Amarna Forum

I'm sure most of the users on this forum are familiar with Samuel T. Francis's term "anarcho-tyranny". For the best possible explication, I will quote from a speech of his in 1993 (Anarcho-Tyranny, USA), then some relevant passages in Leviathan and its Enemies. The basic tendency described by Francis is the “combination of oppressive government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and, simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use that power to carry out basic public duties”. A characteristic that Francis later adds is “its refusal to enforce the laws it has already enacted and to enact more laws that have no effect on real crime and that further criminalize the innocent or restrict their rights”. Even though this was a speech thirty years ago, the concept has had a persistent life, becoming one of Francis’ most significant contributions for the Right.
The concept is reinforced in Leviathan and its Enemies, tied to the managerial regime. The managerial regime, despite being victorious, is "inadequate in resolving the processes of decomposition". Because this managerial regime described in this work presides over mass organization (whether in the form of the mass state, mass culture & mass communication, etc.), and relies upon manipulation rather than intense coerciveness, it is not able to eradicate internal threats of society. The entropic forces that afflict society (i.e., high numbers of immigration without benefit, deterioration of city life, etc.) are intensified due to the composition of the managerial elite — being an elite that seeks to achieve continued social change, and ignoring national conditions in place of international ones, the steady deterioration of traditional American society is not a numero uno issue.
Despite Francis' conceptual contribution, I have reservations about placing anarcho-tyranny in this managerial context. It is certainly the case that anarcho-tyranny is a definite force in contemporary Western societies, and is a condoned state of affairs right now, but I believe there are unacknowledged historical precedents here. There are two causes that help to steer a civilization to a state of anarcho-tyranny: one cause is an abnormal expansion of personal liberties, usually reserved for specific preferred groups. Hobbes describes personal actions being “praetermitted” (Part 2, Chap. 21, Section 6) by the sovereign because said actions are of little consequence, and you could consider this to be the same for a vast expansion of permitted acts. A sovereign, a sovereign institution, etc. permits their preferred group to do things otherwise unacceptable, and this assists in creating anarchic conditions. The second cause is a direct attack against condemned groups, who usually exist before the anarcho-tyrants enter power. In this case, you find the prosecution of Daniel Penny and other upstanding citizens, an explicit attack against the regular expectations of American society. In exceptional situations, the preferred and condemned groups are always up to question, and the looming threat of punishment pervades everyday life.
This brings me to Procopius’ The Secret History. Historians today either consider it to be a work of fanciful lies, or an opportunistic text meant to save Procopius’ life in the event of regime change. Both explanations dismiss the actual claims of The Secret History, and, like The Prince being considered a “satire” at one time, I predict that this understanding of the text will vanish as well. Perhaps one of the best summations of the text, and a quote that is relevant to a discussion of anarcho-tyranny, is this:

Quote:“For when nothing is done to discourage wrongdoing, there is of course no limit to its growth: even when punishment does follow offences, it does not often put an end to them altogether”.

The work itself was a hidden history centering around the events of the Justinian Dynasty of Byzantine, and centers around Belisarius, Antonina, Justin, Justinian, and Theodora. For the sake of time, I will focus only on the latter three. Justin, who is characterized as a doddering, illiterate man, requires assistance to even write letters. This omen of an ineffectual character soon gives way to the capricious rule of Justinian. Justinian, who marries the lowly and promiscuous Theodora, takes power, and “neither faith nor doctrine about God continued stable [and] no law had any permanence”. Meanwhile, criminality became a larger and larger issue, “no longer in darkness or out of sight but at any moment of the day and in every part of the city...There was no need to keep the crimes concealed, since the criminals were not troubled by any fear of punishment”. Procopius claims that, under the rule of Justinian, “the government was indistinguishable from a tyranny — not, however, a stable tyranny but one that changed everyday and was forever starting afresh”.
Because this post is starting to get a little too long for an opening thread, I will refrain from mentioning more quotes, but I would recommend reading further into The Secret History. After reading this, I was immediately struck by the similarities between this document and the ongoing events of America. For this reason, I started to reconsider the concept of anarcho-tyranny, and wondered if there were any similar events in history where caprice and criminality reigned supreme. If anyone has any insights or other similar historical events, it would be greatly appreciated.

