Alex - please stop generalising anarchists

[GreenGuyUK]

Hi all.

Dont want my first thread here to be negative but I'm pretty annoyed at AJ right now.

The Pittsburgh coverage with Bermas is great listening but he has just totally generalised anarchists as dupes or provocateurs. This is insulting to the vast majority who are just good activists with political opinions readers may disagree with. Sure there are some provovateurs and some are dupes, but there are plenty of anarchists there who are just there to register protest like the libertarians, anti war etc.

Please bear this in mind. We need unity across the spectrum against the criminal elite, not the factional bitching which continues to haunt the genuine left.

I work on the left in the UK on loads of these issues, banks, codex etc. Sooner or later aspects of left and right must unite. Let's not let tribalism divide us like we are Roman serfs.

Thanks

[Outer Haven]

Cut the left/right crap, please.

[Unintelligable Name]

He's already said many times in the past he isn't talking about all Anarchist groups.

[chris killz blog]

He's already said many times in the past he isn't talking about all Anarchist groups.

I can confirm this

[Outer Haven]

I can confirm this

I remember when that guy who open-carried an AR-15 was on the show (or was it some other time?), and described himself as an anarchist, Alex said that he agrees with about 95% of what the anarchists say.

[Ilsa]

Yes, exactly.

If the anarchists had carried some glocks in holsters and held signs with revolutionary war era quotes, Alex Jones would be beside himself to praise them.  But in other circumstances, he keeps referring to everyone wearing the black outfit as a provocateur, even if they're not doing anything. Do you realize that it was anarchists who were the ones to 'out' the real provocateurs in Montebello, Ontario?
  He was pretty much doing this at the DNC as well.


Anyway - everyone should take note that George Orwell was an anarcho syndicalist. This isn't just conjecture from the fact that he was an anticommunist leftist. He fought in the Spanish civil war on their side (here is Homage to Catalonia online 
http://books.google.com/books?id=d2rXwFdzuo8C&dq=homage+to+catalonia&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=lWW-SoDlGYb2sgPiyvAo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false  )

Anarchism is a legitimate form of economic organization which was employed in syndicalist Spain. The form of government is susceptible to takeover by outside states, however, before the fascist takeover, the economy was working pretty well, and industrial production increased. Basically, workplaces are democratically organized where each employee has a share of the company, but there is no central state which assigns people to their careers. Under syndicalism, people can get fired so there is an incentive to do a good job, but it removes the big-capital ownership element of corporations, so there is no incentive to keep workers at minimal levels of pay or making bad decisions for workers and consumers.

[InfoArsenal]

The documentary I saw on Anarchist political activity had similar people who were involved in Marxism basically operating as a radical form of controlled opposition or CIA-like activities.

In philosophy there are so many types of anarchy you can't even use it as an umbrella term to mean anything.

[Unintelligable Name]

Anyway - everyone should take note that George Orwell was an anarcho syndicalist. This isn't just conjecture from the fact that he was an anticommunist leftist. He fought in the Spanish civil war on their side (here is Homage to Catalonia online 
http://books.google.com/books?id=d2rXwFdzuo8C&dq=homage+to+catalonia&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=lWW-SoDlGYb2sgPiyvAo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false  )

Anarchism is a legitimate form of economic organization which was employed in syndicalist Spain. The form of government is susceptible to takeover by outside states, however, before the fascist takeover, the economy was working pretty well, and industrial production increased. Basically, workplaces are democratically organized where each employee has a share of the company, but there is no central state which assigns people to their careers. Under syndicalism, people can get fired so there is an incentive to do a good job, but it removes the big-capital ownership element of corporations, so there is no incentive to keep workers at minimal levels of pay or making bad decisions for workers and consumers.

Yes I read Wikipedia too! And I also agree with syndicalism! 

[GreenGuyUK]

Thanks for the level headed replies folks. I know Alex doesnt always generalise about anarchists but on this occasion and very often he does. maybe it's heat of the moment but frankly it is poor journalism for someone so influential and often thorough. I guess this gets into his style which is often hyperbole.

Getting all theoretical about it: "libertarian" used to actually refer to anarchism in a beyond-communist sense rather than libertarian in the more capitalist sense.

