top
Anti-War
Anti-War
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

The Peace Movement is Being Hijacked by the Liberals?

by Lloyd Hart (dadapop [at] dadapop.com)
In today's New York Times Kate Zernike and Dean E. Murphy in their article are claiming that the "most influential antiwar coalitions have shifted away from large-scale disruptive tactics"
The Peace Movement is Being Hijacked by the Liberals?

By Lloyd Hart

In today's New York Times Kate Zernike and Dean E. Murphy in their article are claiming that the "most influential antiwar coalitions have shifted away from large-scale disruptive tactics" and also went on to claim that the "nation's largest antiwar coalitions were abandoning their plans to disrupt everyday life" "in an effort not to offend most Americans". The article also goes on to claim that the "National Council churches were afraid the confrontational tactics will only alienate the American public". If these claims that these journalists and York Times are making are true then as always we're seeing the beginning of the Liberal attempt to hijack peace movement. And as always the Liberals are showing their cowardice at a time when they should be showing leadership and getting out into the street sitting down with the rest of the people they encouraged to get arrested and spend a night in jail with the backbone of the peace movement.

It's very easy after all hard work has been done for those that have without any democracy involved to take the reins of the peace movement and steer it nose first into the ground. This kind of behavior has come from the Liberals time and time again but many who understand their cause to be just fortunately didn't listen. The nonviolent civil disobedience that the African-American community took part in the '50s and '60s forced an entire nation to come to terms with its continued criminal behavior against a people whom we stole everything that they had including their freedom. Does anybody out there think that the racism against Arab people today is any different. The slaughter of innocent Iraqi men, women and children in order for us to take over and privatize the Strategic Oil Supply is absolutely no different than enslaving the African-Americans because of their skin color and later segregating them and keeping them in economic slavery to this very day. The colonial take over of the Arab oil states is no different from the slaughtering of 30 million native Americans in a deliberate act of mass genocide in order to make North America safe for white people. If the American public has not dealt with these above issues to the fullest airing that truth and justice can deliver under the Constitution of the United States of America then you can be assured the American public is not dealing with the fact they are murdering Iraqi men, women and children.

The only time the advancement of social and environmental justice has occurred in America's history is when the lives of the American public were disrupted, when the lives of the American public were forced to share the cost of the criminal behavior of our leaders. So if the Liberals want to divide and conquer the peace movement by using this despicable New York Times article to do so then they can look forward to absolute disruption of the 2004 Democratic convention in Boston Mass. where the Liberals will attempt another series of lies and deceits in an attempt to appease the right wing fascists that stole election 2000 right out from under their cowering Liberal noses. If liberals want to repeat history then it'll be 1968 all over again. It's Abbie Hoffman time in America and non-violent civil disobedience and the disruption of the lives of the American public are the only effective means to teach peace.

As someone who has been arrested in the cause of social and environmental justice I commend all those who have been arrested and ask you from the bottom of heart please continue blocking traffic as the traffic on our roads is the very result of the American public's oil racism and present bid for oil mastery throughout the World. We must turn away from the very cowardice that the Liberals are attempting to sew into our movement with their anti-democratic tactics of using the very corporate media that manufactures public opinion through a corrupt process of so-called public opinion polls. We must not succumb to false leadership with so-called calculated strategies that they think will work. We must follow our hearts and legitimize and support all forms of nonviolent protest regardless of the cost to the tranquil American economy that continues to use racism in order to steal other peoples resources. So the matter what you hear or read in your e-mail's or read in today's New York Times Liberals are not in charge of America's peace movement and for that matter, a much more important component, the global peace movement that is now participating in the ultimate disruption of American lives the Global Boycott and Non-violent Civil disobedient Blockade of All Things American. To the Streets! To the Streets! To the Streets!
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Darksyde888
i'd like to point out a couple things...
flarg said "Perhaps it's not that we "liberals" are taking over "your" movement. Perhaps it's just that we have more staying power."

- this current movement belongs to no one except the people, but there have been attempts to hijack and steer the movement by namby pamby liberals and the more conservative elements. Those who try to steer the movement do so because they are worried of what the press and people will say concerning their tactics.

