Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions

The book was just released a week ago. It is available at all major book sellers.

I have read a lot of books in my life. This is absolutely one of the best if not the best book I have ever read.

I was criticized by some on this forum for comparing modern post 2012 Democrats to communists in 1930s Spain. It angers Democrat Marxist communists that Franco was able to win the Spanish Civil War, keep his country out of World War II (when the rest of Europe was destroyed), usher in the historic Spanish economic miracle (1959 to 1974 Spain's GDP averaged a 6.5 percent growth rate per year), and bring both violent crime and property crime to levels even below modern day Japan or Singapore.

Then July 13th happened and a 20 year old donor to the Democrat Progressive Organizing Project (donated on Biden's inauguration day according to the records), and a man who viciously attacked his Latino and Hispanic classmates for being Republicans/Trump Supporters committed atrocities towards other human beings including a hero fire fighter and father of two girls that used his last seconds on this planet to protect his family.

Read Unhumans. You will get all of the answers that you need about modern Democrat communists and their predecessors. These are not the early to mid 90s Democrats that passed tough on crime bills. These modern Democrats will release repeat violent offenders on up to 20 concurrent felony personal recognizance bonds.

During 2021, 2022, and the early part of 2023 you were more likely to be murdered by a repeat violent offender released on multiple personal recognizance bonds by a Democrat judge than you were to die in a car crash if you lived in a large metro urban Democrat county.

Mine just came in the mail! Thanks for starting this thread I'll be sure to come back to this thread when I'm done!

1836er said:

---

Mine just came in the mail! Thanks for starting this thread I'll be sure to come back to this thread when I'm done!

---

One of the best books I have ever read. It is timely and more relevant than ever after the atrocities of July 13, 2024.

Now that I've managed to read the first few chapters I thought I'd give a run down, and some of my thoughts on what I've read, starting with the foreward and introduction.

In these introductory pages the authors explain the main purpose(s) of the book, as well as what they mean by the term "unhumans."


Foreward: (written by Stephen K. Bannon, who is currently a political prisoner of the Biden-Harris Administration)

Bannon asks the question "what actually makes us human?," and posits that "humanity" only happens when you have actual civilization; principles of civility, rules of law and order, and basic human rights. The great civilizations of the past were organized and rose from these characteristics.

The "unhumans," therefore, are those homo sapiens who seek the destruction of human society (civilization), whether born of grievance, misery, or nihilism, and Bannon argues that contemporary civilization is in a period of "unhuman ascension."

This period of "unhuman ascension" dates back about 250 years, and has been defined/led by various Communist/Left-Wing sociopolitical movements; from the French Revolution all the way through to the Cultural Marxists of the contemporary United States (and West).

He views this book as a wake up call to Americans to recognize the dire situation civilization finds itself in.

"Be aware," he writes. "Too often, the most dire and significant moments in history are only realized afterward, when civilizations are already defeated or too broken to continue." (page xxi, Unhumans)


Introduction: Petty Resentment and Cruelty

Rather than focusing on Communism as an ideology, this book focuses on what the authors refer to as the "communist reality," and how to tell when it's coming to a "society near you." (page xiii)

With power, the "unhumans" undo civilization itself; destroying the bonds of human society that makes communities and nations possible.

Fallen prey to nihilism, cynicism, and envy, the "unhumans" destroy rights to life, liberty, and property, and in the process undermine their own humanity.

As they rise to and consolidate their power, whatever they cannot convert or control, they destroy, "and they will call this evil, good." (page xiv)

Question: How does this process work?

It begins by driving a wedge between two identifiable groups in society: the haves and have-nots.

This distinction between haves and have nots is not necessarily economic in nature, but is more broadly defined by the "oppressors" and "the oppressed."

(Although the authors do not explicitly refer to it as such, what they have just identified, of course, are the contrived roles central to understanding the Marxist dialectic more commonly known as critical theory.)

Whether their grievances are real, imagined, or a combination of both, the "unhumans" bring the various groups of "oppressed" together; first in solidarity, and then into action.

(Although this terminology is not explicitly used in the introduction, what the authors are clearly describing is the application of the principle of intersectionality, in order to organize a left-wing or Communist sociopolitical movement.)

First they unite these disparate "oppressed" factions, followed by parades and protests. Then they seize power, and then they rob and kill (not necessarily in that order).

"Any ideology preached along the way is just window dressing." (page xiv)

At the end of the introduction the authors contend that the "unhumans" are not interested in speaking the truth, winning debates, or even achieving their (skewed) definition of equality. They are interested in destruction; they want an excuse to "destroy you." (page xiv)

The introduction ends with the assertion, "This is what they do, and this book is how we stop them." (page xiv)

Quote:

---

was criticized by some on this forum for comparing modern post 2012 Democrats to communists in 1930s Spain

---

Criticized by liberals for telling the truth??? That's new!

