Who's Behind the Anti-War Movement?
|HNN FUND RAISING DRIVE Please make a donation today!|
In President Bush's first address to Congress after 9/11, he correctly identified the forces that attacked us as "the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century," who followed "in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism." The religious roots of the present threat are radical Islam, but its politics are the familiar strategies of the Cold War Communist left.
THE COMMUNIST AGENDA: In the 1930s, the Communist movement devised a strategy for weakening and subverting democratic societies, which changed the nature of revolutionary politics forever, and profoundly increased the threat that revolutionaries posed. Until then, the Communist parties had openly declared their revolutionary agendas, which were anti-Western and anti-democratic, and required illegal and criminal means to achieve. Communists were for the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and intended to achieve this dictatorship through a "civil war" in the western democracies. Their primary agenda of course was to provide "frontier guards" to defend the Soviet Union and its dictatorship, because that was the revolutionary base. But openly declaring their Communist agendas insured that they would be and remain a fringe minority in democratic societies, and that is what happened.
THE POPULAR FRONT: Then, in 1935, the Communist parties adopted a new tactic, which they called the Popular Front. The agendas of the Popular Front were framed in terms of the fundamental values of the societies the Communists intended to destroy. In place of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and an "international civil war," the Communists organized coalitions for "democracy, justice and peace."
Nothing had changed in the philosophy and goals of the Communists, but by advocating (or seeming to advocate) "democracy, justice and peace," they were able to forge broad alliances with individuals and groups who had no inkling of their true agendas or - in any case -- believed them to be less sinister and dangerous than they were. Working through the Popular Front they had formed with "liberal" groups, the Communists were able to hide their conspiratorial activities, form "peace" movements, and increase their own numbers until they became a formidable political force.
THE CURRENT "PEACE" MOVEMENT: Many observers of the current "peace" movement that has been launched in America and the West to oppose efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein have been puzzled at its rapid growth, size and elaborate organization. They wonder how this "peace" movement could fail to call on Saddam to disarm, express such deeply cynical views of America's motives ("blood for oil") and identify the United States itself as a terrorist state and the threat to peace. The answer is that the organizers of the peace demonstrations are veteran Communists and the movement itself is an exemplary expression of the strategy of the "popular front."
On March 5, a nationwide student protest was organized by the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition. At Stanford University, to pick one site, hundreds of students went on "strike" and 26 Stanford professors cancelled their classes in sympathy with the strike.
The National Youth and Student Peace Coalition has a website (www.nyspc.net) where the Stanford organizers of the strike are plainly listed (www.nyspc.net/strikelist.html) as the Stanford Labor Action Coalition and the Young Communist League - the youth branch of the Communist Party, U.S.A. Clara Webb, the president of the Stanford Young Communist League is listed as the contact person for both organizations.
RADICAL ISLAM AND THE "PEACE" MOVEMENT: In the leadership of the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition are not only Communists, but radical Muslims. Andy Burns, spokesman for the Coalition told the Washington Times, "The way the student peace movement has worked since September 11 is we've formed coalitions on most campuses. The Muslim Student Association is usually, if not most of the time active because Muslims are a target population."
In fact, it is Americans who are the target population. Radical Muslism are
the terrorists who attacked us. The idea that America is the world aggressor
- the Great Satan - is the quasi-religious belief that forges the alliance between
atheist Communists and religious fundamentalists. The strategy of the Popular
Front - proclaiming its goals as "peace" and "justice" --
is the deception that hauls in the rest.
comments powered by Disqus
origen - 3/23/2003
DOING HIS DUTY, Aubin made the ultimate sacrifice on Thursday-along with three of his countrymen and eight British soldiers. They were the first American and British soldiers killed in the Iraq war when their helicopter crashed in Kuwait. At least 10 American soldiers were believed to have died in action by late Saturday: a tragic reality that even when a nation is winning a war-Pentagon officials say American-led forces are achieving stunning advances-horrible grief visits families of the victors, too.
