‘Unhumans’ by Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec – DailyClout Exclusive Excerpt!

A major new book by one of the Right’s most prominent commentators explains the history of communist revolutions, and makes the case that that is what we are living through in the US today. DailyClout exclusive excerpt!

Purchase Unhumans: https://www.skyhorsepublishing.com/9781648210853/unhumans/

Chapter 2

The Unhumans Are Coming

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

—François Marie Arouet de Voltaire

Conservative authors and pundits have been writing about the left for forty-plus years. And for forty-plus years, the United States, and the West as a result, have moved to the Left. Why is this? Our thesis is that the conservative movement has failed to conserve anything worth conserving. This is why we are in the situation we currently find ourselves in, and it is in fact a state of learned helplessness.

Conservatives, centrists, and the right wing lose to the Left because they do not fundamentally understand the Left. Let this be a software upgrade to all who read this. The Cultural Marxist knows that the conservative will cry foul. The conservative will lash out with angry tweets about double standards and hypocrisy. But the Cultural Marxist does not care. The Cultural Marxist views everyone else as either unaware of the goal of the revolution, less than them, or an obstacle standing in their way to be destroyed. Only the revolution matters to the revolutionary. Conservatives have lost years of ground by being obsessed with debating “facts and logic” rather than doing the grubby work of entering institutions and remaking them from inside. The revolutionaries are a generation ahead in this regard. Conservatives are playing catch-up, and the hour is growing late. Time is short. Ultimately, the revolutionary does not care what the conservative says about them. They aren’t operating in good faith. These aren’t the unintentional consequences of good intentions. Conservatives need to wake up, and wake up now. This is a playbook that has been around longer than the United States itself. And we are reaching the endgame.

But how did we arrive here? Let’s go back to how a communist revolution begins. It begins with resentment. Resentment is an emotion bred by those who lose the lottery of life. It’s not fair, as life never is. But it should be fair, shouldn’t it? Those who got more, by luck or by work, should have less. That’s only fair. Isn’t it?

You’ve had these thoughts in your life. Everyone has. But you probably never thought that you should kill the people who have more than you. That you should destroy them and their families and all the things they built. Sure you’ve felt jealous from time to time, but you tamp it down. You’re a human, after all. You’d never act on it. And you certainly never formed a group of like-minded individuals to take those thoughts and put them into action. Such a thing would be criminal. It would be anti-civilizational in the highest order. It would be to deny humanity itself. It would be, in a word, unhuman.

Vladimir Lenin founded the Russian Communist Party in 1912 and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) not long after. He was among other things a master persuader. His open-air speeches and widely distributed writings oozed the politics of resentment. Lenin’s hatred for the aristocrats of Russia was palpable. He truly hated the Christian Russian imperials, lords of the many nationalities that the empire encompassed. And his speeches were, of course, persuasive. To whom? To those at the bottom of society: vagrants, thieves, violent criminals, various minorities, and the overall unsuccessful. Lenin would go on to build a new society right on top of the old one, with the bodies of Russian imperials as his bricks. Lenin added something to Marxism. Communist philosopher Karl Marx had thought the workers would eventually rise up on their own. Lenin decided things needed to be sped up through use of a revolutionary vanguard. This became the basis for Leninsim.

The Bolsheviks—these were his earliest followers. In Russian, the word means “the majority.” Indeed, many people then and there and here and now feel slighted by life at best, cheated and taken advantage of at worst. No one has ever said life is fair. It isn’t. That’s not how it works. There are always going to be winners and losers. It’s a simple fact of life. But when that fact gets turned into a movement born of anger and vengeance, the violence is never far away. The unhumans bring it.

Vladimir Lenin was chief unhuman of his day. Millions would die under his revolution and later his regime. This, to the Bolshevik mind, was good. Fair. From the haves, everything was taken: life, liberty, property. Envy and vengeance unleashed. A broken world was not repaired; it was, to use a favorite left-ism, “dismantled.” But that does not mean Russia’s have-nots got their justice or even equality. They did not. Lenin brought no great reforms to ease burdens or alleviate (or prevent) suffering. No, the communist Bolsheviks robbed and they killed. Everyone, everywhere, who would not pledge allegiance to the cause or stood in the way. Many who did were killed anyway. This is what they do.

Here is what conservatives still fail to grasp:

Unhumans still support communism after it killed 100 million people in the twentieth century. They are not bothered that communism killed 100 million people. In fact, they think 100 million deaths is just a good start. Those wholly possessed by resentment want to 10X that number. On a base level, unhumans seek the death of the successful and the desecration of the beautiful. They want to smash civilization. And so whenever and wherever they gain power, they do. And yet, conservatives would rather whine about equal treatment while unhumans are drawing them toward freshly dug graves.

Unhumans live to persecute the normal, once they take power. Anyone who calls them out for the crime of noticing their schemes is then subjected to a “struggle session.” They’re humiliated, unpersoned. In this way, victims of the far left become unhuman themselves, brought down to the resenters’ gutter. The purpose of a system is what it does. Radicals cow the middle into silence, for anyone could lose everything by speaking up. And so they do. It’s only fair, they say.

You’ll notice throughout this book the persistent, perennial unhuman obsession with clichéd sociopolitical objectives like “fairness” and “equality.” I am equal to you, the have-nots always say to the haves. But their meaning is not what the Founding Fathers spoke of with regard to equality under law. This, Friedrich Nietzsche understood. Nietzsche is quoted as saying, “No one is more inferior than those who insist on being equal.” The unhuman desires not to build a better world than the old one with its very real and also feigned issues, but to cut down and destroy all individual achievement and cultural greatness so that the world is as miserable as they are.

Wherever they emerge, unhumans first begin by amassing a following. Mass media programming is key for domination, for the mental conditioning that their way is the best way, the only way, the fair way. This is how relativistic multiculturalism was embedded into the Western psyche, by the way, this ubiquitous belief that no one culture or society is better than another so can’t we all just get along. And yet no country or people on earth lived in such a way naturally for all of history. When mass migration dilutes and unbalances a shared culture, there is one force alone powerful enough to hold it all together: an all-powerful state at the center. Only great empires have maintained multiple ethnic groups living within their borders simultaneously, keeping everyone in line with the overwhelming power of the emperor’s unyielding hand. These were not republics with civil liberties and equal standing for all classes. It is unlikely a republic could exist in such a condition. Be careful what you wish for, conservative.

The conservative fails to comprehend that freedom cannot exist in the sociopolitical sense without shared culture and shared value systems that agree on what freedom is and from what (or Whom) it derives. Without common culture, only that all-powerful government can keep diverse populations from ethnic, religious, and other conflicts—until they have had time to assimilate, that is. Consider how Irish, Italians, Germans, Polish, and other Euro-American groups fought against one another in nineteenth-century American cities. And yet today, all are simply “white Americans.” In Colonial America, the division was mostly along religious lines. Now, there is peace between and among them. Why? Common culture—American culture inherited from Western civilization. Neither a nation nor a city can be constituted from any chance collection of people, or in any chance period of time, without assimilation into a new metagroup to which all groups belong, e.g., “American” versus “Irish American,” “Italian American,” and so on. Indeed, most of history’s cities that admitted settlers, either at the time of their founding or later, have been troubled by warring factions, usually factions of people of have-not status. But to the unhuman, they see mass migration differently. This is not a problem, to the unhuman. It is an opportunity. “It is a mark of a tyrant to have men of foreign extraction rather than citizens as guests at table and companions, feeling that citizens are hostile but strangers make no claim against him,” wrote Aristotle.

Notice the clear assignment of have and have-not roles in the context of unassimilated mass migration into preexisting cultures. Citizens are the oppressors; they have rights, responsibilities, and more. And those entering their territory, legally or illegally, are immediately the oppressed, for they have not those rights or responsibilities. They are stuck in the fringes of society, and do not have access to the wider economic and cultural life of the country. Even this group is further separated into who is oppressed the most. Legal immigrants are deemed more prosperous than illegal migrants and thus are subjected to cruel and unusual legal torture. Ask anyone who has attempted to seek legal immigration status much less citizenship in the United States and you will be left in disbelief if not tears; the US immigration system is currently a form of anarcho-tyranny. The purpose of a system is what it does. And the purpose of United States immigration law is to benefit the have-nots and the expense of all others. It’s unfair that not everyone can afford an immigration lawyer. And so those who can’t or won’t are thus granted special status—that of the oppressed.

