The propaganda has already started.
How fitting, the first non-Islamist terror plot in a long time and it involves leftists.In the first place: These kids did not call themselves leftists. They considered themselves anarchists, which means that they have drunk deep from the Ron Paul wells.
No, I'm not saying that they are actual Paul sectarians; any such affiliation remains to be determined. I speak in more generalized terms. By definition, anarchists adhere to an anti-government philosophy. You pretty much have to be anti-government if you wish to enter the business of blowing up publicly-funded structures.
(Update: You'll want to read what Emptywheel has to say about the actual bridge these clowns allegedly targeted. Also see this humorous page on the close relationship between anarchism and libertarianism. Wikipedia classifies its "Anarchism" entry as "Part of a series on Libertarianism." Perhaps we may fairly call these kids libertarian terrorists.)
Anarchism is the opposite of the New Deal ideal of democratically regulated capitalism. We who revere the FDR legacy do not want right-wing propagandists conflating our stance with a philosophy that has nothing to do with us. FDR fans want to build bridges, not blow them up.
Allow me to make the next point in the boldest possible fashion, because I want the message to be very clear:
Look here, you young dummies: Alan Moore -- the guy who wrote V For Vendetta and the man who foisted Fawkesian imagery on the larger world -- did not intend his masked protagonist to be a hero in the conventional sense. In his original story (which differs from the popular film), he placed the extremes of anarchism and fascism in opposition to each other. He meant to demonstrate that both of those isms have the capacity to create monsters.
Moore could never have written that comic book if he did not live in a very non-anarchist country with a government-funded social safety net. That net allowed him to embark on a very iffy new career without putting his young family at risk of starvation. Moore has made that very point in numerous interviews.
Speaking as a liberal, I've never felt that anarchism was the answer. Wall Street went to hell in 2008 precisely because anarchy reigned in the financial sector. Using anarchist ideology to fight the "one percent" is like trying to lose weight by going on an ice cream diet. A tendency toward anarchist stupidity is one reason why the Occupy movement has always frightened and frustrated me as much as it has intrigued and enthralled me.
The idiocy of these five ambulatory fetuses in Ohio proves that young people should not be allowed to do -- well, anything.
In the comments, on a regular basis, I spar with smirky kids -- particularly on the topics of 9/11, Ron Paul, the historicity of Jesus, and conspiracy theory in general. Mes enfants, you must understand something: We, your elders, have failed you. I admit it. It's all our fault. We did not provide you with the educations you need in order to function in this world. Blame us. We, the over-50s, deserve any spit you might care to expectorate in the general direction of our faces.
But no matter how much moisture you hurl, you can't change one fact: If you are under 40, you are an idiot. Simple as that. You do not know how to think. You may think you can think, but you can't.
As a result of your (perhaps permanent) state of brain damage, the best thing you can do for your country is...nothing.
Do not attempt to do anything, ever. Not on your own.
If you must act, act under the direction of someone old enough to recall those golden decades of New Deal normality (FDR to Carter). Otherwise, you are doomed.
If you try to act independently, if you fool yourself into thinking that you know what's actually going on in this world, you'll simply end up used and entrapped, just like those five dolts in Ohio. Do you really want to be tossed in the clink and forced to bend over for Larry the Lifer? That's what will happen to you.
The only way to avoid that fate is to follow the directives of your infinitely more intelligent elders.
17 comments:
I am not seeking to justify the completely idiotic action these youngsters are alleged to have planned, but why rely on what police and prosecutors say about them? Perhaps they deny the allegation? Perhaps some of them do and some of them don't? How do you know they don't call themselves leftists? To judge by the date, I reckon they probably do.
b, I doubt that they have a very coherent philosophy. Here in American, the Occupy movement was so overrun with libertarians and teabaggers that my head was ready to explode. These dumb kids honestly think that you reconcile the views of Che Guevara and Ayn Rand.
Hell, nearly one-third of them don't even know that the Earth revolves around the sun. I'm not kidding.
There is no hope.
Clearly there's no hope if the FBI is going to all the trouble to discredit the movement. We'r'e all going to die anyway so what's the point in doing anything, ya?
Damn. I hate when I make typos in the comments, because changes are impossible.
I meant "Here in America," not "Here in American."
From everything I've read about the case, these were some dumb kids who got roped into an FBI sting ably pushed along by the FBI undercover person. In other words, typical FBI "counter-terrorism". Take some hapless losers, plant the idea for a big act of destruction, help them secure the means for this destruction, then arrest them and trumpet the "skill" and "daring" of the FBI and stopping this nefarious plot by domestic "terrorists". Sorry for all the quotes, but I just can't use those words in this context without them. It was a total and complete set up. I'm not certain what the real purpose of it was, but it is election season so that's a big one right there. Of course, there is also the discrediting of the Occupy movement. They probably did come from the left, which was why they were concerned about killing innocent people and why the main guy didn't want to have a firearm (because of previous convictions). Of course, as Joseph points out, Libertarians are the real anarchists, even if a lot of them don't realize it.
