Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Great News! Organizing for America Backs Anarcho-Communist G-20 Cadres

Well, it turns out that my post on Elliot Madison -- the suspected New York anarcho-communist recently arrested for tweeting police formations at Pittsburgh's G-20 protests -- stirred up a little backlash among the radical left-libertarians.

The notorious nihilist Dr. Hugo Hussein Ahmadinejad Biobrain has written
a response. Dr. Biobrain sets out immediately -- like any good radical postmodernist -- to challenge my main source, the New York Post -- obviously objectionable for its capitalist-hegemonic owner Rupert Murdoch:

Donald goes as far as to title his post "Queens 'Tin Can' Anarchist Held One Pound of Liquid Mercury," based entirely on a claim written in the NY Post that mercury was found in his apartment ... I guess this is proof of the NY Times liberal-bias, as they failed to mention this important fact completely.
Okay, fine. Folks can just check with Madison's attorney, Martin Stolar, and his U.S. District Court motion for the return of items seized. The motion claims that the items have "no connection to any pending or continuing investigation ..." At page 22 it notes that police found "one (1) glass container of unknown gray substance wrapped in brown paper napkins with a rubber band." The New York Post accurately reported that item as one pound of liquid mercury. See Stolar's full motion here.

Madison and Stolar are interviewed at communist Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! network, "
Twitter Crackdown: NYC Activist Arrested for Using Social Networking Site during G-20 Protest in Pittsburgh." And the Obamunists at Organizing for America are turning Elliot Madison into the movement's latest anarcho-communist cause célèbre, "Free Elliot Madison":

But there's more pushback at my post, for example from "Mike" at Rational Reasons (who's apparently a big Lew Rockwell fan):

You are dishonestly trying to call him a commie because your puny neo-con mind can't wrap itself around the thought that believers in the free market might choose to fight against the state with other [sic] who hold that same goal, even if they don't see eye to eye.
"Believers in the free market." Yeah. Right. A look over at "Mike's" blog shows a link to a Lew Rockwell post decrying "red state facism," and he adds:

This is just to clarify that while libertarians don't like Obama's policies (and neither do I), they also don't support the idiocy of the 9-12ers or the Tea Party movement.
Great. That puts "Mike" right in alliance with Cindy Sheehan, who mounted a neo-communist "March of the Dead" protest in front of the White House yesterday. And recall Lew Rockwell and Cindy Sheehan formed a kinky left-libertarian sex-romp alliance during 2005's "Camp Casey" protests against the Bush administration. See, "Mother Sheehan's Married Lover":

Sources have identified the boyfriend as former right-winger Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig Von Mises think tank located in Alabama, who is himself married.

"Mike" also argued at my post:

I suppose the Centre for Liberty, Mises, Naomi Wolfe, Lew Rockwell and Raason [sic] are all commies too for supporting the G20 protesters and speaking out against the egregious police state tactics taken by the cops in Pittsburgh?
Boy, what a bunch! But dude, you forgot Ron Paul, Andrew Sullivan, and Will Wilkinson! But hey, Reason's cool. While Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch gave the anti-American Ron Paul a big thumbs up in 2007, at least Welsh later denounced talk of a "liberal-libertarian" alliance.

But let's get something straight: It's long been known that the bulk of so-called libertarians have made common cause with the radical left. There's little practical distinction to be made between the paleo-libertarianism of folks like Justin Raimondo and the anti-American hatred of neo-communists of Code Pink and International ANSWER. Indeed, Raimondo, a frequent contributor to Lew Rockwell's blog, was a keynote speaker at the radical left's 2005 gathering in Berkelely, "
Iraq: 5 Years Too Many." (Related: See, "Paul Craig Roberts and the Certifiable Right.") Add on top of that the so-called "capitalist anarchists," who -- oddly -- were out in force during Pittsburgh's anti-capitalist G-20 protests, and it's clear that the not only is the anarcho-leftist alliance fully ramping up for the destruction of America, they've even got some of the Obama administration's own Organizing for America goons on board.

Related: The Libertarian Communist Home Page:

Libertarian communists are also called anarchists. Anarchists are opposed to capitalism and the state, and they believe the working class must organize to overthrow capitalism and replace it with an egalitarian, libertarian system where each person's autonomy and individuality is fully realized and allowed to flourish, and human community and solidarity is fully realized.
Actually, that doesn't sound all that different from the manifesto at Tin Can Comms Collective, the anarchist outfit allied with Elliot Madison. But of course, while "anarcho-capitalist" Mike Gogulski is said to favor "free markets," the assertion flies in the face of his expressed hatred of America and American institutions:

I renounced my American citizenship in protest of what has become an American Empire, a nation that I see riding an express train to police state dictatorship with flags flying, anthems blaring and deluded, complicit masses cheering it along the track.
Okay. Right. No wonder the dude was out tweeting police mobilization directives for the anarcho-communists to avoid detection and arrest. What a great guy!


Dave said...

No real libertarian, such as myself, would ever cast his lot with any ideology that is opposed to true freedom and liberty.

