The Peace Movement began as a Fabian platform. Nobody in their right mind wants war, and Americans have a history of isolationist insistance. The Peace Movement in America was brought here by the Fabian Socialists in 1889, via socialist Jane Addams.
Addams helped create the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. Harsh as the truth is to people who are meaningfully in the streets protesting the Iraq War, these demonstrations are only furthering the communitarians' goals. The communists created peace "activism" to round out the opposing forces in their "war" dialectic. Now the opposing forces of extreme Bush-Cheney militarism are going to be in "constant battle" with extreme pacifism, which blends into a solution" of bringing the U.S. government under the Fabian's International Court of "Justice." The peace movement is now openly calling for a "regime change" in the U.S.
Anti-communitarian analysis of the implications of Professor Guenter Lewy's conclusions in “Peace and Revolution: The Moral Crisis of American Pacifism.”
by Niki Raapana, August 16, 2003
Many thanks to Guenter Lewy for writing “Peace and Revolution: The Moral Crisis of American Pacifism.” A Professor Emeritus of Political Science at UMass, Amherst, Lewy’s 1988 book combines “meticulous research with sober reasoning” in his “eloquent lament for the moral decline of American pacifism.”
Lewy’s theory of why there’s been a moral decline? He claims formerly pacifist peace organizations like the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) embraced communist programs that endorse violence as an acceptable means of achieving world peace and justice.
Using almost entirely internal correspondence and official AFSC and WILPF memos, Lewy traces their progression from anti-communist to their open support of communist governments, particularly the Soviet Union and North Vietnam. He details their rising use of communist propaganda and explains how their terminology masks the real meanings behind their message of human rights and peace and justice worldwide.
He shows their executives calling it working for quality of life and defending active subversion of the American democratic process, (using “direct action” to disrupt our legal government and their routines). He describes them as endorsing Soviet consensus styled participatory democracy in their humanitarian movement for global social equity.
Lewy shows us how the AFSC and the WILPF, along with the National Lawyers Guild and the World Peace Council (WPC) follow the whole Soviet-Marxist line by blaming the American capitalist system and U.S. anti-communist “interventions” in foreign countries for all the world’s ills. Apparently the common goal by 1972 was to change the government of the United States to accommodate the success of communist revolutions.
While Professor Lewy probably would not agree with the ACL’s assessment of Israeli communitarianism and the role of Zionism in the New World Order, he does a fine job of corroborating our belief that the entire peace movement is a tool of the phony dialectic. We wonder what Professor Lewy says today about the peace movement. We’d really like to hear what he thinks about the role former Soviet-communist-turned-good- guy Mikhail Gorbachev plays in the U.S. with his Earth Charter/Green Cross agenda.
I took a political science class at UMass, Amherst in 1984. Frances Crow of the AFSC was a guest lecturer in our class after she was released from being arrested for painting “Thou shall not kill” on a Trident Cruise missile. At 70 something, Ms. Crow was a powerful and moving speaker, and I admired her dedication. The AFSC was very active on and around campus and appeared to be at the forefront of the Nicaraguan direct action network. When the U.S. invaded Grenada, members of an AFSC peace group held a big sign outside the U.S. embassy in Managua that said, “Please don’t come save us.”
The AFSC was very persuasive, and those years at UMass were the closest I ever came to embracing socialist “values.” I ended up deciding I supported the rights of nations to self-determination and respected their choices regardless of the economic system they chose. I was convinced the Sandinistas represented a grand experiment in democracy (and later watched in horror as they became more totalitarian in their system). I drowned in the Left’s publications and lectures, and my 1984 documentary on economic policy in the Central American region leaves no doubt as to my growing anti-imperialist slant.
By the time I left college I described myself as a Libertarian/Green/Socialist/Feminist. Now of course I can see how ridiculous a combination that was, and how each political faction I thought I could identify myself with are all merely tools of the dialectic. I mention it here because I think it’s important to understand how absolutely persuasive the Left’s propaganda is; it took a neighborhood invasion and lot of factual data about the communitarians to help me look back at my roots and remember I’m an American first.
