Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Why Don’t People Understand the Dangers of Socialism?

December 29, 2017
Staff

WRITER

In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) popularized socialism with his presidential campaign. Socialism is no longer seen as a risk by many young voters. What happened? Why don’t people understand the dangers of socialism when they can see how North Korea and Venezuela have used socialist structures to starve their own people?

Doc talked about free markets and capitalism vs. socialism on today’s show, wondering why younger voters don’t seem to understand that socialism is a threat to freedom.

“Capitalism has become a bad word,” Doc said. “From my earliest memories, I learned the truth about socialism. Socialism is an unsustainable political structure and social structure that will lead to one of several evil, oppressive governments: fascism, communism.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck today. I'll be with you tomorrow as well, if you want to follow me on Twitter. It's @DocThompsonShow. And I'll engage with you as well. We'll find out what you learned throughout the program, with the #whatIlearnedtoday. We'll get to some calls coming up, 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK.

Over the past few years, on our morning broadcast on TheBlaze Radio Network, and you can find out more about me at TheBlazeRadio.com. It's TheBlazeRadio.com.

We have focused on free markets and freedom. The idea that these things are really good. And I know you're like, well, of course, they're good.

But the problem is, capitalism has become a bad word. Socialism has become, as you know, just this norm, accepted, wonderful, starry-eyed way to go. Just bizarre that we've gotten to that.

From my earliest memories, I learned the truth about socialism. Socialism is an unsustainable political structure or social structure that will lead to one of several evil, oppressive governments.

Fascism, communism, theocracies. Any of these things start with the idea of socialism. Somebody can orchestrate the perfect society by dictating how you live, how much you must give, redistributing what everybody has. It's unsustainable and leads to some sort of totalitarianism. It gets the support of the masses from the concept of, well, you don't have enough. So we'll go get it from those people. And the government will tell them how much they can have, and you get to have some of theirs. It all starts off with the noblest of causes and always ends the same way. One bad society.

We're seeing a living example of that throughout 2017. In Venezuela. An absolute disaster.

That's what always ends up happening. The countries that have been totalitarian regimes that have had increased successes over the last few years, decades, are countries who have gone away from that. Countries like China, for example. And taken up more capitalist policies.

So we support the idea of free markets. And not just bitching about the little snowflakes who support socialism in their safe spaces on college campuses and why socialism is so wonderful. "Bernie 2020." But the good news and positive ideas. And positive outcomes from capitalism and free markets and letting people decide for themselves how to live.

And we're going to do even more of that in 2018. We offer free commercials to people on the air. You got a business? Email me. Believe America at TheBlaze.com. We spotlight businesses, just to say, hey, here's your jump-start because marketing is difficult and expensive. And we're going to do even more of that in 2018. We got some huge ideas coming up that are going to help you, even if it's not a full business.

You just have a little side stream of income. Ideas. Practical things that are going to help. Helping you and helping people understand the positive of free markets is where we're going 2018. So please join us on our program. Again, building America at TheBlaze.com if you want to be spotlighted on our show.

All right. We'll get to some calls before we move on. We have some other things happening in the world today.

Let's go to Line 44. Jerry in Wisconsin, you are on the Glenn Beck Program. How are you?

CALLER: Hey, Doc, you're probably right. There's probably sometimes where the media has been unfair to Donald Trump. I'm not going to completely deny that. But considering what Donald Trump has said about the media, he has called the media -- he has stated that it's disgusting, that the American person press, that the media has the right to report what they want.

He has -- he's literally a fascist. You're a Libertarian. He's a fascist. He's an authoritarian. He has contempt for the First Amendment. His quotes are nothing different than what Mussolini might say. He has disdain for our idea, for the press to report. The only media he likes is media that parrots what he says and that praises him like Fox News. This is a man who just shouldn't be president. He has contempt for the first president and what our Founding Fathers gave us.

DOC: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Shouldn't be president. What do you mean by that?

CALLER: Because he has contempt for the Constitution. He has contempt for what the right of free press, as I stated -- he said it was disgusting. Said the media has the media to report what they do --

DOC: Let me ask you something. Hang on one second. Hang on one second, Jerry. I'll let you talk some more.