Two other Marines were killed in ground combat on Friday: Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, 22, of Los Angeles; and Second Lt. Therrel Childers, 30, of Harrison County, Miss. Four Americans were reported killed early Saturday, including the first U.S. Navy officer to die in the war in Iraq, a San Diego native serving as a liaison officer with the British Royal Navy, according to the Department of Defense. Lt. Thomas Mullen Adams, 27, of La Mesa (near San Diego), was killed when two British Royal Navy Sea King helicopters collided over the Persian Gulf. Adams and six British Royal Marines died. The helicopters crashed about 4:30 a.m., just after taking off from a ship in the Gulf, officials said. The cause is under investigation.
The helicopter crash on Thursday, which claimed the lives of Aubin and 11 others, has been blamed on mechanical failure. The DH-46E Seat Knight crashed into the desert near the Iraqi border. The three other Americans in the doomed chopper were Cpl. Brian Kennedy, 25, of Houston; Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Watersbey, 29, of Baltimore, and Capt. Ryan Anthony Beaupre, 30, of Bloomington , Ill.
Beaupre had been working for State Farm insurance until three years ago, when he decided he wanted more adventure and purpose in life. So he joined the Marines. “He’d always wanted to be a pilot,” said his grandmother, Eleanor Bieber. When he learned he was being sent to Kuwait, Beaupre wrote home and told his family “he was there because he wanted to be,” his grandmother said.
At 3 a.m. on Friday, a Marine delegation appeared at the Beaupre family’s brick home with the horrible news that he had been killed in the chopper crash in Kuwait. “This is when the war hits home,” said family friend Patricia Gould, “when an all-American family loses someone like Ryan.” A track star at Bishop McNamara High School who went on to run cross country at Illinois Wesleyan University, Beaupre seemed to be admired by everyone. “He’s the kind of kid you want your daughter to marry,” said Gould. “He’s the kind of person you want your son to be.” Just hours after news that Beaupre had been killed, a mass was said in his honor at St. Anne’s Catholic Church.
Watersbey, an African-American who became a Muslim at age 11, had served in the first Gulf War. With the Marines, he had traveled to Saudi Arabia, Italy and Thailand. He had joined the service because he was driven to excel, said his father, Michael Watersbey. “He had no enemies,” his dad said, adding that his son never talked much about politics. Watersbey had called home last week trying to talk to his mother, but could not reach her.
He leaves behind a 10-year-old son, Kenneth, who spoke sadly, but proudly, of his late father’s sacrifice. “He had to do what he had to do for our country,” said the boy. “I was proud of him. He’s going to stay my hero.” In the little boy’s words, there was a reminder of the pain of war-a sadness that will last long after the last battles end.
Stephen - 3/17/2003
More left inanity.
Here's the argument. If goody good good is goody good good, then goody goody goody good must be goody better.
Origen is a saint and is determined we should know it. Practical solutions in the real world are for other people to devise.
Arch Stanton - 3/16/2003
This deserves its own thread.
Tim Furnish - 3/16/2003
As Spock once observed, "a difference which makes no difference is no difference." The anti-war--or, more accurately, anti-Bush and anti-US fanatics--share the same goal as the Islamists: destruction of democratic capitalism in the name of "the proletariat" or "animal rights" or "peace" or some other equally ridiculous false god. Kudos to Horowitz, once again, for calling a spade a spade.
Gus Moner - 3/15/2003
Felix Lighter - 3/14/2003
Too bad no one takes you seriously any more, Moner.
Steve Brody - 3/14/2003
"people attend marches for causes, not for organizations...". Who is being simple, now, Gus?
Gus Moner - 3/14/2003
Your simplicity is admirable. People attend marches for causes, not for organisations. Your extreme analogies express the juxtaposition of your thoughts, but not reality for the marching citizen. .
Steve Brody - 3/14/2003
Rafael, I believe the article specifically makes the case that the organizers of the peace demonstrations are long time Communist groups. I really don't see how that is disputable. It has been widely reported that the "massive" demonstrations of mid February were organized by ANSWER. ANSWERS bona fides as a coalition of Communist groups was established by no less a liberal icon than David Korn.
The article mentions specifically the Student strikes at Stanford, and establishes the Communist connections of the organizers of that demonstration.