Unhumans in command of a political apparatus, be that an immigration system, criminal justice. or otherwise, indulge in  anarcho-tyranny. This explains much about immigration, among other issues plaguing empires and republics of past and present for reasons Aristotle elucidated.

What is this anarcho-tyranny? Anarcho-tyranny is the selective overenforcement of laws against a target population alongside the selected nonenforcement of laws on another target population. This is the case in the present-day United States, as it has been in all societies being groomed for radical takeover and violent revolution. Perhaps the most famous illustration of real-world anarcho-tyranny is one attributed to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author of The Gulag Archipelago and chronicler of numerous Lenin and Joseph Stalin–era crimes against humanity:

For him to have a knife was mere misbehavior, tradition, he didn’t know any better. But for you to have one was “terrorism.”

It is the oppressed who are released on account of mere misbehavior, their prior tradition, or lack of knowledge. It’s only fair. And for the oppressors from here, well, you should have known better. You will be punished to the fullest extent. Will conservatives ever figure this out, or will they continue to impotently point out double standards? Only action and reciprocity will change the behavior of the revolutionary.

Unhumans then and now are known for criminalizing self-defense and defending criminals. Again from Solzhenitsyn:

In the Criminal Code of 1926, there was a most stupid Article 139—“on the limits of necessary self-defense”—according to which you had the right to unsheath your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you.

And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. Otherwise, you would be the one put on trial. (And there was no article in our legislation saying that the greater criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.)

This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense led to total spinelessness as a national characteristic.

A hoodlum once began to beat up the Red Army man Aleksandr Zakharov outside a club.

Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hoodlum. And for this, he got ten years for plain murder! “And what was I supposed to do?” he asked, astonished. Prosecutor Artsishevsky replied: “You should have fled!”

Unhumans live in a dark alternate reality where “should” is an argument, suspending all critical thought. If you do not do as you “should” have, and as criminals do as they “should” not, only law-abiding citizens are going to have a bad time.

Past, meet present. We witnessed this inversion of law and order to a cartoonish extent in the summer of 2020. On May 25, 2020, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, eight-time convicted criminal George Floyd was stopped by police officers on suspicion of attempting to pass a counterfeit bill. What happened in the next few minutes drew more attention from the global public than the year’s COVID-19 pandemic. You probably know. Officer Derek Chauvin restrained a cuffed Floyd on the ground, who famously said, “I can’t breathe.” In fact, he said this before he was even placed on the ground. Floyd’s death was later ruled a homicide by the county chief medical examiner, and Chauvin was sentenced to twenty-two-and-a-half years in prison for murder. What was lost among the international ire and calls for Chauvin’s head were other facts of the matter, such as:

Floyd had both fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system at time of death. Specifically, he had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his system. “Blood concentrations of approximately 7 ng/ml or greater have been associated with fatalities where poly-substance use was involved.”

“If he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD,” wrote that same county medical examiner, seemingly telling a different story in private than public. “That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances,” he wrote elsewhere.

In March 2020, two months prior to the altercation with Minneapolis police, Floyd had overdosed so severely he was hospitalized.

In April, Floyd had contracted COVID-19. In the autopsy, Floyd tested positive for coronavirus.

The autopsy, freely available online, states these words: “No life-threatening injuries identified.”

Floyd had underlying conditions including heart disease, with one artery blocked 75 percent., 

Despite all this evidence, the only verdict that could have been issued was guilty. Why? The American mind had already adopted the oppressor versus oppressed frame. And in this context, the white Chauvin was the oppressor and the black Floyd oppressed. Therefore, any and all possible if not likely causes of Floyd’s death that were not the fault of police were dismissed, by the public, the jury, and local authorities. (One of the jurors condemning Chauvin apparently lied to the judge, claiming no prior knowledge of Floyd’s death despite having publicly posted about his anti-police activism and attending George Floyd rallies in the months after the news broke.)

