Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Anti-War Movement Hijacked by Communists and Islamist Apologists

Since today was the 5 year anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, I decided to check out the anti-war rally in downtown Chicago, which happened to start just down the street from where I work. As the above link will attest, I was aware of the some of the socialist intentions of the event, but decided to give the organizers the benefit of the doubt that it was going to be a straight-up focus on the war and give a rational presentation of arguments to back up our side of the issue. It turns out I was dead wrong.

At first I was entertained by some of the more creative and individual protesters that weren't affiliated with the leftist organizers of the event. These included Jesus Christ with the Cross, Patriotic Puppets, a Revolutionary in a tri-corner hat, St. Gertrude Parish, and few "billionaires for Democrats":

Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket Photobucket

Though as soon as the speeches started, the whole thing left a sour taste in my mouth as the anti-war issue was used as a linchpin to forward all sorts of political ideologies only marginally related to war. There were anti-corporate socialists who wanted to use the war money to fund socialized projects. Hey, I happen to like the corporate overlords who pay my salary. As far as the cost of the war is concerned I'd rather get my money BACK through lower taxes and lower inflation, and not have it spend on more big-government boondoggles, thank you very much. There was a Mexican nationalist who tried to link the illegal immigration issue to the fact that non-citizens are "coerced" into the army. Last time I checked our army consisted entirely of volunteers, and immigrant veterans tend to be rewarded handsomely with citizenship. There was a person ranting against Israel and for the Palestinian Intifada. I'll get more into that insanity later. There was no end to the grandstanding on people's pet issues, and relatively little time left to take a principled stance against the war.

After the speech we started marching, and this is when the madness truly began. If you click on the image below, you'll see that these are members of the International Socialist Organization, or put another way, Revolutionary Marxists:

Photobucket

An organization that should have died with the fall of the Berlin Wall when communism collapsed under it's own crushing weight of oppression, and should have been buried along with the millions of deaths it caused throughout the 20th century. Yes, the very people who would love nothing better than to reproduce the hell on Earth that is North Korea and Cuba on our soil. But wait, there's more! I managed to scribble down one of the chants that they started up on the march, reproduced here:

Long live the Intifada!
Intifada, Intifada!
Free free Palestine,
Long live Palestine!

Repeated ad infinitum, all while holding "Stop Racism, Stop The War" signs in Arabic. Of course, the irony is that the Intifada is a fucking war, that antisemitism is rampant in the Intifada, and that the Islamists would be more than willing to throw the commies under the bus in the quest to re-instate the Caliphate and Sharia Law in Palestine. Pure madness.

Another interesting aspect of the march was how shockingly civil it was (given the rampant communist and black-flag-and-mask anarchist presence). There was a sizable police presence (as taken in pictures below), but there was absolutely no conflict. There were exactly two intersections that featured riot police and policemen on horseback, but they seemed positively bored out of their skulls, and seemed to be more of a curiosity than the protesters, who were photographed almost relentlessly. At other places, the march was flanked by ordinary beat cops who looked like their couldn't wait to end their shift. Onlookers and protesters alike crossed the police "lines" without so much as a sneer. I took a picture of what I thought looked like a police version of an Active Denial System, but it turned out to be an ordinary TracStar satellite dish.

Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket

Naturally, the media was there to gawk at the scene:

Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket

Here are some random pictures of the protest:

Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket

To end on a positive note, the march was worth it purely as an opportunity to take pictures of a city with world-class architecture--at night:

Photobucket Photobucket Photobucket

Update 2008/3/20: One thing I forgot to mention was that there was a "United Nations" contingent there flying a large UN flag. The irony, of course, is that one of the pretenses for going to war was over non-compliance with UN resolutions.

6 comments:

mcfnord said...

is there still a pro-war movement?

the crazies want to hijack. they want sane, balanced people to hear their insane views and ideas.

the more sane, balanced people there might be, the more crazies try to muscle in.

but it's five years on, and the anti-war argument is in every major newspaper every day.

Egosumabbas said...

Is there a pro-war movement? Definitely. Just tune in to Rush Limbaugh or wander over to redstate.com or the little green footballs website. There was also a support-the-troops rally at Soldier Field, though I guess that isn't technically pro-war.

