The woke position rests on a fundamental fallacy. This is that there is a fixed amount resources, so that if the rich have more, the poor have less. But this is wrong. Resources in the free market are not a fixed sum. So long as the economy is growing, everybody can benefit. The ‘protected’ can do better without taking away what the rich have earned. The economist Paul Rubin, who died last month, gives a good account of the fallacy: “Karl Marx called his system ‘scientific socialism’ Modern leftists advocate a similar ideology and call themselves ‘woke’ to indicate that they understand the world better than the rest of us. Yet the worldview of Marxists and woke leftists alike is fundamentally primitive.

Folk economics is the economics of people untrained in economics. It is the economic view of the world that evolved in our brains before the development of the modern economy. During this period of evolution, the economy was simple, with little specialization except by age and sex, no economic growth, no technological change, limited trade, little capital, and warfare between neighboring tribes.

Zero-sum thinking was well-adapted to this world. Since there was no economic growth, incomes and wealth didn’t grow. If one person had access to more food or other goods, or greater access to females, it was likely because of expropriation from others. Since there was little capital, a ‘labor theory of value’—the idea that all value is created by labor alone—would have been appropriate, and there was little need to protect capital through property rights. Frequent warfare encouraged xenophobia.

Adam Smith and other economists challenged this worldview in the 18th century. They taught that specialization of labor was valuable, that capital was productive, and that labor and capital could work together to increase income. They also showed that property rights needed protection, that members of other tribes or groups could cooperate through trade, that wealth could be created with the proper incentives, and that the creation of wealth would benefit everyone in a society, not only the wealthy. Most important, they showed that a complex economy could work with little or no central direction.

Marx’s economic system was based on the primitive worldview of our ancestors. For him, conflict rather than cooperation between labor and capital defined the economy. He thought that the wealthy became rich only by exploiting the poor, that all income came from labor, and that the economy needed central direction because he didn’t believe markets were good at self-correction. The collapse of the Soviet Union, the largest and most expensive social-science experiment ever conducted, proved Smith right and Marx wrong.

Members of the woke left want to return to policies based on this primitive economic thinking. One of their major errors is thinking that the world is zero-sum. That assumption drives identity politics, which sees, among other things, an intrinsic conflict between blacks and whites. The Black Lives Matter movement and Critical Race Theory foment racial antagonism and resurrect xenophobia. Leftists vilify ‘millionaires and billionaires’ like Bill Gates and Elon Musk as evil and exploitative. They should recognize them as productive entrepreneurs whose innovations benefit us all.

Dislike of the rich makes sense in a world where one can become rich only by exploiting others, but not in a society full of creativity and useful inventions. Changing tax laws to soak the rich makes sense with a labor theory of value, but not with a sophisticated understanding of continual investment and technological change.

Adopting counterproductive woke policies such as racial job quotas, high taxes, excessive regulation of business, and price controls on some goods may not send us all the way back to the subsistence economy of our ancestors. But if policies that penalize saving and investing and that involve excessive government control are adopted, social capital, wealth, and real income will decline. If we bow to this primitive ideology, there will be increased racial animosity and conflict, slow economic growth, and fewer inventions.”

You might raise an objection to this. Even if the economy is growing, and the minorities can gain without taking resources from the rich, why should they be satisfied with what they get? Can’t they demand more of the growing economic pie? The answer is that doing this will hurt them, not help them. The way in which the economy grows is by capital accumulation, and the great bulk of this takes place through the investments of the well off. Confiscation of the income and wealth of the wealthy will slow down or stop the rate of economic growth. This will make the “protected” worse off. The great Ludwig von Mises proposes a thought experiment that brings out this point vividly: “A law that prohibits any individual from accumulating more than ten million or from making more than one million a year restricts the activities of precisely those entrepreneurs who are most successful in filling the wants of consumers. If such a law had been enacted in the United States fifty years ago, many who are multimillionaires today would live in more modest circumstances. But all those new branches of industry which supply the masses with articles unheard of before would operate, if at all, on a much smaller scale, and their products would be beyond the reach of the common man. It is manifestly contrary to the interest of the consumers to prevent the most efficient entrepreneurs from expanding the sphere of their activities up to the limit to which the public approves of their conduct of business by buying their products.”