To sum the story up, in the oppressor-oppressed context, Floyd “didn’t know any better;” he couldn’t have possibly died from anything other than premeditated murder. Mindset has consequences.

Now, all this background is necessary to understand the context of the police-free zones in Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon. In the wake of Floyd’s death and Chauvin’s arrest, there were more than 7,750 demonstrations in protest, with upward of 26 million Americans participating across more than 40 percent of all counties in the US., ,  Some protesters stuck around after the initial marches and riots. Such was the case in both Seattle and Portland, where up went tent cities and out went the police. Among other events, the declaration of the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” or CHAZ, in Seattle, with a copycat soon after in Portland. Seattle’s CHAZ began like many protests and riots did that summer, as an organized national uprising by the so-called oppressed against their oppressors—specifically, the black community versus the police. Of course, in Seattle, most people on both sides were white. In Seattle, city police abandoned the East Precinct building following nightly swarms of protesters; police and staff there deemed the mobs a safety risk and withdrew for their own protection. Protesters got right to building a communist micro-­utopia, with emergent leaders declaring the area’s independence from all recognized authority. It would be hilarious if it weren’t lawless—and soon deadly.

Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan approved every bit of it. She reframed the anarchy of CHAZ as an attempt to “de-escalate interactions” between protesters and police, as tensions had been high following the popularized, politicized death of Floyd. The voices of more than one thousand counterprotesters who called for Durkan’s resignation went unheard. With police presence entirely removed, the CHAZ saw exactly what you’d expect: all the fixings of a hippie festival but with widespread looting and violence committed against small business owners and residents in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. There were multiple mass shootings and several murders, none of which have been officially solved. No one was coming to save the residents; they were hostages in their own homes. Some who escaped were prohibited by police from returning in hopes of saving valuables or defending their property. Across the CHAZ, there was sexual assault (as there had been during the infamous Occupy Wall Street protests that inspired CHAZ) and also arson, all effectively city-sanctioned. Anarcho-tyranny. This is what they do. (All of this, including firsthand experiences in CHAZ, are further detailed in Posobiec’s book The Antifa: Stories from Inside the Black Bloc, published 2021.)

Consider what you might be feeling right now. Indignation. Righteous anger. Your mind begins to wander . . . to what you would do, in a CHAZ near you. When it’s illegal to defend your liberty and property but legal to seize and destroy it. The Seattle CHAZ lasted twenty-four days; the one in Portland, five hours. A lot can happen in five minutes when the mob is outside your door. Are you really safe?

And yet these thoughts, according to the unhuman, condemn you. Only an oppressor worries about stuff, stuff you gained through a systematically racist capitalist system. It’s not fair. Why shouldn’t you have all your stuff seized? The oppressed robbing and killing the oppressor. That’s equity. That’s fair. Lenin would be proud.

This is how these people think, or doublethink in some cases. This is why certain people and groups receive the benefit of all doubt and other people and other groups get none. Why white is presumed guilty and black innocent. Why property owners are made to submit to the will of armed mobs by their own government. Why Floyd received the national funeral parade of royalty and millions of suffering loved ones were held in isolation away from family members during simultaneous bans on large gatherings. Why progressive voices praise the arson, looting, and destruction of cities but condemn those very acts when their neighborhoods are targeted. Why trespassing mobs of hundreds strong breaking into private property are assumed innocent, and the homeowners brandishing firearms to protect their property were arrested, charged, fined, and had those weapons seized—in one surreal case from the summer of 2020, that of Mark and Patricia McCloskey. This is what they do.

The entire situation is as absurd as it is real. How could we have reached this point without millions of good, smart people noticing? Doing something about it? Voting for the protection of their own rights? What’s going on here?

Why didn’t conservatives notice any of this happening?

How Did We Get Here?

