Communist "Unhumans"

 Yesterday's post was a call to read a book report by Ned Ryun stating that evil is a reality in this broken world.  Today, we have another book report, written by Janet Levy, about a book written by Jack Prosobiec and Joshua Lisec entitled Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (And How to Crush Them). You can find Levy's article at the American Thinker entitled How To Beat the Communists At Their Own Game.

Perhaps we should unwrap this word "unhuman" first. I have noted in the past that one cannot be a Christian and also "woke" because being woke requires the denial of God given reality. By "God given" I mean both scientifically observable facts and belief in those things that can be reasonably derived from Biblical teachings. Things like the fact of two genders and the fact of birth at conception. In the same way, one cannot be a Christian and be a Marxist/Communist/Socialist/Fascist or even a Progressive, for these world views also deny God given realities. This clash of world views was what drove Bella Dodd, for example to leave Communism and return to Christianity.

When one adopts Communism, one also adopts the tactics and the beliefs of Communists. These are purely demonic and one becomes capable of doing horrible things in the name of the new god, Lucifer. In that sense, one loses his humanity and becomes unhuman. It is only when one formally repents of these beliefs and tactics and confesses to being a sinner that one regains a sense of being human.

Levy writes:

Communism thrives on resentment, vengeance, and terror. Its chief weapon is disorder, the dismantling of existing structures, the undoing of bonds holding together families, nations, civilizations. Conservative pundits have been warning of this for decades. Why, then, have the U.S. – and the West as a result – moved to the Left?

According to Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec, authors of Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (And How to Crush Them), conservatives lose because they do not understand the Left. The authors say their book is a “software upgrade” for saving America and Western civilization. They say they are unapologetic about the epithet ‘unhumans’ because communists destroy “the human rights of life, liberty, and property – and undo their own humanity in the process by fully embracing nihilism, cynicism, and envy.”

Posobiec is a former Naval intelligence officer, a T.V. journalist, and well-known conservative voice, while Lisec is a professional ghostwriter. As staunch believers in the “God-given will of the human spirit to build a greater, better world than the one we found ourselves in,” both are committed to fighting back.

They advocate the principle of exact reciprocity: “that which is done by the communists and the regime must be done unto them.” Lawfare, naming, shaming, boycotts, cancel culture – the Left, they say, must be fought with its own weapons. Their book is no limp-wristed analysis of conservative failures; it is a clarion call for an iron-fisted counterattack – a counter-revolution, for which they lay out the strategy in the final two (12th and 13th) chapters.

The last, "exact reciprocity," is what Kurt Schlichter has called the "new rules." We must not be shy about using the new rules against the Communists, because that is the only way to stop them. But we cannot become them. We must use our newfound rules to target high profile targets to discourage everyone else. Some of this is already happening with people like Robby Starbuck pressuring companies like Harley Davidson to abandon DEI initiatives. We must double down on what Starbuck is doing and find other means to cancel, boycott, lawfare, and sometimes imprisonment when actual laws have been broken. We don't have to make stuff up. There is a host of legitimate targets out there.

At another level, the authors say, communists have unleashed anarcho-terrorism – the selective enforcement of laws against a target population. Examples given include the prosecution of Jan. 6 demonstrators protesting a fraudulent election while Antifa and BLM rioters were exonerated for the “summer of love,” in which property was destroyed, businesses were looted, and people were assaulted. Another is the villainization of police officers in the George Floyd case despite his record as a violent criminal, fentanyl addict, and heart patient. Yet another is the criminalization of self-defense, while courts take a lenient view of muggers and robbers.

Committed as they are to taking the fight back to the communists, Posobiec and Lisec say that, if necessary, conservatives must infiltrate the organizations of the unhumans. Posobiec hasn’t shied from such work himself: he has infiltrated Antifa meetings that planned attacks on Trump’s inauguration and the Seattle Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) and written a book about the conspiracies hatched there (The Antifa: Stories from Inside the Black Bloc).

