Now do you believe me, when I tell you there’s no one as anti-human as humanists?
If you performed an act of charity in the name of Mao Tse-tung or some other communist mass murderer, humanists would never dream of protesting. That’s because they like Mao a lot better than Jesus.
I know, it reads like a satire. But I can’t help it if liberals say things that satirize themselves.
Today’s self-satire is provided by a Ms. Espinosa, president of the United Nations General Assembly: who, at a UN Climbit Change conference currently being held in Poland (I thought the Poles had more sense than that), warns us that the whole human race is “in danger of disappearing” if Climbit Change is “allowed to progress at its current rate” (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/03/u-n-official-issues-warning-mankind-in-danger-of-disappearing/).
Allowed? Did she just say “allowed”? Maybe we should’ve made the climate go stand in a corner.
Stop me if you’ve heard this before. We’re all gonna die unless we give government fantastic new powers to interfere with our lives, blah-blah. In the words of Ms. Espinosa, “We require deep transformations of our economies and societies” to avoid total catastrophe. Who thinks those “deep transformations” would result in more freedom instead of less, and a higher standard of living?
With or without the UN’s permission, “climate” is always changing. That’s because the earth is a living planet in a complicated universe. The UN insists human activity is responsible for “climate change.” Uh, hey–could we get rid of that label? We have lots and lots of different climates scattered all over the world, That’s why Mongolia is not like Oregon. Could we stop talking about some global “climate” that doesn’t exist?
Anyhow, gigantic and very poorly-understood natural forces–the sun’s output, for instance–control what happens to the various climates on the earth. Government can’t stop, control, or manipulate these forces. The best we can ever hope to do is to roll with the punches.
But of course if you’re a non-Christian humanist doofus, you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe He is sovereign over His whole creation, you’re sure everything happens by merest chance unless some all-powerful State advised by all-wise Science controls it, etc., etc.
“You’re just gonna have to make sacrifices for my vision of the future…”
We’ve told you about those anti-human humanists. Here’s a classic example of it.
Back in 2009, the British Prime Minister’s “scientific advisers” told him Britain would have to reduce its population to 30 million or the country couldn’t be “sustainable.”
Given that the country’s population at the time was 62.3 million, it would’ve been interesting to hear how the “scientific advisers” proposed to get rid of the unwanted 32.3 million people. That information was not forthcoming. Nor did the “scientific advisers” offer themselves for erasure, by way of setting a good example.
If we’re not careful, one of these days, one of these news items is going to mushroom into a full-blown horror story.
The World Without Us, by some dork named Weisman, has one redeeming quality. Because it was actually published (and made the New York Times bestseller list, of course), you’ll never have to take our word for it that humanists hate and loathe the human race.
I reviewed this monstrosity in 2007, and eleven years later, I have yet to encounter anything that comes even close to it for a morbid voyeurism for death and decay. Seriously, this guy needs help.
I got paid for reading this book. You won’t be paid, so there’s no incentive for you to read it. Even so, sometimes it’s good to be reminded what we’re up against.
Secularists love to pat themselves on the back for “humanizing Christianity.” Excuse me for a moment: this deserves an appropriate response.
What do they mean, they “humanize Christianity”? I think it means they invent a new-improved model–with Christ taken out of it and replaced by man-made idols, the State and Science, and humanist pseudo-sacraments: abortion, combating “Man-Made Climate Change,” same-sex “marriage,” sex change operations, hate speech trials, and every conceivable variety of fornication. They take away the judgment, take away accountability to God, and set up their political masters and scientific oracles as gods.
How does a secularist even know what’s right or wrong? Mostly they’re content to keep some of the moral law handed down to the human race by God, to the Jews first, and then the Gentiles. But no secularist can actually explain why it’s wrong to commit a murder. We can, but they can’t. For convenience’s sake they retain much of the law and tradition amassed over the centuries by Jews and Christians, who received it from a righteous and infallible God who is a person, who made them in His image, and who loves them.
Yeah, they made Christianity nicer. That’s why more people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century alone–Red China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and a host of others–secularist governments all–than were killed off by all the religions of the world put together in all the other centuries put together. This century is only 18 years old: give it time to come up with new and exciting deviltries all its own.
It is true that God endows all people, even atheists, with common grace, which is an inborn attraction to what is right and good. And so it was always possible for people who had never heard of God’s laws to keep those laws regardless. Common grace is the law written on our hearts. Humanity wouldn’t have survived for two hours without it.
The words of Jesus Christ and His apostles don’t need “humanizing,” and never did.
God defend us from being conformed to this fallen world.
There are now a lot of Democrats in the House of Representatives who believe in what it says on that banner, above; so consider it well. No Borders. No Nations. Consider it while Central Americans from a “caravan” are invading us across the border at San Diego.
Have you ever–really, ever–heard any liberal explain how “no borders, no nations” would actually work? If there were “no nations”–and if there are no borders, there can be no nations–how would laws be enforced? Who would decide what the law was, or wasn’t? Mexican drug gangs? How would public policy be administered, and by whom? Most importantly, who would write the welfare checks? And collect the taxes to pay for all the welfare?
The answer to all of the above would be “the most skilled at amassing power for themselves, the most ruthless, the most violent, the best liars, and the biggest sinners.”
We could totally forget about the Constitution, or the republican form of government in general. No republican government could possibly survive the stresses of “no borders.” You’d have to have a government that was bigger, stronger, and meaner than any national government (with the possible exceptions of Mao’s Red China, Stalin’s Russia, and Hitler’s Germany–the three great humanist triumphs of the accursed 20th century). Globalists who wish to rule the world understand this very well. We don’t need no stinkin’ Bill of Rights. The only freedom that counts is the freedom to fornicate, anyway.
Make no mistake about it: “open borders” can only result in the destruction of nations, including our own, and their replacement by a “government” more vast and monstrous than anything humanity has ever seen.
The Democrat Party, which sponsors “open borders” in America, must be thoroughly and for all time destroyed.
The upper house still has to vote on it, but it seems a foregone conclusion that they’ll all hop aboard the bandwagon.
The new, ahem, “law” is aimed at “verbal and physical homophobic violence.” “Verbal”? As in anything that any homosexual objects to? In Canada and elsewhere in the defenseless Western world, that’s been the experience–just about anything you say can land you in the soup. Like, perhaps, quoting the Bible, “Male and female created He them” (Genesis 1:27)–wouldn’t that be some kind of “transphobic verbal violence”? Have they just struck down religious freedom in Switzerland?
The next project, we are told, is to hurry up and impose “gay marriage” on the country.
O Lord our God, I don’t know why these things are being done–and done so energetically, at that. What is the great boon that these people think they are bestowing on the human race?
Father, remember that these things are done without our consent, against our will, and over our objections. We are trying to oppose them, but we can do nothing without you. Equip us to do thy will, O Lord: to know it, and to do it: that the evils of this evil age might pass away. In Jesus’ name, Amen.
Why, “to be more inclusive,” of course! You become “more inclusive” by pretending men and women don’t exist. There’s just this featureless mish-mosh, some bubbling culture v at in which every aspect of every person’s individuality, for the sake of “diversity” and “inclusion,” is erased.
Our colleges and looniversities are putting a whole new spin on the old image of the college as being in loco parentis–with the accent on the “loco.” This is root-grubbing, wall-climbing, rug-chewing crazy.
I don’t think it’s possible to understand anything that’s happening these days without understanding that humanism is a religion whose adherents seek to impose it on the world.
Nowhere is this laid out more clearly than in the Humanist Manifesto II. There is a Humanist Manifesto III, but it takes pains to say it does not supersede Manifest No. 2.
Question: Why is it that every pack of howling idiots has a “manifesto”?
Over the years, I’ve found “the Humanist Manifesto II” highly enlightening when it comes to trying to understand the often bizarre practices and beliefs of this current age. As a world view, humanism has a lot to answer for. Replacing the all-righteous God with fat-headed, fallible men is never going to turn out well.
“Choosing the Curse” is part of a series I wrote a few years ago, for the Chalcedon magazine, on the baneful effects of the philosophy so clearly laid out in Humanist Manifesto II.
