Crash the tea parties!

I recently learned of the following goal that at least some anarchists have in mind, and that is to crash, and disrupt as many "tea party rallies" as they can.

Crash the tea parties!
Saturday, March 27 2010 @ 11:43 PM UTC

Contributed by: Admin

Views: 21,800

On April 15th thousands of right-wingers will attend rallies in cities and towns across the United States. The organizers of this nationwide day of protest call it a tea party. This tea party movement that emerged only a year ago is a coalition of conservatives, anti-Semites, fascists, libertarians, racists, constitutionalists, militia men, gun freaks, homophobes, Ron Paul supporters, Alex Jones conspiracy types and American flag wavers.

The following call to action and editorial opinion has obviously generate a bunch of controversy, both among anarchists and within the tea party movement. Infoshop News would like to make it clear that we did not write or author this call to action. It was authored by somebody anonymous and unknown to us. Infoshop News is an independent news service that publishes news and opinion from a variety of viewpoints. We are very open to publishing different opinions and rely heavily on user-submitted stories. The viewpoints published by Infoshop News don't necessarily reflect those of our editorial collective or even most anarchists, anti-authoritarians and libertarians. In fact, many anarchists think this call is rather liberal in tone, but it should be noted that anarchists have a variety of opinions about this call and about the Tea Party movement in general.

Crash the tea parties!

On April 15th thousands of right-wingers will attend rallies in cities and towns across the United States. The organizers of this nationwide day of protest call it a tea party. This tea party movement that emerged only a year ago is a coalition of conservatives, anti-Semites, fascists, libertarians, racists, constitutionalists, militia men, gun freaks, homophobes, Ron Paul supporters, Alex Jones conspiracy types and American flag wavers. If the tea party movement continues to grow in size and strength there is a big chance they will dominate this country in the near future. If the tea party movement takes over this country they will really hurt poor people by getting rid of social programs like food stamps, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, student aid, free health care, etc. The tea party movement will say these programs must be gotten rid of because hard-working taxpayers cannot afford to pay for these things especially when the economy is in a depression. There are three options we have with the tea party movement:

1. Organize counter-protests against the tea party demonstrations, same time, same place. This is probably the best option. We need to get in the streets on April 15th and show the tea party movement that there are lots of people out there who oppose their agenda.

2. Get individual tea party protesters to leave the right-wing and move to the left politically. That would involve passing out stuff like this at the tea party demonstrations: www.anarchist-studies.org...

3. Ignore the tea party movement. This is the worst option because without anyone opposing them they could easily gain power.

news.infoshop.org...


In this website they label people who attend, and are part of the tea party movement as "a coalition of conservatives, anti-Semites, fascists, libertarians, racists, constitutionalists, militia men, gun freaks, homophobes, Ron Paul supporters, Alex Jones conspiracy types and American flag wavers."

First of all I want to know what is so wrong about "waving the American flag" or being a constitutionalist, or Libertarian, or being supporters of Ron Paul, or even listening to Alex jones, even though not everyone who listens or reads Alex Jones agrees with everything he says, or does. What is so wrong about owning firearms and wanting to defend this right enumerated in the Constitution, or what is wrong about militias, as long as they are not radicals who want to bomb buildings, which I don't believe is the case although there have been, and might be a few exceptions.

Second of all, it is quite apparent that the writer, or writers of that website, there are at least 1,461 fans of that wensite, and who call themselves "anarchists" are labeling most Americans as "radicals, fascists, racists, gun freaks, homophobes who wave the American flag too much".....

They are trying to demonise most Americans, not to mention that these people are obviously anti-gun freaks, which in fact it is another aspect of their ideology which they mention further down in the following link, among some of their other writings

I also learned a few other things, such as despite the fact that "anarchism" is supposed to not follow any political ideologies, according to the website above, and the articles they published, and linked in that website anarchists fall on the left side of politics, and in fact much of what they preach is about "class struggle", how owning property, and owning guns are reasons why there is so much suffering in the United States, alongside other parts of their ideology which sorry to say are Socialist and even Communist.

In that same website they post some of the goals that "anarchists" have, or at least those who agree with the anarchists of that website.

I would like for you to read about some of those goals, and then tell me what it sounds like.

First of all, despite the fact that these people in that website claim that people who are part of the tea party movement are "racists", among their other claims, they then proclaim that their writings are geared towards "the white working class"...

As town hall meetings on health care become the targets for disruptive protest and a growing “pro-liberty” movement gains traction and headlines, a full analysis of the situations we are facing as white working class people and an analysis of the strategies of the new “pro-liberty” movement is necessary.
.............

www.anarchist-studies.org...

Talk about being hypocrites. These people in that website dare to claim that people involved in the tea party movement are "racists" among their many other lies, but then they proclaim their writings are geared towards white people?....

Let's continue shall we?

These people then proclaim that there is a "class struggle", and i wonder where that ideology came from....

On class…

When people bring up the term “class”, many white working people start to snicker. The calls of “leftist” or “socialist” or “pinko” come to the lips of many at the mere indication that someone may be conscious of class in America. Despite this tendency, especially within the ranks of poor and working whites, most white working people naturally view the world in terms of class, whether they’d admit it or not.
............

These people even claim that the concept of freedom and owning property are at direct odds with each other, which is another concept laid out by Communism.