Here's my rundown/thoughts on Chapter One: So You think You Know Communism


The chapter starts off with the assertion that the first policy of the "unhuman" is terror, described as the one emotion that evil thrives upon above all others. (page 2, Unhumans)

An early example of this dynamic in action is the reign or terror during the French Revolution - when 30,000+ were left dead by the guillotine alone - especially in terms of the terror instilled upon the revolution's enemies (and oftentimes, fellow travelers, or former fellow travelers as well) in the build up to the execution.

The authors equate the terror of the build up to the execution - from the walk up, to having one's hands tied, and the cheering of the "stadium," surrounded by hate - to being chased in a nightmare. You know you are going to die and nobody is coming to save you (or wake up).

This is the fate of those who oppose the "unhumans."

In today's America, a similar dynamic exists.

If one dares to oppose the "unhumans," accusations are treated as evidence, denial is regarded as guilt, statements are intentionally taken out of context, no room is given for nuance, and activism against them or their agenda is called bigotry and hate. Normal is vilified, problems are normalized, and real crimes go unpunished. Speak out too loudly and one will be de-platformed, his bank accounts closed or seized, and both his prospects for work and his reputation destroyed. (page 3)

The obvious purposes of the contemporary reign of terror are to silence opposition and scare/bully into submission those who might otherwise resist. If these terrorizing tactics are allowed to succeed, the "unhumans" have won the battle without even having to fight.

For nearly 250 years, conclude the authors, "far left sociopolitical uprisings have followed the same battle plans - from the first calls for change, to the last innocent executed; from denial revolution is boiling over, to declarations of the new order." (page 3)


Next, the authors argue that the history of communist uprisings is like a chameleon, in that it can take many forms. Rather than being overly ideological, left-wing sociopolitical movements are quite adaptable to different societal circumstances, seeking out existing wedges in society to exploit; to create isolated, yet aligned angry factions that can be forged into a coalition of us versus them, or haves versus have nots (recall the Marxist oppressor versus oppressed dialectic). (page 4)

Rather than tell a more traditional history of communist revolutions, therefore, heavily centered on major figures, movements, and events, this book emphasizes the on-the-ground descriptions of what it's really like to witness first hand communist forces for change in action; in particular how they divide people and turn them against each other.

Examples from the uprisings regularly featured in this book include the French and Haitian Revolutions, the Russian Revolution and Civil War that followed, the Spanish Civil War, The Chinese Civil War and Cultural Revolution, America's 1960s Revolution and Culture War, and more. (page 6)


An interesting assertion of the authors is that communism is not mainly an ideology, but is primarily a tactic of sociopolitical warfare; designed to take power wherever it is applied. (page 6).

While I find this to be a rather interesting claim that I had not much considered before in precisely this light, I can't say I disagree with it either. I'm not sure it's an either/or proposition.


Another point the authors make is that, while left-wing sociopolitical movements are often successful, they are not always so. Normal folk, therefore, should not be overly pessimistic and just assume that the "unhumans" of today cannot be defeated.

As such, this book seeks not only to outline and explain the "unhumans" and their playbook, but to suggest a playbook for "us conservatives, centrists, moderates, and even good liberals" willing to resist. They call this playbook "exact reciprocity."

A strategy of "exact reciprocity" means doing to the "unhumans" what they do to us, including reciprocal lawfare, naming and shaming, boycotts, and more. (page 6)

----
As a concluding thought of my own, what I keep being reminded is that left-wing sociopolitical movements, communist uprisings, or whatever you want to call them in their various manifestations, don't care about winning an argument. They are not trying to persuade those whom they have identified as the "oppressors," they are trying to defeat and destroy them.

Trying to defeat the "unhumans" in a battle of ideas with facts or logic, therefore, is largely pointless. While we of course should not abandon the "arena of ideas," we as "conservatives, centrists, moderates, and good liberals" must also acknowledge the truth that we are not in a "persuasion" contest. If we, the counter-revolutionary forces, are to prevail, we will have to adopt a much more realistic playbook.

----
I finished reading chapters 2 and 3 this week, I'll post some thoughts from those in the next several days.

Will check it out

Bought and downloaded to Audible. I'll listen to it during my commute to and from work.

Jack Posobiec and Steve Bannon?

Hard pass.

TheWoodlandsTxAg said:

---

Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions

The book was just released a week ago. It is available at all major book sellers.

I have read a lot of books in my life. This is absolutely one of the best if not the best book I have ever read.

I was criticized by some on this forum for comparing modern post 2012 Democrats to communists in 1930s Spain. It angers Democrat Marxist communists that Franco was able to win the Spanish Civil War, keep his country out of World War II (when the rest of Europe was destroyed), usher in the historic Spanish economic miracle (1959 to 1974 Spain's GDP averaged a 6.5 percent growth rate per year), and bring both violent crime and property crime to levels even below modern day Japan or Singapore.

