Anarchists (The Bad Ones) Plan War On April 15th Tea Parties

[FrankRep]

Don't be fooled: These are Leftist-Anarchists who only want to overthrow the current system and install a Leftwing Socialist System.



Anarchists Plan War On April 15th Tea Parties (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/03/violent-anarchists-plan-war-on-april-15th-tea-parties/)


Gateway Pundit
March 31, 2010


WARNING: Be on the lookout–
Bring your cameras.

Violent anarchists are planning on infiltrating and sabotaging the Tea Party Protests on April 15th.


http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/anarchists-e1270078215706.jpg



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: http://www.anarchist-studies.org/node/299

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


SOURCE:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/03/violent-anarchists-plan-war-on-april-15th-tea-parties/



Example:

2 minutes 33seconds:

Left Coast Communists posing as Anarchists to cause riots and destruction.

YouTube - POLICE STATE II: THE TAKEOVER - Seattle WTO Protest - Pt. 1/3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mAWslHmiok)

[FrankRep]

Controlled Opposition - A must read for everyone in the liberty movement

Flashback:


Controlled Opposition

by Arthur R. Thompson, CEO, The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)


One of the oldest ruses regularly employed by conspirators is to assume control of your opposition, and where none exists, create it.

Over history there have been groundswells of opposition against conspiracies that, had the conspirators not gained control of them, would have led to the defeat of those conspiracies.

Any conspiracy fears that opponents will organize in an effective manner to oppose and expose it so decisively that its creators would have a hard time recovering. This is true if it is low-level criminal activity, or a large political conspiracy, a minor coup, or a Master Conspiracy of Insiders.

This is why the Insiders have long feared The John Birch Society. For the first time in history, their conspiracy was not able to forestall the formation and growth of real opposition. As a result, the conspirators resorted to another standard tactic they had used to eliminate past opposition: the smear. As our veteran members recall, the Insiders launched numerous smear attacks against us in our early years.

Yet because of the manner in which we are organized, they could not defeat us. They likewise could not destroy our Society by infiltration (certainly not nationally although they did hurt us in some places locally). Here again, the manner in which we were organized prevented large-scale destruction.

The main harm the smears accomplished was to drive a wedge between our members and our natural constituency in order to slow down our growth and get people to leave our ranks who could not stand “the heat in the kitchen.” Many good people decided not to join our ranks, not because they disagreed with us, but because they feared public opinion. And, regrettably, a few high profile members did leave our ranks for this reason.

The other method the Insiders have employed involved creation of new organizations, ostensibly to oppose Insider designs — to gather concerned Americans into ineffective groups and/or activity. One of the newest examples is the neoconservative movement that ignores the Constitution and always promotes new foreign entanglements as the solution to just about every problem from a slowed-down economy to terror attacks.

Since the election of Barack Obama, who has never shied away from close personal friendships with communists and terrorists, and who seems to be adopting their agenda, large numbers of Americans have become alarmed. Consequently, a number of new organizations have come on the scene to capture this wave of dissent and use it for enlisting people into ineffective activity.

In a few instances, these groups have leaders who come right out of the ranks of the Council on Foreign Relations. In the case of Newt Gingrich, one has to marvel that the man who took control of the conservative groundswell in the early 1990s and misdirected it into supporting big government and foreign entanglements such as NAFTA, is back once again, paddling in front of the wave to steer it as before. This time his reemergence seems to be part of a bid for the Presidency.

We are seeing again the problem we have always had with politicians. They always know their audience, saying whatever it takes to gain support, avoiding anything that would turn the audience off. I have always recommended that it is more important to note what a politician doesn’t say or avoids talking about. This will help in ascertaining the true philosophy of any person.

If a man makes some small statement that perks up our ears where we might have previously disagreed with him or his organization, we tend to forgive the past disagreement and throw them our support, later to be disappointed because we did not pay more attention to what wasn’t said.

This is true of a few of the new personalities and groups that have arisen recently.

We are very interested in witnessing the attempt of these few to steer grassroots efforts into promoting Newt Gingrich and a constitutional convention. Their main tactic for promoting change is a public demonstration.

Another reason the Insiders fear The John Birch Society is that with a sustainable opposition (now nearly 51 years old) the experience of our members presents a problem for them. Our seasoned veterans know the plays and the players.

The reason newly awakened patriots get thwarted at public meetings and conventions is that they do not know the players and their plans. I have seen large majorities of attendees and delegates go down in defeat time after time because they did not realize their own leaders sold them out.

Novices would not listen to their more experienced compatriots (Birchers) who tried to tell them what was going to happen if they placed their faith in false leadership. After all, these leaders were saying all the right things, thought the newer activists. Experience shows that actions speak louder than words. Inexperience tends to hear only the words.

One question that we need to ask is who are the new leaders who have placed themselves at the front of any movement? Are they individuals we have never heard from before and have not seen in the trenches all these decades? While some are sincere, others seem to drop out of the blue telling us that they are the leaders. And the media is quite happy to agree.

It was a disappointing experience for our veterans in past situations to live through and watch large-scale movements arise that owed their existence to the effective educational efforts of the Society, only to see them become co-opted by false leadership with the help of the media.

It has not been unusual that clergymen and others came out of nowhere with massive media attention to start organizations. Most of the national media gave these leaders coverage that rallied good people to support them. While giving the appearance of criticism, the media coverage played the recruiter for some Christian Right organizations, for instance.

Literally millions either joined in some capacity or were heavily influenced by these groups and their leaders. At times, they even sounded like Birchers, noting the dangers of the New World Order and related issues. In some instances they were initially financed by the very forces they claimed to oppose. What happened was that they got in front of the wave created by our influence and directed it into the arms of the promoters of the New World Order by backing the George Bushes and CFR members in Congress.

I know. I was there. I saw it. What was obvious to me at the time was not obvious to novices. I am afraid the same thing is happening again.

I know that I will trouble some readers by pointing this out and I ask that no one take it personally. Also, please do not attack the messenger. I mention all of this only to better prepare you for the future, so you can help educate others about the important work that needs to be done beyond public events. In order to do this you may have to get involved in a local non-Birch group to try to influence its members to be more aware than they would be without your advice and education.

The Insiders use public demonstrations to promote their agenda by pointing to the people they have turned out in picket lines or rallies, then broadcasting this nationally to convey the idea that there is a groundswell of support for or against a program the Insiders want or want to stop.

Many times, these demonstrations have been very small. But as one veteran JBS member once said, “Fifty people in a demonstration isn’t very many, but when you multiply it by 50 million TV sets, it amounts to a lot of people.” The controlled media have a knack for making what they support look big.

They also have a knack for making what they do not support look insignificant, or radical — if they report at all. Any public demonstration is nearly worthless without the approval of the controlled media. Demonstrations provide other residual benefits to the conspiracy as well.

If you are trying to radicalize many people, starting them out demonstrating will be step one. When nothing happens as a result of the demonstration, clever planners will resort to more unusual events to try to make things happen. In the case of the Left, this ultimately morphs into violence. Out of this comes more bizarre activity, and more extreme people, and a cadre of terrorists.

This is what occurred in the 1960s and 1970s in the United States.

Out of the demonstrations in that time period came a substantial number of terrorists who claimed that the only way to change things was through violence. They knew full well that their activities could be used as an excuse by government to increase controls over the general population. They spawned searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment, stopped the right to freely assemble, and impacted other aspects of our Bill of Rights.

The same scenario works with some on the Right. And we do have examples of some on the Right who have become very radical. They too have been used by the Insiders to accomplish the same end result. They are also used to tar-brush people who are opposed to the Insiders’ New World Order. Timothy McVeigh, who was portrayed as “right wing,” comes to mind.

The bombing in Oklahoma City blew apart more than the Murrah Building. It almost halted the rising groundswell of opposition to the Clinton aministration. The anti-Clinton movement was as large, if not larger, than the current Tea Party movement, the End the Fed rallies, and other recent phenomena. The Oklahoma City bombing made opposition to Clinton and his policies seem like terrorism, deflating the average citizen’s desire to participate.