To many within the white working class, this doesn’t seem like a contradiction. Part of being able to determine our own wills and act in true freedom is being able to own property. We define freedom by the ability to own objects, to own land, to own cars, to own firearms. And we defend this right to own private property to the death.

However, the right to own property is the right that allows for the rich and elites to own everything that we produce. The right to property has become the legal and social basis for the rise in power of those that directly exploit us. Because it’s a protected right to own water resources, because it’s a protected right to own land that you will never live on or work on your own, because it’s a protected right to own a house and price gouge your tenants for rent, because it’s a protected right to own a business and pay your workers next to nothing, because we as white working people have helped protect these rights, we’ve laid the foundation for our own misery.

The concepts of freedom and private property, then, are at direct odds with each other. How can we be free when a corporation owns the rights to our water? How can we be free when a bank owns the land that our houses sit on? How can we be free when all of our food is owned by a field boss? How can freedom exist when a small minority own the very means of our survival?
....

www.anarchist-studies.org...

Anyone who knows part of what is happening all over the globe knows that the right to own property, nor the right to bear arms are not the cause for misery in much of the world. In fact, the fact that most people around the world don't have a right to property, or can't afford property, the fact that they can't buy firearms to protect themselves are some of the reasons why there is so much misery and suffering.



[edit on 5-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


...This is one thing that makes me shake my head every time I see it. "Anarchist" that classify themselves in the "Liberal/socialist/communist" side of the political spectrum. It is, in and of it's self an oxymoron. The point of the Tea Parties (Not the Tea Party Express which is a Republican venture) is to reduce the size of Government, keep them out of our lives. While an Anarchist might not agree with all Libertarian policies, Constitutionalists, or Poltical (not social) Conservatives.. they would certainly be more in line with their beliefs than say, an Environmentalist convention, or a Socialist rally. So why disrupt the Tea Party movement? WTF does gun rights, anti-taxation, demands for smaller government have against Anarchist beliefs? I mean hell, Libertarianism IS Anarchy almost.. just a tiny government will do.. much freer than under Republican/Democrat control.

Which is why it's my belief that "Anarchist" are immature, childish believers in a system that they cannot even correctly pinpoint. They don't know where they stand because they don't know what they are. The only real Anarchist is the man who believes in no government what so ever, including ALL Social programs, taxation, gun restrictions, life style restrictions but also .. they cannot possibly believe in organization of ideas.

Seriously.. doesn't it sound a little funny "Anarchist Rally" .. Doesn't that mean someone is organizing, calling for, and all around supporting the mass gathering of Anarchist? Isn't that AGAINST anarchist beliefs?

Makes no sense. Immature. Childish. Moronic. I've had arguments with Anarchist on ATS, and not one has ever appeared intellectually secure in their own political beliefs.

What amazes me the most is that these people write against the right to own property, the right to own and bear arms, and they even take a shot against the forefathers of the Republic of the United States, and against the Republic, and it's creation...

A history of playing for the wrong team

The history of the white working class has been a history of being an exploited people. However, weve been an exploited people that further exploits other exploited people. While we’ve been living in tenements and slums for centuries, we’ve also been used by the rich to attack our neighbors, co-workers, and friends of different colors, religions, and nationalities.

Since the colonization of the Americas in the late 1400s, white working people have been the footsoldiers of political and economic elites seeking to dominate and control land, resources, and wealth, all at our own expense.
.......

www.anarchist-studies.org...

Wow...this person, or people who call themselves anarchists obviously have no idea that the creation of the United States was a consequence of fighting against the King of England, and the explotaition that immigrants in the new world were experiencing at the hands of the English....

This person obviously doesn't know that one of the reasons why the civil war was fought was for the abolition of slavery....

This anarchist, and his followers are obviously showing ignorance about the history of the United States, and although yes, it is true that there have been some injustice done, the same can be said of every other country, and more so those countries which have embraced the idiologies which these anarchists are embracing....

Let's continue and see what goals these "anarchists" want for the Republic of the United States...

Of socialism and healthcare

Let’s be plain. Obama is not a socialist. His reforms and the reforms of other politicians are not socialist. They’re not even radical. They’re truly reformist. And they’re truly state-capitalist.

Obama’s policies have not threatened the power structures of this country in anyway. The rich will stay rich. The poor will stay poor. Property will still be just as protected as it is now. Wars will still be waged on multiple continents. The systemic inequities that have created a mess for all working people will still exist.

But while these reforms, like public option healthcare, are not radical and do not fundamentally change any power relationships in this country, they still remain important bread and butter survival policies for poor and working people.

Just like people of all races and backgrounds, most white working and poor people have no healthcare. We’ve seen it disappear. We don’t have access to medical care when we need it. While national healthcare is not the answer to all of our problems, and shouldn’t be our ultimate end goal, it is a short term fix that we, as working class people, could probably use.

However, the red flag of socialism has been waved in front of our faces. We can’t see anything but the closet communist Obama taunting us and attacking our very way of life with these reforms.

And it’s this mentality that divides us from nonwhite working people even more. The vast majority of nonwhite working people are in support of this healthcare reform. They are in support of social service spending. They are in support of legislation that affects their survival as working class people.

We’re divided in a way that is fairly predictable. White working class people, people who have been bought off by the rich, would rather protect property rights that are used against us and our interests than work for healthcare and social services that we don’t like to admit that we utilize and need.

