A Sandia National Labs Whistleblower on Culture form Marxism imposition by HR Department

U/D: Added a screen shot from a seminar and clips from a trove of documents in hands of US OMB. kairosfocus

F/N: Whistleblowing worked. Memo issued to repudiate critical race theory mainstreaming by HR in Fed Govt https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/M-20-34.pdf KF kairosfocus

JaD, anarchy is actually the gateway to tyranny, as the demand for order at any price given consequences of violent chaos opens the door to the new ideology's power brokers. KF kairosfocus

Critical race theory (CRT) advocates operate on the premise, “Freedom of speech for me but not thee.”

CRT scholars have critiqued many of the assumptions that they believe constitute the ideology of the First Amendment. For example, instead of helping to achieve healthy and robust debate, the First Amendment actually serves to preserve the inequities of the status quo; there can be no such thing as an objective or content neutral interpretation in law in general or of the First Amendment in particular; some speech should be viewed in terms of the harm it causes, rather than all speech being valued on the basis of it being speech; and there is no “equality” in “freedom” of speech. In terms of the First Amendment, the primary battlefield for CRT has been hate speech regulation. No one legal definition exists for hate speech, but it generally refers to abusive language specifically attacking a person or persons based on their race, color, religion, ethnic group, gender, or sexual orientation. Hate speech is currently still protected by the First Amendment. CRT scholars have critiqued this protection and the ideology driving it…

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1254/critical-race-theory If you don’t see it, let me point out the blatant hypocrisy. The only way the CRT movement have been able to advance their agenda is via the first amendment. So again, they are operating on the premise, “Freedom of speech for me but not thee.” When freedom speech goes (which is more broadly the freedom of thought, conscience and belief) there goes democracy. So what do you prefer? Anarchy or tyranny? Those are your choices. john_a_designer

So, to achieve the Socialist Worker's Paradise, be it fascist or communist, you must first make sure your children are ignorant of history, and you must fill your children's hearts to overflowing with enough intense hatred and anger that they demand a brutal authoritarian dictatorship to set things right. Then, when you're in power and luxury, you can tell them how much better their abject poverty is than before the glorious revolution! You must constantly publish images of your happy slaves on the State plantation working together in community for the common good. Everyone there receives an equal amount consisting of the barest minimum for survival in the name of true equality and environmentalism. Naturally, you and your friends will receive the wonderful perks you deserve that are commensurate with your wisdom, education, concern, and level of responsibility to guard and maintain the plantation against Enemies of the State, which for some reason always seem to be Jewish . . . or Christian, if you run out of Jews. You can use Muslim minorities if you're desperate, but you must find Enemies of the State! -Q Querius

Vivid, crooked yardsticks games. If straight is redefined, then the truly straight will never pass the test of conformity to the bent. KF kairosfocus

JaD, so it is indeed, "everywhere." A sobering sign, but if it is in a nuke weapons design facility, that means even security agencies have been compromised. Sandia would be in the class where colour coded badges highlight permitted zones, backed up by shoot to kill internal security for those insistent on being out of zone. At least, if the whispered stories are to be believed. KF kairosfocus

The bigger problem is not that CRT is in Govt the problem is that our children are being indoctrinated in this [SNIP -- broken window effect] starting in grade school. Our high schools and Universities are nothing more than indoctrination camps is it any wonder that they hate America? Vivid vividbleau

Here is a pertinent article by Discovery Institute fellow Christopher Rufo.

Critical race theory — the far-left academic discourse centered on the concepts of “whiteness,” “white fragility” and “white privilege” — is coursing through the federal government’s veins. Under a GOP ­administration, no less…Since President Trump’s inauguration, [there have been] at least 17 trainings for federal agencies, including the Justice Department, the National Institutes of Health and the ­Office of the Attorney General…

https://www.discovery.org/econ/2020/07/17/obscene-federal-diversity-training-scam-prospers-even-under-trump/ So it is just not at Sandia National Labs. See also Tucker Carlson’s (9/1/20) interview with Rufo. https://video.foxnews.com/v/6186767845001#sp=show-clips john_a_designer

