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
It is not a sacrifice to burn a heretic in public. It is part of the show.
Look at Sarah Huckabee Sanders treatment at a restaurant. Look at Maxine Waters’ rant about getting in cabinet members’ faces. It takes a lot of fortitude to be a high-ranking Republican now.
I guess I should have stuck a “more” in there somewhere.
And I say again, if you haven’t read Servino and Hemingway’s Justice on Trial, do.
It’s one of the finest pieces of investigative journalism I’ve seen–and every readable. I concur! And they are not optimistic about the future nominations of justices in the current environment, either.
This was exactly my point. The leftists have used their politics of intimidation to eliminate their opponents…which would be us! We have to take President Trump’s lead and FIGHT BACK!
I have a vision of Amy Coney Barrett bringing a copy of Justice on Trial to the hearing and very publicly setting it in front of her while she testifies. There should also be tabs marking specific pages outlining disreputable behavior by certain committee members that she can get to for quick reference.
Once upon a time, I was explaining to a (more) lefty friend why the death of Amadou Diallo wasn’t a murder and the NYPD officers involved should not have been indicted. Apparently, I was convincing, because at last he huffed “well, whatever. I hope they’re found guilty anyway. The NYPD has had this coming.”
To which I retorted “the trial isn’t about what ‘the NYPD’ has or hasn’t done; it is about what these particular men did.”
Will it surprise you to learn that this lefty friend had been to law school?
One of the features of human sacrifice is that the victim isn’t chosen for his or her sins, but rather as a representative of the sins of others. Innocence is a feature, not a bug. This is why it doesn’t matter to the left whether Kavanaugh did or did not sexually assault Christine Blasey-Ford, or whether the Covington high school boys actually ridiculed an elderly Native American. Nor, for that matter, does it matter what Michael Brown did or even who he was in any particular, human sense; he was merely one of the interchangeable and thus dehumanized characters in the left’s narrative.
Excellent observation, @GrannyDude. That is why every person who supports Trump is deplorable, too.
I’m certainly deplorable.
I’m deplorable, too.
Maybe we should start a club.
May I join, too?
You can be president of the club, if you want.
Human sacrifice? Abortion aside, you’ve jumped the shark.
Really, @catorand? I didn’t realize you were such a literal thinker–that’s usually my problem. From Merriam-Webster:
: an act of offering to a deity something precious especially : the killing of a victim on an altar 2 : something offered in sacrifice 3a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b : something given up or lost the sacrifices made by parents 4 : loss goods sold at a sacrifice 5 : sacrifice hit
sacrifice
verb sacrificed; sacrificing
Definition of sacrifice (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to offer as a sacrifice 2 : to suffer loss of, give up, renounce, injure, or destroy especially for an ideal, belief, or end As a reminder, I’m talking about human sacrifice made to satisfy their “religious ideology” of Progressivism.
I think on all sides we’re spending way too much time comparing our political opponents to murderers. In the abstract, your human sacrifice metaphor might be harmless. In our current environment, it contributes to a rampant and dangerous pathology.
This idea has made into at least one stand up act. There’s a couple minute lead up about airplanes, but it’s encouraging that once he gets to the punch it gets laughs.
The left doesn’t care about the 100 million deaths caused by communism nor the flourishing of humanity under capitalism. There is something indifferent to humanity in the left right now. That wouldn’t be an exaggeration.
No, it wouldn’t, but you notice it also doesn’t accuse “the left” of murder.
What I object to is this tendency to jump from “he’s wrong” to “he’s killing people.” That BS is used against us all the time, and unfortunately, we sometimes use it against them, as the OP did.
It’s not only wrong, it’s dangerous. We can live with people who are wrong. Living with people who are murdering people is harder, so the hyperbole/metaphor/lie/ exaggeration/inflammatory rhetoric – call the move what you will – dehumanizes the people it’s deployed against and makes it possible to imagine taking any of a list of illegitimate/illegal or violent actions to stop them.
It is literally contributing to our unraveling and we will come to regret it.
