A Muslim woman who wears a niqab for religious reasons is not entitled to an exception to the ban on wearing burqasl when driving a motor vehicle. The ban on wearing burqas according to § 23 (4) of the German Road Traffic Act (StVO) is compatible with the freedom of religion according to Article 4 of the Basic Law. Cars offer a protective space in public which largely fulfils the purpose for which the niqab is intended. Furthermore, § 46 (2) StVO allows exceptions in cases of hardship. A full veiling endangers traffic safety because traffic offences can no longer be effectively pursued, because it can impair all-round vision and restrict mimic communication in road traffic. The state authority and not the Federal Ministry of Transport is responsible for granting an exception according to § 46 (2) StVO, even if the exception is to apply nationwide.

(Düsseldorf Administrative Court, judgment given on November 26, 2020, Ref. 6 L 2150/20)

https://flotte.de/artikel/112/16636/vollverschleierung-verstosst-gegen-verhullungsverbot-nach–23-abs–4-stvo.html

By Michael Iachetta

It’s likely that the Supreme Court will overturn a critical Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruling on account of the state court’s incorrect use of the legal doctrine of laches (pronounced like latchkeys but without the “k”). This could return the electoral votes of Pennsylvania back to President Trump.

The reasons why we may consider this outcome as possible, and even likely, can be summarized as follows:

The 2019 Pennsylvania vote-by-mail law clearly violates Article VII, sec. 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which lists only four classes of voters entitled to vote absentee: those who cannot vote in person because of work, physical incapacity, religious obligation, or (in the case of county employees) election-related duties. In violation of this constitutional provision, the Pennsylvania vote-by-mail law (Act 77), as described by a 2019 press release from the Pennsylvania governor’s office, “creates a new option to vote by mail without providing an excuse.” Whatever the benefits of such a change in voting law, it could not be legally accomplished without an amendment to the Pennsylvania  Constitution.

In late November, Rep. Mike Kelley (PA-R) and several other Pennsylvania voters challenged the law and lost when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that — whatever the merits of the plaintiff’s case — it was too late to challenge the constitutionality of the law. In other words, the court dismissed the case under the equitable doctrine of laches, which states that if you wait too long to claim your legal rights have been violated, that’s too bad for you.

At first glance, this argument sounds compelling. Kelley’s lawsuit was filed more than a year and half after the law was passed, with two elections taking place during that time without any complaint. Not only that, but the mail-in ballot law itself contained a provision that no legal challenges to the law would be entertained by Pennsylvania courts after 180 days.

In addition, Ed Morrisey of Hot Air cites Jonathan H. Adler’s claim that Kelley’s suit will fail, because the plaintiffs should have been savvy enough to sue before the election and lose (for lack of standing), and then use this as a defense against the accusation of filing their suit too late.

Not only that, but Samuel Bray of the Volokh Conspiracy approvingly cites theamicus brief of Erwin Chemerinsky et. al. arguing that Kelley’s suit should fail, because the doctrine of laches applies especially to elections that have already taken place. In a key line, the brief insists that “Courts will not overturn elections that already have occurred absent extraordinary reasons for doing so” (emphasis added).

But these arguments are not persuasive, because the doctrine of laches cannot rightly be used to dismiss an allegation that a statute violates constitutional provisions — and this is precisely what Kelley et al. allege.

As Kelley et al. point out in their Dec. 1 emergency petition to Justice Samuel Alito for injunctive relief, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court itself previously noted in Stilp v. Hafer (1998) that although “[l]aches may bar a challenge based upon procedural deficiencies in its enactment… laches may not bar a constitutional challenge to the substance of a statute.” The Kelley suit is precisely a “constitutional challenge to the substance of a statute” (h/t Christine Niles andShipwreckedcrew).

The Pennsylvania law is not only clearly in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution but almost certainly of the U.S. Constitution as well. If a state legislature creates an election law that violates its own state constitution, and this unconstitutional law contributes to determining the outcome of a presidential election, this becomes the concern not only of the people of Pennsylvania but of all Americans.

As Kelley et al. point out in their emergency injunction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Palm Beach City (2000) that federal courts usually defer to state courts when it comes to the interpretation of state statutes, but in the case of a law that applies to the election of presidential electors, the legislature is acting “by virtue of a direct grant of authority made under Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution.” If the Pennsylvania legislature, in the exercise of this authority, passes a law that is in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution, this must almost certainly be considered a “significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors” and so would present a “federal constitutional question” (Bush v. Gore, 2000; h/t Christine Niles).

