Divisions within society have always been problematic. Aristotle recognized that in any society there were essentially three classes: 1) the (jealous) poor, 2) the (greedy) rich, and 3) the middle. He defined them by their prevailing attitude on their station in life, not their wealth. The poor are jealous of the rich, and the rich always want more. The middle class is content. How much money one has is irrelevant to his contentment. The model is the basis for social harmony. The republican principle that Aristotle defined was a society where this middle class dominates and keeps the other classes in check, thereby promoting harmony and a common sense of justice.

The framers of the US Constitution sought to avoid what Alexander Hamilton labeled “convulsion.” In Federalist #10, Madison enumerated “instability, injustice, and confusion” as the mortal diseases that destroyed popular governments. Despite what critics claim, the founders inherited slavery but recognized it as unjust and another problematic division within society that they wished to eliminate. It was beyond them to do so in their lifetimes.

Despite their failure to eliminate slavery, the full intention of the United States founders was to eliminate social division and create a durable republic that would protect the people’s freedom. In a republic, the people address their needs, not their wants. The framers of the Constitution recognized that people who cater to their wants will create unnecessary social division and induce Madison’s mortal diseases. “E PLURIBUS UNUM” pertained to uniting the states into one nation, but it also describes uniting the people into one society. The reason the oath of office was retained was to encourage officials to consider themselves citizens of the nation rather than of their state. Again, the goal was unity, not division.

Marxism promotes the exact opposite goal of that of the Founding Fathers. Whereas the founders sought to promote social harmony and foster individual liberty, Marxism creates social upheaval and demands conformity. During the Cold War, the Army produced a public service announcement (PSA) that described how communists use propaganda and create conflict.[1] The PSA described the escalation template used by Marxists as follows:

1. Every dissatisfaction must grow into a resentment.
2. Every resentment must become an argument.
3. Every argument must grow into a fight.
4. Every fight must blossom into a riot.
5. Every riot must expand into a war.
6. Every war must end in devastation.

The presentation goes on to explain that Marxism never compromises; never settles; and “finds its chance in the ruins.” In other words, Marxists purposely use Madison’s mortal diseases to destroy a harmonious society to gain control and enslave the entire society.

The classic Marxist division of “oppressor and oppressed” was defined by the Industrial Revolution working class. That division never worked in the United States, but neo-Marxism replaces the class division with racial division. The purpose is the same—use social division to create instability and confusion. Whereas the Marxist threat during the Cold War was external and could have led to a devastating world war, today that threat is internal and threatens a ravaging civil war. The harmony of a common sense of justice is shattered. Freedom is replaced with conformity.

Identity politics is pure division out of the neo-Marxist playbook. The end game is control.

The structure of government poses little to no obstacles to Marxism, which can corrupt any system. What Marxism can’t allow is the Bill of Rights because it protects individual liberty and resists conformity. The Marxist dialectic cannot defeat a people with free speech rights because the truth always comes out where free speech is allowed. Severe corruption can delay the emergence of truth, but it cannot stop free speech from eventually exposing the truth.

Marxism cannot tolerate the truth because people instinctively don’t want to be slaves. They want self-determination. Another thing that cannot be tolerated is a people who can physically resist its bullying. Like all tyrannies, Marxism demands an unarmed populous so it can use its force and violence to intimidate and coerce the masses into compliance with its dictates.

In the Pocket Guide to Communism, I make the point that the fatal flaw in Marxist theory is that force and violence can be used to change human DNA. Closer inspection of the emergence of Bolshevik man and Utopia reveals that human DNA must be changed to remove the need for any governance. Put the way Madison may have, the theory turns humans into angels by force and violence. This is clearly flawed; however, I’m not the only one who sees it.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!‘  

The World Economic Forum (WEF) recognizes the fatal flaw as well, but they have a solution. If you listen closely to what they are advocating, they intend to replace Marx’s force and violence with chemistry. Their “fourth industrial revolution” is a mask for changing human DNA to make them compliant to “the elites.” They openly admit that “elites” have always wanted to do this, but they haven’t had the technology.[2] What we have here goes way beyond deTocqueville’s enervation he foresaw with the modern welfare state. It totally strips people of their humanity. The “elites” are playing God. It is the ultimate tyranny, but that is not the end of their plan.

Based upon the words of Yuval Harari, there is reason to believe that the WEF is intending to revive eugenics.[3] It appears that they adhere to Bertrand Russell’s beliefs in a one-world government and using biologics to severely reduce the world’s population. Just as Russell did, they see religion and nationalism as impediments to their version of Utopia. That is, they see the western world as an enemy. In particular, they are targeting the US middle class.

The WEF is an agency of the United Nations. The notion of getting nations together to avoid war by discussion seemed like a good idea at the time, but belligerent nations could always talk to avoid war without the UN.  There is also a dark side to the organization where bad actors can more conveniently plot. Is the potential loss of individuality and freedom posed by the dark side of the UN worth it?

The UN reminds me of my favorite line from all of rock and roll, from the Rolling Stones 19^th Nervous Breakdown:

On our first trip I tried so hard to rearrange your mind
But after a while I realized you were disarranging mine

Instead of bringing peace throughout the world, the organization has actively been undermining the western world, perhaps in pursuit of a Marxist version of Utopia.

[1] “How to Recognize Propaganda | Cold War Era Educational Film | ca. 1957.” YouTube The Best Film Archives, October 7, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATY0KhMSOfY&t=1275s.

[2] Sears, JP. “Is Klaus Schwab the Most Dangerous Man in the World?” YouTube, March 5, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G3nWyoQ5CQ.

“Read Yuval Harari’s Blistering Warning to Davos in Full.” World Economic Forum. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/yuval-hararis-warning-davos-speech-future-predications/.

[3] Gibby, Brian. World Economic Forum admits that depopulation is their goal, August 21, 2022. https://intelligiblenoise.substack.com/p/world-economic-forum-admits-that.

• Romanian Minister Gabriela Firea Resigns After Shocking Retirement Home ScandalThe Shocking Truth About Romania’s Aging Hospital Infrastructure
• A 24-Year-Old Romanian Woman Gave Birth In A Courtyard After The Hospital Refused Her Care