I agree with you on so many points. Unfortunately, those who stand up for citizens in Idaho are either persecuted themselves (see Senators Lenney, Zuiderveld, and Herndon at Sen Winder's hand), smeared and maligned so they don't get into office (Ammon Bundy), or become corrupted over time by the system and their donors (many names come to mind).
Only vigilant, well-informed voters and free and fair elections have a chance of overcoming any of this, along with ***CONSTITUTIONAL SHERIFFS*** and other officials who honor their oaths of office. And, we do need to reconstitute (not simply reform) most of our institutions. See Reconstitution Starter Pack (https://eolson47.substack.com/cp/138445087) and Process to Approach Lesser Magistrate (https://eolson47.substack.com/cp/138452629) for ideas.
Re: George Floyd, his innocence is not clear-cut. Please see the following articles by Pierre Kory, MD, MPA. Kory is a Pulmonary and Critical Care Specialist, Teacher/Researcher, co-Developer of effective, evidence/expertise-based COVID Treatment protocols, and a co-founder with other medical professionals of the FLCCC: Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (https://covid19criticalcare.com/). Dr. Kory analyzed records and testified at the Derek Chauvin civil trial in George Floyd's death.
Of course, what happened to Officer Chauvin in prison NEVER should have happened, guilty or not. As a former police officer, he should have been housed separately from others in this Tucson, AZ federal prison. If he wasn't housed separately, or the guards were asleep, inattentive, or worse (shades of Epstein), those responsible MUST be held accountable for what happened to him.
“That level of force to a person handcuffed behind their back ... that in no way, shape or form is anything that’s by policy,” testified Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, “And when we talk about the framework of our sanctity of life [policy], and we talk about the principles and values that we have ... that action goes contrary to what we’re talking about.” If Kyle Rittenhouse, falsely accused of a far more heinous crime than “passing a fake $20” had been treated this way at his arrest, would Brian be dismissing it? If Kyle had resisted, would that make it okay? Crenshaw and Delgado would post this piece on the classroom wall and say, “See, this is why we have to burn it all down.”
I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Are you arguing that Chauvin deserves to be in prison for racially-motivated murder? That's clearly not what happened.
This is exactly what I'm talking about though. For a certain generation the first instinct is to defend the institutions, to run interference for them, defend them from criticism. Is this how the Soviet Union and Communist China came about, as the Bolsheviks and the Maoists took power and turned the former institutions against their people? Did the old guard caution their younger neighbors against being too drastic in their opposition?
What I still caution against is trashing the results on our Constitutional institutions and supplanting them with non-facts that fit a modern narrative. Based on a jury of his peers Chauvin broke his officer’s oath, and deserves punishment. I personally oppose the concept of “hate” crimes as I believe St. Augustine, that only God knows why someone does something, I.e. vote for an appropriation bill or kneel on a man’s neck, but I have lost that argument and the law now leaves such judgement to juries (or, according to you, Herndon, Lenney, and Zuiderveld). Trashing existing structures of self-governance is one of the “praxis” of communism. I would “restore” them to Constitutional limits, while you would burn them to the ground. Again, Fromm, Adorno and Marcuse would be proud.
Explain the material difference between restoration and reform. Many people call for "restoring" constitutional governance, or "returning" to the Constitution, but I don't see any plan to do so.
EDIT: What I mean is that I often see the proponents of "restoration" spend more time fighting against people on their own side than actively working for such a restoration.
At what point does a house become so rotted, so damaged by fire and flood, and in such disrepair, that renovation is impossible, and it must be completely dismantled and rebuilt? Saying that "burning it down" is the wrong answer, and we must instead wait for some "restoration" would be like the men of 1776 who said independence was a bridge too far and we must instead work for restoration of our relationship with the Crown.
Your observation is likely true. Marxists have few good arguments for abandoning systems that have delivered both freedom and prosperity to millions - so they don’t try. Their pernicious plan is to wreck injustice on “the good guys,” hoping the good guys will react in a way that rips the Constitution to threads. Too many “good guys” sucker for that ploy. (PS - this strategy was the origin of the title “reactionary”)
That's the whole point though - the system that brought freedom and prosperity is broken. If you fight to save the system that is now oppressing and destroying the American people, then you're basically Colonel Nicholson, fighting to save "his" bridge from British commandos.
This is where ten years in the trenches in DC and several years overseas gives a different perspective. You think the Marxists have won and own the house. I know they didn’t win, but have fooled people into thinking they own the house. In the meantime the house is burning and many are sitting on the sideline saying “naaah, the house isn’t ours any more so why exert ourselves.”
I agree with you on so many points. Unfortunately, those who stand up for citizens in Idaho are either persecuted themselves (see Senators Lenney, Zuiderveld, and Herndon at Sen Winder's hand), smeared and maligned so they don't get into office (Ammon Bundy), or become corrupted over time by the system and their donors (many names come to mind).
