You Get The World You Ask For

Either we the citizenry, alongside those who enforce the law, use violence when necessary to maintain order, or the bad people will use violence to have their way with us.

Over two dozen women appear to have been struck in a wave of random assaults in New York City. Source

“Anarcho-tyranny” isn’t a form of government the same way democracy or monarchy is, but it’s still animated by a foundational worldview, even if it’s not particularly philosophical or coherent. It’s important to understand that this worldview exists, that it creates an accompanying culture, even if it makes no sense.

Recently, there have been a number of incidents that highlight the culture of anarcho-tyranny, surfacing when their fantasies run headlong into reality. Unfortunately, as you’ll see, even reality isn’t enough to shake people loose from delusional thinking.

Grab yourself a (non-)alcoholic beverage, this one’s going to take a while.

“Where Are The Men?”

Recently, there has been a spate of women being punched by assailants in New York City. A suspect has been arrested, though it isn’t clear whether he was the lone assailant, or one among many. It’s likely there are multiple suspects, as these types of random assaults aren’t uncommon in New York City.

Here’s a brief overview of the assault “wave:”

Source

According to social media accounts of the assaults posted by the victims themselves, there appears to be over two dozen incidents. They contribute to the growing sense of unease in New York City, as well as across the United States, as escalating disorder becomes more apparent to all.

With women now being specifically targeted, one would think, as a society, we’d take crime and disorder more seriously than we have been. So what’s been the reaction to these incidents? I’m always wary of using social media to gauge public sentiment, but since they are the loudest voices in the room, sometimes, you need to listen to what they have to say.

What they have to say is both predictable and mind-numbing, to put it mildly. Here’s a woman having a normal one:

Source

Here’s someone who’s figured it all out:

Source

Our worst instincts? What exactly are those? What could possibly be worse than allowing violent savages to run roughshod over society? What could possibly be worse than anarchy? We’ve heard their arguments before: these women seem to think that too much law enforcement is a bad thing. Again, compared to what? Too much crime? Why even bother with government if we’re not going to use it to fulfill it’s most basic of functions: public safety?

These women are of the mind that these violent savages are just men down on their luck, otherwise good people who had a bad day, and are acting out in frustration. Either that, or America is a deeply misogynistic country that hates women, with that hatred manifesting in rampant violence. These are core tenants of the leftist worldview, both entirely wrong. We’ve all had bad days, we’ve all been down on our luck one time or another. How many of you decided to take your frustration out on a random woman on the street? Not many of you, but these people want the public to believe we’re all just a bad day, an empty bank account away from becoming a criminal.

As for violence against women, more on that in a second, but first, nothing tops the remark from New York City Council Member Amanda Farías. This one was a howler:

Source

Where are the men calling this out? Really? More on that in a second, but for now, just sit back and absorb what was asked. It floored me. I know having a little bit of political power makes people do and say stupid things, but even this seemed too much, even by those standards.

Usually, when it comes to this kind of nonsense, I shake my head, laugh, and poke fun at it along with others who see the sheer stupidity in these people. But this tweet by Amanda Farías really irritates the hell out of me, I hate to admit, and many others appear to have had the same reaction. She’s either that stupid, or she knows the question will get under people’s skin. There are no other possibilities.

Men have been calling this out ad nauseum. We call it out daily, as women like her turn a blind eye to the disorder and violence overwhelming our society in slow motion. We catch hell for it for doing so. We’re called paranoid, racist, fragile, we’re insulted in every way imaginable. If men are in fact not calling this out (which isn’t the case), it shouldn’t come as a big surprise they don’t. Why would they, when this is the level of appreciation they receive for their concern? Then, when women end up being disproportionately the victims of a particular type of crime, it’s a whine for help. Where are the men???

Women have a right to fear for their safety, perhaps more so than men. Biologically, men are more dangerous than women due to a combination of higher levels of innate aggression and greater strength. But not only are men disproportionately the perpetrators of violence, they’re disproportionately the victims of violence, too. I never hear women lament that fact. Instead, all we hear is that men need to be controlled, which is true - men do need to be controlled. But who do you think is going to do the controlling? Women, who are apparently in danger in the presence of any and all men?

