It seems like the arguments against active resistance are being made based on practicality - either you have too much to lose, or you will embolden our enemies. The goal of these are to enervate the two groups that are most likely to resist: family men and loudmouth ideologues, both of whom assume most other people are mostly the same as they are.
People who live for things that are bigger than themselves - principals, religion - don't need to concern themselves about the first (virtue is baked into struggle - jihad or crusade - and there is even virtue in losing a battle while prosecuting the larger war). For the second, cowardice emboldens an enemy worse than any possible resistance. It is not cowardly to resist an unjust aggressor - it is a moral necessity.
The civil war that we are presently undergoing is between two groups, and it crosses party lines: (to paraphrase Heinlein) those who want other people controlled (and, by extension, implicitly want to be in control) versus those who have neither inclination. It is literally neighbor versus neighbor, in a way it wasn't during the first Civil War.
The measure of a man isn't primarily how he acts when "they come for him". It's how he acts when "they come for the Jews" (metaphorically). At this point, everyone has to ask themselves - have we passed that red line yet?
As for those who consider recourse to the law important: abortion was the 'divide-by-zero' for the modern legal structure. Like in mathematics, if you allow divide by zero, it breaks the structure. Once you decide it's okay to execute some unwanted, inconvenient innocents - our Jews - it's not a slippery slope to surmise the same logic applies to pretty much anyone who is unwanted and inconvenient, innocent or not.
The major difference is, a fetus can't shoot back.
Tyranny is never about the head, front-man tyrant - whether an AG choosing to usurp freedom, or the likely next Democratic President. It's really about the many petits tyrans who support, participate, and benefit from being in the regime. Some - perhaps even most - do so out of ignorance, but too many - especially those who are moral actors, actively participating - do so because it is seen to benefit them disproportionately. Towing the line - or tightening the noose - is their way to 'get ahead'.
So, we have a well-worn path: first, you must defend against a tyranny, which entails the blood of patriots. You are familiar with the rest of that path.
Let's not make the mistake that we're in a time of history that has no meaning, that everything is business-as-usual, that life just 'goes on'. Also, let us not take heed of the drum-beat message - psyops in a cultural war - that has been drilled into us: "we're not the greatest generation". Let us instead say "maybe...but maybe just not yet."
People who live for things that are bigger than themselves - principals, religion - don't need to concern themselves about the first (virtue is baked into struggle - jihad or crusade - and there is even virtue in losing a battle while prosecuting the larger war). For the second, cowardice emboldens an enemy worse than any possible resistance. It is not cowardly to resist an unjust aggressor - it is a moral necessity.
The civil war that we are presently undergoing is between two groups, and it crosses party lines: (to paraphrase Heinlein) those who want other people controlled (and, by extension, implicitly want to be in control) versus those who have neither inclination. It is literally neighbor versus neighbor, in a way it wasn't during the first Civil War.
The measure of a man isn't primarily how he acts when "they come for him". It's how he acts when "they come for the Jews" (metaphorically). At this point, everyone has to ask themselves - have we passed that red line yet?
As for those who consider recourse to the law important: abortion was the 'divide-by-zero' for the modern legal structure. Like in mathematics, if you allow divide by zero, it breaks the structure. Once you decide it's okay to execute some unwanted, inconvenient innocents - our Jews - it's not a slippery slope to surmise the same logic applies to pretty much anyone who is unwanted and inconvenient, innocent or not.
The major difference is, a fetus can't shoot back.
Tyranny is never about the head, front-man tyrant - whether an AG choosing to usurp freedom, or the likely next Democratic President. It's really about the many petits tyrans who support, participate, and benefit from being in the regime. Some - perhaps even most - do so out of ignorance, but too many - especially those who are moral actors, actively participating - do so because it is seen to benefit them disproportionately. Towing the line - or tightening the noose - is their way to 'get ahead'.
So, we have a well-worn path: first, you must defend against a tyranny, which entails the blood of patriots. You are familiar with the rest of that path.
Let's not make the mistake that we're in a time of history that has no meaning, that everything is business-as-usual, that life just 'goes on'. Also, let us not take heed of the drum-beat message - psyops in a cultural war - that has been drilled into us: "we're not the greatest generation". Let us instead say "maybe...but maybe just not yet."
Last edited: