European anarchists grow more violent, coordinated

European anarchists grow more violent, coordinated

ROME (AP) - A loosely linked movement of European anarchists who want to bring down state and financial institutions is becoming more violent and coordinated after decades out of the spotlight, and may be responding to social tensions spawned by the continent’s financial crisis, security experts say.

Italian police said Tuesday that letter bombs were sent to three embassies in Rome by Italian anarchists in solidarity with jailed Greek anarchists, who had asked their comrades to organize and coordinate a global “revolutionary war.”

Identical package bombs exploded at the Swiss and Chilean embassies in Rome on Dec. 23, badly wounding the two people who opened them. A third bomb was safely defused at the Greek Embassy on Monday.

“We’re striking again, and we do so in response to the appeal launched by our Greek companions,” the Italian group known as the Informal Anarchist Federation wrote in a claim of responsibility for the third bomb that was released by police here Tuesday.

Full Story Here:
European anarchists grow more violent, coordinated

Anarchists are also becoming very active right here in the United States.

For those that don’t know what anarchy, or anarchism truly are, or are all about, these are the definitions from the fine folks at


1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.

2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.

3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.


1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.

2. the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.

I visit a lot of political, government and police sites. Some lean to the right, some lean to the left, some shoot down the middle and some fall everywhere in between. I read the articles, but most importantly, I read the comments. The author of the original story gives you a look into his/her beliefs and desires regarding the direction they wish to see America take.

The comments on those stories tends to give the reader a look into the hearts and minds of the American public.

I have long defined myself as a Conservative libertarian, a *little l* libertarian.

That’s because I can’t embrace the full platform of the Libertarian party. I don’t care if you believe that your drug use doesn’t hurt anyone but you, it’s still drug use and it’s still illegal. In fact, the very idea that YOUR drug use hurts no one but you is a total fallacy, one made up by persons intent on making illicit drugs LEGAL.

Smaller government, personal responsibility, acceptance of others and their freedom to live their lives as they see fit, all of that I can accept. You can pretty much do as you please, as long as it doesn’t hurt me, my family, my community, state or nation. Knock yourself out.

Drug usage, YOUR drug usage, affects me, and every other non-user in America. Your drug usage causes wrecks on the streets and highways of this nation. Your drug use leads to increased medical costs for taxpayers. Drug users, hard users, rarely have a job or healthcare, but they always have money for drugs. Usually their drug income originates from the labors of others, as the druggies steal from hard working Americans to pay for their habits. That affects ME!

Your drug usage finances the drug cartels and organizations of Mexico, Central and South America and S.E. Asia. Your drug use, indirectly, leads to the murders, kidnapping and torture of people in other parts of the world. How’s that for YOUR actions, your drug use, not affecting others?

I have encountered far too many hard core Libertarians (borderline anarchists) that are so intent on the idea that ALL drugs need to be made legal for all consenting adults that I am sick of it.

I see many Libertarians that are truly anarchists in their ideas that the Police Officers of this nation are the enemy and are infringing on them, and their self perceived God given right, to waste their minds and bodies, and in the process, endanger a nation full of non-users by their careless and reckless actions while stoned on their drugs of choice. These people only have one desire, to consume huge amounts of what they call recreational narcotics and damn the rest of us.

I see, and hear those that claim the Police Officers of this nation are the scum of the earth and are nothing more than NAZI enforcers and Fascists. All because those Police Officers are enforcing the laws of the land.

These people, those that I consider to be anarchists in their beliefs and spoken words, are making Law Enforcement Officers their sworn enemy, simply because these Officers and doing the job they were hired to do, and are committed to carrying out their sworn duty.

Here’s a little surprise for the anarchists among us, the LEOs are NOT the ones writing the laws, they are merely charged with the enforcement OF this nations laws. I know that’s a tough thing for mentally challenged, drug addled anarchists to comprehend, but their battle is NOT with the police, it’s with the legislators of America.

The duly elected members of the Senate and Congress are making the laws.

Now, maybe I finally understand the reasons WHY a full blown Libertarian can’t get elected to an office of any importance. Most Americans aren’t going to elect drug heads, those that support the drug culture, and thus, Libertarians.

I may make a few enemies with this post, frankly, I don’t give a damn. We have anarchists among us, led, for the most part, by Libertarians, or, at least, those that fly the flag of the Libertarian Party.

