PDA

View Full Version : Anarchist Throws Bomb




InterestedParticipant
04-10-2010, 04:53 PM
Does this sound familiar? Is history repeating itself? Well you be the judge.

It's not 2001, or 2010, it's 1886 Chicago: The Haymarket Square incident.


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

The Haymarket affair (also known as the Haymarket riot or Haymarket massacre) was a disturbance that took place on Tuesday May 4, 1886, at the Haymarket Square[3] in Chicago, and began as a rally in support of striking workers. An unknown person threw a bomb at police as they dispersed the public meeting. The bomb blast and ensuing gunfire resulted in the deaths of eight police officers and an unknown number of civilians.[4][5] In the internationally publicized legal proceedings that followed, eight anarchists were tried for murder. Four were put to death, and one committed suicide in prison.

The Haymarket affair is generally considered to have been an important influence on the origin of international May Day observances for workers.[6][7] In popular literature, this event inspired the caricature of "a bomb-throwing anarchist." The causes of the incident are still controversial, although deeply polarized attitudes separating business and working class people in late 19th century Chicago are generally acknowledged as having precipitated the tragedy and its aftermath. The site of the incident was designated as a Chicago Landmark on March 25, 1992.[8] The Haymarket Martyrs' Monument in nearby Forest Park was listed on the National Register of Historic Places and as a National Historic Landmark on February 18, 1997.


An agent provocateur was suggested by some members of the anarchist movement. Albert Parsons believed the bomber was a member of the police or the Pinkertons trying to undermine the labor movement. However, this contradicts the statements of several activists who said the bomber was one of their own. Lucy Parsons and Johann Most rejected this notion. Dyer Lum said it was "puerile" to ascribe "the Haymarket bomb to a Pinkerton."

They made sure to put a number of faces to the crime:


http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/2092/chicagoanarchists.jpg

And here is the modern day version...


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/114698681_ac07bf8571.jpg

It's the same drill, same techniques that were used over 100years ago. These guys don't change their methods, it's just that current generations are unaware that these same methods of manipulation and control have been used throughout history.

BuddyRey
04-10-2010, 05:22 PM
Half the time, these people aren't activists at all, but undercover cops or federal spooks.

Anarchist, in the headline here, belongs in quote-marks.

pcosmar
04-10-2010, 05:56 PM
It isn't a bad reminder though. There were recent rumors of "anarchists" starting trouble at tea parties. There were several threads covering the SPP Summit. Canadian Officers were busted.
We had threads about this same activity when planning marches and events in the past.
Watch out for provocateurs.
And not just "anarchists" but the SEIU thugs, or any other group.

or perhaps they are upping the stakes with the recent recent militia raids.
:(

eyes and ears open.

cybloo
04-10-2010, 06:14 PM
What is a good, straightforward, non-violent way to deal with agent provocateurs if present at a rally or march or something?

pcosmar
04-10-2010, 06:18 PM
What is a good, straightforward, non-violent way to deal with agent provocateurs if present at a rally or march or something?

Get them on camera and let them and others know.
Let the organizers know (marshals/monitors).

Get in their way.

cybloo
04-10-2010, 06:38 PM
Get them on camera and let them and others know.
Let the organizers know (marshals/monitors).

Get in their way.

Thanks. Is there a way to tell who the marshals/monitors are? I've never been to a Teaparty event before and I'm going to the one next week.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-10-2010, 06:48 PM
Those people aren't anarchists. They are statists masquerading as anarchists. Communists and leftists in general love to play word games. How do you think the word 'liberal' went from meaning someone who favors liberty to someone who is favors a big government? [insert jeopardy song] Yup, just a word game. They are anarchists until they have the opportunity and the means to create their own system, then they become the state. That's all they are about.

pcosmar
04-10-2010, 06:51 PM
Those people aren't anarchists. They are statists!

True. sometimes they are police, sometimes they are intelligence agencies, most times they are confused, ignorant kids that are manipulated.

but the media calls them anarchists.

V-rod
04-11-2010, 12:22 AM
Modern Day Anarchists = Marxists who want to be cool by putting on masks, wear black, and smash things.

EndDaFed
04-11-2010, 02:55 AM
The important line to draw here is between left and right anarchists. Left anarchists don't believe in property rights as opposed to anarchists from the right. This explains why the left anarchists are so destructive when it comes to the property of others.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-11-2010, 07:28 AM
The important line to draw here is between left and right anarchists. Left anarchists don't believe in property rights as opposed to anarchists from the right. This explains why the left anarchists are so destructive when it comes to the property of others.

That's because they are not anarchists :) They don't believe in property, right? Doesn't exist, right? Anarchism - voluntary social interaction. What happens when an communist society meets an ancap city? "We don't believe in private property" ancaps respect the communist society, "live and let live" while the communists, on the other hand, are the complete anthesis of that, and they would resort to violence because they, in their own words, do not believe in private propery.

life, liberty,pursuit of happiness

An extension of your life is your property. They are not anarchists, they are statists. They are a wannabe monopoly on philosophical thought. How can I even think of what they are as as philosophy? It's a joke. All it's about is catch phrases, buzz words, and bullshit! They do not respect the individual, therefore, nothing will be voluntary, and whatever their bs is will become a new state. "Anarchists" - on the left are only anarchists when not in power.

Ancaps would respect a communist commune, communist commune would not respect the voluntary ancap society. Who is the one that is tolerant? Certainly not the self-proclaimed "anarchists" that parade around like douchebags, and fight for causes that increase state power.

BTW, you CAN be an ancap and be in a communist commune all you want. If you voluntarily agree to be apart of a society like this, then you are are, in fact, an ancap. If it's by force then it's not ancap. It's really that simple. Anything without force is ancap, everything that takes force is anti-ancap. That means you can practically be an anarcho-communist and STILL be an ancap, but you cannot be an anarcho-communist without being an ancap, because they believe in force. What the hell would be the difference between anarcho-communists and the state?

Absolutely nothing! They are playing word games.