G20 Pittsburgh Reports VERY TROUBLING On Many Levels



Updated June 16, 2011.

Disturbing events in Pittsburgh, PA, on September 24 and 25, 2009.

(You can read a very quick-round up and see an extra video on S. Crosnoe’s R3 site)

Disturbing events, both official and unofficial.

Disturbing….on a number of levels.

As world leaders, including America’s, President Obama, cozied up and talked about a new “order” and a new era of cooperation on such matters as salary caps for bankers, events outside were nearly as disturbing but for different reasons. A very mixed crowd had gathered to protest the G20 Summit. Discussing the composition of that crowd actually presents yet other troubling issues.

Some of the protestors were people opposed to the rising tide of globalism, New World Order rhetoric, and decisions accompanying recent meetings of world leaders. Some of the protestors were people who are mightily confused about the meaning of some words in the English language.

And a good too many of these protestors were anarchists.

Recognizing that far too many words have been losing their meanings in the last couple of years, let me define some terms. One video I saw included a group of marchers carrying a banner stating:

“No More Bailouts, No More Capitalism”

A friend watching the video at the same time noted that what he and I would think of as corporatism, the marchers are calling capitalism. We can thank the likes of public education and Michael Moore for teaching young people that capitalism is evil.

I hope that these youngsters are just confused. Capitalism is a truly free market system, based on supply and demand, wherein businesses provide products and services desired by customers at prices determined by what the market will bear. Poorly operating businesses that don’t meet the needs of their customers at competitive prices, fail to adjust to changes, make big mistakes, or in some way, mismanage their business, go out of business. They don’t get bailed out by government.

Corporatism is an element of fascism. It exists when government either strong arms, seduces, or otherwise creates an environment where business has to get into bed with politicians or figure out how to game the system in order to continue to operate profitably. Corporatism is a highly perverse, insidious system. Government doesn’t totally take business over, but it is largely calling the shots. Like some bizarre lab experiment gone awry, all kinds of Frankenstein-like creatures result.

America has, unfortunately, become very corporatist. The worst problem with such a system, of course, is that government picks winners and losers. Think “green jobs” and “energy efficient” products, for instance, and what comes to mind is a recent example of winners chosen by government.

Confusion about corporatism versus true capitalism, is among but one of the disturbing trends I noted about the G20 protests. I said there were anarchists present. I am not the only one using that word. According to some, I have my own definition of anarchy, so lest there be confusion, I wish to be perfectly clear.

I define anarchists as those wishing to set the world on fire for the sheer sake of doing so. The words anarchist and anarchy have no positive definition in my view. Anarchy is the absence of government.

Reviewing history, I find the only periods that have existed during which there was no government at all always resulted in a period of chaos followed by tyranny on varying levels. The Dark Ages come to mind. When the Roman Empire totally collapsed, there was a vacuum. Little fiefdoms crept up all over and endless cycles of tyrants and despots playing literal king of the mountain for hundreds of years.  The whole period is called the Dark Ages because civilization was set back in every possible way. The absence of government plunged the world into darkness. Anyone thinking that it is possible for human beings to relate to one another in absence of any kind of government are fooling themselves -  at best.

So anarchists were present at the protest in Pittsburgh, and from all accounts, did their level best when the sun went down on Thursday, Sept. 24 to “tear the house down” in Pittsburgh. This creature-of-the-night crime spree by anarchists is not to be confused with the peaceful protests by day of many opposed to the Summit.

But what resulted was law enforcement on steroids. While the rest of us were monitoring the mountains of nonsense coming out of the rest of government, they were clearly making other plans.  Those whispers we’ve all heard about the military and law enforcement arms of government preparing for civil unrest and potential martial law seem to be more the mere rumor. And all that new technology and muscle seemed indiscriminately aimed at whoever was protesting, regardless of whether their activities were peaceful or not.

Law enforcement armed with crowd control measures to the teeth and clad head to tow in Storm Trooper-like riot gear, unleashed every tactic imaginable on the crowd both Thursday and Friday. Shields, batons, rubber bullets, and tear gas were used liberally along with the new LRAD sonic crowd control device. As shown in the republicmedia.tv video narrated by Sam Ettaro, police announced to the crowds that their gathering was in violation of the law.

*Note: You need to click the image to watch the video.



I watched the Ettaro video with friends, one of whom pointed out that Sam’s mention of Communist China was casting aspersions on China. He had friends had lived in China for five years and had not seen anything like this. While somewhat amusing to ponder if true, that China would do less to protestors than American law enforcement, a lot of evidence exists that my friend was truly fooling himself. (Updated 6/16/11: My friend has since moved to China and lives in Beijing. I’ve seen numerous reports of protests around China, including one from the UK Guardian which reports suppression of protests, corruption, and even disappearances related to protests.)

