Over the past week, Americans have been treated to the spectacle of rioting and looting that has engulfed dozens of our major cities. One thing that many of them didn’t recognise until this started, however, is the widely spread regimen of anarchotyranny that accompanies, and will continue to accompany, the response on the parts of the elites in power to these riots. Many have criticised Democratic mayors and governours for weakness in the face of the rioting, but that actually miscomprehends what it taking place. Rather, these politicians have purposefully been softpedaling their responses to the crises in their cities because they are using the rioting as a form of anarchotyranny to advance the progressive agenda in ways which the traditional legislative process had been failing to do and which they hope will quell any opposition to the imposition of that agenda. Indeed, in less overt ways, progressives have been doing this for years prior to the death of Fentanyl Floyd and the riots being given in his memory.
So what exactly is “anarchotyranny”? To give a succinct definition, anarchotyranny is the unequal enforcement of laws that serves a systematic ideological strategy, but which is not openly presented as such to those who endure it, hence, giving them a false impression of equal treatment until they find out the hard way. As such, it differs from the sort of kafkaesque system in which a person is punished in an impenetrable maze of arbitrarily and unequally enforced rules, but the reasons for which are byzantine and impenetrable. Likewise, anarchotyranny is not the sort of situation, such as Jim Crow in the American South, in which inequality is systematically present, but which is widely known and understood by all involved. Instead, anarchotyranny involves subtle (yet sometimes rapid) shifts in the way laws are enforced and involves a good deal of manipulation of procedural outcomes from those who are doing the shifting. Indeed, the process is often associated with literally revolutionary changes in a society, during which one ideological regime is being replaced by another, and adherents to the former regime are punished for trying to operate under the old rules by those who are instituting the new.
The obvious example from the past couple of years is the way in which policing has been changing to accommodate the criminal proclivities of many black males. Let’s begin by laying out some facts about this issue. Despite being responsible for a disproportionately larger share of violent crime per capita, black men are actually less likely to be killed by a police officer than white men are. Contrary to the BLM talking point about police brutality being “the everyday experience of black men,” black males are actually in little danger of being brutalised by police, and there is simply no epidemic of police brutality against black men. In fact, between 2017 and 2020, more whites were killed by police each year than either blacks or Hispanics (in fact, in 2017 and 2018, more whites were killed than blacks and Hispanics combined), despite both of those groups being disproportionately over-represented among those who have “workplace interactions” with police officers. Does that mean that police brutality never happens? Of course not. Indeed, I tend to think that the case of George Floyd’s recent death is a genuine case of such. But what it does mean is that the whole BLM talking point (and hence, much of the wider justification for the ongoing protests-that-inevitably-become-riots) is without real factual merit.
None of this really matters, of course, to the progressive Left’s intersectionality alliance since they’re not really interested in “justice for George Floyd.” Instead, their aim is to systematically undermine the rule of law system that is based upon Anglo-Saxon common law. As I’ve noted elsewhere, most blacks in America view this system as an imposition upon them because it implicitly enforces white norms of behaviour (because the USA is a country founded by white people, obviously) instead of those derived from the generalised African cultural patterns that they still retain after 300 years in America. Progressives also desire to subvert this rule of law system since it is based on a bowdlerised Christian substructure and protects regressive institutions like property and the family, both of which are competitors with the progressive state for the affections of the people. Hence, blacks form the perfect tool which progressives can weaponise against existing “white male power structures” (something which has been literally taking place in the current riots).
So what the Left wants to do is delegitimise this rule of law, as well as those who still operate under the expectation that it will be normative in this country.
Now the important thing to remember is that the Left, despite the street-level chants, doesn’t actually want to abolish the police. After all, the Cathedral still needs enforcers. What it wants to do is abolish policing, which is a very different matter. More specifically, it wants to abolish policing that adversely affects the black clients who enjoy Blue Cathedral’s patronage. This is why you can now apparently be fired for calling the police on a black man who menaces you and tries to steal your dog in a public park. It’s why Gregory and Travis McMichael were arrested for trying to protect their neighbourhood from a serial robber who had been observed frequently poking around on other peoples’ property. In the new order, black males are to be exempted from laws against crime, but you’ll be socially prosecuted (at the very least) for acting on your assumptions that the rule of law and defence of property are still a thing.
This is a textbook example of anarchotyranny. The laws no longer apply equally in the way that they once had, and for the purpose of overthrowing the former ideological order and replacing it with the new. Middle-class white people and their “adjacents” operate under a certain set of social and legal assumptions that increasingly do not exist in many places.