In our class based, capitalist society, white working class people protect property, while nonwhite working people struggle for social services necessary for survival. And thus, we as white working people play for the wrong team. And in the end, everyone besides the rich and the politicians ends up losing.

www.anarchist-studies.org...

There is an old saying which is true to this day.

"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

People might try to claim time and again that Obama's policies are not Socialist, but this administration took over the largests private car company, and put it under the control of the U.S. government. This administration is implementing policies, and laws which are found in Socialist countries, and even some which are found in Socialist dictatorships, yet there are people who claim this is not Socialism?.....

Anyway, this anarchist claims and I quote...

In our class based, capitalist society, white working class people protect property, while nonwhite working people struggle for social services necessary for survival. And thus, we as white working people play for the wrong team. And in the end, everyone besides the rich and the politicians ends up losing.

www.anarchist-studies.org...

So this anarchist is against owning private property, and owning firearms, but he is in favor of having more, and more Socialist policies.... I also wonder where I have heard before the claim that "in a class based, capitalist society of white working people everyone besides the rich and politicians ends up losing"...... Oh yeah, that's right this is the same type of indoctrination which I was put through in Communist Cuba....

BTW, not only white people want to defend the right to own and bear arms, and to own property but also many non-whites want for these rights to remain. So again this anarchist is making false claims, and trying to label anyone who dares to defend the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as a "white racist working people who do not realize that owning property and firearms is giving more power to the rich elite"......

But let's continue shall we?...

Migrants and other scapegoats

Perhaps the most glaring example of how white working people are playing for the wrong team, and how the new Liberty Movement actively works against the liberty of all people, especially nonwhite people, is the role that the movement plays within the debate on immigration.

One of the attacks leveled at the government by the Liberty Movement is the government’s failure to secure the border. The white populist logic of the movement becomes quite clear at these times.
.......

Obviously this anarchist has no idea of the difference between "legal migration, and illegal migration"....

I know many legal immigrants who are also against illegal migration for the sole purpose that you really don't know who is migrating into the country.

It is also obvious that this "anarchist" has no idea about the drug cartels from Mexico who are crossing the border into U.S. cities and yes they are causing mayhem in both the U.S., and Mexico.... But it seems that this anarchist, and his followers claim this is nothing we should worry about...

Not only that, but this "white" anarchist is implying that anyone who wants to defend our borders is a "racist"....

Let's continue...

We as white working class people are being used at these mobilizations. We’re fulfilling our old role of being foot soldiers for the political elite, for keeping other poor and working people in line. We’ve blinded ourselves again.

How else can we explain the willingness of hundreds of people without healthcare to actively work against legislation that would provide them with that healthcare?
........

First of all, this anarchist is also claiming that the "tea party movement" is being used by rich people to further their own causes. Again, he is demonising this movement, and this is a way to try to get rid of such movement.

Second of all, this anarchist doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand the fact that many of us are against the fact that Americans are now being FORCED to buy the healthcare THE GOVERNMENT WANTS US TO HAVE, apart from the other things which are part of this bill and which are unConstitutional.

What is so wrong about having AFFORDABLE health care?.....

Instead of wanting for Socialized healthcare which will increase our taxes much more, why can't we concentrate on having AFFORDABLE healthcare, on making all medical services AFFORDABLE instead of relying on more taxes to pay for a healthcare which has been proven in many countries to not work, provides only minimal healthcare, since there are treatments, and operations that are not covered by Socialized healthcare in many parts of the world, and which have caused many countries to be near bankruptcy.

Let's continue....

Moving forward

If we as white working people envision a world of safe, free, and economically secure communities, then we must act now. We have to start to identify our allegiances to that of our class, and not our race. We must create a revolutionary white identity that can actively work against all forms of domination that ensure that we will never enjoy true liberty.
.......

www.anarchist-studies.org...

So this anarchist wants a class struggle and to create a "revolutionary white identity", one which of course is against capitalism, and ownership of property....

So you tell me, what sort of political ideology embraces all of that?....



[edit on 5-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Exactly.. and its not just "this" Anarchist.. it's every single Anarchist I have ever spoke to, met or heard speak. Its a cool title to apply to your self in High School, some never grow out of it.. they have no idea what it really means, or that Anarchy is the furthest Right Wing fringe there is..

How in the world can you be against Private Property? I mean, who's going to own it? The Government???

And I don't believe Obama is a Communist, or a Socialist.. the number one beneficiary of the Health Care reforms are insurance corporations.. of the cash for clunkers, "american" car companies.. of the "Jobs Bills" construction companies, of environmental reform "Green tech investors" ... In short, he's a Fascist. While Bush incorporated War, Obama incorporated the Recession.

So you tell me, what sort of political ideology embraces all of that?....

The way this anarchist speaks, I'd say he's probably a left leaning Nationalist/communist. nothing wrong with that, not my cup of tea, just wish he'd get an education and learn what an Anarchist is.

[edit on 4/5/2010 by Rockpuck]

Anarchy when it comes to ART. i can agree with this. But anarchy in a social or poltical system? It doesn't play out very well in my mind.It's an old idea that never worked for the betterment, except for a few.

It would be nice, but human nature gets in the way.

Anarchism has been hijacked, just like America has been..

