Right now, it feels as though the world is in a state of constant revolution. The reason for this is because our political movements, particularly on the Left, have decided to worship the revolutionaries.
Example A: Greta Thunberg. 
Greta Thunberg, 21-years-old, is not an important person. There&#8217;s nothing about Greta Thunberg that suggests she knows anything about absolutely anything. She&#8217;s not an environmentalist expert and she is not an expert on foreign policy. Yet she has been held up as a model for our times, a person we all ought to follow, a sort of Joan of Arc when it comes to the moral conscience of the West.
Why? Because she&#8217;s a revolutionary and the West now worships revolutionaries. 
Over the weekend, she was arrested not once, but twice on the same day for blocking traffic at a climate protest to shout about a climate emergency. She explained, “We are in a planetary emergency.”
Thunberg is worshiped by the Left for this sort of nonsense.
But — she&#8217;s not the only one. There is a worship for the revolution when it comes to the Left. The revolutionaries must always be treated with extraordinary deference.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1942-did-joe-biden-just-save-hamas-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
When it was Black Lives Matter, rioters were burning down cities, doing $2 billion in damages — the single most damaging spate of riots in American history. The entire legacy media treated this not as though it was something deeply wrong and actually evil — it&#8217;s evil to burn down somebody else&#8217;s shop in the name of racial justice — but rather, as a group of people who are just a little bit too passionate. It was just that they were too committed to the cause.
You can see this now in the treatment of the pro-Hamas protesters who are showing up at Democratic events. The pro-Hamas protesters are, in fact, emissaries of an evil ideology. If you are standing for an actual genocidal terror group who wishes to impose Sharia law on its own citizens and to murder everyone else, you&#8217;re the bad guy.
But the Left has treated them with extraordinary deference. The New York Times published an entire piece titled “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/07/us/politics/democrats-israel-gaza-protesters.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">How Gaza Protesters Are Challenging Democratic Leaders</a>.”
The normal way a decent civilization would treat these people would be as moral outcasts. It would shun them. It would say, “You don&#8217;t know what the hell you&#8217;re talking about. You&#8217;re moral idiots, and you are standing for a group of people who are legitimately the worst people on planet Earth. You&#8217;re trying to preserve a terrorist group to continue running the Gaza Strip after subjecting that entire area to their own predations.”
But the New York Times reported: 
<blockquote>In Detroit, a congressman’s holiday party devolved into chaos and a broken nose after demonstrators protesting the war in Gaza appeared with bullhorns. In Fort Collins, Colo., the mayor abruptly ended a meeting during which protesters demanding a cease-fire in Gaza glued their hands to a wall.
And in places as disparate as a historic church in South Carolina and Radio City Music Hall in Manhattan, President Biden has been heckled and drowned out by demonstrators objecting to his support for Israel. Protests over the Biden administration’s handling of the war are disrupting the activities of Democratic officials from city halls to Congress to the White House, complicating their ability to campaign — and, at times, govern — during a pivotal election year.</blockquote>
The New York Times is not saying these protesters are wrong or bad, which they are. They&#8217;re both wrong and bad. Instead, the Times are saying Biden should take more stock of these protesters.
Who are these protesters? They&#8217;re the kinds of people who chanted “Death to America” in Michigan.
These are the protesters who the legacy media and the Biden administration are suggesting ought to dictate foreign policy in Gaza. The Biden administration is catering to those protesters and their friends.
Why? Why are they catering to the radicals in their own party? It turns out the vast majority of Americans don&#8217;t like any of this. So why exactly are they catering to them?
To understand that, you have to understand the theory of continuous revolution.
Effectively speaking, the Democratic Party, which now represents the Left in the United States, has adopted Chairman Mao’s theory of continuous revolution. That theory is rooted originally in a Marxist revision of Hegelian dialectic.
To really simplify the broad perception of the philosopher Hegel, it’s the basic idea that history progresses through contradiction; you have a thesis and an antithesis (a response to the thesis), and then a synthesis of the two ideas.
That synthesis starts to fall apart and turns into a thesis, an antithesis, and then a synthesis again. So history progresses through contradiction. Hegel meant this descriptively. He would say one country would represent one idea and a second country would represent a second idea. They would go to war and then they would make peace, and out of that would come a new synthesis. For example, out of a 30-Years-War between Catholic countries and Protestant countries would come the Peace of Westphalia.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels extended that theory into the realm of economics. They suggested that capitalism carried the seeds of its own destruction because capitalism was exploitative of the poor — which is false.
Their theory was that capitalism would impoverish the poor, and then the poor would rise up against capitalism. Capitalism was the thesis, the labor movement was the antithesis, and the synthesis would be socialism and eventually communism. That was the basic idea Marx and Engels put forward.
There&#8217;s one problem: What happens when you&#8217;ve reached the synthesis the Left actually likes? The Hegelian theory would suggest there will be an antithesis that rises and goes to war with the thesis. But if you’re the Left and you’ve won, what do you do now? You&#8217;re stuck.
That was the problem Chairman Mao discovered. He had fostered a communist revolution in China, and then became the boss. He ran the entire country with an iron fist. But according to Hegelian dialectics, there should be a movement that could theoretically threaten him, and from that threat would emerge a new movement.
So what did he do? He posited the theory of continuous revolution. That theory was that the party itself could embody all forms of revolution. There would be new revolutions — thesis, antithesis, and synthesis — but all would happen within the communist party structure. So <a href="https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">he said</a>, “Opposition and struggle between ideas of different kinds constantly occur within the Party; this is a reflection within the Party of contradictions between classes and between the new and the old in society. If there were no contradictions in the Party and no ideological struggles to resolve them, the Party&#8217;s life would come to an end.”
In other words, the only way to retain absolute power was to encompass everything. The thesis and the antithesis? The party was bigger than both. All of this would happen inside the party, and this is why he encouraged younger members of the party to actually beat older members of the party to death. This is why he encouraged some good communists to kill other good communists during the Cultural Revolution.
What does this mean now? It means that if you are the Left and you wish to retain power, you have to pay continuous homage to the revolutionaries in your own party.
The thesis is Joe Biden. The antithesis is the pro-Hamas protesters, and the synthesis is a policy that effectively hands more power to Hamas.
The thesis is law and order. The antithesis is riots in the major cities. The synthesis is worship of the Black Lives Matter movement.
The thesis is normal environmentalists. The antithesis is Greta Thunberg sitting at a traffic stop and blocking traffic. And the synthesis is going to be a Green New Deal.
That&#8217;s the idea of the Democratic Party. The revolution will constantly be encompassed inside the party, inside the Left-wing movement.
All that is needed to make this happen is a little bit of celebrity cover for the revolution. You just need major politicians or major celebrities to repeat the nostrums of the revolutionaries every so often.
And then you will reach synthesis.

fafa679cf555fdda4a30003cb46dbcad

The Left’s Continuous Revolution And The Worship Of Revolutionaries

Ben Shapiro

Democrats

Greta Thunberg

Hamas

Joe Biden

Karl Marx

Marxism

Opinion

Readers Pass

Historic image from July 1980: A look from West Berlin over the Berlin wall to Brandenburg Gate and East Berlin. Sign with “Caution: You are leaving West Berlin” in the foreground. Scanned Slide.

