It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Those Pesky Anarchists

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
The Guardian reports:


Greek security forces have warned of a wave of violence reminiscent of the terror that stalked Italy in the seventies after urban guerillas threatened last week to turn the country into a “war zone”.

“Greece has entered a new phase of political violence by anarchist-oriented organisations that are more murderous, dangerous, capable and nihilistic than ever before,” said Athanasios Drougos, a defence and counter-terrorism analyst in Athens.


Of course, they aren’t real “anarchists,” since real anarchists are against having a State. Thus, a group that is waging violent warfare because of State spending cuts clearly isn’t a bunch of anarchists.

Is the media retarded for calling them anarchists? Are the groups retarded for calling themselves anarchists? No, being a retard would entail being too dumb to understand what anarchy means. In this case, all the parties involved know they are misrepresenting the use of the word “anarchist.”

The point of the article is to demonize those who want to bring an end to State sanctioned violence. There is nothing the State (or the media) fear more than people waking up to the fact that they need a State about as much as they need a mafia "protection service.”

The “anarchists” in Greece are calling themselves “anarchists” because they are in cahoots with the government over there. This is the only plausible explanation for the behavior of all parties involved. There is no other explanation (other than the retard argument, which I reject out of hand.)

The rioting gives the government an excuse to implement what amounts to martial law. This allows the government to shut down legitimate peaceful protests against their criminal actions. This why the government loves “anarchists.” The State uses these petty property damaging criminals to its advantage, and the boot-licking liberal media is all to happy to go along with the ruse.

Such rioting by “anarchists” here in America is harder to come by since property owners have guns. The libs are raging mad about this since all this gun ownership prevents such nonsense. In order to have staged riots, one must first get rid of gun rights.



[edit on 3-8-2010 by mnemeth1]




posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I am a "lib" and I don't get raging mad about it. As a matter of fact, I nor any of my lib family or friends have never even thought about it. BTW, Libs love guns too. I have several, and I cling tightly to them.

So you theorize that liberals hate the second amendment because they want “anarchists”, who are in cahoots with the government, to start a riot so the government will crack down on peaceful protesters? Man, that is a real stretch of one's imagination you got there.

Why doesn't the government just hire rioters? Maybe they have already. Maybe you are one of them, and you are trying to fish for conspirators on ATS. Maybe you don't like fish but prefer bacon. Maybe bacon is synonymous with pork. Maybe you are trying to get some pork added to a bill. Maybe your name is Bill. A duck has a bill. A duck likes to eat fish. It's all making sense now......



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


They do hire rioters.

As for your 2nd amendment comment, when speaking in generalities, its is generally accepted that democrats want to ban guns.

This does not mean all democrats want to ban guns, just most of them. The "progressive" agenda entails eliminating gun rights.



[edit on 3-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





As for your 2nd amendment comment, when speaking in generalities, its is generally accepted that democrats want to ban guns.


...only by paranoid people who listen to republicans. It has for decades, been a Republican talking point to rally the base, nothing more. All my family and friends that are democrats regularly go target shooting with me. We love guns.




This does not mean all democrats want to ban guns, just most of them. The "progressive" agenda entails eliminating gun rights.


I'm sorry. I must have missed that meeting. Can you provide a link to a progressive website that states that? I'll wait.......



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


I always do find it amusing when conservatives and others try do proclaim that liberals (or progressives if you will) are anti-gun. I am very liberal (I voted Lib-Dem in the last election) and I own two shotguns and a rifle. My entire family are lifelong Labour Party supporters and most of us are avid huntsmen since our family is originally from the South of England, and the hunting culture is very much alive in rural parts of the UK.

When I was living in Wisconsin I also went on the fall deer hunt, although with bow because I prefer it for deer. The people I went with then were staunch Democrats and went every year for both the bow and gun seasons.