When thinking of anarcho-tyranny, the USSR from 1918-1940 comes to mind: 

Lenin`s USSR took a more hardline Marxist approach to criminology, adopting Marx`s own ideas re: the nature and causes of crime - crime was the result of socioeconomic factors, the concept of "guilt" in the sense that we understand it is a tool of the "bourgeois" used to oppress proles, and thus determinations about whether or not an act constituted a crime were made on the basis of whether or not the perpetrator could be considered a class traitor or harmful to the revolutionary movement, not on the basis of whether the act was "wrong" or reprehensible per se. Consequently, murderers, rapists, prostitutes, etc. were able to get away with things that would get them imprisoned in the West while law-abiding citizens could be imprisoned for life or executed for "counter-revolutionary" acts that would not be considered criminal in any contemporary non-Communist society. 

The end result of the Soviet government tailoring its policies to Marxist criminological theory was a state in which the government could not (or, rather, chose not to) protect productive, law-abiding citizens from violent criminals while refusing to prosecute actual criminals (particularly criminals under the age of 18 - of which there were many in Russia after WW1 - who were barred from being tried in court and could not be sentenced to penal institutions as the result of legislation passed in 1918); instead, it was more keen on prosecuting law-abiding citizens for "counterrevolutionary" activity, such as "social parasitism" (the crime of failing to show up to work, which was criminalized under the Soviet Constitution of `36), hate speech, failure to forfeit grain or other assets to the state, etc. In addition to this, the state was loosening up its laws regulating marriage and sex, namely making divorce easier/more accessible and decriminalizing homosexuality. This amounted to an expansion of personal liberties reserved for certain groups - criminals, women, prostitutes, and homosexuals/troons - and an attack on "condemned" groups such as non-communists, racists, kulaks.

Interestingly, it was in this same period that the USSR was continually consolidating its power and expanding its laws (and thus its control over the average person`s life), as noted by Stalin in his November 25, 1936 speech on the Soviet Constitution: "It is time we put an end to a situation in which not one but a number of bodies legislate. Such a situation runs counter to the principle that laws should be stable. And we need stability of laws now more than ever. Legislative power in the USSR must be exercised only by one body, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR." 

The Soviets` enforcement of nonsensical and tyrannical laws, put into place and used to terrorize normal people, coupled with its reluctance/refusal to prosecute actual criminals (both of which could be found amongst civilians and government officials) despite its capacity to do so, resulted in a terribly dysfunctional society. This was a society which the state, which had immense amounts of power over the people, could have easily fixed but chose not to. This is textbook anarcho-tyranny, and in many regards resembles the current state of things in the US: just as the Soviets refused to prosecute/adequately punish rapists, murders, thieves, etc. on ideological grounds but was more than happy to lock up a man for missing a day of work or for failing to hand over his crops to the local kolkhoz (collective farm), the US govt. refuses to prosecute niggers, illegals, criminals in its govt. - despite the fact that it is more than capable of doing so - while it cracks down on Americans (white people) over their online activity, participation in lawful protests, etc., which is also done on ideological grounds.

Anarcho tyranny seems like something one would expect whenever you have high-low-versus-middle and a judicial system that entrusts the prosecutor (or some other mesa-sovereign) with discretion.

Kind of hard to imagine how to formulate a system that takes it away from the prosecutors. Maybe a prediction market or para-prosecutor sector could play a role. I won't expound here because WWW policycrafting isn't the aim of this thread. Hard to create checks for prosecutors without just shifting sovereignty around- you must change its context in a simplifying, objective way.

How can we really resist this effectively? Prove that it happens objectively? Draw awareness to the strategy at its interface with the legal/judicial system and try to reform it? Go Soros mode and put our own stone cold prosecutors in? All of these seem low-leverage but plausible.

As the boomers die off we will have fewer productive whites and also fewer ideologically suicidal end-of-life enemies. I don't know the ratio, maybe the latter is outdone by fallen based boomers. There may be points in the decline where the pressure of practical reality provides leverage. The best thing you can do is make sure that the mundane flaws of statecraft persistently reinforce whatever leverage you can get at these points. Mundane flaws like an industry champion that makes a lot of money paying to keep the laws in an advantageous configuration. If it helps us survive, it isn't a flaw from our perspective.