As veteran readers of The New American are aware, there is much evidence about the OKC bombing which points to elements within our own government being involved. Now with the recent Missouri and the Department of Homeland Security report detailing the dangers of right-wing terrorism, our American law enforcement community is being prepared for such an event. If the Insiders can pull it off, this could well burst the bubble of recent resistance to the march toward socialism.

I have had some experience in this arena as well.

In the 1960s, we had a very active JBS organization in Seattle. My chapter almost always recruited members by working with friends and family. On one occasion, we had a new member come into our ranks who was recruited at a public meeting — a stranger to us. We were happy for his membership and particularly his enthusiasm for our efforts. After a short time, however, it became obvious that he was a little too enthusiastic and wanted us to get involved in doing things that were unethical. We parted company.

One year later, we discovered what this man was up to when the headlines in the Seattle newspapers announced that a bank robbery team comprised of “patriots” had been foiled in its attempt to rob banks to finance the right-wing movement. The whole affair was a sting operation which set these men up for a fall by the fellow who had come to us to try, apparently, the same thing within my chapter. He turned out to be a government informant, working for the government the entire time. The anti-Birchers got their headlines, making it appear that patriots were the problem, not the radical socialists who were constantly stirring up trouble.

There is much occurring today that leads me to suspect that the same thing could be happening again. This time law enforcement is being encouraged to believe just about anything about good people who are standing up for the Constitution. We know that danger does not come from the right except when infiltrators can make it seem so.

Our members are not the kind of people who would listen to any agent provocateur let alone get involved with one. This is still the case — and we have to keep it that way by being careful about whom we involve in our local chapters.

We have opened up our organization to try to grow rapidly because time is of the essence given what we see happening in government every day. There have been some people recently who have come into our Internet system where we simply could not abide their language or behavior and have had to eliminate their access to us. We thank those who point these people out to us.

The agent provocateur will not always be obvious. Not until he does his work to try and destroy the group he has ingratiated himself into will he become apparent — and perhaps not even then.

I tell you this so you will understand what we may be in store for and to help you steel yourself for the long haul. Our growing influence today is such that the Insiders will not be able to ignore us for long.

It will not come as any surprise to us if we see some major violent event staged with the blame placed on people who stand up for the Constitution. This could happen in order to take the air out of the current rise of indignation by good Americans to what is happening.

Regarding demonstrations by good people, let’s realize that they tend to neutralize the participants. If the outcome is that nothing happens, there are usually one of two results: the participants become radicalized, or they go home and never get involved again. For they become convinced that nothing they do will work.

The liberal media has influenced many to believe that the demonstrations themselves affect change. They have not seen the Insider organization behind all of it and the fact that the street activity is simply show business, the excuse used by the Insiders to gain what they want. In addition, the American people believe that there is public support for the Insider agenda and many accept it.

People who object to any Insiders’ agendum allow it to continue because they don’t know they have to get involved in an effective organization to stop it. They have to engage in effective pursuits, like educating and meeting with the opinion molders in their communities. And they have to align themselves with an organization that has a proven track record of not only telling the truth, but piling up successes.

Many successes can be credited to The John Birch Society, even when the media make it appear that some other group caused it.

There have been many Society initiatives over the years that have been successful to one degree or another without the American people understanding that there was an issue in the first place and that the Society had successfully dealt with it. Veteran members know that we have won battles that never appeared on the radar of the American public. Two examples would be the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) fight where we were essentially alone in stopping this merger in the Western Hemisphere, and the placing of brakes on the constitutional convention (con-con) process. In the latter case, we have recently seen that our work in this area and in the number of states where we worked to rescind their con-con calls were completely off the radar of even our closest allies. This was due to the fact that some of our most effective work is not done in the public eye, but in the quiet offices of our state representatives and other local officials.

In other cases, we started movements that became so noticeable because of the heavy activity of our members, that the Insiders could no longer ignore our efforts and, instead, tried to shut down our campaigns by denigrating them in the media.

Examples would be the impeachment of President Clinton, the blocking of the North American Union, and the swing of the opinion of the American people against the United Nations. In none of these victories did demonstrations play a role. Demonstrations polarize; they do not educate. They tend to be confrontational, not lending themselves to an atmosphere of friendly intercourse and exchange.

Only by a concerted action program that gets you in front of opinion molders with educational material on whatever issue can now be successful. You must follow this course because you don’t have effective control of the education process, the media, and most of the government.

We have none of these advantages, so we have to do it the hard way. Let’s face it. Most people do not like work, let alone hard work. Except for the organizing effort, demonstrations for most people amount to simply showing up and going home. The end.

Demonstrations are also open invitations for the strangest individuals to show up with signs, costumes, and extreme literature to make the crowd look less than normal. These are the folks that the media gravitates to, trying to show their audiences that our side is kooky. They do not show mom and dad with the kids at the demonstration on TV; they show the oddballs. Then the other moms and dads at home, even if they agree with the sentiment of the demonstrators, do not associate with them in any way.

Often, the signs that we smile at and appreciate are the very ones that repulse those who do not understand enough. They are, therefore, counterproductive.

Opinion molders, especially, are very sensitive about the way a message is put across. Many times one will agree with the cause but disagree with how the message is presented.

With demonstrations, there is the possibility of violence. This can either be planned by certain provocateurs among the demonstrators or caused by counter-demonstrators. This is also welcome fodder for the media.

The usual result is that without corresponding media publicity and educational efforts aimed at opinion molders, demonstrations will, after an initial seeming success, become smaller and smaller because people get tired of participating — especially if they see no change.

Finally, what if all this time and effort were channeled instead into going door to door with educational materials; contacting the local opinion molders; or working within community and civic organizations? This increases a person’s influence beyond friends and family. In the long run, this is more productive in effecting change.

Will demonstrations continue? Absolutely, because of the world we live in. Should we shun them? No. But let us understand that they can be both destructive and productive. If they are arranged by good people, then let us use them to educate and build permanent, effective organization. For organization is what is needed to combat the highly organized conspiracy we must expose and rout.


John Birch Society
http://www.jbs.org/

[AuH20]

We need our anarchists to counter these anarchists. ;):D Secondly, how can these folks be 'anarchists', when they love Uncle Sugar's programs?

[Pete_00]

Anti racist action exposed:

YouTube - Anti-Racist Action EXPOSED (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXsT-IGTYdE)

(sorry if its a racist-leaning video, i posted only for the good info)

"Anti establishment" as GW Bush is :D

Red anarchists? From Russia to Spain, their only accomplishment was to be stupid dupes of the Bolsheviks and getting bitch slapped when they were not needed anymore (Russia). Even Bakunin admited this :)

[wizardwatson]

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:

:rolleyes:

Bolded portion = super FAIL.

What kind of anarchists are these exactly?

I hope all these collectivists have a blast fighting for ideals that they do not seem to even understand.

[AuH20]

Tie yourself down before reading this:



Anarchist

March 31st, 2010 | 9:42 pm | #58

Whats up Tea Baggers?!? Well, for one, anarchists are opposed to government as you all seem aware. However, anarchists are not opposed to the Tea Parties because we are FOR government programs. Anarchists are opposed to you because you are xenophobic fascists.

Let me address that a bit further. All anarchists are opposed to the state. But some anarchists, as I would assume of the person who wrote this call, would like to see government programs that kill, and maim erased before basic social programs. For instance, why strengthen military spending, and cut health care funding? That is a typical argument. However, this has little to nothing to do with why most anarchists, that I have met and discussed with, are appalled with your ilk.

You people are throwing a pathetic national temper tantrum because your corporate party didn’t win the 2008 election. Furthermore, you’re imagery, your slogans, your flyers, are often nationalistic, pro-capitalist, racist, or just simply stupid. So obviously, anarchists will oppose you and continue to do so. The one remarkable thing, is how such a large group of people don’t have a basic understanding of political philosophy, and social issues. But thats another topic.

Yea, man. Social programs mean no harm or subversion of free will.

[lynnf]

how lame: option 2 -- they will pass out leaflets and we will convert to their cause!

yeah, right!

lynn

[AuH20]

These so-called 'anarchists' sound more like radically charged progressives:

http://www.anarchist-studies.org/node/299

[billjarrett]

Pass out stuff like http://www.anarchist-studies.org/node/299 ? Pass out four pages of single spaced wall of text?