A Brief History Of The Iron Curtain

Berlin

Communism

History

NATO

Russia

World

World War II

GDWOODMANMK29

How Feminism Gave Us Transgenderism

Feminism

Gender

Michael Knowles

Transgender

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the pioneers of modern socialism, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Private-Property-Penguin-Classics/dp/0141191112/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3O1D3S5CAN5R4&amp;keywords=friedrich+engels&amp;qid=1675539313&amp;sprefix=friedrich+engels%2Cspecialty-aps%2C140&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">insisted</a> that every adult member of society be “liberated” from parental work and instead fill “socially productive” roles. Mao Zedong of China embraced this doctrine and declared that “in order to build a great socialist society it is of the utmost importance to arouse the broad masses of women to join in productive activity” which would foster “genuine equality between the sexes.”
Notice that here in just a few words, the work of bearing and raising human beings is labeled “unproductive activity” that women must be emancipated from so they can equally contribute to mankind’s economic security. Marx and Engels also promised that equalizing workplace participation would launch large amounts of money into the economy, facilitate equality, and make entire societies prosperous.
The Biden administration has added its voice to the chorus calling for every able-bodied female to join the work of contributing to the GDP. Recently, the Biden administration launched an initiative called the <a href="https://www.state.gov/reports/united-states-strategy-on-global-womens-economic-security/#en29" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U.S. Strategy on Global Women’s Economic Security.</a> At the <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?525159-1/secretary-blinken-remarks-global-womens-economic-security" target="_blank" rel="noopener">launch</a> meeting, Jennifer Klein, <a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?525159-1/secretary-blinken-remarks-global-womens-economic-security" target="_blank" rel="noopener">director of the White House Gender Policy Council</a> said we must all work to “achieve our shared vision for women&#8217;s full and equitable participation in the global economy.” She also said, “Studies show that closing gender gaps in the workforce could add between $12 and $28 trillion in global GDP over a decade.”
Secretary of State Antony Blinken <a href="https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-launch-of-the-u-s-strategy-on-global-womens-economic-security/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reiterated</a> these sentiments: “The strategy that we’re putting forward has at its heart a simple vision: creating a world in which all women and girls everywhere can contribute to … economic growth and global prosperity. That’s a world in which we will all be better off. Closing the gender gap in the workforce by 2025 … would add up to $28 trillion to the global economy.”  
<h2>The Care Of Children Becomes A Public Affair </h2>
So far, Team Biden is two for two on Engels’ plan: 1) Call for women’s “full and equitable participation in the economy” and 2) promise that affluence will follow.  
But what about the kids? If everybody is participating “fully and equitably” in the public workforce and no one is available to shepherd their own children, who will be raising up humanity? Engels has the answer. He <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Private-Property-Penguin-Classics/dp/0141191112/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3O1D3S5CAN5R4&amp;keywords=friedrich+engels&amp;qid=1675539313&amp;sprefix=friedrich+engels%2Cspecialty-aps%2C140&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> that in a socialist society, “the care and education of the children becomes a public affair” and “society looks after all children alike.”  
Klein appears to be familiar with Marx and Engels’ philosophy, because her next demand was for governments to ensure women’s economic security by “<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?525159-1/secretary-blinken-remarks-global-womens-economic-security" target="_blank" rel="noopener">improving care infrastructure</a>.” Blinken <a href="https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-launch-of-the-u-s-strategy-on-global-womens-economic-security/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> the same thing: Governments must “strengthen the foundational support—child care, elder care—that allows women to participate equitably in the economy.”  
But how will the world’s governments provide free or low cost day care services for everyone? Such an undertaking would certainly cut into the wealth that is supposed to materialize from women’s “full participation” in the economy. 
<h2>The World Bank </h2>
Enter the World Bank. The U.S. Strategy on Global Women’s Economic Security <a href="https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/U.S.-Strategy-on-Global-Womens-Economic-Security.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a>, “The U.S. government has partnered with the World Bank and is leading diplomatic engagements to encourage partnerships in the recently launched global Invest in Childcare initiative, housed at the World Bank, which will expand access to quality child care and early learning programs globally.” 
The World Bank, a financial institution within the United Nations system, boasts the primary goals of ending poverty and “promoting shared prosperity.” It pursues these aims by lending or granting money to different countries in the effort to redistribute wealth and incentivize participation in their initiatives. Their new childcare initiative, “Invest In Childcare,” launched just within the last year. Incidentally, in 2014, the World Bank <a href="https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/189221468327937168/official-documents-collaboration-arrangement-with-blackrock-financial-management-to-tf069027" target="_blank" rel="noopener">signed</a> an agreement with <a href="https://www.blackrock.com/us/financial-professionals/investment-strategies/sustainable?cid=ppc:uswa_us:sem_us_br_esg_phrase:google:brand_prod:fa&amp;gclid=CjwKCAiA_vKeBhAdEiwAFb_nrXFwTLcbSYTJij4PVjQmZ1j1pT5kkkIZovHe45zxkGbv1iqaBCj_TBoCDkcQAvD_BwE&amp;gclsrc=aw.ds" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BlackRock</a>, a major driver of <a href="http://thenakeddollar.blogspot.com/2022/04/esg-politicization-of-capital.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ESG</a> investing.
The program’s <a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/brief/childcare-incentive-fund" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wording</a> reveals the priority behind it: “Childcare has the potential to yield multi-generational impacts by improving women’s economic empowerment, child outcomes, family welfare, business productivity and overall economic growth.” It goes on to say that not only does childcare “enable mothers to participate in the labor market” but that for children “quality childcare can provide the critical inputs needed during the early years to build the foundational skills that will help them succeed in school and throughout life.” 