My wife is from California, she enjoys target shooting and owns her own Enfield rifle for it. She also voted for President Obama in 2008.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

The last sentence was what made this draft necessary, I'd say. Excellent composition and excellent point. Thanks



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 



www.bloomberg.com...

Signing the small arms treaty would give government the power to unilaterally ban firearms.

Obama supports this.

www.bradycampaign.org...

Brady Campaign supports Obama

articles.chicagotribune.com...

Democrats in Chicago ban guns.



Obama flip flops on the DC gun ban.





Gun bans in all of our cities have been enacted by democrats, I don't need links to prove that.

The ultimate goal of "sensible" gun regulation is confiscation and bans.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


"I believe in the Second Amendment, and if you are a law-abiding gun owner you have nothing to fear from an Obama administration," Obama said. "This has been peddled again and again. Here's what I believe: The Second Amendment is an indvidual right. . . people have the right to bear arms. But I also believe there is nothing wrong with some common-sense gun safety measures."
www.swamppolitics.com...

Congress votes to allow guns in national parks
A total of 105 Democrats in the House joined 174 Republicans in supporting the gun measure.
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Congress: Passengers Can Bring Guns on Amtrak Trains
abcnews.go.com...

New law to allow concealed guns in bars, restaurants
articles.dailypress.com...

House passes measure expanding gun rights
www.cnn.com...

This was all done on Obama's watch, so your fear is, well how should I say, just fear itself.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 


You're making my point for me.


"The House approved the measure, 279-147, on Wednesday, one day after the Senate acted. A total of 105 Democrats in the House joined 174 Republicans in supporting the gun measure, "

Which means the majority of democrats opposed the measure.

As for the Obama nonsense, its clear what his agenda is. - a total gun ban.

If he could get away with it, he would do it tomorrow.

The history of cities banning guns in America is clear, democrat control = gun bans. You are deluding yourself if you think the "progressive" agenda does not entail a total ban on guns. The intellectuals see the UK as the model for gun control.




[edit on 3-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Every time I see you menmeth1 I think of this song.




Anarchism is Anarchy (i.e. a state of lawlessness), where there is no authority to make or enforce laws or govern society. Personally I am vehemently opposed to Anarchism in any form.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Anarchy has nothing to do with violence.

The State is responsible for killing 100 million people last century.

Anyone that supports the State necessarily supports violence.




So tell me, how many people have anarchists killed over the last century?

100?

1000?

10,000?

A pittance compared to the death, brutality, and starvation caused by government.




[edit on 3-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip
 

Well, the term 'liberal' has been institutionalized, you know. Most hot sound bite terms you hear, in fact, are. The ones who have glory grabbed this name for it's catalog value are quite against the 2nd amendment. In fact, they are against the 1st as well. mne is pointing out the deceptive syntax played by the media. That his draft emphasizes the misuse of the term 'anarchist' deserves application to many other institutions as well.

Essentially the liberals know that they can count on your support, no matter how flagrant their assault on the Constitution, because, after all, look at what has happened to the term 'conservative'. So they say thanks for taking sides. But, once you strip away all these value judgments associated with 'conservative' or 'liberal', 'democrat' or 'republican' and so on, you'll see there's really no difference at all. It is all window dressing. Why do you think he is an 'anarchist'? In fact, the term ought have 'peace' associated with it.

The media trick is really quite new, in historical terms, and really broke away from the cooridinate axis with the advent of television. Most political terms we use today are distorted beyond recognition, because the media have leveraged every possible gratuity toward their cause. They talk, we don't, or else.

Politicians have the exact same leveraging possibilities, touching everything, at their fingertips. Today the trick is to lie. That's right, just lie and add to it like you're at a casino with someone else's money. If they wanted to see the world get hot, but the data suggested otherwise, just lie! It's boring.

I study war so that my children can study politics....spoken by John Adams. This is a deep sentence with poetic depth and brilliance. Read it some time.

