Destruction in the name of "equality" (Rhodesia, South Africa, America)
(media.scored.co)
Headed?We’re already there
*
Jackson, MS
Oak Cliff, TX
Detroit, MI
Oakland, CA
Half of Atlanta, GA
Memphis, TN
Baltimore, MD
many such cases.
*
Jackson, MS
Oak Cliff, TX
Detroit, MI
Oakland, CA
Half of Atlanta, GA
Memphis, TN
Baltimore, MD
many such cases.
Think about it: Freedom of association is gone - you are forced to interact with niggers. Governments forcing all sorts of education to have humans and niggers together. Big corporations, which are protected by the government, are also colluding (literal bribes to politicians), and pushing propaganda for it. And the mass importation of all sorts of brownoid garbage isn't occurring on its own either - they get fed, housed, protected, pampered on YOUR tax money.
None of that is the result of ANY level of anarchy. What, did the fact that you are looted 50%+ of your income make you think it's anarchy? The fact that indeed you are forced to associate with niggers?
Oh, it's the police that lets niggers do what niggers do? You mean the *tyrants* use niggers as a bio-weapon? That's ALL?
Call it what it is: Tyranny. jewish tyranny to be more clear.
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.
Therefore: Tyranny. See my other comment where I elaborate more on it.
Thank you. This drives me absolutely, grammar Nazi insane. "Anarcho" means without rulers. Tyranny only comes from those who rule. You cant have tyranny without rulers.
The fact no one catches that, and people unironically use that term, it automatically makes me think they are the kind of person who says "irregardless".