Absolutely right. Been saying this since the beginning. Anything short of throwing admissions officers in jail and they're going to just keep right on doing this. They fear no consequence (and they are probably right to do so, as the right probably won't impose any meaningful penalty on them).
That's fine. Send in SWAT and shut the schools down permanently. No 2nd chances and fire ALL the teachers. Problem solved. And publicly DARE any other school to blatantly break the law.
Meh. I'm no libertarian, but I believe for once, this *is* an issue that the market will take care of. Witness a recent article in the Wall Street Journal concerning the growing popularity of schools in the South. For this, there were several causes given, but one was the desire to "have a non politicized environment." To fill this in further, I'll note that these schools are giving scholarships to deserving white men -- something the ivies and their cohort no longer do.
There is a growing awareness that these institutions are no longer ours. Let them have their fill of NAMs and trannies. Let's see where things stand in 30 years.
The SCOUTS has had WAY too much power for far too long. So in essence, yes. I would not express it as "take away," but rather, universal disobedience.
i.e., "well, you guys didn't heed it, so you know what? We aren't either."
This will de-federalize things in a real damn hurry. And let's be clear about this: saving ourselves is going to mean disobeying the feds. Perhaps Freedom Fox and I agree on that basic point (if I read him correctly), but we are disagreeing on how to go about it.
Consider for a moment the business of building up alternative companies (and certainly academies) that hire white, and maybe some Asian men, paying no heed to EEOC bullshit. As Musk has discovered, it's a real challenge keeping the feds out.
At some point we are going to need to say "f.u." to them, and the sooner we understand that, the better.
I sometimes think that the abortion decision was largely a piece of boob bait, or a kind of limited hangout: it made people on the right believe that the institutions are with us, and that the justice system isn't utterly corrupt. Bad mistake.
Ultimately, WE (not the left) benefit most from disposing of respect for the courts. I realize in this season of Trumpian optimism that's not a popular position, but I think it's the true one.
Quite possibly so. All it would take is two aircraft carriers. Game over.
More likely, a slow draining away when the dollar is pulled from its perch.
But in either case, you raise a good point: we have to be ready to take advantage of this, and explain to people this this was the inevitable course of liberal empire: rape abroad, oppression at home.
For now, I share Mike Benz videos whenever I get the chance. :-)
I think we do largely agree about the same point, civil disobedience, not consenting to illegal and criminal governance/authority. I take exception to your condescending tone and insulting nature, disagreeing disagreeably, about how to go about it.
You don't seem to recognize that you lack basic netiquette. A disagreement over tactics is not the place to explode with walltext discurses on Hannah Arendt. This is supposed to be a conversation about the scotus, DEI, and institutions of higher learning. I've been to graduate school. I don't need to wade through your refresher course because you're really into this stuff. If you perceive my asking you to keep to the topic as rudeness, then so be it.
Umm...I went to graduate school, too. And I'm a doctor. I just don't go around flashing it in faces to proclaim my ideas are more valuable, my credentials somehow conveying I'm better.
If you don't want to be seen as a rude, pompous ass then don't be a rude, pompous ass. Some of us with advanced degrees don't pretend to be better than those without them. Most of the smartest, best informed and wisest people I know never even went to college. I'm humble enough to know and appreciate that. Even with my public Ivy education.
Nice ideal. And would work in a truly free market. But that's not what we have. Every job in the managerial/professional market has education criteria. And the "top" jobs with the greatest responsibility aim to hire the Oxford/Harvard graduates, Ivies, public Ivies, 'the best of the best' overseeing the rest of the workforce as managers or regulators. So unless those employers stop hiring schools promoting DEI/CRT under any new name designed to evade oversight the market will not be fixing this. And in the mean time, those thirty years, nothing will be left standing of our republic. We're already on the front end of the destruction by the earlier "leaders" who've been being indoctrinated for the past two+ decades under our noses. The pandemic was their coming out party. Add another three decades of the same type of leaders And the harms committed onto all of us will take a staggering, unthinkable toll.
