Anarchists Band Together to Extort Denver, Destroy Public Safety
Posted on August 7, 2008
In what will surely become the oxymoron of the century, a group of self described anarchists have banded together to threaten the city of Denver Colorado. Denver received $50 million dollars from the federal government to pay for security costs during the Democratic National Convention that runs from August 25th to 28th. These self described anarchists have demanded Denver use the money for community programs instead, and have said they will sit out the convention if the money is redirected.
Pardon me for laughing. There are so many holes in this offer I don’t know where to begin. Should I start with the organization of anarchists? Just writing “organization of anarchists” set off my irony alarm so loudly I think I woke people up six blocks away. Simply by the act of organizing makes anarchists less anarch-y, if you will. This is what 30 plus years of liberal created, feel-good, learn-nothing education will create, anarchists banding together.
Now these “anarchists” (and I must use quotes on the word anarchist for the remainder of this article as these people simply do not understand the word they have decided to label themselves with) are telling the City of Denver, the Federal Government and the DNC they’ll sit home and be good little anarchists if the money is given to “the community?”
Let’s say the City of Denver capitulated and used the 50 million for city programs instead. The city would have no security and these “anarchists” could sweep in unopposed to wreak havoc and mayhem. Now this is exactly what I would expect anarchists to do. Sweep in unannounced where they aren’t expected and cause all kinds of trouble.
Or let’s try a different scenario. The city uses the funds for community programs, leaving the city unprotected and a different group of anarchists comes barging into town to wreak havoc and mayhem. How do we know there’s only one anarchist group out there? Why should the city of Denver (or any city over a few thousand inhabitants) be scared of any group of self proclaimed “anarchists?”
The group, “Unconventional Denver” is planning protests and one of the organizers, Clayton Dewey, had this to say;
“As anarchists, we feel the greatest problem with government is how its primary interest is to protect the profits of those in power, even when it comes at the expense of the general public”
The group organizing the protests in Denver call themselves “DNC Disruption08.” They include groups such as “Recreate 68” or “R-68” for short. The goal of R-68 apparently is to recreate the riots that occurred during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where protestors and police clashed. The trials of the group that became known as The Chicago Seven, where seven people were put on trial for inciting riots may very well happen again to a new group of people if R-68 gets their wish.
Right now their plan seems to be marching in the streets making as much noise as possible. This seems harmless enough, however in a very noisy setting, calls for aid would go unheard and if someone were to keel over with a heart attack, nobody would be able to hear the pleas for assistance.
I can actually see the authorities rounding people up for breaking noise ordinances. I know in most cities any noise over a certain decibel level is considered a nuisance. For pure comedy you probably cannot top a group of protesters being arrested for being too loud. But worse than the noise is the very real possibility of these groups actually inciting riots and the culpability they would face if this occurred.
In a post 9/11 world the charges could range from inciting a riot to terrorist acts. Imagine if some members of R-68 decide that making noise in the streets isn’t good enough and maybe burning a few cop cars would make a better statement. Or maybe they’ll decide (like every other group of anarchists) to exact revenge against their corporate masters by breaking windows and looting.
If these groups stick to their plans to march and make noise I don’t see trouble arising but it only takes one or two bad apples to spoil the whole barrel. It is not a far stretch for a group calling themselves “anarchists” to attract a group of destructive individuals who start breaking windows and causing damage. The mere fact of the group being labeled “anarchists” is enough to make many young people leave common sense behind and believe they are fighting for a cause that allows them free reign to do as they please, after all this is the essence of anarchy.
Now the courts have ruled the Secret Service is well within their rights to restrict access to the Democratic National Convention which is sure to raise the hackles of R-68 and their ilk. This will probably agitate them into even more radical plans which is almost certainly going to result in someone getting hurt. DNC Disruption has a schedule posted of classes one can take for self defense and how to be a legal observer but I don’t see these being sufficient to save the protesters when riots break out.
The cops are better trained, better equipped and have the law on their side and no amount of training is going to keep this peaceful if a group of masked kids calling themselves anarchists show up acting like, well, anarchists. As an aside, the tendency of these kids to wear masks is infuriating. I have faced off with these kids in protests myself and I always ask them, once they are in earshot, how embarrassing is it to take part in a protest where they must hide who they are.
If the DNC convention goes off with relatively minor trouble I will be surprised. I think these groups are spoiling for a fight and are likely to get one. If the riots occur I am hopeful charges will be brought against those organizing these groups if for nothing else than to show the country that public safety is of utmost importance to us as a country.
Furthermore, if these riots occur and people are brought up on charges, expect the ACLU to defend their right to raise a riotous insurgency right in the middle of the country during a national political convention, after all the ACLU has a long history of defending terrorists.
What the entire issue boils down to is a public safety issue, and the threats of riots by self proclaimed “anarchists” who have a well known history of vandalism and mayhem threatens the public safety of those who may be there to protest peacefully.
Without assured public safety the tendency of those who dissent to speak out in protests and gatherings will diminish and this would be a loss of freedom to all of us.
» Filed Under ACLU, Elections, News
Trackback URL
Comments
15 Responses to “Anarchists Band Together to Extort Denver, Destroy Public Safety”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
“Just writing “organization of anarchists” set off my irony alarm so loudly I think I woke people up six blocks away.”
Mine too. Had to point and laugh when one is doubled over laughing.
You seriously misunderstand anarchism.
