Society Has A Death Wish
At every level, in almost every way imaginable, our society lacks the will to survive.
Grab a beverage and take a seat, there’s a lot happening in the world of personal and public safety.
The Low-IQ Threat
Thanks for reading We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — The Belmont University freshman who was shot in the head while walking on a track near campus has died from her injuries.
Metro police announced on Thursday, Nov. 9 that Jillian Ludwig, from New Jersey, died overnight. She was 18 years old.
Officials previously said Ludwig was in “extremely critical condition” after she was shot while walking in the Edgehill Community Memorial Gardens Park on Tuesday, Nov. 7.
Officers said they were flagged down to the park around 3:30 p.m. Tuesday to respond to a report of a woman lying on the track. Police soon found the Ludwig suffering from a gunshot wound to her head.
Investigators said the gunfire came from public housing across the street, which was captured by the property’s surveillance cameras.
Metro police reported the footage showed a man wearing a yellow shirt, jeans and red shoes fire multiple shots toward a dark sedan traveling along 13th Court toward Deford Bailey Avenue shortly before 2:30 p.m. Tuesday.
At the same time, Ludwig was reportedly seen walking in the park on the opposite site of Deford Bailey Avenue and falling down after being struck by a bullet fired by the suspect. Ludwig laid on the ground until she was found by a passerby about an hour after the shots were fired, according to Metro police.
During the investigation, an informant allegedly told officers 29-year-old Shaquille Taylor was responsible for the shooting.
Who is Shaquille Taylor? This graphic says it all:
So what on Earth was Taylor doing out on the streets when he killed Jillian Ludwig? According to Nashville District Attorney Glen Funk, Taylor went to court earlier this year for aggravated assault charges (I’m assuming from 2021, according to the graphic above).
On April 13, 2023, the Nashville District Attorney’s Office prosecuted Shaquille Taylor for Aggravated Assault with a deadly weapon.
At a competency hearing on that date, three court appointed doctors unanimously testified that Mr. Taylor was incompetent to stand trial. State and Federal law prohibit prosecution of persons found to be incompetent, so therefore Judge Angelita Dalton was mandated to dismiss the case.
Because the doctors did not find Mr. Taylor met the standards for involuntary commitment, he was released from custody on May 19, 2023.
Under Tennessee law, for a person to be involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, at least two doctors must have executed certificates that the person is suffering from a severe mental illness or developmental disability that causes the person to be a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or others. The doctors must also find that there are no other less restrictive measures than commitment.
This nearly impossible standard impacts public safety. The law must be altered to accurately balance individual needs with public safety. At the same time Tennessee must provide more beds and staffing resources to handle dangerous individuals.
I will continue to work with the Legislature on these serious mental health issues.
Referring back to the graphic, after being released from custody, Taylor went on to commit auto theft on September 21, was released on bail, then committed yet another felony, this time the killing of Jillian Ludwig.
So to recap: a violent criminal with an already substantial rap sheet is charged and prosecuted for aggravated assault from two years ago. But because he’s too crazy and literally too stupid to defend himself in court, not only does he get away with it, he walks away a free man. He then commits two additional major felonies afterwards, culminating in the killing of an innocent woman. It doesn’t take a whole lot of deep thinking to conclude: had the state not released Taylor on May 19 this year, Jillian Ludwig would be alive today.
Taylor may have taken Ludwig’s life. But it’s the government that failed Ludwig.
Common sense holds that if someone is so crazy they cannot be held responsible for their actions, then they most certainly cannot be trusted to conduct themselves as an independent member of society. You can only be a sovereign individual if you can be reasonably expected to be held to account for your actions. Otherwise, such a person ought to be institutionalized, but in America, we take the “innocent until proven guilty” principle to the absurdist of extremes.
The Nashville DA appears aware of how laws on the books create the contradiction I’ve described above. The system is clearly problematic and could use major reform. However, I think it’s also true that people in positions of authority will find a reason to prosecute or hold someone in custody if given enough incentive to. Just look at high-profile cases, whether it’s the prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse or, more recently, Daniel Penny, in New York City. Or maybe even former police officer Derek Chauvin, known as the murderer of George Floyd, whose conviction is now coming under scrutiny due to evidence showing Floyd’s primary killer was drugs, not Chauvin’s knee to his back.
