NEWS: Who is behind the antiwar rallies?

Useful Idiots

Not that the vast majority of extreme liberals are bad people; but most have been completely brainwashed and have lost the faculty of logical reasoning.

This serious condition leads to mindless chanting of stupid slogans and chants at public rallies. Ever try facts on a liberal? Good luck! They actually believe what they verbally vomit.

Originally posted by Q
Too many liberals do not realize they're being made tools by forces far more insidious than those they think they're railing against.

Too many conservatives have no clue who's behind the rallies... and too many folks think WND is a real news source.

It's about as reliable as the National Enquirer.

I've been to a couple of peace rallies, and I know some of the organizers. The charges WND offers are ludicrous.

Are you sure Byrd? Lets see...


"The Antiwar Movement:
A Great Beginning
International Socialist Review
November-December 2002

The October 26 protests in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. against war with Iraq, called by International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), marked a major step forward for the antiwar movement. One hundred fifty thousand people turned out in Washington, and half as many in San Francisco�with tens of thousands more joining demonstrations in cities across the U.S. These protests came on the heels of the October 6 day of action called by Not in Our Name (NION), that drew out tens of thousands across the country, including 25,000 in New York�s Central Park. These numbers prove that a growing minority of people in the U.S. not only object to Bush�s war on Iraq, but are ready to do something about it. The size and breadth of the emerging antiwar movement reflect the widespread unease about Bush�s war plans across broad sectors of the population. The demonstrations have involved people from all walks of society�including students who have already begun organizing on the campuses, but also trade unionists, church members, veterans of the Vietnam antiwar movement, and many others who have never before attended a demonstration."

Excerpt taken from.
www.globalpolicy.org...

"Greens and Socialists Unite to Oppose War
By Alan Caruba
CNSNews.com Commentary from the National Anxiety Center
April 01, 2003

Largely unreported in the mainstream press of America is the unified opposition to the war for regime change in Iraq from both the Greens and worldwide Socialists. The same person could have written their public statements for the way they mirror one another. This only serves to underscore what observers of these political groups have long known; the Greens are merely another element of Socialist opposition to Capitalism."

Excerpt taken from.
www.cnsnews.com...\Commentary\archive\200304\COM20030401c.html


Socialists/communists are using every way they can think of to bash the U.S government and try to make the changes that would benefit their own agendas. To them it doesn't matter what the protests and rallies are for. Who do you think would be left in charge "if" their ideas are taken into action if not socialist/communist parties?

This is one reason i started avoiding mass demonstrations. After WTO, I began to look at who all was involved in the protests. There were good groups, like environmentalists, local labor unions, ect, but you had alot of creepy people there, like cimmies. Seattle is full of communists, if this city swings any firther left, it will fall off the spectrum, i swear.

Anyway, I do think its important who is behind such rallies. Im not gonna help someone promote thier own hidden agenda, I have my own agenda i wasnt to get across.

Thus, I started taking part in smaller scale localized mini demonstrations without alot of publicity. people amore and more are leaning towards those things.

Lets go back to the Frankfurt School (kicked out of Germany in 1936 for their communist agenda) and proceeded to set up shop at Colunbia University. The whole point of this group was to analyze where Marx went wrong and correct it. They discovered in WWI that the "workers of the world" were very nationalist.

Their solution was to set about ways to change a culture. The fruits of their labor can be seen in many aspects of American "culture."

As for WND, I'm a researcher by training; source reference material is critical. I don't take any story on face value without cross referrencing it. WND does a more credible job than the New York Times.

An assertion must be backed up with facts; otherwise its nothing more than an opinion - and we all know the old expression regarding opinions.

ANSWER was funded by the Tides Foundation (Teressa Heinz Kerry) until Sen. Kerry began running for President, then official ties were severed with this group.

Look at the groups who have their origins in the early part of the 20th Century and where their founders came from - AND the political orientation of those early groups.

One example is the NAACP founded in 1909 by seven caucasian lawyers with family roots in Eastern Europe. There wasn't an American of African heritage in the leadership ranks for the first 15 years of operations.

Dig into the early history of the ACLU if you want some interesting reading.

That list most folks love to ridiclue? "The 45 Goals of the Communist Party" was entered into the Congressional Record in the mid-1960's. I asked my Congressman to have staff check the story out - its valid. It first surfaced in the 1930's then gained national attention in the 1950's.

In the Morris Kominsky collection of the World Socialists library (a private institution in Los Angeles) there are many references to this material.

To find some of the groups on the "recommend" list send your browser here:

www.cpusa.org...

Every time there's a major anti-US demonstration, or anti-WTO event you can find it featured on the cpusa website - along with assistance in attending.

the anti war demonstrations i witnessed in london bought out many disparate groups ,as one would expect.
alot of muslim groups , peacenicks and the usual trotskyite /communist fringe .
[what happens when you put two trotskyites in a room ?
they form three factions .]
personally i consider my politics to be anarchist but have no problem in supporting the war ,that an oppressed people whose dissidents have been exterminated should overthrow thier own dictator seems a pedantic point .
interestingly enough most [ but not all ] of the American politicans i admire are republicans and i don't see that as incompatable with my politic.
less government ?now where have i heard that before

I've heard of that before []

The political spectrum as I can best describe it is circular.

We begin at a point of total government on the arc; then as you move either to the left or right the role of government shrinks until you have radical anarchists on one side and absolute constitutionalist libertarians on the other and they meet in somewhat of an agreement.

In reviewing the Zapatista movement in southern Mexico, although they have Marxist leanings; their core issues sound an awfully lot like those of the Founding Fathers of the United States -

The question seems to be: a Borg-like collective under a centralized government with absolute control; or an independent minded people who take responsibility for their condition.

The matter is synthizing in the US right now. On one hand are those who view the government as the ultimate responsibility. These groups adore the United Nations (a group of elites of whom are not accountable to the people they represent, nor are they elected by the people they represent).

On the other hand are those advocates of individual responsibility and a limited role of government - no big brother. Ever notice how both the folks on the "right" agree with the folks on the "far-left" regarding a New World Order?

Seems only the annointed elite are in favor of centralized government - and the Soviet Union proved how efficient that system of governance was.

To be ligitimate and lawful, a government must have the free consent of the governed.

Isn't this what we're looking for in Iraq?