The secular progressive left has succeeded in turning race into a wedge issue which is intended to divide people rather than solve any of the lingering problems that underlie racism, which most people like I agree should be the goal. In other words, their intention is to use the issue of race as a means to gain political power and cultural dominance. They’re not motivated by truth or honesty, morality or a genuine respect for human rights. Rather they’re motivated raw power which they won’t hesitate to use ruthlessly and they will use immoral means, including violence, to accomplish that goal. One of the ways they do this is to see racism everywhere and in everything even, as has been mentioned here at UD before, in traditionally apolitical and amoral subjects like math. Now you can’t even celebrate Halloween without being racist or racially insensitive. Even if your white dressing up as someone white! Here is the lecture one very PC mom gave her five year old daughter:

“There is one thing I don’t like about the character of Elsa. I feel like because Elsa is a White princess, and we see so many White princesses, her character sends the message that you have to be a certain way to be “beautiful” or to be a “princess”…that you have to have White skin, long, blonde hair, and blue eyes. And I don’t like that message. You are White, like Elsa—if you dressed up as a character like Moana, who has brown skin, you would never change your skin color. But I’m not sure I like the idea of you changing your hair color to dress up as Elsa—because I think Elsa’s character could also be a short, brown-haired character like you.” “No,” my daughter refuted. “I want you to make a long, blonde braid like Elsa’s.” “We can do that,” I agreed. “When we are dressing up as a made-up character who is White, it is OK to change how your hair looks, but I just want you to know that if you wanted to, you could dress up as Elsa and not change your hair.” Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453215/halloween-elsa-and-index-simulacrorum-prohibitorum

In other words, if you are white you need to feel guilty about being white. But isn’t that itself being racist? Yes it is because you are vilifying or demonizing someone else simply on the basis of the color of their skin. On the other hand, the SJW left claims there is no such thing as anti-white racism, Here is another pertinent quote from same article which was critiquing the PC mom.

The Left used to insist on seeing people as individuals, not as members of groups. The goal used to be that kids of different races would play together oblivious to one another’s superficial differences. This was commendable, and many a race barrier has fallen. Now the Left is determined to put those barriers back up, to teach kids to obsess over race. It is adamant that pigmentation has to be of overriding concern to you, and if it isn’t to your children, your children must be indoctrinated to divide people based on skin color, to calculate varying levels of “sensitivity” and “privilege” based on melanin. It’s not only ludicrous, it’s alarming.

Why not just keep Halloween as a fun time of pretending? john_a_designer

One thing seems to emerge frequently in science, especially in medical and ecological research, is that there are emergent effects in complex systems resulting in unintended consequences. Certainly, society is also complex, so simplistic solutions posted in tweets, screaming mobs, and utopian journalists are doomed to repeated failure. However, unlike most of the sciences, social disasters are rarely acknowledged by the culpable advocates--there's always a handy scapegoat or rationalization. "But that wasn't true socialism" is a recurring example. At least in science, we've admitted that the "Smokey the Bear" campaign and the Kaibab Plateau handling of deer starvation were well-meaning failures. However, because forest management (or the lack of it) has become political, the massive California fires are not subject to the slightest whisper of criticism. We can conveniently blame it and any other mismanagement on global warming. And because 19th century Darwinism is a quasi-religious position, it too has defied mounting evidence against its obsolete explanations. -Q Querius

Minneapolis City Council President Lisa Bender is another person who knows all about white privilege. Here’s what she told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota in an interview a couple of months ago:

“Do you understand that the word, dismantle, or police-free also makes some people nervous, for instance?” CNN’s Alisyn Camerota asked Bender on Monday. “What if in the middle of night, my home is broken into? Who do I call?” Bender dismissed such concerns as stemming from an inherent “place of privilege”: “Yes, I mean, I hear that loud and clear from a lot of my neighbors, and I know, and myself too, and I know that that comes from a place of privilege because for those of us for whom the system is working, I think we need to step back and imagine what it would feel like to already live in that reality where calling the police may mean more harm is done.”