It's fine for the first reply to say "lets get beyond left and right" but there are still fault lines about how to organise economy which tend to fall round those definitions, not to mention perspectives on authoritarianism which are applicable to both left and right.

To be fair there is more vision in the US towards left / right libertarian unity than in Europe I think, in that the call for a Paul / Kuccinich ticket was pretty strong in 08.

For me there are going to be intense arguments about class, capitalism and the role (if any) of the state. These need to at least be conducted maturely, but in the face of the global elite those who oppose the MIC and banker control have to now unite and fight for the right to even have those arguments.

Thanks for the constructive attitude and reacting to my point in the spirit it was meant. Hope to hear more from you guys.

[GreenGuyUK]

Just some more things in relation to last post: Im fully aware that Kuccinich is in no way an anarchist but he is, in old parlance, of the liberal left especially by US standards. As he is a vegan I see him as much a green as Mckinney, possibly more so than Nader (who I think AJ dislikes?)

Isla is right that George Orwell was an anarcho syndicalist, but a more amusing description I heard him give of himself was "conservative anarchist" may sound like oxymoron doublespeak, but there could be something in it, he was very ahead of his time.

All the anarchists I know believe in both freedom and responsibility and live their lives that way..

[Freeski]

"It's fine for the first reply to say "lets get beyond left and right" but there are still fault lines about how to organise economy which tend to fall round those definitions, not to mention perspectives on authoritarianism which are applicable to both left and right."

Anarchy is basically synonymous with freedom and liberty. It just means 'without rule'. We're just brainwashed to immediately connect anarchim with violence. All movements have their share of whack-jobs. But you either have "rule over people" or you don't... and THAT'S the fault line. Just my opinion of course.

BTW - You can't "organize an economy" and still call it free.

[donnay]

"It's fine for the first reply to say "lets get beyond left and right" but there are still fault lines about how to organise economy which tend to fall round those definitions, not to mention perspectives on authoritarianism which are applicable to both left and right."

Anarchy is basically synonymous with freedom and liberty. It just means 'without rule'. We're just brainwashed to immediately connect anarchim with violence. All movements have their share of whack-jobs. But you either have "rule over people" or you don't... and THAT'S the fault line. Just my opinion of course.

BTW - You can't "organize an economy" and still call it free.

Well said! 

[GreenGuyUK]

BTW - You can't "organize an economy" and still call it free.

Thereby hangs a tale though because surely a completely unregulated economy can and does approach monopoly, corruption and the corporate takeover of the state we are witnessing. The global elite is indeed constructing an authoritarian hybrid of communism and capitalism ("fascism is the marriage of state and corporation - Mussolinni) As someone "of the left" (I understand labels suck but this is for ease of reference) I analyse this as socialism SUBSIDISING capitalism (lender of last resort implies this anyway).

Others, including Max Keiser have coined the term "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor"


But as a "leftist" I find it deeply insulting that bailouts and "nationalisations" are called "socialist". It's as phoney a definition as can be.

And complete Free Markets are an abstracted theoretical thing just like state socialism is, and just as likely to screw up.

The MIC takeover of capitalism is about as free market as stalin was socialist.

[Unintelligable Name]

Thereby hangs a tale though because surely a completely unregulated economy can and does approach monopoly, corruption and the corporate takeover of the state we are witnessing. The global elite is indeed constructing an authoritarian hybrid of communism and capitalism ("fascism is the marriage of state and corporation - Mussolinni) As someone "of the left" (I understand labels suck but this is for ease of reference) I analyse this as socialism SUBSIDISING capitalism (lender of last resort implies this anyway).

Yes, and on the other hand a regulated economy in the hands of Government is still going to become corrupt and monopolized when the Government regulates the smaller fish in favor of the bigger fish, with what we currently have now. The large corporations lobby for new regulations that are indeed regulations, but they have a huge effect on their competition, the smaller corporations and businesses. The larger corporations often times get off the hook all together. Environmental laws are a good example of that...Over-regulation and taxation also causes the corporations and business to leave the United States, and hence we need tariffs to negate that reality.