That’s right - men must control men. Yet not only are we not allowed to even notice crime and disorderly behavior when it occurs, masculinity itself has been under near-constant assault from women, the media, academia, even the government. It’s easy to say men should be able to retain the healthy aspects of masculinity and suppress the “toxic” aspects of it, but masculinity doesn’t come with on-off switches. Most masculine men aren’t violent savages like those who go around punching women, but the capacity for that level of violence is always there. Only the motivation differs. The aggression which leads a man to commit crime is the same kind of aggression that leads a man to stand up to the savages. A man who has suppressed his masculinity or fears the consequences of standing up to bad men due to anarcho-tyranny isn’t suddenly going to find the courage to be brave when women like Amanda Farías start shrieking for help.

Societies operate along incentive structures. It’s a fancy way of saying that you have to make it gainful or painful in order to get people to do something. This is how humans are by nature; no amount of lecturing and nagging is going to change that. Some of us are more law-abiding than others, but we follow the rules at all because there are consequences for not doing so.

The same thing applies to bravery and masculinity. If you foster anarcho-tyranny, placing impossible limits on defending yourself or others against aggression, don’t be surprised if you get a world where a man can strike a woman on a crowded train and he isn’t immediately squashed by all the men aboard because they’re all so intimidated into submission by the system (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT):

Source

We didn’t just end up like this one day. A series of events and policy choices led to this. They involved a concerted attempt to take the heat off the criminal and refocus it instead on men as a whole. Feminists and leftists can’t have it both ways - blame men for being violent, then wonder why men don’t direct that violence against the bad people when demanded of them. De-masculation will produce the type of men seen inside that subway car.

Let’s go back to Amanda Farías: who does she think she is? This is what she said last year in response to the death of NYC Subway terrorizer Jordan Neely after he was subdued by Daniel Penny, a Marine veteran:

Source

Now that we know who she is, let’s answer her question: where are the men? The answer: right where she wanted them:

Daniel Penny

Men can’t call anything out, I’m afraid, if they’re in jail, fighting for their lives, against people like you, Amanda. Best wishes ducking that punch.

Thieves Make Good Neighbors, Apparently

A self-described journalist named “Jules Suzdaltsev,” also a New York resident, wrote a lengthy X thread talking about how a neighbor stole a shipment of paper towels from the front door of his apartment.

Here begins the story:

Source

He went on to talk about he deeply conflicted he was about confronting his neighbor who’s apparently great to live alongside, other than the fact he’s a thief. You have to read it to believe it [bold mine]:

And look, here’s my dilemma: this dude is weird, but also the best neighbor I've ever had; dead silent, never complains about the noise level (I record a VO show that requires me to shout at full volume), and has his windows blacked out, so I have the entire fire escape to myself

Again, very weird! He might be chopping up bodies in there, I don’tknow! But I don’t want him evicted, I’m obviously not going to call the cops over paper towels... so I’m just like... I guess I do nothing? If he moved out, any other neighbor would be worse for my situation.

As much as I try to soundproof my closet to record my show, I’m 100% sure he can hear me, and it’s gotta be annoying. I’m kind of trying to rationalize the fact that sometimes my packages might get stolen, but that’s the price I’m paying for never being bothered otherwise?

People like this really do exist, apparently. Just maybe only in America, or the broader West. Nowhere else in the world will you run into people who think that having things stolen from you is any price worth paying for not being bothered, unless you live in an area controlled by criminal gangs.

More:

Anyway, just crazy. He answered the door shirtless and was just like “Nope, don’t know what you're talking about, actually I’m really sick right now, bye!”. Does he not know what a Ring camera looks like?

I don’t know, Jules: do you know what a Ring camera is for? If you’re not going to do anything with that evidence, what do you have a camera for, anyway? Since the story is clearly headed in the direction of not doing anything in response to theft, perhaps he ought to remove the camera, so he doesn’t have to suffer through such a dilemma ever again. Hear no evil, see no evil.

Our boy comes to a conclusion, learning a valuable lesson in the process [bold mine]:

Also like, obviously by now he's opened them, I don't want them back, I already had Amazon send out new ones, and like, I don't want him to pay me for them, they didn't cost me more to get resent.