For example, there comes a point when a large swathe of the electrical grid in america is at risk of shutting down because of incompetence and lack of older-generation talent. This could even happen even before all the boomers are dead. You could take a competent guild of geniuses you've somehow built trust between and negotiate plump consulting fees to fix the issues and carve a space for themselves. Problem is, your people need something besides USD or even gold/crypto to keep them safe from psycho prosecutors in the region they now consult in. Not everyone is getting rounded up yet, but it is still a random risk as high as 1% in the worst regions. You need a way to directly negotiate for the immunity of your consultants from prosecutors. Those you negotiate with don't officially have a way to give your people some sort of corporate sovereignty. The law is still valued as one of the last things holding everything together. Federal millennial wine aunts still hunt fascism with lawfare wherever competence lingers too prominently.

I suspect the best option is some sort of deal with native tribes to utilize their woke-recognized legally-recognized sovereignty on behalf of the company. There are small reservations scattered around the country, and tribes could plausibly make deals with nearby jurisdictions to contract their authority over specific corporations or persons bearing some relationship with the reservation/tribe even while off the reservation. Natives are a small portion of the population and will not become a much greater issue just because their tribal leaders get some nice bribes and the rezzies get slightly cleaner slums.

Maybe if the tribe owns a corporation and the brotherhood of the employees is represented through a union with a very good, exclusive contract. Maybe you could get white dudes legally transmogrified into natives- there is some degree of push to let the tribes define their membership as they prefer "because the government is trying to shirk their obligations once natives fall below the blood % threshold" or "so that natives will still exist as a culture once the blood is more diffused through other races" It is quite reasonable to match these with on site "tribal sovereign genetic testing" for sake of genetic privacy. Genetic testing isn't expensive, genetics interpretation is the expensive stuff. It is also quite reasonable that a tribe might modify their blood definition and even keep it secret. Since "just because I look 100% white doesn't mean I'm not native" is woke accepted (and sorta the reality of 1/16th recessive phenotypes) suspicion of tribal identity fraud is itself a borderline hate crime prosecutors may be enticed to punish without violating woke culture.

I suspect that existing self-interested parties in the system cultivate some of these neurotic inconsistencies in the woke theories of native sovereignty and universal equality for later strategic use.

(06-16-2023, 11:36 AM)GraalChud Wrote: [ -> ]...

Great example. The USSR vis-a-vis crime resembles our time more than the example of Procopius in the original post. While we're at it, it could be surmised that other Asiatic Marxist movements have the greatest potential of achieving anarcho-tyranny — perhaps Cultural Revolution era Maoism? I am wondering now if Pol Pot's regime could be another fitting example, but as my knowledge on the subject is lacking, it's only an educated guess for the time being.

This post is a good demonstration of what happens when you only use Nrx blog posts and assumptions to understand legal and social systems.

(06-16-2023, 01:27 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]I suspect the best option is some sort of deal with native tribes to utilize their woke-recognized legally-recognized sovereignty on behalf of the company. There are small reservations scattered around the country, and tribes could plausibly make deals with nearby jurisdictions to contract their authority over specific corporations or persons bearing some relationship with the reservation/tribe even while off the reservation. Natives are a small portion of the population and will not become a much greater issue just because their tribal leaders get some nice bribes and the rezzies get slightly cleaner slums.

I'll highlight this stupid thought in particular with actual history and the law as it stands with one of the best books I have found on Anarcho Tyranny which I highly recommend everyone to read on the subject.

Christopher Caldwell's The Age Of Entitlement Wrote:“Diversity”—the governing principle, as distinct from the abstract noun—was introduced by the U.S. Supreme Court, almost accidentally, in 1978. It was a moment of mortal peril for affirmative action, the main avenue through which civil rights law was changing the country’s public and private institutions.

Allan Bakke’s application to the medical school at the University of California, Davis, had been rejected twice. The school blamed his age. Bakke, who had served in Vietnam as a Marine captain and worked as a NASA engineer, was 33 when he applied. He himself blamed the university’s “task force program,” an affirmative action program that set aside spots for 16 minority students in every class of 100.

Bakke’s scores on the multi-part Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) would normally have won him admission to even the most elite medical schools. They were in the 96th, 94th, 97th, and 72nd percentiles. The averages for Davis admittees were 69, 67, 82, and 72. The averages for minorities admitted through the university’s set-aside program were 34, 30, 37, and 18.

