London Anarchy--Our future?

[Ricter]

Quote from achilles28:

I think it's a plot to vilify legitimate protest. It's not exactly a one-off thing. The same narrative has played out like clockwork for the past 10 years. Police services are well-aware of the black block and know they're responsible for the destruction and violence we see at every protest. Yet time and time again, when a fresh summit convenes, Police leave them alone. They wouldn't even go near them in Toronto. But then, after a day or so, we see mass arrests of peaceful marchers and beatings.

The rank-and-file cop follows orders. They come from the Chief, which is under the Mayor. Which may be advised by the FBI or national police services. The facts don't lie. The foot soldiers would love to round up these punks. But they have their orders. There was a big G meeting in Quebec a few years back. One of the undercover cops was exposed as a black block protester who attacked his fellow police. It's all a big game. Left-wingers dress up as tea-parties and march around demonstrations, making racial slurs and death threats, then upload it to youtube. Scott Walker admitted they considered planting right-wingers in the union protests, and have them act violently to discredit the strikers. It's the same shit over and over again. So to suggest the snow white doves in Government and politics aren't capable of lying and smearing their enemies with a little subterfuge, well, that's a bit naive, don't you think? If you do some research on it, especially the protests in Seattle, you'll see the same thing. If I recall, the City of Seattle even gave the anarchists a building to squat in after they trashed downtown. And the police left them alone. Scott free. They're protected, either from orders by the Chief or the Mayor.

Do you really believe power, ie. the right wing, has the brains and the money to make this kind of "guilt by association" thing work?

 

[Hello]

If the police truly wanted to vilify protest why would they vilify the ones who are protesting for more government? Why would they not be doing this with tea partiers who want to see the size and scope of government decreased drastically? You never see any of this stuff happening at right wing rallies, only left wing rallies.

Quote from achilles28:

I think it's a plot to vilify legitimate protest.....

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Hello:

If the police truly wanted to vilify protest why would they vilify the ones who are protesting for more government? Why would they not be doing this with tea partiers who want to see the size and scope of government decreased drastically? You never see any of this stuff happening at right wing rallies, only left wing rallies.

The Tea Party thinks the problem is essentially government and not the rich, thus they are safely diverted and not a threat to power--power can replace the faces in government. And of course you will never see management and capital protesting, because they want things to stay the same.

EDIT: and to get a bit more on point with your question... intensity of issue. The Tea Party wants smaller government. Other common forms of protest in the world today revolve around representation, food, jobs, the environment. It's kinda like if needs at the bottom of Maslow's pyramid are not being met, people get more upset than they do in comparison to unmet needs at the top of his pyramid.

 

[Hello]

This doesnt answer my question, Achilles accused the POLICE of allowing people to trash the place because the police want to villify liberal protestors. My question was why on earth a police officer would try to villify a pro government movement. These liberals want more, and larger government, so why would the police try to make those protestors look bad? Why would they do that, and not conspire against the anti-government people (a.k.a. the Tea Party)

Quote from Ricter:

The Tea Party thinks the problem is essentially government and not the rich, thus they are safely diverted and not a threat to power--power can replace the faces in government. And of course you will never see management and capital protesting, because they want things to stay the same.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Hello:

This doesnt answer my question, Achilles accused the POLICE of allowing people to trash the place because the police want to villify liberal protestors. My question was why on earth a police officer would try to villify a pro government movement. These liberals want more, and larger government, so why would the police try to make them look bad?

As he said, they take orders. Who wants no dissent, the haves, or the havenots? Demonizing protest altogether is a useful objective.

 

[Hello]

The police have power when the government has power, the more power the government has, the better it is for police. The less power the government has, the worse off the police officers are.

So why demonize pro-government movements as opposed to anti-government movements?

Quote from Ricter:

As he said, they take orders. Who wants no dissent, the haves, or the havenots? Demonizing protest altogether is a useful objective.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Hello:

The police have power when the government has power, the more power the government has, the better it is for police. The less power the government has, the worse off the police officers are.

So why demonize pro-government movements as opposed to anti-government movements?

That's way too complicated a question for Ricter, to make it easy on him maybe you should ask him the difference between shit and Shinola.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Hello:

The police have power when the government has power, the more power the government has, the better it is for police. The less power the government has, the worse off the police officers are.

This is your own politicization being projected onto the rank and file officer.

 

[Hello]

Ok, we seem to be dancing around each other, and both missing the other persons point. So i re-read what you have said, and here is a new way to compromise and make my same point.

The rich "set" the rules, meaning the rich have power over who actually creates rules. I think that is what you're getting at. However, the Police enforce these rules, and they work for the government. And the rules are the rules regardless of what side you are on at that point, it is illegal to go out in public and start breaking shit and throwing bricks through store windows, both sides play by the same rules once they are made. Its not like the right wing protestors are breaking windows and getting away with it, the right wing protestors are breaking nothing, and thus they are being left alone. The left wing is trashing the cities they protest in, and fighting for more government, so then would you agree that the Police would be serving their own best interests by being on the same side as the people who want to pay them more, and give them bigger pensions? So what im saying is while rich people may create the laws its still the left wing protestors who are serving the police officers' desire for more income. The ruls will be the rules regardless, and im pretty sure there isnt a right wing conspiracy among police officers to try to vilify left wing protestors.

Thus since the laws are already in place, is it more beneficial for a police officer to support the mob who wants them to have higher pay, or the mob who wants them to have lower pay? Why do the officers not try to run this conspiracy on anti-government protestors?

Quote from Ricter:

This is your own politicization being projected onto the rank and file officer.

 

[Petsamo]

Anarchy is anti-government. Those jackass rioters in London are pro-government, so anarchy doesn't apply.
It's a communist revolution!