Labor Day began as a deal with Marxist revolutionaries



Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

RELATED: Listen: Glenn explains the history of Labor Day – and why it matters for our future

Photo by Photo by Kean Collection/Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Why Liz Wheeler knew, sadly, that the Minneapolis shooter was transgender



Yesterday, 23-year-old Robin Westman fired through windows of Annunciation Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, killing two children, aged 8 and 10, and injuring 17 others, 14 of whom were children and three of whom were elderly parishioners. Westman also died from a self-inflicted gunshot.

Shortly after the heinous event, it was revealed that Westman identified as transgender. Before he changed his name to Robin, his name was Robert.

But before the news about Westman’s gender identity broke, Liz Wheeler, BlazeTV host of “The Liz Wheeler Show,” intuitively knew the shooter would be trans.

“Before we knew the identity of this shooter, this murderer, I predicted ... that the shooter would be trans,” she says.

How was Liz able to predict Westman’s gender identity with such precision?

Because there’s an undeniable link between transgenderism and violence.

“The transgender ideology is intended to be violent. The transgender ideology is intended to do exactly what it did to Audrey Hale in Nashville and exactly what it did to Robert Westman in Minneapolis,” she says. “It’s intended to turn vulnerable young people into kamikazes.”

Transgender ideology, coupled with critical race theory, is how the left unleashes destruction, Liz explains, noting that both of these frameworks are “offshoots of critical theory” — “a Marxist theory that came out of the Frankfurt School back in the 1960s.”

Critical theory, she explains, uses “relentless criticism of institutions,” using the “Marxist dialectic” of “the oppressor versus the oppressed” to sow discord and bring destruction on the culture, specifically race and gender.

“So what happens when our children are indoctrinated with critical race theory and then trans ideology?” she asks.

When it comes to CRT, white kids “start feeling this incredible self-loathing because they’re told it doesn’t matter how you think about people of another race; it doesn’t matter if you aren’t racist at all. ... Because the color of your skin means that you enjoy white privilege. All of your success is built on the back of those who were oppressed by people who look like you hundreds of years ago, and you bear responsibility for that.”

Then they’re hit with queer theory, which tells them that if they experience “any kind of feelings of confusion or discomfort in [their] body, [they] can change [their] gender.”

What is the effect of this combination? Ashamed white children, but especially boys, are damned to wear the badge of white oppressor unless they can prove that they’re also a victim. And how do they do that?

“Become one of the oppressed,” Liz says.

“Put on this mantle, this LGBTQIA+++ mantle. Suddenly, you’re one of the oppressed, and you’re okay. You’re not bad. You’re not toxic. You’re not evil. You’re a victim.”

The final stage of grooming comes next. Once a child is blinded by the victimhood narrative, they’re told that the oppressors are Christians, conservatives, and anyone who opposes their ideology.

“They’re told, ‘Watch out. You’re going to be subject to a genocide inflicted by Republicans and by Trump,”’ Liz says. “They are turned against themselves and everything around them.”

Hatred consumes them, and they convince themselves that heinous acts of violence are justified. They may even see themselves as heroic — as “vanguards” of the revolution.

That’s how people like Robert Westman and Audrey Hale are born, and that’s why Liz knew that the Minneapolis shooting was almost certainly a transgender-identifying person.

“Christ have mercy on our nation,” she pleads.

To hear more of Liz’s analysis, watch the episode above.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Why do bureaucrats and judges rule when ‘we the people' hold power? Levin’s ‘On Power’ reveals all



“Individual and human rights, liberty, and equality predate governments because they do not originate from governments.”

This is a line out of Mark Levin’s new book, “On Power” — a deep dive into the nature of power, its historical roots, and its impact on liberty and governance in America.

It’s also a reiteration of the most critical part of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

“Those two sentences are so important,” says Levin.

