Posted on 12/12/2005 1:56:22 PM PST by pcottraux
A Hard Look at the Anti-War Movement (Pardon My Long, Boring Vanity)
Where did these goobers come from? I’ve asked myself this question over and over again. How did it get to this? It’s not just about dissent or protesting what you think is wrong anymore. The anti-war movement and protests encompass many issues, but all you ever see is this: Bush is evil. He is Hitler, he is a right-wing fascist, a religious fanatic, you name it. I wonder if there’s been a time since the Civil War when political discourse was so ugly.
So let’s take a hard look at the anti-war movement, and try to see it for what it is. What I’m trying to do is theorize why the anti-war movement is the way it is today, and who they are, and why they’re doing what they’re doing.
I was not alive during the Vietnam thing, but let me try and get into post-Vietnam. Regardless of how much they disliked war, I think that the majority of the anti-war protesters loved what they were doing. Protesting, getting together, marching, holding peace signs…you can’t tell me that they didn’t love it. So when the war ended, the lefties were faced with a crisis: there was nothing left to protest. Nada. Zip.
So the libs went their separate ways. Some went into Hollywood. Some went into politics (unfortunately). Some decided to become college professors. Some decided to find other issues to be angry about (the environment, animal rights, etc.). But all of them had one hope remaining deep inside them: that one day, they would be able to return in full force to protest a war (protesting is essential to the fanatical left-wing mindset: it makes one feel like a righteous martyr underdog).
They really didn’t have a chance for an anti-war comeback for a long time. The first Persian Gulf was so successful, and so quick, it made Americans feel good, and proud of their military once again (recovering from the drudgery and shame of Vietnam). The public already felt good and optimistic after the wonderful Reagan years. Ouch. Can’t start an anti-war movement under those conditions.
Really, the same thing happened with Afghanistan. September 11, 2001: America is attacked! The resolve and strength of Americans seemed unshakable. We all knew the war was the right thing to do…we wanted to fight, defeat the terrorists, and get bin Laden. Oh, how the times have changed! But even still, after Afghanistan turned out to be one of the most successful military operations in history, the anti-war guys definitely knew they couldn’t go there.
Now, with the smashing success of Afghanistan’s de-Taliban-ization, I well remember the question of going into Iraq becoming a hot topic. Will we go after Saddam? No matter what the left says today, it didn’t seem like a radical idea at the time. We had been attacked. We were fighting a new kind of war. Taking care of Saddam seemed like a natural “next step.” We had been to war with him before, anyway. Why not finish the job, now that we’re fighting the WOT? But…
This is where the problem began. Slow buildup. Man, it’s like, we never learn these lessons in history. So, while we were endlessly debating this issue instead of taking action, Iraq had plenty of time to prepare itself for the impending invasion (although Saddam seemed pretty sure the Americans were bluffing). But he wasn’t the only one…
And so the anti-war movement was reborn. While we were busy talking and not doing, the anti-war guys saw their opportunity and seized on it. It was probably pretty easy for them to recruit zillions of easily duped college students nationwide—being young liberals, they probably have those feelings of angst and desire to rebel against a cruel, heartless system, so what a perfect match!
So now, finally, I get to today’s anti-war movement itself. It’s not a pretty thing. It’s really, REALLY ugly. They’re saying some radical things. They’re acting crazy, desperate, immature…although no matter what they do, they aren’t a fraction in size and influence as the anti-warsies of the ‘60s. Like Michael Jackson, the aging hippies from back then are desperately trying to capture the magic and thrill of protesting Vietnam, but the magic is gone.
Part of it is that even though they claim otherwise, they don’t represent mainstream America. Oh sure, they site polls wherein the majority of Americans think the war was a mistake, is being mishandled…etc. But Americans are turned off by the anti-capitalism, Bush is Hitler, no blood for oil garbage that the protesters are spewing. And while patience is eroding fast, Americans also understand the importance of winning in Iraq and fighting terrorism in general.
So finally, I’m back to my original question. Why is it the way it is? Why the zero condemnation of terrorism, and the absolute condemnation of Bush? I am going to theorize that it involves more than just an intense dislike of all things war related, and in actuality involves the far-left mindset in its entirety.
First of all, the anti-war movement is, at its heart, pure socialism. That’s not to say that people who are protesting or are against the war are automatically socialists (though many are). However, I believe that the sinister leaders of the anti-war movement are mostly the aging hippies who became professors, Hollywood actors, and politicians, and they ARE socialists.
So let’s get into the socialist mind-set, then apply it to the anti-war movement. I did that, and guess what? It was a chillingly perfect match.
At the heart of socialism is Karl Marx’s teaching that one day the proletariat would arise to overthrow the oppressive bourgeoisie. The proletariat were the poor, helpless underclass who suffered greatly and were used and exploited by the brutal capitalist system. The bourgeoisie were the rich oppressive capitalists. One day, the proletariat would finally rise up to destroy the evil rich people, ushering in a fair classless utopian society.
