The Story on ANSWER from someone who has worked with them

[RaulGroom]

There are a million threads on here discussing ANSWER, and I looked all over in vain for one that wasn't just a bunch of yelling and screaming about who was and wasn't a real american/democrat and all of that noise.

No such thread exists. Thus this new discussion thread. Please do not muck this up with flame wars. I am merely presenting my own firsthand experience in order to clear up some misunderstandings. If you have firsthand experience that contradicts what I am saying, please share it. Otherwise, please no one attack me or anyone else. There's no need for it. I'm simply describing a situation about which there seems to be a dearth of accurate information.

1) ANSWER is a Marxist organization affiliated with the Workers World Party. They are and have been apologists for Stalin. This is not a rumor. It's easily verifiable.

2) ANSWER has a very visible role in the antiwar movement in the U.S.

People use these two facts to draw all sorts of conclusions about ANSWER, the antiwar movement, and many other things. Unfortunately, these two facts neglect a key piece of information, one that is really available only to people, like myself, who have actually been involved in the planning and execution of large marches involving ANSWER.

Let's say you're with some Pro-Peace/Antiwar organization like the American Friends Service Committee. That's the Quakers, to use the more popular but mildly offensive slang term for that group. You decide to build a coalition and have a march. ANSWER hears about it. They want to be in the coalition.

Now, at this point you have two options. You can say "No, we aren't working with ANSWER." This has been done before. At which point ANSWER is going to start mobilizing to show up anyway, and you have no control over what they do. Or, you can say "OK, but here are the rules we're all going to abide by." At which point ANSWER will abide by some of the rules and violate others.

It's a difficult problem. Frankly, it is an unfortunate reality in this country that opposing a U.S. war is always going to be very unpopular. You'd like to be able to say "This group that opposes the war, I'm going to work with them, but this other group that also opposes the war, I'm going to try to freeze them out." You'd spend so much time and energy trying to exclude ANSWER (and in the end, they're going to show up anyway, it isn't like we have bouncers at these things) that you'd never have your march.

So the best we can really do is try to make sure that ANSWER isn't the ONLY face of the antiwar movement. The only way to do that is to have a lot of non-ANSWER turnout at the rallies. If you've been to the rallies, you've probably noticed which ones were heavy on the ANSWER contingent and which were more broad-based.

So, long story short, if you oppose the war, but you don't like ANSWER, all of the rest of us who feel the same way look forward to seeing you at the next protest.

[BurtWorm]

1. Well said.

But will it be enough to stop yet another flame war on the same subject? God I hope so!

[belle]

2. Once again--United for Peace and Justice was and is an alternative

www.unitedforpeace.org

[BurtWorm]

4. They co-sponsored the last one

will probably co-sponsor the one in January, too.

You got to give A.N.S.W.E.R. credit for stamina! I mean, they've got another one in the pipes, and probably more on the drawing board.

[GeekLife]

Credit

I will give ANSWER as much credit for their stamina as I do the christian right. NONE!

[DealsGapRider]

35. Thank you.

I get tired of all the glowing comments along the lines of "Yeah, I don't support everything they stand for, but they sure no how to organize!" As if the WWP's unapologetic support for Stalin, the greatest murderer in all of human history, is some minor, inconsequental technicaliy.

[RaulGroom]

10. That's what they do

That's why they are so powerful. ANSWER is a protest machine. They are a top-down, heirarchical organization that operates with amazing efficiency. They aren't going away, that's for sure.

[RaulGroom]

6. UFPJ Rocks

But the problem of ANSWER insinuating itself into everything is always going to exist, no matter how strong UFPJ gets.

[thebigidea]

8. like a big glob of protoplasm, absorbing everything

before you know it, you order those Joe Stalin drapes from J.C. Penny. Believe me, I've seen it happen.

[DarkPhenyx]

13. My thought has always been "Socialists?

Don't worry. They'll grow out of it eventually."

There is nothing wrong with an idea that has "socialist fingerprints" on it, but pure socialism, like pure democracy or dictatorialism or any other "pure"-ism, is doomed to fail. It isn't flexible enough to deal with those things that Socialism isn't designed to handle. It's just an idea people. A concept. Leave it there and it's fine. It's the execution that is always screwed up. The only thing that works well in a pure form is an anarchy and only if you are big enough, and willing enough, to defend your corner of it and occassinoally knock down the bigger guys that try to take control of it.

[thebigidea]

15. boy, I wonder when Europe will grow out of it

they must be getting tired of health care and all that CRAP. Well, see you guys later. I'm gonna go listen to German marching band music.

[salin]

18. my rabble rousing Norwegian

cousins never got the word :shrug:

[prolesunited]

19. Back at it again today I see

:hi:

PM me please when you have some new stuff on your page.

[thebigidea]

31. indeed there are! very silly stuff at that.

[bpilgrim]

124. "realizing why he's unpublishable"

you need better gallery software - spoken like a true GEEK =)

anyways pm me if you are interested... i know some great sw ;->
http://bbs.GlobalFreePress.com/coppermine

i love your stuff and would love to host what i can :hi:

peace

[belle]

122. Pro N. Korea ain't socialism, keed.

They (ANSWER) are authoritarian, and they think in black and white terms, and they support ideas and regimes that were seen/experienced by most of the world (not just the John Birchers and Freepers) to have caused tremendous harm. I don't blame most of the people who attend their rallies, have even been one (though probably won't do so again). But really: who needs this?

[salin]

16. and people complain when that no-laster Andropov shows up

instead. Horrors.

[thebigidea]

17. I have information concerning ANSWER's links to Boris Badanov

[salin]

21. I am more concerned about QUESTIONS connections to Tito

oh my.

[thebigidea]

24. yes, but the issues surrounding Franco's known links to ANSWER remain

[salin]

32. Answer swings both right and left?

where does that put Slabo in the mix - or is he just old news.

[thebigidea]

34. "Slabo" is always news to me, he warms the Communist heart at night

he makes my red pajamas tingle with Serbian ethnic cleansing electricity.

Later this month, I'll be doing a one man show of his life whilst submerged in a tank of pirahna.

[salin]

39. going to guess that will be something into which the audience

can sink its teeth.

[maha]

48. ANSWER is affiliated with the WWP ...

... and the WWP supported the massacre in Tienanmen Square and the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

You can be as smart-alecky as you like. The suffering caused by these policies is real, and not some relic from the distant past.

Is liberty the trade-off for health care? I don't think so.

Here's a pretty good page (not mine, even) with links that might give you a clue:

http://authoritarianopportunistswhocozyuptogenocidaldictators-forpeace.org/

[thebigidea]

61. they supported the massacre? with gold bricks or monopoly money?

was Red China acting on orders from ANSWER? Were any of the protesters in those tanks?

They were? The fiends!

[Rich Hunt]

62. stop misrepresenting people's arguments N/T

[thebigidea]

63. I'm just a concerned patriot like yourself

who just happens to be STEAMIN' MAD at the international Communist conspiracy... can't a man rail against the Reds these days without having his credibility called into question?