I'm all for Government regulation on business and products -- so long as it's equally applied and benefits The People and the consumers. Safety tests and mandates, etc. Those things can be used to snuff out the smaller guys who simply can't afford a 100,000,000 dollar airscrubber cleaner thingamajig. Not sure how to reconcile that... other than some regulations may be too involved. However if it does have the effect of keeping the air and water clean for example, then it may be worth it.

You basically said it, and I'm just here backing you up.

[GreenGuyUK]

Sorry, another thing. It's worth pointing out that although I say I am "of the left" it's funny to me how anarchists and the broad left often dont get on. Im actually hoping to fix up a meeting on it soon.

Goes back almost to dot, but the Spannish Civil War was defining because Stalin basically shat on the possibility of an anarchist revolution.

Orwell experienced that war first hand, fighting as an anti-fascist. His book "homage to Catalonia" his fascinating account of it and literally one of the most exiting and politically interesting books I ever read.

British Socialist film maker Ken Loache made a film "land and freedom" which echos a lot of the story.

[Freeski]

How about self-regulation?

We start with a blank slate and cooperate, as needed, for our own mutual benefit. We don't need some higher-ups to plan our life.

[Unintelligable Name]

How about self-regulation?

We start with a blank slate and cooperate, as needed, for our own mutual benefit. We don't need some higher-ups to plan our life.

What about it? What about the Corporate Elitists who don't want to cooperate, who don't want to protect the environment, who don't want to produce safe and healthy products? You could say "Well we won't buy their stuff or support them." Well somebody always will, and the corporations and businesses that do not care, are going to continue to not care. The only solution to them not caring is regulations backed up by jail time which is backed up by paramilitary force.

Self regulation could only function on a limited scale, because it is only possible with good moral people. Unless you're talking about an entirely democratic system of business? Even then the majority would have to be of good character.

[Republic Renewal]

Its not about left or right. Its about global takeover. Anarchists are allowed to practice their beliefs but anarchy is exactly what the New World Order is looking for right now. From chaos spawns order (and vice versa). An internation (or global) panic can be controlled by the global elite. Generalizing is sometimes whats needed to bring a point across. Just cause Alex stereotyped does not mean anything, he's got his stuff together.


Relinquish the Grip, Revive the  Republic

[GreenGuyUK]

Anarchists are allowed to practice their beliefs

How very liberal of you.

But anarchy is exactly what the New World Order is looking for right now. From chaos order spawns...

And herein lies the basic misunderstanding of anarchy. Besides which, what order would you have in the place of the current one, how would you guard against corruption of a newer order and basically the Animal Farm factor? Anarchists argue that all hierarchy is problematic?

Anarchists haven't drunk the NWO kool aid and are experienced at resisting and confronting government. The NWO fears the true power of anarchy -  a power that shows that we dont need corporate or political leaders. Why else do you thinkg anarchits are stereotyped and demonised by the NWO flunkies in the press?

[Freeski]

What about it? What about the Corporate Elitists who don't want to cooperate, who don't want to protect the environment, who don't want to produce safe and healthy products? You could say "Well we won't buy their stuff or support them." Well somebody always will, and the corporations and businesses that do not care, are going to continue to not care. The only solution to them not caring is regulations backed up by jail time which is backed up by paramilitary force.

Self regulation could only function on a limited scale, because it is only possible with good moral people. Unless you're talking about an entirely democratic system of business? Even then the majority would have to be of good character.

That's basically saying we don't trust people enough to let them govern themselves, so we give something the authority to govern/rule them -- and there's where it all starts. But where does it end. Why not just trust liberty, and accept the good and the bad.

[TheCaliKid]

Organized Anarchy and the WTO, circa 1999

Ha ha, never forget it.

[trailhound]

 The media is calling the provocateurs anarchists yet arsonists would be a better description. Anarchy should not be associated automatically with violence. I have often thought that anarchy prevails regardless of what   semblance of 'order' there is.  I also wonder if there would be in fact less violence in the world without the order.

[Unintelligable Name]

That's basically saying we don't trust people enough to let them govern themselves, so we give something the authority to govern/rule them -- and there's where it all starts. But where does it end. Why not just trust liberty, and accept the good and the bad.

What exactly do you mean 'govern themselves'? Individuals restraining themselves by themselves?

