If Biden & Chinese Deal Francis are not Resisted along with their "Nice" Collaborators & Enablers then a kind of Stalinist Collectivization will Breakdown on us
I remember, before the Covid hysteria lockdowns, listening to a conservative YouTuber interviewing a well knowing fiction writer whose writing he loved who turned out to be a liberal. It was enjoyable learning how and why his fiction was so good and successful until he got into politics. Ironically to the point of absurdity, he called Donald Trump a fascist and then explained how it was good Joseph Stalin liquidated the kulaks, the Russian peasant farmers, for the good of the Communist revolution and Russia.
That gave me an insight about liberals as well as their "nice' collaborators and enablers. The conservative YouTuber seemed to me uneasy (as I was) that such an intelligent and gifted writer, who up that the moment when he got into politics was such a "nice man," could say:
It was good Joseph Stalin liquidated the kulaks, the Russian peasant farmer, for the good of the Communist revolution and country.
This gifted apparently intelligent "nice man" thought that Stalin was a "good man" and it was okay to kill millions of innocent peasant fathers, mothers and children for the "good" of the society. In some sense, this man in my opinion represents all the "good people" who are collaborators and enablers of Joe Biden and Chinese Deal Francis in their respective efforts to destroy the United States and the Church "for the good of the Communist revolution and country" and Church.
As St. Thomas Aquinas said "because evil as such cannot be intended, for the desirable has the nature of good, and no one does evil except intending some good." [https://www.quora.com/How-did-St-Thomas-Aquinas-view-evil]
St. Thomas, moreover, says the collaborators and enablers of men like Stalin, Biden and Chinese Deal Francis are like the "blind":
How do we come to know evil? Good is something inasmuch it is desirable: «good is that which all things desire» (Aristoteles, Ethic. Nicom., I, 1.). But evil, which is opposed to good, is not desirable, and so it is opposed to being. Therefore it is impossible for evil to be a thing (Cf. Aquinas, Sum. Teol., I, q. 19, a. 1; I, q.48, a. 1; De Malo, q.1, a. 1 c). One opposite is known through the other; you can explain evil only by the absence of good, as you can explain darkness only as the absence of light; hence evil must be known from the nature of good, because evil has no positive nature, and we use this name to mean the lack of good. Evil is neither a good nor a being, because the absence of good implies the absence of being. Only that thing or subject to which evil happens and to which evil deprives of some particular good, that is something. Blindness for example, is only a privation of sight, and not a thing in itself, but a quality of someone who is, namely, a blind man. [https://www.quora.com/How-did-St-Thomas-Aquinas-view-evil]
C. S. Lewis in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics explained how they think:
My contention is that good men (not bad men) consistently acting upon that position [imposing “the good”] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. They might in some respects act even worse. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under of robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some points be satiated; but those who torment us for their own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to heaven yet at the same time likely to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on the level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. [https://peteenns.com/but-its-for-your-own-good-c-s-lewis-on-tyranny/]
If Biden and Chinese Deal Francis are not resisted along with all their "nice" collaborators and enablers in China and the United States then a kind of Stalinist collectivization like happened in Russia will happen to us:
Intensive collectivization began during the winter of 1929–30. Stalin called upon the party to “liquidate the kulaks as a class” (December 27, 1929), and the Central Committee resolved that an “enormous majority” of the peasant households should be collectivized by 1933. Harsh measures—including land confiscations, arrests, and deportations to prison camps—were inflicted upon all peasants who resisted collectivization. By March 1930 more than one-half of the peasantry (a larger proportion in the agriculturally rich southwestern region of the Soviet Union) had been forced to join collective farms.
But the peasants objected violently to abandoning their private farms. In many cases, before joining the kolkhozy they slaughtered their livestock and destroyed their equipment. The losses, as well as the animosity toward the Soviet regime, became so great that Stalin decided to slow down the collectivization process. On March 2, 1930, he published an article, “Dizzy from Success,” in which he shifted the blame to local officials, whom he characterized as overzealous in their duties. Immediately, many peasants left the kolkhozy. In March 1930 approximately 58 percent of the peasant households had been enrolled in kolkhozy; by June only about 24 percent remained. In the southwestern “black earth” region the figure dropped from 82 percent in March to 18 percent in May.In the fall of 1930 the drive was renewed at a slower pace, but with equal determination. The application of various administrative pressures—including punitive measures—resulted in the recollectivization of one-half of the peasants by 1931. By 1936 the government had collectivized almost all the peasantry. But in the process millions of those who had offered resistance had been deported to prison camps and removed from productive activity in agriculture. [https://www.britannica.com/topic/collectivization]
In 2013, the National Review's Victor Davis Hanson explained how we got to this Stalinist-like point by showing how the Obama Stalinist Collective Hive "assimilated" the W. Bush Hive and implicitly seemed to show how the supposed Bush war on Islamic terror was "assimilated" into the Woke FBI/CIA war on the "unassimilated" Christian and Trump conservative "domestic terrorists" who are fighting against the Obama/Biden Woke Stalinist Collective Hive:
In Star Trek lore, the Borg was a collective of servile drone operatives that sought to assimilate other species into its “hive mind.”