Childcare may very well enable mothers to participate in the workforce, and many mothers may need or want to do just that. But is it a government’s responsibility to facilitate childcare for everyone? Many may also question whether <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-daycare-plan-is-bad-for-families-11620078804?mod=e2two" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data</a> support the claim that quality childcare in the early years provides the critical input a child needs. To bolster their position, a major element of the World Bank initiative is to “make the case for childcare” through data collection as facilitated by the <a href="https://www.state.gov/reports/united-states-strategy-on-global-womens-economic-security/#en29" target="_blank" rel="noopener">OECD</a> and other actors.
Additionally, the World Bank <a href="https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/728b0cb3f71a6f36009d8220f8e9b9f7-0200022022/related/Invest-in-Childcare-summary-note.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">plans</a> to leverage “development policy lending,” which “essentially pays governments for policy reforms.” They say, “We will identify a set of childcare policy reforms which could trigger payments to countries.” And to ensure that the children of the world are in good hands, the World Bank will launch “quality assurance” initiatives, including “quality standards and regulation and monitoring systems.” 
The World Bank <a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/brief/childcare-incentive-fund" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a> governments must act immediately to fulfill their duty to provide universal childcare: “Solutions are needed urgently. Governments need to ensure that childcare is available, affordable, of decent quality and meets the needs of all families.” 
<h2>Buying Your Child’s Childhood </h2>
In short, the Biden administration has declared that universal childcare is the key to unlocking women’s untapped potential to contribute to the GDP. It has partnered with the World Bank to make childcare universally available and to pay countries for complying with their policy requirements. They will also produce data showing that childcare provides the best outcomes for children and will use “regulation and monitoring systems” to influence how childcare centers are run. To put a fine point on it, a global childcare scheme has been launched with the objective of getting little children away from their mothers and fathers and convincing parents, and society at large, that this is a great idea that will empower women, enrich children, and save the world.
This U.S. strategy is in line with what one early Russian socialist <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Invincible-Family-Campaign-Motherhood-Fatherhood/dp/1684514266/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1675541246&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>: “To oblige the mother to give her child to the Soviet state — that is our task.” He explained that to get mothers to surrender their children, the government would provide comprehensive care centers for all children where they would be “supervised by trained pedagogical and medical personnel” who would fulfill the children’s educational, physical, social, and emotional needs for essentially the first two decades of their lives. What mother could resist this great deal for her child? 
To make this dream a reality, either in 20th century Russia or in the United States today, women and society must be convinced that unpaid mothering is “socially unproductive work” and that mothers can be successfully replaced by paid caretakers. People must be convinced that raising money is more important than raising children and that supposedly swelling the GDP by trillions of dollars is worth the price of selling our children’s souls to the World Bank.  
It is a fact that some women find themselves in difficult straits and that their young children would be better off in childcare rather than alone or in other unsafe situations. But have the holders of the purse strings at the World Bank considered whether making early childcare the universal default could have any ill effects?
Politically Left-leaning psychologist Erica Komisar, with 25 years of experience in private practice, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Being-There-Prioritizing-Motherhood-Matters/dp/0143109294/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1675527772&amp;sr=8-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a> that “a major social issue of our time” is the “effects of maternal absence on our children.” Komisar observes that “there has been a dramatic increase in emotional, social, and behavioral difficulties like ADHD, anxiety, depression, and increased aggression in children from toddlerhood through adolescence.” She says there are connections between these disorders and the “absence of young children’s mothers in their day to day lives.”  
The U.N., the Biden administration, and the World Bank’s alignment with Marx and Engels should concern those who wonder whether these institutions are purposely trying to distance children from their parents. Engels described the end result of the “full and equitable participation of women” in the workforce in chillingly stark terms: “The first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry and … this in turn demands that the characteristic of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society be abolished.”
As this plan to commandeer the youngest among us in the name of economic security unfolds, I foresee a global avalanche against motherhood and the family coming. The U.S. administration, in cooperation with the World Bank and other partners, is planning to normalize, glamorize, and incentivize surrendering our youngest children to a global childcare regime while parents fade into the background as simply “<a href="https://empowerms.org/yes-parents-are-the-primary-stakeholder-in-their-childs-education/#:~:text=But%20the%20ideas%20centers%20around,advocate%20for%20their%20child's%20education." target="_blank" rel="noopener">stakeholders</a>” in their children’s futures.
Prioritizing motherhood while one’s children are young is not a cop out. It is not refusing to contribute to the GDP. There is no GDP without capable humans to populate a capable workforce, and there are no capable humans without mothers. If we remove the work and the value and the influence of mothers, we cut off the branch all of humanity is sitting on.
The World Bank wants to buy your children. Don’t sell them.
Kimberly Ells is the author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Invincible-Family-Campaign-Motherhood-Fatherhood/dp/1684514266/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1675797198&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Invincible Family: Why the Global Campaign to Crush Motherhood and Fatherhood Can&#8217;t Win</a> (Regnery Gateway, paperback edition, February 2023). An avid researcher, writer, and policy advisor on family issues, Kimberly has written for The Federalist, Townhall, The Epoch Times, The Daily Wire and other news outlets.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Silhouette family walking against blue sky at dusk

