John Comnenus: ‘the banality of evil’

Cardinal von Galen warned his German parishioners about the evils of the Nazi dictatorship and the laws that had created that evil. Von Galen warned his parishioners via his sermons which were read throughout southern Germany by his priests, a number of whom lost their lives in doing so.

He warned, in essence, that when the state is allowed to kill the most vulnerable and helpless, those who can’t defend themselves, then who knows who will be next.

Recently a UK judge insisted that an ill child be denied medical care, which is horrible but understandable. No country can afford to provide uncapped care to all ad-infinitum. But rather than merely denying care and leaving the child to his parents, the Judge ordered that the child be kept in a hospital against his parent’s wishes, be denied alternate care arrangements that did not cost the UK taxpayer anything, be denied the ability to go home and in the end be denied food until he died. Even the family’s Catholic Priest was kicked out of the hospital removing the smallest amount of solace for the family in this horrific ordeal effectively resulting in death by starvation by judicial order.

Where is the Archbishop of Canterbury? the contemporary von Galens? or any opponent of this fascism? Von Galen was right then and he is right now, if you won’t defend the most vulnerable from the State, who will be next?

Just like fascist Germany or Communist Russia it is people with the wrong political views. Tommy Robinson is next, then who after him?

Britain is starting to look like a fascist regime that locks up its political prisoners for having the temerity to expose the excesses of the state that allowed young, under aged, British girls to be raped on an industrial scale.

Let’s not pretend Robinson’s fate, like the ill babies fate, is the reasonable application of the law by an independent judiciary dispassionately dispensing justice.

Every modern ‘European’ form of oppression has been routinely implemented through the judiciary, prosecutors, and police. Whether it be the Committee for Public Safety in Revolutionary France, the People’s Court in the Soviet Union or the Reich’s Courts in Nazi Germany.

At the end of World War Two, Nazi Chief Justice Otto Georg Thierack was charged for his crimes but cheated justice by committing suicide before being brought to trial. Eventually even Robespierre, the ‘incorruptible’, was sentenced to death for his prosecutorial excesses.

When Hannah Arendt coined the term ‘the banality of evil’ she was referring to the unexceptional stupidity of people’s decision making. But in every case the stupidity was made unexceptional by the moral cover given to the evil action by the judiciary. Eichmann, about whom Arendt coined the phrase, could not have been as evil if Thierack’s judiciary hadn’t already approved the evil Eichmann so banally and efficiently implemented.

When the judiciary sanction such evil, they threaten everyone in society with the full coercive power of the state that they wield. Just look at the media coverage of Robinson’s arrest if you want an example of just how strong the threat of the coercive power of the state is on most citizens.

Evil is always made banal by judges who publicly justify oppression as the routine dispensation of justice.

These recent decisions by British Courts are, in my view, the very embodiment of the banality of evil and they prove Britain is slipping into the evils of fascism that von Galen previously warned about.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to John Comnenus: ‘the banality of evil’

  1. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    well said

  2. Pickles

    Let’s not be too smug. Calum Thwaites, Alex Wood, Bill Leak, Sonia Kruger.

  3. Anonandon

    Well written. I can scarcely believe what has happened to Britain. Read Mark Steyn for more about the horrifying response from the Rotherham police force to the tape of children. I can’t bring myself to believe it is a conspiracy but what else can it be?

  4. John Comnenus

    I would like to thank Sinclair for publishing this. He is truly a courageous believer in freedom of speech.

  5. struth

    Let he who hath not a totalitarian country cast the first stone.
    A great assessment of the disastrous state of affairs for old Blighty.
    Let us look to our own country and our police and judiciary before we get too cocky.
    Let us look at our HRC and little girls in football crowds who call grown men names.
    The outrageous response to people booing in crowds.
    Etc etc etc etc.
    We are in just as much poo.
    We as a people are much more regulated and controlled socially than Britons and our elites are so much more corrupt.
    That’s why the cost of living is cheaper in that overpopulated little island nation.
    The closest we got to a Tommy Robinson was some members of the ALA and they were silenced quicker than England’s MSM were on to Tommy.
    Britain still allowed speeches by people banned from Australia.
    We have no right to shake our heads at Britain.

  6. John Comnenus

    Unfortunately I fear Struth is right. We have little to be cocky about, but I think we are a little behind the UK and Europe but closing in fast.

  7. Infidel Tiger

    Good stuff John.

  8. Dave of Reedy Creek, Qld

    Very chilling facts about the UK. With muslims running London, crime has skyrocketed. With muslims in other cities in the UK and across Europe, huge numbers of sexual attacks and rapes they want to hide. Useless leaders who have no backbone bowing to political correctness all leads them to where they are now. Hard to believe the rate of western values decay in the above countries, but the story comes as no surprise about the baby or the activist when all traditional values and virtues are abandoned, especially Christian ones. Very chilling indeed

  9. Publius

    Compliments to the author.
    But I fear the news abt the suffering that Sonia Kruger is probably going to endure doesnt fill me with any confidence that we are immune from this epidemic of ‘banality’ in our neck of the woods.