In response to Professor Chemerinsky (see above): considering that this unconstitutional Pennsylvania  law contributed to determining the outcome of a presidential election, it would be hard to imagine a more “extraordinary reason” to justify overturning the election results in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania law may include a 180-day window for the law to be challenged in a Pennsylvania  Court, but there can be no statute of limitations when it comes to challenging the law in federal court as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Think about it: do you recall any liberal judges, attorneys, or law professors raising the doctrine of laches when someone suddenly realizes that a decades or century old state law violates the provisions of the Constitution? Me neither.

There is reason to hope that the plaintiffs’ suit will result in a Trump victory at the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Alito has already ordered that all absentee ballots in Pennsylvania be sequestered. The Court now has nine justices and Justice Barrett said repeatedly in her confirmation hearings that she was committed to following the law. So, there are now potentially five votes to overturn the Pennsylvania law expanding absentee voting as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

According to the official Pennsylvania election website, President Trump received 2.7 million in person votes and Joe Biden received 1.4 million in person votes in Pennsylvania. Of the mail-in ballots, Trump received 595,538 votes and Biden received 1,995,691. According to WHYY, under the previous rules concerning voting by mail, civilians cast 266,208 absentee ballots in 2016 in Pennsylvania and 248,561 absentee ballots in 2012. So, even if we generously assume that there were 500,000 civilians in Pennsylvania in 2020 who cast absentee votes in accordance with the provisions contained in the Pennsylvania Constitution, and that they all cast their votes for Biden, Trump would still win Pennsylvania by a landslide. This would justify a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of Kelley et al. and a decision to assign the electoral votes of Pennsylvania to President Trump.

But what about Pennsylvania voters who voted absentee in good faith based on a Pennsylvania law that violated the Pennsylvania Constitution? They would have good reason to be angry (and this is assuming that these were actual votes cast by actual Pennsylvanians), but they will have no one to blame but the Pennsylvania legislators themselves, who could not have been unaware that they did not have the authority to pass the vote by mail law in the first place.

Justice Alito has given Pennsylvania until December 9 to respond to Kelley’s suit, so all will soon be revealed.

A SCOTUS ruling striking down the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s incorrect laches ruling would not of itself hand the election to Trump — for that to happen, there would need to be victories in a couple of other battleground states as well.  But it would be the correct ruling, and if we can just get through this dark night, who knows what tomorrow may bring?

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/will_scotus_overrule_the_pennsylvania_supreme_court.html

Europe has once again been targeted with Islamist terror attacks.

On October 16, Samuel Paty, a history teacher, was beheaded in Paris by an 18-year-old Chechen Muslim who acquired refugee status in France this past March. The teacher was murdered after showing cartoons from Charlie Hebdo depicting Islam’s prophet Muhammad to his students, during a discussion on freedom of expression.

On October 29, three people were murdered and several others wounded in an Islamist knife attack in the Basilica of Notre-Dame-de-l’Assomption in Nice, France; one victim was decapitated.

After the attack in Nice, France raised its nationwide terror alert status to the “maximum emergency” level. Approximately 4,000 military personnel were deployed to guard schools, churches, and other places of worship.

In Vienna, on November 2, four more people were murdered and 22 injured (including a police officer) in another Islamist terror attack that took place in six locations across the Austrian capital.

After Paty’s murder, French President Emmanuel Macron defended freedom of expression and freedom of religion:

“Our compatriot was killed for teaching, for teaching children freedom of speech, freedom to believe, or not to believe. Our compatriot was the victim of a terrorist attack.”

Macron added that Islam was “in crisis” and that he would fight “Islamist separatism” within the country. It was reported that “the government would present a bill in December to strengthen a 1905 law that officially separated church and state in France. He [Macron] announced stricter oversight of schooling and better control over foreign funding of mosques.”

In response, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan remarked, “What’s the problem of the individual called Macron with Islam and with the Muslims?… Macron needs mental treatment.”

Erdogan also called for a boycott of French products and was supported in parliament by the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), the secular opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Iyi Party.

The Turkish government’s hostile reaction to Europe is not new. Erdogan has been threatening Europe and the rest of the West for several years.

The ongoing crisis between Turkey and Europe appears to stem from deep cultural and political differences between the parties involved — Europe that respects freedoms and Turkey that violates them.

After the 2016 attempted coup in Turkey, the authorities’ crackdown on journalists critical of the regime targeted Western journalists as well, including French journalists Olivier Bertrand and Loup Bureau.

