Visitors - Come on in and say hello!

Monday, August 25, 2008

Anarchy

Sometimes I feel like a genius.

This is one of those times.

Last night, the local news had a story on a local...get this....group of anarchists. As if that's not oxymoronic enough, this group went ahead and leased a space near the Republican National Convention for the purpose of....wait for it....ORGANIZED PROTEST!

Their brand of mayhem, of course, defies the law, in conjunction with their anarchist midset. Yet they don't seem to grasp that just plain ORGANIZING for a common purpose is completely detrimental to their philosophy.

I have to wonder if these so-called anarchists have ever read the dictionary? Or did they just like the word and saw a picture online somewhere and decided, "Hey! I dress like that! I'm an anarchist!"

Although I'm not entirely sure, but I think their plan is to take several hundred people (which according to police is likely an inflated number) and bind themselves together, lie down in traffic on bridges and the like in order to impede the convention somehow.

Realize...this style of illegal protest DEMANDS that they betray the foundations of their philosophy, for it REQUIRES that someone be a leader and lead the organization, assign particular roles, strategize locations, etc.

Now, I know that the definition of anarchy indicates a preference against any governmental body. But apparently that definition isn't one to which this group adheres. So maybe they're just pseudo-anarchists?

I'm also wondering if they're doing the same thing at the Democratic National Covention, or is this specifically an anti-Republican group of anarchists? Do they also plan to protest Libertarians and Grassroots and any other political party? Or just this one?

Of course, they are trying to cause confusion and disorder in general, and that IS in keeping with the definition of anarchy, so let's throw them that bone. But then it begs another question.

This afternoon, a co-worker and I were discussing this organized attempt at anarchy. I asked her what she thought the ages of these "anarchists" are? She guessed maybe 18-25. I'd concur. I further suggested, based upon my background in psychology (mostly practical/clinical), that they are likely kids who grew up without a strong father figure, very likely from broken homes. I based this idea on the fact that such homes are often completely without consistent authority, giving the children in question the impression that authority is not necessary. And if authority isn't necessary for survival in the home, why would it be necessary for the larger society? We can all be our own president. It is ultimate relativism, one that even denies the NEED for coherent society.

My co-worker disagreed with my assessment; she thinks the anarchists in this group likely come from upper-class homes. They're spoiled rich kids who ALSO have never had the experience of true authority as all that they have has been handed to them.

With further consideration, I agree she has a point. Perhaps the group is made up of both extremes. Those who have ONLY known hard times, survivalists, if you will. And rich kids, the ones who have NEVER known hardship, and thus can argue for this flawed ideal, not realizing what life would be like without authority.

Please understand; I respect that fact that Anarchists have their philosophy and they think it's the right one. I only believe they simply haven't thought it through. For their philosophy has no solid ground, and in the end, would cause their very destruction. The very society that benefits them by allowing them to organize, with police that won't shoot them simply for blocking traffic and being a nuisance, allows them their thought process. If we did NOT have a police force, but in fact lived in anarchy, this group would be summarily killed just because they were in the way of some other anarchist who likely wouldn't even think twice about driving over the idiots as they lie in the road.

It's a self-defeating stance.

And maybe I'm being unfair. I'm sure that many in this group are intelligent, thinking people who simply hate Republicans, and that position belongs to many people who AREN'T anarchists.

Now, people, mind you, the Anarchists have a WEB PAGE. They are HIGHLY ORGANIZED.

In fact...I fail to see the difference between the government that we have in place, and the one they have in place...as their ultimate plan is a political coup.

How, again, are they Anarchists?

If they don't like the way things are...why don't they just develop their already formed Anarchy Party and run for office? Or maybe people could write them in on the ballot?


*
We really live in weird times.
*



UPDATE~! : I went to their web page (which is linked several times above.) They also collectively hate the DNC as well, and collectively have agreed to consensus statements and positions. Which is, by definition, agreeing to a certain authority. And they deny being a bunch of privileged white kids. Some of them have been lost in their haze for over 30 years!

But I will say this...they have a sense of humor. You have to check out the site to appreciate it.

*

10 comments:

Kat said...

You can tell I have had a long day, I kept thinking Antichrists through most of this post instead of anarchists....

Adoro te Devote said...

ROFL!

Kat, you commented while I was editing...the Antichrists...uh, I mean ANARCHISTS have a web page! They're incredibly organized!

RJW said...

If an anarchist joins a procrastinator's group, do you have someone who demands the overthrow of authority,,,next week or next month?

Adoro te Devote said...

LOL!

Lillian Marie said...

The RNC Welcoming Committee is an anarchist / anti-authoritarian organizing body preparing for the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.

This was taken directly from their website. Like Adoro so eloquently stated in her post... anarchist / anti-authoritarian - oxymoron???

If they are anti-authoritarian why are they listening to who is giving orders???

If they are anarchist why are they even an organized body of believers???

They are so organized - they even have a CHILD CARE CENTER for those parents who need it!!!

I really wish I could give them a good dose of dimentia ... that would definitely disband the group... then again...they may become 'lovers not fighters' LOL

Lillian Marie said...

I even emailed the website to my department at work! It was way too good not to share! LOL

Thanks for the laugh!!!

Anonymous said...

Adoro,

I have the (un)lucky opportunity to see many of these anarchists up close and personal as my bus stop to leave downtown is in the middle of some planned protests at the hotel where John McCain is reportedly staying.

