You may have noticed over the weekend that most newspaper and TV reports blamed the violent London riots on anarchists. A new kind of anarchists, apparently, who believe in big government.
Just to make sure we correctly understood anarchy, we went to the dictionary to double check our understanding of the word:
Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy.
Source: Wikipedia.org
Look how easy that was. It took us about two seconds to do what the media couldn’t bother doing.
Obviously, members of the left wing media would rather choke on their own vomit than admit the riots were caused by socialists and communists and union thugs and other assorted left wing lunatics demanding not just a continuation of the government gravy train, but more government, bigger government, all-encompassing government.
So they were magically transformed into anarchists who rioted in order to bring about a system that’s in direct contradiction of their own philosophy.
For example, check out the following news reports:
“Anarchists went on the rampage in central London as hundreds of thousands of people marched in protest at government cuts.”
Source: Telegraph UK
“200 arrested as hardcore anarchists fight police long into night in Battle of Trafalgar Square after 500,000 march against the cut.”
Source: Daily Mail UK
“Hundreds of masked protesters have clashed with police in London’s main shopping district, disrupting traffic and occupying a department store.
The black-clad anarchists were a breakaway group from a quarter of a million people who marched to protest against the British government’s austerity measures.”
Source: ABC Australia
“Black-clad, masked youths battled riot police and attacked banks and luxury stores in central London yesterday, overshadowing a protest by more than a quarter of a million Britons against government spending cuts.
“Police said they had arrested 125 people after anarchist groups splintered from the main union-led protest march and fought running skirmishes with riot police across the West End shopping and theatre district.”
Source: Reuters
“… the day was marred by a violent minority of anarchists who went on the rampage, smashing windows and attacking property around Oxford Street. Prentis said he regretted that the actions of ‘a few hundred’ risked diverting attention from the message that the ‘political heat is rising on the government’.”
Source: Guardian UK
Consider it reason #216 we hate the media: They intentionally mis-use and redefine words to spread confusion and further their left wing agenda.
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (17)
"Obviously, members of the left wing media would rather choke on their own vomit than admit the riots were caused by socialists and communists and union thugs and other assorted left wing lunatics..."
Truthfully, I'm OK with either one of those options.
I am just surprised they didn't call them the ENGLISH Tea Party.
But then, if you truly are an anarchist, according to the definition, they call you a Tea-Bagger. I'm confused.
I don’t know if there are any “true” anarchists still around. They are actually Marxists that like to commit vandalism and call it anarchy. I am not a pure anarchist. I just believe that the government should have ABSOLUTELY no influence on business and finance, that most, if not all current government services should be controlled by the private sector. You can call me a pure Laissez-Faire Capitalist. If there is one area that the founding fathers may have overlooked, it is that a “wall of seperation” from business and finance was not specifically addressed in the constitution. I don’t know if that would matter, though. The modern progressives are so good at redefining words. The Bill of Rights, to me, is VERY CLEAR and SPECIFIC, but politicians and lawyers have been able to convolute the meaning to a point that almost no one is capable of understanding it.
This takes me to another of my beliefs, that ALL lawyers should be indentured servants and every citizen should own one. ;-)
I don't know if there are any "true" anarchists still around. They are actually Marxists that like to commit vandalism and call it anarchy. I am not a pure anarchist. I just believe that the government should have ABSOLUTELY no influence on business and finance, that most, if not all current government services should be controlled by the private sector. You can call me a pure Laissez-Faire Capitalist. If there is one area that the founding fathers may have overlooked, it is that a "wall of seperation" was not specifically addressed in the constitution. I don't know if that would matter, though. The modern progressives are so good at redefining words. The Bill of Rights, to me, is VERY CLEAR and SPECIFIC, but politicians and lawyers have been able to convolute the meaning to a point that almost no one is capable of understanding it.
This tales me to another of my beliefs, that ALL lawyers should be indentured servants and every citizen should own one. ;-)
Sometimes I think Holder, Pelosi Obama want a "fight" here, maybe they even created it for an excuse to trash the second amendment.
The difference is British citizens have been pretty much "disarmed" for a couple of hundred years. Citizens are not allowed to own a handgun, even collectors pieces have to be under lock and key in a museum.
Only the elite are allowed to own a rifle or shotgun for hunting or "sporting" purposes. Joe Schmoe working at the local garage cannot legally own one even if he could afford to buy one.
And that is the difference between America and England that fools like Eric Holder and Nancy P. Loosley will never understand. We Americans have seen what happens to every country on earth when the citizens turn in their weapons and we will not allow it to happen here. The bluebloods we send to Washington run this country because we allow them too. When they get too far out of hand there is about 100 million red blooded Americans, with weapons, who can kick them out so we can start all over again.
And suspend elections due to the current "crisis" that they caused for that reason. Clear?
YT,They have a right to be pissed?!?!?!?
The Brits live in a representative system, albeit a parliamentary one. They elect their representaives and the politicians that they put into office create the regulations by which the banks MUST operate. If you are going to blame capitalism and the banks, then you first must actually have a pure capitalist system to operate inside of. If that fails, then you can put the blame on the financial institrutions. Britain is in a situation that socialism has cteated, yet they want to continue regulating and controlling the industries that could pull them out of this morass. The U.S. has been falling down the exact same rabbit hole for almost 100 yrs. and it is getting more and more steep as time goes by. "A fight" may be coming here, for sure, but if we don't indentify the real enemy, we will not solve anything and could possibly damage this country beyond repair.
To be fair, I think they have the right idea except for the nanny state thing. I will protest "austerity" here too. F*ck the big banks. Nobody should be taxed via inflation or cuts because they need their bonds repaid. This should be a teaching moment: it sucks that you believed in the system and it just screwed you. But at some point they (and we) need to come to the collective understanding that not everyone is going to be made whole and starting over is the best solution for future generations.
These people have a right to be pissed but kicking the can down the road again so they get theirs to let a future generation pay is not the answer.
This fight will be comming to our shores soon enough.
Anarchy would be served if the shop owners and citizens would just open fire on these spoiled, Marxist children. Oh yeah I forgot, the British population is not allowed to defend themselves or their property. It seems that they're getting EXACTLY what they have asked for.
Apparently they didn't graduate from Hillsdale college
I have to side with the media on this. They can't overtly editorialize that the faction calling itself "anarchists" but any common sense will tell you that to have collectivism, you need central planning. They have to call the faction what it calls itself. They can only editorialize through subtle means, like selecting a respected person to represent one side and a koook to represent the other. Look up some of the sub-classifications of anarchy, like anarcho-syndicalism.
Those are the punks that theBeachBumConservative is making reference to.
The media is calling the faction what it calls itself. Ironically, most self-professed anarchists believe in a collectivist society. They're too stupid to understand that if you take away private property and the incentive to work harder, be more creative, and be smarter, a central authority becomes essential for enfocement. Most of the participants are just thugs who want to cause trouble though.
No they understand that. They just believe THEY will be the ones with the reigns of power. If they aren't there will be collective whining (see bush years)