This way of thinking is the core of socialism, and it is also the core of today’s anti-war-ism. That, my friends, is why ultimately many anti-war people (not all) support the terrorists and not America.
Anyone remember Ward Churchill? He was the radical professor in Colorado who notoriously said that those who died on 9/11 were “little Nazis” and got what they deserved. As horrendous as that is, it explains a lot about who the anti-war movement is. As a socialist, Churchill sees the terrorists…bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, etc…as the HEROES. Why? Because they are the PROLETARIAT! When we look at the images of terrorists on TV, we mostly see skinny, underfed people, unkempt, wearing dirty, torn clothes. We see them shouting “Death to America!” and dancing in the streets, waving RPGs and AK-47s. They’re poor people in a poor land.
So, in the socialist mindset, the terrorists are not Islamic extremists, but are in fact THE PROLETARIAT FINALLY UPRISING! Remember that Ward Churchill also said that 9/11 was a result of years of oppression by America on the impoverished people of the Middle East. The terrorists, after all, attacked the World Trade Center, a symbol of capitalism and economic prosperity. Wouldn’t Karl Marx have been proud of 9/11?
And that is ultimately the heart of the anti-war movement, and why there is such sympathy for the terrorists (remember Code Pink-o donated money for “the other side” in Iraq?). To them, the terrorists are the fulfillment of what Marx predicted: the poor oppressed proletariat rising up to overthrow the evil capitalists.
And that’s why Michael Moore once called the Iraqi insurgents “freedom fighters.” The presence of America’s oil companies and military in the Middle East, to the American socialists, is the culmination of the bourgeoisie’s evil, and the final straw, marking the beginning of Marx’s heroic revolution…the uprising of the impoverished people in the Middle East, which to them, may spark a global uprising the world over! And then the classless utopia Marx dreamed of will finally be here! That’s why they MUST oppose the war against terror, and MUST ultimately support the terrorists.
That’s also why, when the recent “Christian Peacekeepers” were taken hostage, their organization blamed not the terrorists who took them hostage, but AMERICA! Because America represents the evil, capitalist bourgeoisie! They could NEVER bring themselves to blame who they feel are the heroic poor underdogs. They can’t face the facts that these people are terrorists, and not uprising poverty.
Now, digressing from that, let’s get to some truth to clarify things. The terrorists are NOT poor men uprising. They are not impoverished proletariat rising against the capitalists. In fact, this may be one argument that could tear down a radical liberal’s beliefs: many of the terrorists are RICH themselves! There’s tons of dirty, corrupt blood money behind them. They forget that Osama bin Laden is a member of one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest families. He lived in a MANSION in Afghanistan, before he escaped.
A chilling but inescapable fact—this is ultimately a religious war. An extremist sect of a religion (Islam) has declared war against us. We HAVE to face them, or they will destroy us. Fanatical Islam and Jihad are not caused by America, as the anti-war activists would have us think: in fact, it predates the United States. Going back to the seventh century, Jihadists have been slaughtering and massacring Christians in the name of Allah for years.
But you never see or hear anti-war activists addressing this issue. Know why? I’ll give you a hint: it’s another thing that fits in perfectly with Marxism. Another one of Marx’s sacred teachings: RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES! Therefore, this is NOT a religious war to them. Their “heroic freedom fighters” could NOT be religious extremists, because they are the proletariat rising against the bourgeoisie. When far-left politically correct liberals look at ANY issue, the ONLY thing they see is…CLASS! Rich versus poor.
And so, in conclusion, I come back to my original paragraph. Why is the anti-war movement acting the way it is? If you go to any good-sized anti-war rally, behind the fog of “Bush is Hitler,” “Bush is a Racist,” “America is Terrorist” signs, you will find more sinister signs. I’ve seen them in pictures. They say things like “Liberation through Marxist Revolution” and “From Baghdad to New Orleans, Capitalism=Mass Murder.” Those have to be from the minds of the old anti-war protesters from the sixties…and it shows what their TRUE agenda is. Look there, and maybe, just maybe, you’ll find the answer.
"Let me begin by making an observation that is simply laughable when you think about it. Look at the anti-war protesters in America today. Almost all of them are well-fed. Most of them seem to be in perfectly clean health. Some of them are even obese (look at Michael Moore). Yet what is the nature of their protesting? Capitalism is a terrible mass-murdering tool, ripping the poor and impoverished of all they own. They are protesting the very system which they don’t seem to realize has spoiled them. I look at the protesters, and none of them seem to have tasted desperation. Some of them are even in Ivy-League Schools! Where is the impoverished lower-class they claim to be representing?"
"Of course, they could have done some anti-war protesting during the Clinton years, but….what am I saying? No, they couldn’t have."