I feel like this is the kind of post where anyone who doesn't live in New York will be like “call the cops!!”, and anyone who does will be like “leave him alone, blessed that he doesn’t do worse”, and I honestly agree.

If that last sentence was meant to make New York look like a nice place to live, he instead made it seem like a Third World city where gangs will take what they wish from you in exchange for not taking your life. That’s not New York’s reality, not entirely, but it’s the implication behind “blessed that he doesn’t do worse.” I wouldn’t be so glib about the whole affair, even if he somehow rationally calculated that it wasn’t worth raising a ruckus over paper towels.

The thread kicked off a fusillade of debate, mostly because Suzdaltsev concluded that a neighbor stealing from him, along with lying about it, was a small price to pay for “community” and “quality of life.” That triggered a series of responses by the journalist, who was apparently surprised his story generated the discussion it did, along with wave of criticism against him. It’s a whole lot of nonsense and self-righteousness on Suzdaltsev’s part, exemplified by the following remark in response to critics:

reading the replies to realize a massive social divide: those who understand the pros/cons of community and the upside of valuing your actual quality of life and those who are deeply antisocial and can only interact with the world thru rigid rule abiding and revenge fantasies

As a journalist, he certainly knows how to re-frame reality, doesn’t he? Hope an employer puts his skills to use. Anyway, correct me if I’m wrong, but stealing from your neighbor, even once, is antithetical to community and neighborliness. Trust is the bedrock of any relationship, even among neighbors who don’t interact with each other much. Does Suzdaltsev believe he can trust a neighbor who stole from him? Maybe he ought to try stealing from his neighbor? What’s a little taking without asking from neighbors, you selfish bigot?

Beneath the veneer of civilization lies a vicious savagery. That veneer can only be maintained by firmly enforcing red lines, like not stealing from your neighbor. Humans established civilization because, without it, people just take what others have with force and they discovered that didn’t work out so well. We don’t live in a perfect world; even in places like Singapore, petty theft still occurs. In the grand scheme of things, stealing paper towels isn’t the biggest deal in the world. However, this is a neighbor we are talking about. If you can’t maintain civilization in your own little world, don’t worry about broader social problems. That’s putting the cart before the horse. Suzdaltsev, as a journalist, has a lot to say about people he’s never met and never will, but a neighbor will easily end up your biggest enemy sooner than anyone on social media or living in “Flyover Country” will.

Without a doubt, it’s obvious what he’s most concerned about and it’s not the theft:

Source

Again, it’s a lot of nonsense, a lot of it not worth responding to, but it’s fascinating insight into the culture of anarcho-tyranny. He felt the need to write up a thread about how he was a victim of theft, explained how he handled the situation, and is now surprised not everyone is patting him on the back for it. Clearly, Suzdaltsev knows theft is bad: why else would he have a security camera? Why else would he ask his neighbor if he stole something? If it’s just a “minor annoyance,” he sure expended a lot of money and time talking about it!

Here’s what I think is really happening here: Suzdaltsev capitulated to a thief, was exposed as an easy victim, and, in order to save face, needed to re-frame the narrative with him as the decent, normal human being and everyone else as antisocial and abnormal. Nobody likes being perceived as weak, even when they are. Some of us are just more honest in our self-assessments, while others, like our brave journalist, prioritize preserving the narrative over all else. The insecurity he projects onto “conservatives” is his own; his lack of confidence in his ability to handle someone who not only crossed a red line, but may also pose a danger to him.

When people lack the capacity to stand up for themselves (we’re not talking on social media), they compensate by taking the path of least resistance. Clearly, Suzdaltsev feels a little threatened by his neighbor or at least senses a potential for violence, so he’s choosing to let the thief win in exchange for not becoming a victim of a worse crime. It’s not an entirely irrational choice, but he shouldn’t pretend the whole thing wasn’t that big of a deal or that his behavior was the decent, normal thing to do. We can all see right through it: if theft wasn’t a big concern to him, what’s the doorbell camera for? Why bother telling the story blow-by-blow? Clearly, the incident troubled him. What troubles him more is that his “real” enemy, the damned conservatives, saw through him.

