When mainstream media misses the point.

Several prominent commentators have been presenting their opinions about two separate peace movements. Their perception is that one is "polite" and lists their reasons why pre-emptive self defense is "not a good idea", and the other consists of "commies" with widely divergent issues and one sinister alterior motive.

The first group is the reactionary crowd. Reactionaries deal with the manifestations of the problem, rather than the problem itself (i.e. the symptoms rather than the disease). They're the ones who vote democrat, listen the the BBC, and believe that the war was won with a swift victory, oblivious to the fact that one, the Iraq "war" is expected to last 3-5 years until the population is properly subdued, and two, the Iraq "war" is a battle in a much larger war.

The second group is the pro-active crowd. The word "radical" means, literally, "going to the root". The closer a political demonstration, for instance, goes to the root, the more divergent the protest signs seem. Some may protest military aid to Colombia, another may protest Zionism or Manifest Destiny (the two are sceduled to be married soon) and perpetual war. The reason that the signs seem to give widely divergent messages is that they all point to a larger problem, a.k.a. the Machine.

Let's say that Uncle Sam complains about a horrible dictator in , say, Vietnam. At the same time, Indonesia, for instance, commits a genocide in East Timor, using military and economic warfare to starve the population into submission, and succeeds in killing as much as one-third of the population. But the Indonesian leaders happen to be Uncle Sam's employees, receiving much military aid from the Boss. This double standard is a major part of the overall disease.

Just as a the conscience is to the ego, so this second group is to Nationalism. Just as your conscience is not anti-you, this second variety of protest is not anti-American.