Obviously they don't know much about Marketing either. I think we've learned here for the most part nobody ever reads the walls of text...

[Epic]

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.

WTF!!!! Shouldn't anarchists be for, you know, reducing and eliminating government??

They are so fucking dumb!

[wizardwatson]

Tie yourself down before reading this:

[See posted article in original post]


Yea, man. Social programs mean no harm or subversion of free will.

LOL!

My collectivism can beat up your collectivism!!! :D

Here's some real education for any collectivist fools who might happen upon this thread.


There is a powerful craving in most of us to see ourselves as instruments in the hands of others and, thus, free ourselves from responsibility for acts which ate prompted by our own questionable inclinations and impulses. Both the strong and the weak grasp at this alibi. The latter hide their malevolence under the virtue of obedience.

The strong, too, claim absolution by proclaiming themselves the chosen instruments of a higher power - God, history, fate, nation or humanity. Similarly, we have more faith in what we imitate than in what we originate. We cannot derive a sense of absolute certitude from anything which has its roots in us. The most poignant sense of insecurity comes from standing alone and we ate not alone when we imitate.

It is thus with most of us; we are what other people say we are. We know ourselves chiefly by hearsay. To become different from what we are, we must have some awareness of what we are. Whether this being different results in dissimulation or a real change of heart, it cannot be realized without self-awareness.

Yet, it is remarkable that the very people who are most self-dissatisfied, who crave most for a new identity, have the least self-awareness. They have turned away from an unwanted self and, hence, never had a good look at it. The result is that most dissatisfied people can neither dissimulate nor attain a real change of heart. They are transparent and their unwanted qualities persist through all attempts at self dramatization and self-transformation. It is the lack of self-awareness which renders us transparent. The soul that knows itself is opaque.

Fear comes from uncertainty. When we ate absolutely certain, whether of our worth or our worthlessness, we ate almost impervious to fear. Thus, a feeling of utter unworthiness can be a source of courage. Everything seems possible when we are absolutely helpless or absolutely powerful -- and both states stimulate our gullibility.

Pride is a sense of worth derived from something that is not organically part of us, while selfesteem is derived from the potentialities and achievements of self. We are proud when we identify ourselves with an imaginary self, a leader, a holy cause, a collective body or possessions. There is fear and intolerance in pride; it is sensitive and uncompromising. The less promise and potentiality in the self, the more imperative is the need for pride. The core of pride is selfrejection. It is true, however, that when pride releases energies and serves as a spur to achievement, it can lead to a reconciliation with the self and the attainment of genuine selfesteem.

Secretiveness can be a source of pride. It is a paradox that secretiveness plays the same role as boasting - both are engaged in the creation of a disguise. Boasting tries to create an imaginary self, while secretiveness gives us the exhilarating feeling of being princes disguised in meekness. Of the two, secretiveness is the more difficult and effective. For the self-observant, boasting breeds self-contempt. Yet, it is as Spinoza said: "Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues, and they can moderate their desires more than their words." Humility, however, is not verbal renunciation of pride but the substitution of pride for self-awareness and objectivity. Forced humility is false pride.

A fateful process is set in motion when the individual is released "to the freedom of his own impotence" and left to justify his existence by his own efforts. The individual on his own, striving to realize himself and prove his worth, has created all that is great in literature, art, music, science and technology. This autonomous individual, also, when he can neither realize himself nor justify his existence by his own efforts, is a breeding ground of frustration and the seed of the convulsion that shakes our world to its foundations. The autonomous individual is stable only so long as he is possessed of self-esteem.

The maintenance of self-esteem is a continuous task which taxes all of the individual's power and inner resources. We have to prove our worth and justify our existence anew each day. When, for whatever reason, self-esteem is unattainable, the autonomous individual becomes a highly explosive entity. He turns away from an unpromising self and plunges into the pursuit of pride, the explosive substitute for self-esteem. All social disturbances and upheavals have their roots in crises of individual self-esteem, and the great endeavour in which the masses most readily unite is basically a search for pride. So, we acquire a sense of worth either by realizing our talents, or by keeping busy or by identifying ourselves with something apart from us -- be it a cause, a leader, a group, possessions or whatnot.

The path of self-realization is the most difficult. It is taken only when other avenues to a sense of worth are more or less blocked. Men of talent have to be encouraged and loaded to engage in creative work. Their groans and laments echo through the ages. Action is a high road to self-confidence and esteem. Where it is open, all energies flow toward it. It comes readily to most people and its rewards ate tangible. The cultivation of the spirit is elusive and difficult and the tendency toward it is rarely spontaneous, whereas, the opportunities for action ate many.

The propensity to action is symptomatic of an inner unbalance. To be balanced is to be more or less at rest. Action is at the bottom -- a swinging and flailing of the arms to regain one's balance and keep afloat. And if it is true, as Napoleon wrote to Catnot, "The art of government is not to let men grow stale," then, it is an art of unbalancing. The crucial difference between a totalitarian regime and a free social order is, perhaps, in the methods of unbalancing by which their people ate kept active and striving. We are told that talent creates its own opportunities.

Yet, it sometimes seems that intense desire creates not only its own opportunities, but its own talents as well. The times of drastic change ate times of passions. We can never be fit and ready for that which is wholly new. We have to adjust ourselves and every radical adjustment is a crisis in self-esteem: we undergo a test; we have to prove ourselves. A population subjected to drastic change is, thus, a population of misfits, and misfits live and breathe in an atmosphere of passion.

That we pursue something passionately does not always mean that we really want it or have a special aptitude for it. Often, the thing we pursue most passionately is but a substitute for the one thing we really want and cannot have. It is usually safe to predict that the fulfillment of an excessively cherished desire is not likely to still our nagging anxiety. In every passionate pursuit, the pursuit counts more than the object pursued.

Our sense of power is more vivid when we break a man's spirit than when we win his heart, for we can win a man's heart one day and lose it the next. But when we break a proud spirit, we achieve something that is final and absolute. It is compassion rather than the principle of justice which can guard us against being unjust to our fellow men. It is doubtful whether there is such a thing as impulsive or natural tolerance. Tolerance requires an effort of thought and self-control. Acts of kindness, too, are rarely without deliberation and "'thoughtfulness." Thus, it seems that some artificiality, some posing and pretence, is inseparable from any act or attitude which involves a limitation of our appetites and selfishness. We ought to beware of people who do not think it necessary to pretend that they are good and decent. Lack of hypocrisy in such things hints at a capacity for a more depraved ruthlessness. Pretence is often an indispensable step in the attainment of genuineness. It is a form into which genuine inclinations flow and solidify.

The control of our being is not unlike the combination of a safe. One turn of the knob rarely unlocks the safe; each advance and retreat is a step toward one's final achievement. Jeet Kune Do is not to hurt, but is one of the avenues through which life opens its secrets to us. We can see through others only when we can see through ourselves and Jeet Kune Do is a step toward knowing oneself. Self-knowledge is the basis of Jeet Kune Do because it is effective, not only for the individual's martial art, but also for his life as a human being. Learning Jeet Kune Do is not a matter seeking knowledge or accumulating stylized pattern, but is discovering the cause of ignorance.

-Bruce Lee (from The Tao of Jeet Kune Do)

[FrankRep]

These so-called 'anarchists' sound more like radically charged progressives:

http://www.anarchist-studies.org/node/299


WTF!!!! Shouldn't anarchists be for, you know, reducing and eliminating government??

They are so fucking dumb!


They only support "Anarchy" to overthrow the current system. They are not true Anarchists, but the media doesn't care.

[ClayTrainor]

Retards like these are why I prefer to use the word Voluntaryism over Anarchy. I do not want to be associated with these violent statists in any way shape or form.

[ChaosControl]

They sound like your typical idiotic mainstream leftist.
If they were really anarchists, they'd support any effort to minimize government. Just a bunch of morons clinging to a title that they really have nothing in common with.

[silentshout]

Well, I don't like the tea partyers or these people. Both make me want to puke. tea partiers are just the GOP/theocratic types and these people just seem confused.

[AuH20]

They sound like your typical idiotic mainstream leftist.
If they were really anarchists, they'd support any effort to minimize government. Just a bunch of morons clinging to a title that they really have nothing in common with.