He explains that this idea that “God is sovereign and God's children on earth are His sovereign children” is what distinguishes America – a “fusion of the Judeo-Christian value system” and “the Enlightenment” — from “Marxism and all the isms.” We the people get to decide how we’re governed.

If this is who America is, then why do we have bureaucrats and unelected judges calling so many of the shots?

“The bureaucracy has nothing to do with the consent of the governed,” Levin condemns, castigating the unelected judges and bureaucrats who continue to “devour the powers of the executive.”

This clash between America’s founding principles of individual liberty and the opposing ideology of centralized control by unaccountable powers is unsustainable, he argues.

“The basis for America’s founding and the ideology of the American Marxists are utterly incompatible,” he says, pointing to the “power struggle that exists today and has for 100 years or more” between worldviews about individual liberty and centralized control.

Levin’s “On Power” calls for reclaiming the consent of the governed, urging Americans to resist encroachments on their God-given rights by unaccountable powers, echoing the revolutionary spirit of the Declaration.

If you haven’t already, get your copy today.

Want more from Mark Levin?

To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Was MLK a Christian Hero? Shocking Revelations Uncovered | Chad O. Jackson | Ep 1233
play icon

Was MLK a Christian Hero? Shocking Revelations Uncovered | Chad O. Jackson | Ep 1233

A socialist New York isn’t just a local problem. It’s a national emergency.



In the heart of New York City, the unthinkable is becoming reality: a socialist insurgency is no longer on the fringes. It’s winning.

The mayoral primary victory of Zohran Mamdani, a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, is not merely a local event or an eccentric district quirk. It’s a warning siren for the entire nation. What happens in New York doesn’t stay in New York — especially when it’s a city that sets the cultural, financial, and political tone for the rest of the country.

The battle for America’s soul is being fought in city council meetings, in primary elections, and on the streets of New York. We cannot afford to sit it out.

Mamdami’s radical agenda, cloaked in the soft language of “equity” and “community care,” is not about helping people. It’s about centralizing power under the government, redistributing wealth through force, and turning the most powerful city in the world into a test case for a socialist America.

If the financial capital of the free world falls to Marxist ideology, the rest of the country is not far behind.

American socialism’s ‘Ground Zero’

New York is a beachhead for a nationwide socialist revolution. It’s not just Mamdani — it’s a growing wave of elected ideologues, funded and organized, who want to gut capitalism and replace it with a top-down government-run system.

Their policies aren’t theoretical any more. They’re being implemented.

In Mamdani’s vision of New York, landlords are villains, property rights are negotiable, and the needs of illegal immigrants come before those of taxpaying citizens. Public safety is an afterthought. Drug use is decriminalized. Homelessness is institutionalized.

Infrastructure, transportation, policing, housing — all placed in the grip of government planners pushing equity over efficiency, ideology over functionality. The result is predictable: urban decay, mass exodus, rising crime, and collapsing infrastructure — a recipe we’ve seen in every city that’s flirted with socialist rule.

First New York, then the nation

But this isn’t just about New York’s self-destruction. It’s about national contagion.

New York City is America’s media hub, its cultural center, and, most critically, the beating heart of its financial system. If socialist policies like Mamdani’s take hold here, they will radiate outward. A city that once stood as a monument to capitalism will serve as a propaganda engine for the exact opposite.

And make no mistake — the rest of the nation is watching. If socialism becomes normalized in the Big Apple, other progressive cities will feel emboldened to follow.

The ripple effect is already in motion. Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle — all experimenting with shades of the same ideology. The difference is that New York City is the crown jewel. Its fall would mark a point of no return. A city once revered for its grit, ingenuity, and entrepreneurial spirit would become the flagship of American decline.

The financial implications are staggering. New York isn’t just any city — it’s the global capital of finance. Wall Street, Nasdaq, the headquarters of major banks and corporations — all reside here. Investors around the world look to the city as a symbol of economic stability.

What happens when socialist policies threaten property rights, undermine police protection, and destroy incentives to do business here? Money will flee. Businesses will relocate. Markets will react. The economic engine of the United States will stall, and the consequences will reverberate worldwide.

RELATED: Stop calling Zohran Mamdani a communist — he’s something worse

Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images

Worse yet, the ideological shift will bleed into federal politics. As New York City’s congressional delegation grows more radical, so does the national platform of the Democratic Party. Policies birthed in Mamdani’s district — like rent cancellation, taxpayer-funded drug programs, sanctuary city mandates, and public housing on suburban streets — have already crept into the national discourse. What starts as a local experiment quickly becomes a legislative push in Washington.

This is why the stakes are so high. Conservatives must recognize that the fight is not limited to red states or Capitol Hill. It’s in Queens. It’s in Brooklyn. It’s in the very places where socialism is gaining power block by block, district by district. The battle for America’s soul is being fought in city council meetings, in primary elections, and on the streets of New York. We cannot afford to sit it out.

We must act

We must expose this radicalism for what it is. We must challenge the deceptive branding of “democratic socialism” as some harmless cousin of communism. We must fight back with truth, passion, and deliberate action. New York can no longer be written off as a lost cause. It must be reclaimed — because the country depends on it.

A socialist New York is not just a local problem. It’s a national emergency.

If Mamdani and his allies succeed in transforming the financial capital of the world into a socialist enclave, the damage will not be confined to the five boroughs. It will creep into every corner of America — one policy, one election, one city at a time.

We don’t need to imagine the consequences. We’ve seen them — in the crumbling economies of Venezuela and Cuba, in the failed experiments of Detroit and San Francisco. But if we allow the socialist left to take New York City, the fall of those places will pale in comparison.

The future of America could be written on the streets of New York. Let’s make sure it’s not written in communist red.

Democracy promotion is dead: Good riddance



What passes for intellectual heft at the Atlantic is any criticism of President Donald Trump. In the Atlantic’s pages and its digital fare, you can read the now-discredited musings of David Frum, who helped bring us the endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the inane foreign policy arguments of Max Boot; the interventionist prescriptions of Anne Applebaum; and now, the democracy promotion of political science professor Brian Klaas, who, in a recent article, blames President Trump for killing “American democracy promotion.”

If Klaas is correct, that is one more reason that Americans need to thank President Trump.

Klaas’ first priority is using American treasure and blood to promote his chimerical notions of global democracy and universal human rights.

One would have thought that the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq would have humbled our nation’s democracy promoters — but they haven’t. One would have thought that the failed foreign policy of Jimmy Carter would have humbled those who wish to make “human rights” the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy — but it didn’t. One would have thought that the chaos facilitated by the so-called “Arab Spring” would engender prudence and introspection among the democracy promoters — but it is not so.

Professor Klaas wants the world to become democratic and for U.S. foreign policy to lead the effort in bringing the globe to the promised land.

Rewriting history

The Trump administration, Klaas writes, has “turn[ed] against a long-standing tradition of Western democracy promotion.”

Perhaps Klaas has never read George Washington’s Farewell Address, in which he counseled his countrymen to conduct foreign policy based solely on the nation’s interests. Or perhaps he missed John Quincy Adams’ July 4, 1821, address, in which he cautioned against going abroad in search of monsters to destroy and reminded his listeners that America is the well-wisher of freedom to all but the champion only of her own.

Perhaps Klaas believes that Wilsonianism is a “long-standing” American tradition, but in reality, it is mostly limited to starry-eyed liberal internationalists and neoconservatives.

Klaas mentions the “democracy boom” under President Bill Clinton, which was nothing more than a temporary consequence of America’s victory in the Cold War. Yet Klaas thinks it was the beginning of “shifting international norms” where freedom and democracy triumphed in “the ideological battle against rival models of governance” and “had become an inexorable force.”