For conservatives to receive their software upgrade to understand what’s really going on in the world, they have to understand the oppressor-oppressed filter through which all news, entertainment, education, and even law and policy are forced through before they reach them. This will take time, but we hope that by the end of this book, it will be a new filter and mental model to understand the world.

By and large, classic liberals, conservatives, and even moderates do not understand what is going on in a societal system where the chief institutions of consensus-making are controlled by radicals and infiltrated by unhumans. During the peak racial panic of 2020, when asked to guess how many unarmed black men were killed by police each year, the average person on the street would respond with outrageous numbers that seemed to merit the violent anti-police protests swarming cities nationwide and leaving whole neighborhoods in ruin and burning rubble. This is not conjecture. Of progressive Americans actually surveyed, more than half thought that black deaths at the hands of police number more than 1,000 per year. Half of conservatives polled got the answer wrong, too. The correct number is thirteen—according to the most comprehensive records available, compiled by of all places the Washington Post. Add to this the fact that “instances of police use of force remain exceedingly rare and that rates of fatal officer-involved shootings . . . are generally lower in the past 10 years than in decades past.”

We have the unhuman-occupied media to thank for this skewed belief about the nature of reality, the Washington Post one of the guiltiest parties. Even the accurate number—thirteen, which was the number recorded in 2019—may be misleadingly high. WaPo’s own database opens with dishonest framing of Michael Brown as “unarmed black man.” But according to the official Department of Justice report, Brown attacked a police officer—Darren Wilson—and attempted to take his gun and kill him. Brown, also much larger than Wilson, appeared to be drawing his own weapon. Darren Wilson acted in self-defense. And yet his example demonstrates that the unhumans leave out the context of what “unarmed black men” were doing to get themselves shot. We saw that same narrative-bending with George Floyd and Derek Chauvin. This is what they do.

A recent Manhattan Institute report found cause and effect between misleading overemphasis on those few fatal officer-involved shootings in the black community each year, and negative racial bias in public perception of police. Meanwhile, an empirical study from Harvard University found no statistical difference between police shootings of black and white suspects.

People who accept this and other narratives are known as “normies,” who could also be called “NPR-Americans” as they believe the “official” sources. They’ve endured two to three generations of social conditioning through the education system, mass media, and Hollywood to distort how they make sense of the world so that fake becomes real and real becomes racist conspiracy theory.

This is what bestselling author and persuasion expert Scott Adams calls the “two movies on one screen” phenomenon. When people have their mental model provided to them from misleading input provided by institutions opposed to the flourishing of the American citizen, they form completely false impressions of the world all around them, causing them to interpret fact and information through that false lens. This is why, for example, when a public figure complains of systemic racism impeding the progress of black Americans and they are asked to provide an example, they present their perception. Opinion. How it feels. Unfair. We don’t even need an example as controversial as the death of George Floyd to see this. The completely false perception of how our world works maps onto other sociopolitical matters beyond police violence.

Another two movies, one screen example was the outrage over the Nick Sandmann video, in which a young teenager stood on the steps on the Lincoln Memorial, face-to-face with a Native American chanter. This video went viral online on the left and was said to be an example of white nationalist harassment. Here was a have and a have-not, oppressor versus oppressed. The Washington Post and numerous other media outlets picked it up. And yet the video depicts no racism, bigotry, or anything at all to it. The high school student simply stood still with an awkward smile and said nothing to the Native American man. Why then did the media report it as an obvious example of emboldened white nationalism under President Donald J. Trump? Why did everyone who outrage-shared it “see” racism in the clip despite no verbal cues to such or physical gestures? This is due to coding. If you have been “coded” (programmed) for years by Hollywood content, progressive education, and the 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 any given situation despite a total and complete lack of evidence. As it turns out, it was actually the Native American chanter who was harassing Sandmann and his classmates, who were simply visiting the Lincoln Memorial on a trip to DC.

