Destruction in the name of "equality" (Rhodesia, South Africa, America)
(media.scored.co)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
Which is called "tyranny."
> and imposes anarchic conditions
Feral niggers roaming around and not going after communists is what Bolsheviks did. If this is "anarcho-tyranny", then Bolshevism is also just "anarcho-tyranny." In fact ALL forms of tyranny are "anarcho-tyranny" because they all started by having groups of people murder, loot, rape people, and then become loyal lapdogs to the government that protects them and eventually elevates them into positions of power.
It's just tyranny with a minor twist. It's like naming it left-tyranny if the tyrant is left-handed. It's just over-labeling things, trying to slap whatever bad word you can think of on top of it to make it more dramatic.
TYRANNY is dramatic enough.
Also i probably made the mistake of associating "anarchism" with "anarcho-tyranny" the first time i heard it. So it would not surprise me if others make the same mistake i did.
All sorts of tyranny seem to require double standards or selective enforcement. We definitely have selective enforcement of the law in the USA. Trump and Republicans never arrest anyone. Democrats do. So only one side of the fake two party system is actually utilizing the criminal justice system to their advantage, while the other plays to lose.
> of associating "anarchism" with "anarcho-tyranny"
Anarchy is really just theoretical, because it never occurred. It would be a society without an entity that has legitimate violence, like the government does.
You could argue Africa had plenty of Anarchy, but 1. they are niggers, so whatever they manifest is chaos and misery, 2. they sure had some kind of government on the scale of villages and tribes, 3. they weren't capable to manifest any large-scale form of government as we understand.
People associating Anarchy with "whatever niggers do in Africa" is silly. There are "governments" ran by niggers, and they are corrupt shitholes incarnate, basically a facade, a mockery of the entire concept. It's like how they try to rebuild airplanes by using random trash, which obviously doesn't work.
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/view/anarcho-tyranny-u-s-a/
To summarize: In order to go after vicious criminals who don't wear seat belts, they made room in prisons by letting out feral niggers. They went after normal people over minuscule issues but let actual criminals out of prison or go free.
- The government goes after group A
- The government supports group B
When you let niggers roam, it inevitably leads to African shithole conditions. Things get looted and burned.
> Under anarcho-tyranny, gun control laws do not usually target criminals who use guns to commit their crimes. The usual suspects are noncriminals who own, carry, or use guns against criminals
It's literally what the Bolsheviks did - to turn the justice system around to criminalize normal people and be lax on actual criminals (thieves, rapists, murderers). From [here](https://mises.org/mises-wire/how-soviets-used-common-criminals-destroy-regimes-enemies):
> [T]he new regime concentrated its pressive efforts on political opponents and class aliens. Amid the crowd of real or supposed enemies of the regime, non-political criminals were still regarded as socially akin; they received shorter terms of imprisonment and served them in less severe conditions.
In essence: Lax on one group (actual criminals), harsh on another group (possible dissidents).
> Once he was within the Gulag, the political criminal would then discover the second form of Soviet anarcho-tyranny.
So either we admit that tyranny = anarcho-tyranny, or we say that "tyranny" is a sub-category of "anarcho-tyranny", given how it must have been the predominant form of tyranny, and plain "tyranny" is a rare unicorn nowhere to be found.