Anyone who does so is not a "true" libertarian, but a bastardized impostor.


Doctor Biobrain said...

First off, I object to the NY Post because it's a tabloid rag. While I acknowledge that Murdoch's Fox News is a Republican propaganda tool, I at least consider them to have some legitimacy. But the Post is a sleazy tabloid, plain and simple.

And while the "unknown gray substance" might be mercury, you're still jumping to conclusions on that one. And hey, what about the Curious George toys and posters they confiscated? Or his cat poster? That clearly shows that he's got a nihilist's subjectivist view of reality, and might suggest he's a child molester. You should look into that Donald.

And seriously, your efforts to insist that anarcho-capitalists are anarcho-commies is absurd, and your guilt-by-association arguments aren't helping. And I didn't realize this at the time, but since you got me muddling into the world of anarchists (a field I knew almost nothing about), I've discovered one thing: Murray Rothbard, the guy who wrote the essay you quoted on anarcho-communists, is considered the FOUNDER of anarcho-capitialism. That's right, Donald, in your effort to prove that anarcho-capitalists don't exist, you linked to the guy that invented the word. Brilliant, Donald. I think you've outdone yourself.

Here's this from Rothbard's Wikipedia page:
Rothbard began to consider himself a private property anarchist in the 1950s and later began to use "anarcho-capitalist."[37][38] He wrote: "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."[39] In his anarcho-capitalist model, a system of protection agencies compete in a free market and are voluntarily supported by consumers who choose to use their protective and judicial services. Anarcho-capitalism would mean the end of the state monopoly on force.[37]

Still insist that anarchists can't be capitalists, Donald? Seriously, this was so obvious that I can't imagine how you didn't see it. Some anarchists don't like inequality, while others don't like government interference. Go figure.

Donald Douglas said...

Your denial is astounding, Biobrain. Nowhere do I say anarchos can't be capitalist. These anarchos, the two Mikes, who are claiming to be anarcho-capitalists, are out there assisting -- wait for it! -- anti-capitalists America haters. And of course, you're coming to their defense because -- wait for it again! -- you're an America-hater!!

Face it, you look like an idiot denying the "substance" in the Disctric Court motion. The EVIL Murdoch's coming to get you, Dr. Hussein. That's why you post anonyomously, right? Or perhaps you should start posting as "ARLON."

Dennis said...

Well at least that confirms my suspicions. It is interesting that these people cannot understand that they are condemned to revolution or self betrayal because they will never have a society that fits their ideas even if they kill off 75% of the population.

Montag said...

American-Exceptionalist Pro-Impreialists, on the other hand, love America's enormously powerful, and just plain enormous, centralized government and the nearly ubiquitous security apparatus it operates that amounts to the most influential force affecting The Market; a force almost always bent directly toward protecting corporate profits.

seems as though the earnest small-government tea partiers might have more in common with anti-imperialist anarchists than American power loving Neocons.

the American State as it exists isn't exactly an experiment in free market capitalism. mixed market corporatism, with socialist elements that allow industry to externalize costs. i know it's not your shtick, Donald, but does your argument run any deeper than 'capitalism good, communism bad'?

Clay Barham said...

Capitalism is a Marxist term describing European mercantilism, a system of a few elites managing many “maggots?” It has nothing to do with a Libertarian individual freedom and its resulting free market and prosperity; such was known in America. How can the two systems be equated one to the other? It’s like the differences between 19th century and 20th century Democrats, as cited in THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS (Amazon.com) and www.claysamerica.com. The first Democrats followed Jefferson to Cleveland and were libertarians, and the modern Democrats follow Rousseau, Marx and Obama.

Doctor Biobrain said...

Nowhere do I say anarchos can't be capitalist.

Alright, Donald, you might conceivably have a point, as you never outright stated that you didn't think anarcho-capitalists don't exist. Yet the circumstantial evidence suggests you're now covering up for your mistake.

For example, your commenter wrote: "Anarchists and Commies are nearly one in the same...they deserve each other."

And you responded, writing:
"I call them "anarcho-communists," Mark. They're really the same in my book."

Sounds to me that you think anarchists and commies are "really the same." That would be a very odd comment if you were only referring to anarcho-commies and realized that there were other types of anarchists.

After that, you claimed that "They go by "anarcho-communists' themselves," even though that is entirely false; which might suggest that you assumed that all of them do this because some of them do it. Meanwhile, you hadn't made any previous mention of any other sort of anarchist, besides the anarcho-commies that you said were the same as anarchists.

As for me defending them because I'm "anti-American," I'd like to mention that I'm pro-globalization, support the G20, and think the protesters are wrong and confused. I just enjoy correcting you when you're wrong. I fail to see how that constitutes a "defense" of them.

Honestly Donald, there is absolutely zero-basis for your suggestion that I'm anti-American or anti-capitalist. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not everyone who disagrees with you is an enemy of America.

And yes, Donald, I'm scared of Rupert Murdoch. That's the only reason I'm "anonymous." Sure, I've been using fake online names since before Fox News existed, but that's just because I was already so scared of Murdoch.