There is controversy at George Mason University after Nicholas Decker, an economics PhD student published an essay asking “When Must We Kill Them?” in reference to Trump and his supporters. The essay captures the growing violent ideation on the left, fueled by rage rhetoric from politicians and commentators. The danger is that, for some on the extremes of our society, the question is not “when must we kill them?” but “when can we kill them?”
On his Substack “Homo Economicus,” Decker warns that “evil has come to America” and that Trump is “engaged in barbarism” and seeking “to destroy the institutions which oppose” him. He then suggests that the answer may be murder and violence.
“What remains for us to decide is when we fight,” Decker writes. “If the present administration wills it, it could sweep away the courts, it could sweep away democracy, and it could sweep away freedom. Protest is useful only insofar as it can effect action. Our words might sway the hearts of men, but not of beasts.
If the present administration chooses this course, then the questions of the day can be settled not with legislation, but with blood and iron. In short, we must decide when we must kill them.“
This is obviously just the reckless rhetoric of one individual. However, it is indicative of a larger and growing problem on the left where people are increasingly turning to political violence. Rage gives people a sense of license to break free from basic norms of civility, decency, and even legality.
Decker is an example of that unhinged hatred masquerading as logic.
I found the essay deeply depressing. This is a student who clearly must be interested in teaching, but has not only undermined his chances of teaching but has adopted the very antithesis of an intellectual life.
Yet, I do not believe that this essay should be the basis for prosecution. The university has referred the matter to federal and state authorities for investigation. I have long opposed violent speech from being criminalized.
As someone who has received death threats for years from the left, I do not take such viewpoints lightly. However, I have long disagreed with sedition and violent speech prosecutions as a general matter.
College is often a time when students dabble with extreme or controversial viewpoints. Most quickly return to the center and moderate their positions. Some yield to the impulse to shock or to unsettle others.
Again, it does not excuse the chilling statements made in this essay. While Decker added that “violence is a last resort,” he still maintains that it is an option. He ignores that Trump is the product of a democratic process and that the legal process is working to sort out these disputes.
Trump is likely to prevail in some cases, but not all. Our system does not guarantee that you will prevail in such controversies, and failure to succeed is not a license to use violence “as a last resort.”
What I am more concerned about is the culture that is producing such increasingly violent rhetoric on our campuses.
Many current faculty have long espoused such violent positions. Indeed, some faculty members continue to make the news for violent political acts.
It is now common to hear inflammatory language from professors advocating “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. One professor who declared that there is “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence as killing conservatives was actually promoted.
That is the culture that produces this type of extreme rhetoric among students. These faculty members have normalized violent speech.
Of course, some professors have gone further and committed acts of political violence. Such conduct should be prosecuted and those faculty members fired. However, even in those extreme cases, liberal faculty have often rallied around their colleagues.
Years ago, many of us were shocked by the conduct of University of Missouri communications professor Melissa Click who directed a mob against a student journalist covering a Black Lives Matter event. Yet, Click was hired by Gonzaga University. Since that time, we have seen a steady stream of professors joining students in shouting down, committing property damage, participating in riots, verbally attacking students, or even taking violent action in protests.
At the University of California Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller-Young, who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. Despite pleading guilty to criminal assault, she was not fired and received overwhelming support from the students and faculty. She was later honored as a model for women advocates.
At Hunter College in New York, Professor Shellyne Rodríguez was shown trashing a pro-life display of students.
She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.”
Unlike the professor, the students remained calm and respectful. One even said “sorry” to the accusation that being pro-life was triggering for her students.
Rodríguez continued to rave, stating, “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” In an Instagram post, she is then shown trashing the table.
Hunter College, however, did not consider this unhinged attack to be sufficient to terminate Rodríguez.
It was only after she later chased reporters with a machete that the college fired Rodríguez. She was then hired by another college.
Another example comes from the State University of New York at Albany, where sociology professor Renee Overdyke shut down a pro-life display and then resisted arrest. One student is heard screaming, “She’s a [expletive] professor.” That, of course, is the point.
This student is voicing the same rage that he has heard from teachers and commentators. The current generation of faculty and administrators has created this atmosphere of political radicalism and moral relativism on campuses.