Then July 13th happened and a 20 year old donor to the Democrat Progressive Organizing Project (donated on Biden's inauguration day according to the records), and a man who viciously attacked his Latino and Hispanic classmates for being Republicans/Trump Supporters committed atrocities towards other human beings including a hero fire fighter and father of two girls that used his last seconds on this planet to protect his family.

Read Unhumans. You will get all of the answers that you need about modern Democrat communists and their predecessors. These are not the early to mid 90s Democrats that passed tough on crime bills. These modern Democrats will release repeat violent offenders on up to 20 concurrent felony personal recognizance bonds.

During 2021, 2022, and the early part of 2023 you were more likely to be murdered by a repeat violent offender released on multiple personal recognizance bonds by a Democrat judge than you were to die in a car crash if you lived in a large metro urban Democrat county.

---

That's a stunning statistic.
Thanks for the rec. Gonna look into it.

So far this sounds like an interesting take on the subject. I've already found several things I agree with and a few I disagree.

1836er said:

---

An interesting assertion of the authors is that communism is not mainly an ideology, but is primarily a tactic of sociopolitical warfare; designed to take power wherever it is applied. (page 6).

---

100% agree with the author. As evidenced by Kamala's "end up in the same place" comments. There is zero chance she and her ilk would be included in that. It's a perfect example of Animal Farm style "some animals are more equal than others." Collectivist ideology is just a highly effective way to seize absolute power and control. Those who promote it, from the top to the bottom, never expect to be the ones toiling in the gulags.

Quote:

---

As a concluding thought of my own, what I keep being reminded is that left-wing sociopolitical movements, communist uprisings, or whatever you want to call them in their various manifestations, don't care about winning an argument. They are not trying to persuade those whom they have identified as the "oppressors," they are trying to defeat and destroy them.

Trying to defeat the "unhumans" in a battle of ideas with facts or logic, therefore, is largely pointless….

---

Also agree with this.

Quote:

---

A strategy of "exact reciprocity" means doing to the "unhumans" what they do to us, including reciprocal lawfare, naming and shaming, boycotts, and more. (page 6)

---

This is where I'm not sure I agree. There's a strong possibility that this tactic would play directly into their hand, essentially confirming their "oppressed" status. Remember, they are willing to lie about anything and everything. Whenever they use these tactics, they will craft a narrative around it that it's either not what it is, or that it's justified. When the "oppressors" reciprocate, they will use the opposite narrative to their favor. It's the classic Alinsky tactic of accusing your opponent of exactly what you're doing.

Great summaries 1836er. Keep them coming. I'm rereading the Road to Serfdom ATM, but may have to pick this up next.

Yes, updates.

See Thomas Sowell for more enlightenment of this:
'.. driving a wedge between two identifiable groups in society: the haves and have-nots.'

Unfortunately, I think they are right. If you try to be nice and negotiate they will betray your trust or exploit the opportunity. They aren't in it for anything other than power and to destroy or defeat their opposition. You can't negotiate with an utterly absolutist and uncompromising ideology. You have to break its grip on the people who are possessed by it, and often that requires that they suffer real losses as a result of the very methods and tactics they advocate so they experience themselves the negative results of their actions. There often is no other way. Anything else lesser you try they may view as a weakness to exploit. It is a harsh reality, unfortunately.

Look how wars are won, whether social and economic and military, or ideological. You have to show up on the battlefield and inflict unsustainable losses on the opposition until they no longer have the will and resources to continue, or they may do the same to you.

Thank you for the recommendation and summaries. I ordered the book.

The greatest issue with American socialism / communism, cultural marxism, etc... is we have been subjected to the slow soak of infiltration for much longer than it seems. We are witnessing (in particular since 2020) an exceleration to that soak.

In order to get rid of the weed or virus the infiltration has presented, the opposition must carve out the weed down to its root or eliminate the virus from replicating altogether. Unfortunately, I do not think that American society has been pushed far enough off center to adequately root out or eliminate the infiltration. In addition, I fear, that by the time American society has been displaced enough to actively resist, it will be too late.

The Germans addressed socialism / communism the most efficient way possible. Kill the saplings before they can become entrenched and established.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Unfortunately, I think they are right. If you try to be nice and negotiate they will betray your trust or exploit the opportunity. They aren't in it for anything other than power and to destroy or defeat their opposition. You can't negotiate with an utterly absolutist and uncompromising ideology. You have to break its grip on the people who are possessed by it, and often that requires that they suffer real losses as a result of the very methods and tactics they advocate so they experience themselves the negative results of their actions. There often is no other way. Anything else lesser you try they may view as a weakness to exploit. It is a harsh reality, unfortunately.