I’m talking about their “killing people’s reputations,” “destroying their lives” in some cases. That’s an extremely serious act in Judaism. If you could ask those justices if they felt as if a part of them had died in the actions against them, they would likely agree that they had. What the Left does is not just wrong. It’s immoral. It’s evil. I think they need to be called out on it. Too often we on the Right have simply wrung our hands and complained about the actions of Progressives. When they are prepared to essentially wipe out the lives of their opponents, we have to call them out. You also said this:
“. . . dehumanizes the people it’s deployed against and makes it possible to imagine taking any of a list of illegitimate/illegal or violent actions to stop them.”
How do you figure that? Where did I talk about using violence or illegal acts against them? Are people who act in evil ways acting in legitimate ways for human beings? Sorry, @catorand, you are inferring outcomes from my statements that are not legitimate.
And abortion is their form of human sacrifice . . .
@catorand, as I read your comments you seem to put the conduct of the Left under the category of “things we can live with”. Thus you view the post by @susanquinn as simply describing political conduct that she disdains but is within the bounds of opinion and stratagem. I don’t read her post that way: She is describing conduct that truly kills in two ways — first the spirit in the death of reputation, and then the lives of persons who are so cavalierly devalued — without justification and with calm malice aforethought. That is not just political stratagem we can live with. And that is the point. Turning due process — the presumption of innocence, the right to confront, the requirement that there be a dispassionate examination and testing of evidence, that judgements be rendered without respect to position and status (positive or negative)–into soviet-style show trials is not just a matter of political opinion. It is worth fighting for, and it is not an area where we should turn down the rhetoric.
Thank you, @rodin. Eloquent, as always.
The key difference here is that the abortionists really are killing people, people who have to be drowned or beaten to death or just left to die for lack of medical care if those admittedly tiny people happen to survive the first attempt to torture them to death. In that case we are not arguing about ag policy or welfare reform or even whether to pursue a confrontational course with a hostile foreign power. There the argument is about real killing of real people, real innocent and completely defenseless people. The Democrat’s abortion cult is all about killing.
Of course “killing reputations” is serious. It’s just not literal killing. And I well understand that the left has engaged in vile slander. Still not the same as killing.
I also didn’t say you advocated violence, just that the willingness to exaggerate the faults of our opponents – e.g. by upgrading them hyperbolically from “character assassination” to “assassination” makes it easier to consider a violent response. I think it’s a toxic and corrosive practice that we need less of – from all parties.
This has all been very interesting. My 2 cents: One can only justly “sacrifice” oneself (by deprivation of comfort, approval, even health and longevity etc.) for a goal, purpose, or pursuit. Sometimes our immediate family may be affected, but something happens when the ring widens. Once a crowd isn’t content with a march, but throws rocks and small explosives, wrecks surrounding cars and shopfronts etc. they lose much of what they imagined they would accomplish precisely because they victimized others. And, at the next level, there is the threshold of sheer terrorism: bombing planes and buildings full of innocent people blamed merely for “being there” or “being taxpayers.”
Somewhere in all that is the practice of character assassination, used because it is harder to outlaw than bodily injury. Robbing a person of sleep, a sense of personal security, causing extra legal and even bodyguard expenses, making employers wary of hiring said person, publishers wary of printing the output etc. is in the dirty tricks realm we call “bullying.” Trying, in other words, to cause stress that will lower the victim’s profile and his/her potency in the combat of ideas. Once that starts, the victim’s allies (opposition to bullies) has to decide how to act. That is what I think Susan is aiming to discuss. Respond quickly and vigorously, or get down on the same level? The first option takes faith in human nature and patience, both which can dwindle in the weeds of combat. I’ve never heard a universally reliable response to bullies, in spite of the comic book heroes having great success. I think it requires persistency until a time that legitimate but overwhelming pushback can happen. In the meantime I think we have to just keep building that support.
I think we must be consistent and persistent in pushing back against the bullying–because that is precisely what they are trying to do. My hope is that, although many on the Left will ignore what I’m saying, I may get through to just a few who stop short and say, is there any truth to what she is saying? I don’t want to go down to their level, but shock them into coming up to ours. Whether it works or not is not the issue. I feel compelled to speak up. Thanks, @eridemus.
@rodin
The only thing we disagree about is the last phrase – “turn down the rhetoric.” Overstating the faults of our opponents is not only socially corrosive, it undermines our credibility with the persuadable as well.