[TheQ]

Anarchists with masks, throwing rocks aren't helping real protesters, they are helping justify police intervention.. period.

Also to be noted, anarchists, with their violent acts, scare real protesters away.

[trailhound]

the Q wrote

Anarchists with masks, throwing rocks aren't helping real protesters, they are helping justify police intervention.. period.

Also to be noted, anarchists, with their violent acts, scare real protesters away.

There are provocateurs (problem+reaction=solution) and there are probably one or two straight up psychopaths, but 99.9% of the people who want revolution do not want or aim to use violence or destruction as their method.

 Also I feel the people at the g20 being labeled anarchist should more fittingly labeled arsonists.

[Unintelligable Name]

What exactly do you mean 'govern themselves'? Individuals restraining themselves by themselves?

I don't mean that like "WTF WTF WTF" I mean tell me precisely (so I don't have to ask twice) what you mean. 

[TheQ]

the Q wrote
There are provocateurs (problem+reaction=solution) and there are probably one or two straight up psychopaths, but 99.9% of the people who want revolution do not want or aim to use violence or destruction as their method.

 Also I feel the people at the g20 being labeled anarchist should more fittingly labeled arsonists.

I have seen protests over here starting off with 750 real protesters and a few anarchists and finishing with 300 of only anarchists and trouble makers... Around 15 were throwing rocks at building and windows and the rest were cheering... A large number had their face covered.. Guess what got the attention of the media? How about the anarchists against violence take a public stand and say enough with the bad rep a few provocateurs and trouble makers are given us and condemn their acts of violence?

[squarepusher]

Isla is right that George Orwell was an anarcho syndicalist, but a more amusing description I heard him give of himself was "conservative anarchist" may sound like oxymoron doublespeak, but there could be something in it, he was very ahead of his time.

A more apt description.. Orwell was just an operative for the British government, a propagandist during his stint at the BBC (hence why he knows all the stuff about the 'memory holes' and the Ministry of Truth in 1984)  and a Fabian Socialist (hence 'Ingsoc in 1984 - which stands for 'English Socialism') until the minute when he broke through his own 'indoctrination' - that's when he began to wrote Animal Farm and 1984 and basically died prematurely.

Another very important detail: why he eventually chose the title '1984'. 1884 was the year when the Fabian Society was founded. So, 1984 would be its 100th year anniversary. Pretty clever, huh?

[Freeski]

What exactly do you mean 'govern themselves'? Individuals restraining themselves by themselves?

Yes. We are free, are we not?

[Republic Renewal]

Just because we have freedom, does not mean we are free.  None are free save for the dead.

[Unintelligable Name]

Yes. We are free, are we not?

Doesn't work with sociopaths & psychopaths unfortunately. They will destroy the planet to make a buck. They will poison the food, water, instigate wars, the rap sheet goes on and on. You must be talking about the mystical land of "Do-no-wrong" where everyone wears suspenders and skips to work. The concept behind the US is freedom, so long as you don't do... this. Until someone steps over the line drawn in the sand via written law, they 99.99% of the time they already are governing themselves. The paramilitary forces exist to give added incentive to the equation but mainly to deal with sociopaths who don't govern themselves and thus need to be governed, preferably with jail time. In terms of an economy I'm all for each worker have a stake in the company and the leadership being a collective of the workers, but still I think regulation should be applied on a governmental level (or whatever ways it works) to avoid thinks like melamine in the baby food, mercury in the HFCS, or lead in children's toys.

[GhostofTsenzei]

Just because we have freedom, does not mean we are free.  None are free save for the dead.

Arguably, them being dead means they aren't free at all.  And yes, having freedom by definition means you are free.  Whether you choose to exercise your freedom to the best of your abilities and judgment is another matter.

Doesn't work with sociopaths & psychopaths unfortunately.

For better or worse, self-regulation still works in this case.  Namely in that said sociopaths and psychopaths can and have been killed, denied higher levels of power, etc.

Ultimately, self-regulation does not preclude the interaction with others.  I might "self regulate" but that doesn't mean I won't kill someone coming after me or my family.  Everyone has an effect on those around them, sometimes it's subtle, sometimes it's big, blunt, and oddly fist-shaped.