Look how wars are won, whether social and economic and military, or ideological. You have to show up on the battlefield and inflict unsustainable losses on the opposition until they no longer have the will and resources to continue, or they may do the same to you.

---

To be clear, I'm not suggesting to be nice and Im definitely not advocating negotiating. I'm saying there's no reasoning with them. It's a lose/lose situation if we play their game. Using the lawfare example, Law is often established on precedent. It could become very difficult to restore rights from a legal standpoint if we play that game.

I agree with you that they need to suffer the consequences of their ideology. That's why I believe the only solution is a national divorce. We're not going to convince them. Divide the country and let them try collectivism again with no interference. On the other side, we build a society based on freedom, property rights, and protection of the individual. Maybe then they could see in real time the destruction leftism causes while free states prosper. And if they don't see it, then fine. At least they aren't dragging us down with them.

Sounds nice but we share a common geography. Most of the nation isn't 90/10. Most is 40/60 or 45/55. It could be difficult to legally and socially arrange a separation that is functional.

Not really. The United States itself has vastly different geographies within our own boarders. And on top of that, almost every country on the planet shares common geography with their neighboring countries…including us (Mexico and Canada) I don't see any reason why that would be a problem. Would there be challenges? Of course, but it's not like this has never happened before.

IMO, the alternative is to continue the slow but steady shift to the left. And it seems to be accelerating rapidly now. I know my opinion is considered extreme, and it will likely never happen. But decades of compromising with the left has pushed us far in the wrong direction. I don't see that changing so I'm sure it's just a matter of time now.

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Great summaries 1836er. Keep them coming. I'm rereading the Road to Serfdom ATM, but may have to pick this up next.

---

Thanks. It's been over a decade since I read it, so could probably use a refresher. Fortunately, my dog-eared copy has notes in the margins and a bunch of sticky posts in it to help me out!

I still find the following passage from Chapter Two: The Great Utopia, to be one of the most poignant and impactful quotations from 20th century political science.

"The subtle change in the meaning to which the world "freedom" was subjected in order that this argument should sound plausible is important. To the great apostles of political freedom the word had meant freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached. The new freedom promised, however, was to be freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us, although for some very much more than for others. Before man could be truly free, the "despotism of physical want" had to be broken, the "restraints of the economic system" relaxed.

Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth."

Hayek, F.A. (2007). The Collected Works of F.A. Hayek, vol. II, The Road to Serfdom, Text and Documents: The Definitive Edition. (B. Caldwell, Ed.). The University of Chicago Press, pages 76-77.
----

To the extent that communist/left-wing sociopolitical movements are ideological, I think Hayek captures better than just about anyone the spirit of the (false) utopian vision embraced by the truest believers.

Edit: Just wanted to add... I think it's important to remember for the rank of file they are/were inspired more by resentment than by the utopian visions of the truest believers.

Quote:

---

Fallen prey to nihilism, cynicism, and envy, the "unhumans" destroy rights to life, liberty, and property, and in the process undermine their own humanity.

---

This is today's Democrat Party. A collection of individuals who feel disenfranchised from society and succumb to nihilism, cynicism, envy, anger, and "get-even-with-'em-ism" (citation to the great Rush Limbaugh). They want to see the world burn; at least America and Western civilization. This is true. And rank and file Democrats, especially the "baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and America" union members, continue to support this Party because it is the way they were raised. They will be the last ones in the room to get it.

What is most disturbing is not that the leaders of these movements, let's take for example the aggressive progressivism that has prevailed since the ascension of Obama, think and act this way. Rather, it's that millions of our fellow Americans who we grew up with, went to school with, live and work with, have bought into these tactics and think it is perfectly fine to destroy "us" and political candidates and beliefs we support. It's disheartening, really, and hasn't at least within my memory always been this way. I was first eligible to vote in the 1980s, and while politics wasn't a Sunday picnic, it wasn't this all-out war of annihilation against America herself like we see now.

Quote:

---

I was criticized by some on this forum for comparing modern post 2012 Democrats to communists in 1930s Spain.

---

I seem to remember that the criticism was related more to your adoration of Franco and by saying that Franco and George Washington were "the two greatest political leaders of all time."

Flavius Agximus said:

---

What is most disturbing is not that the leaders of these movements, let's take for example the aggressive progressivism that has prevailed since the ascension of Obama, think and act this way. Rather, it's that millions of our fellow Americans who we grew up with, went to school with, live and work with, have bought into these tactics and think it is perfectly fine to destroy "us" and political candidates and beliefs we support. It's disheartening, really, and hasn't at least within my memory always been this way. I was first eligible to vote in the 1980s, and while politics wasn't a Sunday picnic, it wasn't this all-out war of annihilation against America herself like we see now.

