Visit from a friend: What about the liberals on Ukraine?

 

A friend here in the Midcoast of Maine dropped by our new apartment on Monday to say hello. He rode his bicycle from nearby Harpswell. He's been a faithful reader of this blog and we've enjoyed walking together when we can.

He wanted to see our new digs (which he approved of) and also wanted to pass on some chosen words and frustrations about the war in Ukraine. He is deeply disappointed that many of our collective friends are much too easily swayed by the corporate-owned media.

He told me that his circle of friends turn to the New York Times as their 'authoritative media source'. In this Ukraine war the Times is nothing more than a rag used to wipe up the spoilage that reeks of arrogance and madness daily spilling out of Washington, Brussels and London.

I asked him why his friends hold so steadfast to these obvious lies and distortions about the real Ukraine story. He quickly answered, "They want to save face".

I translate that to mean they want to be universally accepted in their social circles, jobs, dinner parties and the like. They want to fit into the prevailing mold - even if that means swallowing the bitter truth that they are essentially carrying water for Mr. Big.

I know people like this.

It's sad for me to say that many of these are activists (and even leaders) in the peace movement. When I ask myself why they've joined the so-called 'progressive squad' in Washington by excusing Biden's proxy war on Russia (Dems unanimously supported the recent $40 BILLION  more for Ukraine) I conclude the following:

• Social standing comes first and last.
  
• If they are connected to a particular group (especially in a leadership position) then they often worry about the 'image' of the organization. To go against the prevailing mainstream narrative might cost their group donations, members, status, 'access' to politicians or media, and possibly even their jobs.
• Many of these people that I am talking about are also connected to the Democratic party. Maybe they are on the 'left' inside the party, or even just in the 'middle', but they feel intense pressure to blame Russia for this Ukraine mess concocted by the imperialists in Washington. Party trumps truth and justice. 
• I've seen this when Jimmy Carter started the Afghanistan project during his administration. Bill Clinton and his NATO sidekicks took apart the Communist nation of Yugoslavia - bombing Belgrade with depleted uranium - breaking it into smaller countries. Barack Obama had his 'Tuesday drone terror kill list' and I recall a poll done by the Washington Post at the time which found more than 70% of self-identified Democrat liberals supported Obama's drone attacks across the Middle East and Africa. It has been exceedingly difficult to get liberals (even ones that supposedly belonged to the peace movement) to protest any of these military operations led by their preferred political party.
  
• Even though I already mentioned money - the all-mighty $$$ deserves special attention. Some peace groups, some academics, some 'progressive' media sources, and some key leaders receive generous funding from people and/or foundations connected to the Democrat party. I know of peace groups taking funding from George Soros, Ford Foundation and many other such oligarchic donors. With that money comes strings. And strings get pulled during wars like the one underway in Ukraine. 
• One example that stills burns in my heart was the 1999 US-NATO attack on Yugoslavia. At the very moment of the attack an international peace conference began in Europe. The people attending wished to create a declaration of opposition to the war as a statement from the conference. The 'leader' of the event was a long-time peace liberal who is also connected to a foundation. (This person uses the funding mechanism as a way to control the strategy and message of some important peace efforts.) This person is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) - a bastion of Wall Street and the US establishment. So in the end, the peaceful conference attendees were told NO - there will be no resolution considered - no debate either. Thus the message went out from the conference to peace groups around the world that the US-NATO Yugoslav war was essentially acceptable.

The United States chose to wage war against Yugoslavia by means of the American-dominated NATO alliance, rather than going through the United Nations, because of expected opposition within that larger organization. The “international community” was mainly outraged by the savagery of the NATO bombing of a sovereign country. This sentiment was particularly widely expressed in Russia, China, India and elsewhere in Asia, Africa and Latin America, countries which comprise the vast majority of the human race.

• So one should ask, are oligarchy agents inside the various movements across America? I think the answer is yes - of course. I've personally witnessed this in the peace and environmental movements. We know from history that the Vietnam anti-war movement was infiltrated by government agents and provocateurs. The black liberation movement was swamped with spies and turncoats. 

Black Panthers Fred Hampton, 21, and Mark Clark, 22, were shot to death by Chicago police. At around 5 a.m. on December 4, 1969, 14 police officers raided Hampton's apartment, which was a known Illinois Black Panther Party stronghold in Chicago's West Side, according to the Chicago Tribune. The gunfire lasted seven minutes, and Hampton and Clark were shot dead while sleeping. Never forget that the FBI & Chicago Police Dept conspired to murder Fred Hampton in his apartment because they were afraid he was creating a multiracial political coalition to challenge those in power.  He was just 21 years old. (The FBI had agents inside the BPP.)

• While coordinating the Florida Coalition for Peace & Justice I was invited to speak each 'season' to a group in South Florida called the Delray Citizens for Social Responsibility. I'd guess I spoke there at least 15 times. My last talk was in 2008 (we had since moved to Maine). Obama had just been elected and they were all so excited about the possibilities after 8-long-bad years of George W. Bush. They wanted me to put a cherry on top of their celebration but I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I had to warn them about Obama - he's not a real peace guy I said. He works for Wall Street and the MIC just like Bush. Obama was chosen because he would sooth the souls a bit across America with his 'style and grace' - but he would still follow orders from Mr. Big. 

  I never got invited back. It wasn't personal (I knew they liked and respected me). It was political. They couldn't dare to be publicly associated with an activist who was critiquing the quite popular Obama - a Democrat. They had their social swirl to live in that was full of Obama-lovers. Why argue? Enjoy the party.
  

Bruce