The saying, "you can vote yourself into communism (fascism, totalitarianism) but you have to shoot your way out" is appropriate. They know they are weak and their authority is illegitimate, even criminal. They come into power through an open door and close it behind themselves so freedom can't threaten their grip on power. They do not play by the rules - the topic of this Stack. Once they get power they won't give it up willingly; they run the companies and agencies that do the hiring and won't be boycotting the schools that indoctrinated them for indoctrinating their future hires. The whole 'shoot your way out' applies. Unless they are forced out of power by those with the power to do so. Neither solution ideal. But I prefer the forcing them out of power to the shooting our way out one.
Perhaps you are a Brit (Oxford?), but the situation is not so dire with hiring here. Certainly, if one wishes to join the three-letter-agency blob, an Ivy education is absolutely necessary. Granted, a few moles are advantageous, but on the whole, our efforts should be in building up alternatives, and the avenues are already present. Hence a "perfect market" is not necessary. Alternatives do exist. Institutions are only as good as the personnel they attract, and starved of good people, the now-hegemonic ones will wither. Men -- not buildings, or even endowments -- make good institutions.
In principle I've got no objection to rounding up these DEI folks or otherwise disposing of them in the manners being proposed here among other commenters. But we have to think long-term. What's a better weapon for us: trying to re-take decrepit and now-evil institutions by making them "follow the law?"... a law, I'll add that no amount of enforcement will make them respect? And at the cost of re-validating the institutions through our pleading?
At a certain point one has to allow diseased parts to rot and fall off. If you think that's not possible, then you give them and their ideas too much credit.
A final point: I'll make the same case regarding the SCOTUS and "our republic." We will likely find that a second Trump presidency will provide a kind of Indian summer. But short of round ups, mass arrests, and executions, the "deep state" will be back with a vengeance the moment he leaves. At that stage, it would be better if we, too, disobey the SCOTUS, and from a position of strength: alternative institutions, local redoubts.
I'm an American. But if you know the crowd I'm writing about they go to Oxford, are Rhodes Scholars, UK/USA intertwined. False distinction. It's a multinational corporate-controlled world, national borders largely irrelevant. Separation between government and multinational corps is arm's length, not real. All-one. Perfected governance as Mussolini proclaims. SCOTUS appointees are a product of those powers, high priests in black robes doing the bidding of those who own the nation, as the first Chief Justice John Jay proclaimed are those who govern the US: It's owners...corporate in 2024.
No. These are murderous totalitarians. Not dissuaded by the hundreds of millions of victims at the hands of last century's totalitarian regimes. They're right, we're wrong, they'll break as many eggs (skulls) as they need to break to make their omelet, as Stalin described the millions of dead under his murderous Soviet regime. They are destroying our food supply as we speak, just like Stalin and Mao. They are consolidating banking, surveillance, communications the world over. Think our borders will protect us? When the same multinationals censor and impose totalitarian rule in Asia, South America, Europe, Canada, Australia, etc - at the direction/partnership with government leaders, regulators - in the US do you really think they'll have change of heart about imposing censorship, surveillance and restrictions on civil liberties on Americans that they've had no moral quandary about doing to the rest of the world? If they did that they'd be racists, right? All kinds of -ists if they only find their morals in protecting Americans from totalitarianism but not other peoples of the world.
Yes, building up alternative economies and communities are important. But these people have no intention to leave our alternatives be. They "mole" their way into local communities, even small mountain towns in NC are run by progressives who parachuted into those communities and now tell locals what to do. And maybe you find an oasis of local freedom, anytime, any access point to the rest of society involves playing by public-private partnership rules. Social credit, vax passports, travel, shopping, banking, etc all must interface with Ivy DEI/CRT rulers. Think they can survive thirty years? Without a more muscular, radical intervention that obliterates the rules they've erected and are erecting they, we won't.
Hannah Arendt (Origins of Totalitarianism) wrote a book about what Germans and Russians could've done to prevent the horrors of Hitler and Stalin, "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship." Here's Brave AI's Overview:
"Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship
Hannah Arendt, a German-born Jewish-American philosopher, emphasized the importance of personal responsibility in the face of dictatorship. In her essay “Personal Responsibility under Dictatorship” (1964), she argued that individuals living under totalitarian regimes have a moral obligation to resist and refuse to collaborate with the authorities, even if it means suffering the consequences.
Refusal to Participate
Arendt contended that individuals should not participate in morally reprehensible activities, such as reporting fellow citizens to the authorities or engaging in propaganda, even if it means risking their own lives. She believed that such actions would compromise one’s moral integrity and contribute to the perpetuation of the totalitarian system.
