To Be Against War: Retrospective On The “Rage Against The War Machine” Rally
It has been about five months since the original “Rage Against The War Machine” (RATWM) rally took place, protesting against the Russo-Ukraine war. There have been many touting its successes in revitalizing the anti-war movement; there have been others critical of it, either ideologically or pragmatically. There are still questions regarding the use of money raised for the event, the attendance at the event, who attended, so on and so forth. Whether we will gain the answer to such questions is in itself a mystery.
With the announcement of a new rally sponsored by those who organized RATWM, perhaps it is time to take a retrospective look at what the original rally represented. It is in essence a critical examination to see whether the rally, with its main ideological positions argued by its chosen speakers and shown by the signs and peoples present, actually are representative of what it means to be against war. Some of the criticisms may pertain to this new organized protest, who sadly share a few similar issues to the original rally.
True Principles or Buzzword Truisms?
We may first ask how much of what was said is substantial and how much is just fluff, catchwords to help play the part of being anti-war, or simply to sing to the other interests of the crowd. Determining such can be difficult, as all movements requires some guiding principles, principles used in arguments and speeches to help inflame the passions and resolve of the protesters involved. Along with that, the adding of other topics can both act as alternative solutions to take or as ways to add certain agendas to the movement, agendas that may not relate to the original broad goal.
To help with such analysis, we must make a distinction based on relevancy: how relevant is a specific topic or line of thought to the general idea of being anti-war? Such a distinction rules out the ramblings in regards to voluntaryism, artificial intelligence, federal debt, and so on, used in Ron Paul’s speech, as well as the mentions of social issues such as COVID and transgender healthcare in the joke-filled speech of Jimmy Dore. This helps cut down what is of actual import, leaving still a good amount of speech focused on the subject of war.
We may further try to distinguish between certain ideas explained with more specific examples, more substance, and those ideas that are too general, that, while sounding good, may be too vague for general application can become a truism. This sadly rules out almost entire speeches, such as Chris Hedges’s and Garland Nixon’s, whose speeches may sound nice but do not add anything besides repeating general truisms. It does not mean that they are speaking falsely, only that, in finding the substantial ideas behind the rally, they are of no use in determining what those ideas are.
Even with such reductions made, a good amount of the speeches done officially for the rally propound certain ideas with substance. Many of the speakers do seem to argue for some form of peace. However, such arguments for peace may hide or shield other certain ideas, held by the speakers and spread to the masses by this rally, that either do not align with a true message of being anti-war, or create a certain conception of the war that, while possibly still being against the war, leans towards the support of a certain power in that war.
Conflicts Of Interests
Those who have taken part in the rally have shown pride in the fact that it has possibly created a broad coalition among different political ideologies: as Jackson Hinkle puts it in his speech, “we got leftists, we got communists, right wingers, conservatives, paleo-conservatives, libertarians, greens, people’s party, we got everyone today… we are here today because we oppose war and we want peace…” While such attempts at coalition-building are usually beneficial, the attempt made by RATWM is flawed: the coalition is biased towards support of Russia in the war.
Craig Bowden, a Marine Corps veteran who has written about his experiences and how it has led to his position as an anti-war veteran, has written a ten-part series of articles looking into RATWM and the many issues associated with it. One such issue involves the large Pro-Russia bias that many of the speakers hold, partly due to the fact that “multiple speakers are part of the state sponsored media on behalf of Russia” (Part 2). Such speakers involved in Russian state-sponsored media include Max Blumental, Anya Parampil, and Wyatt Reed, who all work for The Grayzone, a news website with questionable reliability in reporting and extreme bias, including Pro-Russian bias, according to Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check, as well as having greatly contributed to both RT and Sputnik, media agencies which have also questionable reliabilityaccording to Media Bias and Ad Fontes, though Ad Fontes’ rated Sputnik’s reliability as generally reliable, whereas its rating for RT shown it as questionable. While such does not mean their reporting on the situation is necessarily false, the potential for bias towards Russia is high, especially shown in the comments made by these speakers, such as Blumenthal’s comment that “Vladimir Putin […] is the main leader in the world who is challenging U.S. hegemony.”