They also suggest acquiring dominance over social media – creating networks of counter-influencers, for example – so that organizations such as Antifa, BLM, and NGOs profiting from illegal immigration can be exposed and shamed effectively, while lawfare against them gains wide publicity. In fact, Posobiec has written another book – 4D Warfare: A Doctrine for a New Generation of Politics – dedicated to fighting communists on social media.

I urge gentle readers to read the whole article by Levy.

Slaying the False God

J. B. Shurk has an interesting article today at the American Thinker entitled Slaying Leviathan. It is a book report of an advanced copy of Ned Ryun's American Leviathan.

If you don’t know Ned, he’s the founder of American Majority and Voter Gravity, grassroots organizations that specialize in fighting the culture war at the local level and electing America First conservatives. On cable news channels and in his writing, he’s an eloquent defender of the Constitution, limited government, and the American Republic as the Founding Fathers intended. I highly recommend that you read American Leviathan and share it with friends — especially friends who struggle to see clearly the stakes of the ideological war now raging.

Since I urge gentle readers to read the whole article, I will only quote just this, which is at the heart of Shurk's point:

In American Leviathan, Ryun succeeds by making what is complicated quite comprehensible. He takes a century and a half of mostly forgotten history and political debate and boils down all the sordidness into a digestible, if unpleasant, meal. He traces the origin of the administrative state to a group of American intellectuals who were fascinated with Hegel’s philosophical defense of authoritarianism and the absolute power of the Prussian king. He pinpoints the rise of the Uniparty in the overlapping policy preferences of leading Republicans, Democrats, and socialists at the beginning of the twentieth century. He recounts how progressive Republicans, such as Robert La Follette and Teddy Roosevelt, advocated for radical expansion of government and rejection of long-respected constitutional constraints that mirrored many of the wishes of progressive Democrats, such as Woodrow Wilson and The New Republic founder Herbert Croly. Together, these various thought leaders (at times hostile to one another as they advanced similar goals) initiated what Ryun calls a “Progressive Statist movement” demanding a fundamental transformation of the American system of government and the elevation of the State at the expense of Americans’ individual liberties.

Ryun defines the administrative state, the national security state, and the Deep State as distinct entities reflecting varying degrees of power, privilege, secretiveness, and incompetence, but he recognizes all of these unelected factions as parts of the same beast: the Leviathan. With that appellation, he refers to the political treatise Leviathan, from seventeenth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, whose inclination toward a strong, centralized government emerged during the chaos of the English Civil Wars. In the Old Testament, Leviathan is a sea serpent and demon associated with the sin of envy. The monster eats the souls of those who are damned because they remain too attached to the material world to reach God’s realm and receive His grace. Although the biblical Leviathan epitomizes chaos, Hobbes used the idea of a terrifying creature composed of myriad souls as a metaphor for an all-powerful State constantly shaping citizens and feeding from their individual energies. The frontispiece to Hobbes’s Leviathan shows a monarch clutching the symbols of earthly power in one hand and spiritual power in the other. The monarch’s body is formed from hundreds of faceless individuals who, through their actions to support the king, embody the State. At the top of the illustration is a Latin quote describing Leviathan from the Book of Job: “There is no power on earth to be compared to him.” It is in this sense that Ryun describes the American Leviathan.

Although Hobbes saw the Leviathan as a necessary force for taming violent chaos, Ryun recognizes it for what it actually is: an uncontrollable, ever-growing, and ravenous beast that devours any prospect for representative democracy or individual liberty. Interestingly, just as Hobbes saw the Leviathan State as the union of the secular and spiritual worlds, Ryun sees the American Leviathan as a usurper claiming dominion over both worlds, too. He takes great pains to show how Progressive Statists depend upon a rejection of God, so that they can claim His powers as their own. In the same way that the theological Leviathan represents the deadly sin of envy, the American Leviathan is envious of all forms of power outside its own. Ultimately, to choose the unelected administrative state over the constitutional republic and the protection of Americans’ natural rights is to worship government above all else. The American Leviathan is an obscene and false god.

