john cena Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/03/19/sheriff-clarke-pro-immigration-anti-trump-protesters-are-conglomeration-misfits Pro-immigration protesters are planning to rally today against Donald Trump in Phoenix and New York, just one week after violent brawls with liberal activists shut down the presidential candidate’s rally in Chicago. For those coming out today, Sheriff David Clarke says he knows what their intentions really are. “Let’s not misidentify this,” he said on Fox and Friends Weekend. “This is a rebellion.” While “the liberal mainstream media is nothing more than a propaganda wing for the Democrat Party,” said Clarke, “I identified these individuals for who they really are well over a year ago. I call them anarchists.” http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/03/13/judge-jeanine-donald-trump-protesters-silent-majority-will-not-be-silencedJudge Jeanie Pirro also blames anarchists for the protests in that video.Why all of the sudden propaganda against anarchist from Fox? I mean, he refers to them as totalitarians in the video right before calling them anarchists.. But still, will we ever be able to revive the word anarchist?
SirrusDundle Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 Like it or not, anarchists were the original terrorist threat back in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Look up propaganda of the deed. Any chance of rehabilitating that word for anyone who isn't a political science major was gone long ago.
dsayers Posted March 20, 2016 Posted March 20, 2016 The title doesn't make sense to me. How does one specialize in fear? Aren't the terms "specialize" and "chaos" incompatible? Can intimidation be described as virtuous?
B0b Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 Maybe they are anarchists who have not well understood the theory. 1
regevdl Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 It's too convenient to refer to the term 'anarchist' when it relates to unruly behavior. That is when you know the government and the media puppet prime's people to associate violence and unruly behavior with 'anarchy'. On an anecdotal note, in Israel, I've noticed that those on the far right will refer to anyone a smigdge to the left of them (which is basically everyone) as 'anarchist'. One guy even told me, "yeah....this douche is an anarchist who is advocating for Palestine to have its own state'. I paused to see if he was going to catch the contradiction and when he didn't I simply pointed it out (as he didn't realize he was speaking to an anarchist). I told him anarchist believe in no ruler, not no rules and therefore they do not see goverment as a moral entity of consistant principles or the best way to resolve the social and economical issues of the masses or groups. He looked at me perplexed so I was more succint in saying, "an anarchist cannot simultanously claim themselves an anarchist and advocate for new borders for a new state". lol So anytime I hear the word in direct association with unruly behavior I stop the conversation to first give the proper definition and association about what anarchy (by way of ethical philosophy) is all about. Maybe they are anarchists who have not well understood the theory. then can you really call them an anarchist? Like a single mom who didn't understood the theory of abstainance can't call herself a virgin. 1
B0b Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 then can you really call them an anarchist? Like a single mom who didn't understood the theory of abstainance can't call herself a virgin. Sorry, this is a wrong analogy. A virgin is not a woman who had understood the theory of abstinence. If they are for no state, then they are anarchists. If they punch people in the face, then, they are violent anarchists and not libertarians.
regevdl Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 Sorry, this is a wrong analogy. A virgin is not a woman who had understood the theory of abstinence. If they are for no state, then they are anarchists. If they punch people in the face, then, they are violent anarchists and not libertarians. Maybe I am missing something. The quotes from the comment indicated that the violent people that were labeled as 'anarchists' were leftist protestors. Therefore they have nothing to do with the proposal of no state..... quite the opposite. So if they are peaceful or violant, they contradict the qualities needed to be able to call themselves anarchist or for anyone to call them anarchists. That was my point. Media ...even the limited govt right...is threatened by actual no-state anarchists. But to call a bunch of violent liberals 'anarchists' is an oxy-moron, a contradiction, mislabling used to invoke cognitive dissoance and works on people who don't understand literally what anarchism is. They only believe it's about acting violently and therefore the media use of this term inaccurately only in cases of violence, reinforces the confirmation bias.. liberals demand LARGE gvt anarchists want no gvt. Libertarians want small gvt.
B0b Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 Maybe they are simply a bunch of violent idiots thinking that bringing in anyone and getting the "rich" to pay for them is a great idea. In which case, there is no word for them.
john cena Posted April 1, 2016 Author Posted April 1, 2016 Maybe I am missing something. The quotes from the comment indicated that the violent people that were labeled as 'anarchists' were leftist protestors. Therefore they have nothing to do with the proposal of no state..... quite the opposite. So if they are peaceful or violant, they contradict the qualities needed to be able to call themselves anarchist or for anyone to call them anarchists. That was my point. Media ...even the limited govt right...is threatened by actual no-state anarchists. But to call a bunch of violent liberals 'anarchists' is an oxy-moron, a contradiction, mislabling used to invoke cognitive dissoance and works on people who don't understand literally what anarchism is. They only believe it's about acting violently and therefore the media use of this term inaccurately only in cases of violence, reinforces the confirmation bias.. liberals demand LARGE gvt anarchists want no gvt. Libertarians want small gvt. It's like we're being framed.