Yup. You would never see these anarchists in the streets opposed to the crimes of the welfare state. They're the epitome of useful idiots, who are cut from their leashes at opportune times.

[Cowlesy]

Pfffft....Anarchists.

See you on the 15th. My face will be fully visible, will yours?

[speciallyblend]

how the f-in can they be anarchists ?????

Quote:
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:


I CALL BS ON THIS ARTICLE AND SITE, SIMPLE BS man they are trying to stir the bs into soup now!!

[FrankRep]

how the f-in can they be anarchists ?????

I CALL BS ON THIS ARTICLE AND SITE, SIMPLE BS man they are trying to stir the bs into soup now!!

Don't be fooled: These are Leftist-Anarchists who only want to overthrow the current system and install a Leftwing Socialist System.

[speciallyblend]

Don't be fooled: These are Leftist-Anarchists who only want to overthrow the current system and install a Leftwing Socialist System.

i hear you,but i still call BS, as a pro-marijuana activist. these folks are on crack!!

[ClayTrainor]

I've debated with quite a few of these "anarcho-socialist" types, and I think i've found the crux of our disagreement and easy way to demolish their arguments.

Just focus on individual self-ownership, and get them to admit that they own themselves, not you or anyone else. They do not like to admit that all legitimate property rights start from the concept of self-ownership and lay claim to everything being "public property" and belonging to everyone. Fortunately, self-ownership is a very easy concept to prove through empiricism, even to a socialist.

If you just say something like "If you do not own yourself, than is it okay for me to spit on you, since I am part of the public?", and the argument is pretty over from this point on... They've got to admit that they own themselves as their own private property. Stay focused on this point, don't let them take you on a tangent, until you have established the essential private property right through empiricism. Usually the Anarch-socialist will just retaliate at this point and begin ad-hominem, but if anyone is listening or watching your discussion, they will see who the rational one is.

[Epic]

Don't be fooled: These are Leftist-Anarchists who only want to overthrow the current system and install a Leftwing Socialist System.

lol they don't need to overthrow it... that is the existing system!

But they probably won't be satisfied until we get a Chavez, Castro, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jung-Il, etc.

[RM918]

Wow. They might as well call themselves Flintstonians as that word means about as much to what they're doing as anarchy does.

[FrankRep]

lol they don't need to overthrow it... that is the existing system!
We're not the Soviet Union yet, but we are walking in that direction. Things can get a whole hell of a lot worse.

[AuH20]

Anarchists for Single Payer? Sounds catchy? eh? :rolleyes:

[speciallyblend]

Well, I don't like the tea partyers or these people. Both make me want to puke. tea partiers are just the GOP/theocratic types and these people just seem confused.

i am a liberty tea party person:) i am no racist or anti-Semite and i believe in individual liberty, the constitution and smaller government:)

all people are individuals in all parties. there are racists and anti-Semites in all parties. we can not just blanket everyone!!!

[RedStripe]

Actually these are the true anarchists - anarcho-capitalists aren't really anarchists, as the term is used to describe a particular political philosophy.

It's hilarious how many people in this thread are obviously stuck in the largely trivial left-right paradigm. Anarchism began as a variant of a large and diverse Socialist movement, of which the state-socialists eventually took total control.

Lysander Spooner was a self-proclaimed socialist. Many of the early American libertarians/individualist anarchists considered themselves socialist. They were closely associated and allied with the "leftist" anarchists being bashed in this thread. Read some people who you disagree with instead of just reading the opinions and biased historical analysis of people you already agree with, and maybe some of you will start to see things a bit more clearly.

[ClayTrainor]

Actually these are the true anarchists - anarcho-capitalists aren't really anarchists, as the term is used to describe a particular political philosophy.

It's hilarious how many people in this thread are obviously stuck in the largely trivial left-right paradigm. Anarchism began as a variant of a large and diverse Socialist movement, of which the state-socialists eventually took total control.

Lysander Spooner was a self-proclaimed socialist. Many of the early American libertarians/individualist anarchists considered themselves socialist. They were closely associated and allied with the "leftist" anarchists being bashed in this thread. Read some people who you disagree with instead of just reading the opinions and biased historical analysis of people you already agree with, and maybe some of you will start to see things a bit more clearly.

If this is true anarchism, than I am no anarchist. I'm anti-state, anti-violence and pro-market.

[dannno]

I CALL BS ON THIS ARTICLE AND SITE, SIMPLE BS man they are trying to stir the bs into soup now!!

You're right, it is BS.

The site is run by global intelligence, and the anarchist movement is in fact a global intelligence run left-wing charged violent radical group that is used to subvert peaceful and meaningful protests against the establishment... They have global reach as we've seen they have been cited at protests all over the North American continent and Europe.

[dannno]

If this is true anarchism, than I am no anarchist. I'm anti-state, anti-violence and pro-market.

Well I think as someone else mentioned, these anarchists want anarchy so that they can install a left-wing government...

If you want permanent lack of state, then you are still an anarchist, but anarcho-capitalist is a more specific term.

[Joey Fuller]

http://www.tennesseesonsofliberty.com/2010/04/fringe-anarchist-groups-exposed.html

"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."

[RedStripe]

Well I think as someone else mentioned, these anarchists want anarchy so that they can install a left-wing government...

Please show me some proof of that claim.



If you want permanent lack of state, then you are still an anarchist, but anarcho-capitalist is a more specific term.

No, anarcho-capitalists simply want to privatize the state and strip it to its bare-bones function of protecting the capitalist economic class and their associated privileges.

[ClayTrainor]

Well I think as someone else mentioned, these anarchists want anarchy so that they can install a left-wing government...

If you want permanent lack of state, then you are still an anarchist, but anarcho-capitalist is a more specific term.

Yea, that's pretty much how i see it.

There's so many "branches" of anarchism, using the word is almost meaningless now, at least to me. Every anarchist thinks they support the "true" anarchy. I don't know what "true" anarchy is aside from semantics, but I do know that I prefer Rothbard's interpretation, and believe the concept of private property is the essential backbone to a free-society.

"Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." - Rothbard

In the end, putting a label on ourselves is just asking to be dismissed under group-think, it's best to just focus on principles.

[Tenbatsu]

Obviously these anarchists have never heard of incrementalism.

If you want to have a world with no government it's going to have to be a gradual process. Their best option is to support the liberty movement for the time being. If it is successful then it can be a launching board to a true anarchistic system.

Something tells me though that that these trotskyists that are threatening violence are paid agent provocateurs.

[FrankRep]

Obviously these anarchists have never heard of incrementalism.

If you want to have a world with no government it's going to have to be a gradual process. Their best option is to support the liberty movement for the time being. If it is successful then it can be a launching board to a true anarchistic system.

Something tells me though that that these trotskyists that are threatening violence are paid agent provocateurs.

These are Leftist-Anarchists who only want to overthrow the current system and install a Leftwing Socialist System.

[wizardwatson]

Actually these are the true anarchists - anarcho-capitalists aren't really anarchists, as the term is used to describe a particular political philosophy.

So some people are "true" in their collectivism while others are "false" and merely subscribing to some political philosophy? I think what you mean to say is that the political philosophy of these people who call themselves "anarchist" is closer the the political philosophy of certain "anarchist" founders. Considering the varied roots of the political philosophy I'd hesitate to call anyone "true anarchists".


It's hilarious how many people in this thread are obviously stuck in the largely trivial left-right paradigm. Anarchism began as a variant of a large and diverse Socialist movement, of which the state-socialists eventually took total control.

Lysander Spooner was a self-proclaimed socialist. Many of the early American libertarians/individualist anarchists considered themselves socialist. They were closely associated and allied with the "leftist" anarchists being bashed in this thread. Read some people who you disagree with instead of just reading the opinions and biased historical analysis of people you already agree with, and maybe some of you will start to see things a bit more clearly.

I've read quite a bit of Spooner and saying he's a self-proclaimed "socialist" is definitely stretching it to say the least. But maybe you can explain to me what a "true socialist" is.

If you disagree with what someone is saying, you should point it out and debate it. The back-handed comments about how others are "stuck in the largely trivial left-right paradigm" or that "maybe some of you will start to see things more clearly" just makes it seem to others that you are declaring your intellectual superiority without directing it at any specific comment or post.