It's funny that the Anarchist of America, as well as other groups in other countries are always promoting socialism and denouncing libertarians as nuts.. The closest thing to "anarchism" in America is the libertarian movement. Another sign that political ideology changes with the tides.

The only real problem that I have with classical anarchist thought is the fact that they don't believe in property rights.

So now not only has communism been hijacked by the "far right" the "far left" is now going to hijack anarchism. I have always thought the english language has many flaws but when it is this easy to literally change the meaning of words you can fully see the flaw of the language as a whole.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by ventian]

Originally posted by Rockpuck
....................
So why disrupt the Tea Party movement? WTF does gun rights, anti-taxation, demands for smaller government have against Anarchist beliefs? I mean hell, Libertarianism IS Anarchy almost.. just a tiny government will do.. much freer than under Republican/Democrat control.

While i agree with some of what you say, I disagree with your claim that under Libertarianism we would be freer than under Republicanism.

Many Americans still don't understand that this is a Republic, one which the forefathers saw wise that should guarantee to every state a Republican form of government.

Through true Republicanism this nation, and it's people were guaranteed certain inalienable rights in the Constitution and within it the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately the Republican party has been infiltrated by Democrats who now call themselves Republicans and are only RINOs, and most of the rest have been bought off.

The Constitution has the means to put a stop to all the corruption within the government, but with the help of Democrats, and Liberals/Socialists/Communist which were part of the Democrat party, and then infiltrated the Republican party they have twisted the Republic, and they have sought to give more, and more control to the government.

Constitutionalists, and Libertarians among many others seem to have more in common with what it means to be a true Republican than they think.

The word Republican, and anyone who dares to call himself/herself as one has been demonised by those who seek to "change" the Republic into something it was never meant to be.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Seriously.. doesn't it sound a little funny "Anarchist Rally" .. Doesn't that mean someone is organizing, calling for, and all around supporting the mass gathering of Anarchist? Isn't that AGAINST anarchist beliefs?

It makes sense if you realize that like many other political groups wihtin the United States, anarchism has been infiltrated by Communists, and they have made anarchists accept the Communist goals.

I wasn't born in the United States, and I have experienced Communism, as well as Spain's part Socialist, part Capitalist system.

There are many other people whoi like me have experienced Communism and can see what the changes that are occurring in the United States come from.

I have seen many members believe that the rich elites financed dictatorial systems and people like Hitler, but these people either don't know or don't understand that those same rich elites also financed Communism, and if you take a look at every mayor world organization they advocate at the least Socialism, but somehow many people believe this is for the good of all...

Am I the first, or only person who has experienced Communism and sees the similarities which exist between Communism and the policies which have been slowly implemented in the United States? I am not. there are many people who have escaped Communism and see the same similarities, but many Americans born and raised here, and with generations of families having been born in the U.S. have been slowly indoctrinated and because of this they don't see what we see happening.


[edit on 5-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Rockpuck

How in the world can you be against Private Property? I mean, who's going to own it? The Government???

Unfortunately some people, and their ideologies are against any form of private property.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
And I don't believe Obama is a Communist, or a Socialist.. the number one beneficiary of the Health Care reforms are insurance corporations.. of the cash for clunkers, "american" car companies.. of the "Jobs Bills" construction companies, of environmental reform "Green tech investors" ... In short, he's a Fascist. While Bush incorporated War, Obama incorporated the Recession.

I saw your response before you changed it, where you said that Anarchy is at the far end of the right wing ideology, but i disagree with that. Anarchy is the absence of all political affiliations, it is where there is no government at all, and as such it does not belong to any political affiliation, even though in and of itself it has become one which is very ironic.

Most dictators, and their dictatorships depend on money. Hitler used Capitalists to take control of Germany, and to finance his war. the CCP in China is using CApitalism to stay afloat. This did not make Hitler any less National Socialist than he was, just as it does not make the CCP any less Communist.

Obama took control over a private industry by taking over the largest auto maker in America.

He has signed into law the Socialisation of healthcare, and has signed into law policies that are which ultimate goal is to FORCE Americans to accept Socialism, if not something worse.

This is not the first time that the promise of "change" has been used by Socialists to take control over a country, and unfortunately many Americans are unawares of this, and the indoctrination ahs been so complete and thoroughly that when Americans who have embraced various forms of Socialism deny it, and just snicker at the mention of the word. But let's be sincere the very left leaning baby boomer of the 60s are now teaching in Universities, colleges and even high schools that "Socialism/Communism are the best form of government", and many Americans believe this.

Just look at how Anarchists have embraced every facet of Communism yet they call themselves as Anarchists and not as what they truly are.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The way this anarchist speaks, I'd say he's probably a left leaning Nationalist/communist. nothing wrong with that, not my cup of tea, just wish he'd get an education and learn what an Anarchist is.

If most Anarchists are, and think like this guy, then they are truly closet Communists.

The term "anarchist" is so treaded over by all sides of politics that the term should probably be abandoned entirely. So many people use "anarchy" as a synonym for "chaos" or "disorganization" that its pretty much lost any descriptive power. Its one reason that there are now groups of "anarco-capitalists" and "voluntaryists"... they are more or less strains of anarchy but the people in those groups are a lot more concise about exactly what it is they are for and against... and what they think will work and will not.

Sadly even most libertarians don't seem secure in their beliefs either. Its their biggest problem from my perspective. However, that problem seems to more or less be fading away as they've found a pretty big foothold online.