California judges ordered Bakke admitted and the special program scrapped as racially discriminatory. The university appealed the case to the Supreme Court. Eight of the nine justices voted to uphold Bakke’s admission. But the court deadlocked on political lines when it came to the affirmative action program that had deprived him of admission. That such programs discriminated, by reallocating opportunities from whites to blacks and other minorities, was obvious. It was their whole point. The justices were concerned with how the programs discriminated, and on what grounds. Four accepted the California court’s view that affirmative action had turned into an upside-down Jim Crow—something repugnant to American conceptions of equality. But four accepted Lyndon Johnson’s description of American society as a footrace to which one runner had arrived shackled—on that basis, they could countenance some infringement on whites’ individual rights in order to fix a society-deforming wrong.

Justice Lewis Powell wrote a decision that tried to reconcile the two sides. He accepted the logic of his colleagues who found affirmative action appalling but voted with his colleagues who found it appealing. He thought it was wrong to penalize an individual like Bakke as a means of “compensation for past discrimination.” He thought admitting people on the basis of racial quotas was wrong. But he thought it would be okay for UC Davis to achieve the same result by filling its slots the way Harvard’s undergraduate admissions program did—not through quotas but through a “new definition of diversity” that allowed administrators to use race as a “plus factor.”

Powell’s suggestion that Harvard College’s experience of affirmative action might serve as a model for provincial public professional schools was, to put it mildly, confused. The basic problem that affirmative action existed to solve was a shortage of blacks qualified to fill leadership positions. With its wealth and prestige, Harvard would have an easier time attracting and forming such people than any other institution in the world.

Affirmative action’s most ingenious defender, the Anglo-American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin, saw immediately that Powell had mistaken a constitutional question for an administrative one. “The handicap [used in the diversity-based admissions system that Powell proposed] and the partial exclusion [used in the quota-based one he overturned] are only different means of enforcing the same fundamental classifications,” Dworkin wrote. “In principle, they affect a white applicant in exactly the same way—by reducing his overall chances—and neither is, in any important sense, more ‘individualized.’ ”
Powell’s opinion, in short, did not eliminate quotas. It just dressed them up as something else. It required all schools that used racial preferences to recast them as programs to promote their interest in the diversity of their student bodies. That was an interest that many universities had not realized they had. Yes, some liberal-arts schools had gone out of their way to admit, say, musicians and athletes—but it was not something that professional schools did. Nor was it the kind of diversity the justices meant. Admitting blacks on this basis was now a legal requirement.

Until then, most social thinkers in the Western tradition had considered diversity of the sort Powell contemplated not a condition of citizens’ rights but rather an obstacle to them: “Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities,” wrote John Stuart Mill in his Considerations on Representative Government. Mill would have expected that the more loudly a country professed its commitment to diversity, the less tolerance it would have for actual dissent.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had permitted the federal government to withhold funding from school boards and other entities found to have discriminated. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (later the Department of Education) had been tasked with deciding when such cutoffs were justified. But within a decade it had invented a new task for itself that was at some remove from the one the statutes had given it. The OCR was now writing detailed standards for racial balance that courts accepted as grounds for ordering injunctive relief. Those standards were called quotas in 1970 and diversity after 1990. What is more, the OCR model was “cloned” in one federal agency after another. Since repairing race relations was taken as an emergency, the safeguards that had been in place to prevent abuses in regulation writing—from traditions of “notice and comment” to newer applications of the Administrative Procedure Act—were never applied.

That innovation caused civil rights law to work in a very different way from laws in the past. For instance, no law required busing to desegregate schools, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act seemed to forbid it. But after 1966, the Justice Department’s OCR issued guidelines that set percentage targets for black student populations and opened the door to busing. Federal courts treated these guidelines as if they were law itself, and called on lower courts to follow future guidelines, which could only embolden the OCR. So without the participation—or even the knowledge—of the broad, non-lawyerly public, progressive legal projects ricocheted from bureaucrats to judges and back, growing more ambitious and onerous with each bounce. A net of regulatory power soon constrained “the conduct of nearly every employer, school and unit of state and local government in the country,” as the political scientist R. Shep Melnick put it.