Politics and public involvement play a huge role in who gets prosecuted and who doesn’t and I’m tired of pretending otherwise. Hopefully, you are too. It’s easy to follow the letter of the law when nobody’s watching, but when the whole world is watching and everyone from the lynch mob to the president is calling for “justice,” no prosecutor is going to refuse to prosecute and point to the laws on the book as reason. There’s no reason - none - Shaquille Taylor should’ve been out on the streets under any circumstances, but the people in charge took the easy way out because nobody cares what the Shaquille Taylors of the world do. But they should. The lion’s share of crime and “gun violence” are committed by people like him.
I don’t know how Taylor would’ve been treated by the system had he been White. But it’s a fact there are millions of Americans, many of them White themselves, who believe the system engages in racism and also improperly prosecutes and incarcerates the mentally ill. Taylor was both Black and mentally ill. At a time when there’s tremendous pressure from all sides to reduce the number of Blacks and mentally ill from incarceration, is it a stretch to think Taylor was spared as many times as he was to ensure that outcome?
Of course, Taylor is just one person. But there are limitless examples of how criminals are caught, only to be assessed as incompetent and let go, only to commit more crimes.
Here’s a troubling story out of Minnesota from last year involving a 16-year-old male who committed a home invasion and attempted carjacking, who was later found incompetent to stand trial (likely due to his age):
When both women saw his face, their reaction was the same.
“I just said, 'Oh my god, he’s so young,'" Katie said.
“So young. So young,” said Jean.
He was only 16.
When they learned about the boy’s history, they got angry.
Two months before he was accused of attacking Jean and Katie, he was in the Hennepin Juvenile Detention Center facing numerous charges for his alleged involvement in other armed robberies.
Yet, after finding that he was incompetent to stand trial, a judge let him go – without treatment and little supervision.
“They let him go to commit more crimes – and he did,” Katie said. “And one of them was mine.”
The article argues this is a systemic problem:
When a child charged with a crime is either too mentally ill or does not have the intellectual capacity to assist in their own defense, they are declared incompetent to stand trial and the case is suspended.
Then there are three options available to judges:
Civil commitment for their mental illness – which rarely happens.
The county can open a “child protection” case for the child, and work with their parents to provide services.
Or they are simply released with little more than the hope they won’t re-offend.
That third option is used in three out of every four cases, a KARE 11 investigation has found.
It’s the height of managerial statism. The system is basically functioning as designed, even as it delivers such horrendous outcomes. Maybe reforms can help, but perhaps expecting the system to fix the problem is part of the dilemma.
Despite what they endured, the two victims featured in the story still think their assailants should be given a second chance:
Following another competency evaluation in August, a judge deemed him able to stand trial. All told, the now 17-year-old faces eight felony cases. Hennepin County wants to try him as an adult. If convicted, he would face a presumptive prison sentence.
But neither Jean nor Katie want to see him go there.
Instead of anger toward him, both said they have only compassion for a boy who was so profoundly failed by the county’s court and mental health systems.
“I can’t stop tearing up from it. It’s so sad to think that he could’ve been saved,” said Katie.
Jean believes he can still be rehabilitated, but only with the treatment and supervision that he was never given.
“There needs to be more care for the young kids that are breaking laws,” she said. “So they can learn a better way of life.”
Jean and Katie believe the boy was failed by the system, but not by culture nor by family. The article, which I hope you’ll read in its entirety, gives the unfortunate backstory on the teenager, including how his grandmother, his legal guardian, ultimately gave up on him and turned him over the state custody. The boy’s mental issues, if he truly has them, aren’t minor, and neither are the crimes he committed. I’m not sure what sort of treatment and supervision Jean and Katie believes to be capable of rehabilitating him, but what’s needed is likely far in excess of what his victims think he requires.
