One. . . Just one.
And when there's more than one?
Also, there is this:
"Say no to work. Say yes to looting."
Thus reinforcing the need for an Anarchist Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. They call themselves "anarchists." Thinking anarchists here say they're not. I believe you. How do you reclaim the name?
23 comments:
Well.. I don't. I just don't use the label.
I like 'abolitionist'. That way I have the choice on whether or not to elaborate on what exactly it is I want to abolish. >:D
I heard a lot about this on the NPR coming to work this early AM.
Whole lot to say about this:
#1 with a bullet (joke!) - What was it that young Mr Grant did in the first place to cause him to be wrestled to the ground by the Metro Stazi in an altercation gone wrong?
#2 - Young Mr Grant's family seems bound and determined to declare that justice had NOT been done, and that they want the intervention of the Federal DOJ to look into this. Why? (other then being socialist parasites that want ever more and more Fed Big Gubbment to suck off of). What will the DOJ do (legally) that the state already didn't do?
And if you, Mrs Grant, had raised your young man properly, he likely wouldn't have gotten into the situation that he did, with the results that he's dead and an officer's life ruined.
#3 - And all this "anarchist" rioting, looting, burning, and destruction helps your "cause" (whatever it is), HOW? You put yourself in a very poor place with the overall public opinion by these actions.
Yes, you can and will always find a favorable opinion with those of like mind, but the destructionist anarchists are a very small segment of the population.
#4 - At least (according to the news report) you (The Grant family and sympathetic neighbors) been able to break out of your blacks-only racist mold as shown by this:
"Officials said the main instigators appeared to be organized "anarchist" agitators wearing black clothing and hoods. Many of the most aggressive demonstrators smashing the windows of banks and shops were white."
All I have to say is this:
You come to my city and neighborhood to cause trouble and destruction, you better bring a lunch, because your action will be met with like reaction. I will act to defend my city and neighborhood and house.
You pick up a rock or other throwable, I pick up something similar (I won't say what for now, as sheeple might be reading this, and I don't want to unnecessarily scare them). You throw that rock, I throw back something that will hit a lot harder.
'Nuff said.
B Woodman
III-per
"Thus reinforcing the need for an Anarchist Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. They call themselves "anarchists." Thinking anarchists here say they're not. I believe you. How do you reclaim the name?"
There are lots of names for groups who started out with libertarian ideas, but who ultimately had their reputation ruined and reversed by identify theft fraud. Names so corrupted include liberal, democrat, republican, and libertarian. Here are two approaches to consider:
1) Continue to use the name anarchist, and refute identity theft as you find convenient. Perhaps put a link to the TLE definition of ZAP on your right bar. Doublethink about what politics does, especially consent vs. force, is close to the heart of politics. The political crime of lying about who believes what is not going to go away any sooner than the rest of the political crimes.
2) Evolve the names faster than the fraud can move. Call me an abolitionist, as in the abolition of slavery in every form: Stealing 100% of your income and micromanaging every detail of your work is bad. Stealing 50% of your income and regulating your work is less bad by comparison, but still bad.
It seems to me that anarchism is like atheism: it's defined by what it lacks rather than by what it contains (a negative philosophy). Atheism is the denial of the existence of a deity, nothing more or less than that. So the atheist who lies, cheats and steals and the atheist who is loving and hard-working are both true atheists if they deny God.
Likewise, true anarchism is the lack of any coercive authority (the resident anarchists can correct me on this), so the anarchist who posts here and the one who sets buildings alight are true anarchists if they deny that authority. The moment something is added to the original denial, it ceases to be pure anarchism (or atheism) and goes from a negative to a positive philosophy. At this point you're dealing with a position which has anarchist traits but is really a separate animal.
You can't reclaim it anymore than one can reclaim the confederate flag that was hijacked by the KKK goons. You have to come up with something different like "voluntaryist" or "free marketeer"
Then explain to people that in a voluntary society, people would interact in a peaceful manner. No one would conduct business through coercion or the threat of violence (like it is done now via the imperial federal government). Any individual or group of individuals that would violate such a covenant will have given up their rights and could be held liable for those infringements.
Anarchy is surely a word charged with emotion and obfuscation.
Just as very few will question the notion that 'Capitalism got us into this mess' as we know that the economy has not been free since perhaps 1913 (creation of the central bank) - nobody really challenges the notion that Anarchy is anything other than advocating violence and destruction of property.
Having said that looking at the definition of the word it means without a leader so a few Marin County trust fund asshats saying that they are anarchists does little to support the notion that they are really anarchists in any sense. I ran into them a lot while cruising around the Haight to hit bars, restaurants and gear up for snowboarding season at SFO over a decade ago.
The socialists/communists often will use a movement to disrupt the current status quo with a violent movement sometimes termed as 'Anarchist'. After the dust settles the collectivists move in and advocate a decidedly non-anarchists government structure. See: Hegelian dialectic.