So if Lisa Bender comes from a place from a place a privilege she’s in a position to tell other people of privilege that they should be willing to give up their rights of safety and security? Am I understanding her “logic” here? Lara Logan had the courage to criticize Bender, “I remember when I was being gang-raped & beaten by a mob in Egypt, would have been great to have a police force to call then…” https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/06/09/lara-logan-rips-minneapolis-lisa-bender-was-it-white-privilege-i-wanted-police-to-stop-my-gang-rape/ My suggestion is that people who suffer from white guilt because of their white privilege, should step down from their positions of leadership. But we all know that Ms. Bender won’t because this is all a phony hypocritical charade. Unfortunately there are people out there who swallow this lie hook, line and sinker bad logic and all. john_a_designer

A most wonderful thing happened once that left a big impression on me. My family accepted an invitation from a medical professional to attend her predominantly black church in our area. When we attended, we got to hear a trip report from a number of members who went on a medical mission to an African nation. We got to see many photos of them there. Two things amazed me . . . First, they said that it was really weird to be in the majority with regard to physical appearance--dark skin was the norm, of course. Secondly, they said that it was even stranger for them to realize that they weren't African at all, they came to realize that they were totally American with regard to their attitudes and worldviews. I'll always remember there impressions and what it was like to participate with them in worshiping God together. -Q Querius

John_a_designer

In other words, according to these white virtue signaling activists, if you happen to be born white you are privileged

According to these SJW nuts: -being white = Original Sin You are guilty by virtue of being born "white". Which is racist to its core (and non-sensical). White people need to be "cleansed" (or go to Hell). Truthfreedom

One of the most hypocritical things about the current SJW/BLM movement are privileged white people lecturing other white people about their privilege but not because they are privileged but because they are white. In other words, according to these white virtue signaling activists, if you happen to be born white you are privileged and therefore if you don’t admit that you are implicitly racist. Oh really? One of the people whose been preaching this false gospel lately is Chelsea Clinton who says she wants her children to 'erode' their white privilege.

“I think it’s really important that my children understand that. And I think it’s particularly important that they understand that as white children of privilege because I want them to erode that privilege throughout their lives to ensure more people are enfranchised and that equality isn’t just an ideal.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=cVqLthhq388&feature=emb_logo Now as the daughter of a former president (Bill) and senator… secretary of state etc. (Hillary) Chelsea is a daughter of privilege. She is also white but you can’t turn that around and demonize and vilify all whites of being privileged. Does she really feel guilty about her white privilege? I doubt it. But if she really did there is a way she could fix easily that. Just divest herself of the fortune she is guaranteed just because she is a Clinton. But for some reason the people preaching about white privilege never do that. They just keep enjoying their privilege while sanctimoniously trying to shame everyone else. But all that proves is that they are hypocrites. john_a_designer

TF, you are right to highlight the fallacy that one cannot derive an ought from an is. Yes, fallacy, in fact, a classic strawman argument. Yes, a widely accepted strawman. To start with, our very rationality itself is inescapably morally governed, giving us a big clue that the root of reality is an IS that can soundly ground the OUGHT of duty by being inherently good and utterly wise. That is, the ultimate IS is inherently moral, so it should be unsurprising that once free, minded creatures are on the table, their rationality is morally governed from its very roots. So, we freely conclude that the needless severing of is and ought in the reality root is the real problem. Let's set context:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

The very objector asserting that it is true and reasonable that one cannot derive is from ought, inescapably appeals to our first duties of reason and associated principles. So, his argument becomes self-referentially absurd. If we have no duties of reason, then argument collapses as an institution, including the one the objector would advance. Instead, we start from such inescapable first duties and ask, what sort of world, from its roots, accounts for such rational, responsibly free and morally governed creatures? Where, if we are not significantly free -- especially if we are reckoned GIGO limited computational substrates -- we are not rational. One must freely reason or one is not reasoning at all, just playing out blind dynamic-stochastic processes on some computing substrate. There is a legitimate IS-OUGHT gap, where it is a puzzle to reason IS-IS then leap to OUGHT, as say Hume indicated. Likewise, the old Euthyphro dilemma contemplated gods not reality root and saw again a gap. The message is, IS and OUGHT will be fused from reality's roots or else there is no answer to the gap. There is just one serious candidate: the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, worthy of loyalty and of the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. Which is the problem, for many do not wish to acknowledge such as Supreme Being. Consequences flow from that rejection, starting with undermining responsible rationality itself. Which is of course precisely where we are as a civilisation. KF kairosfocus

“Am I wrong?” Even though I think you answered your question in your previous post, no your not wrong. Vivid vividbleau