Beyond those who have been partly employed by Russian-backed media outlets, Bowden also points out how many of the speakers have spoken and acted in support of Russia, such as Dennis Kucinich, who had originally created the Congressional Russia Congress and has spoken at outlets like RT and at events such as the World Russia Forum (Part 3). Two of the speakers, Daniel McAdams and Tara Reade, have gone out and praised Vladimir Putin, with McAdams repeatedly stating that he admired Putin and was on the side of Russia (Part 5), and Reade fawning over Putin, saying how he “has an alluring combination of strength with gentleness. His sensuous image projects his love for life, the embodiment of grace while facing adversity” (Part 2). We also have Nick Brana, one of the main organizers of RATWM, stating that Putin is “not only winning the war. He’s uniting the world against American hegemony” (Part 1), repeating sentiments made by Blumenthal.
Bowden’s research has helped bring to light certain details regarding how much bias is entailed in those involved with the rally: he has found that over half of the speakers involved support or defend the viewpoint of the Russian government in the war; and that of the speakers, nine of them have directly contributed and/or have been paid by Russian state-backed media (Part 6). Such data paints a picture that, for a rally focused on being anti-war, should be a warning as to the possible lean towards a certain party acting in the war, indeed, a party that had made the initial attack in the war. While thankfully the many speeches made do not contain direct support of Russia, and indeed some of the speeches have (if briefly) called out Russia’s involvement (such as Dennis Kucinich who, while having in the past spoken in support of Russia, attacked it for starting an “illegal war” in his speech), others have put the blame firmly on the U.S., such as Jill Stein and Scott Horton, who both claim in their speeches that it was the U.S. who instigated Russia to make the initial attack on Ukraine that started the war.
The many speakers, in their criticisms of war, have aimed their criticisms mainly at the U.S. At first glance, it doesn’t seem odd: since it is based primarily in the U.S., it would make sense for it to be focused on what actions the U.S. can and should take in order to end war and guarantee peace. It’s practical to then levy criticisms at them, since we can then logically follow up with solutions. The criticisms against the U.S. are not inherently wrong either: a good amount of criticism levied is based on true events or actions that have been taken by the U.S., and which do deserve criticism.
However, that does not mean, and does not excuse, both the lack of criticism towards Russia and the excusing of Russia’s actions in beginning the war and continuing the war, as has been done in some of the speeches, such as Horton’s and Stein’s mentioned earlier. Horton as well, justifying the Russian invasion, asks whether, if Ukraine can join any military alliance against Russia, whether they would think “that Canada and Mexico have the right to join into a military alliance with Russia and China? Or is that absolutely preposterous?” His whataboutism ignores that, as Bowden answered in Part 1 of his series, that they would have that right; and that such a right would not be inconsistent with a stance of being against war, and that “it is when that alliance invades a sovereign nation or threatens invasion, making war imminent, when such an alliance would be bad.”
There is also the fact that, due to this U.S.-centric view of the war, there is a lack of focus on the perspective of Ukrainians who are in the midst of the war. While some speakers like Reed do mention Ukraine, it is generally done as a kind of villainization of Ukraine, rather than purely the war being an evil. Even so, it is more common among the speakers to view the war as a conflict between the U.S. and Russia, taking agency away from Ukraine as a kind of proxy in the war. This is not helped by the great amount of bias towards Russia in the speakers present, as well as the lack of voices from the Ukrainian viewpoint. It does not make it surprising that participants in the rally, listening to the speakers, proceed to view those who are supportive of Ukraine, and even from Ukraine, as “having started the war,” “brainwashed,” or nazi supporters, focusing on the problem of nazism in Ukraine while ignoring the same problem present in Russia.
Now, can RATWM still be called an anti-war rally? Though these are issues that need to be handled, it could still be argued that, even with all these flaws, it can still be said that the rally, and the speakers that represent them, are still at its core anti-war. I would hope so as well; however, that cannot be the case, because some of the speakers, invited or present, have been shown to be anti-war in name only.
Anti-War or Anti-U.S.?
In his research, Bowden had found that, of the invited speakers, four of them were supporters of war in some fashion (Part 6). These include Scott Ritter, who did not speak at the rally, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jackson Hinkle, both of which did speak at the event. Alongside that, a sponsor of RATWM, the Center for Political Innovation (CPI), is also in support of war.