I can't find any argument that all people against the war are communists, just that the movement is organized and controlled by the Communists.
Rafael - 3/14/2003
I think we are discussing different things here.
Some of you are talking about participating in marches or rallies organized by certain anti-war groups. In that respect I agree with you. I'm not too enthusiastic about marches, and I would certainly not march in a rally organized by groups whose general philosophy and principles I don't share AND who will use the rally to promote precisely those ideas I don't share, along with the one or two that I do share.
But my main gripe with this article is more general. The article is titled "Who's behind the anti-war movement?", not "Who's organizing SOME anti-war rallies?" And I deeply resent the not-so-veiled implication that somehow the WHOLE anti-war movement is associated with or promoted by some fringe groups. There's no doubt in my mind that the author's purpose is precisely to create the impression that anybody who's against the war is or somehow thinks like either a rabbid communist, an islamic radical, an anarchist, or some other sort of fanatic.
Steve Brody - 3/14/2003
Rafael, just because some wacko fringe group happens to support the disarming of Iraq, that doesn't make me a wacko. But lets be honest (and accurate), If the KKK sponsored a pro war rally, and I chose to attend, carrying my "support the President" sign amongst all those white supremacist signs, people could and would fairly condemn me for associating myself with the KKK.
Likewise, if you choose to attend an anti-war rally sponsored by some wacko Communist outfit like ANSWER, even if you don't subscribe to everything ANSWER stands for, people would and could condemn you for associating yourself with that group. That's the difference; you try to escape the consequences of associating yourself with ANSWER by claiming "I only agree with one of the issues supported by ANSWER". By participating in a rally sponsored by ANSWER, you ASSOCIATE yourself with ANSWER. This is a different thing from merely having common cause with them on a single issue. Didn't your mother ever warn you about lying down with dogs?
I can't agree with you're defense of Moran. His remarks were nothing more than a thinly veiled reference to "the power of the Jewish influence" and as such were anti-Semitic to their core.
Grant Fritchey - 3/13/2003
I'm confused. I said:
"The people volunteering the military, for the most part, believe that they are serving their country. They're not foolish or stupid. Most of the people I served with, and most that I know serving now, believe in this country. They believe that it's up to each of them, individually, to pass a piece of their lives, in service to the rest of us. Respect them. Don't denigrate them."
And you're response is:
"I also know those that have a mean streak in them that enjoy the thought of a good fight and how they can really wipe the enemy out. These last may be what you have come in contact with."
You're saying that a wish to serve the country is "a mean streak" that wants to "wipe the enemy out?"
No one, least of all me, will deny that many of those who join the military are probably more beligerent than some of the rest of society. Isn't that who you want in the military? Let's say I'm 6'1", 200lbs, and not unwilling to fight (all true). Let's also say, whether or not I agree with the president currently in office(voted for Clinton twice, and Bush not once), I believe in the ideas our government is founded on and that I'm volunteer to serve in our military because of these two facts. That makes me want to "wipe the enemy out?"
No. It doesn't. I'd suggest that you may have some misperceptions because the way you communicate your feelings about the military, you don't show much respect for the individuals. That's not to say the military institutions have issues. That's not to say that a given president may be making bad choices. Neither of these reflect poorly on the people volunteering to serve as you seem to imply.
Attitudes like these create situations similar to those faced by the military on their return from Viet Nam. Just because Johnson was a monster did not mean that the poor kids who couldn't dodge the draft or actually volunteered to serve the country, not the president, the country, were also monsters.
I believe that when the leaders of the anti-war movement have ulterior motives, as they do, it does reflect poorly on the movement and those who participate. That's not to say that the choice to be anti-war is bad, wrong, un-American or pro-communist. It's just that when you attend a pro-communist rally that, oh by the way, is also anti-war, you're still at a pro-communist rally.
So, when you are anti-war, be anti-war, not anti-soldier. It puts you in a place I don't think you mean to be.
Rafael - 3/13/2003
OK, I accept your correction about the Aryan Nation, but my argument doesn't change. I'll re-write it this way: Suppose the KKK or some other lunatic fringe group supports the war ... would this taint anybody else who also supports the war? Would this make the pro-war camp somehow suspicious?