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[RaulGroom]

78. If we weren't starved for attention, baby, we probably wouldn't be here

Dirty little secret of all message boards.

[KG]

96. his wittisms aren't phony - they're very real,and damn witty.

:)

[maha]

98. Not to anyone over the age of 12.

[thebigidea]

99. or to PUPPETS OF COMMUNISM!

[KG]

100. or to an internet obsessive.

:)

[Rich Hunt]

72. another misrepresentation of my politics

I've worked with communists. My grandfather was a communist.

You're going to have to support your smears of me, or retract your crap.

Keep lying, and I will dog you ALL NIGHT in this thread, if I have to.

[thebigidea]

81. retract my crap? never! I must leave it to the Smithsonian

you want to play six degrees of communism?

both my parents fled communist countries. we've had relatives held in camps, killed, etc etc. A grandfather fought in the revolution for Castro, then promptly fought against him. So both parties tried to kill him. Ha! The other half side survived WWII only to be flung into drab Kafka Communist landscapes.

And besides, I have slippers with Stalin on them.

So if you want to play whose Kremlin is bigger, by all means.

and if you want to dog me all night - well, release the hounds! We can do an off-broadway show, performing excerpts from this thread. In costume! Lotsa shostakovich in the background.

[thebigidea]

163. Footnote 23234. Notice the lack of "all night dogging"

this is probably best for all concerned.

[Isome]

170. Good night... you are funny! *lmao*

e o m

[RaulGroom]

29. I like this guy

:D :D :D

Not enough humor on these pages IMO. Refreshing laugh.

[salin]

33. me too

pretty hard to get this serious bird in a light mood. Btw, welcome to du! :hi:

[Q]

105. I like your attitude...

...welcome to DU.

[RaulGroom]

20. I'm not a Stalinist

But if J.C. Penny had Joe Stalin drapes, I'd order ten just on general principle.

[salin]

23. and just leave the Trotsky ones sitting alone on a shelf?

what will the shelvers think?

[DealsGapRider]

36. And what principle would that be, pray tell?

[thebigidea]

38. the principle of spotting a once in a lifetime bargain, maybe

you know, I bet someone could make a decent pile of change marketing Stalin drapes and/or bedspread. It would be inexplicably stocked at Macy's.



UNCLE JOE: "Step right up for malicious value!"

[RaulGroom]

40. Are you kidding or just square?

:p

"On general principle" is sort of a Tarantino-era shorthand for "just for the hell of it." That's why it's "general principle" and not any specific principle. It's just a joke.

[DealsGapRider]

46. I guess square.

I would never make a joke about buying Hitler curtains and so I was surprised to see a DUer making a joke about buying Stalin curtains. To me there's no difference between the two monsters. Wait, scratch that, Stalin was worse.

[salin]

55. follow the thread -

it is using absurdity (the idea that someone would even make stalin curtains) as a means for playing up the silliness of the "red scare" which is somehow... revived and alive in some of these threads. When did the great commie dread come back into vogue? It is sort of like thinking an economically collasping communist nation was going to funnel serious weapons and foment unrest via the very cash poor country of Nicaragua... but the domino theory you know... first Nicaragua then all of central America... then Mexico falls... and the commies are at our Doors! It was absurd when the Reagans bought it (and let it drive them to the illegal iran contra scandals) - and fear around this group as on of the protest organizers seems absurd as well.

[DealsGapRider]

66. I don't dread communism in the sense...

...that I'm scared it's coming back. But from a historical perspective I am perfectly comfortable in recognizing the hideousness of Soviet Communism and expressing utter loathing for its most notable leaders, namely the butcher Stalin.

I have never understood why it has always remained socially acceptable in some quarters to, shall we say, look for the good in Stalin or overlook his crimes against humanity.

There is only one socially acceptable attitude on Hitler, and properly so: he was a monster. Why is it different for Stalin and Mao?

Many on this board throw the term "red-baiter" around as if they have more contempt for the people who express their loathing of Stalin than for Stalin himself. Strange.

[salin]

87. or then again

have no appologies for Stalin.

But find this whole rush limbaugh routine where he, to this day, uses the 'commie' tag to paint liberals as socialists as commies. So the parody is more - when even on the left there is a hint of that kind of reaction.

The above - more comes from the painting the vogue on the right trend as rather amusing - given there is no threat. There is no intention - save through absurdity (again who the heck would want such a creepy thing) to vindicate or appologize for Stalin. He is as horrendous as Hitler and Pol Pot.

If it were not for the absurd rhetoric on the radioheadechochamber regarding "commies" and trying to slur all democrats as "commies" and any government program that doesnt just hold up the military or roll over for big corporate interests as *said with a sneer* c-o-m-m-u-n-i-s-t-i-c , then you would not have folks periodically jump in with absurd humor in reaction.

Indeed in 20 years in and around academe I have yet to hear anyone seriously defend or appologize for Stalin. SOmetimes contextualize, but appologize? Not any serious thinkers. Thus I find it hard to take those who might seriously. I appologize if you are finding this to be a common sort of conversation on the left. But I have really heard very little of it in the progressive circles (and academic) over the years. Not doubting it exists, just not at the level or commonplace level that is suggested.

Seperate the two strains that you may be hearing as one.

Strand 1) Those mocking the 'redbaiting' CURRENT tactics of the right - for what they are (patently silly) - which by the way is as effective if not more so in terms of defanging silly rushian redbaiting as is actually trying to debate it - as casual listers will suddenly hear the absurdity of it all and turn to the blowhard - and roll their eyes. To debate the blow hard just leads to 20 minutes or more (as long as one has tolerance) of hearing the same five lines repeated over and over again with little thought.

Strand 2) (generally not too common) those who appologize for Stalin.

And how are the two converged again?

Another thing, I think that some who try to clarify the difference between a mixed economy and government (which includes most western government) with 'socialism' with 'communism' are those who get into the third strand of duscussion - those that try to differentiate between the different systems for those who think that any government spending/program is socialized. Again I think that those conversations flourish here at times, because there is so much misunderstanding (fueled by the radioheadechochamber) and there are people here who will try to elevate the conversations to make distinctions. Sadly it rarely works (in this forum.)

I do appologize if you think I was in anyway appologizing for Stalin.

[DealsGapRider]

92. I think your post is eminently fair.

We're on the same page.

[belle]

126. I don't "dread" people who (verbally) support the massacre in Tianmanmen..

I'm just disgusted by them. It's a straw man to say we're dredging up a "return to the red scare" because we say we don't care to join movements who think violent, repressive, authoritarian regimes--which STILL EXIST--are just fine and dandy as long as they do it in the names of the correct ideals. No, I don't think ANSWER is planning to take over the world, nor that they'd be remoetly capable of it if they tried. Yes, I agree that Bush & co. are a clearer and more present danger. That still doesn't necessarily mean that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I have enough problems with the idea of "holding my nose" and voting for DLC types just because they're slightly better than the alternative and might have a chanec of winning. Why should I "hold my nose" and join up with a movement which has even *less* chance of gaining popular support and doesn't (as far as I'm concerned) have even as much of a moral edge to their stated ideals as do "moderate" Democrats?

