Freaky Elements of the Anti-War Movement

Michelle Goldberg is a political writer for Salon.Com - in this article she clearly shows that there are some bizzare elements behind groups like ANSWER and Not in Our Name.

" In an article for WorkingForChange.com, Seattle Weekly journalist Geov Parrish writes about Not in Our Name statement coordinator Clark Kissinger, whom he identifies as a "core member" of the RCP, "I still have vivid memories of Kissinger explaining calmly to me once why, when the RCP took over, it would be necessary to shoot everyone who didn't agree with them." Kissinger is also a founder of Refuse & Resist, whose members organized Not In Our Name and who act as its spokespeople."

What do people think about this? She also points out that while most of those who attended the anti-war rallies were ordinary Americans, many of the organizers had some shady backgrounds....

The entire article is called Peace Kooks and can be read after getting a free day pass by watching a short 10 sec. commercial...

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2002/10/16/protest/index.html

nt

is another man's freedom fighter.

but I challenge you to read the article. It's not against the anti-war movement...Michelle Goldberg is a writer for Salon.com who is 98% of the time harshly critical of Bush.

It's though-provoking. Its thesis is that the peace movement should not be highjacked by groups with agendas that don't square with basic American values. Some of these groups love North Korea for crying out loud...that place is brutal dictatorship and a hell hole...

fucking traitor.

FUCK the RCP.

"Yet Todd Gitlin, author of "The Sixties: Years of Hope and Days of Rage" and former president of the '60s antiwar group Students for a Democratic Society, fears the Oct. 26 protest will be "a gigantic ruination for the antiwar movement."

the 10/26/02 protest was quite a hit! :bounce:

if this article tells me anything, it's that teh left is still fragmented and disorganized. But I don't really care about the person(s) who get the permits. If I agree with the message of the march itself, I'm there!

I would never want to associate with anyone who supports the N.Korean government...that's just plain nuts...

How many has Bush attacked?

Nuff sed.

nuff said

I've heard these ANSWER people praising Castro, the Chinese government and even that little dude in North Korea. They are just as crazy as the neocons. And about as likely to advance the cause of peace and justice, as those crazy drag queen parades are to advance the cause of equal rights for gays and lesbians.

anyone who praises "Baby Kim" is deluded and just taints the entire message with their lunacy...

the us under bush.

Just keep associating with the Vanilla Patriotic organizations that don't rock the boat and are with the establishment.

The smear campaign against ANSWER is getting tiresome.

You might as well listen to Radio Enron, as trust that outlet with its rather jagged little agendas. How about looking at the big picture? 98% you say?

If you think that salon.com is the equivalent of a "radio enron" then your definitions of what it means to be a democrat or a liberal are totally skewed...

I hate it when Mao-Stalinists and Black Shirt Anarchists get involved in this.

i don't expect democracy from Kim or Hu Jintao - I do expect it from a man who blatthers on about "freedom + democracy" all the time. It's kinda like arguing that you shouln't be sanctioned for grabbing some chicks boobs on the street because you're not as "bad" as Ted Bundy, we kinda expect psycho's and psycho nations to do psycho things - btw if China is such an awful, brutal dictatorial place and little george is sooooooooo fond of freedoms you'd think he wouldn't be so keen on trading with them??

to me this article is yet more dog whistling about those evil (or insane) anti american types who are opposing the invasion/occupation

OK it doesn't come RIGHT out and say "they're all insane" but that's not the intention - it's a dog whistle and the point that anti-war = anti-american is pounding deeper into the subconscious of many, otherwise it's a pretty stupid article - I think you could also find some real nutjob michigan militia types who AGREE with the war does that mean everyone who is pro war on Iraq is tainted?

...with more nostalgia than anything else.
"One from the vaults", as it were.
I hadn't heard a peep from those people since the Vietnam war ended,
except a few who had sold out and turned into neocons.
It was somewhat relieving to know some old lefties were around,
even though I don't agree with much of what they say.

The guys in the black shirts are provocateurs, aren't they?

The real Stalinists are in the White House.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything."

Josef Stalin

anarchists hate communists

get a grip you can't lump everybody together

...they keep shouting "Free my Mommy"...

http://www.rebelion.org/petras/english/ford010102.htm

{This should in no way be misunderstood as impugning the motives of the vast majority of people opposing the war and/or in attendance at these rallies.}

www.spitfirelist.com/f398.html

Just like I'm sure many Ku Klux Klansmen oppose affirmative action for their reasons, many Republicans oppose it for their reasons. It doesn't mean they work together...usually, anyway.

Stop whining about the fact that groups like the RCP and WWP are out there organizing the antiwar demonstrations. That's a lot more than I see from armchair organizers like Goldberg (and those who agree with her).