In many ways, I sympathize with the frustration of the protesters. For decades we've been voting for promises that politicians apparently never intended to keep. But now, I suspect that many people simply don't believe them anymore, and even more promises by politicians won't do any good. All my life, I've wanted to see changes in the following areas: - Immigration reform (I'm an immigrant to the US) - Humane conditions and a living wage for farm workers - Criminal justice reform, including restitution, re-education, expunging records, etc. - Education reform, especially what passes for "education" in inner cities - Political corruption penalties increased massively, including "donations" to spouse's charities etc. - Police reform, they must know the law and may not lie to a detainee, all encounters recorded - Genuine commitment to conserving the environment effectively and not turning it into payoffs - Reform of the seemingly unlimited quasi-legislative power possessed by the bureaucracy - Requiring all quasi-judicial organizations to abide by basic US constitutional and legal principles And on and on . . . Maybe someone can explain to me how "stop and frisk" laws don't violate the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. Can someone explain to be how the 2nd Amendment protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms has not been infringed? And maybe someone can tell me how many years politicians of both parties been "seriously talking" about immigration reform without actually changing anything? Maybe I'm too cynical, but it seems to me that our elected representatives no longer believe that they need to actually represent their constituents, but rather that they've been elected to reign over the people, furthering their own personal beliefs, interests, and income. Am I wrong? -Q Querius

What people seem to not understand is that there will always be a police force it’s the form that it takes that is up for grabs. Will it be the brown shirts? Will it be the gangs? Will it be vigilantism? Will it be a white militia? Will it be a black militia? The one thing there will never be is a non police force. One of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was to dismantle the police force so all those advocating for the defunding and dismantling of the police will get exactly the opposite of what they wish for. Of course there are those who will get exactly what they wish for. Society is playing around with some very dangerous ideas. I’m starting to sound like KF, for good reason. Vivid vividbleau

Great comments all! Let me add to Seversky's comments that I believe the primary function of the police is to protect the lawbreaker from the terrible vigilante justice of the general population. For example, if there were no police and someone was breaking into my home in the middle of the night, my first resort would also be my last resort, namely deadly force. The threat of going to jail for doing so, wouldn't deter me from protecting my family in the least. -Q Querius

Atheist mental incapacity: -we have no free will -let's end "social injustice" (which means nothing under atheism/ evolutionism, because "meat-robots" have no inherent rights: them (rights) just do not exist. But hey, we can "invent them" using our "inexistent free-will" to help people live "purposeless lives" where they are forced to know that "the Universe does not give a crap about them". Truthfreedom

Seversky

Those figures alone could indicate systemic racial bias and call into question his stated purpose.

What were you and your atheist ilk doing to alleviate those "social injustices against blacks" that you are now so proud of helping "erradicate"? Apart from preaching your atheist gospel (cultural marxist agenda) and telling people that they are just a group of primates with no free will, no purpose and no hope and that you "can not derive an ought from an is"? You are a bunch of hypocrites. Truthfreedom

KF, Lots of "reading between the lines" and "peeking under the rug" here ... daveS

Sev, Let's cite those "white nationalist" [= nazi] "Conspiracy theorists" at Enc Brit:

Critical theory, Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy originally associated with the work of the Frankfurt School. Drawing particularly on the thought of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theorists maintain that a primary goal of philosophy is to understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed. Believing that science, like other forms of knowledge, has been used as an instrument of oppression, they caution against a blind faith in scientific progress, arguing that scientific knowledge must not be pursued as an end in itself without reference to the goal of human emancipation. Since the 1970s, critical theory has been immensely influential in the study of history, law, literature, and the social sciences.

Also, those at the SEP:

Critical Theory has a narrow and a broad meaning in philosophy and in the history of the social sciences. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246). Because such theories aim to explain and transform all the circumstances that enslave human beings, many “critical theories” in the broader sense have been developed. They have emerged in connection with the many social movements that identify varied dimensions of the domination of human beings in modern societies. In both the broad and the narrow senses, however, a critical theory provides the descriptive and normative bases for social inquiry aimed at decreasing domination and increasing freedom in all their forms.

