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’s nothing about Greta Thunberg that suggests she knows anything about absolutely anything. She’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’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’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.
WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show
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’s evil to burn down somebody else’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’re the bad guy.
But the Left has treated them with extraordinary deference. The New York Times published an entire piece titled “How Gaza Protesters Are Challenging Democratic Leaders.”
The normal way a decent civilization would treat these people would be as moral outcasts. It would shun them. It would say, “You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. You’re moral idiots, and you are standing for a group of people who are legitimately the worst people on planet Earth. You’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:
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.
The New York Times is not saying these protesters are wrong or bad, which they are. They’re both wrong and bad. Instead, the Times are saying Biden should take more stock of these protesters.
Who are these protesters? They’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’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’s one problem: What happens when you’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’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 he said, “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’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’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.