The Libertarian viewpoint is not a philosophy I can embrace and still look myself in the eye.

The TEA Party may not be perfect, it may be a long ways from perfect, but from this point forward I will disassociate myself with anything and anyone wearing the Libertarian label, and henceforth I will be nothing more than a TEA Party member and a Conservative American!

We are a nation of laws, and without the law, we are a lawless and violent society.

Certainly there are many laws that can, and should be repealed, but the legalization of drugs is NOT one of them!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This entry was posted in America 1st and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to European anarchists grow more violent, coordinated

  1. Robert says:

    Oh man you are just stirring the pot aint ya feller?..

    First off, the libertarian party has a lot of things right, but they lose me in the law. Yes I understand the desire to have everyone be personally responsible for their actions. BUT and this is a huge BUT, you can’t legislate stupidity out of our society. We have Dumb’d down our nation to the point of disaster already. Laws are needed to keep the stupid from society… Unfortunately it’s been woeful inept.

    Second. We as a nation allowed our country to move away from the libertarian principles our nation was founded on. Back in the days of our founders it was extremely possible to live and let live with little effect on others. NOW everything is attached to some degree. Take drugs for example, You want to shoot heroin, smoke crack or lick frogs I don’t care have at it. BUT where did you get the heroin, crack or frog? You had to buy it, where’d ya get the money? you don’t have a job so you stole…. Not to mention the lives MAKING the drugs touch… Legality will not assuage the damage nor will it benefit society in anyway.

    I still believe the libertarian party has some valuable points, and I still will agree with many of those points. But I won’t be voting for any libertarian candidate. IF I need a label it will simply be:
    AMERICAN. I’ll vote for whoever will do the best job in my eyes.

  2. Bob Mack says:

    I concur with your analysis, Fred. I’d come to the same conclusions after reading Radicals For Capitalism and pondering the likely end results of unfettered libertarianism. I prefer a Constitutional republic. I wish we still had one.

  3. minuteman26 says:

    Fred - The push for legal drugs is not near as dangerous to this country as the “green” movement and its anti-capitalist agenda. Those folks are died in the wool Communists. They can be stopped only by force.

  4. TeaPartyPresident says:


    Item 1: The definition of anarchist from the most popular libertarian website in the world is: A person who believes it is never moral to commit aggression, that is to threaten or use force against the innocent.

    We do not have a problem in this country with the type of anarchists that promote the violent overthrow of the government.

    The “problem” is that the state, which is amoral, has gotten too big. So by the definition above, the State must become smaller to the point of nearly non-existent.

    And as the Wikileaks documents have revealed,, the DEA is now the largest intelligence agency in terms of the number of countries in which it has a presence.

    Item 2: As for the drug argument…the only reason there are illegal drugs is because the pharmaceutical companies could not figure out a way to patent them and make a profit. So they poured their money into buying Congress to make the competition illegal. I’ve done the research on this. Drugs only became illegal in this country in the 1920s, about the same time the pharmaceutical companies began subsidizing the Journal of the American Medical Association.

    Item 3: Our War on Drugs has expanded exponentially since the 1970s, right along with illegal drug use in this country. The way I see it, when gov’t is in charge of something the opposite happens. So my solution to the drug problem is to create a government monopoly for the sales and distribution of “illegal” drugs. Surely, that will do more damage to the Mexican drug cartels and illicit drug use than any attempt to extinguish them.

  5. TexasFred says:

    Item 1: The definition of anarchist from the most popular libertarian website in the world is: A person who believes it is never moral to commit aggression, that is to threaten or use force against the innocent.

    We do not have a problem in this country with the type of anarchists that promote the violent overthrow of the government.

    I don’t know what world YOU’RE living in, but I would suggest you visit some of the anti-police and anti-government sites on the web…

    As for the drug argument…the only reason there are illegal drugs is because the pharmaceutical companies could not figure out a way to patent them and make a profit. So they poured their money into buying Congress to make the competition illegal.

    BULL SHIT! That’s nothing but Libertarian babble…You know what the Libertarian platform says, maybe better than I do, and you KNOW that Libertarians are trying every way they can to make ALL drugs legal…

    Our War on Drugs has expanded exponentially since the 1970s, right along with illegal drug use in this country. The way I see it, when gov’t is in charge of something the opposite happens. So my solution to the drug problem is to create a government monopoly for the sales and distribution of “illegal” drugs. Surely, that will do more damage to the Mexican drug cartels and illicit drug use than any attempt to extinguish them.