Or are you going to tell me now that only "very reasonable" people support the war?
The point of my post is the same whether the Aryan Nation is or is not pro-war, and you haven't responded to that point. If we are going to discuss what kind of wackos and fringe groups are anti-war (and get all scared and paranoid about the commies and their imagined Islamic allies) then we should also seriosuly study what kind of wackos and fringe groups are pro-war. If it's useful to to this study on one side of the issue, I'm sure it's equally useful on the other side. I'm sure there are some obscure forces supporting the war, as there are in the anti-war camp. Does that reduce the ligitimacy of the calls for war against Iraq?
You are quick to criticize the solidity of my positions, but you seem to also have a very weak point by mentioning congressman Moran. I don't see anything anti-semitic in his remark. He didn't talk about any jewish or zionist conspiracy, and the language he used was not offensive. If anything, he is just guilty of not checking the statistics. He wrongly assumed that most jews in the US would be pro-war. I don't see how that would be anti-semitic. And, he started talking about the jews because a jewish woman asked why there were no more jews present.
origen - 3/13/2003
I have been a dependent of the US Army for over 40 years and have endured many wars. I know many young 18 year olds that are bright and shiny and think that war will never come to them. I also know those that say - that is what I enlisted for and so this is what has to be done. I also know those that have a mean streak in them that enjoy the thought of a good fight and how they can really wipe the enemy out. These last may be what you have come in contact with. The others do not have to say it, you can tell by just talking to them that they would rather be anyplace except going to war. Also there rules up to there about any military person saying anything negative about what the command has issued as policy. So you will not hear military people making negative comments on what is going on.
I have also heard that the Marines are 10000 people looking for a beach. Wonder where that came from.
Grant Fritchey - 3/13/2003
And, if people who were "pro-war" went to rallies funded and organized by the Aryan-Nation, they would be wrong for, at least tacitly, lending their support to those groups.
Grant Fritchey - 3/13/2003
As someone who previously signed the papers, in addition to reading them, very few people are being seduced. I seriously doubt there's a single graduate of Marine boot camp who doesn't understand, to the dirt under his/her toenails, that danger is part and parcel of the service. Volunteers on submarine duty know that they're putting their lives on the line by climbing down the ladder. As the crash in NY shows, taking away the combat doesn't eliminate death & dismemberment.
The people volunteering the military, for the most part, believe that they are serving their country. They're not foolish or stupid. Most of the people I served with, and most that I know serving now, believe in this country. They believe that it's up to each of them, individually, to pass a piece of their lives, in service to the rest of us. Respect them. Don't denigrate them.
That's not to say that their leaders can, and have, used them badly. But because you may believe that any given conflict is wrong, doesn't mean that the service men & women are dupes for serving.
Disagree with the president. Hate him if you must. That must not affect the respect that the individuals serving in our military have earned by volunteering.
PS: I bloody hated the military and got out as soon as I could. I'm still proud that I volunteered. Just felt that was required for full disclosure.
Steve Brody - 3/13/2003
So, Rafael, exactly how is it that you are "almost sure the Klu Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and all lunatic neo Nazi movements are all for the war in Iraq"? In fact, some of those groups have made Anti War statements. Many of those wackos are so anti-emetic that they actually believe that the "Jewish Lobby" controls Bush and are driving the country towards war. Sounds like Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA.)
Hell, look at Pat Buchanan, the national figure most closely associated philosophically with these groups. He's strongly against this war.
So, despite being "almost sure", you're "almost certainly" wrong.
Are all your positions this solidly based?
Gus Moner - 3/12/2003
Point well made
Rafael - 3/12/2003
I'm almost sure the Ku-Klux-Klan, Aryan-Nation, and all lunatic neo-Nazi movements are all for the war in Iraq.
Does this mean the pro-war movement is tainted?
Is anybody who supports the war "getting in bed" with the Ku-Klux-Klan or any other crackpot that also supports the war?
Suetonius - 3/12/2003
You're _still_ not reading it. The communist groups and the radical Islamist groups are acting together for the common end, which is the demonization and reduction of the United States and its larger interest in spreading liberal capitalist democracy to the rest of the world.