Affirmative action was unpopular. As most Americans saw it, it was unfair. But until Bakke it had at least been morally intelligible to a broad public: It sought to atone and compensate for slavery and Jim Crow. No lesser task would have justified giving the government such powerful, arbitrary, and constitutionally dubious tools. Bakke altered that rationale. Racial preference was meant to remedy not past but present discrimination. If there was no evidence of such discrimination, it could only be because the whites who held power were hiding it. They were practicing racism deviously, underhandedly—or, at the very least, unwittingly.

In short empowerment of the worst IS and has always been the point and there are no outs for white people. This can be seen in what should rank as one of the worst acts of Anarcho Tyranny in the 20th century integration and in particular the program of school busing. I'll now quote from a article on the subject from the 90s when there was a slight thaw to discuss such issues along with looking back at then recent events.

https://www.hoover.org/research/busings-boston-massacre

Matthew Richer, Busing’s Boston Massacre Wrote:"Eighty percent of the people in Boston are against busing," said Mayor Kevin White. "If Boston were a sovereign state, busing would be cause for a revolution." On the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Arthur Garrity ruled over Boston like a reincarnated King George. In the school system, his word was law and integration without representation had become the new tyranny.

According to Common Ground, by J. Anthony Lukas, when White was warned of impending violence at an anti-busing march, he telephoned Garrity at his home to see if he would ban the march. But Garrity refused to speak to the mayor because he considered a call to his personal residence "inappropriate." "That arrogant ass!" White reportedly said. "He issues his damn order, then retires to his suburban estate and refuses to talk with the only guy who can make it work." After the mayor called Garrity’s home a second time, the judge made White a co-defendant in the case.

An exhausted White later appeared in Garrity’s courtroom and implored him to deploy federal marshals to help safeguard public order. But Garrity dismissed the mayor’s plea and insisted that "integration in the schools can be achieved by community efforts." The judge was apparently less confident in community efforts to safeguard his own home in Wellesley, however, as two deputy federal marshals stood guard there around the clock. Nor did Garrity’s faith in local government extend to South Boston High, where he micromanaged everything from student transfers to ordering the purchase of 12 MacGregor basketballs.

"Sometimes when I look out this window," White reportedly said to an aide during one hellish day at the office, "I see Belfast out there." Police had to escort and unload buses at several Boston high schools every morning and afternoon while snipers stood guard on the surrounding rooftops. Metal detectors were installed and troopers patrolled the cafeterias, hallways, and stairwells, and still racial brawls broke out daily. Garrity also ordered equal numbers of black and white police officers to guard the schools, provoking racial hostility even within the police force. "It’ll be lucky if the Boston police don’t kill each other before the day is out," said one state trooper at the time. For three years, as many as 300 state police officers a day patrolled South Boston High. One teacher compared the school to a prison: "We can’t leave school, we can’t come early or on the weekends to do preparatory work. We are like prisoners. Everyday when I get up, it’s like getting up to go to prison."

In some 400 orders, Garrity meddled in every aspect of the Boston Public Schools. He placed South Boston High into federal receivership and fired its popular principal. He decreed rigid racial quotas in faculty and administrative hiring. When one elementary school was converted to a middle school, Garrity issued an order requiring the urinals to be raised.

Of course it goes without saying it is now forbidden to ever consider the above wrong or compare it to King George(Who only oppressed a bunch of drunk no good libertarian slave owners!). Which brings me to my last thought this is not a inbuilt defect of the great system built by the English and their heirs its the results of a system that has been hijacked. The law being enforced or not or abused or not is a deliberate choice-but I don't want to hog the thread and the above should indicate what I mean(Read James Q. Wilson).

I get some of what you are saying. Obviously the big issue with my "stupid thought" is that it depends on precedent that doesn't exist and would need to be manufactured. The fundamental conceit of my argument is that there will come a point where the government wants to let people get away with being at odds with the state ideology as long as they are competent for sake of stability, even if they would never endorse such a thing. Like the widespread development of mundane black markets in the soviet union, and their eventual legalization. If you have a good reason why this sort of pressure of circumstances won't apply to the regime in america, I am all ears.