Something akin to that creepy groupthink arose when the Obama administration took power and sought to reformulate the so-called war on terror. Almost immediately, Obama operatives suggested that radical Islamists were no more likely than any other group to commit acts of terrorism. In fact, the very idea of terrorism — not to mention a war against it — was supposedly a Bush-administration construct unfairly aimed at Muslims.
Obama apparently sincerely believed that there was no intrinsic connection between Islamism and terror; or, if there was, Islamic radicalism was no more dangerous than right-wing or supposedly Christian-inspired terror. Or if Islamic radicalism did arise, it might be mitigated by multicultural sympathy and outreach, mostly by contextualizing the violence as an inevitable result of prior Western culpability.
Precisely because the Bush-Cheney protocols had thwarted over 40 post-9/11 Islamist plots, Senator Obama had the latitude, in 2008, to campaign for the presidency on the premise that these measures were both unlawful and superfluous. After he became president and learned of their utility — and assumed the political responsibility for the consequences of abandoning his effective anti-terrorism inheritance — Obama squared the circle of embracing or expanding all the elements of the war against terror by politically correct euphemism.
The result has been that ever since 2009, various members of the administration collective have sought, each according to his station, to bring us into the network of not associating Islamism with terror. And the Borg have certainly been diverse, as all sorts of political appointees, opportunists, and career officers plugged themselves into the hive. Obama may have killed ten times as many suspected Muslim terrorists by drone as did Bush, but we were to assume that the fact that there were no Christian, Jewish, or Buddhist victims of Hellfire missiles was irrelevant...
... The hive thinking quickly spread throughout the Obama administration’s intelligence apparat, as even those who once worked for George W. Bush and, in fact, had been deeply embedded in the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism efforts were drawn into the Borg — quite willingly and for careerist reasons. Despite the Muslim Brotherhood’s long history of Islamist-inspired violence, and its decades-long anti-American efforts, James Clapper, director of national intelligence (who had worked for the Bush administration and defended its launching the Iraq War by claiming that Saddam Hussein had sent his WMD stockpiles to Syria on the eve of the American invasion), offered an absurd illustration of hive thinking: “The term ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ is an umbrella term for a variety of movements. In the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried al-Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.”
John Brennan — who, like Clapper, in his pre-Borg days both worked in the Bush administration and was criticized for his anti-Islamic-terrorism zealotry (among other things, for supposedly promoting enhanced interrogations in Guantanamo of the now-politically-incorrect category of “enemy combatants”) — also was rewired when he became Obama’s counter-terrorism advisor. Soon he duly opined of the now-taboo idea of jihadism, “Jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.” Apparently the Tsarnaevs got a bit out of hand as they were purifying themselves in their holy struggle on the streets of Boston.
Sometimes the Borg drew in those well outside the military, intelligence, and national-security communities. According to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, when President Obama set out the “foremost” task of NASA, it had nothing to do with space exploration. Rather, the president “wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science . . . and math and engineering.” I think the Borg logic here is something like the following: Thanks to the legacy of Averroes, America can still get to Mars — and thanks to our recognition of that debt, the Tsarnaevs and Hasans of the world will “feel good” and are going to celebrate diversity rather than kill lots of innocent people.
These examples of the Borg could be vastly expanded, from Homeland Security’s warning of future violence not from Muslim males but rather from “right-wing extremism” — emanating from returning war veterans and anti-abortion activists — to the mandatory substitution of “militant extremism” and “violent extremism” for “Islamic extremism.”When so many in government have been recircuited into the hive, it is no surprise that the FBI in the field has dropped its proper focus on militant Islam, or that the thug Vladimir Putin proved more helpful than did our own FBI and CIA directors in the Tsarnaev case. After all, the FBI had interviewed, but not detained, a number of men who later proved to be Islamic terrorists, such as the Tsarnaevs, Nidal Hasan, Anwar al-Awlaki, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, and David Coleman Headley. [https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/04/obama-borg-victor-davis-hanson/]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.