---

Good point, which actually comes up in chapter 2 (my next post). In the book they refer to it as coding.

Thoughts from Chapter 2: The Unhumans are Coming

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Chapter 2 opens with the famous Voltaire quote, and then asks why, after decades of conservative authors and pundits criticizing the Left, America and the West has continually moved to the Left? (page 7, Unhumans)

The first answer given is that the conservative movement has failed to conserve anything of importance, creating a state of "learned helplessness" amongst conservatives.

The second answer, which really sets the theme for the chapter, is that conservatives do not fundamentally understand the Left. (page 7)

As the chapter progresses, the second answer is further fleshed out with other questions, such as 1) Why don't we understand the Left? and 2) How did we get here?


Regarding question #1 conservatives, they argue, have yet to come to grips with the reality that the Left doesn't care what we say about them, and won't be swayed by facts or logic; much less angry tweets pointing out their double standards and hypocrisy. (page 7)

Essentially, the Left cares about power, not winning arguments.

As such, the authors contend that conservatives have lost years of ground "being obsessed with debating facts and logic, rather than doing the grubby work of entering institutions and remaking them from the inside." (page 8)


Regarding question #2 - how did we get here? - the authors harken back to the beginnings of communist revolutions, which they argue begins with resentment.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks started stoking resentment; resentment by those in late Tzarist Russia who felt that life wasn't being fair to them. This resentment was directed primarily toward the monarchy, aristocracy, and Orthodox Russian Church, and it was stoked to a fever pitch in order the justify the robbing and killing necessary to seize and hold on to power. While Bolshevik leaders did wax poetic regarding the virtues of the new order/society they were crafting, it was the resentment that drove the movement; the vengeful desire to destroy the old order.

Amongst those whose resentment they have inflamed, the "unhumans" amass their following of have nots, however that is defined, aided by mass media programming. (page 10)

Once in charge of the political apparatus, one of the ways the "unhumans" terrorize those who might otherwise resist into silence (and inaction) is through the imposition of anarcho-tyranny: the selective overenforcement of the laws against the target population, and selected non-enforcement of the laws on another target population. (page 12)

Past examples of anarcho-tyranny in action are found in the pages of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, where Soviet laws regarding self-defense were applied in absurdly discriminatory ways against the regime's domestic political dissidents.

We see the same dynamic at play in contemporary America.


Like the Bolsheviks in thepast, the "unhumans" of today utilize mass media programming to build their intersectional coalitions and manipulate public sentiment. It is multipurpose programming, designed both to inflame resentment amongst their existing coalitions, convert the most gullible with their false narratives, and terrorize/demoralize their opponents into silence and submission.

In contemporary America the mass programming, where everything is filtered through the Marxist oppressor/oppressed dialectic, has even proved quite effective at getting large chunks of the population to believe patently absurd falsehoods, exaggerations, and narratives beneficial to the "unhumans" and their agenda.

Evidence of the hold which these Marxist narratives have on the American population can be seen in the results of polls and surveys.

In the wake of the death of George Floyd in 2020 (and the riots that followed), for example, more than half of the Americans surveyed believed that more than 1,000 African-Americans were being killed every year by police, while the actual number for the last year on record was 13. (page 17)

By 2020 Americans had become conditioned, whether they realized it or not, to view by default American blacks as the oppressed and cops as the oppressors, to the point where any facts or arguments that ran contrary to the established narratives were essentially dismissed without consideration.

Another contemporary example of this dynamic can be seen in immediate, overwhelming reaction to the Nick Sandman video, "in which a teenager stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, face to face with a Native American chanter." (page 18)

The video of the incident went viral online, and it was immediately picked up by the media, declaring it to be an example of "white nationalist harassment." (page 18)

In reality, there was neither harassment nor racism, nor really anything at all happening in the video, yet the media ran with the contrived narrative anyway. In the video, literally all one could see was a high school student standing still, saying nothing, doing nothing, with an awkward smile on his face.

The reason so many just accepted the contrived narrative at face value was because of, what the author's refer to as coding.

Rather than paraphrase it myself, I'll let the author's words speak for themselves.

"Why did everyone who outrage-shared it "see" racism in the clip despite no verbal clues to such or physical gestures? This is due to coding. If you have been "coded" (programmed) for years by Hollywood content, progressive education, and mass media to perceive a white male in a Make America Great Again hat as a racist oppressor and any and all Native Americans as oppressed victims, then that is what you will see in a given situation despite a total and complete lack of evidence." (page 18)

Notably, even conservatives appeared to initially buy the false narrative, as it took more than 24 hours for much in the way of pushback to materialize.

Americans' reactions to many other issues, from illegal immigration to transgenderism, are greatly influenced by the same kind of coding, helping to create an environment ripe for revolution… while those who see through the coding are terrified into inaction.
---
As a whole I found it to be an interesting chapter with interesting points, but it did seem to be a bit disjointed thematically.