Please send up some prayers that nothing bad happens to anyone involved. And, yes, if it looks even slightly overwhelming, I will be changing bus stops for the week.

Kaureen

Ray from MN said...

Adoro:

There has been a small anarchists group in Minneapolis for a long time. It's my impression, having seen some, that they are young, as you say.

And indeed they are very well organized. They want to create anarchy. They actually participated in a meeting last August to begin the planning for the RNC convention disruptions.

The other day I received a message from an acquaintance that contained a message from, believe it or not, the "Anarchists News Service" which appears to be a mail list based in Canada that can be read by anybody. They email in 12 languages. www.ainfos.ca

The message was from a radical GLBT group that plans huge disruptions. But the tone of the message was a whine that people weren't making reservations so that adequate plans can be made.

Last night there was some kind of training meeting at Washington & Park in Mpls. They threaten next Monday, Sept 1, "all hell will break loose."

Anonymous said...

Sir, I think your conception of what it is to be an anarchist is more than a little off-kilter. But the Anarchy boogeyman has had the straw beaten out of him before. Chesterton and other contemporaries seemed to think anarchists were violent "bombers." Yet J.R.R. Tolkien said, "My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood to mean abolition of control, not whiskered men with bombs)—or to 'unconstitutional' Monarchy."

An anarchist is not always, as the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 absurdly said, someone who "defies all authority, order, rules and laws." Such a person would, in fact, be a hedonistic, hypocritical nihilist.

Let me take this opportunity to add that in addition to not being nihilists, neither are anarchists exemplified by the sulky, black-clad goth red-bandana-wearing molotov-cocktail-chucking teenage punks at political rallies and World Trade Organization conferences. Those are called socialists. Or well-meaning fools. Or both.

In Realityville, where we all live, an anarchist is someone who subscribes to the non-aggression principle: the idea that no man has a right to initiate aggression against the life or property of any other man.

I myself am a Catholic who also happens to be an anarchist. Joseph Sobran, writer for the Wanderer, is also a Catholic anarchist. Feel free to look up his article, "The Reluctant Anarchist." His "conversion" story reads not unlike my own.

An anarchist, as someone who believes that no one may initiate aggression against the life or property of another, is all in favor of order. He merely believes that force may only be used in defense, and may only be used to defend life and property. That means force may not be used to uphold morality that is not directly and intrinsically linked to an active threat against a man's life or property.

I believe that abusing any substance is immoral, and I believe that everyone should wear a seat belt in a car. But do you know what? I will not force my neighbor, either by myself, or by proxy, to not abuse drugs or alcohol, or to make him wear a seatbelt. I believe that God, as the author of our lives, gave us the right to self-defense with the best means in existence. A group of long-dead aristocrats did not somehow "grant" me the right to keep and bear firearms with some magic ink scribbled on a magic document.

Rights are either natural or contractual. I have no natural right to force you, at gunpoint or the threat thereof, to subsidize the policies or services that I would like to see enacted. I also have no right to force you at gunpoint by proxy. (We call such violence by proxy "voting.")

In addition, there is no such thing as the chimeric, fantastical "social contract." I never saw it, never signed it, and neither did you. I was merely born into human nature, and happened to be born under the sphere of power (not authority, mind you) of individuals in coercive government. As an individual possessing human nature, I owe nothing to my neighbor except to treat him with justice. We can and should, of course, add charity to this basic requirement of human interaction. What is taxation but the collection of money through force or threat thereof, for the continuance of coercive government? Collecting money through force or threat thereof when there is no just claim is known to sane people as "robbery."

When another human one-sidedly forces you to work for him and conform your non-violent actions to his contrived standards by threat of violence, we have no longer have a contractual relationship, we have slavery.

I am all about real contracts. But real contracts usually written, are always consensual, and therefore always have an "out" clause. Meaning, either party may walk away from the binding requirements, and the two parties leave each other alone.

I used to be a strict neo-con, who half-seriously held the anti-Christ belief that the U.S. government turning the entire Middle East into a blackened glass parking lot was a halfway moral and practical idea. Then I was a strict constructionist. Then I realized that no document can ever check men with the power to tax and enslave men to fight for them. There is no such thing as a small government that stays small. After considering these things, I came to the only logical conclusion: the State is a mental illness; the insane idea that some men have an alternate moral universe, where initiating aggression is somehow all right for them. Because in some magical way, a group of people subjecting another group of people to their wills is different than one person using violence to subject another person to his will.

I welcome any replies. I especially welcome respectful replies that address the points I have made herein.

Your humble servant, but God's first,

-An Autocrat

Adoro te Devote said...

Anon, thank you for your comment. Although I have to straighten something out: Please don't call me "Sir" for 2 reasons:

1. I work for a living.

2. I am a woman.

:-)

I've also got to be perfectly honest with you...while your comment is very long and thought out, I am unable at this time to enter into a discussion on the topic; I am a full time student and I'm working crazy hours also full time. Additionally, politics and political ideologies are not something I discuss on my spare time. If you look around my blog, you'll see that this post is an anomoly and I'm surprised I've left it up as I posted it on a whim in a fit of glee over incongruences in what I saw as a philosophy that wasn't being lived out properly. (And you seem to agree, actually.)

However, that said, I'm more than happy to continue to moderate comments for anyone else who happens along and would like to enter into the discussion. I, too, welcome respectful comments and discussion.

I apologize that I'm unable to respond as you would prefer and ask for your forgiveness for that.

God bless you.