I genuinely feel saddened by Decker’s essay because we likely share a desire to teach and to be part of an intellectual community. The most essential part of that life is to defend a diversity of viewpoints and oppose violence as a means to force ideological compliance in others.
I hope that Decker and others in our community will come to understand that in time.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
This is undeniably a violent nation that has made every problem worse by killing people since the slaughter of Native Americans. There has never been a peace time in my lifetime, since my father was in WWII and Korea. The civil rights promised in the Constitution have all been historically enforced and won with violence: workers right of free assembly, an end to institutionalized racism, and the right of women to vote. If these same people shrieking about the present administration “could sweep away the courts, it could sweep away democracy, and it could sweep away freedom” had been as loud after the 9/11 Patriot Act, maybe they’d be more credible.
Those who support inalienable rights only when it suits them are not serious people.
THEY ARE NOT NATIVE, AND THEY ARE DEFINITIVELY NOT AMERICAN.
The Indians were Asiatic nomads with no surveys, no deeds, no courts, no hall of records, no government, and no country. They were extremely violent savages whose acts required opposition and who were compassionately provided territory and reservations.
The Indians were not possibly American but were actually and absolutely native to Asia, as they preceded the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 and the establishment of America by hundreds of years, if not millennia.
On January 1, 1863, American immigration law did not admit freed slaves to become citizens; they couldn’t be here, requiring compassionate repatriation to their countries of origin—it was the LAW that was illicitly disregarded and nullified.
#. That idea needs debunking. There were a few, very few Asians millions upon millions of years ago as South America split from Africa. ,Tectonic plates.
There was no one in what we know as the western hemisphere. Quite amazing…
What is known as native Americans weren’t slaughtered at all but are bountiful. Too much tv.
@Anonymous
Don’t know why you are using hashtags in every post. Generally, without plugins they don’t do anything on WordPress (and even then not reliably), and would be surprised if any of those plugins are in use here. WordPress has its own tagging system – hashtags are not it. Just FYI.
Oh, PS – unless you are just cut-pasting across multiple platforms. 🤔 still won’t make the hashtags do anything.
#. I watched Jeremiah Johnson.
Nicholas Decker is a disgrace as a student, as a PhD candidate and as a human being. For an person that supposedly engages in the academic search for truth, his solution for those that do not accept his political views via debate and vote is death? Such a position is not only the absolute height of intimidation and intellectual dishonesty, it is the modus operandi of every fascist since the dawn of mankind.
George Mason University, is this the position that you endorse or even tolerate? That individuals that do not accept your viewpoint are “beasts” and that if your facts and arguments do not carry the vote in a democracy then “blood and iron. In short, we must decide when we must kill them.“ is the solution for your opponents? Forget the criminalization of Nicholas Decker’s childish thoughts of not getting his way. George Mason University gets to decide on a bigger matter: toleration of opposing points of view necessarily absent the threat of violence. Are you up to it GMU?
In the late 1050’s, Eric Hoffer predicted that the expansion of higher education would bring “mass behavior” into colleges. In other words, when colleges were limited to an intellectual elite, it would mainly interested in learning and thinking, But if students with lesser capacity were allowed into colleges, behavior and emotive rhetoric would be more important than thought. Thought. and the clear articulation of thought, is difficult, but throwing rocks is simple. Hoffer has been vindicated.
Decker, and morons like him, should begin asking: when did the Constitution become a suicide pact?
Despite pleading guilty to criminal assault, she was not fired and received overwhelming support from the students and faculty. She was later honored as a model for women advocates.
There is a tendency among the wicked to approve and celebrate acts of wickedness done by others. It assures the evildoers they are not alone in their hatreds and eases a conscience that knows deep down it is in violation of the good and right way to live.
Kind of awkward isn’t it Turls to be a social influencer for the side that actually invaded the Capitol to overthrow an election? To wave a confederate flag there and to spout nazi rhetoric? To host a blog that never fails to have magats hint at the second ammendment be the response to free speech sentiment from the left?
Bottom line, the left hasn’t been forceful enough in protecting the republic from the anti democratic moves of the right. The George Mason student poses a legit question.
The delusion is strong with this one.
“Invade the Capitol”? It is a public building.
“The danger is that, for some on the extremes of our society, the question is not “when must we kill them?” but “when can we kill them?”