[thebigidea]

56. Hitler curtains? they wouldn't match my couch

really, his moustache is just too tacky.

[RaulGroom]

58. I respect that

Sorry I called you a square. Honestly, I'd make a joke about anything if I thought I might get a laugh. So, Hitler walks into a bar... Nah.

:D

[salin]

42. the principle of unexplained phenomena?

Stalin... on a sheet? What mind conceived of that?

[el_gato]

3. when i go to a protest

the only person i represent is me

[DarkPhenyx]

9. Excellent point.

An attitude more of us should adopt I think.

[qanda]

51. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!

That's exactly how I feel. When I vote, I represent me. When I come to DU, I represent me. When I was at the rally on Saturday, I represented me.

[thebigidea]

5. this is a groundbreaking discovery

"2) ANSWER has a very visible role in the antiwar movement in the U.S."

I had no idea! Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

[IrateCitizen]

7. Thank you very much for this well-reasoned post

You highlight many of the realities of working within an anti-war framework, and help to dispel many of the myths that are out there (such as the idea of organizing a mass protest and excluding ANSWER).

No flames from this direction. Quite the contrary. :thumbsup:

[RaulGroom]

12. People Always Ask Me "Why Do They Let ANSWER Into the Coalition?"

The problem is (beyond the practical concerns outlined above) there is no objective criterion for excluding them. You can say "We only accept organizations with democratic organizing methods." Well, the organizing methods of about 95% of peace groups is pseudodemocratic at best. You're excluding practically everybody.

"No wacky ideas." Now you really are excluding everybody.

The only reason you could honestly give for excluding ANSWER is "I don't like them." Unfortunately, that don't cut it.

[salin]

30. while I am kidding around above on the thread... you really do give

perspective to this situation. Better to try to work with (and manage what one can) when they are going to be there anyway.

Btw, the Quakers in my family refer to themselves as Quakers. Think it is because we have Philly connections (where there are tons of Quakers) and out here in Indiana folks just have no clue about the Society of Friends, but the do know Quakers (and Menonites).

[bpilgrim]

128. besides...

thats not we are all about... i mean, anyone/group who cares has a RIGHT to SHOW UP.

we need to learn how to work together more and learn how to 'market' ourselves better... no matter WHO 'shows up'

:hi:

peace

[Snow]

11. Very informative; thanks. And, as a Quaker, I'm not even

mildly offended by being called that - that term even predates "Friend". AFSC, by the way, is independent of the Religious Society of Friends, although supported pretty thoroughly by Quakers. Friends comprise a good example of what you might call "dis-organized religion". I haven't, by the way, seen ANSWER at LA-area protests - although I haven't been to any since spring.

[RaulGroom]

14. Ah, thanks, that's good to know

I had always thought that Quakers preferred not to be called Quakers by non-Quakers.

[Loonman]

22. I knew they were communists

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!

[salin]

44. lol... oh my I feel like I stepped into an eighties version of the

fifties. Have to agree with The Big Idea... if ever there was a time when this was a toothless "threat". I find it, in these days and times, more of a novelty than anything else.

On edit - it being both the thought of those claiming communism; and it being the thought of these communists as being such a "threat".

[Loonman]

67. Not a threat

I've never like communists. Never. Communism does not work.

[salin]

89. I rather view the whole thing

as absurd. I think all sorts of belief systems are misguided and ineffective. But I don't see them as a threat and I don't see the need to vilify them. Especially when doing so is such a vogue pushed by the right and used to demonize ANYthing liberal or any government spending that isn't military or going straight into big corporations pockets. So why play into their pathetic feeding frenzy?

[jiacinto]

25. So basically you have no control of the march then, right?

nt

[thebigidea]

28. Comrade Stalin is the only one with control, citizen

please make your moustache burlier. the party would be very pleased if we all looked like him.



think of the rugged appeal this would have to the swing voters and nascar dads.

[IrateCitizen]

Comrade Stalin? I thought it was all directed from Alan Colmes...

Our Colmes who sits on high, directing all beneath him.... :D

[thebigidea]

47. there is much room in our pantheon of extremist divinities

[CWebster]

26. Something stinks

maybe it is the red-baiting.

Looks like they have an impressive coalition to me:

http://www.internationalanswer.org/endorsers.html

I live in Quaker country, that it is considered an offensive term is news to me.

[Rich Hunt]

45. those are endorsers

That is an endorsers list.

[CWebster]

53. Well, they are not rejectors

It is not a group or individuals and organizations saying we don't want to play with you ANSWER because you have had known associations with or known someone with associations to the communist party.

[Q]

27. Another RED SCARE?

...and to think I almost missed it!

[thebigidea]

37. seriously, is this being scared of communists thing really a good idea?

I can't think of a more toothless creature in this day and age.

"My goodness!" - to quote Rumsfeld... with Bush running rampant, you're looking for those little Russian dolls within dolls within the protest movement?

Why not check for dirt underneath all of our fingernails too?

Check to see who dyes their hair. DECIEVERS!

[RaulGroom]

43. I think...

This question would more appropriately (though probably no more productively) be directed at the band of screeching wolves currently marauding around the board howling at the red moon.

That reply to Carlos was fucking hilarious by the way.

[Rich Hunt]

50. straw man

Once again, this is a STRAW MAN.

You might want to ask yourself why ISO & CPUSA prefer to align themselves with UFPJ. Neither is David McReynolds and the Socialist Party - you can find quotes of him complaining about them online.

These groups and their members aren't fond of the stances of the WWP.

[thebigidea]

54. but its very good straw

I might want to ask the more important question: why hasn't Burt Reynolds aligned himself with the UFPJ?

[Rich Hunt]

57. very mature

Do you have an argument to make here? This is a serious thread.

Take your jokes to the lounge. It's disrespectful to mock people's arguments here.

[thebigidea]

59. was this the right room for an argument?

I'm not serious? You mean there ISN'T an insidious red menace ready at any moment to swallow us alive?

[Rich Hunt]

64. stop misrepresenting people's arguments

...you are being disruptive.

Please point to the post where someone said there was "an insidious red menace".

I'll take your failure to address and to resort solely to distortion and caricature as a failure to make a logical argument.

[thebigidea]

69. there is no use for logic in the face of a Soviet MENACE!

Can't you see? That's just the way they EXPECT us to think, calmly, rationally... without distortion...

well, my fine feathered friend - I'll have you know that no red will get the best of me... I know how they play their dirty games, and I have plenty of moist towelettes to repeatedly wash my hands with, in hopes of removing the TAINT of communism...

I'll just keep scrubbing and scrubbing, repeating the name of my lord and savior.

For god's sake, man! Don't draw too much attention to yourself! They have eyes everywhere! ANSWER is just the tip of the iceberg... ask yourself this: have you ever wondered how milk REALLY gets delivered? Look no further than Cuba.

More later. Keep a low profile.

[Rich Hunt]

79. that's not what this is about

You mocked me for making the valid point that other communists and socialists aren't fond of ANSWER.

I therefore refuted your caricature.

But you refuse to respond to that, because it's more important for you to have a straw man.

[thebigidea]

85. I refute the premise of your refutation! I refute the very idea...

My straw man has kept me alive through countless wars and purges. It nourishes me in dark periods of sickness, it provides sustenence through sleepless nights when only Stalin permeates my thoughts - Stalin. What had become of him, and why did he stop writing letters to me? I used to get three a week... then - silence. There was something afoot in Moscow, and it was time to trim my moustache.

[RaulGroom]

60. I gotta disagree

Of all the ways I imagined this thread being hijacked, I never could have imagined this. I am loving every minute of it. Groom on, thebigidea, Groom on.

[IrateCitizen]

65. If you think that this shtick is good, you should've seen his stuff on...

ALAN COLMES.

I don't think I've ever laughed so hard at something on DU before in my life, as I did at that.

thebigidea is definitely humor relief on these boards! :bounce:

[RaulGroom]

74. Where can I read that?

I've got to see it, man. I'm jonesin for more funny. Once I get my lips around the crack pipe of funny, i gotta have more, more more!!!!!!!!!!! Show me the funny!

OK, that crossed the line. Sorry. No more Cuba Gooding Jr. references allowed in this thread.

[IrateCitizen]

82. I wish I could find it. It was a thread started by Catwoman...

... that degenerated into thebigidea proclaiming Alan Colmes lord over all that was just and good in the universe. I can't really do it justice, you just had to be there, I guess. :shrug:

Sorry to disappoint.

[Rich Hunt]

68. it's disruptive

...and it's childish.

It is a disruption perpetrated by people who want to discourage valid criticisms of ANSWER / WWP.

Keep clowning, and I'll keep at you with rational arguments.

This is a transparent, coordinated disruptive tactic.

[RaulGroom]

70. Yeah, but it's funny

Sorry, you're dealing with a humor columnist here. If it's funny, it can't be bad. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[thebigidea]

73. coordinated from HAVANA and don't ever forget it

isn't it a little odd that I'm half-Cuban... now, there may not be any cigars around - but the evidence does point to one man with a flair for fatigues and a beard the CIA was dying to make fall out.

I'll say it out loud - CASTRO. Yes, I'm on his payroll to disrupt all talk of ANSWER before the brave patriots discover that the puppetstrings lead to his Fidelista fingers.

[IrateCitizen]

76. Hmmm... that's funny, considering that the original poster

was the one who pointed out some very valid criticisms of ANSWER -- and he's also the one saying he's getting a kick out of the posts of thebigidea.

The overriding message -- stop taking everything so damned seriously, and take a minute to laugh once in a while! :D

It won't kill you, nor will it make anyone on this board think any less of you. I promise. ;-)

[Rich Hunt]

84. I don't like having my own views misrepresented

I've participated in humorous threads elsewhere, but I won't laugh at something that is an inaccurate caricature of people's views.

He is making arguments disguised as jokes.

[thebigidea]

86. he is making jokes disguised as disused, disinterested arguments!

he's making a mockery of this courtroom, your honor. Frankly, I'd like to see him held in contempt.

JUDGE: "Order in the court!"

[Selwynn]

88. If you don't laugh you'll end up in a really ridiculous argument....

in which only one of you is really trying to be serious and rationa and the other one is just having a lot of fun at the expense of your flustered frustration.

Believe me on this....I know from experience. I was well schooled in another thread where I was trying to be serious and was yet beat down by invincible levity and refusal to be logical.

Had I simply laughed and blown it off... :D

Humor > rationality every time. Don't even try. IF the person your discussing things with is obvioulsy just messing with you you have two choices: 1) mess with him back and laugh a lot 2) walk away. Here endeth a lesson I was recently well taught. :)

[thebigidea]

90. (clap clap clap)

a good point is made amidst all the silliness.

[Rich Hunt]

91. thank you.

I'll put this person on ignore.

[thebigidea]

93. then you'll miss an opportunity to win TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS!

that's right, encoded somewhere in my occasionally irritating, very rarely insightful, and just once in a while slightly amusing posts is an offer for UP TO TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS worth of some currency unfamiliar to your bank but nonetheless very heavy to carry.

Ah well. See you in your nightmares.

[Selwynn]

95. See? THAT was funny :D

[Q]

104. The NeoDems throw all sorts of monkey shit at my threads...

...I could only hope that some of them had the 'sense' of humor shown by Big.

- Relax. No, wait...there's a commie under your bed!

[maha]

41. I don't mind protesting "with" ANSWER ...

And, in fact, I have done so, at the big protests in New York City in February and March of this year, organized by United for Peace and Justice. ANSWER was there, and I was there, and we got along fine. If ANSWER wants to show up at a UPJ or other-organized protest and march with others against the war in Iraq, that's great.

But I will not assemble "for" ANSWER. I will not permit them to USE me and my presence at a demonstration to demonstrate support for causes that I don't believe in. So if I'm showing up to protest Bush's war in Iraq and instead find that I'm also assumed to be in favor of freeing Mumia or abolishing personal property or supporting the Chinese occupation of Tibet (which the Workers World Party supports), then GOODBYE.

If you don't believe me about Tibet, I have that and more documented in this article. The cause of the Buddhist people of Tibet is one I will not compromise for another.

[AndyTiedye]

75. ANSWER is doing good

The presence of the remenants of the Old Left at the protests
seems more an occiasion for nostalgia than anything else.
I hadn't seen them since the Vietnam war protests back in the day.
I had my disagreements with them then and I still do, but
the fact that they are still around is reassuring.

At this point the BFEE are the real Stalinists.

[maha]

97. Yes, they are doing good, but they are also doing bad.

I DO NOT agree that we should overlook lies and deception just because the liar/deceiver is one o' ours and not one o' theirs.

I've got no quarrel with ANSWER taking part in a Iraq War protest. I will and HAVE marched alongside them. But I will not attend a protest or demonstration that they organize, because I DO NOT support what the parent organization, WWP, stands for -- little matters like support for the Chinese occupation of Tibet.

Never, ever, check your brain at the door.

Further, I do not agree that we HAVE to overlook ANSWER's little flaws in order to get rid of Bush. First, there are other organizations that are just as good if not better at organization -- United for Peace and Justice and Moveon.org come to mind.

Second, as I recall clearly from the old days of the anti-Vietnam War movement, "bad" protests are counterproductive. The antiwar movement then did NOT end the war in Vietnam -- it would have ended when it did without the movement, if not sooner. Rather, the antiwar movement elected and re-elected Richard Nixon. It's all too easy to see how an extremist organization like ANSWER could be a liability to us and a powerful tool in the hands of Karl Rove.

Attending big rallys or demonstrations are great morale-boosters, but I don't know if they change minds. It's possible for an active protest movment to distract people from what's happening in Iraq, rather than call peoples' attention to it. Believe it or not; that's what happened during the Nixon years. The antiwar movement itself became the issue that caused people to rally around Nixon.

The last thing we need right now are some noisy extremists who scare people into rallying around the Shrub.

As I said, I won't be attending any demonstrations ANSWER is organizing. If you choose to go that's fine with me. Just don't check your brain ANYWERE. If your guts tell you something is fishy, leave.

[KG]

80. fine, don't assemble w/ ANSWER.

the other 75K+ commie dupes - oops! i mean working class americans and 40+ fellow travelers - oops - fellow DUers didn't miss ya in DC. :hi:

[HFishbine]

49. Showing up vs Controlling the Agenda

It's one thing to say ANSWER is going to show up anyway. Fine. Let them. It's something entirely different when it is they who set the agenda and schedule the speakers. In that regard, another organizer might be benficial.

[pnorman]

52. I was puzzled at how a supposedly "Trotskist" organization

could be termed "apologist for Stalin". I've seen a few around Seattle, but never enough to be obnoxious. but Googling around, I found this: http://www.marxmail.org/archives/january99/wwp.htm . Apparently, there's some truth to that charge.

But as stated above: "the best we can really do is try to make sure that ANSWER isn't the ONLY face of the antiwar movement". This isn't just a matter of trying to 'suppress' an unwanted group by diluting them with sheer numbers. But if the rest of the anti-war crowd can't make a decent showing, there's something truly WRONG. Fortunately, that's never seemed to be a problem in Seattle. Hopefully, that'll be the same elsewhere.

Most here are "ANYONE but Bush"!, although some draw the line at Lieberman. But for something as vital as opposing this illegal and immoral WAR, it should be "ANYTHING but staying at home when a protest is scheduled"! (with damn few 'principled' exceptions).

[RaulGroom]

83. Thanks everybody

I've GOT to go do some work. This is my first thread that's ever gone anywhere, though, and it was great fun. To all the people who made me laugh, thanks. To those I pissed off, I didn't mean it. OK, yeah, I meant it. But it was meant in good fun.

To all my starving fans (crickets chirping) I should have something new out soon.

[thebigidea]

94. yeah, doubplusfun.

Interesting to see how much mileage you can still get out of the Red Scare.

[knight_of_the_star]

101. I will not march under ANSWER

I'm with UFPJ, and I will gladly march at rallies that UFPJ or MoveOn or NION organize, but NOT ANSWER. Any group that is so solidly attached to a Stalinist organization like the World Workers' Party. My real beef with ANSWER is they have a NASTY talent for draining away people from marches that other groups organize, which in my opinion weakens the movement as a whole.

[jonnyblitz]

103. the leader of UFPJ , Leslie Cagan has a marxist past...

I read it on a right wing website once. Now what will you do...

[knight_of_the_star]

108. There is a difference

Between Marxist and Stalinist. I know that Stalinist Communism is MUCH more hard line and orthodox in the sense that they will purge their ranks of ANY who disagree. History has solidly proven the difference between the two philosophies, so I don't think I need to go into that.

[maha]

119. I've never seen UPJ pull a bait a switch

I've been to two UPJ demonstrations against the war, and the demonstrations were against the war. UPJ didn't publicize the demonstrations were against the war but then sneak in a whole additional agenda once everyone had shown up.

[CWebster]

102. I feel ashamed

The one group that has taken on the tremendous task and persevered in the face of opposition, dirty rumors, red-baiting, charges of anti-semitism, to act and demonstrate and protest and take it to the streets. And we sit around here and complain. You know, we complain when the Dems don't do anything and we complain when activists don't do it the way we think it should be done...but we aren't doing anything about it.

And ANSWER is great. They provide the ways and means and they don't charge alot and they provide for people who can't afford it. Their buses are always racially diverse and interesting.

You know, Rove and his boys couldn't do a better job of fractionalizing and rendering impotent the voice and will the people than we do ourselves.

[jiacinto]

106. Do you support the killing of American troops?

Because, per the other thread, that's what ANSWER supports when it calls for people to support, join, and rally around the Iraqi resistance!

If you support ANSWER and think it's great then you must think it's great that US Troops get killed.

How disgusting. That you can even sympathize with a group like ANSWER sickens me.

[CWebster]

107. You don't know how disgusting I find your unfounded accusations

Provide the link. And make sure it isn't Horowitz's "Front Page" rag or some other fascist neocon likud source.

Until then, excuse me for suspecting your underlying agenda has something to do with ANSWER's non-apologetic stand aginst the brutal Israeli occupation.

[jiacinto]

109. Disgusting

I find it digusting that you would sympathize with those who want to kill American troops. And ANSWER's oppostion to the good, upstanding nation of Israel also is an issue with me.

There was a thread that argued this point over the weekend. It was here.

[prolesunited]

110. So Israel is simply a

good, upstanding nation that is simply a victim of those evil Palestinians?

Open your eyes, Carlos, there's plenty of blame to go around in the ME.

BTW, I was in DC and I must have missed all those chants and signs calling for the death of US troops. :shrug: Strange all those veterans and family members of troops in Iraq were there supporting the killing of U.S. troops as well.

[jiacinto]

111. Never said Isreal was completely perfect

but some people here just blame them for everything.

[KG]

112. you support a country that would blatently kill US citizens?

how disgusting!

[KG]

113. you support a country that killed 34 US sailors?

that sickens me!

[jiacinto]

114. Never said Israrel was perfectt

but I will not sympathize with the terrorists that serve the PA.

[prolesunited]

115. Who said I was a terrorist sympathizer?

I just said there was plenty of blame to go around. I don't advocate blowing up people in buses and shopping malls, but I also do not support those who bulldoze people and hoses, keep people shut in ghettos and shoot children throwing rocks.

The world is NOT black and white and the entire ME situation is painted in shades of gray.

[jiacinto]

117. I never said it was

nt

[KG]

116. well.

If you support ISREAL and think it's a good, upstanding nation then you must think it's good that US sailors and citizens get killed.

[jiacinto]

118. I think it is better than the PA

I don't support the murder of Americans.

[KG]

120. yes, you do.

you just accused supporters of ANSWER of supporting the killing of US troops.

so, by your own logic, if you support ISRAEL, you support the killers of US sailors and citizens.

[maha]

123. ANSWER calls for unconditional support for Iraqi resistance.

See link in message #107

[KG]

129. you will let me know when an actual member of answer

takes up arms against the US military, won't you?

in the meantime isreal is actually killing unarmed US citizens and has actually killed 34 US sailors. where's your outrage about that?

[Selwynn]

134. Why do you assume we aren't outraged?

I'm completely outraged at Israel and completely outraged at palestinians and completely outraged at Answer's pamphlet which calls for the "unconditional" support of the US resistance rather than denoucing terrorism as an effective tool of revolution.

The only real issue of debate is that some people say "well yeah... but answer really didn't MEAN "unconditional" - of course they meant "except supporting Iraqi terrorist bombings or murder of others - americans, civillians, etc. But I took unconditional to mean ... well, without condition. So, silly me.

[jiacinto]

140. They should be ashamed of themselves

That anyone would support a group that advocates assisting those forces who want to kill US Troops is sickening.

[Tinoire]

143. WEll I'm not ashamed and neither are these vets

Ron Kovic: One of the country’s most outspoken Vietnam War veterans and author of Born on the Fourth of July, Kovic calls on today's generation of anti-war protesters to follow the non-violent spirit and dignity of Dr. Martin Luther King in what he says will be difficult days ahead.

http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/tompaine/kovic20021031.rm">Click here for Kovic's speech


Disabled Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic, author of ``Born on the Fourth of July,'' addressed the rally, saying ``the same government that paralyzed me and put me in this wheelchair'' was killing American and Iraqi boys.

Fernando Suarez del Solar of Escondido, whose 20-year-old son died in March while fighting in Iraq, led the crowd in chants of ``Bring them home now!''

``My son was a peace lover. He was a soldier for peace, not for oil,'' said Suarez, holding a picture of his son in his Marine uniform.


http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/6885691.htm


Charlie Liteky: A member of Veterans For Peace and Metal Of Honor Awardee, Charlie Liteky offers a veteran’s perspective on the futility and consequences of war. He says a new war on Iraq will compound the suffering of a nation that hasn’t recovered from the Gulf War and warns the public to be alert for false White House claims that U.S. forces in the Gulf have been attacked and the nation must now respond.

http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/tompaine/liteky20021031.rm">Click here for Liteky's speech

All and more provided here: http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/6667

Behold the Teeming Masses Protesting War & Injustice!

THIS is what the Government and the Corporate Elite are afraid of! THIS is why they have shills out on this campaign to diminish the Anti-War effort!

No different than the Communist accusations against the Vietnam War protestors of the 60s. If I recall correctly, there were people at that time wishing that they would just protest the war and not worry about fringe causes such as Negro rights or Cuba or any of the other issues Martin Luther King (a communist according to the administration and their shills) was speaking about before being assassinated.

And you see this photo? Veterans for Peace. My local chapter. We endorsed this ANSWER march as we have endorsed ALL the ANSWER marches in the past- and not because we're a bunch of Godless Communists who want our own troops killed. You're a smart guy Jiacinto, read the literature about how the CIA smeared the anti-war organizations in the 60s. This is no different. Please don't fall for it. Lives, American and Iraqi, depend on people not falling for this swill.

[maha]

152. One more time: I think the protest was great.

I'm not opposed to protesting the war. I've done it myself. I'm just saying be careful how cozy you get with ANSWER.

[thebigidea]

153. but their comforters and futons are so SOFT! How can you NOT get cozy?

[maha]

154. One more time: I think the protest was great.

I'm not opposed to the protests. I've taken part in some protests with ANSWER members, also. I'm just advising people to be careful. If ANSWER is allowed to become the face of the antiwar movement, this will do all of us much more harm than good.

[prolesunited]

127. C'mon, KG

don't try to confuse him with logic. ;-)

[KG]

130. he was using logic?

sure coulda fooled me! :)

[prolesunited]

137. No, silly

He wasn't using logic. You were. :-)

[maha]

121. ANSWER itself.

According to an ANSWER pamphlet, "Counter-revolution & Resistance in Iraq," "The anti-war movement here and around the world must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance."

In other words, we're supposed to give "unconditional support" to people killing American soldiers.

You can download the pamphlet in PDF format from the ANSWER web site here:

http://www.internationalanswer.org/campaigns/resources/index.html

[Selwynn]

136. I've seen maha post this several times, and no one responds...

instead they go after the easier flame bait.

The bottom line is this, what does answer mean when they say "unconditional."

Those of us with problems with answers position, take unconditional to mean without condition.

Those who are apologizing for answer apparently believe that uncondtional doesn't actually mean that.

[CWebster]

145. not likely

considering they are calling for supporting the troops by pulling them out of Iraq.

[maha]

150. Words mean things.

It's not saying, "let's support U.S. soldiers," it says, "support the resisters unconditionally," which taken literally means to support EVERYTHING they do, including murdering Red Cross workers and killing soldiers.

It's very important to take people at their word and not pretend they are saying something other than what they are saying because we want to like them.

Remember, the parent organization, WWP, supports the Chinese occupation of Tibet (I have already posted links but will post them again if you want to see them) and thinks it's just peachy that China invaded Tibet; killed millions of Buddhist monks; burned monasteries, artifacts, and irreplacable sacret texts; drove the Dalai Lama into exile; and today is systematically destroying the Buddhist culture of Tibet.

It may be there are people in ANSWER who disagree with this, but what is says to me is that ANSWER doesn't get a pass. If their literature, read literally, says that the Iraqi resisters must be supported UNCONDITIONALLY, then I suspect that's what it means.

[thebigidea]

151. my friend, it is much worse than that...

ANSWER actively encourages the audience to murder Red Cross workers, right out there in the open! I was at the DC protest, and they hung a Red Cross worker by the lampost just because he was snoring too loud.

Will they stop at nothing?

[CWebster]

165. So?

I support the Iraqi right to resist occupation.

What the hell would you have them do?

ANSWER supports withdrawing the troops as opposed to killing them. Bush and his failed fantasy enterprise are who is keeping them in harm's way.

[CWebster]

166. And yeah, I want to see your links

because during the previous round of ANSWER bashing with Michael Lerner, the history of ANSWER and other groups were discussed on a number of progressive sites, remarking they had such members but that it wasn't the defining philosophy of the movement.

And, be very fucking careful, my mother is a registered communist and she doesn't look or act like the boogie man to me.

[Forkboy]

139. You must go through a lot of buckets

because you're ALWAYS sickened.

[thebigidea]

142. yes, this entire thread is a call for the extermination of American troops

wholesale slaughter, advocated on orders from Moscow.

"If you support ANSWER and think it's great then you must think it's great that US Troops get killed."

I'm ordered to find it utterly fantastic! I twirl my evil, greasy moustache every time I hear the normally heartbreaking news of death and destruction. I smile warmly, knowing that ANSWER has programmed me well.

[maha]

158. But they AREN'T "the one group"

Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice can both turn out bigger crowds than ANSWER. In fact, I suspect the only reason last Saturday's protests were as large as they were was that UPJ was a co-sponsor.

