From Chronicles:
The footage of Zarutska dying while nearby passengers watched recalls the infamous 1964 Kitty Genovese case, long cited as evidence of urban detachment. Yet Zarutska’s ordeal unfolded not just audibly but visibly—while at least four people sat nearby observing as her killer approached, attacked, and left her bleeding. This suggests something more profound than fear: a collapse of the basic social instinct to defend the vulnerable or, at the very least, summon aid. Was this passivity a result of terror, social conditioning, or a spectator mindset shaped by technology and social media? The very act of recording rather than intervening hints at a troubling shift from citizenship to spectatorship. People now inhabit public spaces as if they were stages, observing incidents like these as if they were vectors of content creation, and victims as if they were characters in their productions.
This indifference reflects a broader failure in civic and governmental leadership. A functioning society requires mutual responsibility, especially in its public spaces. When someone can be slaughtered openly without intervention or accountability, civic life ceases to exist. Rather, society becomes a collection of isolated individuals inhabiting the same space with no sense of mutual obligation. Zarutska’s death, therefore, resonated as a symbol of this unravelling and, by extension, the weakening of the social fabric that has historically underpinned democratic legitimacy.
This breakdown aligns with what the late political thinker, Samuel Francis, writing in this magazine in 1994, called “anarcho-tyranny”: a system in which authorities neglect basic law enforcement—creating chaos—while heavily policing compliant and nonthreatening citizens. It is not an absence of government, but a distorted application of it. The “anarchy” appears in the repeated failure to confine violent recidivists like Brown, who was steered to a judge’s program instead of prison. The “tyranny” appears in the eagerness of officials to suppress information, enforce speech codes, or penalize minor infractions. This imbalance leaves citizens exposed to genuine dangers while enduring bureaucratic intrusion in their ordinary lives.
Francis argued that anarcho-tyranny is deliberate: by overlooking crime, ruling elites cultivate dependence among certain groups, and by repressing dissent, they neutralize opposition. In this environment, fairness is no longer expected; self-protection supplants civic engagement; public spaces are ceded to aggressors, while ordinary people retreat into private enclaves. Over time, the public internalizes the message that intervention is futile, justice selective, and vigilance a private duty rather than a shared norm. Zarutska’s case aligns almost perfectly within this framework. Her attacker’s long record of priors signals the “anarchy” of nonenforcement; the suppression of footage and the policing of public reaction point to the “tyranny” of narrative control. Together they erode the legitimacy of law itself, replacing it with a sense of powerlessness and fear. (Read more.)
Where are the real men? From The Georgia Record:
No matter how we’ve voted in the past, it is how we will vote in the future that will make the biggest impact on our children’s lives. To make the best choice between two evils, we truly must look at the policies that lead to mass incarceration of our sons and daughters, as well as the systems that fund the police, which may disproportionately impact certain communities. It is one thing to say “Defund the Police” when we think about neck compressions by gun toting state-sanctioned killers, or the fact that black people makeup the bulk of probationers and parolees that feed the economy of prison growth and mass incarceration; but it completely another reality to need the help of those who serve and protect and not be able to get it. The fact remains, defunding the police will take us back to the time when neighborhood militia and community watch groups voluntarily attempted to keep streets safe by any means necessary. This kind of gang mentality hurts black families since most are statistically headed by women who will be completely vulnerable without our neighborhood officers. Furthermore, it was the police and our national guard that enforced the very actions that gave blacks the legal rights we were constitutionally afforded. Defunding the police might be trending, but it will do nothing good for black America.
Yet we still must hold officers and the court system accountable for what has been more than just unfair. In fact, the spirit behind devaluation of our individual rights as a community has got to be defeated as well. When it comes to how we feel about criminal justice reform it is vitally important that we rely on more than mere feelings, because perception is reality but it can be a false one. Consider the false reality presumed killer Tyler Robinson might have acted upon when he took the life of one of America’s best and brightest, Charlie Kirk. While there will be countless narratives on Charlie, and Tyler for that matter, what is unlikely to be discussed is that young men in America, of all ethnicities, are targeted for extinction. Whether it is racism, poverty and poverty-induced crime, or the latest in an onslaught against manhood, the LGBT propaganda movement. One cannot help but ask, where are the real men?
Charlie was a real man who pushed back the narrative that gender is fluid and truth is hate speech - he put his life on the line every time he stepped onto a college campus. But the gunman who took his life by acting in a type of cowardice, was bred out of tolerance for what God calls evil. It is evil to manipulate and mutilate children in the name of choice. No, I’m not talking about abortion (for once) but instead transgender ideology. If Tyler Robinson is guilty, it is likely that living with a person suffering from the mental illness of gender dysmorphia (transgender) could have influenced the decision-making that led to Charlie’s death. As church-going parents, did Tyler’s only sounding board ignore the potential impact of their son living with a transgender roommate? Or were they ignorant to the fact that their child was not just “quiet” or “different” instead of a weak sheep easily brainwashed. (Read more.)
No comments:
Post a Comment