Read between the lines of genteel scholarship and you will see that repackaged marxism has done a takeover of a good swath of the academy and so the certificated classes, and is trying to ride to power piggyback on real or perceived oppression or disadvantage, seeking to re-write our understanding of civilisation in their image. In that context, Mr Petersen is no Nazi -- what your terms mean, and an accusation that these days can cost career, limb or life [that's how "protesters" were gloating over a murdered man in Portland last night, have some shame] -- but instead someone working at a senior US lab who objects to having marxist indoctrination crammed down his throat by HR. Complete with the notorious labour theory of value. Enc Brit again:

Critical race theory (CRT), the view that the law and legal institutions are inherently racist and that race itself, instead of being biologically grounded and natural, is a socially constructed concept that is used by white people to further their economic and political interests at the expense of people of colour. According to critical race theory (CRT), racial inequality emerges from the social, economic, and legal differences that white people create between “races” to maintain elite white interests in labour markets and politics, giving rise to poverty and criminality in many minority communities. The CRT movement officially organized itself in 1989, at the first annual Workshop on Critical Race Theory, though its intellectual origins go back much further, to the 1960s and ’70s. The launch of the CRT movement marked its separation from critical legal studies (CLS), an offshoot of critical theory that examined how the law and legal institutions function to perpetuate oppression and exploitation.

In short, the summary in the OP clip is on target. As for the error of imagining that crime incidence is proportional to racial fraction of the population or should be, that is fallacious. The reality is, that violent crime perpetrators and victims, alike, in the US, are disproportionately black. This likely traces to rapid urbanisation and family disintegration in the urban migrations over several decades past. Certainly, that is a major cause for the similar crime surge in my homeland. Your attempted indictment fails. And on topic, the very name is a clue, once we know the history of the Frankfurt School. In that context, the on tape ideological declarations Vivid points to are unsurprising. Police reforms are needed but that is only a small piece of the reformation that is really needed. KF kairosfocus

Vivid, as usual you are right on the money. KF kairosfocus

This article is a bit dated for instance FRSO split and changed their name which escapes me at the moment. https://capitalresearch.org/article/blm-roots/ Below where one of the cofounders of BLM talks about being trained in Marxism https://twitter.com/davereaboi/status/1274336621702373377?s=21 Vivid vividbleau

“The tactic of building a conspiracy theory around critical race theory and cultural Marxism (whatever that might mean) is clearly intended to undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the BLM movement by those who fear a threat to the privileges they have enjoyed and continue to enjoy” What conspiracy theory? BLM is openly Marxist , Antifa is openly anarchist, Critical Race Theory is openly proclaimed as is Critical Social Justice Theory and Whiteness studies. You never heard of Patrice Collours, Alicia Garza, Thousand Currents,Ibram X Kendi, Derek Bell, Angela Davis, Kimberly Crenshaw, Robin DiAngelo “White Fragility”? Sheesh you need to get better informed. To put it in Critical Race Theory jargon “We need to have a conversation” Vivid vividbleau

I think that the incidents we have seen indicate that policing in this country is in need of reform but that will not be achieved by defunding the police. I use to watch and enjoy Live PD and my impression was that there are a lot of well-intentioned policemen and women who do their best to help others and are prepared to put their lives on the line to do it. We also expect them to clear up the messes created by human society, the druggies, the homeless, the mentally ill, the irresponsible. Some of the time they were plainly problems that simply could not be solved by the police alone but nonetheless we expect them to do something since the rest of us would rather not get our hands dirty. For all that they deserve our respect and support. That said, there is also a culture within some forces that protects "bad apples". Officers do not want to be seen as having ratted on their colleagues. And this is a long-standing problem. Some of you will remember the semi-biographical movie Serpico made back in 1973 about a cop who went underground to expose corruption among New York police and it's a standard trope on police procedurals that police despise and will not co-operate with internal affairs investigations. That has to stop. But defunding the police is not the answer. If anything, what is required is more money to raise the standards of recruitment and training and, ideally, to set national standards. Higher standards would hopefully filter out some of the "bad apples" before they make it on to the force and make it easier to attract better candidates. That said, Petersen's video sounds like a white nationalist response to the BLM protests. For example, he wants us to base it on facts and data rather than prejudice so, to that end he quotes DoJ statistics that shows that the police make about 10 million arrests each year of which 7 million are white and only 3 million are black. What he doesn't point out is that the figures mean that around 48% of the arrests are of blacks but they are only a little over 13% of the population. Those figures alone could indicate systemic racial bias and call into question his stated purpose. The tactic of building a conspiracy theory around critical race theory and cultural Marxism (whatever that might mean) is clearly intended to undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the BLM movement by those who fear a threat to the privileges they have enjoyed and continue to enjoy. Seversky

