100,000 Communists March On Washington

Jeslek

Jeslek

Banned
100,000 Communists March On Washington To Give Aid and Comfort to Saddam Hussein[/siz]

SOURCE 1: http://www.msnbc.com/news/826359.asp?0dm=C23EN
Tens of thousands of anti-war protesters circled the White House on Saturday after Jesse Jackson and other speakers denounced the Bush administration's Iraq policies and demanded a revolt at the ballot box to promote peace, while thousands gathered in cities across Europe and elsewhere around the world to demand an end to threats of an "unjustified" war against Iraq.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

SOURCE 2: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4208
In politics it is important to call things by their right names. Otherwise you are fooling yourself with other people's propaganda. The press is reporting Saturday's "Stop the War" demonstration in Washington as though it was a peace march. Of course it was no such thing. It was a regrouping of the Communist left, the same left that supported Stalin and Mao and Ho. Indeed, this Communist left, organized by Ramsey Clark and his cohorts even supports Slobodan Milosevic, and of course Saddam Hussein. They are not pacifists and they are not peaceniks. They are anti-American radicals whose dream is a Communist revolution in America but whose immediate agenda is to force America's defeat in the war with terror we are now in.

Even the signs saying "Jobs Not War" are telltale signs of their Communist roots. (And of course this does not mean that the Communist Party itself organized the march ---- although it supported it. That was done by the Workers World Party, a self-styled Marxist revolutionary organization.) "Peace, Jobs and Democracy" was the Communist slogan in the first May Day parade I participated in - 1948. Of course anyone can be for jobs and most of us want to avoid war if possible. The theme of the 1948 May Day parade was stopping America's efforts to prevent Stalin from marching all over Europe. "We don't want another war" - its slogan - meant we don't want Harry Truman's Cold War against the Communist conquest of Eastern Europe.

The Communist left also opposed "American militarism" in the 1930s to prevent the West from stopping Hitler. Their tune changed of course when Hitler attacked his ally, the Soviet Union, in 1941. The Communist "New Left" also opposed the Vietnam War, not because it opposed war, but because it wanted the North Vietnamese Communists to win. The success of the anti-Vietnam left resulted in the deaths of two and a half million people in Indo-China who were slaughtered by the Marxists after the "peace movement" forced America's withdrawal.

The real meaning of slogans like "Jobs Not War" is that America is the axis of evil that is plotting war. That the "greatest terrorist state" in the world, in Noam Chomsky's words is the USA. We are the Great Satan and we deserve to be attacked. This is the real message of the so-called peace movement, often covertly and disingenuously expressed. But it is its message nonetheless. It is a movement of by and for America's enemies within.

The fact that a movement of America-hating communists, who regard their own country as the enemy and who sympathize with America's terrorist adversaries should be able to marshal 100, 000 activists is a cause for concern. The communist New Left left was not able to organize such large demonstrations in support of the Communists in Vietnam until the draft was instituted in 1964. We have no draft in this country now. The size of these demonstrations is a reflection of the growth of a treacherous anti-American radicalism in this country that has no Communist Party per se, but is just as dedicated to America's destruction. The fact that the new technologies of war make it possible for terrorist groups both foreign and domestic to inflict enormous damage on industrial democracies like ours, and that our borders are porous and our security capabilities wanting, underscores the daunting dangers posed by this internal threat.

That the desire to hurt this country and its citizens is uppermost in the protesters minds was manifest in their reactions at the Washington march. According to the Los Angeles Times the demon singled out by the demonstrators for the greatest opprobrium was Attorney General John Ashcroft - the man responsible for the security of 300 million Americans: "The most unpopular figure of all appeared to be John Ashcroft, the U.S. attorney general. The mere mention of his name prompted boos to swell from the crowd, followed by semi-obscene chants." The hatred of John Ashcroft reflects the demonstrators' hatred for the American government and for the ordinary Americans whom our government protects. Their agenda is to weaken America's defenses from within. The question is: will we let them?
Click to expand...

Great article, IMHO.
 
And after they caught the sniper. Damn, he could have finally had some worthy targets.
 
Why is it that when the right wing speaks they are exercising their rights, but when the left wing speaks, they are communists? Being an anti-war protester is not equivalent to being a communist. I doubt that anyone on the right would appreciate being called Nazi just because they support aggression. I really do wish the lables would fall away from this forum and open it up for some legitimate discussion. :(
 
Im not overly fond of his source either. The MSNBC one is more middleground.... and it doesnt say communist that I can tell. If I wont give Luis' sources any weight because they are far left, I wont give yours any weight because they are far right. If you catch the Economist saying that theyre communist.. then I will take notice.
 
i have given clear warnings in the past about the use of the term communists and the guises under which it is to be used. this is now the final one.

future threads that uses it as an unecessary blanket term for socialists, or any group clearly chosen for coverage by the derogatory term will be locked.

given the amount of upset the term has caused recently to members of both right and left persuasions it seems the only logical thing to do.
 