At the opening comparison Mister Adams is saying that there is a war on at all times for your mind. Before he can even fairly debate politics, it may be necessary to kill (that is what war is) those whose playing field is poisoned. Think about this.

so that their children can study poetry...again, more of Mister Adams.

I will only be thankful that here, in this short tract, is a mixture of all 3. That's what the founding Fathers did. Poetry, politics, and war, not necessarily in that order, and as simultaneously as possible.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Page 48 of the DNC national platform says "reinstate the assault weapons ban."

www.democrats.org...

Have they dropped that?

Im from a state full of gun-grabbing republicans too. They're all bastards. Every single one of them.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir


Anarchism is Anarchy (i.e. a state of lawlessness)



O RLY?

Because I could have SWORN anarchy came from the Greek "Anarchos" meaning "Without Rulers".

Oh Misoir, you brilliantly sly bastard. You can't spread disinformation that easily.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC

O RLY?

Because I could have SWORN anarchy came from the Greek "Anarchos" meaning "Without Rulers".

Oh Misoir, you brilliantly sly bastard. You can't spread disinformation that easily.


Bingo.

No State != No Law



Now whether you agree with everything Hoppe says or not is immaterial. He's demonstrating a possible alternative. He's showing lawful anarchy is possible. Hoppe's vision is one of many possible alternatives, not the final say on the matter.


[edit on 3-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I never said that Anarchy had to do with violence. If you are referring to that song it is just funny, it was not to say that is what I think of Anarchists.

Personally I believe we need a state, but the state also needs the people. The state murders when they are permitted to ignore the people. All this means is that the people need to hold government responsible and in line.

It all goes back to what our Philosophically Anarchist president Thomas Jefferson said, “A state is a necessary evil.”

You can't blame the government for what the people are too lazy to do.

I don't blame the government for how screwed up everything is, I blame the people for following blindly.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


You are directly implying that anarchy = violence.

Its clear that exactly the opposite is true.

The State = violence.

For one can not have a State without the use of violence.

Jefferson was a good man, but he was still a politician. His desire for power over others was simply less than most other politicians.




[edit on 3-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by Misoir


Anarchism is Anarchy (i.e. a state of lawlessness)



O RLY?

Because I could have SWORN anarchy came from the Greek "Anarchos" meaning "Without Rulers".

Oh Misoir, you brilliantly sly bastard. You can't spread disinformation that easily.


I was not spreading disinfo, it comes down to using the word 'state' in its proper english interpretation for this line.

The word 'state' in my post does not mean the actual 'state'(i.e. government, authority) but rather a 'state' of being.

Before calling me a disinfo agent please learn to interpret english grammar correctly.



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Misoir
 


You are directly implying that anarchy = violence.

Its clear that exactly the opposite is true.

The State = violence.

For one can not have a State without the use of violence.

Jefferson was a good man, but he was still a politician. His desire for power over others was simply less than most other politicians.




[edit on 3-8-2010 by mnemeth1]


I believe we have a reached a point of no agreement. You continue to insist that I mean to say Anarchy = Violence, which I do not.

Anarchy = No enforced governance (i.e. no enforced law). It is a state of lawlessness.

Commonly in a society with enforced public authority Anarchy is interpreted as no enforced laws, which is true. But what is commonly added to that equation is violence, such as what occurred after Hurricane Katrina.

That is not what I believe, from my research I have learned that Anarchist societies that existed in Spain were very successful using a bargaining system and trade/labor unions. I believe it was Libertarian Socialist.

[edit on 8/3/2010 by Misoir]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


No, Anarchy does not mean no enforced governance.

Not only have you been twice corrected on this matter, I also posted a video from an economics professor detailing exactly how private law works.

Anarchy means a lack of "archy" or "leadership"

That is, a nation without rulers, not a nation without rules.

There is a huge difference.

All men are created equal, therefore no one has the right to rule over another.



[edit on 3-8-2010 by mnemeth1]




top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join