Rosey Grier, the former LA Ram, wrestled the gun away from Sirhan with some difficulty, assisted by George Plimpton. I think Grier said Sirhan seemed in a trance, and had an inhuman grip on the weapon.
Nixon barely edged out Humphrey in '68. Had Booby lived, he would have been President.
Ben Franklin
Sorry Joseph...wrong thread Please delete.
Ben Franklin
Frankly, I find it interesting that the FBI seems to be in the business of creating terrorists.
Isn't it odd they always seem to be arresting cells that they themselves have cultivated? Have they ever arrested a terrorist cell that wasn't FBI inspired?
How many times do you have to tell these kids.
1) Dont "like" Terrorism on Facebook.
2) Dont use gmail to organise your bomb plot.
3) Dont use twitter to coordinate with fellow conspirators.
4) If a guy shows up at your meeting having seen your facebook page, and offers to get explosives for you, best to turn him down.
5) Using a nom de guere on facebook, doesnt guarantee anomymity. Neither will a Guy Fawkes mask.
Harry
"Have they ever arrested a terrorist cell that wasn't FBI inspired?"
No because every major American "Terror" attack since the early 90s has been the work of FBI(and other gov) agent provocateurs and informants.
Informants and Provocateurs GREATEST HITS:
World Trade Center 1993 : Ali Mohammad, Emad Salem, Melvin Lattimore
Oklahoma City Bombing 1995 : Melvin Lattimore, Andreas Strassmeier, Robert Millar
Sept. 11, 2001 : The San Diego informant who lived with hijackers. Able Danger. Melvin Lattimore.
Melvin Lattimore is an ex-con turned FBI informant. He has some type of involvement in three major attacks on the USA. What was he doing? Greasing the wheels?
So, in three major attacks the FBI and government were watching but tells us they "fumbled the ball" and couldn't stop them. BULLSHIT.
Ever since about 1991 (right after the fall of the Soviet Union coincidentally) we have been having these FBI informant provocateured attacks.
Coincidentally the FBI had at least one major Russian mole in the FBI from 1979-2001. This was Robert Hanssen. 1979 was coincidentally the year the Soviets began their war in Afghanistan. That war ended in 1989. Two years later in 1991 the USSR went belly up.
Then it was America's turn to be TERRORIZED into insolvency.
In 2001 FBI director Louis Freeh is attending the same Catholic church as Russian spy Robert Hannsen. Okaaaay.
In 2001 you also see the beginning of the Russian "Illegals Program" in which Russian spies trolloped around the USA for 10 years unmolested by the FBI.
"Documents released Monday, including photos, videos and papers, offered new details about the FBI's decade-long investigation into a ring of Russian sleeper agents who, U.S. officials say, were trying to burrow their way into American society to learn secrets from people in power."
Who did the Russian spies target? Apparently Democrats.
"One of the Russians, who identified herself as Cynthia Murphy of Montclair, N.J., provided financial planning for Alan Patricof, a New York venture capitalist and top Democratic donor who was finance chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, according to news reports."
PT. 2
"After watching the Russian network for a decade, the FBI decided to wrap it up last year.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/31/nation/la-na-russian-spies-20111101
HUH? --->WHAT THE FUCK<--- is the point of allowing Russians to run around the USA compromising Americans for TEN FUCKING YEARS?
"Alexander Vassiliev, a former KGB officer and journalist who has written extensively about Soviet spying in America, said the illegals were supposed to act as talent spotters and scouts, identifying Americans in positions of power who might be recruited to spill secrets for financial reasons or through blackmail."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055788/Anna-Chapman-FBI-release-video-Russian-spy-turned-lingerie-model-work.html
SO AGAIN, WHY DID THE FBI ALLOW RUSSIANS TO RUN AROUND BLACKMAILING AMERICANS FOR TEN YEARS??? Kind of like the dumbass running the U.S. Secret Service who apparently doesn't understand that allowing SS agents to frequent prostitutes in foreign countries sets them up for blackmail.
Another one of those mysteries that the corporate American media in general has no interest in delving deeper into. I wonder why?
But back to the FBI...
Remember on June 24th 2010 how Obama was at a local American Burger factory photo-op having lunch with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev? 72 hours later the FBI announces its big bust of Russian spies making Obama look bad.
THIS FBI WHICH IN 2001, WHILE IT WAS COMPROMISED BY RUSSIAN AND TURKISH SPIES BEGAN WATCHING RUSSIAN SPIES FOR TEN YEARS BEFORE DECIDING TO "WRAP IT UP" IN 2010 72 HOURS AFTER OBAMA'S PHOTO-OP WITH MEDVED.
Meanwhile in the USA, the FBI harasses Americans protesting corporate crimes and corruption, and the FBI tries to frameup dumb jobless Americans into being terrorists. Is the FBI investigating high crimes on Wall Street? Or maybe high crimes committed in lying the U.S.A. into a financially disastrous war??? NOPE.
