Navigation
User login
Topics
Archive
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
Anarchists Are Jerks
by Brett Stevens
Meanwhile the lawyer for the two police officers arrested over the death of Alexandros Grigoropoulos said a ballistics report showed the 15-year-old was killed by a ricochet rather than a direct shot, according to news wire reports. A coroner's report shows the boy was shot in the chest.
Police say the shooting happened in a restive Athens neighborhood after six young protesters pelted a patrol car with stones. Grigoropoulos, was killed as he tried to throw a fuel-filled bomb at the officers, they said.
The leader of the left-wing opposition party SYRIZA has called for protesters to topple the government, but Karamanlis ruled out early elections.
Throwing rocks at Israeli tanks, Greek police cars or Russian sentries will get you killed. A thrown rock can kill them, and they know that if they don't respond, the attacks will get worse.
So what these anarchists did was to provoke violence against themselves.
This kind of passive aggression -- the defensive offense of self-identified weaklings -- allows them to both start the violence and claim to be victims, so that their mainstream leftist party can get ahead.
No society should tolerate this stupidity.
Anarchists are basically brats who want the advantages of society without the obligations. Sure, we all don't want unnecessary authority over us (that's hopefully not the news to anyone). But deciding that all authority is bad, we want to riot and... well, keep those grocery stores and air conditioning and free food coming, please!
Anarchy is a philosophy for people who have given up on making sense of the world and want to destroy. It attracts bratty teenagers who have a chance to be big shots for ten minutes and go for it, then get winged by police as they try to throw firebombs at them. That gives all of them a chance to moan together.
In the West, our societies are awash in fatalistic people like anarchists. They can't figure out a solution because they are so afraid for themselves, they insist on drastic "rights" for everyone. But that leads to social failure. So they lash out in futility and anger.
The result is that the working class, the people they claim to be defending, face a worse life and greater political instability and, while the leftist part gets ahead, it's as corrupt as the other parties, and so nothing changes. But at least it was an excuse to feel really alive and righteously angry for a few minutes.
Anarchists are jerks and cowards. We should not tolerate these fatalistic parasites.
Trackback:
- Brett Stevens's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I gotta say that this is a
I gotta say that this is a pretty ridiculous post. Anarchism has many many variations, to lump all 'anarchists' together completely ignores this fact.
Anarchists don't (or shouldn't) believe that all authority is inherently bad. That's not what anarchism/oldstylelibertarianism is about.
The main strain connecting all forms of anarchism is the willingness to see for oneself whether any specific form of authority is illegitimate or not.
I suggest u read the wiki.
...and ur a freakin brat.
Spare us the sentimentality
This post was reasonably fair, even if this blogger can be overly zealous at times. Anarchy literally means 'without ruler', and your very mild theoretical definition of it is not in any way connected to its practical manifestations. Anarchy is a break down of natural hierachy within a civilisation, and as such, it should be rejected even in preference of corrupt systems of authority, even by destroying these it would only lead downward.
You're presupposing that
You're presupposing that rulers are needed in all societies.
Gimme an example of a 'practical manifestation' of anarchism. If you mean some random, or planned act of violence then this is no example anarchism.
The Joker, though well played by that hottie, was not exhibiting in the slightest anything that would equate with the anarchist ideal. Violence, especially planned, is a coercive mechanism most easily associated the state.
Anarchism would be 'break down of natural hierarchy' if by natural hierarchy you mean the completely human-made world we've created. There's nothing natural or organic about our current civilization, not even the foods labeled as such.
The corrupt system of exploitation of people and planet can and will destroy the earth without massive intervention. I urge you to question all authority.
We need solutions, not more problems
I don't see how I associated anarchy with random violence anywhere, although random violence is probably a likely bi-product of anarchy. You are correct in saying that the current structure of modern society is corrupt, but wrong in supposing that it could be solved by tearing it down entirely, it would be far less destructive to restore from within rather than doing anything which would necessitate a total reconstruction. As I said before, even a corrupt authority is better than no authority at all, as this would only entail more chaos. Anarchy may be necessary as a transitional process, but this is certainly a worst case scenario and I don't see why anyone would encourage it.
Emotionalism versus Analysis
Visit some anarchist community and you will see that the removal of bureaucratic government does not preclude the generation of social order---it just means that the social order generated is more capable of being genuinely beneficial to human life.
Mr. Stevens's comments suggest that he has had very little real-life exposure to the contemporary culture of anarchism in the USA today.
It is true that it's easy to meet mind-blowingly snobby people in the intellectual/cultural community that today calls itself "anarchist." But all I can say is this: go to a large anarchist event in the USA, such as the National Conference on Organized Resistance of Washington DC, and what you will find is a bunch of very young people who exert an ethic of compassion, cooperation, and frugality. The lifestyle aspects are therefore something to be respected---and learned from.
The title of the article "Anarchists Are Jerks" sounds emotionalistic and wounded. Isn't this exactly the kind of thing we are trying to get away from here at CORRUPT? Analysis should be guided by reason, never by emotions. But this seems to be nothing more than a resentful reaction to the scuffle that Mr. Stevens got into with some anarchists over at another forum (google "corrupt.org" and you find the discussion).
So which is the
So which is the "emotionalism" and which is the "analysis"- the article with a silly headline that points out that anarchism is a fatalistic, lazy philosophy; or you who says that anarchism makes sense because anarchists are nice people?
Re: so which is the
Well, that's not what I was trying to get at. What I was trying to say was that there are practical aspects of living frugally and cooperatively that are well-developed under the anarchist platform, and that the platform should therefore not be wholly dismissed. At any rate, as Prodigy has already pointed out, there is not just one anarchism, but many anarchisms, thus to denounce them all in one fell swoop is somewhat superficial---hence my suspicion and accusations of emotionalism.
I kind of feel like you're putting words in my mouth to say that I was trying to make a case for "anarchism" by pointing out that "anarchists are nice people." I didn't say that, nor did I intend to imply it. In fact I said the opposite: the movement is filled with unpleasant people (I used the term "mind-blowingly snobby"). In any case, I apologize if my response was confusing. American anarchism is useful for practical, not philosophical, reasons.
Of the many different anarchisms
The 'anarchists' I have looked at trying to trade punches with Corrupt seem like supercharged liberals, clinging for dear life onto sacred moral cul-de-sacs.
On another note.
Greece has been suffering from that ridiculous multicuturalism of people flooding into Greece from Africa and the Middle East to get that refugee status so they can move into the more western countries so that they can get that better status materialist life.
This is simply an excuse for people to riot and take charge of a corrupt government that is ruining thier country. They proclaim one group killed the kid and there is your justification and spark to any fire you wish to set.
99%
of the 'anarchists' i've met are not past the age of 17. however just because this group was provoking riots doesn't mean they're anarchists, they're just idiots getting attention.