. The solution to fighting for the rights of the common person is the general strike. As Webster describes it, this is a tool of the anarchist—well, one of the tools.

She claims that Mermeix defines three types of general strike: “1) the corporative general strike of the workers, 2) the Parliamentary general strike of the Socialists, and 3) the Revolutionary General strike of the Syndicalist leaders.”

She’s going to define each of them and I assume why they are all the tool of the Illuminati/Jews. For the corporative strike, she seems to be in support, writing that it was the only method that the workers had and was a non-violent solution, “and no one but a Robspierre or a Lenin would deny the workers’ right to lay down his tools if the conditions of his labour appear to him unjust.”

I’m curious about her comment about Robspierre or Lenin; I have no idea why she is claiming that the two men would oppose the right to strike. They might oppose a strike that interfered with their plans, but the general concept? I have limited knowledge of their ideals, but this doesn’t seem right to me.

So Mermeix, real name Gabriel Terrail, we’ve discussed in previous posts but I can’t remember which ones so I’ll just recap—was a journalist who blackmailed people and was tied to the police as an informant. We get a very substantial block quote from him where he describes how a person strikes. This is unnecessary padding. Everyone knows what a strike is and how it is supposed to work. The workers support each other and cease production. When the production dries up the owner will have to capitulate because they lose money. To have Webster pretend that we needed a length citation is insulting.

“That in reality the worker would grow pale, yellow would in fact be dead before the employer reached the ends of his resources, did not enter into the reckonings of the ‘brave proletarians,’ nor does it still today when the plan of the general strike is placed before them.”

This is the most basic understanding of economics in which our conspiracy theorist reveals one of two things: either she doesn’t understand how business works, or she knows that her readers do not understand how business works. The strike isn’t effective because it forces the owner to starve. The strike is effective because the business has promises to uphold that it will not be able to.

Let’s take a garment workers strike in Indonesia. The oppressed and exploited garment workers decide that they aren’t going to work until they get bathroom breaks whenever they want them. The owner of the company doesn’t suffer because the workers don’t show up on Tuesday. He suffers because the contract he signed with Walmart is contingent on getting 1000 shirts on a ship by Friday. The Coal company doesn’t suffer because of the miners’ strike; they suffer because they have a contract to deliver 100 tons of coal to the railroad company or the contract is voided. If Webster were correct, there would be no need for these companies to hire scabs.

We move on to number 2—the Parliamentary General Strike. This is a strike that we are seeing more of today. An attempt to grind the economic activity of a state to a halt in order to effect a political change. Webster, quoting a Ramsay Macdonald, observes that such a strike affects the poor people the most while the rich the least. A true observation which would be more poignant if this wasn’t the case for everything.

Number 3—the Revolutionary General Strike which she claims that is the form of strike favored by the Syndicalists and extremist trade union leaders (which is the same thing according to her) aims “neither at a reorganization of industry nor at a charnge of government in the political sense, but at, the complete destruction of constitutional government by violence of the most frightful kind.”

But, how? With 1 and 2 we understand that the workers are just going to stop working and in 2 the strikers are not limited to a specific industry. 3 she claims involves violence, but she doesn’t say how or against whom.

This is supposed to be a conspiracy book and Webster suddenly remembers, “Now it will be remembered that the idea of “useful larceny” had first been suggested by Weishaupt…”

When an author says “it will be remembered” they mean from her own book. As far as my notes are concerned she’s not said this. I will admit that my notes could have missed it, but she should be doing the reminding with one of those footnotes she likes to occasionally grace us with.

“From Babeuf onwards the scheme had been logically abandoned by Communists – since Communism aims not at mob rule but at bureaucracy – but continued along the line of anarchy.”

If you are wondering what scheme she is talking about, me too.

In “A Letter from a Birmingham Prison” Martin Luther King writes that the biggest obstacle to equality is not the Ku Klux Klan or the racist sheriff in Birmingham; it’s the people who prefer order to change. The white people that don’t want change because there is going to be a rough period where things are difficult. They agree, in principle, with him but it’s just that the game is on Sunday and it’s really busy at work…so can we wait?

What Webster is doing right now is trying to fan that sentiment. She wants her reader to understand that the strike is going to make things difficult for a bit so they shouldn’t support whatever change is happening.

You might disagree with me (and there’s a very underused comment section for that disagreement); but I honestly cannot figure out what she’s driving at. She’s attacking the general strike as a concept but I do not know why. The strike is a tool so she should be focusing on the motives behind the strikes, which she isn’t actually doing. I’m getting lost, not because she’s confusing but because she’s typing a lot of words but not saying anything.