Maintaining Moral Autonomy
Instead, Arendt advocated for individuals to maintain their moral autonomy by refusing to participate in activities that violate their conscience. This stance requires acknowledging the inherent dignity and worth of human life, even in the face of overwhelming oppression.
The Banality of Evil
Arendt’s concept of the “banality of evil” (introduced in her book “Eichmann in Jerusalem”) highlights how ordinary individuals, rather than monstrous villains, can perpetuate evil through their thoughtless and obedient actions. She argued that this banality is a result of individuals surrendering their moral judgment and critical thinking to authority.
Responsibility and Obedience
Arendt criticized the concept of obedience, arguing that it obscures individual responsibility and moral agency. She believed that individuals should not blindly follow orders, even if they are issued by a legitimate authority. Instead, they should exercise their critical faculties and make moral judgments about the actions they are asked to perform.
Conclusion
In summary, Hannah Arendt’s concept of personal responsibility under dictatorship emphasizes the importance of individual moral autonomy, refusal to participate in morally reprehensible activities, and the rejection of obedience as a moral principle. Her ideas continue to influence contemporary debates about ethics, politics, and human rights, particularly in the context of authoritarian regimes."
Unless there's an extrajudicial solution we will have many more innocents lose their lives disobeying than indulging an extrajudicial solution. Barring that, even though Arendt's recommendations will result in the deaths of many disobedient souls, their numbers lost will be fewer than obeying, which is her point. More about that work in next comment.
The concept of "The Banality of Evil" applies. And we have an obligation to THINK, a *duty* to think, or we will lose it all. And the body count will dwarf all prior body counts under totalitarianism combined. Technological advances, and all.
"But although most people are culpable of great moral crimes, those who collaborated were not, in fact, criminals. On the contrary, they chose to follow the rules in a demonstrably criminal regime."
"People like Eichmann were not criminals and psychopaths, Arendt argued, but rule-followers protected by social privilege. “It was precisely the members of respectable society,” she writes, “who had not been touched by the intellectual and moral upheaval in the early stages of the Nazi period, who were the first to yield. They simply exchanged one system of values against another,” without reflecting on the morality of the entire new system.
Those who refused, on the other hand, who even “chose to die,” rather than kill, did not have “highly developed intelligence or sophistication in moral matters.” But they were critical thinkers practicing what Socrates called a “silent dialogue between me and myself,” and they refused to face a future where they would have to live with themselves after committing or enabling atrocities. We must remember, Arendt writes, that “whatever else happens, as long as we live we shall have to live together with ourselves.”"
"She writes: “If the ability to tell right from wrong should turn out to have anything to do with the ability to think, then we must be able to ’demand’ its exercise from every sane person, no matter how erudite or ignorant, intelligent or stupid, he may happen to be.” Thinking does not belong to some rarified world of professional thought, and indeed thinking removed from the world, can turn people away from what is unfolding right in front of them."
"But Arendt averred that it would be a “serious mistake” to forget that even totalitarian regimes “command and rest upon mass support.” The Nazi regime’s right to prescribe behavior (i.e., its authority) and its ability to act in concert (its power) depended on the continued support of relevant sections of the population. In this perspective, mass atrocities became possible because large parts of the German population came to accept that the Nazis had a right to rule."
FF - We cannot accept that these DEI/CRT indoctrinated Marxist/Fascist Totalitarians have a right to rule us. They do not. We must not obey. We must not consent.
Yikes -- WAY too much walltext, man. We don't need Hannah Freaking Arendt to make this point. Let's get out of Heidegger's bed and live in the now, eh?
The basic question here is just how we go about disobeying, and which way we dismantle what's unjust.
I'm saying we build other institutions, something that is happening already. You're right that this will require rejecting federal authority to cultivate those institutions (see my point to Daniel above). This is precisely why I want to preserve the course of action where we disobey the SCOTUS from a position of strength.
"If you can control about three or four key elements you can totally control a state. You can make right, wrong. You can make truth, falsehood. Falsehood, truth. If you control the media, if you control the justice department, if you control the police. you own the system."