I know several people I respect and love who have been active in the peace movement since the 60’s, and some who are dedicated to the nuclear freeze movement. It was very, very difficult for me to place these “movements” in the ACL’s critique of the Marxist’s dialectical argument, and to identify their treasonous, disruptive roles in creating a global New World Order. My loved ones would not describe their organizations as movements designed to disrupt and ultimately destroy the political system of the United States; they absolutely believe their movements are designed to usher in world peace.
It was a difficult choice for us to question everything we’ve been taught and to start over studying history without any bias or pre-judgment besides the principles of the American Revolution. Our friends and family do not see what we at the ACL were forced to look at. Instead of considering our numerous cited, credible and well-published facts about their movements, they’ve all chosen to ignore the entire ACL argument. Not one of the people I know in the peace movements defined by Lewy as communist fronts will discuss our ACL theory that the NWO pulls the strings on both sides of the phony “conflict.”
Considering what happened to our relations after we confronted the facts, we’re sure identifying the peace movement and the nuclear freeze movement as communist lies couldn’t have been an easy decision for Professor Lewy. We are most grateful for his courage to tell both the facts as he found them and his conclusions, without holding back.
What if the goal really is to use communist change agents to organize and rally gullible Americans into clashing in the streets over false ideologies and perfected propaganda? Street conflicts are extremely useful to totalitarian objectives as it gives the reinvented government a reason to impose strict limitations and heavy-handed police actions, which in turn will justify more street actions. I witnessed first hand the organizing capacities of the Direct Action Network during the N30 anti-WTO activities in Seattle, and I was very impressed by their professionalism and effectiveness. Much later I was struck by the irony of their anti-WTO stance and their true affiliation to the new global government.
We cannot ignore Lewy’s findings. The Marxist goal is to foment violent revolutions and the Fabian’s modified it to wear down our institutions in order to abolish the American system of law that protects individual rights. The peace movement’s role in the new global government is clearly to support violent revolutions, to circumvent our legitimate representative decision making processes, and to use “direct action” to impose the will of the socialist minority on the capitalist majority.
Remember Stalin said America will fall like ripe fruit into communist hands, and Lenin called unwitting American participants who help bring down the U.S. economic system, “useful idiots?” The movement’s not just about total disarmament and eliminating our individual and national defenses either, the lovely international peace movement openly supports communist land reforms like the ones in Vietnam, the Ukraine, and Afghanistan where they killed off all the landowners who refused to donate their land to collectives.
It’s no coincidence that the growth management acts and sustainable development plans sweeping across the U.S. are similar to the Soviet-communist “land reforms,” or that many of the politicians who support the peace movement are also in favor of other new programs that circumvent our system of government. Reinvented policymakers haven’t yet obtained the license to kill anyone here, but they have obtained environmental laws that give them license to steal private property from thousands of Americans who thus far haven’t managed to identify the communitarian influence behind the new laws.
Elderly Americans born in the 30’s who go up to the podiums and call the new land laws communist are ridiculed into silence at public hearings on the new laws. It’s politically incorrect to be anti-communist at all anymore, and I was told in ’99 that my references to the similarities between our land management plan and communism was the reason I couldn’t get a newspaper to look into the Dawson case. Everyone raised in the 50s and beyond was taught to be anti anti-communist, but almost nobody in America was taught anything about the final-final solution called communitarianism or The Third Way.
Hardly anyone will talk about communitarianism either, but the international solution to the false conflict between western and eastern ideologies is communitarianism, and countries all over the world are changing their national laws into communitarian laws. Maybe we don’t need to be concerned about being accused of redbaiting anymore since the new enemy of freedom wears a friendlier watered down red that looks almost pink. Communism is only one piece of the dialectic. I’d ask the peace movement where they stand on the bottom line: international communitarian law enforced by international cops.