And yes, there was a lot of unrelated propaganda being distributed at this rally. I was offered numerous copies of marxist newspapers.

Richard Paul Flosi said...

This event was just like the last one in October. Perhaps people that want to actually talk about the war should have a rally.

Centipede said...

Hi Badass Bunny,
I’m glad you were there. I had to work today and didn’t participate.
As a left coaster who was attending U.C. Berkeley during the previous Gulf War, that sort of crazy Marxist thing – not to mention nude-ins - was standard at such events. (I didn’t realize Marxists were still around.)
It is unfortunate that Faux News and such zoom in on the crazy people.
Personally I consider myself somewhere between an anarchist and a libertarian these days.

Egosumabbas said...

Unfortunately it was a little cold for nudists that day.

If I were given the reins of such an event, I probably would have given the event a more somber and reflective tone, such as a candlelight vigil, an interfaith panel, maybe a donation for the families of soldiers. Rick Flosi also had some ideas for it (if you would click his name above, it's the latest post on his blog).
Apparently a vigil was held at Logan Square, though it's been hard finding coverage for that event.

This event, however, was grandstanding and exhibitionist, Fox News probably had a field day.

Anonymous said...

When analyzing the reasons that many of today’s modern religious leaders tend to sit by idly as the state wages war on the individual, I find it hard to ignore what has been openly published about the so called ecumenical movement. The ecumenical movement primarily refers to the movement to create greater unity among various denominations of Christians although it is sometimes used for even broader theological unification(e.g. Christians, Muslims, Jews).

In the March 16th 1942 issue of Time magazine an article entitled “American Malvern” outlined a plan for a “just and durable world peace” following WW2. I encourage you to read the full article. If you don’t read it, I fear you will not believe what I am telling you the Federal Council of Churches was set up to promote. Some of the highlighted goals of the organization were:

• Strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty.
• "A universal system of money ... so planned as to prevent inflation and deflation."
• A "democratically controlled" international bank "to make development capital available in all parts of the world without the predatory and imperialistic aftermath so characteristic of large-scale private and governmental loans."

Other ideas coming out of the conference that Time was reporting on include:

"Collectivism is coming, whether we like it or not," the delegates were told by no less a churchman than England's Dr. William Paton, co-secretary of the World Council of Churches,

It urged taxation designed "to the end that our wealth may be more equitably distributed. "It urged experimentation with government and cooperative ownership.
"Every individual," the conference declared, "has the right to full-time educational opportunities ... to economic security in retirement ... to adequate health service [and an] obligation to work in some socially necessary service."

Individual nations, it declared, must give up their armed forces "except for preservation of domestic order" and allow the world to be policed by an international army & navy. This League-of-Nations-with-teeth would also have "the power of final judgment in controversies between nations . . the regulation of international trade and population movements among nations."

The ultimate goal: "a duly constituted world government of delegated powers: an international legislative body, an international court with adequate jurisdiction, international-administrative bodies with necessary powers, and adequate international police forces and provision for enforcing its worldwide economic authority."

One of the truly amazing things about this article is that it says the chairman of this meeting was John Foster Dulles. This is a man whose little brother became the head of the CIA.

According to Wikipedia, he also played a great part in the CIA operations to overthrow the democratic Mossadegh government of Iran in 1953 (Operation Ajax) and the democratic Arbenz government of Guatemala in 1954.

In 1950, Dulles published War or Peace, a critical analysis of the American policy of containment, which at the time was favored by many of the foreign policy elites in Washington. Dulles criticized the foreign policy of Harry S. Truman. He argued that containment should be replaced by a policy of "liberation". Does this sound familiar?!

The man was hardly what I’d call pious. Conniving assassin boss seems to be a better fit.
So why was this guy helping control the agenda of a organizations seeking to unify the goals of churches in the United States? Part of the answer can be found in Ron Chernow’s highly regarded, establishment friendly book on the Rockefellers.


