BBC[New]speaking of anarchy...

[eye2i2hear]

Can you spot the 1984 in the 2007 words, boys and girls?

peak:

Thirteen die in Pakistan attack

The home of Amiruddin, government representative in the autonomous Khyber tribal area, was attacked with rockets and hand grenades in the early morning.
Police say Mr Amiruddin survived but several of his relatives died.
Tank is the gateway to the South Waziristan tribal region, where al-Qaeda and the Taleban are strong.

District police officer Mumtaz Zareen said it would be "premature to name elements behind the attack".

Reports quoted witnesses as saying that the gunmen had stormed the house and asked the people staying there about the official's whereabouts.

Anarchy

When they did not find the official, they went on a shooting spree in the house, reports say.

Last year, incursions by Taleban militants into Tank led to a total collapse of the civil administration in the district.

The police there abandoned their posts, and banks have been told to arrange their own security.

The BBC's Ilyas Khan, who visited Tank recently, says the situation in the southern districts of North West Frontier Province (NWFP) is unmistakably sliding into anarchy.

Tank has been the worst hit, and is as good as lost to the militants, our correspondent says.

---BBC News online

[que the Mr. Rogers neighborhood clip here: "Can you say anarchy, boys and girls? Sure. I like the way you use anarchy, did you know that? Sure."]

anarchy = die, attacked, rockets, hand grenades, al-Qaeda and the Taleban, gunmen, stormed, shooting spree, worst, and good as lost to the militants

government = none of the above/antonym of 1984 anarchy

[que Austin Power's Dr. Evil sound clip here: "R-i-g-h-t-" ]

[eye2i2hear]

Perhaps this article holds value, considering 1864 = 1984 = 2007 application?

"Call Me an Abolitionist, Please"
by Glen Allport
on Strike The Root.com
excerpt:

narchists continue using a descriptor that to 99% of the public actually does mean “violent, uncivilized destroyers of property and enemies of functioning society”. We can rail all we want about how wrong and unfair that is, but the fact remains that nearly everyone defines “anarchist” differently-- and far more negatively than we do. Thanks to more than a century of media effort (aided and abetted by violent idiots who have called themselves anarchists), “anarchy” has been relentlessly and successfully defined as, essentially: “chaos and violence, and destruction of property rights and civil order.” In short: “anarchy” = “chaos” or even “terrorism” in the public mind. This is not a label I want attached to myself, especially during America’s War on Terror.
...

[T]he word “abolitionist” accurately describes a person who wants to abolish something, in this case the evil of initiated coercion.

The term was widely used by those who wanted to abolish slavery, and slavery is, of course, merely a specific and extreme form of initiated coercion. This use of the term “abolitionism” is the only one I was familiar with before doing a web search, and I would wager that most Americans have never heard of any other: in a practical sense, “abolitionism” means the movement to abolish slavery. The movement to abolish all initiated coercion – all forms and degrees of slavery and attempted slavery, large and small – is clearly a continuation of the original. Positive feelings people rightfully have for the movement to abolish slavery are equally well deserved by those who seek to abolish all forms of initiated coercion. Furthermore, abolishing slavery did not tear the world apart or cause chaos or misery (the U.S. Civil War did, but in most nations slavery was abolished without resorting to war. Even in America it was the war, not freedom for the slaves, that caused violence and misery – and Americans are clear on that).

[not to even get into whether the cause of the U.S. civil war was not as much (or directly) negro enslavement as it was taxation apportionment?! both of course using The CONstitution to validate such...]