- John DeCamp
Conspiracy of Silence (Banned Discovery Channel Documentary)
On the Franklin Scandal. Applies to our nation. Unless those elements come under the control of our nation there will be absolutely nowhere to hide. And disobeying will come at a higher and higher cost. Either we take those elements. Or scurry around for the rest of our God-given lives trying to avoid being exterminated by the system. Other institutions will not be permitted. They will be hunted down and eliminated. Remember the Canadian truckers debanking? Loss of everything they had. Organizers still suffering, never recovered what was lost/taken from them. Same.
These people aren't playing fairly, under the rules. They are playing to win. By any and all means. Manufacturing a fake pandemic, imposing mandatory slave masks, forced injections of experimental biotechnology on the world, with millions already dead, tens of millions injured. But because the media doesn't report it, the justice system doesn't prosecute it and the police don't act very few even acknowledge the democide.
No. This isn't Marquess of Queensberry rules. This isn't the US Constitution rules - what's being done isn't just unconstitutional, it's anti-constitutional, repugnant to the Constitution. There isn't a constitutional remedy to an anti-constitutional system controlled by enemies of the US Constitution itself. Including a clear majority of SCOTUS. Including the Mitch McConnell-approved Trump-nominated justices. Who do nothing to push back on DEI/CRT even in their alma matters; meaning they support it. Remember how fast the courts intervened against Trump exercising his exclusive Constitutional authority to protect our national security, direct our national defense and foreign policy. SCOTUS quickly acted to stop him exercising his authority, belatedly recognizing it after that recognition made little difference, lost timeliness.
John DeCamp was right, The Media. The Courts and The Police are necessary to control a state, to control a nation. Right now all three are controlled by the DEI/CRT indoctrinated or supporters of.
I remember when Holder said he would not defend DOMA; it’s only a matter of time before many start following suit.
Absolutely right. Been saying this since the beginning. Anything short of throwing admissions officers in jail and they're going to just keep right on doing this. They fear no consequence (and they are probably right to do so, as the right probably won't impose any meaningful penalty on them).
That's fine. Send in SWAT and shut the schools down permanently. No 2nd chances and fire ALL the teachers. Problem solved. And publicly DARE any other school to blatantly break the law.
Meh. I'm no libertarian, but I believe for once, this *is* an issue that the market will take care of. Witness a recent article in the Wall Street Journal concerning the growing popularity of schools in the South. For this, there were several causes given, but one was the desire to "have a non politicized environment." To fill this in further, I'll note that these schools are giving scholarships to deserving white men -- something the ivies and their cohort no longer do.
There is a growing awareness that these institutions are no longer ours. Let them have their fill of NAMs and trannies. Let's see where things stand in 30 years.
So you're fine with taking the Supreme Courts authority away from it?
The SCOUTS has had WAY too much power for far too long. So in essence, yes. I would not express it as "take away," but rather, universal disobedience.
i.e., "well, you guys didn't heed it, so you know what? We aren't either."
This will de-federalize things in a real damn hurry. And let's be clear about this: saving ourselves is going to mean disobeying the feds. Perhaps Freedom Fox and I agree on that basic point (if I read him correctly), but we are disagreeing on how to go about it.
Consider for a moment the business of building up alternative companies (and certainly academies) that hire white, and maybe some Asian men, paying no heed to EEOC bullshit. As Musk has discovered, it's a real challenge keeping the feds out.
At some point we are going to need to say "f.u." to them, and the sooner we understand that, the better.
I sometimes think that the abortion decision was largely a piece of boob bait, or a kind of limited hangout: it made people on the right believe that the institutions are with us, and that the justice system isn't utterly corrupt. Bad mistake.
Ultimately, WE (not the left) benefit most from disposing of respect for the courts. I realize in this season of Trumpian optimism that's not a popular position, but I think it's the true one.
I think all the wars we've gotten ourselves into, combined with BRICS will take care of any authority the Feds have.
Quite possibly so. All it would take is two aircraft carriers. Game over.
More likely, a slow draining away when the dollar is pulled from its perch.
But in either case, you raise a good point: we have to be ready to take advantage of this, and explain to people this this was the inevitable course of liberal empire: rape abroad, oppression at home.
For now, I share Mike Benz videos whenever I get the chance. :-)
I think we do largely agree about the same point, civil disobedience, not consenting to illegal and criminal governance/authority. I take exception to your condescending tone and insulting nature, disagreeing disagreeably, about how to go about it.