The lesson here, if there is one, is that some people apparently need to be taught that theft between neighbors is actually anti-community and makes for poor quality of life. His neighbor may never steal from him again, but he doesn’t need to. You can’t trust someone who steal from you. It’s that simple. It’s just unbelievable some of us need to have this explained to them.

All said, Suzdaltsev being an easy victim is on him. That’s a choice he’s making and it isn’t up to me or anyone else to be outraged on his behalf. But he should never expect others to adopt his norms. Unfortunately, that’s probably why people like him tell these stories to the wider world, in hopes of getting others to follow their example. It’s up to us to find better examples to follow.

Women’s Safety? What Women’s Safety?

There was an incident on the New York City Subway (again!) which became a topic of discussion across social media. It was a mostly non-violent incident - “mostly” because the discussion centered on whether violence was implied or not.

Here’s the incident:

Source

The young woman is surrounded by a large number of young men on the train and is offered a blunt, which she accepts, sending all the young men into a frenzy. Reactions were divided, with some saying there was nothing nefarious happening here, while others observed the situation was more dangerous than it appeared and the woman was playing along, because to do otherwise would’ve increased the risk for her. As you might imagine, race entered the discussion, some insinuating that some of us cannot the sight of a young White woman having a good time time with a group of young Black and Brown men.

What are we to think about this? Safety aboard public transport and for women are hot topics at the moment. Whether the woman was actually in any danger or not, I think we can all agree: what you see in that video isn’t something which happens aboard safe public transport, like in Japan. In Medellin, Colombia’s subway, I saw nothing of the sort, just people going about their day. But in New York and other Western public transport systems, it’s a frequent sight to see large numbers of youths and smoking like you see in the video. People are hassled on public transport the world over, but again, it occurs especially frequently here in the U.S. and the West.

What makes me think this woman was being hassled? Experience and intuition. First, the woman appears to be a visitor, possibly a foreigner. See that camera hanging around her neck? When was the last time you saw an American wearing a camera like that? As a foreigner, one who possibly doesn’t speak English all that well, what’s the likelihood she engaged a group of young men aboard a train in friendly conversation? Concerned for their safety, women traveling alone aren’t going to start talking to a group of young men, let alone any male stranger. It just doesn’t happen. Even as an able-bodied male, I certainly wouldn’t in the interest of my own safety. We’re told not to assume the worst about others, but history proves that there’s often nothing more dangerous than a group of young men.

Women should be especially wary, if not outright concerned, when isolated in the presence of a large group of young men behaving boisterously. I don’t think we should live in a world where men or a group of men cannot approach a woman in public and engage in conversation, but boundaries should always be respected. I’ve seen enough in my personal life, as have many of you, to conclude this was more than just an innocent interaction, especially when they asked her to take a hit of the blunt.

Still think this is much ado about nothing? We teach women not to accept drinks from strangers. But accepting a blunt from a stranger is perfectly fine? Especially in this day and age, when marijuana is laced with other, more dangerous substances? What’s so different about the situation recorded in the video that all the basics of women’s safety are tossed out the window? How is a group of young men any less dangerous than any other lone male stranger? Why do we tell women to guard their boundaries, rudely, if needed, but to let their guard down when surrounded by a group of young men?

I suppose the question worth asking is this: what would’ve happened had she not taken the blunt? What if she asked to be left alone? Would that have been the end of it? Experience and intuition once again suggests the answer is “no.” Young men like the ones seen in the video understand they make people uncomfortable and revel in doing so. The more you say “no,” the stronger they come on. It’s about taking pleasure in drawing someone’s attention, but also about how powerful it makes them feel.

Women also will often do whatever it takes to guarantee themselves safe passage. If that means taking a hit of a blunt, so be it. The power of social pressure is underrated. We all like to think, as adults, we’ve grown immune to it, but its not something you ever truly outgrow. When in public, with all eyes on you, and the camera rolling, as it was here, you’d be amazed at what you’ll do and say so they take it easy on you and allow you to save face. History, both distant and current, is full of stories of women who had no choice but to go along to get along. Telling men, a group of men, especially, often draws a fiercely negative response. Some just won’t be denied.