Indeed

Evil Is Real

 Perhaps you have wondered why I have not posted much lately.  The truth is two fold.  First, I have been busy with other things.  One realizes that continuing to read all the news sites can become an idol in itself and take a person's focus away from God.  But the other thing is that most news sites have become about the presidential race.  One side tries to scare you that Trump is evil incarnate and will become a dictator for life, while at the same time attempting to convince you that Harris has moderated or abandoned positions she has held for years in the last three weeks.  Either she really has no core positions, or she is lying.  Trump on the other hand, while I personally feel is the best candidate right now, has all too human flaws.  In the end, it is about two different world views.

But this has always been a gun blog first.  Yes, I want all the rights and privileges afforded by our Constitution.  But they depend, ultimately, on the Second Amendment.  But even here, we see the horse race intruding, as Harris has stated she wants to severely restrict our Second Amendment rights.  According to one world view, we need the Second Amendment because people are basically sinful.  According to the other, we don't because people are basically good.  Today, Tom Knighton at Bearing Arms has a piece entitled Sorry, But Evil Actually Is Real and Banning Guns Won't Make It Go Away.  You can guess which world view Knighton takes.

The idea that every person born is born into sin was one that the ancient Israelites believed. Psalm 51:5:

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,

And in sin did my mother conceive me."

Saint Augustine systematized this belief as "original sin" brought about by the disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Of course, people are capable of evil acts all on their own. Rarely, people may be under demonic possession, which also exists. But in any case, calling evil by its name - and murder is evil - does not in any way "dehumanize" the perpetrator.  For he invites the devil into his heart.

Too many people, including those who claim to be Christian, have the belief that people are basically good, and this despite all the evidence around them. This belief in the goodness of people affects many policy positions they take, including about guns. Such is the case with D'Anne Witowski at Pride Source* entitled Evil Isn't Real. Guns and Murder Are. Yet Republicans Do Nothing. But, we know that murders are committed with pretty much anything that can be used as a weapon including hands and feet. Are we to ban hands and feet?

I don't intend to quote any of Witowski's piece, as the entire article is specious. based as it is on false premises. You can read it if you want. But I would ask that you read Knighton's article. which closes with:

It's. The. People.

People are the problem, and until and unless we address that issue, we're just going to have more and more events like the Apalachee High School shooting. Vance at least upping school security to try and minimize the risk to our kids. The author and Kamala Harris just want to punish people who did nothing wrong.

If you ask me, that's downright evil in and of itself.

Exactly

*The fact that the publication calls itself Pride Source

Pray and Vote

Yesterday, Sha'i ben-Tekoa had a must read article at the American Thinker in which he explains in painful, if not gory detail Islam's Psychopathic Bullies. Mostly, he illustrates from the Israeli experience of the October 7 war. But understand that the same terrorists and psychopaths are here, now in America, and they are beginning to make their presence known in Europe. Europe is thoroughly frightened of them and doesn't know what to do. Europe seems to have lost control of the hordes of Muslim immigrants.  Our so-called leaders are not going to do much either as when they lose control, it will already be too late.

In recent days, various Israeli former captives of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) in the Gaza Strip have gone public in the Israeli media with their ordeal, and their reportage is uniform. Every one of their different captors comes across as a psychopathic bully. Being kidnapped and becoming a hostage to Muslims means more than just loss of freedom; it means constant, 24-7 abuse, punishment physical and psychological, in particular, endless humiliation.

Israel’s YNETnews.com quoted freed hostage Almog Meir regarding his abuser: “If he did not like how we walked around the apartment, he would say, ‘You were up, fine, now you will sit for a week and not move. If you go to the bathroom, you must crawl there. I don’t want you to stand.’” This is bullying for bullying’s sake.

Almog added, “They often just wanted to punch me. You disconnect from your feelings, from the humiliation. He would take this pen and tie our mouths around it. For days, we would have cuts in our mouths. Sometimes we were bound by chains and would have the rust wash off us when we showered. The lock on the chains would cut us to the bone.”

What the MSM never covers is the religious dimension of the cruelty that the Jewish hostages in Muslim hands in Gaza are subject to daily. The Koran mandates “oppression and humiliation” for Jews, and that was the relationship over fourteen centuries.

It is too bad that the MSM doesn't cover the religious nature of this abuse. Understand that the Jews would not acknowledge Muhammad's claims and so Muhammad in a fit of pique placed an eternal curse on them. But think for a moment. The Jews were God's chosen people. Would God have called for the killing of all Jews? He had made a covenant with them, and it was irrevocable. Whether the Jews honored it or not, God would keep his promises. Clearly God would not mandate the killing of Jews. Clearly, the Koran is the work of the Evil One.

Here's another way to tell that Christianity is from God and Islam is not. In Christianity, God first loved us, and in response we should love our neighbor as ourselves for the sake of God's love for us. God so loves us that he doesn't want to force himself on anyone. God through his great love and grace grants us faith and asks us to pray and worship Him because doing so strengthens us and improves our lives.

By contrast, Islam does not demand faith. One can become a Muslim by saying a series of words three times. What Islam demands is submission. Love has nothing to do with it, which of course is what causes such psychopathy in Muslims. It makes sense that Islam is as it is because it is the work of the Evil One, and he hates humans with an unquenchable and insatiable hatred.

You may be wondering what Marxism, Socialism, Communism and whatever other "ism" they go by today has in common with Islam. Marxism is after all atheistic, believing in no god. Islam is a totalitarian governing system masquerading as a religion. Totalitarianism then is what both have in common.  The Marxist hope to use the Muslims as their shock troops and armed attack dogs to impose totalitarian rule. I suspect the Devil has other plans, however, and he is smarter and more powerful than any human. Besides, he is also influencing the Left as well.  In the end, he is willing to give to a few people in order to make as slaves out of as many of us as possible.

What can you and I do? For now, pray fervently and every day. Oh, and vote like your life depended on it, because it does.

Movie Trailer Illustrates Hollywood Neo-Paganism

 Yesterday evening, I happened to read in intriguing post by Andrea Widburg at the American Thinker entitled A new movie trailer may be the ultimate expression of feminist neo-paganism. Sure enough, Widburg does not disappoint, though as has become quite usual, Hollywood does.

This coming weekend, a movie called Nightbitch, starring the popular Amy Adams, opens. The premise is a simple one: A frustrated career woman who becomes a stay-at-home mom transforms into a dog at night. I haven’t read the novel on which the movie is based, and I doubt I’ll see the movie. It’s the trailer that’s intriguing because it is the ultimate expression of unhappy feminism, coupled with leftism’s neo-paganism.

Regarding the unhappy feminism, I know all about that. I was utterly unprepared for motherhood, in large part because I, like most in my generation, was last around children when I was 15 and babysitting in high school. After that, I lived in a child-free world, so the reality of children when I hit my late thirties (yes, I waited that long) was a shock. I also worked from home, so I was simultaneously a mommy and a wage slave, which was a challenge I did not gracefully rise to meet.

I have always understood the feminist desire to "have it all." But I have also always realized that we cannot "have it all." We make choices, many of which are unwise choices, and some of our choices foreclose others. Men too have tried to "have it all" and have failed just as spectacularly.  Sometimes we can repent, but we can never undo the damage we have done. That is the human condition. It is why I admire Harrison Butker and he speech to the graduates of Benedictine College, because he has learned early the way to a happy life.

The trailer, though, makes it explicit that happiness is not a choice. Indeed, only a pompous, condescending man who doesn’t understand the horrors of motherhood would think it is.