“The Rockefellers had tried to shed their exclusively Baptist orientation. After seven religious-service organizations pooled their resources to aid American troops during World War 1, the atmosphere seemed auspicious for interdenominational work. Senior[John D Rockefeller] believed that denominations had value but should all report, on the Standard Oil model, to one centralized governing body, whereas Junior believed that churches could operate more efficiently if they were not broken up into denominations. He sponsored studies that showed surplus churches in rural communities and proposed consolidation to trim excess capacity.”

“Starting in 1920, he[John D Rockefeller Jr] spearheaded the Interchurch World Movement, which encouraged unity among various Christian denominations. Like an electioneering politician, he went on an exhausting fund-raising tour of twelve cities. This ecumenical effort turned into a fiasco when he raised only three million dollars-one-third of that coming from the Rockefellers;” Ron Chernow, “Titan” page 639.


So you understand that the origins of the FCC were unpleasant and sure the fascist craze that was in effect in the early 1940’s(driven by the widespread praise of Keynes, Mussolini, FDR etc) might have caused some crazy ideas to get put out by the FCC, but it is possible that this has changed in the ensuing 66 years. A anti-individualist organization may have turned into a meeker group that just allows religious minded folks to get together and try to make peace amongst each other right? This wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Unfortunately, the scary collectivism still seems to be prevalent.

The FCC merged with the NCC(National Council on Churches). Today it is an association of about 35 denominations with 100,000 local congregations and 45 million adherents in the United States. Yes, sister organizations were started by the same tax free foundations in other countries as well and they all communicate together to this day.

In a 2006 NCC policy statement(page16) on biotechnology I found this gem:

In addition, unhealthy exaggerated concepts of self-reliance, independence and personal privacy labelled as individualism stand in opposition to biblical concepts of covenant community, responsibility for one another, and care for the neighbour / stranger. Finally, hedonism and its pursuit of pleasure as the sole purpose of life follows individualism’s focus on personal fulfilment and jeopardizes the stewardship of resources for the good of all of God’s children.

Socio-economic forces are at play as well. The United States and the Church exist in a global context that demands a global analysis with a commitment for equitable allocation of medical resources and funding for research. In a world of poverty, wars, and hunger, a wise balancing and use of limited resources for the basic necessities of life must temper our advancement of research and consumption of newly available biotechnologies..

Not only do they still see fit to directly attack individualist, but they have the nerve to claim their collectivist wishes can help end poverty, wars and hunger. Thankfully, they do put forth statements about withdrawing troops from Iraq. They specifically push for the passing of

The signers urged members of Congress to co-sponsor H.R. 3797, the "New Diplomatic Offensive for Iraq Act." The legislation requires President Bush to develop a regional diplomatic plan for the Middle East and urges him to work with the United Nations Security Council to increase U.N. support for the stabilization of Iraq.

Someone else will have to closely examine H.R. 3797, but I’d expect to see that it allows for the American taxpayer to keep funding insane foreign entanglements all over the globe. The semantic tricks are all common place amongst the so-called anti-war left.

A modern representatives of the NCC this gave this speech in 2006. It talks about how the churches should position themselves in relation to the imperialistic US foreign policy. They acknowledge the traditional acceptance of just war theory and all of the obvious problems with justifying torture, spying on our own citizens and the indefensible nature of our foreign policy in discussions with knowledgeable foreigners. The representative is intelligent enough to know that the church leaders cannot stand behind this foreign policy without losing all credibility as Christians. He argues that the church leaders can get around this dilemma by avoiding any public stances on the US’s evil wars, instead he recommends focusing on other foreign entanglements we can become involved in, in essence we should ignore genocide in Iraq funded by US tax dollars and committed by the US establishment and instead point towards genocide in Darfur(this is more popular than lobbying to end Empire because we can still send armies all over the globe if we engage in these peacekeeping missions.) He also recommends re-directing anti-war energies towards the Millennium Development Goals. He makes the common argument that poverty causes war and terrorism so we must stop poverty…naturally they imply the UN’s Millennium Development goals are the best way to stop poverty. See if you don’t like war then you must want higher taxes and then end of national sovereignty.

See how tidy that is? I see it myself in the “Save Darfur” signs at the old Unitarian Church in the center of my town. Naturally the people who go to this church in a uppity suburb of Boston are not pro-Bush, pro-war folks…yet the natural instincts of a non-interventionist foreign policy are skilfully re-directed towards empire building/ higher taxes and more world government.


In February of 2006 the NCC put out a study guide to help push the UN’s Millennium Development goals.
The idea for the study guide grew out of a meeting hosted by the NCC that included a presentation by Sachs, director of the Millennium Project, a UN-commissioned advisory body that proposes solutions to meeting the goals by 2015. The NCC governing board has endorsed the U.N. Millennium Development goals. The study guide was made possible in part by a grant from industrialist Chang K. Park, a Christian layman from New York.
The editors of the guide believe the time may be ripe for a major movement to implement the U.N. goals and effectively end the poverty that is killing millions around the world.
Many of the millennium development goals sound like good things. Who doesn’t want to “Halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015”? After seeing the strategy for eliminating “sectarian violence” in Iraq(kill all the Sunnis). One has to wonder what the UN has in mind for reducing extreme poverty. Assuming the best of intentions the real problems with the millennium development goals come into vision for me when I read what the establishment economist are saying about the notions of “sustainable development”, a keystone of the millennium development goals.

“Much as the Keynesian revolution validated the concept of government intervention to achieve macroeconomic stability, the acceptance of sustainability as a valid social goal places a new complexion on all policy issues concerning the relationship between human economic activity and the environment”.


Skewering these ideas should be the thesis material of some aspiring George Mason doctoral candidate.


In a recent National Council of Churches(NCC) press release we can see that the NCC is very persistent in pushing towards it’s goals of world taxes, decreased state and individual sovereignty.

“The Rt. Rev. James Jones, the Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, England and the Rev. Brenda Girton-Mitchell, associate general secretary for justice and advocacy at the National Council of Churches USA (NCC) joined forces in addressing a Capitol Hill audience.
"The Bible calls us to care for all of God's creation," said Bishop Jones. "The science of anthropogenic climate change is incontrovertible. It is the poor who are most immediately impacted by changes in our climate; it is the poor who are least able to act to change our world.

Bishop Jones and the Rev. Girton-Mitchell articulated the need to protect those living in poverty around the world from the effects of climate change.

"As Europeans and Americans, it is our responsibility to act first to ensure that we protect those who are least able to adapt while empowering the rest of the world to make the necessary changes to prevent climate change," said the Rev. Girton-Mitchell.
The briefing is part of a national effort by the NCC and other national and regional faith organizations to educate elected officials, congregations, and people of faith about the moral need to address climate change. The decade-long work of the U.S. faith community has enabled religious leaders around the country to vocalize their concern and conviction that the U.S. must act now to prevent irreparable damage.

"Leaders of the faith communities have a special responsibility to teach about the earth, to change hearts and minds so that when politicians put proposals to the electorate they will meet with a ready response," said Bishop Jones.”

American’s people are still a religious people and that is why we still see politicians like Hillary Clinton occasionally making appearances at religious events. She understands the powers of religious organizations to mobilize people and she covets that asset(in the worst possible way). That is why you shouldn’t be surprised to hear her show and speak at NCC events like this one to help promote a book called “Sacred Places, Civic Purposes: Should Government Help Faith-Based Charity?"



So we can see that this organization still has a pro-UN, pro-collectivist, anti-individualist agenda. “Big Deal” you might saw “I always knew that some of those preachers were a little squirrelly, this doesn’t change what I believe in!”. I agree with the sentiment, but you have got to be a little worried that about a organization that seeks to re-write the central texts upon which the majority of Christians base their religion. Especially when that organization has the societal goals that we have already documented.

If your church is a member of the NCC then you should be aware that there is a good chance that some of your monetary donations are making their way all the way to this collectivist organization. I have no doubts that your donations are also going to many worthy causes, but do not think that the NCC isn’t trying to increase the share of its take (page17):

The percentage of overall support to the NCC by member communions will be increased from 26% (2005) toward a long-term goal of 50%, with specific, incremental steps toward this goal by the end of the quadrennium. The question of what is credited as support from member communions (e.g., gifts by individual church members) will be reviewed by the AFC.