Maybe the woman’s life wasn’t in danger. Maybe she was really was enjoying herself. Maybe she was a smoker herself. All I know is, if we want public transport and women to be safer, it’s the type of thing we ought to be seeing less of. Public transport ought to be peaceful, orderly spaces. Peace isn’t just about an absence of violence, it’s respect for boundaries, not being loud and obnoxious, and certainly not smoking in a confined space in the presence of others. There’s a reason this sort of thing makes people uncomfortable. But some people do these things because they cause discomfort.

Likewise, the woman could very well have recognized the danger she was in and did what thought she needed just to keep a lid on things. I strongly doubt she hopped on the train looking forward to an interaction like that, it’s just that she ended up finding herself in one and did what she needed to keep the boys calm and not allow herself to be harmed or embarrassed, lest she be called a “Karen,” a “racist,” whatever.

But yeah, maybe this is much ado about nothing. I discussed this story primarily to highlight how quickly the rules change depending on the situation. “Don’t isolate yourself among male strangers,” “don’t accept ingestibles and inhalants from strangers,” all that goes away in a flash. But you better be wary of that one normal guy who dared to approach you in public, even if all he does is ask you for directions.

What explains the disparity?

The Fallacy Of “Femicide”

The killing of Laken Riley put the Regime in a tough spot. They need to recognize the heinousness and unacceptability of her murder, while also protecting the dignity and honor of all immigrants. We saw President Joe Biden grapple with this dilemma recently: after referring to Laken Riley’s murderer as an illegal (while also referring to the victim as “Lincoln Riley,” the name of the University of Southern California football team’s head coach), Biden backtracked, claiming regret for referring to him as an illegal and suggesting that illegal migrants built America.

Well, it looks like the Regime’s braintrust has come up with something other than illegal immigration to blame for Riley’s murder: men.

From the far-left Los Angeles Times:

As researchers who study crime, we were also struck by a dramatic shift that took place just 24 hours after Riley’s death, when the public learned that Ibarra is a Venezuelan migrant who entered the country illegally. Locally and nationally, collective grief turned to collective vilification as politicians, pundits and others asserted that illegal immigration is driving a “crime wave” that Riley’s killing exemplified.

This crime is in fact representative of a broader epidemic of violence — one characterized not by its perpetrators but by its victims: women. Alarmingly, more than half of women in the United States have experienced sexual violence in their lifetimes. The World Health Organization has identified violence against women as a “major public health problem.”

I think we’ve already established that women are uniquely at risk of victimization due to biological differences. Protecting women is a difficult challenge, one our society lacks the honesty to effectively address, even as the U.S. and the broader West has probably been both the safest and most permissive environment for women in all of history.

Calling Riley’s murder representative of some greater epidemic of violence against women is therefore not only not particularly profound, it’s also begging the question: why are women targets of violence at all? As the authors even confess, men are statistically more likely to be victims of violence. The only reason to be particularly preoccupied with violence against women is because, as a society, we quietly value the lives of women over men in large part because we recognize women are the more vulnerable of the two. The problem, again, is that we lack the honesty to openly confront that reality, because we must also preserve kayfabe: men and women are equal in every way imaginable.

The authors go on to assure the public there’s nothing to be concerned about when it comes to illegal immigrants:

Are fears of widespread “immigrant crime” justified? No.

One of us has been studying the immigration-crime nexus for 15 years and is a co-author of an exhaustive survey of systematic research on the topic, which concluded that “immigrants have lower involvement than the native-born on an array of crime measures.” Our review of the small but growing body of research on undocumented immigrants specifically arrived at the same conclusion. We need immigration reform for myriad reasons, but crime isn’t one of them.

The statistics do indeed show immigrants commit less crime than natives. However, this is mostly true for legal migrants. For illegals, the crime rate is still lower than that of natives, but it’s higher than that of legals. It also sidesteps an obvious truth: illegal immigrants have, by definition, are all criminals for having entered the country without permission. If someone trespasses on someone else’s property, this is generally considered to be a crime, yet that rule curiously doesn’t apply to illegal immigrants.

More important, if we accept that illegal immigration does bring its fair share of criminals over the border, why would we accept more of them? If we have more to fear from natives, why boost their numbers? After all, illegals are eventually going to reproduce and add to the native population, too. The argument makes no sense, unless bringing in large numbers of people into the country unrestricted is precisely the point.