Turkey, long a candidate for European Union membership, has often been criticized by Western governments and international press organizations for its mass incarceration of journalists.

In March 2017, Erdogan, lashed out at criticisms at an event in which he addressed journalists in Ankara. If Europe continues its attitude, he said, “no European and no Westerner will be able to walk safely and peacefully in the streets.”

Erdogan pressed on, saying that Western countries always accuse Turkey of violating press freedom and jailing journalists.

“When we wanted a list of those [jailed] journalists… they gave us one… The list includes everyone from murderers to thieves, from child abusers to swindlers. It is only journalists that are missing in the list.”

Erdogan stated that Turkey was sent a list containing the names of 149 [journalist] prisoners in Turkey and that the list was examined by the government. “144 people in the list are in jail due to terror-related crimes and four due to ordinary crimes.”

“What do these people have to do with journalism that you send this list to our country?,” Erdogan continued.

“We are aware of their real intentions. When it is about themselves, they have no problem shelving democracy, rights, freedoms, justice, and prosperity but when it comes to Turkey, they immediately put on a mask. We have also decided to treat those with masks like the bandits that they are. Indeed, if you have nothing to hide, why are you wearing a mask? Come out courageously and say ‘I have issues with Turkey; I want it to get divided and fragmented’ so everyone can know who is who.

“If you open this dangerous road,” he went on, “you will be the ones to be exposed to the greatest damage. As Turkey we call on the European countries to respect democracy, human rights and freedoms.”

Freedom House lists Turkey as “Not free.” According to a November 16 report by the Platform for Independent Journalism (P24), at least 86 journalists and media workers are in prison in Turkey, either in pre-trial detention or serving a sentence.

Problems between Turkey and France intensified even more following Turkey’s invasions of northern Syria: After Macron met with Kurdish-Syrian officials (Syrian Democratic Forces/SDF) at Elysée Palace in March 2018, he offered to mediate Turkey-Kurdish talks. Macron said he hoped “a dialogue can be established between the SDF and Turkey with help from France and the international community.”

Erdogan turned down the offer:

“This is a statement that goes beyond the limits and height of that person [Macron]… Who gave you such a duty? Do not engage in endeavors that exceed your height.

“We don’t need a mediator. Since when has Turkey had a problem of sitting around a table with terror organizations? Where did you get that from? You can sit at a table with a terrorist organization, but Turkey fights against terrorist organizations as in Afrin [Syria].”

Erdogan evidently forgot to mention that Turkey has been hosting members of the terrorist group Hamas, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, while presumably enabling them to set up bases there from which to attack Israel. According to a report in The Times on October 22, Hamas is secretly operating a facility in Turkey where it conducts cyberattacks and counterintelligence operations. Citing Western intelligence sources, The Times said the headquarters was set up two years ago and is overseen by Hamas military leaders in the Gaza Strip. However, Erdogan targeted France after Macron met with Syrian Kurdish officials:

“After this attitude, France has no right to complain about any terrorist organization, any terrorist or terror acts. Those who sleep with terrorists and even host terrorists at their palace will sooner or later understand the mistake they have made. Those who so recklessly support these terrorists should also be ready to account for the consequences to the French public. The problems we are experiencing right now might also happen to them any time. I do not know what more we should say or do for them to understand we are not making jokes and do not have the slightest tolerance for this.”

On April 7, hours after a man ploughed his van into pedestrians in Münster, Germany, Erdogan threatened France again:

“France, you are helping terrorism, you support and host the terrorists in the Elysee Palace. You will not be able to account for these things. You see what is happening in Germany, right? The same will happen in France. The West will not be able to get rid of this scourge of terrorism. You will not be able to get rid of this terror scourge. As the West feeds these terrorists, it will sink. “

Austrian precautions against radical Islam also seemed to anger Erdogan. In June, 2018, the Austrian government announced it was closing down seven radical mosques and expel 40 foreign-funded imams employed by ATIB (Turkish-Islamic Union for Cultural and Social Cooperation), which is connected to Turkey’s Presidency of Religious Affairs (Diyanet). The moves followed the Austrian “Islam law“, passed in 2015, which bans foreign funding of religious groups and made it a duty for Muslim organizations to have “a positive fundamental view towards (Austria’s) state and society”.

“Political Islam’s parallel societies and radicalizing tendencies have no place in our country,” said Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz.