The question at hand is, does leftism activism lead to mental illness?
#. …lead to mental illness you ask? Do you mean not knowing right from wrong? Yes, of course. It’s called the beast. The beast is a condition and not a single person. The beast is man the monkey. Monkeys are beasts. A beast is an animal governed by instinct. The instinct is to kill. Only laws raise man above the animals, the beast and this us where Christianity failed to understand the beast.
Get out your whips…king Kong has arrived.
Man has both an animal nature and a soul. The Torah was given to refine human behavior, restraining the base instincts and elevating the soul toward godliness.
#. All living organisms have a soul and quite honestly the earth itself has a soul but none like man’s soul capable of aspirations.
“ou’re defining ‘soul’ as if it just means being alive or capable of change, even in inanimate things. But does an animal know good from evil? Does it have a moral conscience?”
#. Yes, to live with others. It’s good advice. People are offended at dinner if someone takes food from another’s plate. The culture must also insure there’s food on everyone’s plate in return.
“but not of beasts” is the most frightening of Decker’s comments. Reducing your political enemies to subhuman status makes the act of killing them easier.
Agreed, and that is the exact tactic used in 1930s Nazi propaganda, which portrayed Jews as subhuman, to persuade the German people that persecuting and even killing them was okay.
#. Subhuman? The beast began with Darwin. People have been educated , trained to think they’re beasts. A beast is just an animal. I can train a dog but cannot educate a dog.
Riiiiiight, that is exactly what Nicholas Decker was talking about (eye roll)
Also true of the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood inception pitting it against the evil Europeans in the early 1930s – seems more obamma appropriate.
It’s a tactic used by many from Golda Meir’s “Palestinians did not exist” (1969) to Menachem Begin’s Palestinians are “beasts walking on two legs” (1982), to Eli Ben Dahan’s “Palestinians are like animals, they aren’t human” (2013), to Arieh King (Jerusalem’s deputy mayor) referring to Hamas militants as “They aren’t human beings & not human animals, they’re subhuman and that’s how they should be treated.” (Dec 2023).
No one seems to be immune to the siren call of rage rhetoric.
“It’s a tactic used by many from Golda Meir’s “Palestinians did not exist” (1969)”
G, while maligning the character of Golda Meir, you misquoted her and provided the statement out of context. I have heard that type of misquote before, so I am familiar with it. Therefore, I won’t look up your other quotes because you were wrong on the first, so how can I trust the latter two?
Palestine is a region, not a people, and the statement was made prior to the global emergence of a national identity for this group, which is a different situation than the one under discussion. Many “Palestinian Arabs” entered what is today known as Israel after Jewish communities were rebuilding the land, which was in a type of dormant state absent of development and population. Most of them came from Arab states and northern Africa. Frequently, one can hear their names and know their origin: Mugrabi from North Africa and al Masri from Egypt.
Unknown to many, initially, the people of the area called Palestinians were Jews. Look at the New York Times when discussing Jewish farmers in the region; they were referred to as Palestinians, and those Arabs in Judea/Samaria were West Bankers, not Palestinians.
This should help settle things in your mind.
S Meyer, you are right to point out the facts, which are almost completely unknown or ignored by people bent on maligning Israel. 🇮🇱
With that said, I would clarify that wherever and whenever anyone refers to other human beings as sub-human, it is wrong. Even Hamas terrorists are humans. They are particularly evil humans, but they do have the ability to choose their actions. And for some small number of terrorists they will see the light and have the courage to change and become good people. Two examples that come to mind are Tass Saada (former PLO sniper and Yasser Arafat’s personal driver), and Mossab Hassan Yousef (“son of Hamas”).
#. You don’t watch TV? The big bang? Maybe modern family?
Uh, what was it that happened in 1776 again?
“[W]hat was it that happened in 1776 again?” “I believe something like that started exactly 250 years ago today . . .”
So that cretin is the ideological soulmate of those who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers?!
The Left has an unending capacity for delusional analogies.
Sam
It is a perfect analogy.
Repression is very much in the eye of the beholder.
The American colonists felt repressed by an abusive king and fought back with violence.
Royalists supported the abusive king and felt victimized by the rebellion against the king.
Some people believe Trump is an abusive wannabe king.