Modern taxation is quite a barbaric process (because involves jailing people who don't co-operate with others who want to take their property without permission) and therefore I don't believe it will last. I think libertarians will grow and win. They already dominate the internet and in the next ten years I think the progress (or lack thereof) will prove or disprove that idea.

This sounds dumb...

Anarchy in of it self is a "system" doomed for failure. If I ever felt so inclined as to label myself as such, I would have to be living in a future that bears a great deal of similarity to Mad Max.

Anarcho-Communism is another thing all together.

I remember seeing this interview, I think it might have been a Michael Moore film, and he was talking to this Brittish guy about:

MM: So when did your country decide to have universal healthcare?
BG: Oh, about the same time we decided to introduce democracy.

And I laughed and I laughed...



Americans are so confused about the whole system. Yes Ron Paul is cool, yes Alex Jones is cool, yes if your educated enough to be responsible for a firearm you should be aloud to have one, yes the constitution was an important document for America and the world and yeah maybe Militia are a good thing too.

But you cant wish or want things to go backwards - they must move forward, you can take elements from the past, but you gotta use them as building blocks - not the architecture of what you want to accomplish.

I think these particular Anarchists are misguided in some respects.

But I think the vast majority of Tea-Party peoples are not educated enough to know what they want, beyond some vague feeling of things being not right and nostalgia. 5 or 6 years ago alot of these people were the idiots that re-elected Bush jr for a second term.

I suggest people actually do some research into the Marxist economy as a system and build a movement around that!

Waving a bunch of banners saying "we don't want health-care" is freaking stoooopid!!
(true) Communism > Anarchism
Tea Party Movement = Disenfranchised public with little to know idea what they're on about.

PS.
NO-ONE repeat No-one owns land, you can build on it, and live there for as long as you want, you don't own it.

All the stuff about communists and land-ownership is mis-represented because it all originated in the 1800's, where those that owned the land built farms or factories on it, and made virtual slaves work on it to get to property owners more money.

When in reality it was the workers creating the profit and doing all the work in the first place, so why not remove the Capitalist (bourgeois) and have DEMOCRATIC control over the farm/factory between the people actually doing the work - the workers (proletariat).

Then Stalin came and ruined it, and the west invented the Red Scare. OooOooohhh.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Republicanism

Is a PARTY. Democrats. Republicans. Republicanism.

Republic is the formation of a Governing structure. Libertarianism is an ideology attached to said Governing structure. The Republic it's self is only destroyed by other structures, like Monarchy, Confederacy, etc. Communism, Fascism, Libertarianism, etc can all exist under a Republic Government.

In my example, I am referring to a specific political party.

Which is fascist in nature.

We take the notion that "Republican" means "Right wing" which means "small government" .. Which, incidentally, according to their actions and NOT their words.... is not at all what the Republican party stands for. Who gave the Patriot Act(s) .. who helped deliver the bailouts? All of them. Who drove our national budget to obscene levels? Who cracks down on "terrorist" (ie, American citizens?) And who, besides the facades of "We don't want health care reform" .. demanded that insurance companies be placed as middlemen in the transaction of that public option, subsequently bringing about it's passage? REPUBLICANS.

Libertarians and Constitutionalists have nothing in common.. except Constitutionalists tend to sometimes be hardcore religious zealots, much like many Republicans. Religious in nature, Socialist in action, Corporatist in belief.

I saw your response before you changed it, where you said that Anarchy is at the far end of the right wing ideology, but i disagree with that.

The only thing I edited was to put in the quotation from you I forgot. And Anarchy IS the far right wing. "Right" meaning little to no government" "left" meaning entirety of Government control.. In America we now attach Left/Right to signify social issues that are of absolutely no importance. I for instance support abortion, gay rights, anti war, etc am still considered the "far right" ... because I don't believe in Government.

For the most part, I think we agree.

Those who don;t want to work and own little find great appeal in Anarchism. Since everyone STOLE what they have from someone else, it;s alright to steal it from them. What rot!

I hate to see the Tea Party movement bashed so badly, though the harder they knock it the more I begin to see it's validity. Conservatism will never be a bad word to me even though many have claimed to be without actually being so.
Conservative value leave little room for special interest group whining and government handouts, another reason for the lazy to hate us.

reply to post by Asktheanimals



No worry. People can see through this clap trap. It really has the opposite effect. Like folks listen to the "anarchists" anyway.

And besides this is just a front group. They have the same platform as others we know oh so well. Just hiding behind the label "Anarchist". Ohhh I am scared! Just shows one the true subversive nature of the powers that hide behind the curtain.

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Republicanism

Is a PARTY. Democrats. Republicans. Republicanism.

Republic is the formation of a Governing structure. Libertarianism is an ideology attached to said Governing structure. The Republic it's self is only destroyed by other structures, like Monarchy, Confederacy, etc. Communism, Fascism, Libertarianism, etc can all exist under a Republic Government.

I know that Republicanism is a party system.... I also know for a fact that the Republic of the United States is completely different from other Republics, but the fact is that this country was founded to be a Republic, and sorry to say as defined by the forefathers of the Republic of the United States, neither Communism, nor fascism, nor any other ism should be adopted in the United States.