The World Bank Wants You To Surrender Your Children To A Global Childcare Regime

Antony Blinken

Biden Administration

childcare

Children

U.S.

United Nations

The biography of Klaus Schwab, founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum, is murky at best. Several portraits of Schwab emerge in any effort to find out precisely who he is: 
The avuncular misunderstood philanthropist and lover of humanity; a secret Nazi avenging his country’s defeat in a war that he can still remember; the hard-driven politician-at-large hellbent on turning his brainchild, the WEF, into an office of global governance; or the smarmy Mr. Networker Guy who likes nothing more than rubbing elbows with the rich and famous with himself as the master of ceremonies.
So, then, who is he?
Klaus Martin Schwab (1938-  ) was born in Ravensburg, Germany the same month that Hitler’s Wehrmacht marched into Austria. His father, Eugen Schwab, was the managing director of Escher Wyss AG. Under Eugen’s direction, the company, with the use of slave labor, manufactured water turbines for Norsk Hydro, the center of the Nazi effort to produce an atomic bomb using heavy water.
From this slender evidence many have assumed that Klaus Schwab is himself a Nazi. This is unfair. Besides, his honorary doctorate from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, Israel suggests otherwise. Such simplistic explanations won’t do here. There is nothing in what is publicly known about the German engineer to suggest he is a megalomaniac in any conventional sense. On the contrary, his résumé, replete as it is with awards, seventeen honorary doctorates, and a knighthood, indicates a life of achievement.
But we don’t need evidence that he is the illegitimate son of Eva Braun or one of the <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077269/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Boys from Brazil</a> to understand him. The truth is simpler.
Klaus Schwab was born in a time and in a country corrupted by the idea of perpetual human progress and utopianism. He was nurtured in a world where governments mobilized whole populations for mammoth projects; in which scientific advancement was still regarded with optimism rather than foreboding; and of elites who were intoxicated by the feeling that they were on the cutting edge of history and human achievement.
“In the age of social Darwinism,” wrote the late historian Jacques Barzun, “the combination of the ideas of struggle, of historical evolution and of progress, proved irresistible.”
Especially to Germans. Is it merely coincidence that the two great pretenders to world domination in modern times, Marxism and fascism, were both born in Germany, and that now, a third, arises from that same country? Certainly not. And both Marxism and fascism claimed a scientific basis and aspired, as Schwab has said of his “Great Reset,” to “<a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/528482-john-kerry-reveals-bidens-devotion-to-radical-great-reset-movement/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions</a>.” In this, Klaus Schwab is very much a child of mid-twentieth century Germany.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-444919" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/3-profiles-300x174.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="174" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/10/3-profiles-300x174.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/10/3-profiles-768x446.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/10/3-profiles.jpg 938w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /></div>
All of this is exacerbated by the fact that he is also very much a typical Leftist.
Where the average person wakes up in the morning, grabs a cup of coffee, and begins organizing their day, the Leftist wakes up and <a href="https://youtu.be/x-9ZppjeQQo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">begins thinking about how to organize your day, too</a>. Schwab is like the guy who runs your HOA and is constantly issuing edicts on recycling or telling you to take down your Christmas decorations, but with a continental-sized — no, planetary-sized — ambition and ego to match it. Imagine the audacity of a person who thinks he is, by virtue of his virtue, entitled to decide the minutest details of your life: what you do own — or, more accurately, what you don’t; what you eat; your level of privacy; and whether or not you have a <a href="https://youtu.be/64dKPF866mM" target="_blank" rel="noopener">microchip implanted in your brain</a>.
This is Klaus Schwab.
But not contented with annoying people on an individual basis, he formed a club of likeminded people in an effort to establish the HOA from hell: the World Economic Forum. These are people who are all infected by what political philosopher Karl Popper — who, ironically, taught George Soros at the London School of Economics — called “the spell of Plato.” You see, in every intellectual’s literary paradise, from Plato’s Republic to Thomas More’s Utopia, the masses are ruled by a dictatorship of self-appointed “enlightened” elite.
Just read Schwab’s books (co-authored by Thierry Malleret): <a href="https://www.weforum.org/about/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-by-klaus-schwab">The Fourth Industrial Revolution</a> (2016); <a href="https://www.amazon.com/COVID-19-Great-Reset-Klaus-Schwab/dp/2940631123/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=&amp;sr=" target="_blank" rel="noopener">COVID-19: The Great Reset</a> (2020); and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Great-Narrative-Reset/dp/2940631301">The Great Narrative</a> (2020). Of the many things one finds there, chief among them is a contempt for democracy. Schwab and his coterie do not believe in liberty for the individual, only for the collective, which is to say, no liberty at all.
In books that appear to have been printed at Kinkos, have no indices, and are as riveting as a TV manual, it soon becomes clear Schwab (and Malleret) is not an original thinker. The term “The Great Reset” <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/03/the-great-reset/307303/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">was coined by urban studies theorist Richard Florida</a>. The idea being that great economic crises bring about corresponding societal convulsions. But Florida receives no mention in COVID-19: The Great Reset. Schwab’s twist on the theme is to view such catastrophes as an opportunity to reinvent everything, top down.
Then, as I began drilling down into The First Global Revolution (1991), an academic report produced by a highly influential think tank called The Club of Rome, it appeared that Richard Florida had lifted the concept, if not the term, from what the authors of the report called “The Great Transition,” the definition of which fit that of Florida’s.
That said, Schwab clearly possesses a deep knowledge and understanding of science and technology. Even at his age (84), you need only watch a video of him talking on these subjects and he ranges easily between them with apparent mastery. But his books and the literary references that run through them — Boccaccio, Daniel Dafoe, Hemingway — leave me cold because you get the impression he doesn’t know any of them as one knows old friends. They are simply quote-mined and harnessed to his agenda.
Behind all the big ideas and Davos hobnobbing one begins to detect an element of sophistry; a man whose mind lacks the formal moral education that only the humanities, and, I believe, Christian literature, can impart. Schwab, I discovered, is a technocrat.
If this sounds less dangerous to you, it shouldn’t. Klaus Martin Schwab has been greatly influenced not only by the milieu of his childhood — which gave rise to his grandiose proclamation “<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/05/23/klaus_schwab_at_2022_wef_the_future_is_built_by_us_by_a_powerful_community_as_you_here_in_this_room.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The future is built by us!</a>” — but also by a series of apocalyptic academic works to be explored in Part 4 of this series: The Predicament of Mankind (1970), The Limits to Growth (1972), The First Global Revolution, and the previously classified National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 (1974) written by Schwab’s mentor, Henry Kissinger.
They all have a single theme: global overpopulation. The First Global Revolution puts it more bluntly: “The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
In his classic on the Reign of Terror, <a href="https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/summer-2002/former-aha-president-r-r-palmer-dies" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Yale historian R.R. Palmer</a> wrote of the well-intentioned Maximilien Robespierre:
<blockquote>&#8220;He was preoccupied with an inner vision, the thought of ills which it seemed to him could easily be corrected, the picture of a world in which there should be no cruelty or discrimination…. [His] sympathies were always with the underdog; he believed in equality seriously and profoundly…. He had the virtues and the faults of an inquisitor. A lover of mankind, he could not enter with sympathy into the minds of his own neighbors.&#8221;</blockquote>
Under Robespierre’s guidance, the Committee of Public Safety — a misnomer if ever there was one — guillotined roughly 17,000 people.
And they did it all in the name of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité.
Larry Alex Taunton is a freelance columnist contributing to The Daily Wire, USA Today, Fox News, First Things, The Atlantic, The New York Post, CNN, Daily Caller, and The American Spectator. He is also the author of <a href="https://larryalextaunton.com/books/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Faith of Christopher Hitchens</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Grace-Effect-Reverse-Corruption-Unbelief/dp/1595554408/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1664139427&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Grace Effect</a>, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Around-World-More-Than-Days/dp/1642935921/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&amp;keywords=around+the+world+in+more+than+80+days+taunton&amp;qid=1585871070&amp;sr=8-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Around the World in (More Than) 80 Days</a>. You can subscribe to his podcast at <a href="https://larryalextaunton.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">larryalextaunton.com</a> and find him on Twitter @larrytaunton.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Key Speakers at the WEF Annual Meeting of the New Champions