You don't seem to recognize that you lack basic netiquette. A disagreement over tactics is not the place to explode with walltext discurses on Hannah Arendt. This is supposed to be a conversation about the scotus, DEI, and institutions of higher learning. I've been to graduate school. I don't need to wade through your refresher course because you're really into this stuff. If you perceive my asking you to keep to the topic as rudeness, then so be it.
Pfffft - "I went to graduate school."
Umm...I went to graduate school, too. And I'm a doctor. I just don't go around flashing it in faces to proclaim my ideas are more valuable, my credentials somehow conveying I'm better.
If you don't want to be seen as a rude, pompous ass then don't be a rude, pompous ass. Some of us with advanced degrees don't pretend to be better than those without them. Most of the smartest, best informed and wisest people I know never even went to college. I'm humble enough to know and appreciate that. Even with my public Ivy education.
If your ideas are more valuable, then advance them - don't give the other participants in the conversation a book report.
Nice ideal. And would work in a truly free market. But that's not what we have. Every job in the managerial/professional market has education criteria. And the "top" jobs with the greatest responsibility aim to hire the Oxford/Harvard graduates, Ivies, public Ivies, 'the best of the best' overseeing the rest of the workforce as managers or regulators. So unless those employers stop hiring schools promoting DEI/CRT under any new name designed to evade oversight the market will not be fixing this. And in the mean time, those thirty years, nothing will be left standing of our republic. We're already on the front end of the destruction by the earlier "leaders" who've been being indoctrinated for the past two+ decades under our noses. The pandemic was their coming out party. Add another three decades of the same type of leaders And the harms committed onto all of us will take a staggering, unthinkable toll.
The saying, "you can vote yourself into communism (fascism, totalitarianism) but you have to shoot your way out" is appropriate. They know they are weak and their authority is illegitimate, even criminal. They come into power through an open door and close it behind themselves so freedom can't threaten their grip on power. They do not play by the rules - the topic of this Stack. Once they get power they won't give it up willingly; they run the companies and agencies that do the hiring and won't be boycotting the schools that indoctrinated them for indoctrinating their future hires. The whole 'shoot your way out' applies. Unless they are forced out of power by those with the power to do so. Neither solution ideal. But I prefer the forcing them out of power to the shooting our way out one.
Perhaps you are a Brit (Oxford?), but the situation is not so dire with hiring here. Certainly, if one wishes to join the three-letter-agency blob, an Ivy education is absolutely necessary. Granted, a few moles are advantageous, but on the whole, our efforts should be in building up alternatives, and the avenues are already present. Hence a "perfect market" is not necessary. Alternatives do exist. Institutions are only as good as the personnel they attract, and starved of good people, the now-hegemonic ones will wither. Men -- not buildings, or even endowments -- make good institutions.
In principle I've got no objection to rounding up these DEI folks or otherwise disposing of them in the manners being proposed here among other commenters. But we have to think long-term. What's a better weapon for us: trying to re-take decrepit and now-evil institutions by making them "follow the law?"... a law, I'll add that no amount of enforcement will make them respect? And at the cost of re-validating the institutions through our pleading?
At a certain point one has to allow diseased parts to rot and fall off. If you think that's not possible, then you give them and their ideas too much credit.
A final point: I'll make the same case regarding the SCOTUS and "our republic." We will likely find that a second Trump presidency will provide a kind of Indian summer. But short of round ups, mass arrests, and executions, the "deep state" will be back with a vengeance the moment he leaves. At that stage, it would be better if we, too, disobey the SCOTUS, and from a position of strength: alternative institutions, local redoubts.
I'm an American. But if you know the crowd I'm writing about they go to Oxford, are Rhodes Scholars, UK/USA intertwined. False distinction. It's a multinational corporate-controlled world, national borders largely irrelevant. Separation between government and multinational corps is arm's length, not real. All-one. Perfected governance as Mussolini proclaims. SCOTUS appointees are a product of those powers, high priests in black robes doing the bidding of those who own the nation, as the first Chief Justice John Jay proclaimed are those who govern the US: It's owners...corporate in 2024.
