Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Are some on the far right so far over that they are anarchists?

Posted by on Dec. 31, 2013 at 3:31 PM
  • 135 Replies
Just reading how anti-government some of the far right folks have becom along with the push for individual responsibility (which I'm not against btw) makes me wonder....combine that with all this gun hoarding and calls for defending themselves against tyrannical goverent sounds a lot like anarchy.
by on Dec. 31, 2013 at 3:31 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
momtoscott
by Platinum Member on Dec. 31, 2013 at 3:54 PM
3 moms liked this

Sounds more like "revolution," to me, but the bloody French or Russian kind, cynically designed to benefit the revolutionaries personally and not the people generally.  

Of course, it's only a revolution if they win, otherwise it would be more properly termed an insurrection or a terrorist movement.   

idunno1234
by Silver Member on Dec. 31, 2013 at 4:07 PM
2 moms liked this

A significant portion of the far right money and push for power comes from people who believe in the abolishment of most of our Federal government and limited state government....a dog eat dog type of scenario, kind of an Ayn Rand sort of philosophy.

Its a ridiculous notion, this sort of extreme libertarianism (although she herself hated libertarians)  because its akin to the few people who hold the power, have the money, the majority of assets and most of the land saying to the rest of the populace to sink or swim.

NWP
by guerrilla girl on Dec. 31, 2013 at 4:07 PM
1 mom liked this

It seems to me from hearing what they ares saying that Anarchy would be their preferred method of government.....Revolution would be one way to achieve it.

Quoting momtoscott:

Sounds more like "revolution," to me, but the bloody French or Russian kind, cynically designed to benefit the revolutionaries personally and not the people generally.  

Of course, it's only a revolution if they win, otherwise it would be more properly termed an insurrection or a terrorist movement.   


National Woman's Party


tanyainmizzou
by on Dec. 31, 2013 at 4:35 PM
6 moms liked this

Not really.


They want the government to do what it is Constitutionally designated to do.   Providing everyone's need and want wasn't one of them.   If you can't afford it, you can't afford it.  But others should not have to provide it through their taxes because you want something you can't get.  Something that is in very short supply in this country.

I  really felt for your story of your kid getting upset because she could not give her friend a snack, until you talk about having cable.  Although, let me guess!  It is free with your place like it always is for everyone.

Quoting idunno1234:

A significant portion of the far right money and push for power comes from people who believe in the abolishment of most of our Federal government and limited state government....a dog eat dog type of scenario, kind of an Ayn Rand sort of philosophy.

Its a ridiculous notion, this sort of extreme libertarianism (although she herself hated libertarians)  because its akin to the few people who hold the power, have the money, the majority of assets and most of the land saying to the rest of the populace to sink or swim.


waldorfmom
by Bronze Member on Dec. 31, 2013 at 4:39 PM
4 moms liked this

Yep. You got it in one.

On the spectrum of government control, one pole would be total gov't control of, or power over, everything (totalitarianism) ... and the other pole would be no gov't power over people (anarchy)

More gov't control we have dubbed "Leftist" .... less gov't power we have dubbed "Right" or "Right-wing".

The colonies were populated by folks who had experienced some pretty totalitarian gov't power - monarchies in which the whim of the King was LAW.

This was too much to the Left.

These people had not braved weeks across the Atlantic and risked their lives to build shelter and find food because they were satisfied with the lives of cattle. They wanted Liberty. They didn't expect to have anything provided for them, but they DID intend to be left free.

Each colony, and then state, experimented with various types of governance, experiencing the results and making adjustments. 

They discovered that they HAD to have some form of over-gov't to handle things which were inappropriate for one state to do on behalf of all the other states. But they were extremely leery of giving to this gov't any power over themselves. Their first attempt - the Articles of Confederation (as in working together) turned out to be too un-power-ful. Some of the states were treating each other like rival neighboring countries, and riots and battles were breaking out over sneaky tariffs and underhanded cronyism.

They had moved from complete anarchy to slightly less anarchy, but there was still too much anarchy for individuals to live in peace and safety. 