When it comes to proof of anarcho-tyranny, supply is far in excess of demand. But anarcho-tyranny isn’t just a form of governance - it’s an attitude. The idea that criminals ought to be “rehabilitated” just for being young, Black, or mentally ill is what’s creating anarcho-tyranny in the first place. It offends our sense of equality and fair play to think people should never be given a second chance, but this isn’t the point of governance. Governance is, first and foremost, about maintaining order. Allowing an individual who has demonstrated an inability to conduct themselves in an orderly manner to continue living among the general population is negligent at best and malicious at worst. If the authorities know someone is likely to be a problem, they have a responsibility to not put them back out there, no matter what the written word says. Following the letter of the law isn’t the same as rule of law, which says your age, identity, and race don’t exempt you from accountability.
As much as I rail against the system in these spaces, this is beyond merely a systemic problem. This is a cultural problem. Anarcho-tyranny wasn’t established entirely without our consent. It’s a product of social trends which emerged generations ago and influenced leadership the law needed to reflect the emerging norms. Until the norms change back to rule of law with less emphasis on “disparate outcomes” or equity, we’ll continue to be governed through anarcho-tyranny.
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
I led off this essay with the iconic photograph of Charles Bronson’s character from the 1974 movie classic Death Wish. For anyone not familiar with the film, the late but legendary Bronson portrays a New York City architect who becomes a vigilante after the murder of his wife and rape of his daughter. The film resonated with viewers in large part because it captured the escalating crime environment in the country at the time, especially in New York City. Through Bronson, millions of Americans felt, at least for a moment, they weren’t powerless to do something about it.
Of course, Death Wish wasn’t a prescription. It was fantasy. But some people cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality.
John Rote, the pistol-packing Manhattan vigilante accused of firing at a homeless panhandler in the subway, was both cheered and condemned Thursday for defending a woman from a shakedown attempt.
Rote, 43, squeezed off a warning shot after watching Matthew Roesch demand the victim pay him $1 following her entrance into the subway through an emergency gate without paying — with the scammer following his target and threatening to steal her purse — said NYPD Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny.
More details on the incident triggering Rote’s intervention:
The woman’s nightmarish scenario unfolded when while trying to head back to her Queens home, she encountered Matthew Roesch, a homeless 49-year-old, who was allegedly harassing her for money after he held the emergency gate open at the 49th Street station near Times Square, she recalled.
When she tried to walk through, he blocked her way and demanded money, according to court documents.
“I said, ‘I’m not going to give him any money’ and kept walking. He followed me. He kept demanding money and he said, ‘if you don’t give me money, I’m going to take your bag.’ I was trying to walk away from him, but he was following me and getting very close,” the woman said.
Roesch — who is known to police for frequently pulling the scheme — allegedly made moves to snatch her bag when Rote, 43, whipped out the firearm and allegedly fired several rounds across the subway while warning the would-be mugger to leave the woman alone.
In a minute, I’m going to speak critically of Rote’s actions. But there’s no question he was trying to come to the aid of a fellow citizen in distress. He’s definitely braver than most of us and he undoubtedly rescued the woman, even if his methods weren’t ideal. What thanks does he get for it?
The mayor upheld the city’s rule by anarcho-tyranny, citing Death Wish in the process:
“Listen, this is not a Charles Bronson area with ‘Death Wish,’” Mayor Eric Adams said on WABC’s “Eyewitness News” Wednesday evening. “Let the police do their job. Don’t think that you can do their job without the proper training that comes from law enforcement.”
“Proper training” doesn’t overcome the simple fact that no police were present when the crime was occurring. But anarcho-tyranny isn’t a fact-based approach to governance. It’s an ideologically-driven approaching, going hands-off on crime and disorder, while obsessively regulating the behavior of the citizenry. In that sense, the system is working exactly as it’s supposed to.
“I want to be clear: we don’t tolerate this kind of conduct in NYC Transit, period. Once again cameras recorded a perpetrator, and we are grateful the NYPD made an arrest within hours. Thank goodness nobody was hurt here—but what occurred was outrageous, reckless, and unacceptable.”