No. These are murderous totalitarians. Not dissuaded by the hundreds of millions of victims at the hands of last century's totalitarian regimes. They're right, we're wrong, they'll break as many eggs (skulls) as they need to break to make their omelet, as Stalin described the millions of dead under his murderous Soviet regime. They are destroying our food supply as we speak, just like Stalin and Mao. They are consolidating banking, surveillance, communications the world over. Think our borders will protect us? When the same multinationals censor and impose totalitarian rule in Asia, South America, Europe, Canada, Australia, etc - at the direction/partnership with government leaders, regulators - in the US do you really think they'll have change of heart about imposing censorship, surveillance and restrictions on civil liberties on Americans that they've had no moral quandary about doing to the rest of the world? If they did that they'd be racists, right? All kinds of -ists if they only find their morals in protecting Americans from totalitarianism but not other peoples of the world.
Yes, building up alternative economies and communities are important. But these people have no intention to leave our alternatives be. They "mole" their way into local communities, even small mountain towns in NC are run by progressives who parachuted into those communities and now tell locals what to do. And maybe you find an oasis of local freedom, anytime, any access point to the rest of society involves playing by public-private partnership rules. Social credit, vax passports, travel, shopping, banking, etc all must interface with Ivy DEI/CRT rulers. Think they can survive thirty years? Without a more muscular, radical intervention that obliterates the rules they've erected and are erecting they, we won't.
Hannah Arendt (Origins of Totalitarianism) wrote a book about what Germans and Russians could've done to prevent the horrors of Hitler and Stalin, "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship." Here's Brave AI's Overview:
"Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship
Hannah Arendt, a German-born Jewish-American philosopher, emphasized the importance of personal responsibility in the face of dictatorship. In her essay “Personal Responsibility under Dictatorship” (1964), she argued that individuals living under totalitarian regimes have a moral obligation to resist and refuse to collaborate with the authorities, even if it means suffering the consequences.
Refusal to Participate
Arendt contended that individuals should not participate in morally reprehensible activities, such as reporting fellow citizens to the authorities or engaging in propaganda, even if it means risking their own lives. She believed that such actions would compromise one’s moral integrity and contribute to the perpetuation of the totalitarian system.
Maintaining Moral Autonomy
Instead, Arendt advocated for individuals to maintain their moral autonomy by refusing to participate in activities that violate their conscience. This stance requires acknowledging the inherent dignity and worth of human life, even in the face of overwhelming oppression.
The Banality of Evil
Arendt’s concept of the “banality of evil” (introduced in her book “Eichmann in Jerusalem”) highlights how ordinary individuals, rather than monstrous villains, can perpetuate evil through their thoughtless and obedient actions. She argued that this banality is a result of individuals surrendering their moral judgment and critical thinking to authority.
Responsibility and Obedience
Arendt criticized the concept of obedience, arguing that it obscures individual responsibility and moral agency. She believed that individuals should not blindly follow orders, even if they are issued by a legitimate authority. Instead, they should exercise their critical faculties and make moral judgments about the actions they are asked to perform.
Conclusion
In summary, Hannah Arendt’s concept of personal responsibility under dictatorship emphasizes the importance of individual moral autonomy, refusal to participate in morally reprehensible activities, and the rejection of obedience as a moral principle. Her ideas continue to influence contemporary debates about ethics, politics, and human rights, particularly in the context of authoritarian regimes."
Unless there's an extrajudicial solution we will have many more innocents lose their lives disobeying than indulging an extrajudicial solution. Barring that, even though Arendt's recommendations will result in the deaths of many disobedient souls, their numbers lost will be fewer than obeying, which is her point. More about that work in next comment.
Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship, Hannah Arendt, 1964
https://grattoncourses.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/responsibility-under-a-dictatorship-arendt.pdf
The concept of "The Banality of Evil" applies. And we have an obligation to THINK, a *duty* to think, or we will lose it all. And the body count will dwarf all prior body counts under totalitarianism combined. Technological advances, and all.
https://www.openculture.com/2017/01/hannah-arendt-on-personal-responsibility-under-dictatorship.html
"But although most people are culpable of great moral crimes, those who collaborated were not, in fact, criminals. On the contrary, they chose to follow the rules in a demonstrably criminal regime."