As a matter of fact many of the rights enumerated in the Constitution go against Communism, Socialism, fascism, and other similar isms, so I don't know where you got the idea that any of those can exist under the Republic of the United States.

For example, the right to own private property, the right to own, and bear arms, the right to free speech and free press, free religion etc go against the principles of Comunism, and even in Socialism the right to own property is abolished.

As a matter of fact, which I have shown many times already, the forefathers made it clear.

U.S. Constitution - Article 4 Section 4

Article 4 - The States
Section 4 - Republican Government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,...........

www.usconstitution.net...

Originally posted by Rockpuck
In my example, I am referring to a specific political party.

Which is fascist in nature.

Republicanism is in no way, shape or form facist. A Republican is an advocate of the Republic, and even Wikipedia, a leftist source describes Republican as:

Advocates of a republic, a form of government that is not a monarchy or dictatorship, and is generally associated with the rule of law.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Rockpuck
We take the notion that "Republican" means "Right wing" which means "small government" .. Which, incidentally, according to their actions and NOT their words.... is not at all what the Republican party stands for. Who gave the Patriot Act(s) .. who helped deliver the bailouts? All of them. Who drove our national budget to obscene levels? Who cracks down on "terrorist" (ie, American citizens?) And who, besides the facades of "We don't want health care reform" .. demanded that insurance companies be placed as middlemen in the transaction of that public option, subsequently bringing about it's passage? REPUBLICANS.

Sorry, but rightwing covers a wide range of people who do not necessarily subscribe to Republicanism....

Oh boy...here we go again... Would you care to mention which Republicans "demanded for insurance companies to be placed as middlemen"?.... Remember that most, if not all neocons were for a long time left leaning, and were even members of the Democrat party, or some other Social/ist party.

What do you think happened to all the hippies, and left leaning, marijuana smoking, and other drug taking youngsters of the 70s? They became politicians, thinking they could change the country for the better and towards Socialism.

BTW, Republicans do stand for smaller government, and perhaps you forget that when Bush was in office DEMOCRATS were mayority in both the Senate, and the House...so if Democrats did not want for "The Patriot Act" it would not have passed...

And as i stated Republicans in power do not really represent Republicanism.

One more thing, the bailouts were mainly done under the Obama administration, or did you forget that under Obama there were 9 -13 trillion dollars or so lost...

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Libertarians and Constitutionalists have nothing in common..

Really?, so Libertarians for the most part do not advocate the maximization of the individual, and the minimization of the state? Except for a minority of Libertarians who also call themselves as Anarchists and who want the abolition of the state that is.

Libertarians covers a broad spectrum of political philosophies, and in case you dind't know some of them describe themselves as Anarchists, as I mentioned above. But for the most part they do have some things in common with Constitutionalists...

Originally posted by Rockpuck
except Constitutionalists tend to sometimes be hardcore religious zealots, much like many Republicans. Religious in nature, Socialist in action, Corporatist in belief.

So tell me, how come I, like many other Republicans, are not religious people?.... Nice labels you got there..

BTW, people can also be religious and not be "zealots", or extremists..

As for Socialists in action...sorry pal, but the fact that "Constitutionalists" want "Constitutional" recognition of the people's rights, freedoms, and priviledges, as well as wanting the rule of law as defined by the Constitution, and again sorry to tell you that the Constitution of the United States does not allow for Socialism, and much less Communism, or even fascism to take control, which is why Socialists/Progressives want to change the Constitution, and it is probably the reason why Obama claimed that "we need a new declaration of independence"......

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The only thing I edited was to put in the quotation from you I forgot.

And Anarchy IS the far right wing. "Right" meaning little to no government"

No, right wing does not mean having no government at all, but minimal government, two different things.

Anarchy is the absence of all political parties, and no "rightwinger" wants that because at least all "rightwingers" know that this would result in chaos.

Sorry buddy, but you are wrong on that/

Originally posted by Rockpuck
"left" meaning entirety of Government control.. In America we now attach Left/Right to signify social issues that are of absolutely no importance. I for instance support abortion, gay rights, anti war, etc am still considered the "far right" ... because I don't believe in Government.

For the most part, I think we agree.

Yes, the "leftists' want welfare, and more government control, on that you are right, but if you don't believe in any government then by definition that makes you an Anarchist. Not a closetCommunist calling himself/herself Anarchist, but a true Anarchist.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
...............
I suggest people actually do some research into the Marxist economy as a system and build a movement around that!

Waving a bunch of banners saying "we don't want health-care" is freaking stoooopid!!
(true) Communism > Anarchism
Tea Party Movement = Disenfranchised public with little to know idea what they're on about.
...

Please don't talk about stupidity when you seem to back the most backward, stupid, and destructive ideology that has ever existed....

Sorry, but a book, nor several books written by a bunch of leftists who have never set foot on any Communist country, and much less experienced Communism, or the Marxist ideas, have no idea nor concept of what Marxism/Communism is all about....

People who back Marxism/Communism= people with too much time, have a too small cranial cavity to have enough brains to reason, and who have little to "NO" idea of what they are on about....

BTW, if you had any real education you would know the difference betwen "no" and "know".....

Originally posted by ghostsoldier
Then Stalin came and ruined it, and the west invented the Red Scare.

OooOooohhh.

Millions of other people, as well as I LIVED the "red scare".....and it wasn't invented by the west.....