Rather than embracing and celebrating what we have, the trailer goes in another direction entirely: It literally tells us to tap into our divine side. Thus, Amy Adams, the frazzled mother, announces, “We [i.e., women] are gods,” complete with the creative power of gods.

There are two things going on in that statement. First, it represents the left’s neo-paganism, which rejects the monotheistic Judeo-Christian God. Rejecting that God means that one can also reject His worldview (e.g., “male and female he created them”) and His ethical values, both large and small.

Second, the statement taps into the Marxist concept that, when people are freed from the chains of labor, they essentially become gods. Logan Lancing’s and James Lindsay’s The Queering of the American Child: How a New School Religious Cult Poisons the Minds and Bodies of Normal Kids explains that Marxism is not an economic theory; it’s a religious cult that sees the Western economic system standing in the way of each person’s apotheosis (that is, their ascendence to god-status).

I urge gentle readers to read the whole post. Widburg tells us how she came around to embrace her role as a mother, and I would suspect also how she became a conservative. She also credits some of her wisdom to Dennis Prager, a man I highly admire as well.

(As an aside: I was asked by a militant atheist once would I like it if my kids were taught by a practicing Jew? My answer surprised her. I said I wouldn't mind at all. After all, my Saviour and God was a Jew. According to the very Jewish St. Paul, all we gentiles are grafted onto the Vine of Christ, making us all now Israelites.  Of course, the modern state of Israel and the ancient Israelites are two very different things.)

Perhaps We Should Practice 'Agape' Rather Than Fake Empathy

Election season goes into overtime after Labor Day, and I cannot wait for it to be over.  One of the Democrats' great talking points is how much they care and empathize with the marginalized, the poor, the working man etc.  Reading the Bible puts one in mind of the old idea of tough love.  We, living in a Rousseauean world have come to know only one kind of love.  But the Greeks recognized love on many levels, one of which was "agape" (pronounced ag-ah'-pay) Agape was the sort of love that God had for his people, a love that sometimes punished wrong-doers to correct them for their own good.  If government is to fulfill St. Paul's notion of being God's representative on earth, then it must also fulfill agape, not fake empathy.

Yesterday, at the American Thinker Jack Hellner had a post entitled Debunking the bleeding heart of Democrats lie in which he points out that time and time again, the supposedly compassionate Democrat policies actually rain ruin and misery on the population. Oh, these policies sound good in the Democrats' telling, but they are not good for the people.  Instead, they are merely pandering to the people to get them to vote for the Democrats, while planning to do something else.

Here are a few examples, of many examples given by Hellner, and which I urge you to go read for yourselves. Helner is getting really fired up by this point in his post:

Democrats claim they care deeply about the environment, but Biden and Harris have barely recognized the environmental catastrophe in East Palestine, Ohio. Those people are clearly disposable. Democrats are too busy destroying the economy with the theoretical climate crisis which is based on computer models. They don’t care about all the birds and bats killed by wind turbines, and the obliteration of marine life when these machines break offshore.

Democrats have no empathy for newborn babies born in botched abortions. They don’t even believe these little ones deserve health care.

They have no empathy for the workers at crisis pregnancy centers when their facility is vandalized and destroyed. They hate freedom of choice for poor pregnant women.

Democrats pretend they care about children, but they were willing to destroy children by keeping them out of school based on lies from Anthony Fauci and others.

It is not empathetic when a president dictatorially and unconstitutionally pays off student loans; it is theft from taxpayers and bribery for votes.

I saw the Harris ad again last night where young women, girls really, were telling us how the other candidate had taken away their "rights" and didn't care about them. I again said to the TV that the reason I am voting for the other candidate is because in fact I DO care about them. Sure, the easy thing is to give in and tell them "Go ahead and do what feels good, and then have an abortion." It seems like an easy fix. But it turns out it is not and will harm both the mother and the child. God's commandments are there not to restrict you, but to give you abundant life. Perhaps we would do well to practice some agape when we vote instead of fake empathy.