  10. Anonymous

    The UK family court is acting the same way.

  11. None

    I would like to thank Sinclair for publishing this. He is truly a courageous believer in freedom of speech.

    Seconded.

  12. a happy little debunker

    Michelle Wolf comments on a woman’s appearance before the entirety of the MSM and gets a TV show.

    Rosanne Barr comments on a woman’s appearance on social media and loses a TV show.

  13. Mak Siccar

    Thanks for this John and Sinclair. Much comment has been forthcoming on Robinson’s case on other threads. Also, Janet A’s article on today’s Oz is eliciting many comments, many of which disagree with her opinion on Robinson’s case. However, back on the home front, Sonia Kruger might benefit from a show of support, even a GoFundMe page perhaps?

  14. Herodotus

    Quite right to say we are not far behind the UK.
    As for the Roseanne thing, we see the usual hypocrisy of the left at work.

  15. Herodotus

    Interesting to note one commenter at Janet’s piece saying Robinson is the one tending towards naz…ism (can I say that word without being sin binned?)
    The left asserts the opposite of the truth as a matter of routine.

  16. JohnL

    In the meanwhile in Australia:
    A two years old girl (cannot disclose the ethnicity), who is being raped is prevented to be removed from the abusive family to prevent the second stolen generation!

  17. Tel

    The left asserts the opposite of the truth as a matter of routine.

    Their technique is to hijack words, then use chanting repetition in an attempt to muddle any effort to properly think about the issue. They try to stick emotional baggage to the word and then shut down anyone who wants to discuss the logic of the connection.

    One recent example is their claim that Democracy=good but Populism=bad when of course any winner in a democratic election must be popular. It’s not even stupid, it is deliberately destroying the meaning of words, and they do this because they know full well they have no meaningful argument, so they must destroy words. Words are their enemy. Meaning is their enemy.

  18. Baldrick

    And the lies continue-
    Have a read of the story from the eyes of TheirABC and see if you can find any mention of the Islamic child r.ape gangs he was trying to expose.

    (Hint: The only mention of the Muslim word in the entire article: “Robinson, founder of the now-defunct English Defence League, is a self-styled journalist and commentator who issues a steady stream of anti-Muslim statements online.”)

  19. lotocoti

    Based upon surviving transcripts from the Wannsee Conference, Conspiracy (2001) shows how the unacceptable can be made legally acceptable.

  20. struth

    As a lefty commenter above shows us in Herodotus comment.
    Everyone the left oppose is branded a socialist.(nazi)

    When you have let them get away with calling the followers of limited government, low taxation, freedom of speech, sovereign nations, democracy etc, Nazis, they see that they can say whatever they like and keep repeating ut.
    We never fight back enough.
    We never ridicule enough and we never call BULLSHIT enough.
    Who amongst us has not sat silent in a social gathering while a lefty spews their bile for the sake of keeping the peace?

  21. herodotus

    I think they’ve ditched that comment I referred to above.

  22. Roger

    Let’s not be too smug. Calum Thwaites, Alex Wood, Bill Leak, Sonia Kruger.

    George Pell.

  23. pbw

    Yes, Roger, and Pell is the most significant of them.

  24. Sinclair Davidson

    Gentlepeople – I think focussing on the ethnicity or religious characteristics (or otherwise) of criminals is a distraction. We have laws that target behaviour and sometimes intention not people or groups of people. Our arguments and concerns would be far, far better served if we stuck to that principle.

  25. duncanm

    Quadrant

    Explain why white men accused of pedophilia are allowed to be photographed and questioned by reporters on court steps, while Pakistani Muslims are not. Explain why a police force that took three decades to start dealing with Muslim rape gangs was able to arrest and incarcerate a journalist within a few scant hours. Explain why a man can be arrested for breaching the peace when no violence has taken place. To the British government: explain your actions, or open Tommy Robinson’s cell and let him walk free

  26. stackja

    Sinclair Davidson
    #2723715, posted on May 30, 2018 at 9:13 am

    Certain ethnicity or religious seem to be prone to behaviour and sometimes intention once frowned on.

  27. struth

    Quite simply Sinclair because their religion endorses this behavior.

    That’s why they are called Muslim rape gangs.
    Because they weren’t doing it because Jesus gave them the thumbs up.
    They were doing it to the white sluts of the infidels.
    That’s why Sinclair.
    You’re the one attempting to distract.

  28. lotocoti

    Explain why …

    The Secret barrister explains why.
    However, the Court’s reporting restrictions created a mountain out of a molehill.

