Skip to comments.The anarchists are eating their own
Posted on 06/08/2010 1:36:47 PM PDT by patriotgal1787
If you've been listening to Glenn Beck this morning, this heckling episode with Nancy Pelosi and Code Pink couldn't have been better timed to make his point. From my show notes:
A theory that came to me this morning -- remember the scale of left and right? Anarchy on one side, total government on the other. That was true at the time of our founders. But anarchy now - the black flag movement, people who are currently pushing for it at the G20 --that was not even a possibility for our founders. It was just that it would all break down. This is an actual movement and as I'm doing my homework on the early 20th century, the anarchists during the progressive movement under Woodrow Wilson hated each other. One is thru administration; the anarchists wanted Communism and they wanted it now. (Listen to audio clip 3:53)
They want revolution. They are true Marxists. The others are Marxist theorists. Van Jones is a black flag kind of guy and the president is trying to appease the black flag side of his supporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at radiopatriot.wordpress.com ...
Academics trying to lead a radical movement is a fools errand.
Let’s watch shall we?
Anarchists eating their own? We can but hope. That’s fewer I’ll have to look at over the sights of my FAL.
Hey, ammo's pricey.
How can I send ‘em some ketchup?
The whack left is panic stricken....Their dilusional bubble world is falling apart!
Only in theory. In actuality, the anarchists aren't really anarchists. They aren't against government. They are against government by you.
They are not people who don't believe in government. They are people who want to make sure government by you and for you can't work. They are people who intend to make sure that the only ones who can govern will be they themselves.
Thats not anarchism. Thats fascism.
They are true Marxists
Yes, they are. And they are true fascists.
I had a discussion last week about this. I’d made mention on a thread about anarchists/communists/socialists. One replied and told me that I didn’t know what I was talking about. Anarchists weren’t communists, they want complete absence of government.
As noted above, anarchists want revolution as true Marxists. They want the breakdown of American society to build their own order. It’s they who are unwilling to wait. It’s they who the liberals/progressives will find it hardest to control (at least on their side).
Well, I figure that if they bunch up a little - as they are wont to do - I can get at least a two-fer with each shot. Especially with the custom 308 AP loads.
The anarchists have alwasy eaten their own. It is why they are so into the concept of biodegradable toilets.
Thank you for pointing that out. The so-called “black flag” anarchists are not technical anarchist (i.e. the absense of any government), but instead useful idiots, cannon fodder for the Marxists.
And technical anarchy, though it sounds good, is not feasible due to the sin nature of man. Some government authority is necessary, as Paul points out in the Letter to the Romans. The Founding Fathers realized it as well, but were wise enough to place limits on such authority. The Marxists now in power are seeking to circumvent those limits.
Anarcists are freeking chicken children with their little masks over their mouths so they look like the “lone bandit” and their silly little “spray paint letter As” and their habit for property damage.
I disagree with Beck though the scale is Pure Anarchy on one side and “Anarchy through non enforcement of too many laws” on the other side. Then you add another axis where you have total government control vs. no government control.
“Total government” vs. “communist side” WHAT?
They don’t want total government, but they want global control?
Just because Nancy Pelosi hasn’t publicly called for “revolution” she isn’t a communist?
Obama isn’t a communist? Then what is he? Who does he ultimately serve?
Does Beck believe that once his “progressives” marginalize the right the game is over? The game just gets heated up at that point. Then the battle is between the so-called “Progressive” (who I call the “transition team”) and the real-deal communists—guess who triumphs in this battle?
The Clintons are “using” the hard left? Does Beck really believe this?
Van Jones is at the top of the list? Jones is but a G.R.U.N.T. with loose lips and an attitude.
Beck is way off track.
He should be using his resources to make the international connections. These communist/”progressive” organizations that he speaks of regularly are created/supported/funded by communist countries, i.e., our sworn enemies.
This is a global movement with the US as objective #1.
Besides, what Beck did today is splitting hairs? It was weird. Shades of collectivists? This is a dangerous game he’s playing.
I think he’s been hanging with O’Reilly (the bold, fresh, two-faced marshmallow) far too much.
Socialism is unsustainable—in fact, there is no such thing. There is only a transition mechanism from capitalism to communism.
I hear conservatives say socialism “always fails.” No, socialism ALWAYS succeeds in rotting free markets and individual freedom, and in creating havoc which the power mongers then use to tighten their grip on the throats of the masses.
These are communists, folks. The O’Reilly’s of the world are really doing us all a monumental disservice by fostering denial, or what Beck refers to as “the normalcy bias.”
While O’Reilly is telling his audience of millions that communists pose no threat to us, the hard left is working feverishly on the hearts and minds of the masses to create one-neck for one leash.
I don’t believe it’s a good time to be splitting hairs, Beck. Ultimately, they all serve your biggest nightmare.
To me, it’s arguing who is the better serial killer.
...and true Communism is unatainable. Those that try tend to end up with something the more closely resembles fascism in in that it ends up being an authoritarian government that plays lip service to representing the working man while trying to use nationalism to suppress dissention.
There are a lot of dangerously naieve idealists in this world, and no shortage of would be tyrants wanting to exploit them.
Please read the final sentence in post #17 by untrained skeptic. My point is, that anarchy as an ideal (the absence of government) will invariably lead to despotism due to its being taken over by tyrants. Those who espouse revolution for anarchy’s sake, do so with the intent of creating a communist state.
Human nature is such that the weak will be controlled by the powerful. Look at what’s happened to America over the past 100 years. If it can happen to a country governed by our Constitution and the rule of law, what do you think will happen to an anarchist state?
Code Pink was pimped by the media as an anti-war group. Now that Obama is prosecuting his own wars, they are not advocating pacifism. Rather, it is now indisputable their true mission has nothing to do with peace: world communism.
Contemplate this conversation with a modern-day anarchist:
"So, you want no government, no rules, eh?"
"Yeah, that would be way cool."
"No rules? That means I can come by in the night and take your stuff."
"I'll stay awake and guard my stuff."
"OK, I'll come by in the day, when you're asleep."
"I'll make a deal with my buddy to watch my stuff."
"So you'll have a rule: 'You watch my stuff while I'm asleep, and I'll watch your stuff while you're asleep', right?"
"Yeah, that's it."
"Aha! You've just formed a rule. A small local government. Anarchist my a**."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.