Erdogan responded:

“The Austrian PM… is making calculations over closing our mosques in Europe. Where is this going? I’m afraid towards a crusade-crescent war; the steps taken by this Austrian Prime Minister are leading the world towards it. For this reason, the Western world should pull these men together. If they don’t, these calculations will be made differently. They say [they are] going to kick our clergy out. So [you think] you’ll do it and we will stand idle? We will do some things too.”

That a NATO member and European Union candidate, Turkey, is openly threatening the security of Westerners, is unprecedented. Yet, on November 22, Erdogan called on the European Union to “keep your promises” on issues such as the country’s membership bid and refugees:

“Even if we leave aside the previous history, only the Ottoman Empire had a history of 600 years in Europe. Today, we see ourselves as an integral part of Europe.”

Erdogan was referring to the centuries-long Ottoman occupation of several European nations such as Cyprus, Hungary and Greece. The presence of the Ottoman Turks in Europe was marked by wars between the Ottoman Empire and Europe dating from the late Middle Ages up through the early 20th century. After destroying the Greek Byzantine Empire in Asia Minor (today’s Turkey), Ottoman Turks waged wars against Christian nations in the Balkans, including the Hungarians, Bulgarians, Croatians, Greeks and Serbs. The Ottoman Empire targeted Central Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. The Ottoman-Venetian Wars lasted for four centuries, starting in 1423 and lasting until 1718. Christians in European nations that fell under the Ottoman occupation became dhimmis, second-class, tolerated, subjects of the empire who had to buy their lives and protection by paying a high tax, and were systematically abused by Ottoman authorities.

One of the most abusive Ottoman practices was the institution of “devshirme,” also known as the “child levy” or “blood tax,” with which Christian boys were forcibly abducted from the conquered population, enslaved, converted to Islam and later trained as soldiers. Erdogan evidently sees the Ottoman occupation and abuse of European nations as Turkish “contributions” to Europe.

This current belligerence once again demonstrates major differences between Europe and Erdogan’s regime. It is a crisis between a mentality that respects a free press versus a mentality that jails critical journalists. It reveals a mentality that wants to preserve the safety of its citizens versus a mentality that aims to force others to submit to its demands through threats and use of terror. It is a mentality that stubbornly believes in violating and even trying to invade the territories of its neighbors versus one that tries to resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.

As the president of France, Macron has the responsibility to protect the security and freedom of expression of his citizens. It is Erdogan’s regime who targets the safety and freedoms of Europeans — as well as Armenians, Syrians, Iraqis, and many of his own Turks.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16809/turkey-erdogan-threatens-europe

The Kinderfachabteilung in Stadtroda was established in October 1942 at the latest (as the only such ward in what today is the state of Thuringia) and continued to operate until the end of World War II. The clinic’s medical director was Dr. Gerhard Kloos, and the physician responsible for the “special children’s ward” was Dr. Margarete Hielscher. Dr. Kloos continued his medical career after the war in West Germany until his retirement in 1968. He died in 1968. Even though the Stasi discovered her involvement in the killing as perpetrator, Dr. Hielscher received political protection in the East German Republic, where she served as director of the pediatric section of neuro-psychiatry at Stadtroda until her retirement in 1965. She died in 1985.

It has been estimated that 133 children died in the special children’s ward in Stadtroda. However, even before the establishment of the ward, at least 70 children died either because life-saving treatment was withheld or were killed through medication. 

These figures established in the research of S. Zimmermann and R. Renner have been indirectly called into question by the physicians J. Kasper and M. Lembke, who in the context of a book commissioned by the state medical association, whose apparent purpose is to exculpate the physician Jussuf Ibrahim in regard to his involvement in Euthanasia, interpret medical evidence in a way that arrives at very conservative figures.

The Kinderfachabteilung was housed in the historic Martinshaus, which has been torn down since.

In the post-WW II period, the author on occasion of the 100th anniversary of the institution in 1948 merely notes a “high mortality” for the war years but makes no mention of the role of Stadtroda in “euthanasia” crimes (Buchda 1948: 49). When in the 1960s the clinic director informed the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Stasi) that medical records point to “euthanasia” crimes at the site during the Nazi years, and further investigations by the Stasi substantiated these charges, the records were sealed in an archive and no persecution took place.