    Look, I’ll be the 1st to admit that the War on Drugs hasn’t gone all that well, but this idea that LEGALIZATION of ALL drugs, along with government regulation is just another line of Libertarian BULL SHIT, another goofy-assed attempt at back-door legalization…

    As I said, I have cut ALL ties with Libertarians, I have seen nothing but anarchy, threats of anarchy, the denigration of DEAD police officers and a call for the legalization of narcotics… Any of those items, individually, make me highly suspect, all of them put together spell MOONBAT!

  6. Robert says:

    TPP. The first statement you made about “Most popular libertarian web site” is telling. The most popular Liberal or progressive sites don’t call for violent overthrow either. It’s the outlying edges of those beliefs that do. Same with the enviro-nutjobs.

    The second part talking about the Drug war. Yep it sucks. But you can’t count the lives SAVED because drugs are illegal. IF they were legalized society would fail faster than it is now. If you look at where medicinal Marijuana is legal you will find a very low academic scorecard. Not saying its totally related but you can see the footprints.

    This is kind of what I’ve been worried about Fred, the division within the tea party based on ideological differences. Not from left to right but from right to right. Libertarians IMO are as dangerous as the “Regulate everything” libers. We must have laws, because you can’t stop stupid.

    The libertarian view of America is one without laws, the progressive view is one with more laws. I’m not for either of them.

    I’ll take COMMON SENSE solutions for 1000 Alex.

  7. TeaPartyPresident says:


    You do not understand the foundation of the libertarian principles upon which our government was founded. Law, specifically Natural Law, is the foundation of all governments. When governments abandon Natural Law or pass laws that contradict the Natural Law, they are commonly known as tyrannies.

    You’re right about the progressive view wanting more laws, but wrong on the libertarian view. The libertarian view is the modern version of what the party of Jefferson promoted, a small and limited federal government. Please explain to me which one of the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution give the federal government the authority to make any product illegal.

  8. TexasFred says:

    TPP — BULL SHIT… The Libertarian view is all about NO LAWS, NO TAXES and legal drugs for all… Screw the Libertarians and their party of stupidity… The Libertarian Party, in it’s truest intent, is THE leading anarchist group in America today…

  9. Texasperated says:

    I would call myself leaning toward the libertarian side of conservative. But I am also a Presbyterian. We believe that man is fallen and even imperfectable. One of the means we think God has given for the restraint of the bad guys is good civil government.

    I also believe along with TPP that there are way too many laws, but I disagree regarding most of our drug laws. I remember reading extensively about prohibition and while there were many problems with it, including the black market for alcohol, the problems in families and society PRIOR to prohibition were far worse than they were subsequent to prohibition. In other words, prohibition was not 100% evil even though it did give room for mobsters to get control of the liquor trade.

    There are drugs in society today that are far worse than alcohol was at its worst (1917-29). Up to now the mobsters are more or less concentrated along the Mexican border, and anyone with a modicum of military training knows that it would be fairly simple to take them out with some targeted air strikes and some tanks.

    Also, I think it may be important to point out that while the writer of the above post is the president of the Tea Party, his views do not necessarily reflect the membership’s views. It would have been a better post had he thought to include such a disclaimer. The Tea Party has four core values. I do not think the post from TeaPartyPresident reflects the concerns of the greater majority of Tea Party members.

  10. TexasFred says:

    Texasperated — One other thing, there is a HUGE difference between a Conservative little *l* libertarian and the full blown platform of Libertarianism…

    And the disclosure of TPP would have been nice too, I was hoping I wasn’t the only one to think that!

  11. Robert says:

    TPP I do understand the “Libertarian” platform just as I understand the Democrat and Republican platforms. I’ve got a little in common with ALL of them to some degree. What loses me is a good part of the libertarian view of as you said “Natural laws” some of those laws that libertarians believe as wrong, I fail to see them as wrong.

    I don’t believe the war on drugs should stop and we should legalize them I don’t like the view that cops are fascists nor do I subscribe that to the view that laws are NOT how our founders would have our nation. Some laws are needed and until the libertarians come into reality about SOME of the needed laws, they will never be a power in the USA.