Here, Klaas is likely referring to Francis Fukuyama’s discredited theory of the “end of history.” We have since discovered, however, that history didn’t die and that democracy is fragile, especially in places and among civilizations that have little democratic experience.

Fukuyama was wrong, but Samuel Huntington was right when he wrote about the coming “clash of civilizations.” One wonders if Klaas has read Huntington or Toynbee — or Spengler for that matter. Or, even more recently, Robert Kaplan’s “The Tragic Mind.”

Authoritarianism disguised as ‘democratic’

Klaas criticizes Trump for praising dictators, but President Woodrow Wilson praised Lenin and President Franklin Roosevelt praised Stalin. Klaas says that Trump is indifferent to democracy and human rights. No, Trump simply refuses to make them the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy, which is a “long-standing” tradition that stretches back long before Wilson to our founding fathers.

However, neither Wilson nor FDR wanted America to right every wrong in the world, as Klaas does. Klaas wants his “human rights” and democracy agenda “backed by weapons.” He laments that authoritarian regimes no longer need to fear the “condemnation” and the “bombs” of the American president.

Klaas’ leftism is revealed when he condemns the United States for helping to replace Mossaddegh with the pro-American shah of Iran, overthrowing the Marxist regime of Patrice Lumumba in Congo, helping to overthrow Allende in Chile, and cozying up to other authoritarian regimes.

RELATED: Vance makes one thing abundantly clear ahead of Trump's big ceasefire meeting with Putin

Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The professor also might want to read Jeane Kirkpatrick’s “Dictatorships and Double Standards” to learn that sometimes doing these things is in America’s national interests. Klaas’ leftism jumps off the page when he refers to the illegal aliens removed by the Trump administration — many with criminal records — as “foreign pilgrims.”

Some of those “foreign pilgrims” raped and killed Americans. But Klaas’ first priority is not America or its citizens; it is using American treasure and blood to promote his chimerical notions of global democracy and universal human rights. He is anti-Trump precisely because Trump’s foreign policy is America First. Let’s hope Klaas’ style of democracy promotion is dead.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

Homer Simpson would be proud of this defense



Five of the seven suspects in the now-infamous Cincinnati beatdown case appeared in court Thursday for arraignments and bail hearings. It was a routine appearance — until one defense attorney made what may be the most unintentionally revealing courtroom statement of the year. Maybe even the decade.

“Vernon’s attorney, Clyde Bennett, argued that the case against his client had been inflamed due to race and politics, but in reality it was just a fight fueled by alcohol.”

The sooner we remind people that they are moral agents — capable of making choices and accountable for them — the sooner we’ll see fewer ‘Cincinnati beatdowns’ in the news.

Let that sink in for a moment. According to Bennett, it would be unfair to frame the case as racial or political. No — don’t get it twisted — it was just about drunken violence. Ah, yes, much better.

The irony is thick enough to spread on toast.

For two decades, Americans have been told everything is about race and politics. We’ve lived under a constant drumbeat of racialized news coverage. We don’t have to reach back to Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown — George Floyd in 2020 will do. Cities burned for months while the national media insisted the destruction was “mostly peaceful.”

Back then, pointing out the deadly fentanyl in Floyd’s system, the crime he’d just committed, or broader issues like high crime rates in certain neighborhoods or the role of fatherlessness in cycles of violence was “racist.” Facts didn’t matter. Only the race narrative did.

Sick of the double standard

The narrative claimed that violence disproportionately involved black men, which supposedly proved “systemic racism.” Why? Because in the Marxist worldview, crime stems from the environment — people are violent because the “system” forces them to be. If you took the same statistics and said, “Yes, something is going wrong with crime, violence, and broken families — let’s talk about it,” you were branded a racist.

It’s always been a one-way street. Race gets invoked when it advances a left-wing narrative of grievance and dependency. When it doesn’t fit, race suddenly disappears from the discussion and you’re told to drop the subject.

Americans are sick of this double standard. Racism is wrong for everyone.