  29. manalive

    Comparisons with Nazi Germany is a bit of a stretch, in both cases cited viz. Alfie Evans and Tommy Robinson a decision was made by a judge acting within their legal authority.
    Nazi Germany during the 1930s was a dual state, a nominative state where judges presided in cases as usual as before and a prerogative state controlled directly by ‘the leader’ and completely outside the existing framework with unquestionable powers of indefinite detention and murder.
    When a judge protested that the Aktion T4 euthanasia programme was illegal he was dismissed with: “if you cannot recognise the will of the Führer as a source of law, then you cannot remain a judge” (Wiki).
    By Thierack’s appointment in 1942 the nominative state ceased to exist when the Reichstag confirmed Hitler’s position as the sole legal authority.

  30. struth

    Your secret barrister is certainly looking down his nose at the knuckledragging nazis he sees that support TR.
    So not a smart lefty and with zero understanding of hypocrisy.

  31. A Lurker

    Gentlepeople – I think focussing on the ethnicity or religious characteristics (or otherwise) of criminals is a distraction.

    So how about we focus on cultural characteristics instead, given that alien, abnormal and unacceptable cultural practices appear to be at play here.

    Or are all cultural practices equal and thus accepted/excused in a multicultural society?

    If not, where does one draw the line?
    Common sense would suggest the line is where these practices are against the law. Yet, rape, and especially sexual interference with under-age minors is most definitely against the law; however, for almost three decades, authorities like the police and councils turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to this blatant law breaking. So why did authorities not act given that these cultural practices broke well established laws? Did they believe that those rapists were acting within their cultural norms, and thus excused in a multicultural society. Did they think that those children had the rapes coming to them? Or were they simply cowards who did not want to rock the multicultural/politically-correct boat?

    Thing is, if the people coming to the West from the East, do not recognise our laws, and believe their own laws and cultural norms have ascendancy over ours, then what can be done about the situation? Especially since authorities in places like Britain and Australia do little to promote the benefits of integration and assimilation into the majority culture.

    Just asking is all.

  32. lotocoti

    Struth, the Secret Barrister’s digs don’t alter the facts as revealed.
    Having spent a decade or two regularly holding my breath hoping some journalist hasn’t stretched court reporting conditions too far and earned this lowly editor a ten thousand dollar fine for CoC
    (the Bleattie/Blight regime changed the law to make the likes of me personally liable), I suspect I may have a slightly different view of the hows and whys than the average punter.

  33. Crossie

    These recent decisions by British Courts are, in my view, the very embodiment of the banality of evil and they prove Britain is slipping into the evils of fascism that von Galen previously warned about.

    The Members of judiciary in particular are so smug and don’t even hide their contempt for the little people, the voters, the taxpayers – the law abiding. In this instance Tommy Robinson may or may not have broken a law that protects perpetrators.

    Contrast that with the treatment Cardinal Pell is subjected to at each court appearance.

  34. Crossie

    I’m starting to get the feeling that everything is upside down, morality is now illegal.

  35. John Comnenus

    Manalive, my argument is to heed the warning. I am not saying that the UK is Nazi Germany but rather they are slipping in that direction. I don’t agree that the judge acted within the law. Whilst I accept the tragic necessity to occasionally stop treatment, I can see no justification to ban them the parents from taking their child home or getting alternate non tax payer funded treatment. And as to ordering a denial of food. My god, no one can seriously argue that was not a capital sentence imposed by the judge. Let’s recall the behaviour of the doctors who said he would die within a day once life support t was removed. The fact that he didn’t should have immediately invalidated the original advice and required a second and third opinion. The doctor got this bit wrong. But rather than admitting that the doctor and state were wrong, they denied the child food to ensure they were ‘right’. In my book that cannot be accepted as legitimate. Deny healthcare yes, horrible but occasionally necessary, denying food, in my view sets a very dangerous precedent. As von Galen asked, who will be next?

  36. Zatara

    The 2nd amendment to the US constitution makes more and more sense every day.

  37. JohnA

    John Comnenus #2723895, posted on May 30, 2018, at 11:38 am

    Deny healthcare yes, horrible but occasionally necessary, denying food, in my view sets a very dangerous precedent. As von Galen asked, who will be next?

    Exactly the slippery slope argument that was to little avail in the mid-1980s in Victoria as we debated the Medical Treatment Bill (Act of 1986) in the First Battle against Euthanasia. The best we got out of that was that food and water could never be denied a patient even if they had requested the cessation of medical treatment.

    And now we are seeing exactly the things we predicted then – judges making decisions about people’s lives instead of doctors and doctors being forced to modify their application of the Hippocratic Oath.

    These activists for overturning Western values (in this case the value of life itself) never seem to give up. We have to remain just as persistent – every time they “knock us down” we get up one more time than we went down.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.