Why doesn't the FBI send an old lady informant with a million dollars stuffed in her purse into Wall Street and entrap some Wall Street pricks into stealing her money? THAT WOULD BE EASY! Hell, they could have all of Wall Street locked up in one day! No, no...can't have that. We all already know it is perfectly OK to steal from old ladies(how's that 401K?).
HELLO!?!
IS ANYONE AWAKE OUT THERE?
IS ANYONE IN THE MEDIA STILL AWAKE?
ARE ANY OF YOU BLOGGERS STILL AWAKE?
IS ANYONE IN AMERICA STILL FUCKING AWAKE???
WHY IS NO ONE ASKING ANY REAL QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THIS?
Yes it was entrapment and yes it was sinister. Research COINTELPRO to see how sinister it can get.
But Cannon goes on to remark his
ideological kindred wants to build bridges, not destroy them.
Clever.
But one problem is, the bulk of his people, judging by their actions and inactions since Obama took office, are content with Afghanis (and Pakis and Yemenis)getting drone bombed if the building of bridges can proceed in the United States.
"His people"? Are you claiming that I consider Obama some sort of ideological kindred -- despite everything I've been saying for four years? Are you claiming that Obama represents a Rooseveltian approach to the problems of poverty and economic redevelopment?
Only a nutty Paultard could have such an absurd reading of history, or of my own writings.
Either you have a guilt complex or you're not a good reader. I said "his people"--did I name you? I said
"his people" in the sense that Glen Greenwald disparages Obama's people for turning blind eyes regularly on his blog--as he, Greenwald, also has kind words on the same war/"war on terror" subject in contrast, on occasion, for Ron Paul.
I'm not sure you understand what Anarchism or Libertarianism (in the original sense of the word, which was corrupted in the 1950s by right wing Ron Paul types - originally Libertarianism referred to particular strains of Socialism/Communism) is - You really should do a bit of research before making big, ridiculous blog posts.
We do not follow Ayn Rand at all, Joseph - She was an intellectually dishonest tyrant with dangerous, childish views - She pretty much is the antithesis of all that we believe in. We're very anti-capitalist. So were the first people to call themselves "Libertarians" - They were Anarchist Communists and Anarcho-Syndicalists just like myself (wiki "Libertarianism", and see for yourself - better yet, read some actual Anarchist literature) But starting in the 1950s, the right began to redefine and co-opt many words of the left - Now, at least in America (it remains a leftist term in much of Europe)- a "Libertarian" is what was once called a "classical liberal" - Now there's even people misinformed enough to declare themselves "Anarcho-Capitalists" (nevermind the fact this is Oxymoronic - "Anarchism" comes from root words meaning "no rulers/leaders". What we oppose is not simply the state, but rather all forms of hierarchy. Period. As Capitalism is inherently built on hierarchical labour relationships, it's 100% incompatible with Anarchism). I believe this Orwellian effort (it's also hilarious to note how few Americans realize Orwell was a fellow socialist) was a deliberate attempt to confuse and dampen any sort of debate or dissent that doesn't fit neatly into America's rather shallow right/left paradigm - and judging by the parade of ignorance you and your commenters have put forth, it seems to be working.
Heres an interesting quotes from one of the more influential people Americans of today call a "libertarian":
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . “Libertarians” . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over..."
-Murray Rothbard
Again, please actually read some Anarchist works - Here's some authors I suggest: Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
But yeah, to put it in brief - what we Anarchists believe in is basically Marxism, but without the whole idea of a Vanguard party creating a "temporary"/"transitory" dictatorship of the proletariat before eventually dissolving the state. We feel that this period is inherently corruptible - It historically has never been temporary, and we feel it never will be - It creates a new de-facto bourgeois class that will never be willing to relinquish power - and then it inevitably degenerates into State Capitalism (wiki it), as it did in the USSR, China etc. - Instead, we feel the only true chance we have at freedom is to, through revolution, immediately dissolve the state, and put in it's place a stateless, classless and non-hierarchical society. But yeah, there's too much to explain here. If you're not willing to read the actual literature I've suggested (all of it is free online), another good starting point is Googling the "Anarchist FAQ" - It's super easy to find and quite well known. I truly believe it could possibly open up a whole new world politically for you and your readers.
Oh yeah, and while 'V' was supposed to be a morally ambiguous character, Alan Moore, like myself, is an avowed leftist Anarchist.
And also to Joseph: We don't follow Che either - Che is responsible for the deaths of many Anarcho-Communists (the so-called "communists" who really just advocate State Capitalist oppression have a lot to gain in keeping fools like yourself unaware that alternate, democratic, and free libertarian forms of Communism and/or Socialism exist *sigh*). Look into other, better figures, like the aforementioned Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman, or even the more contemporary Noam Chomsky.
I suggest the both of you actually educate yourselves before even attempting to make an argument - you're just making fools of yourselves.
Post a Comment