Stephen over at www.freedomainradio.com has discussed the word and the concepts on many podcasts. Go here and type 'anarchy' in the search window on the top left and have a listen to a few http://www.freedomainradio.com/Podcasts.aspx
Understanding the nonaggression principle will open your eyes but be warned there is no turning back. Perhaps this is why the word 'Anarchy' is portrayed in such a negative light? It tends to leave one with the notion that the emperor called the stat definitely has no clothes.
And no, the nonaggression principle does not imply that one can not use force to defend themselves but it does state that using force to destroy other people's property is not acceptable.
Cory
How many legs would a cow have if we called a tail a leg?
Answer: four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
Calling a rioter 'an anarchist' doesn't make that rioter an anarchist, either. The GH SoA is awarded only to those anarchists who work to destroy the archy, not the retailery.
This principle would have been much more clear had the incident happened in, say, Texas where storeowners don't have to beg to be left alone. They just show the looters their rifles with "Leave Me The F-- Alone" microstamped on the muzzle and the looters go elsewhere -- Kalifornia, maybe.
Of course, had Meserle pulled his stunt in Texas, he might never have gotten to trial at all, and (knowing this) probably wouldn't have 'pulled his stunt' in the first place.
This what happens when cops are taught to rely not on their brains but upon "nonlethal" weapons.
Inevitably the wrong weapon will be employed. The cop had him down on the ground, why would it be necessary to TASER him after he was subdued? To instill shock and awe at the use of overwhelming force. In effect terrorizing the subject and all bystanders with that overwhelming force.
As to these aswipes using the word "Anarchist" (which simply means "with out rulers") We need to call into every talk radio show and insist that the word "Nihilist" (with out rules) be used.
True Anarchists are "self governors" we know and abide the commonly accepted rules of society (no theft, vandalism, rape, assault, murder, et al)
Dr.D III
As a self-proclaimed anarchist I am sorry to say that I don't think the name can be reclaimed. In fact, I generally call myself libertarian (small "l", I am not a member of that bickering bunch of old fools that call themselves the Libertarian Party) or a voluntaryist. Though I find the phrase voluntaryism clumsy it is pretty well known among libertarian/anarchist circles.
Did “they” call themselves anarchist?
Buy reading the “news” piece, I see that the “officials” called them anarchist, and the media reported it.
“Officials said the main instigators appeared to be organized "anarchist" agitators wearing black clothing and hoods.”
You win back the good name of anarchist the same way as you win back the good name of militias, no?
Do away with the “officials” and their lap dogs in the media, whom have something to gain by smearing the good name of folks who do not agree with them?
There's the rub...
How does anyone reclaim ANY name?
After all -- there's lots of racist vermin running around calling themselves "christian" as well.
As to the case, mixed feelings here, Boss... On one hand, I actually believe the cop when he says he intended to tase the guy. On the other hand, what would happen to any of us in an identical situation? Does anyone believe we would get off with "involuntary manslaughter"??!!
Since they act with the full authority and power of The State, I believe The Only Ones must be held to a **MUCH** higher standard than us mere mortals -- ESPECIALLY given the intensive training that (supposedly) turns them into super-beings.
The MAJOR lesson here - for any of us living in a city anyway - is the utter gridlock that occurred for folks trying to G.O.O.D. Remember: this had been expected for days or weeks, and it was just a question of WHEN, yet ...
Now imagine it had been some sort of unexpected event. - can you even IMAGINE the mess?
If you live in a city, MOVE. If you live in a better place but commute into a city for work, you'd BETTER re-examine your egress plans and equipment -- ESPECIALLY if you're "melanin-challenged."
I'm not a racist, but I *AM* a realist -- and one need only consider poor Reginald Denny to understand what *COULD* happen to you when the lid finally comes off.
Further, remember that he was in a tractor-trailer -- and thus had options sorely lacking in the average mini-van or even SUV...
Mike's right -- there are many, many lessons for an astute person to learn from consideration of this "Event"...
DD
I think you've got a perception of injustice here. It's one set of laws and punishments for the elite.....another set for the mundanes.
As long as there is the perception in the public mind that law is applied according to the class the person belongs to, then the idea of law is voided.
When you void the idea of law, then the usual means of redress is violence. Why do people seem to be surprised by this again and again.
As regards the anarchist handwringing over the idea that their "trademark" has been usurped?....I'd like to remind them that anarchy is also a word that describes a situation as well as a philosophy. Although it seems a bit odd to me that a self-titled anarchist would disavow violence as a response, I have to concede that there are probably still a few people around who think the sound of a slide jacking a non-existant round into the chamber of an empty twelve gauge is sufficient to repel an intruder.
Speaking personally?.....I don't labor under any such illusion.