Klaus Schwab, The World Economic Forum, And The New Fascism

Adolf Hitler

Germany

Klaus Schwab

Leftists

World Economic Forum

When I began researching this series for The Daily Wire, I scarcely knew the depth of the rabbit hole into which I would descend. What started out as a straightforward article about the octogenarian German engineer <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-future-is-built-by-us-world-economic-forum-chairman-who-spoke-of-great-reset-of-capitalism">Klaus Schwab</a> and his brainchild, the World Economic Forum (WEF), an organization he has chaired since its founding in 1971, soon took on increasingly complicated dimensions.
Where to begin?
And then it dawned on me. To understand Schwab and the WEF, the place to start isn’t Davos, Switzerland, where members of the forum and hangers-on meet annually. It’s Utopia.
Oscar Wilde once said, &#8220;A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at&#8230;&#8221;
Utopia, it was long assumed, lay in the distant past. The Hebrews called it Eden. A garden of innocence and spiritual perfection until man spoiled it. The Greeks, too, looked backward. With a kind of law of entropy at work in history, Plato and centuries of successors believed the further one went back in time, the more perfect things became until one reached a Golden Age at the dawn of civilization.
But it was the Renaissance and Sir Thomas More, who gave us the word Utopia — of Greek construction, meaning “no place”—that a seismic shift occurred. No longer was the perfect state a prehistoric city (or cities as More conceived it) representing the high-water mark of a lost civilization, but it was very much in the present — and in the future. 
Henceforth, “Utopians,” possessed by the idea of eternal progress and the perfectibility of human society if not humans individually, would seek to build it.
There arose in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment a spate of utopian visions for the betterment of man. And, then, with the human degradation of the Industrial Revolution, came the greatest — in body count — utopian vision of all: Marxism and its promise to sweep away poverty and injustice.
Victorian novelist and critic Samuel Butler, who saw better than most the logical flaws in Charles Darwin’s epoch-defining work, also saw the inherent dangers of megalomaniacs and their undeliverable promises of paradise. In his anti-utopian novel Erewhon (1872) Butler warned of the temptation to surrender freedom to clever philosophers who would convince them their institutions were unjust and that they alone could fix them.
Butler needn’t have bothered.
The promise of a perfect world was far too alluring. And, so, the competition to build it was on. 
But unlike More’s and Plato’s imaginary creations, these would-be utopias were all too terrifyingly real. At the same time that Lenin was building his utopia on the millions of Russian dead, Henry Ford was planning his model city (modestly named “Fordlandia”) in the interior of Brazil. Certain that progress was as much a constant of the universe as the laws of thermodynamics, the twentieth century saw roughly half of the world wrecked by merely that promise.
By the end of the last century, Marxism and its twin fascism would kill more than 150 million people. But utopians are seldom put off by body count, and so the experiment was repeated in the people paradises of China, North Korea, Cuba and many more besides. George Bernard Shaw, a hardcore communist, spoke for more than himself when he said after a visit to Stalin’s Russia: “It’s not a question of to kill or not to kill. It’s a question of killing the right people.”
The road to Utopia always seemed to run through a field pitted with mass graves.
But we know better now, right?
Wrong.
I give you Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum.
“The future is built by us!”
This might come as a surprise to the planet’s remaining eight billion people who have not elected Schwab to so much as city dog catcher. Yet, it was without any sense of irony or embarrassment that <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/05/23/klaus_schwab_at_2022_wef_the_future_is_built_by_us_by_a_powerful_community_as_you_here_in_this_room.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Schwab, like a true utopian, made this declaration</a> with a brandished fist at the May 2022 gathering of the WEF in Davos. One may reasonably deduce from this that Schwab is not an avid reader of Samuel Butler — or, for that matter, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, or the Bible. 
The WEF’s motto is not lacking in ambition: Committed to improving the state of the world. Most of us content ourselves with more modest goals, like, say, improving your credit score or golf handicap. Regardless, the WEF’s attitude toward democracy (contempt), national sovereignty (passé), patriotism (fascist), business (should be government run), and personal liberty (selfish) suggests a different agenda than world improvement. Whatever your theory on their goals, they can, says Schwab, be achieved “<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/05/23/klaus_schwab_at_2022_wef_the_future_is_built_by_us_by_a_powerful_community_as_you_here_in_this_room.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">by a powerful community as you here in this room</a>.”
And powerful they are. More than <a href="https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_AM22_List_of_confirmed_PFs.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fifty heads of state</a> attended this year’s meeting. Add to this the <a href="https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_AM22_Official_List_of_Participants.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">leadership of Alibaba, Blackrock, Google, Microsoft, and many other captains of industry</a> and you have an eyebrow-raising convocation of powerbrokers — collectively known as “Davos Man” — to rival any international assembly.
Like progressives everywhere, they profess a love of man — but in the abstract. Instead of helping the person in front of them as in the Christian model, they would save the hypothetical millions, or, in this case, billions. It’s either solve world hunger, poverty, and inequality or nothing.
And according to <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/01/how-klaus-schwab-built-a-billionaire-circus-at-davos" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Vanity Fair’s Peter S. Goodman</a>, it’s nothing. In an interesting plot twist, he sees Davos as a sinister expression of right-wing politics as if Schwab’s devotees were all MAGA-hat-wearing conservatives. Goodman neither condemns Schwab nor his WEF for their subversive globalist agenda; he condemns them for their hypocrisy in not fulfilling it:
<blockquote>&#8220;In the prevailing pantomime, Davos Man is intent on channeling his intellect and compassion toward solving the great crises of the age. He might have retreated to his mountaintop palace in Jackson Hole or his yacht moored off Mykonos, but he is too obsessed with rescuing the poor and sparing humanity from the ravages of climate change. So he is in Davos … posing for photos with Bono, congratulating Bill Gates on his philanthropic exploits, tweeting out inspirational quotes from Deepak Chopra …&#8221;</blockquote>
In other words, Davos is a lot like Martha’s Vineyard. I’m reminded of a line from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov: “The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular.” Humanity, in the progressive view, is best loved from afar. As in, when <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/09/16/marthas-vineyard-migrants-sent-to-cape-cod-mass-calls-national-guard/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the National Guard takes the undesirables away</a> or, as here, from atop a Swiss alp.
But all of this begs prior questions:
Who is Klaus Schwab?
What exactly is the World Economic Forum?
What is the ideology driving them?
And what is “<a href="https://youtu.be/8rAiTDQ-NVY" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Great Reset</a>”?
These things will be discussed in subsequent installments in this series. Until then, remember that Herr Schwab has your future all planned out for you:
“You will own nothing, and you will be happy.”
Larry Alex Taunton is a freelance columnist contributing to The Daily Wire, USA Today, Fox News, First Things, The Atlantic, The New York Post, CNN, Daily Caller, and The American Spectator. He is also the author of <a href="https://larryalextaunton.com/books/">The Faith of Christopher Hitchens</a>, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Grace-Effect-Reverse-Corruption-Unbelief/dp/1595554408/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;qid=1664139427&amp;sr=8-1">The Grace Effect</a>, and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Around-World-More-Than-Days/dp/1642935921/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&amp;keywords=around+the+world+in+more+than+80+days+taunton&amp;qid=1585871070&amp;sr=8-6">Around the World in (More Than) 80 Days</a>. You can subscribe to his podcast at <a href="https://larryalextaunton.com">larryalextaunton.com</a> and find him on Twitter @larrytaunton.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Opening Day Of The World Economic Forum (WEF) 2016

My business school and I have been on the forefront of dealing with the phenomenon called “woke capitalism.” 