I profoundly object to your suggestion that I need professional help.
Gus Moner - 3/12/2003
Giving the argument the benefit of the doubt, it is preposterous to believe that these small groups of lingering communists and if true, even fewer Islamic terrorists, are funding these movements to support Communism. Islamic fundamentalists in particular hate Atheist Commies and fought them vehemently for a decade or more in Afghanistan with US backing. Just because one corporate executive is a crook does not make them all crooks, anymore than one mole in a group makes the entire group Islamic terrorists or communists.
No one is hitching wagons to anything. People are arising and expressing their opinions in the venues available to them. Making anything else of it suggests the need for professional help.
Argyle - 3/12/2003
Mar 12, 2003
College Instructor Placed on Leave Over Credit for Anti-War Letters to White House
By Gail Schiller
Associated Press Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A college speech instructor was placed on leave for giving extra credit to students who wrote letters to President Bush opposing a war with Iraq but declining any bonus to students who support war.
Louis Zellers, president of Citrus College in suburban Glendora, said adjunct speech professor Rosalyn Kahn was placed on administrative leave with pay starting this week, pending a review.
"That's inappropriate and we're not going to tolerate it," Zellers said.
Zellers said he would send a letter of apology to the White House.
Kahn did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.
Adjunct Faculty United, the professors' union, promised to support Kahn.
"We do not believe that the instructor was given due process," said Jean Culp, the union' co-president.
College officials said Kahn also offered students extra credit if they wrote letters to a state senator protesting state budget cuts that would reduce the number of adjunct faculty positions and eliminate some college classes.
"This just demonstrates the level of self-interest involved in the assignment," said Samuel T. Lee, associate dean of language arts and foreign languages at the two-year community college.
Lee believes four to six letters were sent to Bush and more were delivered to the legislator.
College officials said the extra credit awarded by Kahn will be expunged and students will be given alternative extra credit assignments.
Kahn's speech class is required for students wanting to transfer to California State University or University of California campuses.
On the Net:
This story can be found at: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAT6LVF7DD.html
Suetonius - 3/12/2003
If any of you had bothered to read the article closely, you would see that he doesn't call you a communist for having chose to support the anti-war movement.
What's he's done is point out what has been widely known by those who have watched the protests or participated in them: they are _organized_ by communist groups and by groups known to be funded by radical Islam. The professor arrested in Florida last month was on the board of one of the prominent funding bodies behind the "Not in our name" and "ANSWER" groups, while at the same time being an active fund-raiser for radical groups dedicated to violence in the near east.
Be _very_ careful about hitching your wagon to this train. It's no wonder that mainstream left-leaning opponents have begun to raise the alarm about continuing to let this alliance between the communists and radical islamist group hijack the anti-war movement.
origen - 3/12/2003
Actually as I reread what I have read I find I am not trying to convince anyone. I know those that have the power will go to war and like Rachel I am "wailing for the children". I know Hussein is a terrible person but Bush is using those children, who did not have the experience to know what they were getting into by enlisting, like pieces of equipment. They don't come under the category of Americans he is trying to save. I have read the enlistment papers and the part about danger is very small indeed.
I have heard several places about the massive bombing for hours planned for Bagdhad, from Bill Moyers guest to reading it in national newspapers. Current name is "awe and something" other names are "firebombing" and also (spelling is off) "blitzkreiging".
I would like to save these people that will die and there is nothing I can do. Therefore when I read about national policies, speaking of dead people as "casualties" or "collateral damage" I want to hit the wall. Imagine those Iraqi people trying to find a safe place for themselves and their children while listening to the roaring over head and wondering if it coming for them.
There I know it didn't do much for you but it made me feel a whole lot better.
Gus Moner - 3/11/2003
It is always a treat to respond to this demagogic wight, although I find it odd that the odd article gains inclusion on this site. It is nonetheless stimulating for, whilst this article does make an effort at historical progression, it tergiversates facts and history as to challenge a thinking mind. In the event, he does get on these pages and we must be tolerant and debate with ideas, so, let’s tackle the nonsense as best we can.
