How is CHAZ going to end? From without or within?

Welcome to the independent nation of CHAZ or the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone. Free of police, rule of law, governmental structures, complex infrastructure, how is it all being held together?

My interpretation of the situation is - with power.

Marxism and hierarchy

The Marxist/Communist interpretation of modern-day hierarchy is that they are all predicated on the individuals within it wielding varying amounts of power over their lesser. In their view the only way one ascends to the top of a corporation or government structure is through ill gotten gains.

In reality a successful hierarchy necessitates competence. Any hierarchy based on power soon becomes tyrannous and rots from within. Take for example any historical tyrannical regime, we know that attempts to move up those structures require the dispatching of one’s opponent, by political or lethal means. Any organisation needs a platform of stability from which to move forward. How can any system or structure function properly when those guiding its direction are looking over their shoulder?

The reality of human collectives

Human beings naturally assemble themselves into a hierarchy, which is somewhat intuitive and mutually agreed upon, often without acknowledgement or being verbally communicated. We’re especially good at picking out a leader in a group and following their lead.

We often switch between leaders in groups depending on what the situation calls for and the varying experience of confidence in dealing with said situation (competency). If you’re on an expedition you go with the most confident individual that has fieldcraft skills, local knowledge, experience. If someone gets hurt on that expedition you then turn to the doctor or medic to remedy that situation and lead you through it. This creates that pecking order, your overall leader followed by specialists.

To be successful as a group entity, the aim or goal needs to be common among members, specific enough so that everyone knows when it’s been achieved and the methodology to achieve it needs to be unilaterally understood.

In some cases, even unelected leaders who assume the leadership position and operate without accountability are bearable, if all of the above is intact and they are deemed to be sufficiently capable of providing the desired result.

If the aim is not common the group will not form and bond

          (i) If the aim is disguised or purposely vague this will lead to in-fighting

If the method is not agreed upon the group will fall apart from in-fighting.

If the aim is not specific it leaves room for exploitation and abuse.

This is made worse when the leader has no accountability for their actions and cannot be removed.

If any upsets within the group cannot be mediated in good will, then the only option for the unelected official is to exercise power, which then creates resentment by virtue of their unelected status.

Any in-fighting may lead to disbanding the group or a split into opposing factions. Opposing factions can end with the subjugation of one group or the removal of them altogether by whatever means.

How does CHAZ fit into this?

The aim of the group will vary from person to person with many starkly unaware of the anticapitalistic agenda of the true BLM followers and group members. This will create conflict.

Their ideas as to what is appropriate in achieving their goal will also vary with regards to those in the group. With the true believers much more likely to extend a rather heavy hand to anyone that opposes them. This again will create conflict.

Their goal is not well described nor tangible, so this can continue for as long as they would have it and encompass and justify as much brutality or malevolence as they wish.

But there are also Trojan horses within their camp.

The woke left ideology is not held together by a cohesive world view, there are constant conflictions within it that create factions within their own unit. For example, you have feminists that believe all of the ‘doctrine of the woke’ apart from holding a biologically essentialist view, thus not agreeing with the trans element of the ideology. This turns them into the black sheep of the Marxist family.

The contradictions don’t end there e.g. LGBT & Islam, LGB & Trans

Not only that but within their encampment there will be individuals that aren’t on board with the true Marxist espousing’s of the Black Lives Matter movement but rather there because they believe it to be a true cause, not one to end capitalism masquerading as a civil rights group.

These differences will soon play out in the form of conflict among the ‘settlers’ and will more than likely end with an exercise in power from their current unelected leader. What makes the conflict all the more probable is their zealotry to the cause, with their totalitarian view and uncompromising standards for an 'ally'.

The same unelected leader who has already been called out by the inhabitants of CHAZ for acting like a 'Warlord'. 

If left to fester, resentment will grow, the unelected leader will exercise more power, they’ll either disband or it will end in bloodshed. If they are provoked from outside, then they will unify around protecting CHAZ and the dismantling process will be lengthened.

They are currently struggling for food and have a pitiful (racially segregated) garden on display. It won’t be long before they descend into conflict or leave for lack of food.

The irony in all of this is that they have built themselves a border, established an armed militia acting as a police force and are operating in hierarchies predicated on power as they claim the western countries are so wrong to do.