[Zorra]

125. HEY, RAULGROOM!

Sorry to be rude - I really need to know this information:
You say
1) ANSWER is a Marxist organization affiliated with the Workers World Party. They are and have been apologists for Stalin. This is not a rumor. It's easily verifiable.

How can I verify this, if it is easily verifiable?

In what way is ANSWER affiliated with WWP?

Who have been apologists for Stalin -- ANSWER, the WWP, or both?

Please don't take this as an attack. I agree with your synopsis. If ANSWER is a Marxist organization, they are not going away. Marxists have standardized methods of group manipulation which suits the Marxist agenda, and that pisses me off. Marx had a few good ideas. But countries with Marxist systems always seem to fall prey to ruthless, power hungry leaders, and countries with Marxist systems are never going to get out of the "revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" phase, because ruthless leaders won't give up their power. I don't like dictatorships in any form. I'm a democrat.

But I just have not found satisfactory proof that ANSWER is a Marxist organization. So, how can I prove it?

Thanks.

[RaulGroom]

146. Sensible enough questions

To clarify, ANSWER is basically a front for the WWP. It's the mass action arm of the IAC (which is itself a WWP group) that seeks to insert a Marxist/Stalinist character into antiwar protests.

ANSWER itself cannot be really said to have an ideololgy; as I stated above it is really just a protest machine. It exists to organize protests, or in many cases, to glom on to protests planned by others and pretend to have organized them. If you remember the April 20th protests last year, I can tell you firsthand ANSWER had exactly nothing to do with planning the march, yet many people who were there mistakenly believe it was an ANSWER event. In fact ANSWER had a protest planned for the following weekend and moved it to April 20th so that they could claim to have drawn 100,000 rather than the 10-15,000 they were probably responsible for mobilizing.

As for ANSWER's being a front for the International Action Center (a WWP organization), I probably overstated how easy it is to prove that. You sort of have to have encountered the group firsthand, and it becomes a little more obvious. However, the best treatment of the subject for those without that experience is here: http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/000710.shtml

Scroll down to see a "rebuttal" of sorts from an ANSWER type and you can decide for yourself who, if anyone, has a sound argument.

As for whether the WWP are apologists for Stalin, check out the writings of their founder, Sam Marcy. It's possible it's overstating things to call Marcy (and by extension his group) a Stalin apologist, so again, read and decide for yourself.

http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/index1.htm

NOTE - if you work for an organization that monitors your internet use, you might want to explore the WWP website at home.

[Zorra]

171. Thanks.....but

this is all still only evidence of "guilt" by association. I will email ANSWER and ask them point blank if they are an organization that is primarily funded/sponsored by Marxist organizations, or are an avowed Marxist organization. But it does appear that ANSWER may have a Marxist agenda.

The WWP is not a question for me, I already know what they are about.

This is to anyone who thinks that all the posters who are questioning ANSWER's possible Marxist agenda are John Birch Society infiltrators:

I believe that I understand why nations adopt Marxist or pseudo-Marxist political and economic systems. IMO, (and this is way overly simplified) it is in order to insure that transnational capitalists do not gain a foothold in their countries. Once transnationals get established in a country, they exploit the people and the natural resources of that country, and that nation essentially loses a great deal of its sovereignity, natural wealth, and cultural identity. I can't blame countries for adopting pseudo-Marxist systems. Countries that are run by transnational corporations, such as the US, have a history of deliberately disrupting and overthrowing governments that resist transnational corporate exploitation and control. Countries with Marxist or pseudo-Marxist systems adopt somewhat repressive policies ("the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat") in order to keep the transnational disrupters out in order to protect their own sovereignity. If they allowed a free democracy, the transnational corporate governments would waltz right in and take over. So they attempt to maintain a dictatorship, in the hope that someday the transnational threat will end, and they can allow a free democracy. To me, this is understandable. I don't think I would, personally, like a system like this as my government, but I think I see the logic behind it.....

But this just ain't gonna happen in the US. Capitalism is here for a long time to come, and Marxist agendas are a waste of time here. It seems to me that a genuine "Social Democracy", a blend of socialism and capitalism, in which the market is somewhat controlled, and prevented from exploiting resources and labor, and prevented from corrupting and controlling the government, will work. Realistic social programs which insure the well-being of all the people regardless of circumstances are possible, and necessary for the nation to evolve into a sane place to live. Hopefully, we can achieve this through democratic methods.

So this is my problem with ANSWER. If it really does have a Marxist agenda, and is generally perceived as the driving force behind the anti-war movement, it will give the anti-war movement a bad name in the eyes of the majority of people in the US, because Marxism is a traditional "boogeyman" for most Americans. It doesn't matter if this perception is right or wrong, I think we all recognize that this is "reality". We simply don't need any unnecessary obstructions to hinder the anti-war cause. I think it's great that ANSWER is against the war. I think it's great that they provide transportation to protests. But if their real main objective is to stop war, they should drop the Marxist agenda, (if they really have one), or at least stay way out of the "limelight" of the movement.

As evidenced from this thread, ANSWER's perceived Marxist agenda is causing disunity in the anti-war effort. IMO, ANSWER needs to recognize this, and should issue a statement that they are not an organization with Marxist goals or sponsorship, if that is the case. And if they really are a Marxist organization, stand back and let UPJ or Moveon or other organizations, whose sole objective in organizing a protest is to stop the war, "lead" the movement.

Stopping the war, (and *), is what is important right now. We need unity to do this.

Just another opinion.

:dem:Kucinich

[RichardRay]

131. Another old commie on tactics

Been there, did that, had a whole bunch of tee shirts. RaulGroom has it pretty much right.

Any other old CAMP'ers around?

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[diamond14]

132. run, hide, duck...ANSWER is KILLING everyone...you could be next!

like stalin, and others...ANSWER will soon be coming to YOUR house to KILL YOU...and mushroom clouds will be rising from Washington DC and New York....quick, duck, hide under your desks....run run protect yourself from ANSWER...they're coming to get you....


:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[burntbuckwheats]

133. As long as they support the Democratic president does it matter?

Winning is the goal and if we need a Stalinist to help win does it matter? Remember that as long as Bush gets beat in 2004 it doesn't matter if it's Castro, Saddam, Bin Ladin or whomever as long as Bush loses.

[GeekLife]

135. I hope your being sarcastic

you would prefer Bin Laden, Castro, or Saddam as president over Bush?

If I had to choose from that list, I would rush to the voting booth to vote for Bush.

[prolesunited]

138. Who the hell said that

and who the hell are you?!?!? Do you really think a statement like that would make you friends here?!?!? :wtf:

[Tinoire]

144. Yeah... PM me one day. This is standard MO

I can photocopy the pages of the manuals they're using for you.

Notice all the lower post counts. Notice when we had this right-wing infiltration at DU. Notice what is at stake.

None of these guys are even very good at what they're doing.

After racking up a few hundred posts, they'll start PMng people, making friends, showing up at gatherings and the entire time, feeding names into databases with special flags and tags.