The statistics show something is deeply wrong, and ignoring it won’t fix anything. But the left’s “solutions” aren’t solutions — they’re programs to stoke grievance, increase dependency, and keep personal responsibility out of the conversation. It is always someone else’s fault, and that fault is usually “whiteness.”

Which brings us back to Thursday’s courtroom gem. Bennett’s “blame it on the alcohol” defense isn’t just legally flimsy — it’s philosophically bankrupt. Being drunk while committing a crime is not a defense. You can’t rob a store, beat someone up, or kill a man and then shrug because you had one too many.

That’s not how the law works. That’s not how life works.

Choices have consequences

The bigger problem is that this mindset — “I had no choice, the system made me do it, those people made me do it, the booze made me do it” — has become the default for too many Americans. It strips people of agency and moral responsibility. It says, “I don’t make choices. Things just happen to me.” That’s a recipe for failure.

We need to bring back the idea that character matters. If someone can control his anger and walk away from a fight, that shows good character. If he can’t, we don’t help him by letting him blame booze, “the system,” or “the man.”

At some point, everyone needs to learn that choices have consequences.

We’ve gone from laughing at “blame it on the alcohol” to taking it seriously as social theory. That’s not progress. It’s regression — into a world where no one is accountable for anything. In this world, you can declare yourself a victim and opt out of morality.

RELATED: The awful irony of the White House’s crackdown on juvenile crime

Mikhail Rudenko via iStock/Getty Images

The incentive to claim oppression is huge. If you’re white, the easiest way is to identify as an “oppressed” sexual minority. This isn’t just about sex — it’s about securing a lifetime exemption from blame.

The Cincinnati case is ugly. And yet a defense attorney stood in court and suggested that drunken mob violence is better than racial politics. That’s how far we’ve drifted from personal responsibility.

If we want to cut crime and restore order, we must stop rewarding this thinking. We must revive the idea that personal responsibility isn’t outdated. We must stop letting people hide behind whatever excuse is in fashion — race, politics, poverty, wealth, or booze.

Thirty years ago, “I wasn’t asleep; I was drunk!” was a Homer Simpson joke. Today, it could be a legitimate legal defense in certain left-wing circles.

The sooner we remind people that they are moral agents — capable of making choices and accountable for them — the sooner we’ll see fewer “Cincinnati beatdowns” in the news. Until then, leftists, having injected race into every conversation, should take responsibility for what they created.

Leftists' favorite F-word — and why they'll never drop it



I notice to my profound disappointment that two of my major scholarly projects landed with a thud. Despite years of research and two books on fascism and antifascism, my findings have been ignored by both the left and the right — including the so-called conservative media establishment.

That’s a pity, especially with so much loose talk about “fascists” running around Washington these days.

Fascism, as it existed in the 20th century, is dead. Antifascism, as it is wielded today, is a political weapon that thrives by manufacturing enemies.

My argument is straightforward: Fascism was a popular European movement in the interwar period, shaped by several conditions unique to that era — returning soldiers who saw themselves as a “front generation” after World War I, economic turmoil in countries like Italy, France, Romania, and Spain, disillusionment with corrupt parliamentary systems, and a “cult of the leader.”

Fascist movements also fed on fears of the Soviet takeover of Russia. Unlike the communists, who worked to spark revolutions across Europe, fascist groups pushed a revolutionary nationalist ideology.

The most representative example was Benito Mussolini’s Italian movement, which came to power after his March on Rome in October 1922. Italy was the only country to establish a full-fledged fascist government, although fascist or fascist-like parties held influence in coalitions elsewhere. The Italian regime blended a cult of the leader with corporatist economics and nostalgia for imperial glory.

Contrary to the later alliance with Hitler, Mussolini’s government initially drew support from patriotic Italian Jews and between 1934 and 1936 led European opposition to Nazi Germany, denouncing its anti-Semitism as barbaric. The 1938 anti-Jewish laws came only under heavy German influence.