First, Scott Ritter, a former U.S. military analyst, Iraq War critic, and convicted sex offender, was invited as a speaker for the rally, no doubt due to his criticism of the Iraq War. However, by his own admission, he isn’t anti-war; and indeed says that he never claimed to be anti-war. He is apparently in support of the war, and specifically in support of Russia winning the war, calling Ukraine a “rabid dog” and that Russia, being the “Atticus Finch” of Ritter’s story, is suppose to put it down (Part 3).
Second, Tulsi Gabbard, while warning against the threat of “nuclear holocaust” that the Russo-Ukraine war can bring, has spoken positively of other methods of warfare and intervention in other countries. For example, in regards to Afghanistan, she said the following while being interviewed by Tucker Carlson:
I think it’s important for the American people to understand that Islamist jihadists are continuing to wage war against us. We have to work to defeat them militarily and ideologically. And militarily, we have two choices in how we do that. Number One: We can continue to invade and occupy in nation-building [sic] countries around the world — just as we did in Afghanistan at great cost. Number Two: We can take a targeted approach using airstrikes, using our special forces to go in and go after these terror cells. (Part 3)
She is also in support of Russia using foreign intervention and warfare in Syria, saying that it was “mind-boggling” that we protested them bombing it, and how it was “bad enough” that the U.S. wasn’t doing the bombing themselves (Part 3).
Thirdly, both Hinkle and the CPI are both supportive of Russia in the war, with Hinkle sporting and even selling shirts with the “Z” symbol, which signifies and is used by groups supporting Russian Militarism, as well as being utilized by the Russian military as well (Part 1). He has also made statements saying things like “Make Ukraine Russia again,” “Russia is fighting to save humanity,” “Ukraine is not a real country,” so on and so forth. The CPI has also sported the same Russian Militarist “Z” symbol in their events, showing their support for Russia in the war.
In any case, we cannot honestly claim RATWM to be a truly anti-war event: how can a rally that purports to be anti-war allow any of there speakers to be supportive of war, whether in certain contexts or in the same war that the rally is suppose to be protesting against? Either by malice or the ignorance and incompetence of the organizers, they have created an event which allows those who are in support of Russia winning the war, and who have no qualms against war in principle but only against U.S. involvement, to become seen as a vocal part of the anti-war movement.
Final Reflections: Hopes For A Renewed Anti-War Movement?
It is hard to say if a renewed anti-war movement can be created: the attempt at such via RATWM has led to confounding being anti-war with simply being anti-U.S. That the Humanity For Peace rally, mentioned earlier, will face these same issues, I have no doubt: not only does RATWM sponsor the event, but the CPI sponsor it as well, with both Scott Ritter and Nick Brana for speakers, as well as Gerald Celente, a former speaker for RATWM who also is heavily biased towards Russia, or at least against the U.S. (Part 9). Again, what we have is the formation of an anti-war movement that is not at its core anti-war.
That such occurred under the supervision of Angela McCardle, the Chair of the Libertarian Party, who was an organizer of RATWM alongside Brana, should act as an indictment against either her competency as an organizer, or her supposed character of being a libertarian and an anti-war activist. It may also be an indictment on parts of the Libertarian Party as well, with affiliates such as LP Nevada saying that Ukraine should be left to burn and be destroyed in the conflict. If the Libertarian Party ever wants to be seen as principled and not an embarrassment or poor excuse for being libertarian or anti-war, then those people who would allow those who support war, who would spread messaging in support for the invading force in the war, must be held accountable, with them either changing their actions or thrown out of the party if necessary.
However, even with such perversion and failures to stick to principles, I believe there is still hope: there is the possibility for a truly anti-war movement to form, one in which no side is taken special favor over the other, one in which those who speak and represent the movement are truly anti-war in principle and practice. Both this event, as well as other anti-war events held in support of Ukraine but wishing for the end of the war, show that there are those who do wish to fight against war. We do want peace.
We must, however, be willing to stick to our principles. There is nothing wrong with building coalitions; indeed, we should have a movement that goes across ideological lines, that allows for libertarians, liberals, conservatives, communists, and many others to unite for the purpose of being against war, not just in certain contexts, but against ALL wars, against ALL attempts of one country trying to dominate and conquer another, no matter what that country is. We must be able to stick to our principles, to fully, affirmatively, say “NO!” to all wars, for the sake of peace and freedom for everyone.