Only vigilant, well-informed voters and free and fair elections have a chance of overcoming any of this, along with ***CONSTITUTIONAL SHERIFFS*** and other officials who honor their oaths of office. And, we do need to reconstitute (not simply reform) most of our institutions. See Reconstitution Starter Pack (https://eolson47.substack.com/cp/138445087) and Process to Approach Lesser Magistrate (https://eolson47.substack.com/cp/138452629) for ideas.
Re: George Floyd, his innocence is not clear-cut. Please see the following articles by Pierre Kory, MD, MPA. Kory is a Pulmonary and Critical Care Specialist, Teacher/Researcher, co-Developer of effective, evidence/expertise-based COVID Treatment protocols, and a co-founder with other medical professionals of the FLCCC: Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance (https://covid19criticalcare.com/). Dr. Kory analyzed records and testified at the Derek Chauvin civil trial in George Floyd's death.
* Expert Witness Testimony of the George Floyd Murder Case: https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/expert-witness-testimony-of-the-george
* George Floyd Did Not Die Of a Fentanyl Overdose: https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/george-floyd-did-not-die-of-a-fentanyl
* George Floyd's Death - Response to Comments: https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/george-floyds-death-response-to-comments
Of course, what happened to Officer Chauvin in prison NEVER should have happened, guilty or not. As a former police officer, he should have been housed separately from others in this Tucson, AZ federal prison. If he wasn't housed separately, or the guards were asleep, inattentive, or worse (shades of Epstein), those responsible MUST be held accountable for what happened to him.
“That level of force to a person handcuffed behind their back ... that in no way, shape or form is anything that’s by policy,” testified Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, “And when we talk about the framework of our sanctity of life [policy], and we talk about the principles and values that we have ... that action goes contrary to what we’re talking about.” If Kyle Rittenhouse, falsely accused of a far more heinous crime than “passing a fake $20” had been treated this way at his arrest, would Brian be dismissing it? If Kyle had resisted, would that make it okay? Crenshaw and Delgado would post this piece on the classroom wall and say, “See, this is why we have to burn it all down.”
I'm not quite sure where you're going with this. Are you arguing that Chauvin deserves to be in prison for racially-motivated murder? That's clearly not what happened.
This is exactly what I'm talking about though. For a certain generation the first instinct is to defend the institutions, to run interference for them, defend them from criticism. Is this how the Soviet Union and Communist China came about, as the Bolsheviks and the Maoists took power and turned the former institutions against their people? Did the old guard caution their younger neighbors against being too drastic in their opposition?
What I still caution against is trashing the results on our Constitutional institutions and supplanting them with non-facts that fit a modern narrative. Based on a jury of his peers Chauvin broke his officer’s oath, and deserves punishment. I personally oppose the concept of “hate” crimes as I believe St. Augustine, that only God knows why someone does something, I.e. vote for an appropriation bill or kneel on a man’s neck, but I have lost that argument and the law now leaves such judgement to juries (or, according to you, Herndon, Lenney, and Zuiderveld). Trashing existing structures of self-governance is one of the “praxis” of communism. I would “restore” them to Constitutional limits, while you would burn them to the ground. Again, Fromm, Adorno and Marcuse would be proud.
Explain the material difference between restoration and reform. Many people call for "restoring" constitutional governance, or "returning" to the Constitution, but I don't see any plan to do so.
EDIT: What I mean is that I often see the proponents of "restoration" spend more time fighting against people on their own side than actively working for such a restoration.
At what point does a house become so rotted, so damaged by fire and flood, and in such disrepair, that renovation is impossible, and it must be completely dismantled and rebuilt? Saying that "burning it down" is the wrong answer, and we must instead wait for some "restoration" would be like the men of 1776 who said independence was a bridge too far and we must instead work for restoration of our relationship with the Crown.
Your observation is likely true. Marxists have few good arguments for abandoning systems that have delivered both freedom and prosperity to millions - so they don’t try. Their pernicious plan is to wreck injustice on “the good guys,” hoping the good guys will react in a way that rips the Constitution to threads. Too many “good guys” sucker for that ploy. (PS - this strategy was the origin of the title “reactionary”)
That's the whole point though - the system that brought freedom and prosperity is broken. If you fight to save the system that is now oppressing and destroying the American people, then you're basically Colonel Nicholson, fighting to save "his" bridge from British commandos.
This is where ten years in the trenches in DC and several years overseas gives a different perspective. You think the Marxists have won and own the house. I know they didn’t win, but have fooled people into thinking they own the house. In the meantime the house is burning and many are sitting on the sideline saying “naaah, the house isn’t ours any more so why exert ourselves.”