Title: Exposing Adam Kokesh AND making some fine pancakes while doing it. Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Jun 29, 2013 Author:f Post Date:2013-06-29 09:51:50 by PSUSA2 Keywords:None Views:495 Comments:38
Adam Charles Kokesh is an American libertarian anti-war activist, podcaster, and anarcho-capitalist.
Well, ya, he's a lunatic.
Oh, I see from wiki he's Jewish, which I suspected from his rat-like face. My jewdar is improving.
TotalFascism has it right:
Adam Kokesh is simply fulfilling his genetic program by promoting this divisive, pointless and childish doctrine of anarchism to the masses of basement dwelling potheads. He is also able to embrace his biological hatred for actual work by getting stoned and rambling incoherently while asking for donations and hocking “precious” metals and various other snake oil scams. Once again, it is silly to consider what sort of a thing is going through the mind of a Jew. He might believe that he believes this. I certainly do not think his stupidity is faked.
He might believe that he believes this. I certainly do not think his stupidity is faked.
He's not stupid. He just has a little group of followers in his personality cult that he can manipulate for his own ends, and maybe for the PTBs ends. He's a mini-me to Alex Jones's Dr Evil.
What anarchists fail to understand is that some government is necessary. But how to keep the psychopaths out?
Definition of ANARCHIST 1 : a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power 2 : a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
Now some define themselves as anarchist by adding a modifier to the word, perhaps because it's the edgy thing to do and they want to seem more intellectual and therefore cool, and it helps with who to invite for their circle-jerks by keeping The Others out, but my definition is correct, like it or not.
Definition of ANARCHIST 1 : a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power 2 : a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
You are relying on a very narrow and biased definition of the term.
Anarchists believe that initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another is wrong.
And before you disagree, you should realize that black-clad protesters in Seattle breaking windows or those protesting globalism by throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails are not true anarchists.
Nearly every case of violence and mayhem at these protests can be laid on the shoulders of fed.gov agents provocateur.
To those challenged by complexity — such as radio talk show hosts and cable-TV "newscasters" who are convinced that all political opinions can be confined to the categories of "liberal" and "conservative" — the word anarchy evokes an unfocused fear of uncertain forces.
Images of bomb-throwing thugs who smash and burn the property of others are routinely conjured up by politicians and the media to frighten people into an extension of police authority over their lives. "Disorder" and "lawless confusion" are common dictionary definitions of this word.
That there have been some, calling themselves "anarchists," who have engaged in violence on behalf of their political ambitions, is not to be denied. Nor can we overlook the provocateuring occasionally engaged in by undercover policemen — operating under the guise of "anarchists" — to justify harsh reprisals against political protests.
But to condemn a philosophic viewpoint because a few wish to corrupt its meaning for their narrow advantage is no more justifiable than condemning Christianity because a man murders his family and defends his acts on the grounds "God told me to do it!"
Are there murderers, kidnappers, rapists, and arsonists in our world? Of course there are, and there will always be, and they do not all work for the state.
It is amazing that, with all the powers and money conferred upon the state to "protect" us from such threats, they continue to occur with a regularity that seems to have increased with the size of government!
Because of the disingenuous manner in which this word has been employed, I endeavor to be as precise in my use of the term as possible. I employ the word "anarchy" not as a noun, but as a verb. I envision no utopian community, no "Galt's Gulch" to which free men and women can repair.
I prefer to think of anarchy as a way in which people deal with one another in a peaceful, cooperative manner; respectful of the inviolability of each other's lives and property interests; resorting to contract and voluntary transactions rather than coercion and expropriation as a way of functioning in society.
Anarchy in its purest form is based on peaceful behavior and voluntaryism in a stateless society, while government is based on aggression, theft, force, and deceit. These two systems are completely opposite.
The only moral social system worth having has to adhere to the ideas of non-aggression, private property, free and voluntary exchange, and self-responsibility. This ideology is based entirely on the individual as sovereign.
A political order where the individual is not sovereign, such as what we have now in this country, is the type of system that eventually leads to tyranny and serfdom. We are already far along in that process.
OK, but that is a personal definition that's not based on reality but on his wishes.
"A political order where the individual is not sovereign, such as what we have now in this country, is the type of system that eventually leads to tyranny and serfdom. "
That's the problem.
Is the solution to throw everything out and then replace it with nothing? Not everyone is as nice and peaceful as we all are, and they have to be taken care of, which is a legitimate function of government. This utopianism doesn't take any of that into account.
Even getting rid of the kikes wouldn't end all problems.