An Anarchist, and bonehead F.B.I. Agents

I can't help but think about the money, and resources spent investigating 'leads' that lead down dead-end roads. I'm not a big fan of hippies, but I am definitely not a big fan of Government nonsense like this:

"“The content could not be determined from the street,” an agent observing from his car reported one day in 2005. “It had a large number of multi-colored blocks, with figures and/or lettering,” the report said, and “may be a sign that is to be used in an upcoming protest.”
Actually, the item in question was more mundane.
“It was a quilt,” said Scott Crow, marveling over the papers at the dining table of his ramshackle home, where he lives with his wife, a housemate and a backyard menagerie that includes two goats, a dozen chickens and a turkey. “For a kids’ after-school program.”"


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/us/29surveillance.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Wow. All federal officials are now certified code-breakers. Wow.

From the article: "Mr. Crow, 44, a self-described anarchist and veteran organizer of anticorporate demonstrations, is among dozens of political activists across the country known to have come under scrutiny from the F.B.I.’s increased counterterrorism operations since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

I LOVE my country! So much so I swore an oath to her Constitution, an oath which I've yet to defile and have much to defend.

Anarchy has never worked throughout either human or animal history. Therefore, as a pragmatist, I am fundamentally opposed to anarchy.

I like our current system of government simply because it's worked so well in taking a bunch of rag-tag colonials into a world leader in the modern age and in record time.

But, while I think our Founding Fathers got it mostly right, I think there remains room for improvement, something they thought so as well, by including an Amendment process into the Constitution itself.

As such, this sort of behavior on the part of the Feds has already been addressed, not once, but many times, beginning in the Bill of Rights, and having continued throughout the judicial processes of our country.

My question is why "antiwar activists in Pittsburgh, animal rights advocates in Virginia and liberal Roman Catholics in Nebraska" continue to be "mildly faulted by the Justice Department’s inspector general."

Sounds to me like he's got way too many dollars and too much time on his hands without any real leads. I believe the term is "grasping at straws" while trying to justify one's position.

That's not to say the position isn't important. It is, and it's very important. The point is that it's the personal responsibility of the individual appointed to this position to NOT "exhaust all resources," but to instead limit the efforts to the measure of law, what's right, just, and true.

Anyone aboard that position who has forgotten this has forgotten greater mandates involved with securing the posterity of ourselves and our liberty.

Well to be fair anarchists have produced much violence especially in Europe over the past years. Of course one would think that if after a year of investigation and nothing came up they would realize they are wasting effort; and no one should have their protected rights violated. From this article I'm not convinced that rights were violated, just that tax dollars were wasted.

Daylen said:

Well to be fair anarchists have produced much violence especially in Europe over the past years. Of course one would think that if after a year of investigation and nothing came up they would realize they are wasting effort; and no one should have their protected rights violated. From this article I'm not convinced that rights were violated, just that tax dollars were wasted.

Click to expand...

Actually the majority of the "anarchist" violence in Europe--ESPECIALLY in Italy and Spain, has been created by MI-6 and CIA programs, through agent provocateurs as part of Project Gladio--the Ally's post-WWII operation to keep Communism out of Italy and Spain by staging false-flag events and blaming them on Communists and Anarchists...

Dreamer said:

Actually the majority of the "anarchist" violence in Europe--ESPECIALLY in Italy and Spain, has been created by MI-6 and CIA programs, through agent provocateurs as part of Project Gladio--the Ally's post-WWII operation to keep Communism out of Italy and Spain by staging false-flag events and blaming them on Communists and Anarchists...

Click to expand...

Wow...

I suggest a CAT Scan.

Never mind that so called "anarchists" have been throwing bombs all over the world for over 100 years, they're completely invented and controlled by the modern CIA, which apparently has created a time machine and shot President Mckinnley.

What I don't get is where these marxist parasites get off calling themselves "anarchists".