In 1985 K. Masuhr and G. Aly published a detailed expose on the crimes of Dr. Kloos in Stadtroda; it also included details on the involvement on Dr. Hielscher as well as the University Children’s clinic’s role in sending children to Stadtroda. State authorities in East Germany began anew to look into the matter but still did not pursue a persecution (see Aly 2000); however, in 1986, the then-director of the pediatric section of neuro-psychiatry at the facility, S. Köhler, in a public lecture on occasion of the 100-year anniversary of the existence of this section not only described the “children’s euthanasia” action at Stadtroda but also mentioned Dr. Hielscher’s murderous involvement and post-war career at the facility (as one of her predecessors) – an unusual acknowledgement in East Germany at the time. S. Zimmermann and G. Wieland presented a further short overview on medical crimes against children in 1989. Subsequent interrogations have shed more light on the subject matter, including the role of the once-esteemed pediatrician Dr. Jussuf Ibrahim (here) and the cover-up by the Stasi (Wanitschke 2005). 

The Arbeitskreis zur Erforschung der Geschichte der NS-“Euthanasie” und der Zwangssterilisation (Working Group for Research on the History of NS-“Euthanasia” and Compulsory Sterilization) met in Stadtroda in 1997. Several contributions to the conference addressed the history of the medical crimes during the Nazi period there.

In 1998 a memorial created by Karola Nitz was dedicated in the park of the Landesfachkrankenhaus für Psychiatrie und Neurologie, with support from the directors of the clinic and the association of mental patients “Die Brücke” (The Bridge). The archway symbolizes the gate of the clinic through which people were sent to die, and the book addresses the history of the institution and serves as a warning. The inscription reads: “In memory of the patients of this hospital who between 1941 and 1945 fell victim to the murderous actions under Nazi rule.” The historical chronicle on the website of the clinic (no longer available) referred vaguely to “inhumane violence” that was perpetrated between 1933 and 1945. 

Jussuf Murad Bey Ibrahim (Professor Ibrahim’s full name) was also made an honorary citizen of Jena in 1947 by the communist rulers of East Germany. In 1949 he was awarded the title of Merited Doctor of the People and in 1952 he received the National Prize of the German Democratic Republic in the top grade for science and technology.

http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/children/stadtroda/stadtroda.html – https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussuf_Ibrahim

by Giulio Meotti

We have seen that there is no limit to government dictates abetted by our society’s fear of dying and that this society is led by people who balance their shameful helplessness and stupid mistakes with an authoritarianism exercised on too many who are weak or too submissive to defend themselves.

I find it indecent that churches have closed in France, as if the state considered itself authorized to erase religious life from the collective landscape instead of limiting how many could be there at once

I find it indecent that a profound reflection on the meaning of being a “society” was worth less than these nauseating television appearances of our virologists, whose solution is segregating people for so long by detonating an existential crisis whose effects we will see in a long time.

Millions of children have been deprived of the right to a true quality education and therefore to a future -but actually, we had already stopped “educating them” anyway -, and many activities that could be allowed are condemned to death by economic law.

Europe could have followed the path of many Asian countries: South Korea, Japan, Taiwan…Democracies which had very few deaths from Covid. How? Mass screening, adherence to rules, individual responsibility, separation of sick from healthy…No, we chose one lockdown after another. We are totally unprepared for any unexpected event. The elderly in homes died in droves because the “experts” did not bother to tell families to keep away.

It is not easy to find a balance between freedom and health, economy and health. Today I find it indecent, because if a form of confinement was understandable in the first period of this unknown epidemic (no one is talking about it being China’s fault anymore), it is not decent anymore after a year because we could have done more to prevent it.

We now see the same politicians, doctors and managers who had explained to us that the masks were useless and even harmful and tests unnecessary. They had decreed useless what our countries could do, because as I wrote months ago we are a country that no longer produces anything, we are a mega Disneyland.

We no longer even have the mental and ethical tools to respond to the situation, we are no longer ready for the unexpected. We are only capable of creating new and useless bureaucracy. Well paid castes holding press conferences.

The tragic is now foreign to us. We are sacrificing two generations on the altar of “health”. In fact, we have been at war with our future for years. This panmedicalism, the idea that “health” pseudo-science eclipses life, is the senile disease of humanism, as someone said. Humanism, because it’s about saving lives and that’s good. Senile, because it is the symptom of an old, decadent society that has more past than future.

Islamic terrorists are now laughing at the West and Covid. A century ago, 170.000 French soldiers died in the battle of Verdun. Compare that France to today.

And compare the media spins and the Hong Kong flu that in 1968 killed thousands of Europeans. What has improved since then?