Nazism was not “generic” fascism. Hannah Arendt was right to classify it as totalitarian and genocidal. While Hitler borrowed certain trappings from Latin fascists, Nazi Germany drew far more from Stalin’s Soviet model — particularly in its use of terror, secret police, and propaganda to remake reality.

Equating Mussolini’s authoritarian nationalism with Hitler’s genocidal regime is intellectually lazy, even if Mussolini’s disastrous decision to ally with Nazi Germany at the 11th hour paved the way for the comparison.

My critic Jacob Siegel accuses me of drawing this distinction to “sanitize” fascism. Not so. I do not treat it as an archaic movement out of nostalgia but because it is irrelevant to the contemporary West, which is dominated instead by a woke, bureaucratic left.

Antifascism, however, is another matter. It began with Marxists — and later communist regimes — branding capitalist nations that resisted revolution as “fascist.” The Frankfurt School and its American heirs expanded the label to cover ideas and movements far removed from Mussolini or Hitler. By the 1950s, an “F-scale” was used to screen government employees and teachers for supposed fascist sympathies.

RELATED: The cold civil war is real — and only one side is fighting to win

Photo by JOAQUIN SARMIENTO/AFP via Getty Images

Today, “antifascists” slap the term on anything that conflicts with their politics or lifestyle. Esteemed Yale professors Timothy Snyder and Jason Stanley insist our current president is not only a fascist but possibly a Nazi. In their view, opposing any part of the feminist or LGBTQ agenda puts one on the road to Hitlerian tyranny.

This rhetorical game serves a purpose: It shields the accusers from the obvious countercharge that they are the true totalitarians. In my book on antifascism, written as Antifa and Black Lives Matter riots engulfed American cities in 2020, I documented how the American left and its European counterparts mobilize with the same discipline and ruthlessness as the Nazis before they took power.

The difference is that today’s left faces no organized counterforce comparable to the German communists — and enjoys the support of a compliant media. That media not only excuses leftist violence but portrays it as justified. This mirrors the Nazi and communist tactic of claiming to be under siege even while holding power, using the manufactured threat as a pretext to crush dissent.

Fascism, as it existed in the 20th century, is dead. Antifascism, as it is wielded today, is a political weapon that thrives by manufacturing enemies. And the left is using it with remarkable success.

Netflix rebooting 'Captain Planet' to push pagan climate propaganda on new generation of kids



"Captain Planet and the Planeteers" was an animated television series produced by depopulationist billionaire Ted Turner, founder of the United Nations Foundation and CNN, and fellow climate alarmist Barbara Pyle, the co-founder of one of America's first legal abortion facilities.

The show, which aired in over 100 countries from 1990 to 1996, was a brazen work of pagan liberal propaganda that impressed upon American children various radical notions beyond just demonizing affordable energy, mining, Western industry, and capitalism. It had a hand in shaping the minds of some of those climate alarmists now involved in demonstrations, public tantrums, ruinous leftist policies, and vandalism.

With public concern about changing weather patterns down by double digits in parts of the West, radicals evidently feel it's time for a revival of the green-haired officer: Netflix is set to become home for a live-action adaptation of "Captain Planet."

According to Deadline, the series will be developed by Leonardo DiCaprio's Appian Way, Warner Bros. Television, and Greg Berlanti's Berlanti Productions. Warner Bros. Television, where Berlanti Productions is under a deal, will reportedly be the studio, reported Variety.

DiCaprio — the climate activist who downgraded last year to a $25 million superyacht and who suggested that a normal, recurrent weather phenomenon was an instance of "scary" climate change — will reportedly serve as an executive producer. The series will be written by Tara Hernandez, co-creator of the series "Mrs. Davis."

DiCaprio's involvement is a good indicator that the new show will pick up where the original left off: advancing a leftist worldview and suggesting to young Americans that human beings are harmful to the planet.