I just want to explore one thing. Is Donald Trump over the age of 35?

CALLER: Yeah.

DOC: Is he a natural-born citizen?

CALLER: I didn't say that he's ineligible. I said he shouldn't be.

DOC: Well, he became president. Based on --

CALLER: Mussolini became the leader of Italy. Should Mussolini -- tell me, should Mussolini become the leader of Italy? Do you think it was a great thing that Mussolini became the leader of Italy? Because I don't.

DOC: No, no, no, you're conflating it. People supported him, and people have a difference of opinion.

Now, you can say you don't support his ideas. But I hate this idea of shouldn't be and not my president and all of that nonsense.

CALLER: I didn't say not my president. I just said he shouldn't be. He shouldn't be. Like Republicans said the same thing about Obama. When Obama was president for eight years, they said the exact same thing. I'm saying the same thing about Trump. He shouldn't be.

DOC: You mean you don't want him to be president? You wish he was not president?

CALLER: No. Mentally, he's deranged. He's a narcissist. He's emotionally immature. He's completely unqualified. He's president, but he's a horrible president. That's the point.

DOC: Okay. Now, you're basing that on you having different values than him? Is that why you're saying he's a horrible president?

CALLER: I've listened to him for the last 20 years.

DOC: Give me a couple of specifics of him, and you say he's a horrible president.

CALLER: Well, okay. The war on the media -- the war on freedom on the press.

DOC: Hold on one second. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

CALLER: Praising Nazis.

DOC: We're taking this one at a time. This is a conversation. One at a time.

CALLER: Okay.

DOC: So the war on the press. Do you mean the war on the press where he's challenged people like Jim Acosta and said that's fake news? Is that what you mean by that?

CALLER: That's one. But anyway --

DOC: No. Hold on, Jerry. I want to explore these -- hold on. Hang on. Jerry, hang on. Hang on.

We're going to get to this stuff. It's a conversation, Jerry. Hold on. Hold on. So are you talking about stuff like Jim Acosta, where he has challenged them and said, sit down, you're fake news and stuff? Is that what you're talking?

CALLER: Well, anything they report he calls fake news, even if the reporting is exactly right. Because to Donald Trump, anything that's not in his reality is fake news. He praises news that praises him, like Fox News, which is the propaganda arm of Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

DOC: And, Jerry, you really -- really are going to say those things without calling out President Obama for his closed door special meetings with certain members of the media? You're not going to call out MSNBC for being his talking surrogate during his platform -- during his presidency? You're not going to be consistent?

CALLER: Okay. Those -- they did favor President Obama. That's true. Yes.

DOC: No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, Jerry, hold on. Hold on. Wait a minute. Hold on a second. Hold it. No, no, no. They did not favor him. They promoted him. They, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC --

CALLER: The liberal media. The liberal media.

DOC: Don't do that. See, this is the reason people can't have discussions, Jerry. This is the reason. I'm admitting Donald Trump of course likes media that's going to favor him. And, yes, Fox News praises him because they are a right-wing media outlet. Of course. But you're not willing to give that due? You're not willing to be consistent? You've lost credibility if you're not willing to point out that the other media outlets rabidly, blindly supported President Obama because they are progressives.

CALLER: Okay. Rabidly, blindly, no.

DOC: Hold on. Hold on. Do you work in the media? Do you work in the media?

CALLER: No.

DOC: Okay. I work in the media. My wife works in the media. She works in television media. And I can tell you overwhelmingly, people in the media are progressive. It's not even close. It's not even, well, it's 60-40. It's like 80-20. 90-10. The number of progressives. It's true. But you don't -- hold on, Jerry. You don't even need to know that though to look at the reporting. I can't believe you would defend this, knowing, just admit it -- listen, is Rush Limbaugh, is Glenn Beck, are they on the right? Yes. I'm not disputing that. Were they critical of Obama because they don't like his policies? Yes, I'm not disputing that. So wouldn't you simply hold people accountable to have credibility so we can have honest discussions? Why do you make me go through this when you know the truth?