Talk about someone who is uneducated, and has "no" idea as to what they are on about....

Oh, and btw...the Constitution "was" not only important back in the old days, it still IS important... But of course, that is something someone like you would never understand...

[edit on 5-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Let the 'anarchists' counter-protest. The fact that they call themselves anarchists while also advocating a socialist, big government nanny state should tell you something of the types of idiots that they're going to draw.

This is actually the best possible outcome for the Tea Parties. It will make them appear much more calm, rational and intelligent by comparison and will make those opposed to them seem like the real crazies.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

but the fact is that this country was founded to be a Republic

I agree. But it was also founded to be Capitalist. It was also founded to be a Representative Democracy, of which Socialism, Fascism and other Isms define the actions of said Democracies. You mix ideology with governing structures, which have no relation.

and sorry to say as defined by the forefathers of the Republic of the United States, neither Communism, nor fascism, nor any other ism should be adopted in the United States.

I agree.

Republicanism is in no way, shape or form facist. A Republican is an advocate of the Republic, and even Wikipedia, a leftist source describes Republican as:

The Republican Party (unless you are being facetious) IS Fascist. Sorry, but if you are a Conservative (True Conservative) you would despise the Republican Party.. what they say and do are polar opposites.

"demanded for insurance companies to be placed as middlemen"?

............the ENTIRE Republican Party? That's what they were against the Public Option. As it stands, the current system that has just been passed into law is a Republican creation.. they demand that Government options would destroy the corrupt insurance industry, so they put a Public Option in place, only now its just a subsidized pool backed by private corporations .. modeled specifically after Pennsylvania relationship with Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield.

BTW, Republicans do stand for smaller government, and perhaps you forget that when Bush was in office DEMOCRATS were mayority in both the Senate, and the House...so if Democrats did not want for "The Patriot Act" it would not have passed...

Except that under Bush the Government ballooned in size, and we saw a national debt about the size of the Korean War and Vietnam War combined.. even though we were fighting a much, much smaller fight. Why? Republican corruption .. their marriage to the Military Industrial Complex. Yes, Democrats voted for the war, and the Patriot Acts.. it was drafted by Republicans and signed into law by a Republican.. even though it goes against EVERY tenant of Republicanisms, and is akin to actions taken by the draconian dictator Lincoln.

I'm sorry.. but BOTH fascist parties suck. If you want change, vote for the fringe, and avoid the two party beasts at all costs.

So tell me, how come I, like many other Republicans, are not religious people?.... Nice labels you got there..

Because your a confused man sitting in the wrong party? Whats the difference between a Republican and a Democrat? Religion. Both aim for a corporate sponsored Socialist Government, only one through means of a Religious method and the other a secular method. Talk to any Republican, they want health care and medicare, and social security.. and if it were not for gays, minorities, and anti religious attitudes, they would be Democrats.

I believe the term is "Neo Con" .. the Republican is a Neo Conservative Party.. it's only Conservative notion being Social Conservative.. and for smaller government only when it serves them politically, like Boehner denouncing health care, but was the rallying Republican to support every bailout .. which even a confused person like you would see as a Fascist endeavor.

I used to vote Republican. Then I woke up.

EDIT: I am not a Anarchist, I despise Anarchy.. I know as you say, it results in chaos. In my personal opinion, the best form of Government would be a loose Confederacy with only a small central government to regulate trade and international politics. Or a Republic, but I believe a Republic is more vulnerable to corruption. As it is, I support the Republican (political not the party) form the founders established, I am a Libertarian and am against the massive Federal government that has destroyed states rights and trampled the Constitution.

In fact. The only differences you and I even have.. is I see through the propaganda of the Republican Party, where as you believe in what they SHOULD stand for, but no longer do.

[edit on 4/5/2010 by Rockpuck]

Originally posted by Rockpuck

I agree. But it was also founded to be Capitalist.

There is nothing wrong with a country being Capitalist, and in fact Capitalism has allowed for people, even poor people to rise above the poverty into which they were born, if they worked hard enough to earn it. This is something that in many other countries, and more so, non-Capitalist countries

Originally posted by Rockpuck
It was also founded to be a Representative Democracy, of which Socialism, Fascism and other Isms define the actions of said Democracies. You mix ideology with governing structures, which have no relation.

The United States is not a Representative Democracy...it is a representative Republic. Big difference.

A Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%. In the United States of America EVERYONE has equal rights, and EVERYONE is represented.

The United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic, and I don't know who told you that Socialism or Communism can exist in the Republic, but it is not true, simply because in Communism, and true/scientific Socialism people cannot own property, own firearms, and there is not even free speech allowed in true Socialist, and Communist countries, all of this, and much more goes against the Constitution of the United States, and if you are an American you should know that the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land, and i don't care what "Progressives"/Democrats/Socialists. or even Communists might tell you, but the Constitution is more important than any president, or any law that the Feds pass, or try to pass.

Originally posted by Rockpuck

I agree.

Now I am confused, in your previous statement you claim and I quote: "It was also founded to be a Representative Democracy, of which Socialism, Fascism and other Isms define the actions of said Democracies." I am not mixing ideologies, with governing structures, you are. The Constitution of the United States, which is a Representative REPUBLIC does not allow for Socialism, Communism, Fascism, or any other such ism.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The Republican Party (unless you are being facetious) IS Fascist. Sorry, but if you are a Conservative (True Conservative) you would despise the Republican Party.. what they say and do are polar opposites.