  12. Malinda777 says:

    I’m likely to piss off Fred here - but he did ask my opinion??? I don’t want to be kicked out of the club house LOL for expressing my honest opinion.

    OH LORD! Did I get some experience with the Libertarians here in NV in the last POTUS election! Ron Paul actually won Nevada - and our State convention ended in chaos that quite honestly NEVER got resolved - EVEN THOUGH at the time - Ron Paul was already OUT of the picture - it was CRAZY!

    Our local GOP party is in trouble still due to Libertarians trying to take it over in slow and sly ways. I’ve often talked to some of them about WHY try to take over our party - they HAVE one - fight their fight there.

    I don’t like a lot of Libertarian views. However - some social issues are taking over and causing a huge divide in the GOP. I’m a little younger than some here - and from another generation. I AM PRO LIFE! However - I don’t think it’s my business to tell another what they have to do with their bodies…and quite frankly - some of these poor babies that end up in generational welfare homes / crack whore mothers / etc…might have ended up better with the Lord than having their lives saved to term.

    And - I AM a CONSERVATIVE - but I would have no problem with legalizing marijuana. I think it’s a lot less offensive and less dangerous than alcohol - and I’ve never known a stoned person commit a violent crime. I personally do not believe it’s a gateway drug…like I said - I come from that generation. I’ve smoked it before - I never did heroin or some other horrible drug later on??? Just saying….

    But the Libertarian views go to far for my taste - we must have law (no so much of it - CONSERVATIVE VIEW) - and anarchy of any kind is NO GOOD. The Libertarians here did a 3 part lecture on Anarcho - Capitalism - scared the shit out of me - I cannot go there…

  13. TexasFred says:

    Malinda — No pissing me off.. If that’s how you feel, that’s how you feel..

  14. TeaPartyPresident says:

    Fred, thanks for pointing out the Big “L” vs. little “l” libertarian.

    As for the Libertarian view, that is easily discoverable by anyone with the intellectual curiosity to do so.

    Just to be perfectly clear, I believe the citizens of the state of Texas, or California or any other state have every right to demand that the state government embark on a “War of Drugs.” Personally, I have seen too much damage done to friends and family as a result of excessive drug and alcohol use, to condone the use of either. That being said, I do not believe it is within the federal government’s authority to do so.

    But when we start talking about some substances being more harmful than others, well, I have to ask where do you draw the line? I could make a very cogent argument that corn and corn byproducts (and I’m not referring to whiskey) are responsible for the deaths and disability of far more Americans than all drug use combined. Should we ban corn?

    What about sugar? How many people suffer from diabetes in this country because of too much sugar in our diets. My grandfather died as a result of a diabetic coma. I have friends and relatives who are limited in their lifestyles because of diabetes.

    Perhaps we should consider banning automobiles. More people die or are injured in and by automobiles than by drug use in this country.

    How many people die or are injured by legal drugs? It’s way more than those hurt or killed by illegal drugs.

    But we don’t ban these things. We don’t ban corn, we subsidize it. We don’t ban sugar, we subsidize it. We don’t ban automobiles, we subsidize them. We don’t ban “legal” drugs, we subsidize them.

    This is the line of argument that led the libs in San Francisco to ban Happy Meals and Mayor Bloomberg to ban salt and other communities to ban trans-fats and Rowlett, TX to ban smoking in restaurants.

    Are you starting to see my point yet?

  15. TexasFred says:

    Jerry, I am DONE with this BULL SHIT conversation with you… Quite frankly, I am appalled at the hard core Libertarian propensities you exhibit… Big *L* propensities…

    And the idea of banning sugar and corn and so forth, ALL things in moderation, but just a little bit of narcotics makes you a freaking druggie…

    I am DONE with ANY part of the Libertarians and anyone that supports them, IF this is the direction that the Rowlett TEA Party is headed, I am done with it as well, my resignation will follow shortly!

  16. TeaPartyPresident says:


    I thought you wanted a little debate. Just providing fodder for the discussion, because these are similar arguments that will be made for and against ANY federal program.

  17. TexasFred says:

    Jerry — BULL SHIT.. The day I posted this, you called me and told me that you were going to attack it and I told you then, if you do I will blast the Libertarians all to hell because their platform makes everything I have said glaringly apparent…

    Don’t even TRY to say you thought I wanted debate…

Comments are closed.