It’s not clear who Davey regards as the perpetrator - the mugger or the vigilante. But it’s pretty clear Davey isn’t talking about the mugger when he calls the incident “outrageous, reckless, and unacceptable.” The fact a citizen felt the need to use deadly force to protect a fellow citizen is very obviously what’s bothering New York’s leadership, despite the fact the incident is actually an indictment against them, not against some vigilante.
What stirred the most debate was the reaction from the woman who was being mugged:
“Of course, I am happy that that man tried to help me and that nobody was injured during this incident, but it’s scary to think that people are carrying guns around the city. I understand why people do it, they see it as their only means of protection,” the woman said.
This is a fair response on her part. People carrying around guns isn’t always a good thing (sorry, Second Amendment absolutists), not because guns are bad, but because of what it implies about the place they live. I think the woman is being more empathetic towards those who carry than a lot of people were making her out to be.
More from the unnamed woman:
“I was terrified, I was feeling fear, panic. I was ready for anything, to fight for my life in any way. The gun was pointed in my direction, and that’s all I saw. It was a feeling of pure terror that I don’t wish on anyone.”
Again, this is a fair response. Nobody likes having a gun pointed at them, even from a good guy. The truth is, if you end up getting shot, it doesn’t really matter who pulled the trigger or what their intentions were.
Although the woman said she would like to thank Rote for intervening, she said she wishes he left the weapon out of it.
“In this case the man risked a lot to protect me, his safety, and the safety of other people on the platform. Yes, I do think he is a hero, but I don’t know, I would likely think him a bigger hero if he tried to help me without the gun. In my eyes, the gun is a little extreme. It was a very dangerous situation, anything could have happened.”
A lot of people tore apart her remarks, assessing her to be insufficiently grateful for a stranger coming to her rescue, but I don’t think that’s what was happening at all. There’s no question what the man did was reckless, as I’ll get into in a bit. Not every action taken in defense of self or others is prudent. A gun is a very effective defensive tool, but only because of its supreme lethality. The gun doesn’t distinguish between friend and foe, between aggressor and victim. Only the shooter can. Unless the woman’s life was in immediate threat of death or maiming, drawing and pointing a firearm in the general direction of innocents, even in the presence of a hostile, is a dangerous act.
His heroism in no way exempted him from legal consequences. One can only hope the New York City authorities feel totally in control:
Rote — who has no prior arrests — was arrested at his Manhattan job the following day after an anonymous tipster recognized him from the police-leaked footage.
He allegedly admitted to the shooting and told cops he ditched the gun in the East River.
He was charged with criminal possession of a weapon, criminal possession of a firearm, reckless endangerment and menacing, the NYPD said.
Law enforcement sources said they don’t think Rote was aiming at the vagrant, and was just trying to scare him off.
If you haven’t figured out by now, I can’t sign off on what this man did. For one, tossing your gun into the river is always a bad sign. I’m not sure why he thought he could get away with this. Nor was fleeing the scene a good idea. If you’re involved in a use-of-force incident or you draw and discharge your weapon, don’t leave the scene! A week or two ago, I talked about how I’d attended a class discussing legal parameters for employing force in defense of self or others. One of the points I emphasized in my after-class report was how you should never expect to walk away scot-free after using force, especially deadly force, against another human being and how you’re quite likely to end up in handcuffs post-incident.
Warning shots are also a terrible idea and I can’t argue against the reckless endangerment and menacing charge. Rule of thumb: if you’re not willing to discharge your firearm into a human being, the threat is likely not severe enough to warrant deadly force. Though we’d all wish it were different, almost nowhere in America, even in pro-Second Amendment “red” states, is theft considered a transgression warranting the use of deadly force. More to the point regarding warning shots, fire for effect or don’t fire at all. This isn’t the movies, where bullets fired off into space simply disappear. Those rounds end up somewhere. It might hit an innocent human being. What then? You think you’re going to get away with that?