Anarchism isn’t against private organization; it depends on them.
Anarchism is the believe that government is an unnecessary evil. They think we could do without it completely. They theorize that private organizations will spring up to fill the roles currently filled by government. It is simply the logical extension of the belief that “that government which governs least, governs best.”
Jeff, let’s say for a moment we went to a system of Anarchy. Without a central governing body to enact and enforce laws people could do as they please. At this point it becomes every man for himself and might would make right. When this happens and anarchy reigns supreme the weaker in society would band together to create a system to protect themselves and punish those who do society harm.
In a society with no governing body to whom people are not answerable to chaos would reign supreme. This si why we have groups such as government which is responsible for making certain society runs as smoothly as possible.
Anarchists wish for no controlling entity to which people are answerable to, such as government, so the concept of anarchists forming a group which would presumably be responsible for coordination of activities is laughable and contrary to the classic definition of anarchy.
I have no desire to debate the merits of anarchism. If you wish to do so, there are many bloggers that would love to do so, but I’m not an anarchist, so I don’t.
I stand by my statement that you do not have a solid understanding of anarchism. Anarchists hate compulsory association; they have nothing against organizations where each member is free to opt in or out at will.
and without a system of governance which is compulsory who sets and enforces rules?
My point is any organization forming for any reason whatsoever is inherently against anarchism, which makes an organization of anarchists a funny idea.
You can’t learn anything if you cling to your preconceived notions. Read Webster’s definition.
The key to anarchy is that there should be no compulsory associations. The national government of the USA forces you and I to associate with each other. I can’t dissolve my association with you without moving to a different country, and even that would just be exchanging one set of compulsory associations with another.
The problem with government, according to anarchists, is that I am required, by the very fact of my birth, to associate with those proximal to me. They maintain that this should be voluntary.
Anarchists say we should only have to associate with people that we choose to associate with. If I want to join a certain organization of people and subject myself to that organization’s rules, that’s perfectly fine.
It’s a radical philosophy, but its radicalism is about free will, not rugged individualism.
Jeff, you are not forced to associate with anyone, unless you are considering sharing citizenship as association. Considering shared citizenship as association is absurd, especially in a nation of 300 million plus.
Anarchists wish for no rule of law and complete lack of governing bodies. They crave a lack of societal structures, such as organizations like DNC Disruption08.
Do you really not see the humor in an association of anarchists?
Yes, sharing citizenship is an association. Anyone who shares USA citizenship is subject to hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations that govern most parts of their lives. It’s an association that one is born into and is very hard to renounce.
If this association is as trivial as you suggest it is, all you have to do is pass a law making it easy to renounce all of the fees required by and services provided by the various governments. If you managed to do so, anarchists would have absolutely no beef with you.
But therein lies the problem. You insist on certain compulsory geographic associations. Private, voluntary associations have nothing to do with it.
I’d just like to weigh in on the comments about anarchy not being conducive to having organizations. If you were to look up anarchy, read about it, or go to any gathering of anarchists you would find that most are quite organized. There are dozens of anarchist organizations. This is not antithetical to the idea of anarchism, which is simply a philosophy that works towards the maximum freedom of all peoples.
If there were an anarchist society, and not government to do all the things it does (poorly I might add) people, anarchists, would have to be organized in order to provide for themselves.
Your statements on anarchism show about as much understanding as a thirteen year old who thinks it’s all about chaos and partying.
Than k you for your solid defense of anarchism Kiy. I have been to anarchist gatherings and the one constant theme is wishing for a lack of organizations. Talk about how everyone should run their own lives how they see fit completely devoid of interference from anyone at anytime is the one overriding theme of all anarchist events I have attended.
I state again, the concept of a group of people who advocate a society free of overarching organizations CREATING what appears to be an overarching organization for the express intent of furthering their goal of a society without overarching organizations is comedic.
Thank you for playing Kiy.
What you continue to describe is individualism. There’s a fair amount of overlap between anarchism and individualism, but there are important differences.
Read some of tarran’s writing if you want to learn about an anarchist who is not an individualist. This post in particular makes it clear that he has no problem with private organizations imposing rules upon their members.
Jeff, you are missing the point. In an anarchists dream world where membership in a group was completely voluntary and those not in the group are not subject to the rules of the group there would be no way to enforce any kind of civility or order. Once the strong began to prey on the weak some sort of organization to protect the weak would be created.
Thereby ruining the anarchists impossible dream. The entire idea of anarchy is completely done away by any sort of organization. Which is, even though you can’t seem to grasp it, hilarious.
That’s your opinion about the merits of their beliefs. I’m not here to discuss that, as I said in my first post.
Obviously, anarchists don’t agree with your assessment or they wouldn’t be anarchists. My point is simply that anarchists do not necessarily oppose organizations; many of them envision a world with even more organizations than we have now.
You think they’re foolish and I don’t care to change your mind about that, but there’s nothing inherently contradictory about what they’re doing.
It’s been ridiculously annoying reading foolish posts and seeing people on the news suggesting that “organized anarchists is an oxymoron.” The symbol anarchists use, an A with an O around it means, “Anarchy is Order.” Throughout history all significant anarchist movements (see: from the 1860s internationally to the Spanish Civil War) were the result of anarchist organizing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism
Do your homework, yall.
Jeff, it’s like talking to a brick wall.
Frustrating, I know.