|
The many faces of the
anti-war movement
Forget about all those
false political lines drawn from left to right. The only standard valid to judge
a war is if it is being waged to protect your own personal well-being. National
security is a myth. The struggle has since the beginning of time been between
the lone individual and the all powerful coercive state. Even among families,
clans and tribes, mutual self-interest can be vague or conflicting. When it comes
to real security from a more brutal adversary, the administration of any government attempts to sell the concept that you
have a civil duty to come to the defense of the State. Most of the tragic record
of history is based upon the absurd notion that dying for country is noble and killing the latest enemy is glorious.
Those who have had real experience within an anti-war movement whether going
back to WW II, Viet Nam or either of the Gulf Wars usually share a rudimentary alliance in their objection to the engagement
in fighting the wrong war at the incorrect time. Not all protesters are conscientious
objectors. In fact many are rabid patricians who are simply motivated by a venial
hatred for the regime and leaders in power. Their enthusiasm to demonstrate dissent
has just as much to do with rejecting the institutions and heritage of the historic society as any true objection to the actual
war itself.
Douglas Kellner in an account - Spectacle
and Media Propaganda in the War on Iraq: A Critique of U.S. Broadcasting Networks - offers up a short assessment that rings
true:
“Moreover, ideologues
within the Bush administration wanted to legitimate a policy of preemptive strikes and a successful attack on Iraq could inaugurate
and normalize this policy. Some of the same militarist unilateralists in the Bush administration envisage U.S. world hegemony,
the elder Bush's "New World Order," with the U.S. as the reigning military power and world's policeman (Kellner, 2003b). Increased
control of the world's oil supplies provided a tempting prize for the former oil executives who maintain key roles in the
Bush administration. And, finally, one might note the Oedipus Tex drama, where George W. Bush's desires to conclude his father's
unfinished business and simultaneously defeat Evil to constitute himself as Good helped drive Bush to war against Iraq with
the fervor of a religious Crusade.”
Now who is surprised when the Bush administration actually defends such a strategy
of preemptive belligerence since they openly advocate the goal of U.S. hegemony? The
means of waging war are incidental when the final objective is so noble! That’s
the central justification for the jingoistic flag-waving robots. The “support
the troops” mantra grows out of a warped and misguided error that effectively ignores the idiocy of imperial foreign
garrison adventures. Inside the shallow minds of the xenophobic disturbed, the
distinction that the mere presence of interventionism breeds new hatred for the mercenary enforcers is lost in the translation. This disconnect is a root cause for continual carnage.
The embedded coverage and paid in cash news reporting that has become the
norm for concocting current events has long passed the minimal standards for propaganda.
In spite of this sad state of journalism, many opponents of the Iraqi occupation use their very deformed version of
reality to rationalize their own worldview for the crusade they want to wage. The
underlying problem with the progressive wing of the anti-war movement is that they have no fundamental understanding of the
time-honored and historic heritage of non-intervention, which is the cornerstone of traditional American foreign policy.
| What about all the other Bosses? |
|
| Just one more organized crime sydicate 'Don' |
George Washington and John Adams are ignored in their rush to condemn all things
made out of a scrub bush. How many militant socialists want an activist
foreign policy to save the world for their secular utopia? So what’s the
big difference when you have betraying NeoCons and treacherous NeoLibs both speaking the same internationalist jargon for
an altruistic world that never will be nor should be a goal for mankind?
Those of us from the Old Right are the true Radical Reactionaries. If you want to be a real patriot, adopt an America-First foreign policy. A true national defense requires that domestic border is
the main bastion of protection. “Fight them over there” when the
real enemy is right at home in the nations capital is the first lesson for the anti-war movement. Propagandists like O’Reilly and Hannity on FAUX News want you to accept despotism as natural. Party line comrades on CNN want you to demand tyranny as ordained collectivism. Both push myths of absurdity. Until the
farce of global intercession into the affairs of distant lands of foreign peoples is rejected permanently, the silly game
of virtual killing in real blood will play out on the computer machines of death.
Security and safety is relevant only when it protects individual citizens. For an anti-war movement to become effective it must reach the ordinary family and
touch the neighborhoods of every local community. National politics have become
international in concentration. Global conflagrations do not exist among alien
persons who live worlds apart. Only governments originate war for their own advantage. The purpose of expansion and self-aggrandizement is at the core of U.S. empire design
and implementation.
Anti-war creeds are the only realistic method to combat the eternal cycle of
slaughter. In its most primeval nature, each citizen is an independent person
and autonomous moral agent for their own well-being. Threats from government
coercion are false excuses for capitulation to accept mass insanity. If America
is ever really threatened the genuine anti-war proponent would acknowledge that revolutionary action would be open for serious
consideration. However, the actual measures taken may well afford the practice
of consistent non-violence. Peasants with their pitch forks storming the Bastille
does not require using the guillotine to off the heads of every despot sympathizer.
Media propaganda is a prime tool for rewriting history. But before you can rework what actually happened, you need to supply a draft of distortions to deceive
the public. Bipartisan War Party motives are unswerving in their objective to
keep moving the waters edge to the far corners of the world. Holding the psychopath
Bush to justice requires resurrecting the sociopath LBJ from the grave, as well. The
long list of other war criminals would fill the pages in volumes of books that preach the magnificent manifest destiny of
a country that turned its back on the very purpose upon with it was founded.
Yes, there are all kinds of anti-war dissenters.
Save for those who seek to establish the essential vision of an authentic Republic based upon local rule and internal
independence, the rest are but temporary allies in a perpetual fight against the forces of unnecessary international conflict. The continual drum beat for ‘saving the world” condemns that earth
to eternal damnation. That mainstay Marx of the contrived commissars had it all
wrong. The motto needs to be: All anti-war dissenters unite . . . the chains
of State sponsored death are broken by avoidance of entangling alliances. Minding
your own personal business and taking care of your own individual self-interest is the formula for a healthy society. Take the Pro War vs. Anti-War poll
and protest that which needs meaningful change - A sick and demented internationalist foreign policy.
SARTRE - December 8, 2005
|