Mr Horowitz tells us that to be successful in any ‘war’ contest, struggle or competition, it’s necessary to know your adversary. Here he has discovered potable water. Additionally, his obsession with making the enemy strictly masculine is an impressive obviation of half the planet.
I believe we lose sight of reality if we give credence to the President and the author’s contention that the forces that “that attacked us as "the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century," who followed "in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism."
The roots of the ideology of our foes are entirely religious and cultural manifesting itself in the social-political context they have encountered. These have nothing to do with nationalism, nation-state building, aggrandisement or geo-political power and control. Nothing could be more at variance with the ideologies of the Fascists and Communists that this agitator is trying to have us believe than those precepts our opponents hold semblance to.
None of these clusters are trying to change our society, way of life, freedoms (ever diminishing ones at that) as might have been argued about the goals of the aforementioned ideologies I’ll henceforth refer to F&C, as Bush and mouthpieces such as Mr. Horowitz have proclaimed to all cardinal points. These F&C movements were out to control nations, and peoples (based on a racist ideology). They coveted geography and resources, reordering their economic and social organisation in an attempt to control a monolithic state top to bottom, a concept where the person is the servant of the state. Is Mr Horowitz tying to have us believe that this is Islamic doctrine?
Islamic combatants want the Western (W.) powers OUT of their homelands; they want the W. to cease installing puppet regimes by brute force, money or machinations. Most importantly they want the W. to cease destroying the fibre of their societies with foreign concepts and ideas they are not prepared to accept. Whether one agrees or not is an entirely respectable debate when focusing on veracity. However, to simply lie and deceive about the enemy’s motives flies into the contradiction of his ‘know-thine-enemy’ ideological premise earlier advocated. No movements could be more diametrically opposed. What does Mr. Horowitz take us for, un-educated idiots who’ll swallow his shallow, populist fear-mongering rubbish as truth?
As for the variation between the Komintern or Comintern and the Popular Front, the tactics and propaganda slants between them may have varied. The same can be said for the progression of Fascism, from a purely patriotic nationalistic movement to a pan-European New Economic Order, or (Common Economic Policy?). With these, the rich and powerful used to control nations, mostly conquered ones. However, there is a resemblance to today, for there existed “Bulgaria-type” nations in the world back then also; opportunistic client states, as was the case of gasp! Bulgaria and Hungary, for example. Another Fascist client state was Rumania, (Iron Guard, anyone?) lapping up to the big boys to get their share of the booty.
So, the conspiracies of the Fascist/Communist era still haunt and trouble this afflicted author. From a ‘civil rights’ activist to a Crusading Conservative takes an awful lot of justification, I can understand that. It may require, even, such delusional hyperbole. I too am troubled by impacting events in my life. That this happens is comprehensible, yet what is not acceptable is that as a result, this transference of phobias to pervert history is performed, as in this case.
We are told, as if this were 1959, that “the Communists (are) able to hide their conspiratorial activities, form "peace" movements, and increase their own numbers until they (become) a formidable political force.” This, in a back-handed, poorly disguised and global ad hominem attack on people who simply want to give more time to the possibility of peaceful disarmament. To reach that conclusion, however, one firstly has to take an interplanetary leap of faith and assume we are infested with many Communists in a ‘rear-guard’ within the USA in 2003, ready to collapse the nation. It’s like trying to awaken the dead.
If Mr Horowitz is ‘puzzled’ by the magnitude of the peace movement is because he’s unable to penetrate beyond the paranoid labyrinth of his mind to understand it. He concentrates on organisers and fails to see the people. Like the forest from the trees analogy. It is a sham to pretend that people are not behind this movement. Few people carry political party propaganda, most bear banners of hope and peace, To say they’ll be co-opted by the few Marxists in the bunch is to say that Mr Bush’s government is co-opted by a few embedded Weekly Standard Fascists.
He is totally wrong to assert that the peace movement favours Saddam and is opposed to disarmament. The peace movement asks for time to determine if war can be avoided, for disarming Iraq of wmd is a goal everyone has agreed needs to be accomplished. Granted, both sides are engaging in a serious battle of words, propaganda and lies. His entire argument thus melts like an icicle against the morning sun when pondered objectively, for we all know the first casualty of war is truth.