Querius at 7, like you, I am suspicious of the abstractions (racism) and amorphous targets (white people) that these Critical Race Theorists traffic in. It's a classic in divisive grievance-mongering with no intention of providing a concrete solution. Case in point: Defunding the police would mainly help hoodlums in low income neighbourhoods. The residents will end up paying protection money to the hoodlums. So it comes down to: Pay for policing according to the law or pay protection money to hoodlums outside the law. What happened to George Floyd was terrible if all we have heard is true. But action can be taken against perpetrators - all the more so if they are police officers. What if his assailants were hoodlums and everyone is afraid to come forward, in the absence of policing, to lay a complaint? Why is that better? No surprise that people stuck in those neighbourhoods, including people of colour, generally don't want to do without police. Of course, the cultural entrepreneurs of Critical Race Theory are too devious to raise issues like that. If they did, they would quickly be seen for what they are: scam artists feeding off public anxieties. Mind you, from the sounds of things, they are beginning to be seen that way already. The sooner the better. News

Q, paradise cannot be delivered by us and any pol implying that capability is an imposter. KF kairosfocus

Q, oddly, the core ethics are not specifically religious, imposed by fiat of priestcraft. In our civilisation, yes, they come to us through gospel ethics and particularly the decalogue and Sermon on the Mount. But that is not all that is being said. Let me cite Paul in one of the most consciously theological works in the NT:

Rom 1: 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,7 in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse . . . . 2: 1 . . . you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things . . . . 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . 13: 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]

Here, we see that Paul highlights that there are some things we know independent of texts, things that show how we are morally governed creatures. Indeed, I go so far as to argue:

We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. These duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifesting our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God.

The rebellion of our age is coming home to roost, we are undermining our rational, responsible, morally governed freedom. KF kairosfocus

Good points, News!

When the problems are specific, so must any remedies be.

Nature abhors political vacuums as well, usually filling them with the most ruthless replacements in the name of (fill in the blank). And the inequities and injustices inevitably continue, decade after decade, election after election! A case could be made that inequities and injustices should never be remedied because they serve as a Vital Political Catalyst to act as a pretext for other changes or for winning an election! How could political and economic interests herd people like sheep if there wasn't an immediate political, social, ecological, or monetary crisis or outrage? -Q Querius

Such a thorough report on Systemic Lying would help considerably with our fight against racism. Or did the Marxists already solve that problem? awstar

kairosfocus at 3 is certainly correct. At one time, unions kept out people of color (POC). When they were made to stop doing that, the new business opportunity was representing POC as helpless except when unions were managing them. It's understandable that people would be enraged but too many enragees seem to be focusing their anger on abstractions and amorphous categories. When the problems are specific, so must any remedies be. News

First was "You have NO right to impose your (Judeo-Christian ethics) on me. Then, it was ALL truth is relative--what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me. Then it was "diversity," which was redefined to mean people who look or dress differently and all think alike. And now it's a new form of political Puritan oppression where a specific Marxist orthodoxy is mandatory on threat of cancellation or termination. All previous narratives are now considered irrelevant and dangerous. -Q Querius

Polistra, nope, this will also readily happen with unionised workforces. And, marxist indoctrination, manipulation and use as cannon fodder -- as I observed personally -- can come through the Union of workers or the Guild of Students, as well as of course loaded textbooks, lectures and media. KF PS: I note, force should be ethically distinguished from violence. The latter is excessive and/or unjust use of force. kairosfocus

If workers had unions this wouldn't happen. Before 1970, when most workers in large plants were unionized, no management would dream of lecturing them about religion or ideology. The union would strike, and the union wasn't afraid of using REAL FORCE. Organized violence works. polistra

A Sandia National Labs Whistleblower on Culture form Marxism imposition by HR Department kairosfocus