When it comes to self-regulation... that's what the majority of the Bill of Rights is about.  Indeed, while it's been twisted and corrupted, the original concept of the democratic republic, was that of the People regulating the People with Government being a tool of that.  It has since turned into Government regulating the People.  In reality though, the Government has only as much power as People give it.  Corporations and such are the same.  Governments and Corporations trick people with propaganda, arcane law, and by hiding behind the veil of authority.  Most importantly they state that the People don't have the authority themselves, which is false.

People abide by laws because they choose to do so.  If the People decided to ignore a law individually, but not alone, than that law would become effectively void.  It would still be used by Government, as a wedge in order to re-acquire the power that the people took back for themselves, using fear of punishment, etc. to try and cow the People into doing as they say but as long as the People ignore it, it's power is reduced or removed entirely.


As for Anarchy: My understanding of Anarchy is that there are no agreed-upon communal regulations.  In other words, everyone is free to do as they wish.  However, even in that type of system, people are limited in what they can do.  Just because there is no law that a person can't kill another and take their stuff doesn't mean that person will just sit quietly and let it happen.  Human nature, and the fickleness of desire become the "law."  And those "laws" are applied only on an individual basis.

Promoting Anarchy as the "best" system generally stems from one of two lines of thought, to varying degrees:
1. Absolute trust in humanity as a whole.
2. Nihilism.  Essentially apathy, or the belief that it doesn't matter even if you care and try hard.

Over all, it is the extreme version of putting the power back to the People.  However, Anarchy, since it is essentially the removal of regulation, cannot prevent the rise of organization.  There is nothing in place to keep a group of people slowly going around and organizing, taking other people's things; except, of course, for another group, or power strong enough to fight it.  In other words, it is not self-sustaining as a system.  It will invariably give rise to another system.

This is why many people point out that the Elite and Bankers (who control many resources) would desire Anarchy.  Since they have many things, and can influence many people, it means they have an advantage when it comes to re/building the Government.  Further more, the fear and chaos can be used by them to garner trust from people that were otherwise on the fence or oblivious to taking sides.


The truth is, there will probably always be people selfish enough to hurt others or damage the land they live in in order to gain power.  So long as it is the People that regulate themselves, and not them in the guise of Government or Corporation, they can be dealt with relatively easily.  Yet when the People stop ruling themselves, giving their power to others, even if the first few are good people, that position will attract the psychopaths and liars, and they will use that position and the lax attitude of the people to gain power, until the people reclaim it, either through going after them directly, or instigating as a temporary measure Anarchy.


These are simply how I see it.  Personally, I am not in favor of total Anarchy.  Over all, the method of economic and political control, to me, is unimportant, so long as the People retain ruler-ship over themselves.  So long as people do not become slaves to others.


Responding the the original topic: I understand were the OP is coming from, I haven't heard much of AJ or others praising Anarchists or stating general agreement, and it's easy to misunderstand general comments like "anarchist provocateurs" to mean all anarchists.  Yet, in a similar vein, I'm sure AJ doesn't hate all banks or bankers.  Most of them, other than gouging on Credit, tend to run honest businesses.  The ones at the top however, tend to ruin the bunch, and get the most attention, and come to mind when someone says "banks" or "bankers".  Likewise, while many Anarchists are fine and decent folks, the ones getting attention (even those merely claiming to be "Anarchists") are those being violent, vandalizing, etc.

So it's a little too easy to use more generic terms, but I don't think generalized disapproval is meant.


EDIT: TLDR: People need to rule over themselves, otherwise the position of ruler-ship will invariably fall to those that have no problem with lying and cheating to get power.  Regardless of the method that "regulation" is handed out (communism, republic, even oligarchy) so long as the People control it, it can work out okay.  When the People give up their power, or stop caring and let psycho's take it, that's when it gets dangerous for everybody.

Anarchy is the ultimate form of the People ruling themselves, but will, given human nature, always give way to the formation of governments, and currently it would favor the NWO.

AJ, myself, and a whole lot of other people should probably be more precise, but it's easy to fall into the idea of generalized labels being used when condemning people claiming to fall under it.  Even so, I doubt any true disparagement of Anarchists as a whole is meant.

[Nomadinexile]

Where to begin....   I was arrested and pled No Contest to one of the 17 felonies at the WTO protest in Seattle in 1999.  I am a fan of Alex Jones.  I don't agree with everything he says, but with most of it.  His statements and attitude towards "anarchists" is highly insulting to me though.  
I do get frustrated with that but I am able to write it off to either not communicating clearly or that he doesn't know enough.  I would like that to change.  Alex, you are the man most of the time, then you let down a lot of people by referring to Federal Cointelpro Agents as "anarchists".  Nothing could be more ridiculous.  By very definition someone employed by the federal government cannot be an anarchist.  (They could believe in the Anarchist utopian vision, but they couldn't honestly claim to be one if they have any brains at all!)  

Or, let me put it this way alex....  If you are having a protest at the fed in Austin, and a federal agent comes up wearing a joker shirt, and shoots a cop so they have a reason to come after "truthers".  How would you feel if everyone referred to that guy as a "truther" and insinuated to everyone that is "average truther" behavior?   How would you like that?  What if when the Abortion doctor was shot, we call all Christians Murders?   No.  But like the last 200 years, you join in the chorus of condemnation of a group of people that are just extremely idealistic and want a just and fair society for all, just like you do.  

I HAVE heard him separate the feds from the Anarchists, but very rarely compared to how many times he uses "anarchists" as a derogatory term.  He should clearly clarify EVERY TIME if he insist on calling FEDERAL EMPLOYEES Anachists!   Better yet, refer to them as what they actually are, instead of what they are pretending to be!  

If you would like, I would gladly come on the show and talk about the WTO protest (where I believe the first tear gas canister fired hit my left foot)
I would also like to talk about anarchists and property destruction.  It's much more complicated than its made out to be on here, and I can help everyone understand a little more.  

Please Alex, please stop referring to federal plants as Anarchists, and don't assume you understand all the property damage just yet.   They do plant people, I saw them in Seattle, but some anarchist destroy property as a tactic.  Not all vandalism is done by feds either.  I can explain to you how to know the difference though.  

Oh, and I don't really want to go on the show.  I don't want fame, I don't even care if you use my name.   What I would like, is for alex to be as correct as possible when on air so as not to give people a reason to dismiss him.  It is going to be hard to convince a lot of people alex knows anything if he refers to feds as Anarchists.  You don't have to be a poly-sci major to see how silly that is.  So it takes away from his credibility to the educated.   Plus, why speak incorrectly?  You are truthers right?   Alex?  

Peace, and keep up the good work ya'll!            

Oh, and I live in Austin, if you want me on just try to give me a nights notice.  Ryan

[Nomadinexile]

Oops, and Alex, I live in Austin, and can come on the show anytime with 12 hours notice.  Ryan

[Berminator]

Oops, and Alex, I live in Austin, and can come on the show anytime with 12 hours notice.  Ryan

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=129329.0

Post comments /questions here friend.
Peace

[Nomadinexile]

Sorry, i should have just attached above.  Thanks for your work BERMAS!  Not a lot of things are more eye opening than seeing how "free" speech and assembly are treated at a protest huh?  I hope you met some REAL anarchists while you were there.  Just like everyone else, they don't have all the answers, but at least they ask the question and try to find a solution, regardless of how "correct" it is, it's from the heart.       

"Land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy..."     Rage against the machine

[Berminator]

Sorry good buddy i'm not Bermas, only a fan,
you think i should change my name?

[Nomadinexile]

YEP!          Try something that refers to him as someone other than you!  Like "BERMS the Man".  OR "BermFan".  If you want.  I don't really particularly care either way, but I did assume you were him.  A name change would be clearer.  Peace

[Berminator]

I added 'only a fan', hope this helps.

[Unintelligable Name]

For better or worse, self-regulation still works in this case.  Namely in that said sociopaths and psychopaths can and have been killed, denied higher levels of power, etc.

Right....

So if the arbitrary non-written down rules (laws are simply rules) aren't followed then the person opens themselves up to being killed with possible consequence from the killer coming from the other people who claim he didn't follow the arbitrary non-written rules.

Sounds like Croatia. I'll take the police, but with their own limiting constitution. Federal Government is fine, but only with it's limiting constitution, on and on. Same with the States, on and on.