That all said, the idea that John Rote is a criminal is ludicrous. Reckless? Yes. I’m not sure I’d trust him with my life. But vigilantism, if you can call his actions that, don’t happen in a state of order & tranquility. What Rote did was simply the logical result of an environment of escalating crime & disorder, when people feel like the situation is getting out of control and the authorities are powerless to stop it. New York City today may be safer today than it was in 1974 according to the numbers, but I don’t think it’s an inaccurate assessment to say that crime occurs far more randomly and more broadly than it did almost 50 years ago. These are incidents occurring in broad daylight, in plain view of witnesses.
The mugging victim said as much:
She said the incident was the second of two unsettling encounters with homeless people at the 49th Street platform in just one day — her morning started with another man openly masturbating on a bench without shame: “That set the tone for the day.”
“The MTA and the NYPD aren’t doing much to protect the public. But it’s very dangerous. There are many incidents where weapons were involved and it ended badly. Honestly, I am against people carrying weapons with them around the city,” she said.
“The MTA increased fares, but nothing changed. Two incidents in one day. They let these people do whatever they want. This incident is entirely the fault of the MTA and the NYPD. They need to increase rider safety.”
The woman added that there should be stronger punishments for repeat offenders, such as Roesch, who has repeatedly been arrested for hand-collecting and selling MetroCards on subways.
“The homeless people are allowed to do what they want without punishment. They let that guy go. That sends a message that they can do what they want and get away with it,” she said.
In an environment like this, vigilantism is a symptom, not the problem.
It’s important to explain the problem accurately: it’s not that crime is out of control in New York or America. It’s not. The problem is that crime is neither deterred nor dealt with when it occurs. Clearly, the police cannot be everywhere at once and they are often not present when a crime occurs. This means the people need to have the ability to deal with a problem when it arises. John Rote may have handled it poorly, but the suggestion that the citizenry stand down and do nothing more than call 911 is an order to acquiesce. The bad guys aren’t going to be deterred by this approach.
So what are we to do when we see a fellow citizen in distress? There’s no easy answer. One of the topics covered during my use-of-force class concerned the matter of coming to the aid of others. Here’s what I wrote about what I'd learned:
You Are Not Responsible For The Safety Of Others
This was the toughest pill for me to swallow. I’ve spent lots of time in these spaces lamenting the breakdown of the social fabric, leaving us all entirely on our own to look after our well-being. It’s another thing for it to be literally codified in law, however.
According to our instructor, if you are at a store and a robber holds a gun to the clerk, you can end up in trouble if you draw your own gun on them or use any kind of force against them. Again, the logic of imminence is being taken to its extreme: since they weren’t pointing the gun at you directly, you have no legal sanction to draw your gun on them.
It’s unbelievable. That said, it depends on where you live - in some parts of the country, citizens coming to the aid of others isn’t regarded as some horrific atrocity. Still, you just never know. The law isn’t rooted in morality, so doing the right thing is never enough to clear you. It’s utterly heartbreaking to think that abandoning an innocent victim might be your best play, but ask yourself - are you willing to go to jail to save a stranger’s life?
However, this doesn’t mean you’re always going to get in trouble with the law if you intervene on behalf of a fellow citizen:
In times like these, one thing to remember is the concept of reasonable force - force sufficient enough to stop the attack. Reasonable force and deadly force overlap, but they’re also separate concepts. It’s just that deadly force happens to be the most effective in stopping an attack. If you feel that a fellow citizen needs your assistance and abandoning them to their fate would be unforgivable, remember that there are other ways of stopping a threat without using deadly force. Yes, it’s dangerous and you’ll likely expose yourself to risk of harm or even death if you intervene.
But if you can manage to stop a threat without killing nor gravely injuring the attacker, you’re far more likely to stand on safe legal ground than if you simply drew your gun and shot them. The government is more worried about you killing someone than anything else; the less lethal the force you use, the easier of a time you’ll have arguing that you used only the most necessary amount of violence to stop a threat.
Of course, if John Rote chose to go hands-on, that would’ve certainly exposed him to greater risk than standing off with a weapon. Like I said, there are no good answers. But it’s for this reason Rote is in no way a criminal. He did what he thought was demanded of him as a citizen in a world succumbing progressively to anarchy. May justice prevail in his case and he not become yet another victim of persecution by anarcho-tyranny.
A Crisis Of Demoralization
You may or may not have heard of the killing of Jonathan Lewis, a teenager who was beaten to death by a mob near his high school a few weeks ago. The killing was captured on video and has shocked and concerned the public, at least those aware of the story.
Here’s two videos of the beating, but don’t watch if you’re sensitive to real-life violence. X (formerly Twitter) user @NatCon2022 synchronized the two videos by time (LAST CHANCE: GRAPHIC CONTENT):
A Metro spokesperson announced that the department has eight suspects in custody who will be charged with murder in connection with Lewis’ death.
Homicide Lt. Jason Johansson provided details on the incident that led to the victim’s death, explaining that a fight occurred in an alley next to Rancho High School just after school let out on November 1. He said that a citizen found Lewis unresponsive after the beating and brought him back to the school.
The victim was taken to UMC where doctors determined that he had suffered “non-survivable head trauma.” Lt. Johansson referenced a video of the beating that has circulated on social media, calling it “void of humanity.”
He said that the fight was over a pair of stolen wireless headphones and possibly a vape pen, which were taken from friends of the victim. All parties involved agreed to meet in the alley to fight, according to police.
“As soon as a punch is thrown, ten subjects immediately swarm him,” he said. He added that the department was able to identify approximately ten subjects that were involved in the murder and eight of those have been “positively identified” as suspects.
The victim’s father, also named Jonathan Lewis, gave an account of the incident on the GoFundMe established in the wake of his son’s death:
We have been given a statement from our son’s girlfriend that what occurred was that one of his smaller friends had something stolen by this group of 15 and they threw the small boy in the trash can and our son confronted them and he was attacked by them. He's a courageous young man.
It’s a horrendous atrocity and much (or little, depending on your perspective) has been made of the fact Lewis was White and his attackers were mostly Black or at least non-White. Regardless of how much coverage this story got, I think it’s fair to say that had Lewis been Black and his assailants White, the way this story is being covered would be vastly different from how it’s been covered.
The reactions from the loved ones of Lewis would be different also. I want to bring attention to his father’s remarks, posted on the GoFundMe page. These were published when the fundraiser was initially generated [all proceeding bold mine]:
We can't release any other information yet except to say that we denounce violence as a means to resolve sociological conflict, we believe community members can coexist peacefully, and we love our son and all children with all our hearts!
Sociological conflict? What does he mean by that? What sort of conflict, beyond school bullying, was his son involved in? Is there a bigger issue Mr. Lewis is getting at?
This was an update posted shortly after the fundraiser was established, but it seems to have since then been deleted. However, you can see a screencap of it here:
The human RACE is calling screaming for us to see our unity calling us to break the cycle of the imprisonment of violence and apathy. Showing us from the how it comes through in the youth. Begging us to see that when we gather great power of change is possible great power of awareness will be directed to the mob so the mob can demand change can cry out to humanity and scream the pain of the children.
This is a humanity thing beloved people of the United States. Not a race thing!
Then, on November 14, Mr. Lewis stated:
Any comments about racism will be requested to be removed. We absolutely condemn racism and hate! Please be respectful of our son’s memory in the comments and to everyone who has posted comments of support we're so deeply grateful and can’t even begin to express how much it means to us!
Here we go again. I say this often: it’s not my place to be outraged on behalf of others. I’ll say, however, that the way the loved ones of crime victims react to crimes dictates the way society reacts to crimes. If the families won’t be outraged over what happened to their loved ones, why should anyone else? And if nobody else is outraged over what happened, then what’s going to come of this, ultimately?