Besides the general context showing very severe tyranny, the quotes show that true enemy bureaucracies can bootstrap big responses with violence- even locally sourced- with little justification. Precedent can be distorted and generalized. Nobody cares about sovereignty in practice when they actually want to enforce something. Federal Judges can assume a lot of local control, and hence neither need to have any roots in a region nor suffer from practical consequences of mandatory incompetence. They can even get the local zogbots to obey them because they are a judge, even when the vast majority of their peers oppose the orders as a matter of safety for their kids.

The only counterargument that I can deploy against the martial component is that when people are sleeping in the cold and haven't had twitter access for a good while they might not prioritize enforcing the will of the judge against a technician over their HVAC. I know that other places pulled in the national guard, so if they manage to apply that to the example situation then the self interest from having roots in the region goes out the window.

I suppose a better example would be something that affects the lifestyles of the judges etc themselves more pointedly and sooner, like lack of competent pilots or some other aspect of regime-approved luxury. Better chance of attaining some sort of immunity through legal tricks when the leverage impacts their lifestyle in a way they can't more easily replace with a substitute.

Looking at James Q Wilson's books are there any you recommend? I will default to Bureaucracy.

(06-16-2023, 11:55 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]I get some of what you are saying. Obviously the big issue with my "stupid thought" is that it depends on precedent that doesn't exist and would need to be manufactured. The fundamental conceit of my argument is that there will come a point where the government wants to let people get away with being at odds with the state ideology as long as they are competent for sake of stability, even if they would never endorse such a thing. Like the widespread development of mundane black markets in the soviet union, and their eventual legalization. If you have a good reason why this sort of pressure of circumstances won't apply to the regime in america, I am all ears.

A constant nightmare of mine is America basically becomes Brazil where most of the country is a squalid hell but the establishment can coast along and simply takes helicopters to get into the office without being kidnapped. Or a more extreme example is South Africa where you can see the ruling African National Congress oversee society transition to candlelight because selling things off is the highest duty. This is why I recoiled so harshly because even bending things in their framework in that way to me is to concede to go from kulaks to permanent maintenance men. Not good enough.

There's only one writing I recommend from Wilson to get his efforts: https://www.city-journal.org/article/mak...ce-swifter
The reason I brought him up is he among others reversed one of the most baleful trends after the 60s due to racial policy-his ideas on fighting crime are likely one of the best turnarounds this country has had since then(Being undone of course since 2015 sadly). His fight showcases a struggle between reform(Wilson despite his posthumous reputation was a solid DNC liberal in voting record) and the party to strangle the golden goose and step over from liberalism into pure politics of the mass. As I said I find it interesting above all because it shows nothing-even America's(And the wider West's) straight from hell cities are "natural". Important if you are to understand Anarcho Tyranny.

(12-31-1999, 07:00 PM)NuclearAbsolutist Wrote: [ -> ]this is not a inbuilt defect of the great system built by the English and their heirs its the results of a system that has been hijacked. The law being enforced or not or abused or not is a deliberate choice

I made sure to digest some of the material that you referenced in this post and gave due reflection to it. Some of the issues inherent within civil rights, affirmative action, etc., seem to be a recurring issue in American history, but the manifestation of it from the '60s onward are comparatively unique in the worst way. One thing that I recently remembered (that Nightmare Vision made a thread about on twatter) was Stanley Horn's Invisible Empire: The Story of the Ku Klux Klan 1866-1871. In this time of Reconstruction, members like the all-black Union League/Loyal League would be "armed to the teeth, prowled the country at all times, and the white people were increasingly terrified". Whenever Whites would protest, the negroes would reply "'they had the charter from the government at Washington, right direct,and they had the right to guard and they intended to do so.'" Another impactful quote:

Quote:Aside from the physical menace of the armed and truculent negroes, the principal grievance of the Southern people at this time was the
quality of the office-holders under whose rule they were forced to live without having a voice in their selection. The almost unbelievable ignorance and incompetency of some of the negro officials foisted onto the people by the Reconstruction regime was well illustrated by a specimen of a release written by a North Carolina deputy United States marshal which was introduced in the testimony of one of the witnesses appearing before the committee in that state:

              Linconton November the 2 day 1871
This is to surtifi that John Doe was Rain By Mea Beefore the
u. s. comishner R. P. Vest at the coat Hous at Lincoton of
Bein Berlongin to the inviserl Emphire and was Dischard of the
vilatin of the act of Congress charged in the With in Warrant.
This 2 day of November, 1871.
              Thomas W. Womble, D. P. Marshall.

