« Crooked Congressman Proposes Concentration Camps | Main | The Rangel Rule »

February 3, 2009

Anarchy + Communism = Moonbattery

It used to confuse me that 20-something adolescents in black clothes with bugs in their hair call themselves anarchists while espousing a communist ideology by which the State provides everything for free at someone else's expense. If anarchy is no government, and communism is absolute enslavement to government, that would make them opposites, right?

But these opposites attract, merging with toxic synergism to form something still more pernicious and depraved, a grotesque ideology that scholars of political pathology call moonbattery. To see it on display, refer to America's most liberal city:

Tasha Flowers, a Detroit single mom, broke into a foreclosed home in a fancy Detroit neighborhood and squatted there with her SEVEN children. When police came to escort her and the family out, it was done nicely and orderly, according to neighbors and witnesses from the Neighborhood Association. But Flowers filed a lawsuit against Detroit Police claiming that Detroit Police beat her and her family (they have no pictures or hospital records, according to reports), and that they came to "her" house the next day to apologize, along with gift cards to Walmart and Target and $100.

The marriage of anarchy and communism produces such hideous offspring that people would rebel against it — if they were informed of its extent. That's where the moonbat media comes in. To continue:

But that's not how the Detroit media — both newspapers, the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit Newsistan — covered it. … From the way they "report," er … regurgiatate it, you'd never know that this was a foreclosed home that Ms. Flowers didn't own, nor did she belong in it, and that she was a squatter. They don't even report the real reason why police were there — ie., to escort her out. …
Even worse, many national media outlets picked up on their phony stories, including the Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, etc., all of whom reported on the alleged Detroit police brutality, and none of whom reported that this woman is a squatter.

Anarchy means you don't have to work to buy a home; you can just squat in someone else's. Communism means you can sue taxpayers for $millions when the police throw you out. Moonbattery means the media takes your side.

On a tip from Steve G.

Posted by Van Helsing at February 3, 2009 7:27 AM


More outrages from a bunch of greedy scoundrels and dirty rotten law firms of VULTURE,BUZZARD,HYENA,SLUG,SNAKE, we need real tort reform but with the demacrook party we wont get any. AND LET US THE FIRST THINGS WE DO LET US KILL ALL THE LAWYERS

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at February 3, 2009 8:07 AM

broke into a foreclosed home in a fancy Detroit neighborhood

A "fancy Detroit neighborhood?" What is that? One where crack dealers wear tuxedos and top hats?

Posted by: V the K at February 3, 2009 8:41 AM

V, you're always picking up on things that my eyes race over, like "what part of Obama is in you?" HAHAHAHA Thanks for the service.

My God, the stupid media. Don't they even know how to sceptical? My gut response is to be sceptical with something like this.

Posted by: Karin at February 3, 2009 9:21 AM

This is only the beginning. I really think this is headed for a race/civil war. Forty years of pandering to lazy asses in the ghetto poverty plantation allowing several generations to grow up thinking they've been "kept down by the Man" has now manifested itself with the election of Barry.

I'll wager that there's alot more of this outright theft going on than hits the news today. I'll also wager that the number of major purchases that immediately default for payment skyrockets with the miscreant daring "whitey" to come and take it back.

The worst part is that the straight-arrow colored folks I've served in the military with and worked alongside in civilian life will get tarred by this brush. Shame. Shame. Shame.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at February 3, 2009 12:08 PM

This is only the beginning. I really think this is headed for a race/civil war.

so what your saying is that Charles Manson and the Family were right, they just were offsides early in the play...

and V,
no no no, its where everyone dresses like huggy bear... though WHICH huggy bear? and is there really a difference? or

and to honestly answer the race/civil war thing... that doesnt happen any more... that can only happen in states where the state is too weak to enforce by force... in a more powerful state, the action is called a coupe... basically they tear the place apart, and everyone says to stop, but it gets worse... then someone steps forward, like obama, and asks them to stop, and like magic it does... and the rest is what they call history as the people side with the one that delivered them from the chaos (into the fire).

Posted by: artfldgr at February 3, 2009 4:24 PM

here in portland we just call them the "professional" protesters.... they are why we have sam adams, and the former mayors rode with hte bike nazis and trey arrow was catered to on a ledge down town...

Posted by: gomergirl at February 3, 2009 10:47 PM

If anarchy is no government, and communism is absolute enslavement to government, that would make them opposites, right?

It used to confuse me too.

I think the explanation is that moonbats want the (supposed) benefits of the communist state - free stuff for themselves - and thus support that part of communism. But, on the flipside, they don't want to participate in the labour that drives the capitalist economy, and thus espouse anarchy to destroy it. The strangest part is that they somehow fail to make the connection that the free stuff they want from the state is also provided by labour and a structured economy. In fact, that is pretty much what my definition of socialism would be: free stuff, but without an economy supporting it. At least communists in practice have generally been cognizant of the need to work for the benefit of the state - socialists don't even want to do that much.

Posted by: mandible claw at February 4, 2009 2:55 AM


its not odd... what your seeing is parasites battling host for supremecy.

the parasites are incomplete, thats their gig, exploiting the other to complete them and their function.

the problem is when they think that they are the same as the otehr.

parasites aer cargo cult, they take shortcuts,they hate merit..

the reason is that if they could function like a whole, then they wouldnt be parasites.

socialism a politic designed by a parasite to create rule by parasites who dont work...

the anarchsts mistake is that they think the enemy of my enemy is my friend... see how well that went for hitler with stalin...

the parasite cant see that the only way for them to live well, is to live as a parasite and leave the hosts alone to produce...

one only needs to see a moose with a quarter million ticks on it to understand what ahppens...

the body gets anemic, the ticks multiply and they cause the decline. but they are parasites, that living style and debasement is like mud to pigs, they like it.

the hosts though, which are the producers, they are competent, have merit... they dont lie... they can produce... sl all the nasty things are not things they need.

which is why parasitical forms tend to want to capture their customers!!! busineses run this way, like verizon, and large state symbiots, capture customers, milk them, they dont like them.

parasites HATE the hosts
symbionts love the hosts.

women use to be symbionts, socialism makes them parasites. so now women hate the men...

dumb people and infirm, and the fringe often find that they live better in oppressive conditions, but they dont find out till they are ion their own..

in case you didnt notice, they have not actually gone on their own... they cant... their success is their incompleteness... its a shortcut...

so rather than actually throw off the host, they can only switch hosts... and marx saw that, and marx realized that by changing the symbiont to a parasite, the parasite will look for a better host. the most powerful and largest host to suck on is the state, and so the women move frmo the symbiotic protective relationships they had and the happyness thy ave, to realignign with a parasite.... so women are now a parasite on the back of a parasite which uses these others to justify its actions against hosts.


Posted by: Artfldgr at February 4, 2009 11:56 AM