Because they are terrified of a class war?
We don't usually repost stuff after only a couple months but looking at headlines since this was first appeared on the blog, it really is staring to look like a concerted effort from politicians, prosecutors, academics and media to gaslight, i.e. straight-up lie, about things to provoke a violent reaction from one group or another.
First up, "Understand The Concept Of Anarcho-Tyranny And You Understand Big City Government In 2023":
The concept was laid out in 1994 and the reality is laid out for all to see in 2023.
One of the most astute bits of political analysis you are likely to read today.
From Chronicles Magazine, July 1994:
By Samuel Francis
On the morning of September 22, 1993, a law-abiding citizen named B.W. Sanders was driving his car down the street in Raleigh, North Carolina, when all of a sudden he found himself flagged down by a policeman and presented with a ticket for $25, Mr. Sanders, it turned out. had not been wearing his seat belt, and under a new state law, that crime carries the penalty he received. But in this case it was not just a traffic cop who flagged down Mr. Sanders. It was a force of some six dozen police officers as well as the governor of North Carolina himself, James B. Hunt. The governor was searching for a photo-op with which to advertise both the new seat belt law and his own personal devotion to law and order. Not only the 70 or more police officers but also an innumerable supply of newspaper reporters and TV newsmen were on the scene to record the governor's triumph over the forces of lawlessness, and the next day Mr. Sanders' wicked ways were recorded in the public press for his family, his employers, his neighbors, and indeed posterity to gander at. To make doubly certain that criminals like Mr. Sanders got the message loud and clear, Governor Hunt held a news conference near the state capital and harangued a crowd of some 150 police officers and state troopers, who were able to take time off from the apprehension of public enemies like Mr. Sanders to attend the governor's words. "I took an oath to protect the people of North Carolina," intoned the Tar Heel State's answer to Dirty Harry, "and this is one way we must do it. . . . Folks, we're serious. We mean it. We're going to do this." And indeed, serious he is. As part of the war on the unbuckled seat belt crisis, the Raleigh News and Observer reported, "Law officers in all 100 counties [of the state] will intensify their efforts to find and cite motorists not using their seat belts. Agencies will compete against each other, winning cash for turning in the best performance."
Governor Hunt's grandstanding might be harmless enough were it not for certain other facts about certain other crimes in North Carolina that also sometimes make the news. Only a week before the apprehension and public humiliation of Mr. Sanders, the same newspaper reported on the state's prison crisis. It seems that North Carolina has another new law in addition to the one on seat belts. This other law, passed by the General Assembly, imposes a cap on how many inmates can be incarcerated in the state prison, and the crisis is that, under this cap, most of the inmates now eligible for parole were imprisoned for violent and assaultive crimes. Most of the less dangerous criminals have already been turned loose, and now the prison system must release public enemies even more dangerous than drivers who do not buckle their seat belts. Since last June, no less than 14 parolees (including one of the men now charged with the murder of Michael Jordan's father) have been arrested and charged with murder, and another parolee, a veteran of the state's death row, murdered his girlfriend and then committed suicide, thereby unfairly depriving Governor Hunt of vet another photo-op. Last August alone, North Carolina paroled 3,700 prison inmates. One might think that if the governor of the state and the 150 police officers and state troopers who took time out of their public jobs to listen to him slap himself on the back for busting poor Mr. Sanders were really interested in upholding their oaths of office, they might turn their attention to the results of releasing hardened and violent criminals who have already been caught, sentenced, and imprisoned.
But the saga of the Napoleon of Crime in the homely person of B.W. Sanders is not an isolated incident. It is a representative tale that illustrates what I take to be an entirely new form of government, one that as far as I can tell is unique in human history and unknown to political theory, ancient or modern. Probably no other society has failed as dismally as the United States in the late 20th century to meet the basic test of any civilization: to enforce simple order and protect the lives and property of its members. History knows of many societies that have succumbed to anarchy when the central government proved unable to control warlords, rebels, and marauding invaders. But anarchy is not quite the problem here.
In the United States today, the government performs many of its functions more or less effectively. The mail is delivered (sometimes); the population, or at least part of it, is counted (sort of); and taxes are collected (you bet). You can accuse the federal leviathan of many things—corruption, incompetence, waste, bureaucratic strangulation—but mere anarchy, the lack of effective government, is not one of them. Yet at the same time, the state does not perform effectively or justly its basic duty of enforcing order and punishing criminals, and in this respect its failures do bring the country or important parts of it close to a state of anarchy. But that semblance of anarchy is coupled with many of the characteristics of tyranny, under which innocent and law-abiding citizens are punished by the state or suffer gross violations of their rights and liberty at the hands of the state. The result is what seems to be the first society in history in which elements of both anarchy and tyranny pertain at the same time and seem to be closely connected with each other and to constitute more or less opposite sides of the same coin.