So they tried again, they held another Continental Congress to create an improved framework for their state cooperation. They aimed to give more power to the federal gov't while still trying to keep its assigned duties limited to truly nation-wide issues, preventing this over-arching gov't from interfering in the issues which could be handled within a state or a local community. The last thing each state wanted was to give up any more sovereignty than was absolutely necessary - they had had enough of such slavery under King George.

They were aiming for a country which WAS based on anarchy, just moving away from complete anarchy enough for people and their business enterprises to conduct day-to-day life peacefully and in safety.

Ever since the Progressives started to take over teachers' colleges and influence what children are taught in the schools, the emphasis on utter respect for the individual has been fading, and the emphasis on conforming to society's desires (translate: the gov't bureaucrats' desires presented as if they are society) has been increasing.

It is astonishing to see some aspects of this gun conversation, for instance:

Piers Morgan: "But WHY does a private citizen NEED to have an assault rifle, with 30 rounds in a magazine ?!"

Ben Shapiro: "... Against the possibility of needing to defend against a tyrannical gov't."

And Piers Morgan scoffs, presses Mr. Shapiro on whether he actually fears that Obama will declare martial law, etc.

Ben Shapiro replies that there may be no concern about Obama, but that is no insurance against a future administration ...

And this argument for private citizens bearing arms (and being able to buy ammunition, which has become suspiciously hard to do) is dismissed as paranoia or as fear-mongering.

Does NOBODY remember the Japanese AMERICANS who were interred from one day to the next? Not only were they physically removed from their homes and places of work and transported to barrack camps, but all their possessions - cars, homes, businesses, personal belongings - were grabbed by the gov't and used to enrich gov't coffers !

And this was ordered by the Left's well-beloved FDR !

Why is the need to ensure against gov't officials going against the Constitution dismissed as ridiculous? This episode happened within a lifetime !

Frankly, anarchy is only a bad word when the anarchists are bent on pillaging and harming their neighbors. When the anarchists are standing up for the rights of themselves and their fellow citizens, then anarchy is a path back to liberty.



lga1965
by on Dec. 31, 2013 at 4:42 PM
That seems to.be what they.say in their videos and Blog sites.

Quoting NWP:

It seems to me from hearing what they ares saying that Anarchy would be their preferred method of government.....Revolution would be one way to achieve it.

Quoting momtoscott:

Sounds more like "revolution," to me, but the bloody French or Russian kind, cynically designed to benefit the revolutionaries personally and not the people generally.  

Of course, it's only a revolution if they win, otherwise it would be more properly termed an insurrection or a terrorist movement.   


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LiveinJoy
by on Dec. 31, 2013 at 4:47 PM
2 moms liked this

Has anyone here ever read the book "The 5,000 Year Leap" ?


Book Description

September 9, 2013
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America created the first free people to survive as a nation in modern times. They wrote a new kind of Constitution which is now the oldest in existence. They built a new kind of commonwealth designed as a model for the whole human race. They believed it was thoroughly possible to create a new kind of civilization, giving freedom, equality, and justice to all.

The Founders created a new cultural climate that gave wings to the human spirit. They encouraged exploration to reveal the scientific secrets of the universe. They built a free-enterprise culture to encourage industry and prosperity. They gave humanity the needed ingredients for a gigantic 5,000-year leap, in which more progress has been in the past 200 years than in all of the prior recorded human history. All of this came about because of 28 basic principles the Founders discovered, upon which all free nations must be built in order to succeed.
idunno1234
by Silver Member on Dec. 31, 2013 at 4:57 PM
5 moms liked this

 No...the Koch brothers don't give a shit about what is constitutionally designated and it has nothing to do with the government providing everyone's needs and wants or not.  It has to do with the abolishment of federal government including such things a social security, medicare/medicaid, SNAP, the  EPA  and mandated education (left to state's discretion if at all), things which tend to raise a country's standard of living.  Take those things away and this country regresses. 