That’s right. Absolutely nothing. Conventional wisdom states the angry protests and riots we see from the Black community are ineffective, but nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t think anything has been better at influencing Americans, over time, to accept the grievances of Blacks as entirely legitimate. Ask yourself: if you had, on one hand, someone who backed off, deferred to the system for judgment, and expressed no ill will towards the perpetrators, versus someone who stepped up and loudly voiced discontent, put pressure on the system to deliver what they considered righteous justice, and called for heavy consequences against not just the perpetrators, but against society as a whole, who would you take more seriously? Who would grab your attention?
Am I being too hard on Mr. Lewis? Thankfully, I’ve never lost a loved one to criminal violence and I’ve made a point in the past that none of us know for sure how we’re going to react when tragedy strikes. Reading what he wrote, I sense that Lewis is well-aware of the savagery his son was subjected to, but he’s attempting to come to terms with it by regarding his son as effectively a wartime casualty, a sacrifice made in the name of a higher cause.
It stands in stark contrast to when a Black person is killed by a White person (which seldom happens) or a police officer (which happens far less often than you think) and how the incident is blown up to be a senseless atrocity, a crime against humanity, one that can only be fixed through radical change. When a non-White person suffers death at the hands of a White person, you don’t see this rhetoric-policing like you see out of Mr. Lewis. In some ways, it’s a more human response, while the response out of White victims’ families is the more abnormal one. It’s perfectly natural to feel vengeful, vindictive, and to want society to be sympathetic to your anger and sadness. It’s actually quite strange to want society to not feel what you feel and to try to contextualize their killing as part of some greater cause, instead of the senseless act that it is.
I plan on talking about this more in my next entry, but I think Mr. Lewis’ remarks are indicative of demoralization. When a person is demoralized, they don’t feel empowered to fight back or insist upon justice. At best, they resort to bargaining, trying to appear to be fighting the righteous fight and avoiding seeming too vengeful. The problem is this doesn’t work - it’ll keep the heat off you and allow you to retain some semblance of status of victimhood, instead of becoming villains for failing to say the right things and contextualizing the crime.
There, in fact, seems to be a concerted attempt at trying to police the reactions of victims of crime, in particular White people, when there’s a racial disparity involved in an incident. Look at this incident from 2018:
Racial tensions are obviously not a good thing, but reducing them shouldn’t come at the cost of denying victims justice. The presence of justice is what ultimately creates peace and order, not “more education on Islamic cultures and practices.” Otherwise, it’s yet another mechanism of anarcho-tyranny - more policing of the social reaction than of the transgression itself.
Call me cynical, but all this calling for peace does not make for a more peaceful society. Instead, it enables the worst of us. As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you want justice, you need to demand it. From the perspective of the Black community, they may feel like nothing’s changed, but from my perspective, and I’m sure from that of many of you, so much has changed. It’s all because they made their anger known, commanded our attention, and issued credible threats of violence.
The thing is, those who are demoralized will never find the strength to put up that struggle.
A Disease With No Cure
All these stories point to a society that has a death wish. At every level, in almost every way imaginable, our society lacks the will to survive. Creating disorder seems to be the point, with the only semblance of order being the deference to bureaucracy. We are running on autopilot, but even when flying on autopilot, the aircraft will eventually run out of fuel.
That fuel? It’s us. I’ve said it time and again, but the system is sustained by people like us, who still pay into it and go along with the insanity, if only for the lack of an option. For sure, we still benefit more from paying into it and going along with it, but the cost of doing so is steadily increasing. I doubt large numbers of us will revolt and quit going along with this charade, ensuring the status quo will be in place for years to come.
But it’s not entirely up to us, either. The more this goes on, the more the emerging norms become entrenched. Anarcho-tyranny is very much a part of our lives today, but is likely to become even more prevalent and create an even more dysfunctional society. Eventually, the situation will get so bad the Regime may need to reverse course if only to fight for it’s own survival. There’s a lot of history to cover between now and then, unfortunately.
Over To You
There was more I had to say in this posting, but I’m already overdue on this (as always) and it’s already hit the point of diminishing returns, so I’m going to let it fly and let you all read it and have the floor.
What are your reactions to these stories? What do you think it says about the state of society today? Are we in serious, irreversible trouble? Let’s discuss in the comments section below.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!
Thanks for reading We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.