One thing from Chapter 2 that I referenced (but didn't get in to) in the previous post were contemporary examples of anarcho-tyranny, so here goes.

For the benefit of those less familiar with the subject, I quickly searched for a few articles; all of these are I think worth the read.


The first article was written by Michelle Malkin in 2020 before the November election. It's entitled One Nation Under Anarcho-Tyranny, and focuses heavily on 2020-specific events during BLM/ANTIFA's "Summer of Love."

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_michelle_malkin/one_nation_under_anarcho_tyranny/(language)/eng-US


The second article is from 2022, and compares the US government's response to the ANTIFA rioting that took place on Donald Trump's inauguration day, January 20, 2017 (J20), with its response to the mostly peaceful protests carried out by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021 (J6).

https://www.unz.com/article/january-20-2017-j20-vs-january-6-2021-j6-a-study-in-judicial-anarcho-tyranny/


The last article is from last week, referencing what is going on right now in the United Kingdom (the British government's response to the unrest that followed the murder of three girls in Southport) under the rule of the tyrannical Starmer regime.

https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/the-escalation-of-anarcho-tyranny-starmers-britain/

I'm still reading, but this is a book everyone should read.

dmart90 said:

---

Jack Posobiec and Steve Bannon?

Hard pass.

---

Pick your poison.

You should take a hard pass on the oratory that the Bush/Cheney/Ryan types and Biden/Harris types and their tribe of evil spew. Anything, within reason, but those duplicitous cowards, the baby killers, and ghoulish gender destroying monsters.

Hadn't the time to put down my chapter 3 thoughts until now, so here goes.

Chapter 3: Sun-Tzu Red - How Communists Win Before Fighting

In this chapter the authors compare their strategy to the US military doctrine referred to as OPE (Operational Preparation of the Environment). In essence, OPE is the amalgam of the lesser activities undertaken before the revolution, designed to minimize surprise, manage uncertainty, and otherwise create the leverage necessary for future success. These activities are called Shaping Operations.

Communist OPE, argue the authors, is predicated mainly upon the divide and conquer strategy; by inflaming envy and hatred between the different elements of society - whether by class, race, gender, and either mutable or immutable characteristics - to get them to turn against each other in line with their oppressed/oppressed dialectic.

This dividing process (OPE) is broken into three different stages.
Stage 1 - The Separation Stage
Stage 2 - The Messaging Stage
Stage 3 - The Infiltration Sage

In chapter 3 the authors examine each of these stages of Communist OPE through three principles examples: Russia, Spain, and China.

Stage 1 - The Separation Stage: To begin dividing society according to grievance, into haves (oppressors) and have-nots (oppressed); assigning guilt/blame to the haves and innocence to the have-nots (oppressed). Generally, they seek to exacerbate existing fissures in society, and create a vision of hope for the have-nots that utopia will be achieved once the existing social order is overthrown and the haves are crushed.

In Russia the Bolsheviks courted anyone opposed to imperialism, aristocracy, and big business, whom they identified as the oppressors. The mass poverty in Russia, as well as the carnage they suffered during WW1 made large chunks of the population ripe for exploitation.

Spain in the early 20th century was also ripe for exploitation. They identified the aristocracy (landowners), the Catholic Church, merchants, and industrialists as the oppressors, and the peasants, urban poor, miners, and other day labors as the oppressed. In addition to inflaming these 'oppressed' groups, they also sought to enlist the Catalonian and Basque separatist movements into their coalition of the oppressed.

In the 1920s the USSR identified Spain as a target ripe for communist revolution, so it was one of the places the COMINTERN (the Soviet-led Communist International) focused upon. When the left-wing Popular Front government (supported by the COMINTERN) gained power in Spain, they began a campaign of terror, murder, and destruction, targeting first the Catholic Church, followed next by the landowners.

In China, stage 1 of Communist OPE lasted longer than it had in Russia/Spain, and the troubles/instability in that country during the late 1800s/early 1900s provided plenty of opportunity to stoke the flames of division. By the 1920s the ancient Qing Dynasty had fallen, and the USSR stepped up its influence there.

In 1921 Lenin, with the aid of the Dutch communist Henk Sneevliet, organized the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), with thirteen founding members; including Mao Zedong. This would prove to be an interesting partnership moving forward, and we'll see that the CCP and their Soviet benefactors did not always see eye to eye regarding their preferred strategies to divide Chinese society. From the outset, Mao and the CCP sought to focus their efforts upon inflaming the peasants, while the Soviets preferred more educated influencers instigate the revolution.

Since this is a longer chapter than most, I'll save my thoughts on stage 2 and stage 3 of Communist OPE for a follow-up post.

chapter 8, history of Maoist China revolution is fantastic.