If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they would all point in different directions. :D (its just a joke ...)
 
ris said:
i have given clear warnings in the past about the use of the term communists and the guises under which it is to be used. this is now the final one.

future threads that uses it as an unecessary blanket term for socialists, or any group clearly chosen for coverage by the derogatory term will be locked.

given the amount of upset the term has caused recently to members of both right and left persuasions it seems the only logical thing to do.
Click to expand...
Its synonyms, if you don't like it, deal with it. I say commie in the same sense as socialist. Interchange the terms if you wish. And I didn't call them that, I simply copied the headline of the newsarticle.

Want to start censorship now by not allowing me to post newspaper articles? Fix the AUP then. I did not mean it as an attack, but I'm not proud of those people.
 
lastlegionary, seeing as you know what using the term will do then why not spare yourself the added hassle and not use it? i am not in favour of censoring threads and i should hope that my actions as a mod have shown that in most, if not all cases, i do not lock or edit threads.

but given the recent past and the extreme problems it has caused i see i have little choice to do so.

as for the aup i personally consider the situation with the term to have reached the status where it's excessive and inappropiate use has become 'Detrimental to the community atmosphere of OTCentral.com' under 4)7.8
 
OK fine. I will refrain from using the word communist. What if it is a headline that I'm quoting though?
 
well, seeing as in this case it was an anti-war protest '100,000 in anti-war march'

use your common sense - the right-wing media headlines can be easily calmed back, if msnbc can do it then you should be able too.
 
Squiggy said:
I doubt that anyone on the right would appreciate being called Nazi just because they support aggression.
Click to expand...

ohh, and they hated socialism and communism.
 
Luis G said:
Squiggy said:
I doubt that anyone on the right would appreciate being called Nazi just because they support aggression.
Click to expand...

ohh, and they hated socialism and communism.
Click to expand...

No, the Nazis were socialists... It was called the National Socialist German Worker's Party.
 
I think I understand how our capitol works. Men & women of great intentions bust their ass, gathering monies, friends, supporters, businesses & the lot & run for national office. Sometimes, they even win. Then, upon arrival, the DNC or the RNC chair comes & pays them a visit. In a very short lesson in reality, they are told to A)follow party lines, B)see A, C)ocassionally they get to step on their parties toes to look good back home. If they follow this, they get a huge contribution for each subsequent election, a nice big office with a great staff & then, get chair on some important committee. If they buck the system, the respective party makes sure there is someone else in that seat come next election.

Time to overhaul the two party system. Dems & Reps are not facists nor commies. They are part of a much larger & scarier conspiracy. One that will bring this nation down, some day. Most are unaware of the conspirators (see Jesse Helms & Teddy Kennedy) or it's long term implications. Why take the country over by force when, with a few generations of infighting & peon legwork, it will change without a drop of blood being spilled.
 
Ardsgaine said:
No, the Nazis were socialists... It was called the National Socialist German Worker's Party.
Click to expand...

the socialist part in National Socialism is not meant in the context of socialism ideology, instead it is based on the "national society" made by people of superior races working for their nation, and conquering those territories that belong to inferior or parasit races.

Yet, the nazis hated socialism and communism, that was their main reason to destroy the USSR.
 
Luis G said:
the socialist part in National Socialism is not meant in the context of socialism ideology, instead it is based on the "national society" made by people of superior races working for their nation, and conquering those territories that belong to inferior or parasit races.
Click to expand...

You mean it's not meant in the context of Marxist socialist ideology. There's more than one form of socialism, Luis. Hegel was Marx's predecessor. Marx borrowed heavily from Hegel's theories of dialectic, historical determinism, the advancement of mankind through historical epochs dominated by one segment of humanity, etc. The primary difference is that Marx identified the mechanism of social advancment as the struggle between different classes of society, while Hegel identified it as the struggle between different races of humanity. Hegel was more overtly mystical, while Marx adopted a pseudo-scientific veneer. The Nazis opposed Marx and his class-based form of socialism, while advocating a more Hegelian race-based form of it.

Read the program of the National Socialist Party, particularly sections 10-24. Note the fundamentally socialist nature of the measures they advocated, many of which could easily be written into the platform of the US Democratic Party.

Yet, the nazis hated socialism and communism, that was their main reason to destroy the USSR.
Click to expand...

Their difference of opinion with Marxism wasn't over socialism per se, it was over the question of whether the German race or the proletariat was the culmination of world history.

Look at it this way, King Phillip of France hated King Richard of England, but that didn't make them ideological opposites. They both believed in the divine right of kings, they just had a difference of opinion about who had the divine right to rule certain areas of France.
 
i was talking in the common definition of socialism ;), the Nazi hated socialist/communist blocks, the USSR just happened to be the biggest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top