The struggle involved between the American iteration of anarcho-tyranny and White society is longstanding, and the civil rights regime that has been instituted around the '60s is the final result. The discussion of affirmative action and diversity quotas hearkens back to the Reconstruction regime of illiterate office-holders in the same way that the criminal element of today resembles the criminal oppression inherent to Reconstruction. There could be a hidden whitepill in this discussion, given that the Ku Klux Klan could stir up popular support and launch a rebellion against the regime (perhaps accelerating its demise).

(06-16-2023, 02:15 PM)JohnTrent Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-16-2023, 11:36 AM)GraalChud Wrote: [ -> ]...

Great example. The USSR vis-a-vis crime resembles our time more than the example of Procopius in the original post. While we're at it, it could be surmised that other Asiatic Marxist movements have the greatest potential of achieving anarcho-tyranny — perhaps Cultural Revolution era Maoism? I am wondering now if Pol Pot's regime could be another fitting example, but as my knowledge on the subject is lacking, it's only an educated guess for the time being.

This is worth investigating. 

I`d imagine (my guess is as good as yours, as this subject matter is not one that I`m well-versed in) that there would be many similarities between the USSR and Cultural Revolution-era China in that: 

1) Both were large states in which there were large swathes of un-policed/under-policed land (which would most likely facilitate crime by way of presenting opportunities for criminals to either: 1) commit crimes in more densely populated areas and then flee to rural areas, which lacked a police presence; or 2) commit crimes in these sparsely populated areas because they are under-policed).

2) Both had an ideological basis for failing to prosecute criminals while cracking down on normal people (Marxist criminology, though whether Mao was as much of a hardliner on this as was Lenin is something I do not know, and Communism more generally).

3) Both were powerful states with a massive police and intelligence apparatuses and the capacity to prevent crime and run a healthy society that comes with this.

It would seem as though factor 2 - which we know the USSR definitely had and used to justify its actions - would be dispositive in making a good guess as to whether CR-era China was an anarcho-tyrannical state, as the other 2 factors were unquestionably present in both states and created conditions that were perfect for the rise of an anarcho-tyrannical state (as evidenced by the fact that these conditions set the stage for one in the USSR). Assuming that Mao`s regime during the CR had the same stance on crime/criminology/criminal justice as did Lenin and pre-WW2 Stalin, it would probably be safe to assume that it was an anarcho-tyrannical state (until somebody actually puts in the work and figures out whether or not this is true or if it was just baseless speculation on our part).

(06-19-2023, 03:17 PM)JohnTrent Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-31-1999, 07:00 PM)NuclearAbsolutist Wrote: [ -> ]this is not a inbuilt defect of the great system built by the English and their heirs its the results of a system that has been hijacked. The law being enforced or not or abused or not is a deliberate choice

I made sure to digest some of the material that you referenced in this post and gave due reflection to it. Some of the issues inherent within civil rights, affirmative action, etc., seem to be a recurring issue in American history, but the manifestation of it from the '60s onward are comparatively unique in the worst way. One thing that I recently remembered (that Nightmare Vision made a thread about on twatter) was Stanley Horn's Invisible Empire: The Story of the Ku Klux Klan 1866-1871. In this time of Reconstruction, members like the all-black Union League/Loyal League would be "armed to the teeth, prowled the country at all times, and the white people were increasingly terrified". Whenever Whites would protest, the negroes would reply "'they had the charter from the government at Washington, right direct,and they had the right to guard and they intended to do so.'" Another impactful quote:

This American tradition reemerged with the Blackstone Rangers in Chicago (MLK's bodyguards in Chitown) & Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. The Kennedy Democrat truckler Sargeant Schriver gave those drug pushers a million grant when he headed the Office for Economic Opportunity. (https://foxhillreview.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/sargent-shriver-gangland-financier/)  Farrakhan's organization was allowed to act as a security patrol across a variety of cities' public housing projects and slums before enough groups kvetched (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-...story.html) (https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm...story.html). Nowadays the Bureau of Prisons has contracted to shore up the literacy of their incarcerated populations (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/polit...-prisoners).

If I scoured Wilmot Robertson's Instauration archive I can find more garish examples. There's countless example of chicanery like this eminating out of the Ford & Rockefeller foundations.