ANARCHY: absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

Then there's this utter stupidity:

a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

So who is responsible for making sure everyone does their fair share of labor, and contributes to the collective? Wouldn't that person, or those people then have to be given some authority? Wouldn't that authority be consistent with "government"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole bullscat notion was created by Engles and Marx, and every country that has adopted it has become a tyranical hell hole full of mass graves from excess population forceably starved to death by their "utopian" governments.


I can't believe there are so many complete idiots who promote this lunacy.

since9 said:

Anarchy has never worked throughout either human or animal history.

Click to expand...

Other than about 400 years in Greeland, and about a thousand years in Ireland, you mean?

Anarchy does not mean chaos or violence. It doesn't mean mean "no rules". It means literally what it says: "without rulers".

The rock-throwing communists running around Europe wearing black masks and destroying property are not anarchists. By using violence to attempt to reach their goals, they're the very antithesis of anarchy.

Okay, all that aside... nonsense like this can only happen when you have a government so large that there are agents available to sit around and perform this kind of surveillance. No matter whether you prefer no government, or a government that is limited in size and constrained in its power, we have got to chop this leviathan down to a manageable size.

PrayingForWar said:

Never mind that so called "anarchists" have been throwing bombs all over the world for over 100 years, they're completely invented and controlled by the modern CIA, which apparently has created a time machine and shot President Mckinnley.

Click to expand...

You're right. The CIA and MI6 had nothing to do with P2, "false flag terror ops" in Italy, or the deaths of hundreds of people in clandestine government-sponsored bombings...

The first academic examination of Gladio was published in 2005 by Swiss historian Daniele Ganser. Mr. Ganser is currently a Senior Researcher at the Center for Security Studies at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland. His book, NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, Gladio has been accused of trying to influence policies through the means of "false flag" operations: a 2000 Italian Parliamentary Commission report from the Olive Tree left-wing coalition concluded that the strategy of tension used by Gladio had been supported by the United States to "stop the PCI (Italian Communist Party), and to a certain degree also the PSI (Italian Socialist Party), from reaching executive power in the country".

Click to expand...

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

PrayingForWar said:

What I don't get is where these marxist parasites get off calling themselves "anarchists".

ANARCHY: absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

Then there's this utter stupidity:

a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

So who is responsible for making sure everyone does their fair share of labor, and contributes to the collective? Wouldn't that person, or those people then have to be given some authority? Wouldn't that authority be consistent with "government"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole bullscat notion was created by Engles and Marx, and every country that has adopted it has become a tyranical hell hole full of mass graves from excess population forceably starved to death by their "utopian" governments.


I can't believe there are so many complete idiots who promote this lunacy.

Click to expand...

What I find interesting about your response is that you managed to assert that Marxists are not Anarchists, then tie Marx with Anarchy. Full circle?

Anarchism, just like all other Political, and Social concept, and application can be measured in degrees, and is no singular in dimension. There are many dimensions to Political, and Social concept, and applications, which might include some degree of Anarchism, or at least, the promotion of Anarchism.

If you believe in less Government or no Government then you are an Anarchist, obviously a degree of Anarchist, or believe in Anarchist concepts. Unless you are an Absolutist, then in order to be an Anarchist, and practice Anarchism, you would need to be 'Free' of all Governance, no matter the degree. Wait, what about self-Governance? The life of an Absolutist must be hard.

PrayingForWar said:

........Then there's this utter stupidity:

a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

So who is responsible for making sure everyone does their fair share of labor, and contributes to the collective? ...........

Click to expand...

No one. If you don't produce you don't eat. Don't picture a collectivist commune where everyone labors for the collective. But rather a society of free markets and voluntary interactions. With no Government there is no "welfare". If you choose not to work you either find a family member or private charity willing to shoulder the burden or, you starve to death.

PrayingForWar said:

What I don't get is where these marxist parasites get off calling themselves "anarchists".