1836er said:

---

The dividing process (OPE) is broken into three different stages.
Stage 1 - The Separation Stage
Stage 2 - The Messaging Stage
Stage 3 - The Infiltration Sage

---

... picking up on chapter 3, a brief look at Stage 2: The Messaging Stage.

After identifying the factions most susceptible, the mass persuasion begins... designed to cultivate mass discontent. This is the "brand awareness" part of the campaign, prior to future calls to action. Success equals when the groups targeted for manipulation accept the oppressor/oppressed framework; identifying themselves as the oppressed, and knowing who the oppressors are, to hate.

Once the messaging as has been achieved, the leave the question of "what to do about it" unanswered for a while... allowing uncertainty to fester, tensions to escalate, envy to boil, and resentment to foment.


Stage 2: The Messaging Stage:

In Russia the Bolsheviks framed the political narrative as a class struggle between the haves and have-nots, urging the proletariat to "set themselves" free from what had been, and since their message resonated with many demoralized Russian soldiers, they were the next group targeted for persuasion.

Primarily they used newspapers, pamphlets, posters, the cinema, speeches, and rallies to distribute their message of "you have not, they have, and it's not fair."

Next, they went intersectional, adding more and more victim groups into their growing coalition. The promised self-determination to historically persecuted ethnic and national groups, gender-quality for (working) women, and established youth organizations that eschewed traditional values and questioned the authority of their elders.

Before long every meaningful social group in Russia was assigned either oppressor or victim status: workers vs. industrialists, rank and file soldiers vs. officers (largely aristocrats), non-Russians vs. Imperialists, working women vs. men, and children vs. parents.

And while they were busy dividing their own peoples, the Bolsheviks began working to divide other societies they deemed ripe for communist revolution as well; including Spain and China.


Deeming the Spanish Socialist Workers Party not radical (violent) enough, they founded El Partido Comunista de Espana in 1921, which of course immediately joined the COMINTERN.

In the early 1920s, the Spanish Communist Party had to operate covertly, as their leaders were subject to arrest, and they were denied to the opportunity to engage in mass protests. The ruling Rivera government, rightly, viewed them as dangerous radicals, and had no desire to see Spanish society dividing along the previously delineated lines.

Undeterred, the Bolsheviks and Spanish leftists furthered their collaboration, through organizations like La Asociacion de Amigos de la Union Sovietica, which developed relationships between Soviet leaders and Spanish leftists for engage in a wide array of propaganda efforts.

This included publishing newspaper articles, putting up posters in cities, publishing journals, and commissioning various forms of art willing to embrace their oppressor/oppressed narrative, such as paintings and sculptures, music, plays, and movies. They even organized Russian pen pals for Spanish leftists, and financed trips to Russia so they could see the marvels of socialism first hand... and be further indoctrinated/trained as revolutionaries. By the 1930s, they even operated a radio station in Spain capable of reaching other western European countries.

As the unrest and division grew, support for the Rivera government crumbled, and by 1930 it was forced into exile in France. In its wake a leftwing Popular Front government emerged, giving birth to the second Spanish Republic. It was to be a short-lived victory however, because in 1933 the Spanish people rebelled against the communist takeover and elected a conservative government.


Meanwhile, having created the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), the Bolsheviks stoked the fires of division in China, their propaganda villainizing Sun Yat-Sen's nationalist government as oppressors of both the peasants, the younger generation, and the professional class.

The nationalist government, especially under the influence of General Chiang Kai-Shek, viewed the CCP as enemies of prosperity and democracy, and cracked down hard on the communists, the most violent and extreme example of this being the 1927 Shanghai Massacre. In retaliation, Mao Zedong's CCP instigated violent peasant revolts, specifically targeting landlords.

While the nationalists' message focused on order, conservative values, and respect for tradition, the communists' message, built largely upon Soviet inspired propaganda techniques, offered a promising vision for a new, futuristic China, free of oppression, with land redistribution, rights "protected," industrialization, and modernization. This message was especially appealing to peasants, who now yearned for revenge against their landlords, and the youth, for whom this new movement created a sense of belonging.

As the authors' suggest, Mao and Communists had done a better job "reading the room," and with their messaging in the ascendency, it was soon time to move on to Stage 3 of Communist OPE, the infiltration stage.

Democracy views people as people.

Communism views people as a means to an end.

... finishing up chapter 3 with Communist OPE Stage 3: The Infiltration

They need both individuals and institutions to be brought into the cause before instigating the 'revolution,' which requires infiltrating the institutions - which are necessary to use as leverage against their opponents and terrorize them into submission.

Russia:

First they took over the local worker's and soldier's councils (soviets), especially in Petrograd and Moscow, which enabled them to attain a majority in The All-Russian Congress of Soviets. This made them the de facto voice of soldiers and industrial workers nationally.