This condition, which in some of my columns I have called "anarcho-tyranny," is essentially a kind of Hegelian synthesis of what appear to be dialectical opposites, 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 such as protection of public safety. And it is characteristic of anarcho-tyranny that it not only fails to punish criminals and enforce legitimate order but also criminalizes the innocent, that at the same time the governor of North Carolina grotesquely fails to uphold his famous oath to protect the citizens of his state by keeping convicted felons in prison, he has no problem finding the time to organize a massive waste of his time and the taxpayers' money to hound and humiliate a perfectly innocent citizen for the infraction of a trivial traffic law.
In fact, we criminalize the innocent all the time in the United States today—through asset seizure laws that confiscate your property even before you're convicted of possessing illegal drugs; through mandatory brainwashing programs designed to reconstruct your mind with "sensitivity training," "human relations," and rehabilitation if you display politically incorrect ideas on certain occasions; through prosecuting people like Bernhard Goetz who use guns to defend themselves; and through gun control laws in general. 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—like the Korean store owners in Los Angeles or like Mr. Goetz, who spent several months in jail after picking off the three hoodlums who were making ready to liberate him from life and limb.
Indeed, the government response to crime is by far the best illustration of anarcho-tyranny. On the one hand, police forces are better equipped, better trained, and more expensive than ever before in history. Police routinely use computers, have access to nationwide information banks, and carry weapons and communication gadgets that most tyrants of the past would drool over. Yet the police seem utterly baffled by the murder rate. None of their high-tech whiz-bang helps much to catch serious criminals after they have struck, to stop them before they strike, or to keep them off the streets after they are caught. But while the police cannot do much about murderers, rapists, and robbers, they are geniuses at nabbing less serious lawbreakers. They can crack down on tax-dodgers and speeders, jaywalkers and pornography patrons, seat belt nonbucklers and epithet-emitters, gun owners and graffiti-scratchers.
Obviously, such desperate characters are not the reason decent people are scared to walk the streets at night, and no matter how many of them you put in the pokey, civilization and the order it is based on will not survive unless you control the streets. Under anarcho-tyranny, the goal is to avoid performing such basic functions as stopping real crime and to think up purely fictitious functions that will raise revenue, enhance the power of the police or bureaucrats, and foster the illusion that the state is doing its job. The victims of these new functions and laws are precisely otherwise law-abiding and innocent citizens. It's easier and more profitable to enforce the law against the marginal lawbreaker than against those habitually committed to spreading mayhem.....
....MUCH MORE
"We’re after power and we mean it."
....Following up on July 30, 2021's "China court jails billionaire Sun Dawu for 18 years for 'provoking trouble'":
This is why.....
I've never read anything that Ayn Rand wrote.
At the age when many young people are either assigned or discover The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged I was trying to absorb a fire hose of other information and didn't have time. Then later, upon learning that former Fed head Alan Greenspan was an acolyte of Rand's, and applying that earlier fire hose of information, I didn't have an interest.
But I have studied power and was reminded of a Rand quote when Governor Newsom was photographed at a political strategist's birthday dinner, surrounded by donors and lobbyists with nary a mask or social distance to be seen:
Entertainment Industry Workers Exempt From California Governor Gavin Newsom’s New Stay-At-Home Order https://t.co/8q43p3XIB5
— Deadline Hollywood (@DEADLINE) November 20, 2020
Entertainment Industry as essential workers?
The facile explanation is that this is just hypocrisy. But the Rand quote from Atlas Shrugged could just as well apply. The characters are Floyd Ferris, PhD and Hank Rearden (businessguy/industrialist):
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it.
You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of lawbreakers and then you cash in on the guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, That’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
CliffNotes describes: "Dr. Floyd Ferris The day-to-day head of the State Science Institute, Dr. Floyd Ferris is a murderous bureaucrat with an unquenchable lust for political power...."
Once everyone is a criminal and law enforcement is arbitrary then it is just a hop, skip and a jump to Kafkatrapping. From our introduction to "The Cult Dynamics of Wokeness":
...In Wokistan the rhetorical game is always about power. The woke are never happier than when they can assume the moral high ground. I say assume because possession of said moral high ground is belied by the attempt to use same as a weapon.
These are the crybullies.
Second, the tricks of cult rhetoric are some of the nastiest you are likely to come across. Manipulative is just the beginning of the descriptors.
I. There is lots of "Kafkatrapping", the term being based on Kafka's story The Trial, where any attempt by the accused to defend himself was taken as agreement with the premise and proof of guilt.I should probably do a post on all this but for now some seriously good analysis of the psychological manipulations to expect when engaging with the Woke....
II. The rhetorical manipulation continues with a favorite of wife-abusers and other nasty critters: passive aggressive argumentum: "It's your fault, you misunderstood what I (said, meant, did, etc.)"
They will slide very easily into straight up gaslighting where the intent is to portray the victim of the attack as crazy/delusional/a bad person, whatevs.