 I'm not talking about what you currently believe, I'm talking about what the people who are turning this country into a corporatocracy believe.  If you agree with them, that's your prerogative, albeit one that I find repugnant.  It has to do with total self absorption and self interests with no social responsibility whatsoever, even while people are on an ridiculously uneven playing field.

You want to take this personal, that's also your prerogative, especially since I'm the one who has put it out there.  But you have no insight into my life, the whys and the hows other than the tiny bit that I have posted around this board and that makes your use of my personal shit here just as repugnant as those who hold the majority of the assets saying to everyone else a giant FU.

Quoting tanyainmizzou:

Not really.

 

They want the government to do what it is Constitutionally designated to do.   Providing everyone's need and want wasn't one of them.   If you can't afford it, you can't afford it.  But others should not have to provide it through their taxes because you want something you can't get.  Something that is in very short supply in this country.

I  really felt for your story of your kid getting upset because she could not give her friend a snack, until you talk about having cable.  Although, let me guess!  It is free with your place like it always is for everyone.

Quoting idunno1234:

A significant portion of the far right money and push for power comes from people who believe in the abolishment of most of our Federal government and limited state government....a dog eat dog type of scenario, kind of an Ayn Rand sort of philosophy.

Its a ridiculous notion, this sort of extreme libertarianism (although she herself hated libertarians)  because its akin to the few people who hold the power, have the money, the majority of assets and most of the land saying to the rest of the populace to sink or swim.

 

 

waldorfmom
by Bronze Member on Dec. 31, 2013 at 5:00 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting idunno1234:

A significant portion of the far right money and push for power comes from people who believe in the abolishment of most of our Federal government and limited state government....a dog eat dog type of scenario, kind of an Ayn Rand sort of philosophy.

Its a ridiculous notion, this sort of extreme libertarianism (although she herself hated libertarians)  because its akin to the few people who hold the power, have the money, the majority of assets and most of the land saying to the rest of the populace to sink or swim.

I understand where you are coming from, but it would be good to note that the Far Right is actually NOT "pushing for power". Quite the opposite. The Far Right is pushing for gov't to have LESS power, including their own elected representatives in gov't.

That is the whole point.

Because of deceptive media reporting, it is easy to think there is an equal totalitarianism on the "RIght" as we get from "the Left".

But truthfully, as soon as you have somebody who tries to acquire more power in government, they are BY DEFINITION Leftist. They may CALL THEMSELVES "Right", but it just ain't so. 

It is just like someone CALLING themselves "Christian", while violating every Christian tenet by condemning people, pressuring people to conform to their preferred beliefs or lifestyle, etc.

For example, in the 1930s, the National Socialist Party made a pact with the Communist Party that they would dub each other "Right" and "Left" in order to fool the voters that there was a difference between the two parties' agendas. The Socialist Democrat Party won that election, but the con-game succeeded. Voters actually believed that Hitler's National Socialist Party was somehow "Right".

And since that time, fascism has been called "right-ist".

Totalitarianism is Left, whether the philosophy behind the government power is fascism, communism / socialism, the Inquisition, Islam or "Save the Earth"

waldorfmom
by Bronze Member on Dec. 31, 2013 at 5:03 PM
1 mom liked this

YESS !!

A must-read if ever there was one for knowing what you are talking about in the area of what the term American means, or American history, or American gov't structure ...

Quoting LiveinJoy:

Has anyone here ever read the book "The 5,000 Year Leap" ?


Book Description

September 9, 2013
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America created the first free people to survive as a nation in modern times. They wrote a new kind of Constitution which is now the oldest in existence. They built a new kind of commonwealth designed as a model for the whole human race. They believed it was thoroughly possible to create a new kind of civilization, giving freedom, equality, and justice to all.

The Founders created a new cultural climate that gave wings to the human spirit. They encouraged exploration to reveal the scientific secrets of the universe. They built a free-enterprise culture to encourage industry and prosperity. They gave humanity the needed ingredients for a gigantic 5,000-year leap, in which more progress has been in the past 200 years than in all of the prior recorded human history. All of this came about because of 28 basic principles the Founders discovered, upon which all free nations must be built in order to succeed.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN