Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Human Sacrifice in the Modern Age
For those who think that human sacrifice is a relic of the past, you are wrong. Its manifestations in the modern age are different, but they are violent, heartless, immoral, and unrepentant. We only need to look at the actions of the Progressive movement to understand how human sacrifice thrives and is equally deadly.
Let’s look first at the origins of human sacrifice to lay the foundation for my argument:
Almost all of us would cringe at thought of sacrificing a person’s life for the purpose of appeasing the gods. Modern society associates the phrase ‘human sacrifice’ with brutal, demonic, or satanic rituals. However, cultures that are considered by scholars to be highly civilized, affluent, and advanced considered human sacrifice a normal part of life.
Some ancient cultures engaged in human ritual killings to gain the favor of the gods, while others practiced it to show respect and devotion to their leaders. The ritual could be as serene as simply drinking poison or as cruel as getting buried or burned alive. But above all, it was considered perfectly normal.
Let me show you the parallels between Progressivism and ancient practices. First, I would suggest that some of the “gods” of the Left are Marxism/socialism, climate change, abortion, and those issues associated with them. As many of us have already acknowledged, Progressivism supposedly thrives on secularism, but we know that its ideology shows all the attributes of a cultish religion: a belief system, belief in supernatural beings (Gaia), distinction between the sacred (utopia) and profane (fossil fuels, Conservatives, etc.), rituals and sacred objects (protests, chanting); a moral code (nature matters, people do not; windmills, solar panels are elevated), and finally destroying anyone who challenges their beliefs. The human sacrifices are the intentions and actions that will destroy the life of another human being and everyone connected to him and her to preserve their “religion.”
We can look at three Supreme Court nominees to see the lengths the Left will go to, to initiate a human sacrifice. In the case of Robert Bork, it was an ugly display. Although he had a list of worthy credentials to be considered for SCOTUS, Ted Kennedy decided to make his best effort to destroy him:
Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy. . .
In addition to his legal legacy, Bork also has a word named for him in the Oxford English Dictionary. The verb ‘bork’ is used as slang, to ‘defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way.’
Robert Bork reflected on this rejection later in his life l :
The rejection deeply affected Bork, turning him further against a system in which, he said, ‘the tactics and techniques of national political campaigns have been unleashed on the process of confirming judges. That is not simply disturbing. It is dangerous.’ Ever more vociferously, he railed against left-wing judicial activism that, in his view, sought to substitute courts for elected politicians.
The rejection of Bork defined the future behavior of Supreme Court nominees who realized that providing limited comments about their views provided less ammunition for attacks by the Progressive Left.
The second example was the “lynching” of Clarence Thomas; this word was Justice Thomas’ own choice when he responded to the actions of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
Anita Hill had accused Justice Thomas of sexual harassment when she worked for him; he denied all charges and went on to be confirmed to the Court. It’s important to note that in spite of his confirmation, other women who accused him of sexual harassment but were not deemed credible (as seen in the Kavanaugh hearings).
Justice Thomas also learned the sad truth about who he could trust during the hearings. Although Joe Biden had promised to protect his privacy, Biden lied:
Thomas recalled, ‘Throughout my life I’ve often found truth embedded in the lyrics of my favorite records. At Yale, for example, I’d listened often to ‘Smiling Faces Sometimes,’ a song by the Undisputed Truth that warns of the dangers of trusting the hypocrites who ‘pretend to be your friend’ while secretly planning to do you wrong. Now I knew I’d met one of them: Senator Biden’s smooth, insincere promises that he would treat me fairly were nothing but talk.’
Finally, we come to Justice Brett Kavanaugh. I’m choosing to not provide detail of his nomination and the way the investigations were handled because they are well known. But as an example of the disgusting efforts to annihilate him, there is this comment:
According to the Constitution it is within the purview of the Senate to ‘advise and consent’ on SCOTUS appointees. The Constitution says nothing about grilling these appointees half to death, about setting land mines made out of vague and ancient fictions. The concern is supposed to be whether or not the candidate has the education, the clarity, the self-discipline to weigh issues brought before him. It is not about changing the world. It is not about getting the jump on the opposing party. It is certainly not about high school antics –- if in fact any happened. The left seems to think that a SCOTUS judge can just haul off and change laws, which explains their hysteria, but a little knowledge about the balance of power would calm those fears. SCOTUS can’t initiate lawsuits; they can only rule on what is brought before them.
Kavanaugh responded to the Senate Judiciary Committee and said, in part:
These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service.
As I told the Committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last-minute character assassination will not succeed.
People’s reputations should be sacred and inviolable, especially when they have a history of being honorable and dedicated. That assumption is no longer valid.
The effects on these men, their families, wives, and children cannot be measured. Those people who love them know that the enemy has tried not only to prevent their confirmations, but they have set out to destroy their lives. Their efforts have the sounds of zealotry, hatred for those who do not agree with them, and disdain for people who do not see the wisdom of their ways. Their movement has become a crusade, in the worst sense of the word. They will make sure their goals are met, and that people are either converted to their cause, or they will be sacrificed. We have seen many more human sacrifices in recent years; I hope you will speak to those abhorrent exploits.
With this kind of sick religious dogma, why would anyone choose to be a Supreme Court nominee?
Who will be the next human sacrifice?
Published in Culture
To go along with that, why would anyone want to run for public office, especially as a Republican?
It is an insidious and intentional evil. While is does have religious aspects to it, it is also as deliberate and calculated as an NFL offensive game plan (elaborate scouting, film reviews, and targeted scheming). See Miguel Estrada:
They strategize years in advance to muddy lower court confirmations [in] preparation for possible battles later. In your terms here, it is preemptive infant sacrifice.
Also, with respect to Bork, from Men if Black:
(“Not qualified?” What a disgusting display. But, I guess here we would still need to presume those rating[s] to be in good faith. But I digress.)
I have often ranted about other three letter whores for the modern Progressives, namely the CBO and AMA (both on full, disgusting display in the lead up to the passage of PPACA), but here, in the ABA, we clearly have a diseased predecessor to both of them.
Oh, that is so observant, @philo. Even worse than I thought.
As actions become even more aggressive and virulent (if that’s possible), we will see more and more organizations showing their true stripes. They will see no downside, just as the media no longer practices journalism. Thanks again, @philo.
You’re right, @stad. Any public office is vulnerable!
The left worship equality and sameness as there G-d.
I agree, @henrycastaigne! That fits right in with the rest of their idols! Ugh!
Dang…I read “human sacrifice” and I automatically think of life issues, and I was expecting a contribution here about abortion and euthanasia, not one about personal dignity, honor and reputation. This was an unexpected and insightful piece. Thanks.
And many more. One thing that came out of the Bill Cosby fracas are the people who participated in The Cosby Show. The cost to them in lost royalties and residuals, pride in the work they did, and so on is incalculable.
Many innocent priests were caught up in the original scandals involving the Catholic Church in Massachusetts and the rest of New England. The legal fees and settlements were huge and robbed money from the poor who had been receiving help from the church’s many ministries. Many local churches were closed.
Our entire justice system is based on Judaism’s “eye for an eye” precept and legal principle that limits punishment to be no more than an eye for an eye. (This idea has been misquoted throughout the history of western civilization dangerously wrongly to call for revenge when in fact it was a call to limit revenge and replace it with justice.)
What bothers me most about the #metoo movement is that it is exacting punishment that is way beyond the harm caused by the “criminal” (even when I accept that perhaps something happened that may resemble what the aggrieved person is describing) and punishes people not involved with the crime in any way.
What these people are doing to their “attackers” is not even in the justice ballpark. It’s returning a person’s transgressions with sentences that last a lifetime, and it’s hurting people who have never harmed anyone, even allegedly.
The widespread harm that the victims cause to other people not related to the original event turns the tables for me as to who is harmed and who is the victim and who is the perpetrator.