[Rich Hunt]

147. Gee, why don't you share it with all of us?

Whatever could you be talking about?

Is this at all relevant?

BTW, props to the person who linked to Nathan Newman's web site. Geez, ya think Nathan Newman and Bill Weinberg are conservative infiltrators?



(by Bill Weinberg)

Well, it's a good thing I meant it when I said I wasn't trying to win any popularity contests. Even I failed to anticipate the vitriolic reaction to my essay How the Anti-War Movement is Blowing It, which attempted to call the movement out for unprincipled alliances (particularly the presence of Workers World Party cadre in the leadership), unrealistic expectations and lack of real analysis. Sadly, most of the responses have been personal attacks on the author, rather than actual replies to my arguments. In responding to the three most egregious attacks against me, I will attempt to bring the discussion back to the actual issues.


1. I am Red-Baiting

This one is predictable, but misses the point. I didn't make the standard liberal critique that Workers World is Communist (as if this were some brilliant revelation). While I dislike Lenin and despise Stalin, Communism per se is sort of like Christianity, producing figures as favorable as Rosa Luxembourg or as unfavorable as Pol Pot depending on the interpretation.

I am not even opposed to the participation in the anti-war movement of Marxist-Leninist groups that do not support genocide and do not seek to dominate coalitions--such as the Socialist Workers Party (from which Workers World broke off in 1956 because SWP failed to support the Soviet invasion of Hungary!). My fundamental opposition is not to Communism, but to fascism--and, like Stalin between 1939 and 1941, Workers World has made an alliance with fascism, in one of its contemporary guises (that of Milosevic's violent ethno-nationalist extremism).

2. I am a Government Agent

This accusation borders on the hilarious, given that I have spent the last several months risking my butt to report on US imperialism's war crimes in Colombia and elsewhere in the Andes. But unfortunately it is no laughing matter. People have been killed over such allegations. I invoke the memory of Roque Dalton, the Salvadoran poet and revolutionary who was assassinated by his own fellow revolutionaries in 1975 following completely spurious charges that he was a CIA agent. If anyone has any evidence that I am a government agent, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I will thank them to eat their malodorous canards.

Using these kinds of bullying and dishonest tactics to suppress dissent is typical of the very totalitarian bent that I decried in my essay. The fact that these accusations came from several people (not just a lone crank) makes me even more convinced that the anti-war movement has become an ethical sewer.


3. I am a Neo-Interventionist

I acknowledge that I gave my opponents easy fodder by playing Devil's Advocate in an effort to make people think. Perhaps my words were (uncharacteristically, I hope) ill-considered in failing to make sufficiently clear that that's what I was doing. I thought that the subhead "Asking the Tough Questions" would make clear that I was not putting forth actual positions, and the context of the rest of the piece would make clear that I am anti-occupation. But some people whose intentions I trust (and who agree with me about Workers World) misinterpreted me, so I guess I was wrong.

[Tinoire]

155. From this thread since you seem to have forgotten

This is regretfully my last post to you for a while because you've been a bit annoying these last 2 days. Anytime you post to me in the future, I will refer to this post where I am politely telling you that I have no current interest in having this type of dialog. You've been practically hysterical in your answers to Amen and have accused at least 2 people, plus me in another thread, of lying. I can attribute your juvenile posts to age but that won't excuse your attitude on a board where there are 16 year olds posting with 4 times more wisdom and maturity. This last post of yours was mild in comparison to some others but you've just squandered the last of my good will <snip>


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=605665#613874


Next time I have to post this, it will be even clearer. It will read like this and I will reference this thread.

This is regretfully my last post to you for a while because you've been a bit are annoying these last 2 days. Anytime you post to me in the future, I will refer to this post where I am politely telling you that I have no current interest in having this type of dialog conversing with you. You've been practically hysterical in your answers to Amen and have accused at least 2 people, plus me in another thread, of lying. I can attribute your juvenile posts to age but that won't excuse your attitude on a board where there are 16 year olds posting with 4 times more wisdom and maturity. This last post of yours was mild in comparison to some others but you've just squandered the last of my good will <snip>

[thebigidea]

156. Mr. Relevant, I presume?

Let us all bow down before He Who Decides What Is Appropriate! This week, there will be a sale on Communist Aggression - all paranoia is half price.

Communism: the deadly tree with ROOTS IN HELL!

[RaulGroom]

159. Hmm. That fell flat.

You should stay away from the lines of the thread that are already complete nonsense. Hard to caricature a caricature.

[thebigidea]

162. I think its a case of a one day expiration date on that schtick

I guess I can become a scientologist for the remainder of the thread, but it appears we've reached the saturation point.

And besides! I got a new video online:

http://www.terminalproduct.com/onwardtowar.rm

OW!

[mmonk]

157. paranoia?

[Tinoire]

160. No. Inside Experience n/t

[mmonk]

161. What are the databases for?

[Tinoire]

164. Tracking and analyses

You don't believe that Homeland Security and other government agencies designed all those systems for show and are just sitting by idly?

[mmonk]

167. Since I've already participated in

Move On's anti-war fax and email campaigns, I've already figured on being on someone's list.

[thebigidea]

148. DRUDGE BREAKING NEWS HEADLINE: DEMS TO RUN CASTRO IN 4

[bloom]

141. That sounds very sensible to me

Thanks for the inside opinion.

[mmonk]

149. No problem with A.N.S.W.E.R. protests,

its just I don't choose to show up with them. I will hold up a anti-war banner on the side of the road or I'll put an anti-war bumper sticker on my car. Everyone who wants to protest with or without ANSWER involvement go ahead. There's no reason for me to show up if they are also protesting other things that I don't agree with their positions on. I shouldn't have to accept or appear to accept other positions they may hold (such as being anti-capitalist). Its a free country (at least for now) and I'll protest in my way. I know some in the general public who see their protests can't help but notice all the things are they protesting. Just being against this admin's policies gets lost. But they and you are free to protest anything or anywhere.

[TreasonousBastard]

168. I agree absolutely...

and have met some of the ANSWER people, although I haven't "worked" with them. They are tireless organizers, and many seem to be just protest junkies, not having any particular ideology. The serious Workers World types appear to be hiding in the background.

They certainly aren't going away, and they will infiltrate themselves into any major protest they can get their greasy little fingers into.

But, as some people here have said, and I have always said, I go representing myself and my organizations, not them.

I have to admit it does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I have no argument with Communists, but Stalinists are a vile subgroup of Communists and standing with them makes me feel almost as unclean as standing with Nazis or White Pride types would. Perhaps I can just go into denial mode and forget what some of them are and consider the protest itself as a higher calling.

When I've stood next to Korean War vets in VFW contingents at ANSWER protests, and walked with Quakers, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, and Mennonites, I could hardly smell the the rotting corpse of Stalinism.

[thebigidea]

169. their fingers are greasy, alright... from communist buffalo wing sauce!

its red! AND BOLD!