In October of 2020, we were the first organization to host a conference on the topic in New York, and I wrote <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/woke-capitalism-in-a-secular-world-11606420629">an op-ed on the topic</a> later that year. Since then, we have been in regular conversation with executives on how to manage the onslaught of wokeness.
I have come to realize that a big part of the problem is the word “woke” itself. It’s a trap, and supporters of the market economy have fallen right into it.
The word is defined (e.g., by <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke">Merriam-Webster</a>) as being “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).” But its use encompasses a far wider range of meanings, both supportive (being against racism, alienation, exploitation, and oppression) and pejorative (being hostile to free enterprise and in favor of every extreme Left-wing cause).
In this, it is a lot like the word “capitalism.” Capitalism has both positive and negative meanings: a system of private enterprise that has lifted millions out of poverty, and a system of oppression of workers by the owners for the means of production. <a href="https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/05/pope-john-paul-ii-defines-capitalism/">Pope St. John Paul II highlighted</a> the ambiguity of the word just over 30 years ago after the fall of Communism, when he asked whether “capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society.” His answer—it depends:
<blockquote>“If by ‘capitalism’ is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector,” he wrote, “then the answer is certainly in the affirmative.
“But if by ‘capitalism’ is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.”</blockquote>
This ambiguity around the word “capitalism” has been a serious obstacle to the recognition of the wide-ranging benefits of the market economy because, whenever one attempts to describe those benefits, one has to explain first which capitalism one is talking about — the good kind or the bad. How did this happen? Champions of the market economy seem to have accepted, uncritically, a word that was originally used in a derogatory way and that owes much of its initial popularity to Karl Marx’s use of the word “capitalist.” Using your opponents’ terminology lets them set the terms of the debate.
The same thing has happened with the word “woke.” For many people, woke means simply “not racist.” So if you stake out an anti-woke position, others will interpret that as you being racist. Avoid this trap entirely by not using the word “woke.” We don&#8217;t need it. We already have a perfectly good word for what we mean by “woke” when we use it in its pejorative sense—the identification of people by different subgroups and the classification of people into oppressor or oppressed—and that word is “Marxist.” Why let people get away with giving Marxism a hip new name like “woke”? We should abandon this word. 
Once I finish writing this article, I will never again use the word “woke” or any of its derivatives (wokeness, woke business, woke capitalism), and I recommend that everyone who cares about the market economy and freedom, itself, do the same.
Using the correct word, “Marxist,” instead of “woke” will show how absurd it is to speak of “woke capitalism.” Instead of speaking about “woke capitalism,” we would have to say “Marxist capitalism” — but of course there is no such thing. There is only Marxism, pure and simple. Bringing Marxist ideas into the market economy does not lead to a kinder, gentler form of capitalism. It just leads to the destruction of free enterprise and its replacement by totalitarianism. 
Abandoning the word “woke” and saying “Marxist” instead will make that clear.
This is the last time I will be using the word “woke.”
Andrew V. Abela is the founding dean of the Busch School of Business and Ordinary Professor of Marketing at The Catholic University of America, in Washington, D.C. 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

v2 Abela – Why I Will No Longer Use The Word ‘Woke’

Why I Will No Longer Use The Word ‘Woke’

Capitalism

Catholic Church

Woke Culture

Earlier this week, Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors was widely <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cashing-in-blm-co-founder-goes-on-real-estate-buying-binge-snagging-four-homes-totaling-millions-of-dollars-report">slammed</a> as a hypocrite after the self-proclaimed “trained Marxist” went on a “real-estate buying binge,” purchasing “four homes with a price tag totaling upwards of $3 million” and “also eyeing a spot in an ‘ultra-exclusive’ resort in the Bahamas, where the likes of musician Justin Timberlake and iconic golfer Tiger Woods both have homes.”
“We are trained Marxists,” Cullors <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/">said</a> in 2015, speaking of the Black Lives Matter co-founders. “We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories. And I think that what we really tried to do is build a movement that could be utilized by many, many black folk.”
If Cullors is, as she claims, a “trained Marxist” who is “super-versed” on Marxist theory, then it appears that she is intentionally ignoring the central tenants of her own ideology. What would Karl Marx, the father of Marxism and communism, <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007">say</a> about her accumulation of private property and supposed focus on familial support?
Let&#8217;s have a look at the communist manifesto to find out.
Private property
<blockquote>The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.</blockquote>
Despite the clear call for the abolition of private property in the context of “modern bourgeois private property,” Cullors’ significant real-estate holdings are definitionally antithetical to her “Marxist” beliefs.
Investing in family
<blockquote>Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.
On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
…
The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.</blockquote>
During an interview with Marc Lamont Hill, Cullors <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/marxist-blm-co-founder-rejects-accusations-of-real-estate-buying-binge-hypocrisy-saying-i-have-a-child">defended</a> her hypocritical accumulation of wealth and property by reframing it as an investment in her family.
“Sure, and I think that is a critique that is, um, wanting, and I say that because, um, the, the way that I live my life is in direct support to black people, including my black family members, first and foremost,” Cullors said.
“And, for so many black folks who are able to invest in themselves and their community, they choose to invest in their family, and that’s what I have chosen to do. I have a child, I have a brother that has severe mental illness who I take care of, I support my mother, and I support many other family members of mine,” Cullors continued.
“So, I see my money as not my own. I see it as my family’s money as well,” she concluded.
Such a direct association of family and wealth stands in opposition to Marx’s own writings. 
Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Patrisse Cullors

What Would Karl Marx Say About ‘Trained Marxist’ BLM Co-Founder’s Real-Estate Buying Binge?