"After the smoke had mostly cleared in Afghanistan (yes, I know even today it’s not completely clear) we started threatening Iraq, but we ran into problems. We were threatening, but the UN was blocking. The French, in order to protect their crummy oil deals with Saddam, starting blocking us. With the attempts at passing new resolutions, the whole buildup to war lost steam, and we got bogged down in the paperwork and red tape. It’s a shame that the UN didn’t want to enforce any of its own dozen or so resolutions against Iraq…but I’m getting off-topic again."
"I recently saw an interview with a former terrorist (he was even tied to bin Laden) who shattered liberal myths about terrorism: he said while the Islamic extremists use America’s oil companies and military presence as an excuse, the REAL reason they have declared war on us is because of our high Christian population, which they view as a threat that must be destroyed (we are infidels to them)."
"Therefore, I must warn you; don’t believe the anti-war activists when they say they “support the troops but not the mission.” Or when they say they “want to raise benefits for the troops, and that’s REAL support.” It’s a bold-faced lie! They’re real ultimate anti-war goal is to get rid of the military completely! Another one of Marx’s teachings…there should be no military, because the military is an instrument used by the capitalists to keep the poor from revolting. Only a Red Army; an army of the people. Why do you think they are campaigning against military recruitment in schools? They want NO military in their egalitarian utopia!"
I promised to ping both of you.
To any of my FRiends who might be interested...this ping's for you.
CRAP!!!! Yanked again!!!
I am here
Since you ping some people for the Walter Reed counter protests, I thought some of them might be interested in this.
Yeah, I wasn't expecting them to yank it to bloggers...at least not that fast.
I have seen those sinister signs first hand. Signs like "New York is better without the twin towers" and "down with Capitalism" and many similar things to what you described.
Socialism as you pointed out is a dangerous ideal.
I got your vanity by the way. I haven't looked at it in great deal yet, but I'm going to and reply as soon as I can.
Okay cool
Hey, it's the least I owe you for your help with this one.
Thanks :)
Islamic terrorists MUST be fought indeed. We are faced with our very EXTINCTION here: They will kill ANYONE with Judeo-Christian values and anyone else who is not one of them.
Good piece.
As you noted, muslim fascists, at least the leadership, are not by any means "proletariat" and neither is the anti-war movement.
On the other hand, pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-America people tend to be precisely that, the proletariat.
American "prols" tend to be optimistic, they are the people who make things work, and they love their country. They are the ones whose sons and daughters sign up knowing they are headed for Iraq. The anti-war marxists and the politicians who try to piggyback onto them preach a kind of cultural pessimism that doesn't go down well with American prols. So they have to break it into pieces and sell it issue by issue; lots of people have their pet issue they would like solved by the government, and thats how the Dems get by.
But taken as a whole their philosophy is a miserable thing and they are a miserable lot. They feed on disaster; they find themselves hoping for something awful to happen every election cycle so they can leverage it into a campaign issue. Then whatever the other party does, they swear they would have done more, or less, or something else again, but they can never put their shoulder to the wheel because if we all make it through they fear they will have no way to sell themselves.
As I say, what a miserable lot they are.
Check the congressional vote for Iraq I, and you will discover the anti-war movement is a permanent feature of our political scene.
The left is largely very political: Anti-war, supports higher taxes for increased size and scope of government, pro-abortion, anti-death penalty (and anti-law enforcement), anti-military, etc.
It has not changed one little bit since the 60s and Vietnam. Your age deprives you of historical perspective.
They aren't just suddenly popping on the scene all full of stupid. They have been this way all along.
Their superstars include Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore John Fonda Kerry, and the current cast featuring Screamin Howie Dean).
Good analysis. Dems, as you say, are not at all what they claim to be. The politicians say they are crusaders helping the poor, and their voters claim the Republicans create poverty, and many of the poor themselves by right into it. It's quite a scam that has been going on for many years.
I was not alive during the Vietnam thing, but let me try and get into post-Vietnam.
Neither was I, here is another point, our generation has been used to wars that only lasted a few weeks, from the Falklands War to the Afghan War - the current war is taking a bit longer, so many of our age group mistakingly think that the war is 'going wrong' because it wasn't over in a few weeks - the message has to be sent out, the war will take as long as it needs to!!
"...the aging hippies from back then are desperately trying to capture the magic and thrill of protesting Vietnam, but the magic is gone."
The "magic" would be present if a draft was instituted. It's that simple.
Since you were not alive during the Vietnam Era, I can tell you that the demonstrations were much larger during that time.
While the present day protestors may disturb you, they do not have the numbers necessary to bring down a government as happened with LBJ and later Nixon.
Also the current leadership - which has shown itself to be steadfast in fighting this war - is head and shoulders above the leadership from the Kennedy Administration through Nixon's. The lefties of the modern era have met their match with Bush/Cheney.
As long as Bush does not seek negotiations instead of unconditional surrender the Islamofacisti don't have a prayer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.