Something I’d like to be crystal clear about – I don’t support the idea of anarchy in any way shape or form.

As noted, I don’t believe the word has a positive connotation. But I am very disturbed at the idea that in the United States of America, police could show up, announce a gathering illegal and disperse a crowd of citizens using rubber bullets, tear gas, and a sonic boom. I’m very disturbed the militarization of domestic police.

A group of three men, of the peaceful “restore the republic” variety reported on their Live Stream channel that the crowds they were part of were not violent. They fully acknowledged the troublesome vandalism carried out by anarchists on Thursday night but also described violent abuse of a peaceful crowd by police officers. I believe we have a very troubling and dangerous situation here that requires us all to pause.

On the one hand, we have anarchists, who would like nothing more than to set the world ablaze just for the sake of doing so. They have no respect whatsoever for the Constitution or civilized society. They are the people who will yell “fire!” in a crowded theater just for the sake of it. On the other hand we have equally dangerous law enforcement. Over-armed and over-reactive, this element threatens the civil liberties of peaceful citizens. They have gone and are going too far. The tension between these two sides seems headed for a collision course.

Add into the equation the New World Order world leaders, the mounting frustrations of the formerly silent majority, the Leftists clamoring for the nanny-state and I believe we have yet another unsustainable situation to deal with. How long can we go on with rising tensions?

As has become increasingly the case, one cannot turn to “mainstream media” for anything like reliable information. In a fairly comprehensive search of reportage available, the number of protestors (a common problem, media that is counting-impaired), the number of arrests, how peaceful or violent the protests overall, all varies wildly. I wish I could end on a cheery note, but I find it impossible right now.

I’ll end with a another video, which unfortunately does nothing to clear up questions, it only sparks more. A protestor from a crowd is snatched by four men in military uniforms and shoved into an unmarked car with civilian plates. This video is downright frustrating.  If you read the comments on YouTube accompanying it, there are things that just don’t add up. Such as the fact that the military uniforms are not…uniform.

Are those  men REALLY military? If so, that’s very bothersome.

If not, it is also REALLY bothersome. Are they provocateurs? If so, who for? Sophisticated anarchists, or agent provocateurs?

Staged video?

As noted, all of this is disturbing.

I’m having trouble sorting out what disturbs me the most…is it the President of my country tearing apart the notions of sovereignty and agreeing to salary caps, is it Storm Trooper like police, is it anarchists, the wild, wild disparity of media reports on these events, a gnawing sense that its impossible to get down to the truth, or that I even suspect my government of sending in agent provocateurs?

5 thoughts on “G20 Pittsburgh Reports VERY TROUBLING On Many Levels”

  1. You are sincerely uneducated if that is your definition of an anarchist. Anarchism is a legitimate political movement based on horizontal community organizing that eliminates hierarchy and coercive social relations from a truly free and cooperative society. Anarchists are not the Joker from batman. You can thank anarchist agitation for the eight hour work day and for providing a front of resistance to the global elite.

    Please don’t slander myself and millions of other people as mindless terrorists taking pleasure in chaos and suffering if you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

    1. Jesse,
      I appreciate your stopping by to read my post and for taking the the time to comment.
      I’m afraid you missed the I particularly defined anarchism as FAR AS I’M CONCERNED. I didn’t give the definition from Wikipedia or a dictionary. I said IN MY OPINION.
      I have read that some people who consider themselves anarchists are involved in a legitimate political movement. The classical, more traditional definition of this word is actually rather in conflict when used in conjunction with anything like “community organizing”. That’s the very point. A lack of organization is the meaning I was articulating. And I was very specific.

      I wouldn’t credit “anarchist agitation” for the eight hour work day. Last time I read on the subject, it was a labor movement. Was it comprised of a diverse spectrum politically? Certainly.

      Perhaps you advocate chaos, violence, and destruction of other peoples’ property. I hope not. THAT was the anarchy I defined.

      Note that I mentioned words are losing their meanings of late. One man’s anarchist, apparently is another man’s libertarian, socialist, or whatever. Again, I defined by terms I clearly stated.

      I was not slandering anyone except those who were destructive and violent, so don’t slander me because you didn’t notice I was particular in my definition.

      Finally, I notice an absence of any acknowledgment that I condemned the police actions against the protestors.

  2. I’ll also add that anarchists have ALWAYS fought fascism (and statist communism) before anybody else even begins to notice it, and anarchists are always the first to be repressed by totalitarian States. First they come for the anarchists, and YOU’RE next!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>