If some vehement protesters see similitude between the US rush to war in a perennial atmosphere of fear and crises about terrorism and 1930’s totalitarian behaviour, it is because the are similar to the tactics of the Fascists in the 30’s when they terrorised others and threatened peace. Hitler always preached the Red Menace, remember? It is also similar to Communist tactics in the 40’s and 50’s, although they didn’t use threats of war because they already occupied the lands they were trying to subvert. The insignificance of Communist movements and Communists today is directly proportional to their having been discredited by the obvious. They are irrelevant and meaningless.
It’s like saying the AEI has taken over the government in a conspiracy of front organisations. We can say today that un-elected and even appointed government employees who’ve not been vetted have affiliations to a similar array of Judeo-Christian fanatical organisations trying to take over our institutions, etc. etc., etc. Surely he didn’t mean THAT to surface, or he would have never risked the analogy! Or then again, perhaps we are considered simpletons after all.
The US is the target, yes, the target of a select group of terrorists who hold the opinions or views akin to those I commented earlier. We are encouraging them with this aggressive, militaristic foreign policy threatening to invade their lands and take over their resources, remodel institutions and install governments we like. A great way to make friends and convert enemies. Whether it is the true aim of our good leaders is debatable. The similarity is simply not. Incredibly, most, if not all success against al Qaeda since the Taliban were deposed has been the fruit of intelligence, technology, torture, informants and police work, a fact never mentioned in the pro-war entreaties.
In conclusion, I would paraphrase. The idea that the USA is the Great Good is the quasi-religious belief that forges the alliance between Judeo-Christians and religious fundamentalists. The strategy of the Republicans- proclaiming its goals as "peace" and "justice" as well as getting rid of Saddam for the good of… etc. -- is the deception that hauls in the rest.
Mark Newgent - 3/11/2003
Why would the United States firebomb Bagdhad as you say? We have far more accurate and effective ordnance that would not harm civilians. Please don't use wild embellsihment to illustrate an already tenuous argument.
John Kipper - 3/11/2003
It seems to me that you lost track of Horowitz's arguement. He does not contend that that all peace marchers are communists, he is merely pointing out that the cynical and manipulative cabal of Islamist and post-Marxist organizations are following a historic precedent that Comintern and other Stalinists used to attempt to seize control of public opinion in pre-WWII Europe, coopting the hopes of socialists and radical labor unions and redirecting their idealism in order to conflate anti-fascism with support for Soviet policy. Of course, the hypocrisy of this effort was revealed in the Soviet-Nazi Non-Aggression Treaty. How many sincere people must have had their heads spinning after this magical act of selection of bed partners? Only a fool or an ideologue could have been unaware of the blatancy of the betrayal. Yet many remained true believers, because they could not admit that they were mislead.
In fact, the dominance of ANSWER, a trogloditic remanant of the American Communist Party, in the organizing of a great many of the recent protests against the war in the US is well documented. In fact, the anti-Israeli, anti-Semetic, anti-Jewish sympathies of many of the peace marchers are recorded in photos of the protestors' placards, as well as their antipathy for individual members of the US government (amazingly enough, all Republican). These strange bed fellows are exploilting the natural desire for peace held by many well-meaning people in order to further their radically different opppositions to world order. And you can be sure they have no shame in using anyone and anything in the furtherance of their agendas. Once the existing order is overturned their alliance will be abandoned; it is only held together by their hatred of the United States.
In short, Horowitz is not saying that you are a communist for being against the war, but that you are at best a dupe and at worst incapable of seeing the true agenda of the organizations that have coopted the peace movement.
I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of your beliefs nor do I dispute your right to make your thoughts public, but I strongly urge you to examine the motivations of some of the groups that are associated with the current anti-war movement before you whole-heartedly endorse and support them. I really believe that you could be more effective by organizing protests that are not only "Answer and Islamist free," but also that don't gratuitously and offensively dismiss the honor and integrity of American traditions, elected leaders and appointed officials. I believe in these things, after all. You trying to convince me, aren't you?