Which side are you on ?????
Some people believe Trump is an abusive wannabe king
Those people, unlike the Founding Fathers, are delusional and suffering from a mental disorder (TDS). Trump believes in lower taxes, getting rid of government censorship, freedom of religion, and freedom from onerous business regulations. IOW a smaller central government and the exact opposite of a king.
oldman
“Those people, unlike the Founding Fathers, are delusional”
That is exactly what the Royalists said 250 years ago. They said the Founding Fathers were delusional. They supported the repressive King George.
The Founding Fathers opposed King George.
In the eyes of the revolutionaries, the Royalists were delusional.
It simply depends which side you are on.
Many people believe that Trump is a wannabe authoritarian king, and needs to be overthrown, as did the revolutionaries with regard to King George.
You take the opposing view, similar to that of the Royalists, in support of the king.
You also say, “IOW a smaller central government and the exact opposite of a king.”
This is an absurd statement.
The government of an absolute monarch is a government embodied in a single individual. There is no “central government” to reduce in size.
There is effectively no government at all outside of the monarch.
But I guess that is what you really want.
The smallest possible government, that being a government embodied in a single man with absolute authority.
You are the equivalent of the Royalists of 250 years ago.
I call BS on all of that. There is a huge and obvious difference between the Founding Fathers and today’s crazies, and between King George and Trump. But you show yourself to be even crazier with your refusal to recognize the obvious. Enjoy your weekend.
oldman
In our many interactions, and there have been many, you always try to disengage when you realize you have lost the argument.
You typically try to disengage with statements like “enjoy your weekend”, or ” have a good evening”.
When you say things like that it is a clear indication of defeat.
You know I am right, and you have no coherent counter argument.
And you aways precede the statement of disengagement with a personal insult.
A clear admission of defeat.
To the contrary, I know you are wrong, and am not wasting more time with you. I really don’t care how you interpret that.
To explain better, I don’t mind if someone I’m debating with is wrong, but when they show themselves to be unreasonable, then I stop wasting my time. You, sir, showed yourself to be unreasonable with your claims about how today’s crazies are equivalent to the Founding Fathers, and with your defense of their (non-existent) sanity by saying that the Royalists said the same thing about the rebels. First, that is factually false, and second, even if it were true it would prove nothing about the mental state of today’s crazies. Using that as somehow proving you’re right is not within the lines of rationality.
Enjoy your weekend.
Oldman
Thanks for reaffirming my point.
If nothing else, you are at least consistent.
#. No one said anything about your gayness, anon. Be proud. Give life your own meaning.
Kansas, the problem with some people is that they’re so focused on finding equivalence that they become mentally disabled by it, believing everything can be equated. That’s moral relativism taken to the point of blindness.
The Founding Fathers proved themselves through their documents, especially the Constitution, and by the fact that the U.S. remains one of the greatest nations ever to exist.
Defeat???
I see it as recognition that’s it’s a complete waste of time to engage with crazy people.
*Disclaimer — this comment should not in any way be taken as an attempt to engage with you. It’s a complete waste of time to engage with crazy people.
#. The side of morals and logic. The side of God of course.
When your corrupt, bloated, illegitimate life comes from the benefits of fellating the king, then a new king comes and would rather make your life better than use you, you may feel victimized, too as you stand with an open, empty mouth and pockets.
#. The winning side of course.
MAGA
“Repression is very much in the eye of the beholder.” “Which side are you on ?????”
The side which believes in precise language. Definitely not your side — the side that manipulates language to satisfy a desire.
Do tell me when these campus morons formed their own government, offered up their lives and sacred honor ( of which these misguided tools have none) and declared independence. I don’t remember our founding fathers climbing the walls of the palace and decapitating King Geirge.
Declaring a new and separate nation is not the same as sedition against your current government.
I would suggest that these radicals pick up their personal belongings and exit to found a new nation to their liking, all without benefit of the largesse and military strength of the nation that the profess to despise.
I’m all for them succeeding at this, but somewhere else, since they have vociferously and continually spew their hatred for this nation.
Of course, they would need start from scratch, no government funded grants, no welfare checks, etc. Just bare ground and create their utopian world with their bare hands.
whimsicalmama
“Declaring a new and separate nation is not the same as sedition against your current government.”