I am sorry but that is not true. i might disagree with at least some of the things they do or say, but they are not Fascist. Do you have any idea what Facism means? If the Republican Party was Fascist, we wouldn't be having a "Progressive" president in power, and a Democrat/Progressive administration. Not to mention the fact that DEMOCRATS are a mayority in both the Senate, and the House, and they ahve been so during the Bish years.

Originally posted by Rockpuck

............the ENTIRE Republican Party? That's what they were against the Public Option. As it stands, the current system that has just been passed into law is a Republican creation....

I am sorry but i asked specifically who, and you shuld provide evidence of it, and please don't tell me "everyone knows", because we have had people claim the same about for example the claims of some that the U.S. gave nuclear weapons, and the technology to Saddam, and even Israel, when the facts are completely different from such claims.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Except that under Bush the Government ballooned in size, and we saw a national debt about the size of the Korean War and Vietnam War combined.. even though we were fighting a much, much smaller fight. Why? Republican corruption .. their marriage to the Military Industrial Complex. Yes, Democrats voted for the war, and the Patriot Acts.. it was drafted by Republicans and signed into law by a Republican.. even though it goes against EVERY tenant of Republicanisms, and is akin to actions taken by the draconian dictator Lincoln.

Oh boy, Bush raised the debt by maybe a trillion dollars, meanwhile "Progressives" under Obama, in less than a year increased the debt, and even CLAIMED they lost over 9 trillion to 13 trillion dollars or so according to sources like Ron Paul. President Obama even went on television and dared to claim they didn't know where the money went...

Not only that, but as we were getting deeper, and deeper into the economic crisis the Obama administration spent more money than ANY other administration before it for it's inauguration.

I'm sorry.. but BOTH fascist parties suck. If you want change, vote for the fringe, and avoid the two party beasts at all costs.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Because your a confused man sitting in the wrong party?

lol... I am not confused, but you sure are, more so by claiming the republic of the United States is a "democracy"... only corrupt politicians, which yes included Bush, and the media claim the U.S. is a Democracy... But we also have a sitting president who went on television TWICE at least and said there were SIXTY states in the Union....

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Whats the difference between a Republican and a Democrat? Religion.

lol, you are SURELY confused. There are a lot more differences. Democrats want more Social programs, welfare, and a much bigger government, Republicans want more individual freedom, and personal resposibility, as well as smaller government.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Both aim for a corporate sponsored Socialist Government, only one through means of a Religious method and the other a secular method. Talk to any Republican, they want health care and medicare, and social security.. and if it were not for gays, minorities, and anti religious attitudes, they would be Democrats.

Wow, you surely are very confused, you actually think that Republicans want Socialism? We have Republicans, and even americans of some other political affiliations protest agaisnt the Socialist actions being taken by the current administration, and you want to claim they want Socialism?......

Originally posted by Rockpuck
EDIT: I am not a Anarchist, I despise Anarchy.. I know as you say, it results in chaos. In my personal opinion, the best form of Government would be a loose Confederacy with only a small central government to regulate trade and international politics. Or a Republic, but I believe a Republic is more vulnerable to corruption. As it is, I support the Republican (political not the party) form the founders established, I am a Libertarian and am against the massive Federal government that has destroyed states rights and trampled the Constitution.

All forms of government can be corrupted if allowed. Look at Canada, a very leftist, very Liberal country which has an extremely corrupt government.

IMO, for the United States, the Republic, as founded by the forefathers is the form of government that should exist, but the rich Socialist elites could not allow for the Republic of the U.S. to have so much power, so they corrupted it from within, and installed puppets which will give power once more to the rich Socialist elites.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
In fact. The only differences you and I even have.. is I see through the propaganda of the Republican Party, where as you believe in what they SHOULD stand for, but no longer do.

I have never denied that there is corruption in the Republican party, and i said several times now that the Republican party for the most part does not represent what being a Republican means.

I also see what has allowed for the corruption of the Republican party, which has been not only money, but the slow degradation of the Republic at the hands of Democrats.

It was Woodrow Wilson who signed into law the Federal Reserve Act, and for the current IRS system.

In later years he apologized to Americans for opening the doors to the system that has been destroying the Republic, but even before Woodrow Wilson there have been attemps by certain groups to corrupt the Republic for the sole purpose of giving power once more to the rich Socialist families in Europe, and such a plan seems to be working.



[edit on 5-4-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


...You are a Republican. This is why you cannot SEE. You believe in the two parties, you support this idea .. you actually believe the two parties are different.. anyone on ATS will attest.. you cannot see.

The US is a Republic, however a Republic does not demand election, only representation of various states, commonwealths, and territories be represented in a unified governing body, or Union. Democracy is the act of Voting .. so while the US is in fact a Republic, it is also a Representative Democracy. This is political fact.. in fact, the way the US is actually set up, its more in line with a Confederation than it is a Republic.

Lets recap (isnt school fun?) the US is a Constitutional Republic. It is ALSO a Representative Democracy. The people directly elect a Representative to vote for them among the Federal Government, while the States (Republic) elects the Executive (President) ..

But again .. we agree.. yet we disagree .. which I believe the problem simply lies in the fact that you are a staunch Republican, and because of this you cannot See.