-Marches alone won't stop a war, and at this point I doubt anything will. Bush seems determined to fight it at any cost. I've heard Democrats and some Greens talk about the 2004 election as a chance to remove Bush from power and how it was necessary to vote against Bush. That idea would be great if it would end the war, but I'll bet anyone 20 bucks that if a Democrat wins in 2004 the war will continue. A few days ago, I heard excerpts of Senator Tom Daschle's speech on tv-

"On the morning of Monday, March 17, Daschle told members of a public-employees' union he was 'saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're forced to war, saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort so critical for our country.' "
source: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2003/03/28/news/local/top/news01.txt

A few days later the Senata voted on a resolution supporting the troops and the commander in chief. It passed unanimously 99-0. And this is what Tom Daschle said... "We may have had differences of opinion about what brought us to this point, but the president is commander-in-chief, and today we unite behind him as well."
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/20/sprj.irq.congress.reax/index.html

This from Senate Democrat leader Tom Daschle. Furthermore, top Democrat candidates for 2004, Lieberman and Kerry have spoken out in support of the war and the troops, Lieberman laying the blame for this war squarely on saddam hussein. I think this is the reason why some are worried that the liberals are trying to take over the anti war movement for political gain. The Democrat leadership is spineless at a time when it is time for people have to stand up for their convictions.

- As for the more aggressive protesters, I've taken part in BB tactics several times, we march together with the rest of you in the big marches, and we don't hijack the movement either. In the past, we took part in breakaway marches to make some statements, 1) you don't need a permit to march, 2) who backs this war and benefits from it...the government, the media and the corporations. And that is why the INS building, the Chronicle, the british consulate and other targets were attacked in the past few months.

- So in conclussion, i'd like to state that people are afraid of the liberal democrats hijacking the anti war movement for political gain because the democrat liberals are just as much part of the problem as the neo-conservatives working for Bush. Members of my family registered as democrats- 8 in total, and they have lost faith in this political system and the namby pamby democrat party. They wont endorse a party that is in bed with the warmongers.
by Seen the light
"So if the Liberals want to divide and conquer the peace movement by using this despicable New York Times article to do so then they can look forward to absolute disruption of the 2004 Democratic convention in Boston Mass. where the Liberals will attempt another series of lies and deceits in an attempt to appease the right wing fascists that stole election 2000 right out from under their cowering Liberal noses. If liberals want to repeat history then it'll be 1968 all over again. It's Abbie Hoffman time in America and non-violent civil disobedience and the disruption of the lives of the American public are the only effective means to teach peace."

In 1968 the Chicago riots discredited the Democratic party and helped elect Richard Nixon. Let's hope the Boston riots of 2004 will re-elect George W Bush.
by wasichu
folks, don't worry about the liberals. The course and power of the anti-war movement will be determined by the resistance of the people being attacked.

And the real change will come from the bottom 20% of the population that the Dems have written off.

They will be the first to get the ax when all the foreign adventures go to hell.
by Dept. Homeland Security
We have your names.

We have your addresses.

We are going after the ones of you who DON'T have guns first.
by turnitup
Some media research firms are advising American media outlets to avoid covering peace protests at all costs. People are flipping the channel, I guess because they're getting bored, with each protest looking just like the last one. The corporate owned media is afraid they'll lose viewers and advertising dollars. Something must be done to counteract this.
by think for yourself
Here's more info:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=media+protests+magid

Corporate media gave more coverage to the parades than most people wanted. People are telling them they've seen enough of the parades, die-ins, block-ins, bike-ins. Corporate media was on your side, not the people's side.

"Something must be done to counteract this."

You don't get it yet -- you don't persuade others by getting in their face and yelling about how you feel. It's not about you. It's about the person you're trying to talk with.

First you've got to understand -- truly understand -- why the overwhelming majority see this as the right thing to do. Then you can work on offering them better ways to actually achieve what they actually want.

Getting off on those anti-Bush rants works directly against your own goals. The organizers emphasize anti-bush stuff because they know it will increase their crowds, donations, maililng lists and political juice, but going all anti-bush all the time doesn't help the real people in Iraq.



We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$210.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network