Really ????
Declaring a new nation and defying your current abusive government is the very definition of sedition in the EYES OF THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT.
But in the eyes of new nation, it is a revolutionary act of freedom.
This is exactly what happened 250 years ago.
The colonists grew tired of their abusive government by a king and overthrew that government. They did not go “somewhere else” to found a new nation. In an act of sedition against the repressive king, they simply founded a new nation, with a government more to their liking.
It seems to me Whimsical was referring to leaving the US to declare a new nation elsewhere.
Authoritarians like you got their asses handed to them and lost North America (well, they got canada, whatever) and the greatest nation was borne and will survive the central authoritarian of today as well.
Join your scholar there, I freaking dare you.
#. Taxes?
So, Turley is upset about a student at George Mason WRITING about killing people as a last resort in the face of a repressive government.
I believe something like that started exactly 250 years ago today, when certain colonists decided they had had enough of the abuses of a certain English king.
On the other hand, Turley has absolutely nothing to say about a MAGA extremist who ACTUALLY DID KILL PEOPLE at Florida State University.
And he didn’t talk about the trans girl who murdered 9 year olds in Nashville. He didn’t talk today about the shooter at the baseball field where republican politicians were shot. He didn’t talk about Stalin or Lenin or Pol Pot. I think I can come up with more, but I have BREAKFAST TO PREPARE! AND IN ALL CAPS!
He also isn’t writing about the shooting deaths in Chicago or other big cities… because they are not politically or ideologically motivated. You would have more of a point if the FSU shooting was done for ideological reasons and specifically targeted liberals. If not then it’s a false comparison and unrelated to Turley’s topic.
Where is the most repression of freedom today? On college campuses and in prog government run urban cesspool.
Stop clutching pearls and show me acts of violence done by conservatives? ( unless you are referring to the correct and necessary application of existing laws for public safety).
The left will be calling for guillotines next – following in the steps of every rebellion by the ignorant.
Our founding fathers did not do what the ignorant peasants of France did, but the progs are begging for the same deadly approach as that of the Jacobins.
LOL. WRONG. In the present case, the lefties represent the power of the authoritarian central state that is under attack from the tea party folks. The left, now with more dick cheney, is the evil empire.
Nice try.
I hope leftists such as thus fellow take their message of joy, love and peace to some small town where everyone knows everyone and is armed. They might have to leave their parents basement in blue state America.
I am almost 90 years old and 30 years ago I told my wife I am fearful the first 12 years of a child’s education is going to be the groundwork for far left ideologies. Lo and behold not only is that happening but they have added another ingredient “violence”!
We were warned about this way back after WWII, but we “killed the messanger” so that the long march of the progressive left could continue.
The progressives may have won that battle for the time and we are now saddled with a quasi-socialist state via welfare and over-reacing nanny-state institutions.
It is up to us to contain this infestation of progressive humanism, anarchy and socialism before it consumes us.
It is plausibly estimated that, in spite of many historical attempts by Federal and State governments to stomp out Second Amendment rights, there are nearly a half-billion firearms in the U. S. The vast majority of those weapons are in the hands of those who are, if not passionate Trump supporters, at minimum far more supportive of the actions of the current administration than they are of any leftist, woke, initiatives. If the leftists go down the road of turning this violent rhetoric into action on any significant scale, I predict that the issue posed by Turley will resolve itself. A campaign of violent, murderous, attacks by the Left on Independents and those of the Right will provoke a response that will virtually eliminate those attackers. What would follow that result is of considerable concern, but if that does happen, the Left will have well earned its fate.
https://americangunfacts.com/gun-ownership-statistics/
Exactly. I frequently remind these keyboard warriors on FBook that they keep forgetting which side of 2A they are on, but if they so choose, they can FAFO.
I would rather have civil discourse, especially on campuses, but only one side is trying to make that impossible.
Last year ATF said 700 million guns in circulation in America. I’m your Huckleberry.
Say When.
Is this worse than Sarah Palin posting a map with surveyors symbols over targeted Congressional Districts? Because, I remember when Chris Matthew’s and MSNBC said that was beyond the pale.
The minimum voting age in the U.S. should be raised to 25 years old.