RELATED: The climate cult is brainwashing your kids — and you’re paying for it

Ted Turner. Photo by Mike Pont/FilmMagic

Every episode in the original series opened with this narration:

Our world is in peril. Gaia, the spirit of the Earth, can no longer stand the terrible destruction plaguing our planet. She gives five magic rings to five special young people. From Africa, Kwame with the power of earth. From North America, Wheeler with the power of fire. From the Soviet Union [later changed to Eastern Europe], Linka with the power of wind. From Asia, Gi with the power of water. And from South America, Ma-Ti with the power of heart. When the five powers combined, they summon earth's greatest champion — Captain Planet!

There was nothing subtle about the agenda behind the show, which boasted vocal cameos from big-name actors including Jeff Goldblum, Tim Curry, Martin Sheen, and Sting, and whose titular protagonist threatened to "take pollution down to zero."

In one episode, the showrunners took a page out of the Chinese Communist Party's agenda and advocated for reducing the size of families, suggesting that large populations are unsustainable.

"Did you know the population of the world is now more than 5 billion?" Captain Planet asks one of Gaia's child soldiers.

"Wow! That is a lot of people!" responds one of the children. "And it's increasing by 90 million people each year," says another.

"So when it is your turn to have a family, keep it small," the Soviet and North American characters say in conclusion.

The green-haired protagonist emphasized to those viewers who would grow up to witness a catastrophic population collapse, "The more people there are, the more pressure you put on our planet."

This particular episode, "Population Bomb," borrowed its title from depopulationist Paul Ehrlich's magnum opus, a 1968 book whose faulty thesis helped inspire China's one-child policy, resulting in hundreds of millions of abortions. As with Ehrlich doom-saying about the population bomb, which never went off, his other major anti-human and anti-natalist predictions similarly failed to come true.

RELATED: Climate hysteria sets stage for suicidal behavior: Study

Photo by ANDY BUCHANAN/AFP via Getty Images

Pyle told Good in 2016 that she made documentaries for years but found that those who watch documentaries are "smart people and also people who are already set in their ways," so she spoke to Turner about "alternative programming routes."

Turner, Pyle, and their fellow travelers apparently settled on kids' programming as the best way to advance their worldview and began pushing their agenda in cartoon form.

Pyle said in an interview with Grist, "We knew there was going to come a time when it would be necessary for an entire generation — your generation — to speak with one voice on behalf of the planet. In some ways, the entire Captain Planet series was about preparing us for this moment."

Gaia's five environmental child soldiers, who were apparently based on people Pyle knew, helped reflect her anti-Western prejudices over the course of the series. Whereas the Soviet character proved time and again to be a brainiac and the Brazilian character was an empathetic soul who could commune with animals, the North American character, Wheeler, was a mistake-prone redhead who apparently needed the most environmental coaching.

Netflix won't be breaking any new ground if its "Captain Planet" is race-obsessed, as Pyle indicated efforts were made the first time around to ensure that the pagan goddess at the center of the show wouldn't be mistaken for a "white Barbie doll," hence her portrayal instead as a "plump beige woman."

Unsurprisingly, the Captain Planet Foundation — the nonprofit founded in 1991 by Turner and Pyle — is committed to DEI.

Netflix declined to comment about the project to Deadline or Variety.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Mamdani of Minneapolis: DFL-Backed Omar Fateh, a Northern Virginia Native, Seeks Left-Wing Takedown of City’s Already Progressive Mayor

A Minneapolis Marxist looking to become the Zohran Mamdani of the North Star State is offering an even more extreme program of woke goodies on a platform that would enact race-based housing policy, prevent evictions from rental properties, and codify public financing for the state’s annual "Trans Equity Summit."

The post Mamdani of Minneapolis: DFL-Backed Omar Fateh, a Northern Virginia Native, Seeks Left-Wing Takedown of City’s Already Progressive Mayor appeared first on .