How do you reclaim the name? Given how successful the collectivists have been at redefining political language and the whole frame of debate, it's probably impossible. But the best place to start would be by challenging the left/right paradigm they created which wrongly puts competing forms of Socialism on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Until it's widely accepted that the degree of government/collective control versus individualism is the proper measurement, terms like anarchism (or liberalism, as it was understood in the 18th century..) will remain fuzzy.
And in replay to what Witchwood said above, the so-called anarchists who torch buildings aren't denying authority. They're granting themselves authority to initiate force and fully embracing it. While they may not call themselves a "state," their actions sure seem to match Max Weber's definition of a state.
Mr. Woodman:
This guy Grant was shot after having been restrained, in the back. At least where I come from, once you're in custody, the arresting agency is responsible for your safety.
Where do you get off blaming the victim?
"...the officer's life ruined." What? This 'officer' has about a half-century of tomorrows still ahead of him. Unlike our Mr. Grant.
Just what side are you on, anyway? You'll shoot the ATF if they come for your guns, but if it's the local PD, you'll just let them? What definition of 'government' do you operate under?
Use a little paraphrase, OK?
When they shot a black guy, I said nothing, because I wasn't black....
Got that? It applies to all of us.
I used to call myself a Patriot. But after the hatchet job the Clintonistas and their media did on the word in the 90's, I don't ID with it openly anymore. Still, may I say "III"!!!
I could ask you how you the same question.
Bottom line, these were not Anarchists "Officials said the main instigators appeared to be organized "anarchist" agitators wearing black clothing and hoods." Notice the key word "appeared" and their only evidence is that they were wearing black clothes and hoods?! How does that equate to anarchists? It doesn't. Anyone rioting would do well to wear hoods and black clothes it would help evade capture and visual ID.
These people were protesting the lack of punishment for a cop who killed an innocent person in cold blood. ""It's a clear-cut case of murder," said Larockwell who joined the growing group at 14th Street and Broadway in downtown Oakland. "He's (Mehserle) a police officer. He should know better. Justice should be served, but it's a baby step and a precedent."
Anarchy is the Absence of Government, not looting and rioting and chaos and that is not what an anarchist wants. Also, "organized anarchists"? Come on.
In the end this comes down to an angry protest gone a rye. Nothing worse than some soccer fans will pull when their team wins.
anon no.1, they didn't ruin that young cop's life nearly enough.
If you don't believe me, get four of your friends to hold down a cop while you shoot him in the back. See if you get an Involuntary Manslaughter charge with a max 2, probably suspended.
I don't think you would be foolish enough to do that, but from your comment I can't be sure, so let me offer this advice, just think it through, don't actually do it.
Mr. Woodman
They come trashing our neighborhoods I suggest we go on a moron safari.
What is the diverance between a cop shooting a detained suspect in the back of the head(i watch the video with outrage,when it happened)Gestapo-jew, Commissar- captured polish officers? Not a F'ing Thing Murder Is Murder!
As a television baby, I learned that the puppet with the cape and monocle was "The Count". One-Two-Three Count... and that it takes three licks to get to the chocolate center of a candy on a stick.
Counting to III is important.
Abolitionists sounds good. Bad things need that.
Cheers.
Every time I call myself a
"moral anarchist", I am always met with the "huh" look.
Rothbard once suggested nonarchist". There's also "agorist", and the qualified terms that reference capitalism or markets. Or you could just refer to colors, black and gold, not black and red.
As another commenter said, terminology is always an arms race when dealing with those for whom obfuscation is more important than clarity.
In my young years, as in before I was 18, I was one of the "hippie-dippie"
people. Going on my own changed that, and I became a strong proponent of free enterprise, as I engaged in business without Gov't approval. I wanted to make money, and my products and services were met with demand. I made a lot of money. But I had to have a "license"
and "permits" to do so in the long run. So I eventually obtained them.
I continued with that paradigm until I realized that all of the licenses and permits that I had attained were pure bullshit and NO entity had a right to tell me that I had to have licenses and permits to simply contract with another person.
MY right to freely contract with another person is NOT subject to anyone's review, their licenses, or their permission. I KNOW how to design and build a product better than THEY do. If someone does not like my references, they can choose someone else.
At that point, I went to the small "l" libertarian viewpoint. Of course, the rational conclusion to that POV is anarchism. NO RULERS, no Gov't. That is unpalatable to me.
Granted, we can't have a country without borders, but we should have only as much Gov't as it takes to defend our borders and deliver the mail. :D
Otherwise, we wind up with what these looting punks wrongly term as anarchy:
That would be chaos. Not on MY watch.
I would hope that we could have a society that would be able to do without any "governance", but I doubt that will ever happen.
People as a whole will not mature to that level of self-restraint that encompasses that type of freedom.
They just can't handle being truly free. A damned shame, to say the least.
Maybe in 100 years? Or maybe Jesus will come back first and put an end to this mess?
Hell, I'm too old ta care anymore about the philosophizing. Like my Grandpa used ta say, "Fuck the Gov't! The bigger they get, the more problems they cause."
Post a Comment