No it’s fine, I think disagreement is good. I understand that advocating what could seem like a major shift is likely to provoke discord. I view this first rally not in terms of the organizers (which is why even though I accost ANSWER, I don’t have a problem that they have lead a similar event recently), but for the purpose of a headcount for all to see as to how many workers (and pette bourgeois) represent the pro-Russia stance in America as of this moment. This is why I left out the leadership of this first event, speaking generally of those who wish to lead an anti-war movement in the future past this first event. For this, I don’t see Ron Paul and these new libertarianites as contenders, and even if they are they are not for our class as their arguments and interests align with the pette bourgeois. This is why I am focused on ANSWER, as they are both positioning themselves to lead the entire movement, and they aim to represent our class’ interests.

I did not intend to copjacket BAR whatsoever, I just believe that that particular article was unbased, I did not intend to lump my analysis of ANSWER in with him whatsoever (nor any of his associates involved in writing articles), in this you misunderstand me.

Going back to ANSWER, I believe you are misunderstanding the degree of which ANSWER’s character is ex-CIA. It was founded by ex-CIA and regularly platforms these labor aristocratic gangsters for the bourgeois class. Through the documents of Operation Mockingbird, we know the CIA has infiltrated the mainstream media to a large degree, and by viewing this media we see how these state actors lie to our faces day in and day out convincingly as if it is a matter of their lives to convince us of the narrative they are ordered to craft and then propagate. The supposedly retired CIA agents of ANSWER have done nothing to earn our trust in not only their reformation of their ideals (why? What drove this sudden change of heart? They suddenly grew a conscience when this was absent their careers?) but also in their repayment of their victims. Basically a group of CIA agents come along and try to organize our class and because they admitted to us they are/were CIA we should trust them for some reason?

You mentioned they were the most successful anti-war group in these times, to that I ask successful in which terms? Successful for who’s cause? They did organize a large number of people, yes this is true, but as I have stated elsewhere what was accomplished in terms of their supposed objective? Was the war stopped? Was it even struggled with? If large protests are the summation of their actions then they failed at their cause. But then I have to ask, was their goal to stop the war or was their goal to stop us from stopping the war? Have they learned from this failure and corrected their actions since then? I know they have been active for a while now, surely if they were behaving in good faith as true radicals, they would adjust their tactics to better achieve their desired results, to meet their goals? But all we’ve seen is protests.

This is why I compare them to Trotskyists; they infiltrate, play the role, then opportunistically lead the class astray. They talk the talk but walk us into a wall. This is also why I question their class allegiance, the validity of their redemption, and indeed if they are even retired in the first place. I do not believe the CIA deserve any less than the most critical analysis when determining if they can or cannot be trusted, and certainly we should default to rejection given their explicit existence to oppose communism dating back to the 40s. They also worked with Trotsky and his propaganda largely shaped their counterinsurgency rhetoric which has since evolved into modern US propaganda.

Whether it’s ANSWER or another bad choice leading our class in this coalition (and indeed contending to actions the overall movement should take, competing against these libertarianites) nothing of substance will occur unless a Marxist party is able to earn the lead of our class in the coalition, not much will occur. I do believe if Russia is able to influence a section of the pette bourgeois organizers they could also lead the coalition into stopping this war in Ukraine…however due to the economy the next war will be with China of which they will be of little help against as the pette bourgeoisie do not relate to China the way they do to Russia. Russia is a competitor as they are, they see China as the same as the big bourgeois in NATO, and due to this they will very likely support a war against China. The US pette bourgeois are not anti-war, they are anti this war. This is why it is imperative that we work to lead the anti-war coalition, so we can not just oppose the war against Russia but also a war against China. It is also likely that if the pette bourgeois lead the coalition, once the China shift begins, the movement will crumble as it’s leadership dissolves.