You have not viewed any products recently.
It’s been almost 10 years since the death of Sam Francis. But his best-known saying, “anarcho-tyranny,” contains more descriptive power than ever. His phrase described when government, which is supposed to protect ordinary citizens, instead leaves them to anarchy; while the law-abiding are subject to monstrous centralized controls over every aspect of their lives.
That came to mind immediately last night when I was watching President Obama’s speech calling for peace in the wake of the Ferguson Grand Jury’s verdict on Officer Wilson – as a split-screen showed rioters already burning businesses and police cars. The president is the central official of tyranny; and he did nothing to protect the people of that scarred city. He actually said, “The fact is, in too many parts of this country, a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color. Some of this is the result of the legacy of racial discrimination in this country. And this is tragic because nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with higher crime rates.”
Why bring up such problems now? It’s true there are many cases of police brutality across the country, the victims including whites. But in the case at hand, it was clear from the evidence released yesterday that Brown attacked Wilson twice. Anyone who does that should expect the worst. And last night was a time for calm, not grinding salt into old racial wounds.
Tyranny also was shown from the beginning of this matter when Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder butted into the case, sending to Ferguson swarms of federal agents from the beginning, and 100 additional FBI agents just before the grand-jury announcement. Yet this wasn’t Gov. Lester Maddox’s 1960s Georgia. Today’s Missouri Gov. Ray Nixon is, like Obama, a liberal Democrat.
By lording it over people of the state of Missouri, Obama owned the case. Yet when the grand-jury announcement came down, he gave his race-polarizing speech in Washington, which might as well have been Mars. If he really wanted peace in Ferguson, he would have come there in person, protected by a phalanx of Secret Service agents, to bring racial healing and understanding, personally leading FBI agents, National Guard troops and local police in protecting the lives and property of the local people. Instead, he left the city to the anarchy whose flames he had helped flame.
And of course, Obama’s outrageous amnesty of illegal aliens last week was another example of the tyrant unleashing anarchy on the country he so misrules.
The same day as the Ferguson riots, to emphasize the tyranny part of anarcho-tyranny, the Obama regime’s FDA imposed preposterously complicated new food-labeling rules, including for movie theaters and pizza joints. Well, at least the Ferguson Little Caesar’s won’t have to worry about that. It was burned down during the anarchy unleashed by Big Caesar.
I generally enjoy Mr. Seiler's commentary, but why must everyone, including conservatives, invoke the names of Maddox, Wallace, Barnett, etc. every time a racial riot or uprising occurs? The truth is that if there was any reason to send the national guard to the South during the upheaval of the 1960's, they should have been sent there to protect the local citizens and local police, not the supposed "rights" of the agitators, most of whom were rent-a-mobs funded by communists. Who was feeding, clothing, sheltering, and providing transportation for these agitators, as they went all around the South stirring up trouble? If they were that poor and oppressed, how could they be absent from work for so long?
The president’s statement that the anger was “understandable” is outrageous since the anger flies in the face of the evidence.
I've always hated liberals, but it took me a long time to reach the understanding that, while many (certainly most I have known personally) really are the well-disposed naifs they always seemed to me, others are genuine agitators and disturbers of the peace who possess an inveterate hatred for Western Civ and whites, and who actively seek to destroy us. What I liked best about Sam Francis was not merely his unmasking of these types and their agendas, but his willingness to call for us to fight back - really FIGHT BACK - against them, "dirty for dirty". I agree. The Right, and whites generally, are either too ethical or too weak to live anymore on this shrinking planet. The day is coming, like it or not, when we are going to have to fight for our living space, and those fights will be racial (or religious-racial in the case of the Muslim aggressors). It is not at all too early to do what we can do best (I mean the CHRONICLES writers), which is to develop a new ethics of white/Occidental survival which can appeal to normal, moral whites, especially Christians (except the Left-Progressive types, who will allow themselves to be slaughtered before they will pick up weapons to defend their own people - and so they will be). That ethics is going to have to recognize the empirical failures of most types of multiracialism, and that for us to survive, we require separate territory for the natural cultural evolution of our own people (as well as the rediscovery and passing on of our discarded classical High Culture inheritance). How are we going to acquire this territory, except through war and population removals/repatriations? And how will this be justified in philosophical and theological terms? Because it's coming, you can be sure of it.
Well the whites are oppressed with anarcho-tyranny, but the whites are incapable of taking over the town hall and resisting the federal government because they do not want to give up their comforts. The blacks, who generally feel like second class citizens and not being organized are equally incapable of taking over the town hall. Resistance is futile and will be nipped in the bud. So it all ends up as a bunch of yap on TV in between the football games. The caravans pass and the dogs whatch on
To comment on this article, please find it on the Chronicles Facebook page.