People need to return to all of the laws that ensure justice and that relate to evidence and the statute of limitations. No hearsay and gossip allowed in a court of law.
But @hartmannvonaue, those issues count, too, as part of the Progressive religion. They have made those issues their idols and are prepared to destroy anyone or anything that refuses to accept them. They have no appreciation of the sanctity of human life! So here you’ve contributed to the ideas at hand, too!
Beautifully said, @marcin! We all risk becoming perpetrators just because of our own differing views. We are all at risk.
“The effects on these men, their families, wives and children cannot be measured. Those people who love them know that the enemy has tried not only to prevent their confirmations, but they have set out to destroy their lives…
With this kind of sick religious dogma, why would anyone choose to be a Supreme Court nominee?
Who will be the next human sacrifice?” the OP.
So we now have a situation whereby judges, office seekers, and, I would submit, even appointed employees of a Republican President, are marked for beratement and harassment because they do not think the way they are supposed to think according to the political left. What can we do to stop this thuggery? I have come to believe we must develop our own committee or “hit squad”. Until they learn to fear the consequences of their behavior, it will only get worse. The personal lives of the persons of the left, including media persons, must be publicly exposed until they beg for a truce.
You are correct, @cdor. In fact, I think the outrage expressed by Lindsey Graham at the end of Kavanaugh’s hearing should occur during the hearing. I don’t care who does it: but these outrageous questions and attacks should not be permitted at a hearing. I think a brilliant move by Trump was appointing interim officials for several departments. They don’t need approval or confirmations, right? They do the job, have an extra word in their title and get paid the same money. I realize this strategy wouldn’t work for SCOTUS–but then again, why not??
You might be interested to know there will be a prayer gathering of leaders in the pro-life movement in Israel in the valley of Hinnom on Oct. 2nd to pray for the LORD to shift the spiritual atmosphere in Israel on the issue of abortion. There is a spiritual power of hatred of life, particularly new life that drives the abortion cult, and they chose to confront it where it really began.
More than just those. They are willing for people to suffer from and die from diseases like malaria because “Gaia wills it!” The human sacrifices are real, not just metaphorical.
Thank you, @arahant! Excellent point. What about the the rice that was genetically modified so there would be more and it would be more nutritious. We wouldn’t want that . . . a different category, but related.
Exactly. Somebody ought to start a Human Sacrifice Party in the US. Just advocate all Democratic policies, but be explicit that the policies will kill people and how many they have already killed. Can have separate statistics for those murdered, starved, etc. Open Borders: 12 people murdered since X date. Etc. And these will be real deaths, not Paul Erlich’s starvation in the 1970’s and 1980’s that he predicted in 1968. Can add in all the socialist and communist policies from various countries. The death count will be huge.
Works for me!!!
Hopefully Amy Coney Barrett. I just hope she has the fortitude to stick it out.
It will be brutal if her name is put up, @randywebster. It’s possible that Trump will think she’s too high risk, in spite of her excellent qualifications. Or she may decline, choosing not to put her family and community through it. What a tragedy if either happens. Thanks.
At least it will be difficult to accuse her of sexual misconduct.
No, it won’t.
Edited to Add: Slut-shaming will suddenly come back into vogue with Democrats and she will be accused of sleeping with everyone and everything. Rover will come forth to testify to her crimes along with a horse and an elephant.
Wanna bet?
Not wishing this at all, but what makes you think so? Think of all the women teachers who’ve assaulted teens? They could try to tag Amy with something she did when she was ten years old. Who knows?
@arahant, @philo, and @randywebster–how sad that we’ve become so cynical? That we can’t trust that a person’s stellar personal reputation will speak volumes about the kind of person she is. Sheesh.
Oh, her reputation will speak volumes. And the Democrats will try to smear and besmirch that reputation with lies, as they did with Brett Kavanaugh, Bob Bork, et al.
You can’t say you don’t expect it.
(sigh)