xenogere

Peace movement is really just anti-America

Posted on Mar 8, 2003 by jason

March 5, 2003 — the 50th anniversary of Josef Stalin's death.  It was a reminder that Stalin's legacy lives on, then, when on that very anniversary we could see the continuing impact of his "peacenik" movement hard at work against the US and its foreign policy.  Few know that the original "peace movement" was created by Stalin as a means to further the interests of the Soviet Union's global policy and ambitions.  Is it any wonder then that, even today, the "peace movement" is still nothing more than a propaganda machine promoting its solely anti-US mission?

With recent demonstrations against any US-led military action in Iraq, it seems important to look at the history of the global peace movement in order to better understand the point of view that drives this deep devotion across so many countries.  It's only through investigating the historical activities of "peaceniks" that one becomes increasingly disturbed by the fact that it in truth has absolutely nothing to do with peace and everything to do with America — or, to be more precise, an anti-America sentiment.

Few people realize that Josef Stalin is the founding father of the original peace movement in the world.  In 1946, before the Soviet Union had developed any nuclear arsenal with which to compete with America via the "mutual annihilation" methodology, Stalin realized the U.S.S.R. was powerless to resist should America choose to utilize its nuclear capabilities against the Soviet Union.  After his recent conquests in eastern and central Europe, it's likely Stalin also realized the precariousness of his hold on these new Soviet territories.

These realizations forced Stalin to father the world's first peace movement as a way to protect his interests while the U.S.S.R. worked diligently to catch up to America.  Enter Pablo Picasso, a member of the French Communist Party, who so graciously thought of the famous dove of peace as the emblem of Stalin's new social experiment.  As no true movement can be considered such without a theme song, Stalin inspired French poet and fellow Communist Party member Paul Eluard to write an ode to be used by the movement.

As the movement gained momentum, they were instructed to wear white shirts, release white doves during public demonstrations and to shake their clenched fists in the air (normally as a sign of strength and revolt against the "imperialists and revanchistes" in America).  Although no one appears to have noticed up front, the "peace movement" was not opposed to all wars, but only to those wars which threatened the Soviet Union as a whole, any of its imperial holdings, and any of its allies.

As one moves forward through time from its beginning to today, the "peaceniks" failed to demonstrate against events in which America was not involved.  Sadly, no one appears to have noticed this inconsistency.

Understand that I do not disagree with the peace movement, but I intent to shed a little light on the historical context — so consider the following wars and conflicts.  Each one, you will note, is marked with whether or not the global peace movement bothered to speak up.  In addition, to clarify the role of America as the sole target of the "peace movement,", I have also indicated whether America was involved in each conflict so a correlation, if one exists, can easily be seen.

Editor's Note: These incidents are not listed in any specific chronological order.

Interestingly enough, we never saw peace demonstrations demanding that the Berlin Wall be torn down and Germany allowed to reunite.  This is even true of Joschka Fischer, now Germany's foreign minister.

During all of the recent antiwar (anti-America) protests, many of the participants were asked why they opposed the use of force to liberate and disarm Iraq.  What do you suppose was the most widely given answer?  The main reason they felt they had to support Saddam Hussein was that he was disliked by the United States and was being targeted for political reasons by the US President.

What about the horrific suffering of the Iraqi people?  What about the "ethnic cleansing" which has taken place in Iraq?  What about the laundry list of offenses which we know Saddam Hussein to be guilty of (including war crimes and the attempted assassination of the American President)?

It is a repulsive realization to fully understand that the "peace movement" is no such thing.  A true peace movement would oppose all wars in all places by all people, but, as the evidence clearly indicates, the peace movement will only oppose war if the US is involved, and then only the part of that war which represents the "side" America is on.  Personally, I wouldn't want to be associated with the peace movement as it currently stands, even if I agree with them.

Yes, Stalin died 50 years ago.  It's reprehensible to realize that today he's still pulling the strings of so many puppets around the world.  His "peace movement" was a success.

Permalink Trackback