Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Anarchist Sand-bagging

By chance, I just finished rereading Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence. "Georges Sorel's Reflections on Violence (1908) remains a controversial text to this day. It unashamedly advocates the use of violence as a means of putting an end to the corrupt politics of bourgeois democracy and of bringing down capitalism. It is both dangerous and fascinating, of enduring importance and interest to all those concerned about the nature of modern politics." So we read at Amazon.com. Below we read a comment from an "anarchist" supporter. Today a gang of anarchists dropped bags of cement from an over-pass on busses heading to the Republican Convention:

Anarchism is a peace movement. We are expressing outrage at your violent republican agenda. You don't want violence? Then don't advocate it at home and in Iraq you republican idiots. What is a sand bag against flanks of cops with guns and pepper spray and night sticks or against the violence which we are protesting? The near 100,000 documented civilian deaths in Iraq and the un-documentable thousands of civilian deaths in Afghanistan? For what? Your dirty oil money. Modern republican philosophy which driven by Ayn Randian right wing libertarianism, by the way,is a violent terrible form of idiotic self destructive anarchism.
10:56 PM


Anarchists in St. Paul attacked RNC busses today in route to the Excel Center.
The anarchists and Leftists knew when the busses would be heading to the convention and were waiting for them.
They nearly killed us!

The anarchists and antiwar nuts were protesting on top of the interstate overpasses earlier in the day.

Later when the GOP busses started to take delegates from Minneapolis to St. Paul the anarchists started throwing sandbags and cement bags at the busses.

The bus I was riding was hit with cement bags that the anarchists were throwing off the overpasses down on the interstate. The anarchists missed the bus in front of us and nailed our bus with a direct hit.

The police had us slow down and then sent us under the interstate overpass when we were attacked.
There were several women and senior citizens on the bus.

More at Gateway Pundit.

A little later, a busload of Cub Scouts were en route to the convention, where they were to present the colors to open the convention. A group of protesters--liberals, Obama supporters, or whatever--blocked the road, surrounded the bus, and attacked it, rocking the bus back and forth, denting and scratching the sides, and generally terrifying the children trapped inside. The left-wing protesters attacked a number of buses in the same way, but there is something especially despicable about attacking a group of Cub Scouts.


Cub Scouts. They would be boys from six to ten or so. I was a cub scout. I passed on the dropping sandbags on busses. Go figure. No, Sarah Palin wasn't my mother, I just kind of figured it out on my own.

"Cub Scouting is for boys in the first through fifth grades. The programs offer boys participation in family-centered activities, community service, and camping. Boys belong to a den, usually a group of six to eight boys. The dens form a pack that meets monthly."


I can see that many people wouldn't have a clue about being a cub scout. I am dismayed and disgusted by commentators who assume that "anarchists" are "right-wing." Show me the Conservative here:

Mikhail Bakunin
Peter Kropotikin
Alexander Nechaev
Pierre Prudhon
Georges Sorel
And let's not forget everybodies' favorites:
The Narodniki

One might wonder why I seem to know far more about anarchism than does the average anarchist. Maybe it shows in that when I sand-bag people I don't use sand-bags. If you look at the names above you might get a sense of why the Leftards are freaking out about Sarah Palin. Compare her to Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, friends of Osama Barka.


Anonymous said...

"These people" (who?) "have labelled themselves" (have they? who have?) "anarchists."

This seriously smells like false flag / black propaganda. Either these people are deliberately lying, or someone has made use of them in order to create this story.

1. No source is mentioned for the 'information' that the bags were thrown by anarchists or protesters of any sort. Nowhere on the video is there any concrete evidence to support this claim. If the people stayed inside the bus through the incident, how would they know who were on top of the bridge?

2. The picture at this site shows a bridge with u.s. flags and patriotic peace slogans attached to it. Are we supposed to believe this is the bridge where the incident happened? Is this picture presented as 'evidence' of the 'anarchists', or is it just a suggestive illustration in support of the propaganda? Last time I checked, anarchists - who would be the last to show nationalist symbols instead of their black - were fiercely criticizing patriotic argumentation and the liberal peace movement.

3. Nowhere on the video do we see any physical evidence on the impact. We see a few looks towards the roof of the bus, and we hear that someone is about to take a look. Pretty weak for 'evidence'.

But let's suppose the persons interviewed are not deliberately lying for propaganda purposes, let's suppose they are sincere. Let's even suppose some official authority had told them these were 'anarchists' throwing the bags. And let's also assume that the people in the bus had seen black clad protesters and anarchist symbols on the bridge. In this case I would suggest the possibility that this was the work of agents provocateurs.

"The police had us slow down and then sent us under the interstate overpass when we were attacked."

For instance, in the 70's, several terrorist attacks were carried out in Europe by neo-facists, during the CIA supported 'Operation Gladio'. Most famous of these cases is the bombing of Bologna railway station in the beginning of the 80's, which is still 'known' to be the work of left-wing Brigade Rosso. However, two neo-fascist were found guilty of the bombing in a trial in the 90's. The neo-fascist tendency today is known to enjoy considerable support within the police forces in the US as well as in Europe.

Compared to false flag attacks of that magnitude, this incident is of course pretty minor. That also means that it would be way easier to carry out, and thus more probably the case. The intention of Operation Gladio was to represent revolutionary movements as a threat to ordinary working people (which they de facto were not) and encourage working people to identify with the same hierarchical structures the revolutionaries were criticizing. This is also the case with this video.

Why am I so suspicious of this? As an anarchist, I can assure you that even if anarchists are not generally opposed to using violence*, they do NOT use violence indiscriminately against ordinary working people in this manner (as States are very well known to do). This whole story is fundamentally flawed in so many ways, it almost certainly has to be written by someone who is really unaware of anarchist politics and ethics.

Anarchists were also consistently organising against both the DNC and the RNC conventions - witness Infoshop News

*) See for instance an excellent recent discussion on violence in Anarchy Alive! by Uri Gordon

truepeers said...

Thanks Dag for bringing this person to our blog; very revealing.

How do you begin to reason with someone who fits Chesterton's definition of someone who has lost his mind: someone who has lost everything but his reason.

He begins by raising all kinds of reasons for doubting the bloggers' version of events. He demands a high standard of credibility, asking where is the evidence.

He then dives into his own crazy conspiracy theories, without a shred of evidence to backup his theories of "false flag" operations.

He finds it plausible that agents of the American state would act so as to endanger the lives of Republicans all to do what - to lower the credibility of moonbat political movements like his own? Talk about an inflated sense of self-importance.

But then this twit really thinks he is involved in some great historical struggle. He presumes to pronounce that the "revolutionary" movements of the twentieth century were not a threat to workers. Has he no idea of the death tolls rung up by that century's "revolutionary" tyrants?
Has he no sense of what life would be like in the fantasy of an "anarchist" collecive?

He professes anarchists are not violent. BUt he cannot see that his discourse could only have the effect of encouraging resentment and delusional "revolutionary" violence. It is entirely out of touch with reality. It is a Gnostic fantasy, a deadly Utopianism.

This guy needs a real job.

truepeers said...

OH, and I'd love to hear what he thinks is a "neo-fascist" movement. The police forces in Europe and America today evidence a lot of multiculti political correctness? Is that what he is talking about. Or did he just see a Dirty Harry film and figures that is the pervasive reality?

When will the left learn that "anarachism", "socialism", and "fascism" are all cut from the same stinking cloth, that the left-right distinction is nothing but the projection of their own failed mythology?

Dag said...

I just now got the updated comments here. Will come back when I have a chance to look them over.

At first glance, yes, the commentator is nother lunatic apologist for his own hatreds.