Black Lives Matter

Writer Noah Berlatsky united typically warring political factions on social media on Monday after suggesting on Twitter that &#8220;parents&#8221; are, as a whole, an &#8220;oppressive&#8221; class, who commit atrocious acts of abuse on the level of economic repression and racism.
&#8220;parents are tyrants,&#8221; Berlatsky opined. &#8220;&#8216;parent&#8217; is an oppressive class, like rich people or white people.&#8221;
&#8220;there are things you can do to try to minimize the abuse that&#8217;s endemic to the parent/child relationship, but it&#8217;s always there,&#8221; he added, noting that the oppressive &#8220;parent class&#8221; is also emblematic of the &#8220;patriarchy,&#8221; and reinforces a hierarchical, sexist society.
Confronted by confused social media commentators who suggested Berlatsky was exaggerating by elevating typical family issues like &#8220;doing chores&#8221; or &#8220;abiding by house rules&#8221; to the level of &#8220;abuse,&#8221; Berlatsky provided a nearly as confusing explanation, likening being grounded to being subject to &#8220;solitary confinement.&#8221;
&#8220;asking people in your home to contribute to upkeep is fine. but sentencing them to solitary confinement if they don&#8217;t cater to your whims or preferences is less okay, as if hitting them,&#8221; he said. &#8220;the fact that capitalism is awful is not an excuse for abusive familial relationships.&#8221;
That, of course, is key to Berlatsky&#8217;s criticism. The issue isn&#8217;t so much that parents are repressing their children, but that traditional child-rearing &#8212; and, in particular, child-rearing in religious households &#8212; is decidedly un-woke.
Socialism is the solution, apparently.
&#8220;do people just not know how kids are treated?&#8221; he went on. &#8220;parents routinely prevent children from speaking to friends, leaving the house, identifying as queer. parents regularly hit kids and emotionally abuse them.&#8221;
&#8220;the mechanics of the family and of capitalism are not separable,&#8221; he concluded.
It gets worse, of course.
The novel take on parenting drew criticism from across the political spectrum. The Daily Wire&#8217;s Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh pushed back on Berlatsky&#8217;s theory, of course, but so did the New York Times&#8217; Elizabeth Bruenig, a self-described socialist.
Berlatsky was quick to find the common factor: &#8220;everyone from Ben Shapiro to Liz Bruenig hates the idea that parents have tyrannical power over kids which&#8230;is not that surprising given their religious commitments,&#8221; he noted. &#8220;family dynamics look a lot more ominous when you think about them from the perspective of queer kids.&#8221;
&#8220;parents are charged with indoctrinating children into an abusive and unjust society,&#8221; he theorized. &#8220;how do they do that? in part by teaching them to stay in their place and accept injustice without question. again, these are not particularly new insights. does anyone read shulamith (sic) firestone?
&#8220;if someone had the right to beat you unconscious, imprison you for using a cell phone, prevent you from going to college, prevent you from seeing friends&#8230;you&#8217;d see that as tyrannical, even if they didn&#8217;t do any of those things. and rightly so,&#8221; he went on.
&#8220;nothing like Marxists insisting patriarchy is fine because they want to be able to feel good about how they treat their kids,&#8221; Berlatsky said, taking aim at his left-leaning critics.
And yes, &#8220;patriarchy&#8221; factors in: &#8220;patriarchy is instantiated most directly through the family; lots of feminists have talked about how the family is exploitive. I&#8217;d point you to Firestone if you need the case made at greater length. parents aren&#8217;t a benevolent dictatorship. there is no benevolent dictatorship.&#8221;
In fairness to Berlatsky, he knows his socialist thinkers. The philosophy&#8217;s fathers &#8212; most notably Karl Marx &#8212; had no use for the nuclear family because, in a state-centered society, subsidiary, influential non-governmental figures undermined the authority of the all-powerful state.

Dyslexic young boy struggling with homework on laptop

Writer: Parents Are An ‘Oppressive Class’ That ‘Perpetuate Patriarchy,’ Enforce ‘Solitary Confinement’

Racism

Sexism

Socialism

All of my life, I have said that the Left’s moral compass is broken.
And all of my life, I was wrong.
Why I was wrong explains both the Left and the moral crisis we are in better than almost any other explanation.
I was wrong because in order to have a broken moral compass, you need to have a moral compass to begin with. But the Left doesn&#8217;t have one.
This is not meant as an attack. It is a description of reality. The Left regularly acknowledges that it doesn&#8217;t think in terms of good and evil. Most of us are so used to thinking in those terms — what we call &#8220;Judeo-Christian&#8221; — that it is very difficult for us to divide the world in any other way.
But since Karl Marx, the Left (not liberalism; the two are different) has always divided the world, and, therefore, human actions, in ways other than good and evil. The Left, in Friedrich Nietzsche&#8217;s famous words, has always operated &#8220;beyond good and evil.&#8221;
It all began with Marx, who divided the world by economic class — worker and owner or exploited and exploiter. To Marx and to Marxism, there is no such thing as a good or an evil that transcends class. Good is defined as what is good for the working class; evil is what is bad for the working class.
Therefore, to Marxists, there is no such thing as a universal good or a universal evil. Those of us still in thrall to Judeo-Christian morality believe that good and evil are universal. In other words, whether an act is good or evil has nothing to do with who committed the act — rich or poor, male or female, religious or secular, member of one&#8217;s nation or of another nation. Stealing and murder are morally wrong, no matter who stole or who murdered.
That is not the case for Marx and the Left. In Marx&#8217;s words in &#8220;Capital&#8221; (&#8220;Das Kapital&#8221;):
&#8220;Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and the cultural development thereby determined. We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and forever immutable moral law.&#8221;
Fifty-three years later, Marx&#8217;s foremost disciple, Vladimir Lenin, architect of the Russian Revolution, proclaimed:
&#8220;We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat. &#8230; We do not believe in an eternal morality. &#8230; We repudiate all morality derived from non-human (i.e., God) and non-class concepts&#8221; (Address to the Third Congress of the Russian Young Communist League, Oct. 2, 1920).
As professor Wilfred Cantwell Smith, director of Harvard University&#8217;s Center for the Study of World Religions, wrote in 1957: &#8220;For Marxism there is no reason (literally no reason: our universe, the movement posits, is the kind of universe where there cannot conceivably be any reason) for not killing or torturing or exploiting a human person if his liquidation or torture or slave labor will advance the historical process.&#8221;
This is how Marx&#8217;s ideological heirs, today&#8217;s leftists, view the world — with one important difference: Morality is not determined only by class, but by race, power and sex as well.
RACE
It is left-wing dogma that a black person cannot be a racist. Only whites can be racist. And, indeed, all whites are racist.
It is increasingly a left-wing position that when blacks loot, they are only taking what they deserve, or, as the looters often put it, looted goods are &#8220;reparations.&#8221; A Black Lives Matter organizer in Chicago, Ariel Atkins, recently put it this way:
&#8220;I don&#8217;t care if somebody decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy&#8217;s or a Nike store because that makes sure that person eats. That makes sure that person has clothes. That is reparations. Anything they want to take, take it because these businesses have insurance&#8221; (Chicago Tribune, Aug. 17, 2020).
POWER
Another nonmoral left-wing compass concerns power. Just as right and wrong are determined by class (worker and owner/rich and poor) and race (white and people of color), good and evil are also determined by power (the strong and the weak).
That explains much of the Left’s hatred for two countries in particular — America and Israel. America is wrong when it does almost anything in the world that involves weaker countries — assassinates the most important Iranian terrorist, builds a wall between itself and Mexico, opposes unlimited immigration. It is wrong because it is much stronger than those other countries.
The Left’s antipathy to Israel derives from both the power compass and the race compass. Because Israel is so much stronger than the Palestinians and because Israelis are classified as white (despite the fact that more than half of all Israelis are not white), the Left deems Israel wrong. So, when Israel justifiably attacks Gaza for raining rockets over Israel, the world&#8217;s Left vehemently attacks Israel — because it is so much stronger than the people of Gaza and because whites have attacked people of color.
SEX
When a woman accuses a man of sexually harassing or raping her, the Left’s reaction is not, &#8220;Let us try to determine the truth as best we can.&#8221; It is, &#8220;Believe women.&#8221; One must automatically &#8220;believe women&#8221; because, on the Left, it is not only morality that doesn&#8217;t transcend race, power, class or sex; truth doesn&#8217;t either. That&#8217;s why leftists protest and riot whenever a confrontation between a police officer and a black person ends with the death of an unarmed black person. The police officer is automatically racist, and the death is automatically deemed murder. On the Left, the concept of objective truth is increasingly deemed a form of white supremacy.
So, then, it turns out I was mistaken all my life. The Left’s moral compass is not broken. The Left simply rejects such a compass.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is &#8220;The Rational Bible,&#8221; a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, &#8220;No Safe Spaces,&#8221; will be released to home entertainment nationwide on September 15, 2020. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.