Shaeroden Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 "specialize in fear"actually, i specialize in being devastatingly annoying, thank you very much.
John R Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 It's like we're being framed. I think The Sex Pistols and the Punk bands of the 70's and 80's had a little to do with that. Growing up in the 80's, these bands had me convinced it was all about chaos and violence. In fact, it is so rarely talked about or discussed in MSM that I wasn't corrected on this issue until a fellow coworker educated me 3 years ago. But for Judge Jeanie to use the term in that way does sounds a bit fishy. Maybe the anarchist movement is getting big enough to scare the establishment into starting up the propaganda.
Jaeger Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 I think The Sex Pistols and the Punk bands of the 70's and 80's had a little to do with that. Growing up in the 80's, these bands had me convinced it was all about chaos and violence. In fact, it is so rarely talked about or discussed in MSM that I wasn't corrected on this issue until a fellow coworker educated me 3 years ago. But for Judge Jeanie to use the term in that way does sounds a bit fishy. Maybe the anarchist movement is getting big enough to scare the establishment into starting up the propaganda How much of this was just misunderstanding of the Punk movement by the media. Bands like Crass totally advocated peace and anarchy. Sure we had our violence like slam dancing but that was voluntary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIdcDL64KCE
ObserveandReport Posted May 4, 2016 Posted May 4, 2016 The title doesn't make sense to me. How does one specialize in fear? Aren't the terms "specialize" and "chaos" incompatible? Can intimidation be described as virtuous? surely you're being obtuse? Do you not remember the laymen use of "anarchist?" Has it been so long? Stefan's oft repeated "Anarchy means no rulers, not no rules." is the rhetorical device he has devised just for people with this mindset. 1
ObserveandReport Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 have I erred? manipulated? More effective than downvoting my comments is actually talking to me (if it begins to affect whether my posts are seen by the average person, I merely make a new account). I get that this is a relatively homogeneous group of regular forum goers and that dissent is discouraged in all homogeneous cultures. I'm here to engage with new ideas and its only valuable for me to spend my time here, exactly because my views vary so greatly from the norm here (in some important respects). Do you downvote things that evoke negative emotional reactions? Things that seem to be lying? I've read the community guidelines, but it appears you all use the voting as a punitive measure or merely to demarcate the views you most vehemently disagree with. Here's examples just so you know I'm not bullshitting: " If it's any solace Trump has said "Why do we need to be getting involved in Syria? It seems like every time we go over and meddle in other people's business, we make things worse" I heard him say something along those lines at a rally. I can get behind that." "Trumps stance on foreign policy is vague at best. He's said we'll "...get rid of Isis and get rid of them fast." He's also said he's comfortable with targeting the families of terrorists. Finances and borders are important, but personally I can't vote for another war monger. I did it with Obama when I was on the other side of the isle, thinking he was the peace candidate. Sanders and Paul were the only two this go around. Why do you all feel that supporting a war monger is preferable to abstaining from voting altogether or casting a vote for a third party? Specifically, do you think that saving your children from paying taxes is more important than preventing our military from slaughtering thousands or hundreds of thousands of people? " The above is a combination of indisputable fact and my opinion. Where's the fuckery? "You and your girlfriend should call in to discuss it on the show... I can't imagine she would be very interested, but I will ask. I'm also not sure how it would be productive. I've listened to much of his material on the subject and it doesn't seem like I'm missing any key distinctions of his arguments. That being said, I wouldn't mind. Mike if you're reading this, do you think I've erred somewhere, or is Stefan the better person to have this discussion? " Just so you all know I corresponded with Mike an will in fact be calling in. I was right in my assessment of my girlfriend's desire to join the conversation. So how did I err in that explanation? I was told by Shirgall to ignore the popularity contest, but it's growing frustrating to the point of real irritation. I genuinely enjoy engaging with many of you. I benefit from exposing my arguments and beliefs to a plurality of others. I've spent 5 minutes on this post and its five minutes I could have spent getting a different take on indentured servitude or the European Union or single motherhood.
EclecticIdealist Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 The violent, so-called anarchists of the 19th and early 20th Century were Marxists. They believed that anarchy was a necessary step towards the realization of the socialist utopia envisioned by Marx.
rosencrantz Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 The violent, so-called anarchists of the 19th and early 20th Century were Marxists. Quite the contrary. Marx(ists) and Anarchists were allied like cats and dogs. For more, see the exchange between Marx and Bakunin.
Recommended Posts