ANARCHY: absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority

Then there's this utter stupidity:

a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

So who is responsible for making sure everyone does their fair share of labor, and contributes to the collective? Wouldn't that person, or those people then have to be given some authority? Wouldn't that authority be consistent with "government"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole bullscat notion was created by Engles and Marx, and every country that has adopted it has become a tyranical hell hole full of mass graves from excess population forceably starved to death by their "utopian" governments.


I can't believe there are so many complete idiots who promote this lunacy.

Click to expand...

If anything you said about Anarchism were true, I'd think it was lunacty, too. But since you're wrong and don't seem to have any idea what Anarchism is, I'm very relieved by my education. Actually knowing what I'm talking about soothes my soul... It might help yours a little, too.

The nature of human ambition, to control and dominate others, has never been discarded by enough people simultaneously for an even marginally Anarchic society to emerge. At no point in any known history has something even borderline anarchic existed. America in 178X was the closest Humanity has ever gotten, and that was still not even remotely close.

Beretta92FSLady said:

If you believe in less Government or no Government then you are an Anarchist, obviously a degree of Anarchist, or believe in Anarchist concepts. Unless you are an Absolutist, then in order to be an Anarchist, and practice Anarchism, you would need to be 'Free' of all Governance, no matter the degree. Wait, what about self-Governance? The life of an Absolutist must be hard.

Click to expand...

um, by definition Anarchism is highly absolutist...
1. Belief in the abolition of ALL government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

And wanting a government to abide the constitution and thereby be smaller and have less control is not anarchism, it is simply wanting EVERYONE, including the government, to not go against the laws of the land.

ixtow said:

If anything you said about Anarchism were true, I'd think it was lunacty, too. But since you're wrong and don't seem to have any idea what Anarchism is, I'm very relieved by my education. Actually knowing what I'm talking about soothes my soul... It might help yours a little, too.

The nature of human ambition, to control and dominate others, has never been discarded by enough people simultaneously for an even marginally Anarchic society to emerge. At no point in any known history has something even borderline anarchic existed. America in 178X was the closest Humanity has ever gotten, and that was still not even remotely close.

Click to expand...

Wow, do you call out your own name during a manual climax too? (middle finger icon here)

What I do know about anarchy, and idiots running around calling themselves anarchists may be limited. I do know that these idiots preach about marxism, and bringing down the capitalist system that's based on free markets. Their idea of anarchy is not having people forcing them to do anything they don't want to do, (such as work or bathe) and have everything they need to sustain their lives provided free.

END_THE_FED said:

No one. If you don't produce you don't eat. Don't picture a collectivist commune where everyone labors for the collective. But rather a society of free markets and voluntary interactions. With no Government there is no "welfare". If you choose not to work you either find a family member or private charity willing to shoulder the burden or, you starve to death.

Click to expand...

I think I can live with that sort of "anarchy".

I just can't imagine trying to do simple things like DRIVE, in a world with no traffic laws.

Beretta92FSLady said:

What I find interesting about your response is that you managed to assert that Marxists are not Anarchists, then tie Marx with Anarchy. Full circle?

No, straight line. "Anarchists" claim their ideas come from marx. It's my understanding that marxism and anarchy are polar opposites on the political spectrum.

Anarchism, just like all other Political, and Social concept, and application can be measured in degrees, and is no singular in dimension. There are many dimensions to Political, and Social concept, and applications, which might include some degree of Anarchism, or at least, the promotion of Anarchism.

If you believe in less Government or no Government then you are an Anarchist, obviously a degree of Anarchist, or believe in Anarchist concepts. Unless you are an Absolutist, then in order to be an Anarchist, and practice Anarchism, you would need to be 'Free' of all Governance, no matter the degree. Wait, what about self-Governance? The life of an Absolutist must be hard.

Click to expand...

I exist in a world of absolutes when it comes to the meaning of words. An "anarchist" who understands that he can live his life without following insipid laws, and behave in a way that creates no harm or danger to other people has to understand that not everyone shares that ability. His rational conclusion should be that society does in fact have to be governed to some degree. Hence he is no longer an "anarchist".