John Kipper - 3/11/2003
It seems to me that you lost track of Horowitz's arguement. He does not contend that that all peace marchers are communists, he is merely pointing out that the cynical and manipulative cabal of Islamist and post-Marxist organizations are following a historic precedence that Comintern and other Stalinists used to attempt to seize control of public opinion in pre-WWII Europe, coopting the hopes of socialists and radical labor unions and redirecting their idealism in order to conflate anti-fascism with support for Soviet policy. Of course, the hypocrisy of this effort was revealed in the Soviet-Nazi Non-Aggression Treaty. How many sincere people must have had their heads spinning after this magical act of selection of bed partners. Only a fool or an ideologue could be unaware of the blatancy of the betrayal. Yet many reained true believers, because they could not admit that they were mislead.
In fact, the dominance of ANSWER, a trogloditic remanant of the American Communist Party, in the organizing of a great many of the recent protests against the war in the US is well documented. In fact, the anti-Israeli, anti-Semetic, anti-Jewish sympathies of many of the peace marchers are recorded in photos of the protestors, as well as their antipathy for individual members of the US government (amazingly enough, all Republican). These strange bed fellows are exploilting the natural desire for peace held by many well-meaning people in order to further their radically different opppositions to world order. And you can be sure they have no shame in using anyone and anything in the furtherance of their agendas, Once the existing order is overturned their alliance will be abandoned; it is only held together by their hatred of the United States. In short, he is not saying that you are a communist for being against the war, but that you are at best a dupe and at worst incapable of seeing the true agenda of the organizations that have coopted the peace movement.
I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of your beliefs nor do I dispute your right to make your feelings public, but I strongly urge you to examine the motivations of some of the groups that are associated with the current anti-war movement before you climb into bed with them. I really believe that you could be more effective by organizing protests that are not only Answer and Islamist free, but also that don't gratuitously dismiss the honor and integrity of our elected and appointed officials and our traditions. After all, you trying to convince me, aren't you?
Origen - 3/11/2003
This is very strange that most of the people I meet do not want war and you say they are communists.
They do not want to see young soldiers killed because they were seduced into enlisting by promises of money for college or training for a good job. Hussein will not be the person killed in the firebombing of Bagdhad. It will be the civilian population who have no where to go as all of Iraq could turn in a war zone.
I had thought these people that do not wish to see these people killed were good Americans and now I find that you have discovered they are actually Communists. I have always been of the belief that democratic Americans were more moral than communists and after you have shown me how wrong I am it may be time for all of us to review how good communists really are.
And we can point to you as the one that showed us the truth of it all.
Jesse - 3/11/2003
I have been called a traitor because I do agree with the current regime so I guess I should have expected that sooner or later someone would finally come out and call me a communist. At what point did the Constitution get burned. At what point did it get amended so that now anyone who disagrees with a war against Iraq or thinks that maybe this nation should build international support in the United Nations is anti-American, pro-communist and a traitior to this nation. This war makes no sense except as a war for political security, ie Mr bush gets to finally win an election. North Korea has nuclear weapons and they are getting a free pass. Saddam doesnt and we have to rid the world and impose our will on Iraq. If Mr. Bush has information that proves why, then let him make his case. That does not mean hand me the latest spin. Show the world the evidence. Until then, this war is illegal, immoral, and illogical.
Karl Kraus - 3/11/2003
Diehard fanatics within ANY social movement are a dubious source of information and commentary. Still worse are those traitors who sell out for personal gain.
Leaving all that aside though, the purported argument served up in this article is ludicrous on its face. Any half-alive TV couch potato knows that Al Qaeda does not operate through democratic alliances, popular fronts, or communist ideologues. It is only those foolish enough to fall for lunacies such as communism who are likely to swallow the load of baloney offered by Comrade Horowitz here.
- New PBS DVD From Henry Louis Gates Jr. Explores African Influence on the Caribbean
- The Council on Foreign Relations Honors Kissinger Critic
- Architectural historian discovers Chartres Cathedral has started faking it
- Rick Perlstein hits back at a critic of his book on Reagan
- So Historians Are Surprised by What DNA Can Tell Us?