Hand holding compass

PRAGER: The Left’s Moral Compass Isn’t Broken …

Intersectionality

Leftism

Paul Kengor is a professor of political science at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania. He has just published &#8220;The Devil and Karl Marx,&#8221; a careful look at the diabolical side of Karl Marx. The book has come out during an important time in our history since so many Americans, particularly our youth, have fallen for the seductive siren song of socialism taught to them by the academic elite.
&#8220;The Black Book of Communism,&#8221; edited by Stephane Courtois details the Marxist-Leninist death toll in the 20th century. Here is the breakdown: USSR, 20 million deaths; China, 65 million; Vietnam, 1 million; North Korea and Cambodia, 2 million each; Eastern Europe, 1 million; and about 3.5 million in Latin America, Africa and Afghanistan. These figures understate those detailed by Professor R.J. Rummel in &#8220;Death by Government.&#8221; He finds that from 1917 until its collapse, the Soviet Union murdered or caused the death of 61 million people, mostly its own citizens. From 1949 to 1976, Communist China&#8217;s Mao Zedong regime was responsible for the death of as many as 78 million of its own citizens.
The world&#8217;s intellectual elite readily focus on Adolph Hitler&#8217;s murderous atrocities but ignore those of the world&#8217;s socialists. Mao Zedong has been long admired by academics and leftists across our country. They often marched around singing his praises and waving his little red book, &#8220;Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung.&#8221; President Barack Obama&#8217;s communications director, Anita Dunn, in her June 2009 commencement address to St. Andrews Episcopal High School at Washington National Cathedral, said Mao was one of her heroes.
Whether it&#8217;s the academic community, the media elite, stalwarts of the Democratic Party or organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club and the Children&#8217;s Defense Fund, there is a great tolerance for the ideas of socialism — a system that has caused more deaths and human misery than all other systems combined. Today&#8217;s leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from those of Nazi, Soviet and Maoist mass murderers. Keep in mind that one does not have to be in favor of death camps or wars of conquest to be a tyrant. The only requirement is that one must believe in the primacy of the state over individual rights.
Kengor highlights another feature of Marx ignored by his followers. This feature of Marxism should be disturbing to Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors, who said that she and her fellow organizers are &#8220;trained Marxists.&#8221; I wonder whether she shares Marx&#8217;s views on race. Marx&#8217;s son-in-law, Paul Lafargue, was viewed as having Negro blood in his veins. Marx denigrated him as &#8220;Negillo&#8221; and &#8220;The Gorilla.&#8221;
Marx had similar hate for Jews. He referred to his fellow socialist labor organizer Ferdinand Lasalle as a &#8220;greasy Jew,&#8221; &#8220;the little kike,&#8221; &#8220;water polack jew&#8221; and &#8220;Jewish n——r.&#8221; In 1844, Marx wrote an essay titled &#8220;The Jewish Question&#8221; in which he asks, &#8220;What is the worldly cult of the Jew?&#8221; His answer: &#8220;Haggling. What is his worldly god? Money.&#8221;
Down through the years, leftists made a moral equivalency between communist/socialist totalitarianism and democracy. W. E. B. Du Bois, writing in the National Guardian (1953) said, &#8220;Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature.&#8221; Walter Duranty called Stalin &#8220;the greatest living statesman &#8230; a quiet, unobtrusive man.&#8221; George Bernard Shaw expressed admiration for Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin. Economist John Kenneth Galbraith visited Mao&#8217;s China and praised Mao Zedong and the Chinese economic system. Michel Oksenberg, President Jimmy Carter&#8217;s China expert, complained that &#8220;America is doomed to decay until radical, even revolutionary, change fundamentally alters the institutions and values,&#8221; and urged us to &#8220;borrow ideas and solutions&#8221; from China.
Kengor does a yeoman&#8217;s job of highlighting the evils of Marxism. The question is whether Americans will heed his lesson or fall prey to the false promises and live the horrors of socialism. By the way, while Sweden and Denmark have a large welfare system, they have market economies — not socialist economies, as some leftists claim.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

Karl Marx statues

WILLIAMS: The Devil And Karl Marx

Josef Stalin

Vladimir Lenin

Menu

Karl Marx

The Left’s Continuous Revolution And The Worship Of Revolutionaries

A Brief History Of The Iron Curtain

How Feminism Gave Us Transgenderism

The World Bank Wants You To Surrender Your Children To A Global Childcare Regime

Klaus Schwab, The World Economic Forum, And The New Fascism

Klaus Schwab, The World Economic Forum, And The New Fascism

Why I Will No Longer Use The Word ‘Woke’

What Would Karl Marx Say About ‘Trained Marxist’ BLM Co-Founder’s Real-Estate Buying Binge?

Writer: Parents Are An ‘Oppressive Class’ That ‘Perpetuate Patriarchy,’ Enforce ‘Solitary Confinement’

PRAGER: The Left’s Moral Compass Isn’t Broken …

WILLIAMS: The Devil And Karl Marx