Meanwhile, in order to undermine the Tzarist regime, they established parallel authority structures to the imperial institutions, such as in the media, where they took over many newspapers and founded their own flagship publication Pravda.

They used these parallel institutions to strategically position themselves in preparation for the coming uprising. After the Tzar abdicated power early in the year, they used their influence in the Petrograd Soviet and control over military units to terrorize (marginalize) the other political factions vying for power.

When they instigated the uprising in October 1917 the remaining opposition had already been considerably neutered, and once in charge of the ministries they shut down opposition newspapers and arrested their leaders. Then, they transferred official power to the soviets, which they had already taken over. Membership in the soviets, of course, was limited only to Bolshevik Party members.

It happened so swiftly because they had "prepared the environment for operation." (page 42)

Spain:

After the conservatives won the 1933 elections the communist forces in Spain kicked their infiltration efforts into high gear.

Following the Bolsheviks' lead in Russia, they established their own "worker's councils" as a form of parallel government. They enacted their own policies and even passed "fake" laws to sow disorder.

They organized mass strikes, including a miner's strike in October 1934, which then morphed into a armed uprising against the government.

Taking advantage of the instability, and utilizing their parallel institutions to terrorize their opponents, the socialist Popular Front won the 1936 elections, with Manuel Azana as the new prime minister. (page 42)

Fortunately, there were still elements within Spain unwilling to allow the communist to take over without a fight, most notably the Military Director of the army's general staff; General Francisco Franco!

Immediately, communist and various left-leaning forces throughout the world came to the aid of Spain's socialists.

China:

China's infiltration stage was more protracted than in Russia/Spain.

By the early 1920s the COMINTERN had already set up the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), which held considerable sway with the short-lived Sun Yat-Sen government, which led for formal diplomatic relations with the USSR.

In late 1920s they set up the Russo-Chinese Information Bureau, which brought more Soviet influence into legitimate Chinese institutions in the form of propaganda, intelligence sharing, and cultural exchanges. (page 43)

Mao's initial uprising in 1927 was still largely unsuccessful, but when Japan invaded in the 1930s that provided them another opportunity.

Work and the election kept me from getting back into this book for a couple weeks. Here is the rundown on Chapter four: Three Acts, Three Outcomes: The Plan for Revolution.

In The Communist Manifesto Marx/Engels documented the basic path unhuman revolution unfolds.
1) Incite
2) Seize
3) Purge

Act I: Incite: Once the have-nots are sufficiently propagandized they are incited into violent action; usually in the form of a massive first strike against the existing order. Example: storming of The Bastille

Act II: Seize: Next, they take the "lives, liberty, and property" of the "oppressor" classes, usually in "reverse order and in perverse ways." (page 53) The Communist Manifesto again lays out this part of the process in explicit detail.

- abolition of private property in land and rents
- progressive/graduated income taxation
- abolition of inheritance rights
- confiscation of property of dissenters
- centralization of credit in the hands of the state through national banks/exclusive monopolies
- collectivization of means of production

Act III, Purge: Finally, the literal removal of the "oppressors" and all "memory of them from the commons." (page 54) - can come in the form of ethnic cleansing, forced displacement, genocide, famine, brainwashing, massacre.

As part of the "Purge" monuments are torn down and new ones built, old heroes are written out of history, the unhumans rewrite history with themselves as the ones in the right, and the next generation (assuming it survives) is made to forget what was lost. A main example of the "Purge" will be explored further in chapter 8 covering Mao's Cultural Revolution.

Fighting Back: The Three Ways to Crush a Communist Uprising

In the final part of the chapter the authors suggest three ways anti-civilizational movements have been/can be stopped.

1) Let Them Eat Themselves: This strategy, the "wait them out" or "containment" approach can work/has worked, but is not regarded by the authors as ideal; especially if one has to live in the society being "contained." (page 57)

They compared this strategy metaphorically to the ancient Greek Ouroboros, the snake which devours itself by eating its own tail. It is predicated upon the idea that eventually the communist society collapses upon itself when it runs out of wealth to scavenge. The prime example of this strategy was the West's "containment" of the USSR during the Cold War, and it reminds me of Margaret Thatcher's quote about "the problem with socialism being that eventually you run out of other people's money."

2) Find the Great Men of History: This strategy requires the emergence of an effective charismatic leader to take the fight to the unhumans directly. Successful examples are Franco and Caesar, and an (ultimately) unsuccessful example is Peter Wrangel. The problem with the strategy is that the "Great Men" don't always show up when needed. (page 58)

3) Win Before Fighting: This strategy, which the authors content is "the best way," is not really laid our here in detail; instead it's foreshadowed for later in the book.

It's characterized as normal people "banding together and taking united, decisive action" in the political realm. We'll see where this goes in chapter 13. (page 59)