[FrankRep]

Here's an example of their Activism:

Andrew Breitbart called a Racist at CPAC 2010

YouTube - Andrew Breitbart called a racist at CPAC 10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AfWkDrPvNA)

[dannno]

Please show me some proof of that claim.


I dunno, it's called logic. Why the fuck else would somebody who claims they don't want government want a left-wing government? Because they want to get rid of our current government to installed said left-wing government.

There is no other logical way to look at this situation. If you can provide one, go ahead.




No, anarcho-capitalists simply want to privatize the state and strip it to its bare-bones function of protecting the capitalist economic class and their associated privileges.

I know.

[FrankRep]

Please show me some proof of that claim


Crash the tea parties!

http://news.infoshop.org/images/topics/inews_ara.gif

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: http://www.anarchist-studies.org/node/299

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

[FrankRep]

http://www.tennesseesonsofliberty.com/2010/04/fringe-anarchist-groups-exposed.html

Examples of Anarchists/Agent Provocateurs:

YouTube - Agent Provocateurs Caught Disguised As Anarchists At G20 Pittsburgh 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPFC7THiKho)


2 minutes 33seconds:

Left Coast Communists posing as Anarchists under Delta Force Direction from the Alex Jones' film Police State II:

YouTube - POLICE STATE II: THE TAKEOVER - Seattle WTO Protest - Pt. 1/3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mAWslHmiok)


Alex Jones has been saying this for quite awhile..It has also been my gut instinct. To anyone attending a Tea Party or future protest, here are my suggestions:


* Attend with a friend or group. It is easier to attack or discredit an individual versus a group.
* Arm yourself with a video camera/cell phone camera.
* Make sure someone you trust knows what time you left for the protest and when you expect to be home.
* Debate others with a level head. Do not allow yourself to be provoked to anger. Walk away. Do not resort to violence. Only retaliate physically if it is a case of self-defense.
* Every Tea Party attendee has different ideals and agendas. Let's all be shining examples of goodness and patriotism. Be kind to different groups, even if they don't represent your viewpoint. The Mainstream Media, TPTB, and the Fascist Left want us to fail and in-fighting could definitely paint the Liberty Movement in a bad light.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Thread title is bullshit... "Plan War"... give me a break...

Link for original infoshop article:
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=crash-tea-parties

The articles linked:



2) Actively work against leaders of the New Liberty movement that organize against nonwhite working class people. Alex Jones, Ron Paul, David Duke, and others are trying to ensure that we will turn on migrants and other people of color rather than turn on rich people, most of whom happen to be white.
3) Organize debtor’s unions and tenants unions in your neighborhood. We must come together with our neighbors to defend each other from foreclosures and evictions. Create networks of people in your neighborhood that can show up and help defend each other and prevent evictions.
4) Refuse to pay any debts you have and organize rent strikes. Don’t pay your hospital bills, your credit card bills, or any other debts you have. Don’t give these people that have been exploiting us any more of your money.

http://www.anarchist-studies.org/node/299

The author of that article is from this site:



Principles

The purpose of our organization is the creation of a free society organized along the following principles:

* Democracy: A free society depends on a free media and organizes civic, social, and economic life using the principles of participatory democracy arising from direct action and public accountability. Those affected by a decision have an opportunity to participate in that decision.
* Equality: All people are welcomed as part of a free society. All people are equal and all labour is valued equally.
* Diversity: All people in a free society are different, and space for their difference is paramount to their equality.
* Security: Every human in a free society has secure access to meet their basic needs of food, shelter, health care, information, education, and transportation.
* Creativity: A free society values culture, art, and leisure as fundamental needs. Every person has the right to their own culture and to practice creative expression.
* Self-Determination: A free society is decentralized and all localities are autonomous and self-determined so long as they do not infringe upon the other basic principles of a free society.
* Interdependence: Communities in a free society are dependent on one another through mutual aid and exchange.
* Justice: All people have the right to be free from coercion, threat, and violence. A justice system should reside in the community it affects, seek resolution rather than revenge, and should work towards abolition of authoritarian prisons and jails.
* Peace: A free society uses conflict as an opportunity to learn from divergent views, opinions and experiences, with the goal of crafting agreements and taking actions that affirm the humanity and basic rights of all parties.
* Ecology: Humans live in balance with, and are part of, the natural world. A free society recognizes the right to clean water, clean air and food free of industrial toxins and genetic engineering.
* Economy: In a free society the means of production should be placed in the hands of the people, empowering communities to organize meaningful employment, and provide a responsible and sustainable standard of living which tries to meet the needs of all people.

http://help.riseup.net/about-us/political-principles/

rara (Ara macao)
Arara is a young geek from Southern America. His interests range from applied math, computing theory, programming, free software and hacking in general to collaboration, virtual and real self-managed communities, politics, economy, social movements, anarchist theory and how the hell we are going to get the world out of this shithole it is in right now.
Blue-footed Booby (Sula nebouxii)
Blue-footed booby is just like Tufted Puffin, but less hardcore about everything.


Gadfly Petrel (Pterodroma)
Gadfly Petrel works to bring about communications policies and systems that are based on human needs not corporate profits. She thinks that there is no technical solution but that technology can be useful if used in moderation. Other interests include cooperative living, urban gardening and Captain Beefheart. She's also a firm believer in mutual aid and loves jokes about pirates.

Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus)
Roadrunner is a large, long-legged, ground foraging bird in the cuckoo family. Originally indigenous to the North American Southwest, this specimen is currently enjoying being out of the desert and soaking up the moisture of Cascadia. He spends days as an undercover anarchist hacking on free software for a large multinational corporation, dreaming of one day being free. Roadrunner helps to herd the vast flock of riseup server hardware and waters the network to help it grow.

House Sparrow (Passer domesticus)
Although deeply critical of technology, House Sparrow spent seven years in the riseup collective in a quixotic attempt to use technology for liberation, losing feathers and sleep along the way. Sparrow is now beak-deep in books, studying social movements in graduate school.

Snow Owl (Bubo scandiacus)
The Snow Owl sits perched high on a icy branch, peering from afar at the insides of Riseup machines to find little bugs to snack on. He helped start Riseup when living in Seattle because he was dismayed by all the activists who showed up to shut down the WTO with their hotmail and yahoo accounts. No longer living in Seattle he works hard remotely keeping Riseup servers running, the network fast, and the spam from polluting your inbox. During the day he works at running a cooperative, occasionally reading and writing books, and sometimes winning strange and puzzling awards. He spent a lot of time building up the technical infrastructure for Indymedia, but now just contributes by maintaining some small pieces. He spends too much time in front of the computer, sadly.

Sunbird (Nectarinia asiatica)
Sunbird has called the pacific northwest home since 1998, but took a hiatus from the United States for two years, living abroad in Lahore, Pakistan where he studied Urdu and volunteered for the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. For his day job, he is a legal worker focused on protecting the rights of immigrants and refugees. Sunbird also has a strong interest in internet law as it relates to privacy and freedom of expression. He joined the riseup collective because it is essential for activists to have communication tools that we can trust. You may find Sunbird on IRC, answering your help tickets, struggling to learn Debian and dreaming about a future free of AOL. Sunbird's public gpg key ID is 709F062C, available from keys.indymedia.org.

Tucán Piquiverde (Ramphastos sulfuratus)
Like a tucan On the highest tree I shall leave my enemies Way down below me My enemies Who gather together Who spread vile gossip about me Who enrage me I fly with the wind And show them Nothing but the tips of my feet Beaten, thy fall back I let my enimies disappear Like an anaconda Which devours everyone I am Tucan I shout "cuan", "cuan" Way down below me My enemies disappear High above everyone else I sit in a bare tree My hair fluttering in the wind Like flickering flames Bright, so bright No one can reach me No words can do me any harm

Tufted Puffin (Fratercula cirrhata)
Tufted Puffin is medium sized sea bird and a member of the riseup collective. She nests in Seattle, which is pretty far south for a tufted puffin. Tufted Puffin spends much of her time in front of a computer, using flashy interfaces like pine, but she likes to go outside too. She gets around by biking or swimming with wings which have adapted to offer her a flying technique while underwater. Tufted Puffin appreciates learning tech skills from riseup and other radical tech projects and, more importantly, helping to build alternative infrastructures.

http://help.riseup.net/about-us/


The other article author



Is there anyone out there who can argue that the tea party movement is nothing more than the latest edition of white supremacist gang politics of the worst order? It's time to quit treating these folks as simply misled or even as a bunch of right wing libertarian populists. They are clearly the same people we've seen throughout history in this country spewing their racist hate, often masked just a wee bit behind some grievance or other. Well, the tea baggers latest bit of disgusting trash aimed at African-American representatives John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver, as well as their homophobic screeching at Rep. Barney Frank clearly exposes these racists as the scumbags they've always been. As such it's time we on the left treat them as such.