Laken Riley’s murderer, Jose Antonio Ibarra, isn’t just an illegal immigrant. He’s from Venezuela, one of the most violent countries on the planet, one where violence against women - “femicide,” as it’s called - is said to be an acute problem. I realize that the authors, who are academics, have allowed their educations to overwhelm their common sense, but I think the rest of us understand perfectly well: importing violent men from the Third World is a terrible idea. Importing violent men from a country where femicide is already a problem is obviously hazardous for women.

So, why continue importing them?

The rest of the op-ed brings in a whole host of unrelated topics: abortion, guns, none of which had to do with Riley’s murder. But when the goal is to distract from the issue of illegal immigration and call for the wholesale upending of society, you throw everything into the kitchen sink, I suppose.

The Regime’s Answer To Crime: Cop Control, Not Criminal Control

One last brief topic before we wrap this up. Late last month, NYPD Detective Jonathan Diller was murdered by Guy Rivera, a career criminal with 21 prior arrests and nine prior felonies. Clearly not someone who should’ve been out and about, but you don’t need me to rehash that.

His funeral drew a crowd of hundreds, mostly law enforcement officers, along with former president and 2024 challenger Donald Trump. By contrast, New York’s Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, who showed up uninvited, was booted from the memorial.

In response to a remark by New York House Representative and former NYPD officer Anthony D’Esposito regarding the tremendous display of solidarity among law enforcement, a member of the Regime’s intelligentsia mused:

Source

Goodness. Do these people overthink everything? “Don’t ever cross us” is clearly a message directed at criminals, not at the general public. Why would anyone feel threatened by such a sentiment unless they’re a criminal or a criminal-sympathizer themselves?

I think we know the answer: the criminals and the intelligentsia are on the same side. I don’t see anywhere close to the same level of concern exhibited regarding the behavior of criminals. I don’t see any of these people calling for “criminal control.” What do they have to say about a savage with 21 prior arrest and nine felonies to his name being out on the streets? Nothing.

At best, it’s because they view crime, including murder, as the price for living in such a vibrant society as ours. At worst, it’s because crime and killing people serves a purpose, which is to terrorize Americans into submission, while keeping folks like David Burbach, an academic who educates military officers, at the top of the hierarchy. It’s people like this who benefit from anarcho-tyranny and are, therefore, threatened by any direct challenge to this order.

The police don’t do it all right and they deserve scrutiny, maybe more than they already receive. However, they’re also one of the only things standing between us and anarchy, where the violent prevail. We can worry about the police all we’d like, but at the end of the day, they’re not the problem.

We know who is.

Yes, It’s All Really As Crazy As It Seems.

Let’s wrap up on a higher note. Look at this incident from Brazil:

Source

Here’s what happened:

January 2, 2024, Brazil.

In a shocking incident at the Praia do Murubira beach, 24-year-old Gerson Carvalho Alencar Correia was arrested for attempted femicide.

The event, which took place on a Tuesday afternoon, saw Gerson attacking a woman with a bottle to her head. This violent act was witnessed by beachgoers who then chased after Gerson in an attempt to detain him.

Brazil is among the most violent countries in the world, far more violent than the U.S. Yet it seems like the men down there not only step forth to maintain social order when needed, they don’t go to jail for it, either. This is what I mean when I say the Second and even Third Worlds have a better understanding than the First World does when it comes to the fundamentals of civilization. Either we the citizenry, alongside those who enforce the law, use violence when necessary to maintain order, or the bad people will use violence to have their way with us.

I realize I struck a more combative, snarky tone than usual in this essay. If it’s off-putting, I hope you’ll let me get away with it this time. The insanity of our society is overwhelming and sometimes, you need to rage a bit. Keeping emotions bottled up isn’t a good thing - you need a healthy outlet for expressing how you really feel. My Substack serves me that purpose.

It’s your turn to blow off some steam: what’s your reaction to anything we talked about? Where are the men? Have you ever lived next door to a thief? Were they a good neighbor, all things considered? What’s your reaction to the woman on the train, surrounded by excitable young men, accepting a blunt? Is it all innocent, or is there something troubling underneath it all?

I sense a spirited discussion coming in the comments section.

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!