CALLER: Okay. Know the truth. One, even MSNBC, they're not as biased as Fox News. Probably -- one of the reasons why so many people in the media are on the left are --

DOC: You lost all credibility -- hold it. When you say -- hold it. We can't argue here. When you say they're not biased, you've lost as credibility. You know that's not the truth.

CALLER: Well, Doc, you still don't answer me. Are you fine with Donald Trump saying the media was disgusting, that they have the right to report what they did? Because to me, that's disdain and contempt for our Founding Fathers.

DOC: No, I have no problem with him saying the media is disgusting.

CALLER: No, it's disgusting they have the right to report and publish. He believes the media shouldn't have the right. He believes the media shouldn't have the right -- in the First Amendment that James Madison wrote down --

DOC: Hold it. Jerry, Jerry, stop with the historical lesson. Trust me, I understand the First Amendment. I understand that.

No, of course, the freedom of the press is solid. It's absolute. Of course, it is. And anybody who says, whether it's Donald Trump or President Obama, is wrong. Do you remember President Obama calling out Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? Do you remember --

CALLER: I don't remember him saying --

DOC: Do you remember him calling out Fox News? Do you remember those things?

CALLER: Disgusting. I don't remember him saying it's disgusting that Sean Hannity can report what he wants. You tell me when President Obama said that and I will apologize and take that -- any position. You tell me when President Obama said it was disgusting for the media to do that.

DOC: When he called them out for their biases and not admitting the other, so you're hung up on the word disgusting. Jerry, you know the truth here. I'm not argue that go Fox News is biased. And I'm not arguing that President Trump shouldn't say people don't have a right to report.

Of course, they do. They can report opinion for that matter. I just prefer them to be transparent up front.

But the fact that you and others are not being consistent now because you simply do not like policies of his and you may not like the way he presents himself, you've lost all credibility. You are actually -- Jerry, you are actually the problem.

CALLER: He's a fascist. He's a fascist.

DOC: Stop. Stop. We're not going down that road. I'm talking about your lack of credibility right now. How are we supposed to find common ground and have discussions when you know the truth and you can't just simply admit that?

CALLER: I know the truth as you stating what I should know the truth.

DOC: Jerry, you've exposed yourself.

CALLER: CNN. Somewhat on the left.

DOC: No, no, no, no. No probably. No, Jerry, no. Hold it. Hold it a second. There's no probably with this, Jerry. There's no probably with, yeah, they are. Just admit it.

MSNBC is every bit as progressive as Fox News is conservative. I'm willing to concede. Fox News -- absolutely the same. But on the other side, CNN, absolutely. I'm not trying to say, oh, Fox News isn't. Fox News is right. Of course. I work for TheBlaze.

We're from a right-leaning perspective. Of course, we're admitting it. We will never get beyond this stuff. We will never find solutions. We will never find common grounds that you supposedly want. You want to have discussions. We got to have a conversation on race in America. We can never have any conversations on this stuff.

Because you will not be consistent. Because that is not what a progressive is. It is a cornerstone of progressivism, which you are, to not be consistent.

CALLER: That's what I wanted to know. Thanks.

DOC: And there you go. There it is.

Willing to have a conversation, but he's a fascist, whatever, whatever. I'm willing to discuss with you. We can find common ground. But if you're going to start with, those people are worse and it didn't happen here, President Trump should not say, people do not have a right to report. Of course, they do. And the things where he has tweeted, suggested, said things like that, absolutely wrong. The First Amendment is absolute. Period.

He was wrong. Calling the media out, I have no problem with. I have no problem challenging the media and reporting.

Why can't you? Why can't you as president or a senator or a governor? Of course, you can call people out.

I had no problem with President Obama calling media sources out, as long as he was being consistent and willing to admit that he has these little back-door meetings, special, private, hey, can you guys report on this and not that meetings, with people at the White House. You're not being honest. You're not being transparent. As long as you do that and you're consistent, we can move forward. We can find solutions.

But until you do, yeah, it actually gives me a little bit of pleasure when President Trump beats up on the media. Because finally, somebody calls them out, unlike you.

This is Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck.

The great switch: Gates trades climate control for digital dominion

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.