If you don't like the fact that the RCP and WWP are organizing the protests, then organize a few of them yourself ... or stay at home.

Martin

but did you read the article? some of the people are supporting "baby kim" as they call him. that's just nuts, you have to admit that...this is a fact that would make me hesitate in taking part in one of their rallies

Except as a satirical comment. Goldberg seems to be like most media whores -- crawling around the fringes of the antiwar movement, collecting her rumors and innuendo, writing them and making a name for herself.

The RCP considers North Korea "social-imperialist", just as they did the USSR, China after 1974 and Cuba today. The last thing in the world they are going to do is hail "Baby Kim". That goes against everything they stand for and write.

The WWP is generally supportive of North Korea, but they are not pro-Kim per se. They support the DPRK because they mistakenly believe that there are only two sides to the "global class war", and if you're not on one side, then you're on the other.

I've been dealing with the RCP and WWP for over 15 years. Not once in all that time have I heard any of them make such a reference about Kim Jong-il or his father. There are small clots of Kimists in this world, but they are few and far between (and I don't think they even exist in the U.S.).

In the abstract, yes, being that slavish to the Pyongyang regime is "nuts". But then, neither of the groups in question are being that slavish.

Martin

You seem to know what you're talking about, but two points...

1 - Goldberg is not a "media whore" - if she is then the term loses all meaning...

2 - I have serious questions for anyone who isn't appalled by Kim Jong-il...simply not being "that slavish" doesn't cut it - that man is a scary creep.

1. Is a hooker that has a narrow clientelle any less a hooker? No. Goldberg is a media whore for a narrow clientelle -- namely those who find themselves ambling between the center and the left. She is part of a syphilitic chain (excuse the pun) that pulls people to the right; it begins with reptiles like those who produce The Nation and similar "liberal" publications, and ends at Fox News.

2. I find the Kims quite frightening myself. I consider myself a socialist and a Marxist, and what he and his father have done in the name of Marxism and socialism disgusts me. Even though I understand their view, that does not mean I support it.

Martin

anyone who considers The Nation part of a syphilitic chain pulling people to the right.

Damn you are out there, far from the mainstream, my friend...

To call myself "mainstream". And neither should you. But then, that is a difference between you and me. I don't buy what the bossman tells me.

Martin

I don't identify with Marxism, but Fascist Totalitarianism and the Anarchists can also be quite hard to comprehend or even democracy when you understand how hard any of them ideologies would be to attain. Living a pseudo-market theology is where the world is, it’s really quite simple once you see all the pieces.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You're weak.

Did somebody hurt your little feelings?

is a classic function - it is one to one and onto. Put a statement into one end and a statement comes out. All statements entered come from the same collection of statements, all answers produced come from the another collection of answers. The same input will ALWAYS produce the same output.

Unfortunately, the collection of possible input statements has grown and changed over the years and the collection of possible output statements has not. The Old Left continues to find ways to map all input statements onto the old collection of output statements, though.

Too bad, there were some good ideas in there....

understand the dynamics of coalition building.

I am currently working to build ties between the local gay and biker communities to further democratic goals.I belong to neither of these communities. But each groups agenda at least partially coincides with mine and each others.

Some of my agenda also coincides with some of the local libertarians agenda, namely opposition to the patriot act. Am I to throw away, or even ridicule their support? They arent telling me to "get lost" just because i think that they are, for the most part, corporatist tools (and i tell them so, when appropriate). So they have my support on issues i agree with and i get theirs on issues they agree with.

Build what you can with the materials at hand.Quit trying to analyze every "policy statement" from every group with the idea that you should totally disavow every group that you dont 100% agree with. Cause you know what? At the end of the day you will be standing alone. Every day. From now on. Till you die.

"And when a government like North Korea’s funnels its wealth into weapons while its children suffer devastating malnutrition, it must be called evil."

- Paul Wellstone

Because the US has plenty of people going without food right now, going without medical care etc how much has george blown on the Iraq war while a large (and growing) number of his "own" citizens sleep on the streets

I'm not for one second defending North Korea's rulers - I wouldn't be that stupid or ignorant but if the above quote sums it all up nicely for you then I think it needs to be more broadly applied.

Just as an aside - even though I think there are definetly nutjobs within the "anti-war" effort who probably DO think this - there is another angle to consider, saboteurs - I've encountered them before in various protest/social action groups - the easiest way to discredit a group is to show the "freaks" inside it, ie the anti WEF protests in Melbourne where "anarchists" supposedly threw all sorts of nasty things at the cops, damaged property etc - it was kinda odd though that NOT ONE of the mysterious "masked men" was apprehended - the cops were swarming the CBD that day and there was miles of footage but not one arrest - just a thought, as they say "just because you're paranoid...don't mean they're not after you"