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/16198

is from this site:




The Oread Daily provides progressive news and analysis from around the US and the world. From December 2009 onward the blog will just reprint some favorites from posts I've made at my facebook account that day. This will include a very short comment and an article from somewhere out there. The OD has been available as a Yahoo Group since 2001 at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OreadDaily/

http://oreaddaily.blogspot.com/

which supports this site:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/breaking_news/tips.gif

The Black Commentator's core audience is African Americans and the African world and their allies in the movement for economic justice, social justice and peace. It is also important to share Black American and African world perspectives with the rest of the world, a mission uniquely suited to the Internet.

Our focus is commentary, analysis and investigation, elements of political dialogue that are absolutely essential to the creation of movements for social change. Without regular forums for advocacy and debate, a people are at the mercy of their adversaries.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/about_us.html






Carl Bloice - A writer in San Francisco, a member of the National Coordinating Committee of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and formerly worked for a healthcare union. Click here to contact Mr. Bloice.

Julian Bond - Board Chairman, NAACP, the largest and oldest civil rights group in the country. In the 1960s, he co-founded the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, renowned for its organizing work in the fight against racism. Bond also served 20 years in the Georgia Legislature, he holds twenty-five honorary degrees, is a Distinguished Professor at American University in Washington, DC, and a Professor in history at the University of Virginia. Click here to contact Mr. Bond

Rose Brewer, PhD - Professor of African American/African Studies, University of Minnesota and a leader of the Black Radical Congress. Click here to contact Dr. Brewer.

Imani Countess - Senior Director of Public Affairs of TransAfrica Forum and formerly the National Coordinator, Africa Program, American Friends Service Committee. Click here to contact Ms. Countess.

Lenore Jean Daniels, PhD - A writer, for over thirty years, of commentary, resistance criticism and cultural theory, and short stories with a Marxist sensibility to the impact of cultural narrative violence and its antithesis, resistance narratives. With entrenched dedication to justice and equality, she has served as a coordinator of student and community resistance projects that encourage the Black Feminist idea of an equalitarian community and facilitator of student-teacher communities behind the walls of academia for the last twenty years. Dr. Daniels holds a PhD in Modern American Literatures, with a specialty in Cultural Theory (race, gender, class narratives) from Loyola University, Chicago. Click here to contact Dr. Daniels.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. - A Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and the co-author of Solidarity Divided:The Crisis in Organized Labor and A New Path Toward Social Justice (University of California Press). Click here to contact Mr. Fletcher.

James Jennings, PhD - Professor of urban and environmental policy and planning at Tufts University. Click here to contact Dr. Jennings.

Badili Jones - A writer and organizer who works among African-American LGBTQ persons on the grassroots level and is also a rank and file member of SEIU, Jobs with Justice, and Pride at Work. Click here to contact Mr. Jones.

Martin Kilson, PhD - Hails from an African Methodist background and clergy: From a great-great grandfather who founded an African Methodist Episcopal church in Maryland in the 1840s; from a great-grandfather AME clergyman; from a Civil War veteran great-grandfather who founded an African Union Methodist Protestant church in Pennsylvania in 1885; and from an African Methodist clergyman father who pastored in an Eastern Pennsylvania milltown--Ambler, PA. He attended Lincoln University (PA), 1949-1953, and Harvard graduate school. Appointed in 1962 as the first African American to teach in Harvard College and in 1969 he was the first African American tenured at Harvard. He retired in 2003 as Frank G. Thomson Professor of Government, Emeritus. His publications include: Political Change in a West African State (Harvard University Press, 1966); Key Issues in the Afro-American Experience (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970); New States in the Modern World (Harvard University Press, 1975); The African Diaspora: Interpretive Essays (Harvard University Press, 1976); The Making of Black Intellectuals: Studies on the African American Intelligentsia (Forthcoming. University of MIssouri Press); and The Transformation of the African American Intelligentsia, 1900-2008 (Forthcoming). Click here to contact Dr. Kilson.

David A. Love, JD - Serves BlackCommentator.com as Executive Editor. He is journalist and human rights advocate based in Philadelphia, and a contributor to The Huffington Post, theGrio, The Progressive Media Project, McClatchy-Tribune News Service, In These Times and Philadelphia Independent Media Center. He also blogs at davidalove.com, NewsOne, Daily Kos, and Open Salon. Click here to contact Mr. Love.

Julianne Malveaux, PhD - President of Bennett College for Women. She is an economist, author, and national commentator. Click here to contact Dr. Malveaux.

Manning Marable, PhD - One of America’s most influential and widely read scholars. Since 1993, Dr. Marable has been Professor of Public Affairs, Political Science, History and African-American Studies at Columbia University in New York City. For ten years, Dr. Marable was founding director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University, from 1993 to 2003. Dr. Marable is an author or editor of over 20 books, including Living Black History (2006); The Autobiography of Medgar Evers (2005); Freedom (2002); Black Leadership (1998); Beyond Black and White (1995); and How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America (1983). His current project is a major biography of Malcolm X, entitled Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention, to be published by Viking Press in 2009. Click here to contact Dr. Marable.

The Reverend Irene Monroe - A religion columnist, theologian, and public speaker. She is the Coordinator of the African American Roundtable of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry (CLGS) at the Pacific School of Religion. A native of Brooklyn, Rev. Monroe is a graduate from Wellesley College and Union Theological Seminary at Columbia University, and served as a pastor at an African-American church before coming to Harvard Divinity School for her doctorate as a Ford Fellow. She was recently named to MSNBC’s list of 10 Black Women You Should Know. Reverend Monroe is the author of Let Your Light Shine Like a Rainbow Always: Meditations on Bible Prayers for Not-So-Everyday Moments . As an African American feminist theologian, she speaks for a sector of society that is frequently invisible. Her website is irenemonroe.com. Click here to contact the Rev. Monroe.

Leith Mullings, PhD - A Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. She is the author or co-author of several books, including On Our Own Terms: Race, Class and Gender in the Lives of African American Women; Freedom: A Photohistory of the African American People; and Stress and Resilience: The Social Context of Reproduction in Central Harlem.. Click here to contact Dr. Mullings.

Larry Pinkney - a veteran of the Black Panther Party, the former Minister of Interior of the Republic of New Africa, a former political prisoner and the only American to have successfully self-authored his civil/political rights case to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In connection with his political organizing activities in opposition to voter suppression, etc., Pinkney was interviewed in 1988 on the nationally televised PBS NewsHour, formerly known as The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. For more about Larry Pinkney see the book, Saying No to Power: Autobiography of a 20th Century Activist and Thinker by William Mandel [Introduction by Howard Zinn]. (Click here to read excerpts from the book) Click here to contact Mr. Pinkney.

Steven Pitts, PhD - Labor Policy Specialist at the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education. Click here to contact Dr. Pitts.

Barbara Ransby, PhD - Historian, writer, and longtime political activist. Dr. Ransby is currently an associate professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago in the Departments of African American Studies and History. She is the author of the award-winning biography, “Ella Baker and the Black Freedom Movement: A Radical Democratic Vision.”. Click here to contact Dr. Ransby.

Jamala Rogers - Leader of the Organization for Black Struggle in St. Louis and the Black Radical Congress National Organizer. Click here to contact Ms. Rogers.