Another example that is probably going to become a huge fracture point in the not-too-distant future if civil disorder continues is that of self-defence, even within your own home. Throughout the last week, BLM and Antifa mouthpieces have been systematically trying to delegitimise armed self-defence against looters. In a sick sort of way, the outrage from the Left on social media over local residents taking up arms to protect their local communities is humourous. It’s very clear that progressives are more disturbed by the idea of regular citizens preventing thugs from looting and burning than they are by the actual looting and burning. They’ll go so far as to label anyone a “white supremacist” who successfully deters looting in their own community. Indeed, the term “white supremacist” has come to form, during the riots, an ideological signaling device that helps progressives to identify and target class enemies, even for something as innocuous as asserting that “all lives matter.” In progressive jurisdictions like Minneapolis, protecting your property with deadly force gets you arrested, while it won’t (for the time being) in the somewhat more conservative Omaha.
The whole point is to create an anarchotyrannical end run around private property and legitimate self-defence. The Left has been having a very difficult time getting gun control consistently implemented through the various legislatures and the court system (all the way up to SCOTUS). As a result, they’ve changed tactics and are attempting to undermine the effective ability to exercise your second amendment rights. That’s why they’re so big on pushing “red flag” laws where the accusation of guilt or “mental instability” (itself very nebulously defined) is all that’s needed to confiscate firearms while the (often spurious) complaint works its way through the courts. And it’s why the Left is so heavily invested in pushing the narrative that any act of self-defence against rioters and looters in the present disturbances is really an act of “white supremacist violence” against “peaceful protestors.” What you think may technically be legal is nevertheless an avenue for social and political persecution.
If you can’t even protect yourself and your own family, in your own home (which is the goal), then you have been completely delegitimised – in the actual sense of the term meaning “to remove legal status or access to legal protections.” So while the cops in progressive jurisdictions have been standing down as ordered and letting looters run wild, the moment a law-abiding citizen stands up for himself or herself, the police will be sure to put an end to that. As many internet wits have noted, in the bluer regions of the country, it’s illegal to open your business for operation, but it’s effectively legal for someone else to burn down your business for kicks.
What it all comes down to is this: we’re seeing a bona fide communist revolution taking place before our very eyes, not just in the Moldbugian AIACC sense, but in the final, politically and socially eschatological sense. And like every revolution, it needs an enemy to vilify and to serve as the Other, so as to justify its own existence. Regular heritage Americans, with their retrograde notions about private property, sexuality, family, and criminal justice, form the perfect foil for this communist coup. This, coupled with what was said above about the rather novel application of accusations of “white supremacy” to essentially regular, every day white Americans, explains the otherwise laughable proposition that was floated by progressives (with one voice, almost as if on cue, if you’ll recall) that the rioting and looting were really being instigated by “white supremacists” who had infiltrated the otherwise peaceful protests.
If you’ll recall Solzhenitsin’s account of the Russian Revolution, you’ll remember that early on in the revolution, in an effort to legitimise itself and create a sense of solidarity against class enemies, the communists would destroy factories and other means of production and then blame it on “wreckers,” kulaks who were trying to hurt the people and overthrow the communist brotherhood of man. Of course, you’ll also recall that the kulaks were eventually liquidated by the millions. That’s the goal for these present progressives, from journalists working for the largest “news” organisations down to the mangiest antifa cretin throwing a brick through a shop window – weaponise blacks to destroy, blame it on heritage American class enemies. Being able to do it means effectively nullifying your right to self-defence, as well as a whole host of other privileges that normal Americans take for granted such as the right to own and be secure in your property, freedom of speech and religion, etc.
So what should we do about this? At the risk of sounding like I’m fedposting, the only real solution to this is for heritage Americans to get serious about organising and forming their own militias to protect their communities. It’s abundantly obvious, as orderly government falls apart across this country and is replaced by left-wing gangsterism, that we’re not going to be able to depend on the police to protect us and maintain the rule of law. It’s also obvious that we’re not going to be able to rely on the usual paths of political persuasion and action that formerly gave the veneer of political stability to American life. Hardening up, depending on community and männerbund, and providing for our own common self-defence against every enemy, is basically the best and only option. I suspect that this lesson will be slow in taking root for many people, due to the inherent normalcy bias that characterises American society. But as the Great Reset continues to unwind in slow motion around us, more people will wake up to its reality, and the dissident Right needs to be there to bring these folks into the fold and organise them for the common purpose of restoring order and trying to direct the pathway of our chaotic system toward the attractor of traditional and orderly governing authority.