Is it mentally unhinged to accept an adverse fate rather than live in silence?

I would say the opposite is true, sanity and integrity can't prosper much without one another. Everybody dies, at some point, and to give up oneself to live in infinitely short amount longer (compared to eternity) is shitty a consolation price for those who don't really have themselves to begin with, who were compromised in childhood or youth, and live the rest of their lives slapping rationalizations on that.

> Of course it is "more useful" to commit an injustice than to be victim of it; for the sake of the thinking dialogue with myself, this point of utility must be abandoned.

-- Hannah Arendt, "Wahrheit und Politik"

> Natürlich ist es "nützlicher", Unrecht zu tun als Unrecht zu leiden; um des denkenden Dialogs mit mir selbst willen muss gerade dieser Nützlichkeitsstandpunkt aufgegeben werden.

I guess? Especially if the state-level actors are torturing people publicly and indiscriminately; and breaking laws and their own guidelines to do so. But doesn't that obligate us to support the mentally unhinged who manage to expose their crimes.

But, again, it doesn't really explain what the motives are, here. Do the people who comprise these state-level actors really want a world where the crimes of their colleagues and bosses go completely unexposed. I can't see how that would lead to good things for themselves and their families.

I've definitely seen at least some people more entertained by intrigue, drama, getting away with all sorts of crime, even sometimes getting caugh, and generally being tempted by "evil", than leading a virtuous life.

Motives are surely many and varied. For some it's as simple as saving face and a job, others are way more driven to turned a blind eye, help, or mastermind the bad.

Where does it begin? Well, some schools of developmental psychology claim that even the time spent in the womb predisposes us to certain adult-life outcomes.