"People like Eichmann were not criminals and psychopaths, Arendt argued, but rule-followers protected by social privilege. “It was precisely the members of respectable society,” she writes, “who had not been touched by the intellectual and moral upheaval in the early stages of the Nazi period, who were the first to yield. They simply exchanged one system of values against another,” without reflecting on the morality of the entire new system.
Those who refused, on the other hand, who even “chose to die,” rather than kill, did not have “highly developed intelligence or sophistication in moral matters.” But they were critical thinkers practicing what Socrates called a “silent dialogue between me and myself,” and they refused to face a future where they would have to live with themselves after committing or enabling atrocities. We must remember, Arendt writes, that “whatever else happens, as long as we live we shall have to live together with ourselves.”"
Evil Comes From a Failure to Think
https://www.goethe.de/ins/us/en/kul/wir/tid/22701370.html
"She writes: “If the ability to tell right from wrong should turn out to have anything to do with the ability to think, then we must be able to ’demand’ its exercise from every sane person, no matter how erudite or ignorant, intelligent or stupid, he may happen to be.” Thinking does not belong to some rarified world of professional thought, and indeed thinking removed from the world, can turn people away from what is unfolding right in front of them."
https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/obedience-and-political-affairs-2014-11-17
"But Arendt averred that it would be a “serious mistake” to forget that even totalitarian regimes “command and rest upon mass support.” The Nazi regime’s right to prescribe behavior (i.e., its authority) and its ability to act in concert (its power) depended on the continued support of relevant sections of the population. In this perspective, mass atrocities became possible because large parts of the German population came to accept that the Nazis had a right to rule."
FF - We cannot accept that these DEI/CRT indoctrinated Marxist/Fascist Totalitarians have a right to rule us. They do not. We must not obey. We must not consent.
Yikes -- WAY too much walltext, man. We don't need Hannah Freaking Arendt to make this point. Let's get out of Heidegger's bed and live in the now, eh?
The basic question here is just how we go about disobeying, and which way we dismantle what's unjust.
I'm saying we build other institutions, something that is happening already. You're right that this will require rejecting federal authority to cultivate those institutions (see my point to Daniel above). This is precisely why I want to preserve the course of action where we disobey the SCOTUS from a position of strength.
"If you can control about three or four key elements you can totally control a state. You can make right, wrong. You can make truth, falsehood. Falsehood, truth. If you control the media, if you control the justice department, if you control the police. you own the system."
- John DeCamp
Conspiracy of Silence (Banned Discovery Channel Documentary)
https://archive.org/details/ConspiracyOfSilenceBannedDiscoveryChannelDocumentary
(57:06 timestamp)
On the Franklin Scandal. Applies to our nation. Unless those elements come under the control of our nation there will be absolutely nowhere to hide. And disobeying will come at a higher and higher cost. Either we take those elements. Or scurry around for the rest of our God-given lives trying to avoid being exterminated by the system. Other institutions will not be permitted. They will be hunted down and eliminated. Remember the Canadian truckers debanking? Loss of everything they had. Organizers still suffering, never recovered what was lost/taken from them. Same.
These people aren't playing fairly, under the rules. They are playing to win. By any and all means. Manufacturing a fake pandemic, imposing mandatory slave masks, forced injections of experimental biotechnology on the world, with millions already dead, tens of millions injured. But because the media doesn't report it, the justice system doesn't prosecute it and the police don't act very few even acknowledge the democide.
No. This isn't Marquess of Queensberry rules. This isn't the US Constitution rules - what's being done isn't just unconstitutional, it's anti-constitutional, repugnant to the Constitution. There isn't a constitutional remedy to an anti-constitutional system controlled by enemies of the US Constitution itself. Including a clear majority of SCOTUS. Including the Mitch McConnell-approved Trump-nominated justices. Who do nothing to push back on DEI/CRT even in their alma matters; meaning they support it. Remember how fast the courts intervened against Trump exercising his exclusive Constitutional authority to protect our national security, direct our national defense and foreign policy. SCOTUS quickly acted to stop him exercising his authority, belatedly recognizing it after that recognition made little difference, lost timeliness.
John DeCamp was right, The Media. The Courts and The Police are necessary to control a state, to control a nation. Right now all three are controlled by the DEI/CRT indoctrinated or supporters of.
Or just shooting a few of them to get the message across.