I was struck by a fact that, if confirmed, should distress us. The number of stillborn babies has tripled in Italy due to missed medical visits during pregnancy. At the end of this year, births will also sink more than they were already doing. This for me is the biggest tragedy of Covid. That a country whose ruling class calls itself “at war” with a virus to “save lives” (no, wars are another thing), no longer cares about the birth of new lives, rather opposes it. I fear that, after Covid, there is no ventilator which can save a declining civilization.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/292555

By C.B. Jacobi

Postmodernism can be described as a worldview nested in an uncertainty of knowing truth, epistemological skepticism, and holding values and moral presuppositions antithetical to traditional Western ones.  Under a guise of tolerance and righteousness, postmodern proselytizers criticize Western values and often claim they stem from systems of oppression.  Though now retracted and apologized for, the Smithsonian Institute produced a graphic claiming that “objective, rational, linear thinking” and “self-reliance” are aspects of whiteness.  At one point in time, disagreements in discussions of value systems were socially accepted, but now entities like Antifa and Black Lives Matter enforce postmodern values with physical violence, property destruction, and intimidation.  The postmodern method of evangelizing is a moral gaslighting of Western values as intolerant and bigoted, thus justifying enforcement.  Admittedly, it’s quite intelligent — if you are able to label your opposite as something fringe, you aren’t obligated to contend with it.

People who hold traditional Western values, like many conservatives, seem to struggle with countering postmodern gaslighting.  The gaslighting method seems new; however, this method was theorized by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.  This type of moral gaslighting results from what the philosopher called cultural “decadence,” a sort of degeneration.

When reviewing Nietzsche’s writings on progressivism, it’s almost as if he were  actually writing about postmodernism.

Nietzsche is well known for his pitiless critiques of socialism and progressivism, writing aphorisms like “Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? the socialist rabble[.]”  The philosopher held to a sort of hyper-self-actualization and development such as to distinguish one from society.  The rise of 19th-century progressivism was a form of cultural decline, or cultural “decadence,” as Nietzsche called it: “Decay, decline … The results of decadence: vice-viciousness … hysteria — the weakness of the will; … pessimism, anarchy; debauchery (also of the spirit).  The calumniators, underminers, sceptics, and destroyers.”

Nietzsche thought progressives chastised life-affirming or “noble” values such as personal strength, self-reliance, competitiveness, and industriousness as intolerant and societally unacceptable.  Unable or perhaps unwilling to genuinely compete in society and develop oneself, Nietzsche claimed this was how progressives attempted to gain ideological ground.  He writes in Beyond Good and Evil: “Our highest insights must — and should — sound like follies and sometimes like crimes when they are heard without permission by those who are not predisposed and predestined for them.”  In other words, Nietzsche is saying that the more noble values “sound like follies and crimes” to the people who do not hold them.

This sounds all too familiar when examining the postmodernists of today.  The same gaslighting technique Nietzsche describes is adopted to evangelize for postmodern values instead by means of civility.  Under the postmodern system, contrarians are labeled as oppressors or bigots; therefore, any necessary means of progressing a postmodern agenda are permitted.

In a video posted on Twitter, a Portland protest leader shouted, “You ask for a peaceful protest.  It’s white supremacy!” while the property-owner replied, “There’s my Biden sign!  Don’t destroy anything!  Be peaceful!”  Not only are the fundamental liberties of peaceful protest and protection of private property gaslighted, but even equality of opportunity is “morally heinous” according to a popular postmodern media outlet.  Equality of outcome, guised as “equity,” is the new and more righteous postmodern paradigm. 

This is a textbook Nietzschean example: not accepting violent protest is labeled “white supremacy.”  In reality, the subject of race is contextually absent.  The gaslighting leaves the victim stuck, and if he dares to resist, he further digs himself into the category the postmodernist has prescribed for him.

Now, with social media, the risk associated with being labeled by the postmodernist is severe.  If one is gaslighted, his new label can be spread around the internet and his well-being thus endangered.  Those born with immutable qualities (race or sex) considered inherently “oppressive” by the postmodern system are doomed to the gaslighting and forever stuck in a feedback loop.

Indeed, postmodernism is akin to Nietzsche’s cultural “decadence,” given the worldview’s anarchical spirit and deconstructive nature.  Even the moral gaslighting used by the postmodernist is well described in Nietzsche’s writings.  Nietzsche was a harsh critique of 19th-century progressivism, and one can imagine what his opinions would be like of postmodernism.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/why_nietzsche_would_hate_postmodern_leftism.html