The key to understanding this is the power of persuasion. If the institutions that create our society’s mental model are infiltrated by radicals who hate those they deem oppressors, then public perception is decided in advance. Millions of people—including white Americans, conservative Republicans, and even President Trump supporters—watched a video and “saw” an unrepentant white nationalist oppressing a brave Native American victim. This was a big problem, and conservatives did not push back on the narrative for at least twenty-four hours when the story first broke.

Feelings Don’t Care about Facts

This is the struggle we find ourselves in today. Propaganda works, and the Western world has been oversaturated with it for decades. Because of their fried mental model, the normies think they are helping when they share a video calling for the arrest and punishment of an otherwise innocent teenage boy.

The scandal was fake, the reporting was fake, but the emotions were real. And when those emotions are whipped up into political and kinetic action, the unhumans can take power. This is what they do.

Another example of a fried mental model in action is the life-­altering surgeries done to children who spend too much time on TikTok. Again, the normies involved supporting this do not have malicious intent nor are they doing it for money. That may be a bitter pill to swallow, but it is the truth. They are simply thinking and acting from a useless mental model. I’m helping! Understand that the original purpose of the sociopolitical left was the goal of alleviating immediate suffering; they had a heart and hands to help the have-nots. And the original purpose of the sociopolitical right has been to design social and political systems to prevent or mitigate such suffering in the first place—and to offer a straightforward path for have-nots to become haves of their own volition. There are fair criticisms of the right and their inability to follow through on their aims. But the left continues to promise what they used to deliver but no longer do. Handouts and handups are not meant to help the have-nots; they exist to hurt the haves, through oppressive taxation, burdensome regulation, and that good ole anarcho-tyranny. This is what they do.

The unhumans know exactly what they are doing to bring us to this point. Their motive and agenda are well-nigh undetectable to those untrained in mass manipulation and dark psychology. They flood propaganda throughout society, greatly aided in our time by near-infinitely scalable social media, and tell the normies that genital removal and breast amputation are “life-saving healthcare.” Such messaging hooks the maternal instinct for care and the paternal instinct for protection. Trying to explain to normies with “facts” on this and other politicized matters is particularly ineffective because they have already been coded via emotional messaging to convince them otherwise. The unhumans use emotional messaging to push their agendas particularly because of its effectiveness, and the only way to counteract it is with emotional counter-messaging. “Facts don’t care about your feelings,” you’ve heard it said. But we say unto you, “Feelings don’t care about your facts.” This is why conservatives have missed the boat.

What the unhumans are up to in the present-day USA differs little from their ways in times past. All classic communist messaging divides society up between the oppressor class and the oppressed victims. Unhumans set up their messaging strategy in this way out of resentment patterns. The successful cannot have their success out of excellence or actual achievement. It must be due to them cheating somehow. Take your pick of nefarious reasons: exploitation of the workers, oppression of women, systemic racism. These are Marxist messaging strategies deployed upon a functioning society to destabilize it and bring the unhumans to power. This is what they crave more than anything.

You see, unhumans are coded to seek status more than they seek happiness and comfort. This is due to their resentment at losing life’s lottery and full embrace of cynicism. The systems unhumans build are ones built on an inversion of the merit-based social order, one where status is determined by adherence to ideology, extent of your self-reported victimization, and above all, loyalty to the party.

This is why communists recruit before doing anything else. They organize, as we’ll explore further in Chapter 4. Think about why. If your coalition depends on the loyalty of fringe groups, how do you expand your coalition? What would you do? You would import as many fringe groups and minorities as you could from all over the world. Leftists understand that to dilute the political power of the majority, they must open borders and pull as many distinct groups from around the world as possible, except Europe. To add to the majority would weaken the political power of the institutional left, which has built its intersectional power through the “coalition of the fringes,” as Steve Sailer dubbed it. The formula is simple: Increase the strength of your coalition through numbers as much as possible. It doesn’t even matter if some of the newcomers oppose you at first or vote for the opposition. All that matters is that you keep bringing more into society to increase the ratio of fringes so that, ironically, the fringes overwhelm society. The more groups that owe their status and financial well-being to their loyalty to the unhumans, the more political power the unhumans gain. The unhumans are not interested in winning the debate. They are interested in expanding their power and taking yours.