You see how that works?

PrayingForWar said:

Wow, do you call out your own name during a manual climax too? (middle finger icon here)

What I do know about anarchy, and idiots running around calling themselves anarchists may be limited. I do know that these idiots preach about marxism, and bringing down the capitalist system that's based on free markets. Their idea of anarchy is not having people forcing them to do anything they don't want to do, (such as work or bathe) and have everything they need to sustain their lives provided free.

Click to expand...

Then those "idiots" are incorrect when they ascribe anarchy to their beliefs. If what you are seeing is correct, then what you are observing is some form of blended neo-marxism/ communism. What you are describing are people who want a form of government to be in control, yet leave them alone in their personal lives...unless they need something from that government, in which case it would be provided to them for free.

That has nothing to do with anarchy in any way, shape or form. Either they are confused about the issue or you are, one or the other.

Dreamer said:

You're right. The CIA and MI6 had nothing to do with P2, "false flag terror ops" in Italy, or the deaths of hundreds of people in clandestine government-sponsored bombings...



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

Click to expand...

Dreamer, seriously dude, CAT Scan.

If I cared to waste my time I could find something online equally or even more credible tha wikipedia to debunk your looney stories. It's not worth it. You want to live in a "reality" that the system is so corrupted, that the people who pull the strings are so organized and in control of everything, and that everyone who disputes you is a NWO shill, that there's no hope of restoring the republic.

I've lived in that world, what a soul crushing place it is too. Maybe someday you'll realize Alex Jones is full of $#!t, and wake up from that nightmare. I think it might take professional help in your case though.

rotorhead said:

Then those "idiots" are incorrect when they ascribe anarchy to their beliefs. If what you are seeing is correct, then what you are observing is some form of blended neo-marxism/ communism. What you are describing are people who want a form of government to be in control, yet leave them alone in their personal lives...unless they need something from that government, in which case it would be provided to them for free.

That has nothing to do with anarchy in any way, shape or form. Either they are confused about the issue or you are, one or the other.

Click to expand...

Maybe both, but I really don't care.

The clowns I've talked to claim the marxist collective eventually "morphs" (I'm unclear how) into a society where everyone's needs are met because industry is fully automated. There's no different class of people, and no one receives more than anyone else.

It's insane. I've tried arguing with them and it is as pointless as trying to convert die hard cult members. Screw them, we need to just beat down the liberal system so that they move or starve to death.

PrayingForWar said:

Maybe both, but I really don't care.

The clowns I've talked to claim the marxist collective eventually "morphs" (I'm unclear how) into a society where everyone's needs are met because industry is fully automated. There's no different class of people, and no one receives more than anyone else.

It's insane. I've tried arguing with them and it is as pointless as trying to convert die hard cult members. Screw them, we need to just beat down the liberal system so that they move or starve to death.

Click to expand...

I agree that it's a system that cannot be sustained. It's very premise of collective labor in support of a collective distribution that is spread out to all belies it's weaknesses. Add to that the fact that the fruits of that labor are controlled by a very small minority of that collective body and you get a flawed system destined to fail- bringing with it all the ills of such a failure.

What's truly sad is that it's the exact same model being rushed in by both parties that control the US these days, albeit to different degrees.

rotorhead said:

I agree that it's a system that cannot be sustained. It's very premise of collective labor in support of a collective distribution that is spread out to all belies it's weaknesses. Add to that the fact that the fruits of that labor are controlled by a very small minority of that collective body and you get a flawed system destined to fail- bringing with it all the ills of such a failure.

What's truly sad is that it's the exact same model being rushed in by both parties that control the US these days, albeit to different degrees.

Click to expand...

What should be telling, at least to the moonbats with the "Eat the Rich" bumperstickers, is that these socilaist ideas are being pushed by some billioniares. Who I suppose envision themselves at the top of a food chain they have full political control of. Thank God there are still some rich people who understand how they got rich, and that they get richer in a society allowed to generate more wealth.