Another Embarrassment to Michigan
In 1999 Anarchists successfully brought a world economic meeting in a Seattle to a near standstill and considered themselves triumphant and on their way to bigger and better things. Triumphs are all too often short-lived and sometimes that is a good thing.
They brought all their experience a training to the GOP and convention and dreamed of shutting it down. There was one little problem. Law enforcement agencies had also brought the lessons they had learned in Seattle and used them to good effect, protecting law-abiding citizens from the anarchist rabble. The anarchists got in a few token shots and a few more serious events but they utterly failed to shut down the convention.
One of the Anarchists was a boy (I won't offend the term by calling him a man) from Flushing Michigan (national sources say he is from Flint, more local sources place him in Flushing, Michigan, a relatively affluent suburb of Flint) named Matthew Bradley DePalma. Mr DePalma was planning to use Molotov cocktails to disrupt the GOP convention but made a very vital mistake; he was rooming with an FBI informant when he announced his intentions and started to work on his dream.
Ah! . . . . the poetic justice of it all.
Yet I wonder. He is a part of an organization of Anarchists. Think about that for a second. Anarchy is by definition the absence of law and the absence of order. How can you have an organization based on the absence of order. They are misnamed for they do believe in law, to the point that they willing to destroy, kill and harm to enforce their ideas of law on others. They wish to destroy one law and replace it with another law, which makes them insurgents and terrorists, not anarchists, and thus, possibly under some circumstances, even enemy combatants. (I kind of wonder if a genuine anarchist, who believes in the absolute absence of any order, could even function.)
In my not so humble opinion they would be fools to launch a full-scale insurgency because they would lose and lose big time. Leftists demonstrate courage when they shout obscenities at the establishment in a situation where they cannot be harmed, but let them face a determined, angry and armed public and they would flee like vermin. They would be slaughtered by the half-trained Michigan Militia, not to mention the much better armed and trained police and national guard.
Yes we are having problems at the moment, but the Anarchist "solution" is worse than the problem they are trying to solve.
I have some second cousins living in Flushing and they are decent, hard-working, and largely affluent people. I am sure that they are not proud to call this little criminal a neighbor.
They brought all their experience a training to the GOP and convention and dreamed of shutting it down. There was one little problem. Law enforcement agencies had also brought the lessons they had learned in Seattle and used them to good effect, protecting law-abiding citizens from the anarchist rabble. The anarchists got in a few token shots and a few more serious events but they utterly failed to shut down the convention.
One of the Anarchists was a boy (I won't offend the term by calling him a man) from Flushing Michigan (national sources say he is from Flint, more local sources place him in Flushing, Michigan, a relatively affluent suburb of Flint) named Matthew Bradley DePalma. Mr DePalma was planning to use Molotov cocktails to disrupt the GOP convention but made a very vital mistake; he was rooming with an FBI informant when he announced his intentions and started to work on his dream.
Ah! . . . . the poetic justice of it all.
Yet I wonder. He is a part of an organization of Anarchists. Think about that for a second. Anarchy is by definition the absence of law and the absence of order. How can you have an organization based on the absence of order. They are misnamed for they do believe in law, to the point that they willing to destroy, kill and harm to enforce their ideas of law on others. They wish to destroy one law and replace it with another law, which makes them insurgents and terrorists, not anarchists, and thus, possibly under some circumstances, even enemy combatants. (I kind of wonder if a genuine anarchist, who believes in the absolute absence of any order, could even function.)
In my not so humble opinion they would be fools to launch a full-scale insurgency because they would lose and lose big time. Leftists demonstrate courage when they shout obscenities at the establishment in a situation where they cannot be harmed, but let them face a determined, angry and armed public and they would flee like vermin. They would be slaughtered by the half-trained Michigan Militia, not to mention the much better armed and trained police and national guard.
Yes we are having problems at the moment, but the Anarchist "solution" is worse than the problem they are trying to solve.
I have some second cousins living in Flushing and they are decent, hard-working, and largely affluent people. I am sure that they are not proud to call this little criminal a neighbor.
posted by shoprat at 7:21 PM
8 Comments:
we simply must flush these guys (sorry!)
The great story about this is that we still HAVE FBI informants who are effective.
DOn't worry, Shoprat...I'm in California, we can't have ALL the creeps!)
Aw heck, Shop, it's not just Michigan. Those coneheads reproduce anywhere there's a mixture of oxygen and nitrogen.
BZ
I doubt many normal people are proud to have criminals as their neighbors. 'Course there are neighborhoods that shield criminals and then wonder why the police can't seem to solve the crimes that take place there. I guess those are 'special' neighborhoods.
Anarchists are only slightly more looney-toon than Leftists. And, like Leftists, accuse others of what they themselves are trying to do.
Anarchists are leftists. As far as Flushing, it is a nice town, I grew up in the Flint area. The general Flint area though is by and large a cesspool. There are pockets of bright spots but I wouldn't move back if I were given a house.
z is right! We Californians can't bear the 'burden' alone!
I just got back to CA from Traverse City, MI...Red Wings training camp--
Stanley Cup - again - anyone!?
Shoprat-just a little ray of hope--my Democrat brother is voting for McCain/Palin!... yeh....
C-CS
Anarchists are peculiar. IMHO, since they want no government at all, the true anarchist would be apolitical, eg neither right nor left. Your "(I kind of wonder if a genuine anarchist, who believes in the absolute absence of any order, could even function.)" got
me thinking of the libertarian, who prefer minimal gov't. At
http://www.chaospark.com/politics/reid12.htm is a tongue-in-cheek
comparison:
What's the difference between libertarians and anarchists?
The traditional answer
Libertarians want severely limited government and anarchists want none.
The humanist answer
Libertarians are nonviolent; some anarchists are violent.
The funny answer
Libertarians are to anarchists as nudists are to naked people.They're just middle class & organized so they appear less crazy.
The Party answer (from Andre Marrou)
An anarchist is an extreme libertarian, like a socialist is an extreme democrat, and a fascist is an extreme republican.
The graphic answer
It's like the difference between a lover and a rapist.They're both in the same place but one uses violence to get there.
The straight answer
Libertarians believe in free markets, private property, and capitalism. Anarchists who believe in these things usually call themselves libertarians. :)
Z We still have too many nuts here. Most of them left-wing.
BZ I can't decide if their a waste of oxygen or just not getting enough.
benning Thanks.
Chuck Not that far away geographically.
CS glad to hear about your brother.
bbi I would consider a libertarian an extreme GOP, with Anarchists being a misnomer for some left-wing extremists. Fascism is badly misunderstood and is very different from both the GOP and the DEM.
"He was rooming with an FBI informant..." LOL! Wonderful!
Post a Comment
<< Home