This is now the case throughout the West. They have even gone so far as to enlist the financial and logistical support of global organizations run by well-meaning people. Catholic, Jewish, and other faith-based and aid groups such as the American Red Cross have been found to traffic illegal immigrants from the third world into the United States.  Nearly three-quarters of Americans believe these individuals come to America to “find jobs and improve their lives.” Is that the case for the military-age males not from Central America but from communist China as well as known terrorists and anti-Semitic extremists? Or is this, as some authorities have said, tantamount to an “invasion” of the United States? Whatever you call it, we can confirm the unfettered illegal immigration is aided and abetted by the United States government itself alongside those NGOs. Under the President Joseph Biden administration, illegal border-crossers regardless of intent do not need to sneak over or worry about being caught. The administration’s official policy is to “catch and release” those breaking federal immigration law. That is, illegal migrants find federal immigration authorities while breaking and entering into the US, receive aid, and are sent on their way into the homeland. Visionary entrepreneur Elon Musk summed up the situation in this way:

The far left US administration is using your tax dollars to fly violent criminals into America.

The stark difference between immigration perception and reality is odd until you understand the fried brain model. It is the spirit of charity, hijacked. And so otherwise compassionate Catholics, Jews, and others import into their own midst those who are not ashamed to express their bigotry toward religious minorities. I’m helping! Conservatives are wrong about the intent behind the work they are assisting. Leftists do not have good intentions. We cannot vote our way out of this.

Meanwhile, we observe no significant organized or well-funded opposition to any of this. The fried mental model explains why. So many everyday people and conservative and moderate leaders they elect have been affected by unhuman coding their entire lives. Without even knowing it. Suddenly, a group appears that claims to stand for reforming these terrible conditions that society has imposed on the oppressed. Only a monster would stand against them, right? That would be mean, and you might get called bad names by internet leftists. And so we get feckless leaders at all levels and in all areas who are afraid to take action against the waves of attacks by the unhumans and their destabilization forces lest they be accused of the same nefarious wrongthink they claim they are fighting against. Concerned about unvetted illegal immigrants showing up with fake passports? You must be xenophobic. Oppose the money-laundering operation known as Black Lives Matter? You’re racist then. Abstaining from the Women’s March? Must be a misogynist. Disagree with genital amputations and hysterectomies performed on children? OK, transphobe. Dislike Antifa? Congratulations, you’re literally a fascist. Conservatives fear being called names, regardless of the truth of the accusation. We argue that if you are not inciting an unhuman backlash against you, you don’t want victory bad enough. Conservative leaders do not. They attempt to reason with unreasonables. Normies just don’t get it. For those who do, we will offer pragmatic solutions in Chapter 13.

Now, even when the unhumans do not disagree with what you say or do, they will punish you for saying and doing it, if they deem you an oppressor. This explains the strange fate of the aforementioned Scott Adams, who was famously “canceled” by far-left press and media in 2023, despite his reputation as a lifelong liberal. His one and only offense was to state a viewpoint that no one disagreed with. Through truthful hyperbole, Adams advised Americans to stay away from embittered groups who hate them. That’s it, that’s the crime. And for this he was named and shamed on major networks, in mainstream publications, and by social media influencers with massive followings. All despite that lack of disagreement. Scott Adams said nothing wrong; what was wrong was that he said it. According to that left-wing “movie,” in which the theme of every major story is oppressor versus oppressed, Adams must be universally scorned for what he said. Here’s why: Scott Adams, being both the creator of Dilbert the most successful personal development author of all time, is a quintessential “have.” And his self-proclaimed enemies allege they represent the interests of the have-nots, whom Adams said collectively fit the definition of a “hate group.” And so Adams faced the full force and fury of a global unhuman uprising against his life’s work. This is what they do.

These strategies have been employed to terrify conservatives, moderates, casual liberals, and all normal people into inaction for over a century since the Bolsheviks first marched—and the tactics keep working. And so the environment is well-prepared for revolution. It’s as if they’ll be able to win without fighting.