THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 707, February 3, 2013
Government kills. Government steals.
Government kidnaps. Government enslaves.
Government lies. Government is vastly
worse than anything or anybody it was
created to protect us from.
The "Left" is NOT anti-war!
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
I often read articles bemoaning the absence of the "left" from the anti-war movement these days. People ask why "liberals" only oppose the imperial wars when a "right wing" Republican is the president of the empire but not when a "liberal" Democrat is leading the slaughter. The answer is simple: the "left-liberal" types are not against war—especially not imperial war.
The leaders of left-liberalism in North America have no quarrel with the NWO/Nato war machine; they even provide excuses for the imperial predations: "If 'we' hadn't 'gone in' to Afghanistan the poor Afghan women would not have been allowed to send their daughters to the wonderful new schools provided by the 'peace-keepers' [sic]!" is one of their favourite rationalisations for the conquest and plunder of that land.
The manipulators behind the "liberal" warmongers are the same as those pulling the strings on the "neo-cons". Both factions serve the same oligarchy and have an identical "foreign policy". The leftists know that those masters need the plunder reaped from the imperial wars, and they know that their own "perks" come from those same sources. A smart dog may yap if it feels that it isn't being fed enough, but it doesn't actually bite the hand that is feeding it.
The only noticeable differences between the rabid mongrels of the left and right appear in domestic policies; the leftists have an entire social(ist) agenda and they hate the rightists for occasionally dragging their feet on its implementation. That is why there are phony "anti-war" rallies only when a "rightist" is the U.S. president.
If you've ever attended one of those rallies—as I have—you'll know that the leftists do several things: they claim to own the rally and decide who may or may not speak, all the while talking about "building a broad-based movement"; they personalise the war which they are allegedly opposing ("Down with 'Bush's war'!") rather than discuss the nature of the war machine; they promote the whole left-wing agenda of abortion, socialism, global warmism, "gay rights", militant atheism, et cetera; and they attack free markets by claiming that "capitalism" rather than corporatism is the cause of war.
Once one of theirs is in the driver's seat, however, the streets clear of all but the most extreme "occupier" naifs. It's heresy to oppose an emperor who accelerates the implementation of the feminist/socialist agenda, and heretics are expelled from the ranks of the "broad-based coalition". Meanwhile, a Clinton or an Obama continues and expands the imperial wars of the Bushes. And hardly a peep is heard from Michael Moore and the rest of that gang of hypocrites—unless one counts the occasional bleating of, "I'm disappointed, of course..."
The "left" and "right" are just two dogs fighting over the carcass of the economy; the intensity of the quarrel doesn't change the fact that both are evil bitches, and that they are equally bitter enemies of...
...Peace and Liberty.
Was that worth reading?