THE TIME IS RIGHT TO FLY THAT WHINY DEMENTED CONVICTED FELON INFESTING THE OVAL OFFICE TO TRENDY TROPICAL EL SALVADOR. 🌴
Is that you Tish James?
Take another swig
Sara Palin was accused of being complicit in the shooting of Gabby Giffords because of her campaign poster showing her in crosshairs. Yet, these professors continue to skate free of any blame in the violence their students commit, such as the recent Tesla firebombing arrest. The student’s life is finished. The professors who poisoned the student and others will continue their Marxist agenda of brainwashing their malleable students.
The Sarah Palin poster, associated with her political action committee (SarahPAC), did not show Gabby Giffords herself in crosshairs. It depicted a map with crosshair symbols over several electoral districts, including Arizona’s 8th Congressional District, which Giffords represented. The crosshairs targeted districts, not individuals.
Economics, known as the “dismal science,” is not an easy major for any college student to master. So we must begin by acknowledging Nicolas Decker’s intelligence and ability to learn, if not understand, the various schools of economics (e.g., Marxist, feminist, classical, supply & demand, Keynesian, Malthusian, Market Socialism, laissez-faire, etc.). As you might expect, some of these schools or economic theories are in sharp conflict with each other.
In Decker’s pursuit to solve global poverty, especially in sub-Saharan regions (his own definition of his life’s goal), he may have pathologically personalized some of these conflicts. Rather than address them and their concepts as an academic might, he seems threatened by those theories that do not comport with his private Weltanschauung or “world view.”
This is unfortunate because, in one fell swoop of the pen, Decker has foreclosed the possibility of achieving his goal. Perhaps this is what he wanted – to go out in a blaze of glory and be remembered by kindred spirits for his martyrdom to the “cause,” whatever that cause might be.
The First Amendment may protect Decker from more than a polite interview by Secret Service agents and perhaps an official admonition by the university, but it cannot protect him – and will not protect him – from being placed on every terrorist and watch list in the U.S. His life, which is probably a mess already, will be damaged forever. We all know the definition of “suicide-by-cop.” Decker has repackaged the student version of this as “suicide-by-pen.” Kudos to George Mason University for reporting this imbecile to the authorities. And thank you to JT for letting us know about it!
Yes, the sub-sarahan student would do well to learn he is the Tutsi in the US’s current scheme.
“His life, which is probably a mess already, will be damaged forever. ”
“Forever”, or until the Democrats regain a majority hold on Fedgov, at which time he unfortunately has fairly good odds of being celebrated as a hero.
Nicholas, why kill so many to solve your problem when you know the correct answer, it’s buzzing in your head, it’s telling you to do the right thing, you only need to end one life to solve your problem, your own. You’ll be alleviating some others’ problems as well, think of it more of a two-fer.
Or, you could stop taking your meds, eat a good diet and get your pasty-ass outside and live a real life you whiny-assed biatch.
Anonymous 8:51am- your points are well taken and he is likely off his medicines, but I suspect that he had others that helped write this screed . But in condemning him we also don’t want to sound like Mao or Castro and start carrying battalions of students and professors and others that oppose our thoughts off into farming the fields. It would only damage the farm equipment and slow down the efficiencies our hard working farmers have produced. As the professor said we need real diversity of thought in the universities that downplays violence and gives voice to opposing ideas and the enforcement must emphasize removal of violent individuals (not just loud voices) from campuses in an attempt to remove rage and enhance discussion. So far this individual just shows his stupidity but has not crossed the line. There will be some that do but they must be dealt with individually as they offend.
700 million guns.
The OP did not advocate any official sanction of Decker, merely advocated that he take the step of ending his useless, miserable life by his own hand. I second the motion.
On one hand, you are right about certain inefficiencies of dunning-kruger class heading to the fields. OTOH, think of the time saved not dragging their dead bodies from the cities to those farms to fertilize those same fields.
They will not reform, they are incapable of independent thought, and they have been corrupted by collectivist propaganda. I tend to agree with the author, when is it time? I’m about ready, frankly, as horrific as that sounds. The current trajectory does not make things better over time.
Epictetus lives!
I’ll stick with voting, it’s a system we worked out called democracy. I’d highly recommend it to Decker because we also have this thing called a government, that has the sole legit use of violence to enforce the law.