Ethel Long-Scott - Executive Director of the Women's Economic Agenda Project, (WEAP). She is known nationally and internationally for devoting her life to the education and leadership of people at the losing end of society, especially women of color. She is dedicated to economic security and justice and believes that the US is engaged in a relentless war against workers and the poor. Click here to contact Ms. Long-Scott.

William L. (Bill) Strickland - Teaches political science in the W.E.B. Du Bois Department of Afro-American Studies at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where he is also the Director of the Du Bois Papers Collection. The Du Bois Papers are housed at the University of Massachusetts library, which is named in honor of this prominent African American intellectual and Massachusetts native. Professor Strickland is a founding member of the independent black think tank in Atlanta the Institute of the Black World (IBW), headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Strickland was a consultant to both series of the prize-winning documentary on the civil rights movement, Eyes on the Prize (PBS Mini Series Boxed Set), and the senior consultant on the PBS documentary, The American Experience: Malcolm X: Make It Plain. He also wrote the companion book Malcolm X: Make It Plain. Most recently, Professor Strickland was a consultant on the Louis Massiah film on W.E.B. Du Bois - W.E.B. Du Bois: A Biography in Four Voices. Click here to contact Mr. Strickland.

Chuck Turner - Boston City Council member and founder of the Fund the Dream campaign. He is the Chair of the Council’s Human Rights Committee, and Vice Chair of the Hunger and Homelessness Committee. Click here to contact Councilmember Turner.

Nathaniel Turner is a pseudonym for a Gen X writer, newspaper editor and activist. He is a news analyst who offers commentaries on contemporary issues facing the progressive movements in the USA Click here to contact brother Turner.

Ron Walters, PhD - is a Political Analyst, Author and Professor Emeritus of the University of Maryland, College Park. His latest book is: The Price of Racial Reconciliation (The Politics of Race and Ethnicity) (University of Michigan Press). Click here to contact Dr. Walters

Emira Woods - Co-director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies (Woods is from Liberia and brings an international viewpoint). Click here to contact Ms. Woods.

Jeanne Woods, JD - Visiting professor at the University of Maryland School of Law from the College of Law at Loyola University, New Orleans. Click here to contact Ms. Woods.


Real anarchists my ass.

[catdd]

"You people are throwing a pathetic national temper tantrum because your corporate party didn’t win the 2008 election. Furthermore, you’re imagery, your slogans, your flyers, are often nationalistic, pro-capitalist, racist, or just simply stupid. So obviously, anarchists will oppose you and continue to do so. The one remarkable thing, is how such a large group of people don’t have a basic understanding of political philosophy, and social issues."

Some truth to what he says but why aren't they protesting the Feds instead of the TP?
What good will that do?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well I think as someone else mentioned, these anarchists want anarchy so that they can install a left-wing government...

If you want permanent lack of state, then you are still an anarchist, but anarcho-capitalist is a more specific term.

what if you want anarchy so that you can become the emperor of the world? but youre not a socialist? what's that called? :D

[dannno]

what if you want anarchy so that you can become the emperor of the world? but youre not a socialist? what's that called? :D

Delusional ;)

[AuH20]

what if you want anarchy so that you can become the emperor of the world? but youre not a socialist? what's that called? :D

A warlord like Lord Humongous? :D

http://http://cache-03.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2007/11/lord1a.jpg

[JosephTheLibertarian]

A warlord like Lord Humongous? :D

http://http://cache-03.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2007/11/lord1a.jpg

wow Lord Humongous is badass. that's the american dream right there

http://www.prisonflicks.com/images/rwhumungus2.jpg

[SooperDave]

"conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, militia men, gun freaks, Ron Paul supporters, Alex Jones conspiracy types and American flag wavers"

none of these are insulting!!

[wizardwatson]

"conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, militia men, gun freaks, Ron Paul supporters, Alex Jones conspiracy types and American flag wavers"

none of these are insulting!!

The insulting part is when all these groups are equated with racist, violent, homophobes.

[pcosmar]

Pfffft....Anarchists.

See you on the 15th. My face will be fully visible, will yours?

I hear ya.
But stay alert all. From back chatter, many folks are expecting some kind of False Flag event soon.

mostly speculation, But keep your eyes and ears open.

[Promontorium]

Wow. They might as well call themselves Flintstonians as that word means about as much to what they're doing as anarchy does.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/promontorium/Fred-Flintstone-the-flintstones-638.jpg

[torchbearer]

How can you have a socialist regime with no government?

[FrankRep]

I can you have a socialist regime with no government?

Leftist-Anarchists who only want to overthrow the current system.

[RileyE104]

I don't understand this.. Leftist-Anarchists? I was brought to believe that Anarchists are as far RIGHT as you could get.. Secondly, Anarchists that WANT Government?

Seriously.. This is almost as funny as calling Libertarians Anarchists or Leftists when the truth is they support Constitutional Government, which would make them neither Anarchist nor Big-Government/Socialist Leftists..

[torchbearer]

Leftist-Anarchists who only want to overthrow the current system.

then, why do they call them anarchist? Why not socialist guerillas? Or socialist militias?

[Sarge]

Check out this thread on the TF. They are trying to out the people from Reid that cause problems.

http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=133163

Anyone in NV recognize the first person. This is a way to put a stop to this blame it on us stuff.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Leftist-Anarchists who only want to overthrow the current system.

Can't wait to see the word semantics to this question...

Do you advocate overthrowing the current system?

[NYgs23]

Most people use the term "anarchist" to mean a person who wants a stateless society, pure and simple. Some of us are anarchists in that sense, and we believe in a stateless society simply because we believe in a fully voluntary society. This bunch, on the other hand, equates "anarchism" to a hatred of "capitalism." They only seem to hate the state insofar as they perceive the state to be supporting "capitalism." They hate "capitalism" because it's "exploitative," but to this date no one has been able to define either of the terms for me in any kind of coherent way. The most striking part about them, however, is how desperate they are to monopolize the term "anarchist." Unless you adhere to all of their ridiculous doctrines, you are not an anarchist. They seem to think they've trademarked the term.

[zade]

Leftist-Anarchists who only want to overthrow the current system.

Thats not true. While there may be some who advocate this, as it seems the group in question does, there are certainly anarchocommunists/libertarian socialists, whatever, who advocate the dissolution of all forms of hierarchy as an end, including the government and the wage system.

They don't recognize private property as a natural right, so in the absence of a state they believe everything would be owned communally and capitalism would be replaced by communal labor for the common good based on the concept of "mutual aid"

[catdd]

I actually stopped going to TPs after we lost control of it but I'll be sure to attend the next one.

[torchbearer]

They don't recognize private property as a natural right, so in the absence of a state they believe everything would be owned communally and capitalism would be replaced by communal labor for the common good based on the concept of "mutual aid"

which wouldn't work without a very large military/police force keeping all the drones in line.
kinda the same problem with the voluntary society anarchist simply because you'd still have these other nuts running around enslaving people.
You can't force people to voluntarily live in your utopia and everyone has a different idea they will act on.

[acptulsa]

Well, it sounds like we're all set to humiliate them in debate when the day arrives. If you don't have a booming voice, have a mike or a bullhorn. Don't let them drown your good sense out!

[zade]

which wouldn't work without a very large military/police force keeping all the drones in line.
kinda the same problem with the voluntary society anarchist simply because you'd still have these other nuts running around enslaving people.
You can't force people to voluntarily live in your utopia and everyone has a different idea they will act on.

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2009-06-24-top_ten_num8.png

[torchbearer]

http://anarchyinyourhead.com/comics/2009-06-24-top_ten_num8.png

I know reality hurts because in order for your dream to work, it has to be in your head.

[RedStripe]

So some people are "true" in their collectivism while others are "false" and merely subscribing to some political philosophy? I think what you mean to say is that the political philosophy of these people who call themselves "anarchist" is closer the the political philosophy of certain "anarchist" founders. Considering the varied roots of the political philosophy I'd hesitate to call anyone "true anarchists".

Anarchism, as a political philosophy, has its roots in the socialist movement of the 1800s. It has always, been used to describe a political philosophy whose aim is the abolition of all forms of domination, oppression, control, rule - archy - of which the state is but one example, although quite significant and essential to the capitalist system.



I've read quite a bit of Spooner and saying he's a self-proclaimed "socialist" is definitely stretching it to say the least. But maybe you can explain to me what a "true socialist" is.

If you disagree with what someone is saying, you should point it out and debate it. The back-handed comments about how others are "stuck in the largely trivial left-right paradigm" or that "maybe some of you will start to see things more clearly" just makes it seem to others that you are declaring your intellectual superiority without directing it at any specific comment or post.

Yes, I am pointing it out and debating it. The reason I don't direct my comment to anyone in particular is the fact that there have many a lot of people in this thread making ignorant comments on the subject of political philosophy. And then there are the conspiracy theorists who claim that left-anarchism is just an arm of the international cabal! WOOOooOOOoooOOOooo

Sorry but it's just /facepalm to see people making ignorant statements, such as the claim that left-anarchists want to install a left-wing government. Their source? Oh, the left-wing anarchists don't like the tea party priorities of dismantling all the parts of government which help the poor - THAT'S THE SAME THING RON PAUL SAYS! He has repeatedly said that these are the LAST things that ought to be dismantled, for the same empathetic and humanitarian reasons, yet when a "LEFTIST" says it suddenly they are advocating for anarchy only as a conspiracy to bring about a "LEFTIST" government (as if a government that existed for the benefit of the masses, rather than the economic elites, has ever existed lol).

Benjamin Tucker has my back on the history of Anarchism and Socialism:

http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

“There are two Socialisms.
One is communistic, the other solidaritarian.
One is dictatorial, the other libertarian.
One is metaphysical, the other positive.
One is dogmatic, the other scientific.
One is emotional, the other reflective.
One is destructive, the other constructive.
Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
One aims to establish happiness for all, the other to enable each to be happy in his own way.
The first regards the State as a society sui generis, of an especial essence, the product of a sort of divine right outside of and above all society, with special rights and able to exact special obediences; the second considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed worse than others.
The first proclaims the sovereignty of the State, the second recognizes no sort of sovereign.
One wishes all monopolies to be held by the State; the other wishes the abolition of all monopolies.
One wishes the governed class to become the governing class; the other wishes the disappearance of classes.
Both declare that the existing state of things cannot last.
The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.
The first has faith in a cataclysm.
The second knows that social progress will result from the free play of individual efforts.
Both understand that we are entering upon a new historic phase.
One wishes that there should be none but proletaires.
The other wishes that there should be no more proletaires.
The first wishes to take everything away from everybody.
The second wishes to leave each in possession of its own.
The one wishes to expropriate everybody.
The other wishes everybody to be a proprietor.
The first says: ‘Do as the government wishes.’
The second says: ‘Do as you wish yourself.’
The former threatens with despotism.
The latter promises liberty.
The former makes the citizen the subject of the State.
The latter makes the State the employee of the citizen.
One proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world.
The other declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one.
The first has confidence in social war.
The other believes only in the works of peace.
One aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate.
The other wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation.
One would be followed by the most atrocious of reactions.
The other opens unlimited horizons to progress.
The first will fail; the other will succeed.
Both desire equality.
One by lowering heads that are too high.
The other by raising heads that are too low.
One sees equality under a common yoke.
The other will secure equality in complete liberty.
One is intolerant, the other tolerant.
One frightens, the other reassures.
The first wishes to instruct everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to instruct himself.
The first wishes to support everybody.
The second wishes to enable everybody to support himself.
One says:
The land to the State.
The mine to the State.
The tool to the State.
The product to the State.
The other says:
The land to the cultivator.
The mine to the miner.
The tool to the laborer.
The product to the producer.
There are only these two Socialisms.
One is the infancy of Socialism; the other is its manhood.
One is already the past; the other is the future.
One will give place to the other.

Today each of us must choose for the one or the other of these two Socialisms, or else confess that he is not a Socialist.”

[catdd]

These fools threaten Rand Paul's biggest supporters and ignore Trey Grayson's biggest supporter which is AIPAC. Now what the hell is THAT all about???

[Promontorium]

The ideal Communist society is one which needs no law or government. This is also true for anarchy. There is your connection.

However, not on an idealistic, but a practicalist side, anarchy is used as a tool for ultimate control. It's the two pronged attack. Dismantle concepts of government secured rights, under the guise of anarchy (this is usually in the form of trying to abolish capitalism, and business), and simultaneously promote social laws that work hand in hand with the anarchist goals (work to demonize capitalism from an anarchist perspective, and promote social control through law from the socialist perspective, the end result, individual enterprise will be illegal, and government welfare will be institutionalized).

Of course, as you've all noticed this kind of anarchism seems too obviously contradictory. However, all anarchism is fringe, it has never been very popular, and historically anarchism has gone hand in hand with Communism, be it the unionist revolts of the industrial revolution, or extremist groups during the civil rights movement (like the black panthers, who simultaneously advocated militant activism, and secession and freedom from tyranny).

Anarchy has been used more as a tool than a goal. If you can destabilize a government, or an institution, then you have anarchy, but the ultimate goal is to institute a new form of control. This is why I think the fears expressed here are entirely justified. And why what these anarchists are doing outwardly appears contradictory. They want to destabilize the Tea Party under the guise of anti-government, when it is precisely their goal to protect government.

Comically I think, in a way, anarchists are a leftist's version of the original Boston Tea Partiers. They wear masks and act as a different group in order to destabilize the system and institute their own ideals.

[Pete_00]

Yes, I am pointing it out and debating it. The reason I don't direct my comment to anyone in particular is the fact that there have many a lot of people in this thread making ignorant comments on the subject of political philosophy. And then there are the conspiracy theorists who claim that left-anarchism is just an arm of the international cabal! WOOOooOOOoooOOOooo[/I]

Anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-communism (or whatever it is) will always degenerate into an USSR or worst, it doesnt take much to figure out why, and there will never be "pure" anarchy on this planet at best only small government, stop crying.

And yes, they were used like marionettes by the International Communist Conspiracy in Russia (bitch slapped after they were no longer useful, with Bakunin himself admiting they were very naive when compared to the Bolsheviks) and Spain...and still being used today as you can see. :)

What about those "Dead Kennedys"? So cool, so rebelious, so humanitarian...Preaching red-anarchism to 6 billion people and yet half-dozen people couldnt figure out a way to divide the profits :D

[rancher89]

The big O will be in Charlotte NC tomorrow and the tea party and 9/12 folks are in a tizzy. I may or may not amble down that way, the protest is only 1/4-1/2 mile from my house.

These guys have no clue about what they are going up against. There will be Presidential level security and PLENTY of pro O supporters just itching to scuffle with anyone stupid enough to get upset with their rhetoric.

I know some very nice, middle class tea party members that are going to get a very rude awakening tomorrow when they get face to face with the stormtroopers and the sound cannons .......

[FrankRep]

Anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-communism (or whatever it is) will always degenerate into an USSR or worst, it doesnt take much to figure out why, and there will never be "pure" anarchy on this planet at best only small government, stop crying.

This video shows what type of "Anarchists" these people are. They only want to "Overthrow" the current Government. "Anarchy" is only a Tool for Social/Government change and not the goal in itself.

YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)

[catdd]

Damn, favorite video.

[dwdollar]

Lefto-Anarchists.... LOL...

Sounds like kids who have been smoking some bad weed.



...

[FrankRep]

Lefto-Anarchists.... LOL...

Sounds like kids who have been smoking some bad weed.

The term is "Useful idiot" :)


In political jargon, the term useful idiot was used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries and the attitude of the Soviet government towards them. The implication was that though the person in question naïvely thought themselves an ally of the Soviets or other Communists, they were actually held in contempt by them, and were being cynically used.

The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, hostile government, or business, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

[FrankRep]

News got around!

http://www.google.com/#q=Anarchists+Plan+War+On+April+15th+Tea+Parties&hl=en&safe=off&sa=2&fp=bcdf8cbbf06dc4f

[sofia]

We need our anarchists to counter these anarchists. ;):D Secondly, how can these folks be 'anarchists', when they love Uncle Sugar's programs?

CIAnarchists...

same gang that shows up at G-20 and WTO gatherings. They raise hell to make the G-20 gangsters look "moderate"

[catdd]

Are they the same bunch that protested at the RNC?