There is another way in which the woke movement undermines our economy, and this may be the most serious one of all. The conjuring up of grievances encourages blacks to hate whites. Being white is regarded by many left-wing revolutionaries as evil, and murderous violence will result from this.  As the great black economist Thomas Sowell points out: “Although much of the media have their antennae out to pick up anything that might be construed as racism against blacks, they resolutely ignore even the most blatant racism by blacks against others.

That includes a pattern of violent attacks on whites in public places in Chicago, Denver, New York, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Kansas City, as well as blacks in schools beating up Asian classmates – for years – in New York and Philadelphia.

These attacks have been accompanied by explicitly racist statements by the attackers, so it is not a question of having to figure out what the motivation is. There has also been rioting and looting by these young hoodlums.”

Let’s do everything we can to counter the woke plot to destroy our economy and to encourage the free market economic policies of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. That is the way to a prosperous economy in which all groups can live in harmony.

About the Author

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Against the State and Against the Left. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Unfortunately for Harris, she feels compelled to tell the American people what she actually plans to do once she becomes president.

And that is a really bad thing for her campaign, because just about everyone hates her ideas.

For example, why would she tell the American people that she wants to raise taxes? I don’t know anyone that actually wants to pay more taxes.

She should have just said nothing about taxes and then raised them after the election. By telling people in advance what she plans to do, she is just losing votes.

Americans for Tax Reform examined the plan that she has endorsed, and they concluded that it would raise taxes by 5 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

The biggest chunk of that new money would come from raising the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent…

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris is proposing to increase the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21% if she wins a November election against Republican rival Donald Trump, her campaign said on Monday.

Harris campaign spokesperson James Singer said the move would be part of “a fiscally responsible way to put money back in the pockets of working people and ensure billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share.”

We are being told that raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent would bring in about a trillion dollars in revenue over the course of the next ten years…

When Trump was president, he slashed the corporate tax rate to 21% from 35% and implemented other tax breaks that are set to expire next year. Trump has vowed to make the cuts permanent.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan advocacy group, said on Monday that Harris’ proposal to raise the corporate income tax rate to 28% would reduce the U.S. deficit by $1 trillion over a decade.

But we certainly won’t raise that kind of revenue if corporations start moving out of the country in very large numbers. If what Kamala Harris is proposing becomes law, we will actually have a higher corporate tax rate than communist China…

Kamala Harris wants to hike the current 21% federal corporate income tax rate to 28%, higher than communist China’s 25% and the EU average of 21%, her campaign said Monday.

The Kamala Harris federal 28% rate is higher than the Asia average corporate tax rate of 19.8%, the EU average of 21%, the world average of 23.5%, and the OECD average of 23.7%.

If you don’t want to be called a communist, don’t try to tax businesses even harder than the communists.

Another element of the plan that Kamala Harris wants to implement that is causing a lot of controversy is a proposal to tax the unrealized capital gains of the ultra-wealthy.  According to the Los Angeles Times, taxing those unrealized capital gains is part of a scheme for “a 25% minimum tax on the annual income of taxpayers with wealth of more than $100 million”…

All right, guys, take a deep breath. Harris hasn’t proposed taxing your unrealized capital gains, or mine. What she has said, as the Harris campaign told me, is that she “supports the revenue raisers in the FY25 Biden-Harris [administration] budget. Nothing beyond that.”

So what’s in that Biden-Harris administration budget for fiscal year 2025?

The budget plan does indeed call for taxation of unrealized capital gains held by the country’s uber-rich. That’s part of its proposal for a 25% minimum tax on the annual income of taxpayers with wealth of more than $100 million — a wealth tax. If you’re a member of that cohort, lucky you. But at that level of affluence you don’t have grounds to complain about paying a minimum 25% of your annual income.

Maybe you agree with Harris that it is time to stick it to the ultra-wealthy. Okay, but what is going to happen when lots of them decide to move out of the United States because they don’t want their unrealized gains taxed?

As Chicago venture investor Robert Nelson has pointed out, this proposal would have very serious consequences for our economy…

Taxing unrealized gains is truly the most insane, economy destroying, innovation killing, market crashing, retirement fund decimating, unconstitutional idea, which was probably planted by Russia or China to destroy the economy. Dems need to run away from this wildly stupid idea.

Many of the ultra-wealthy were originally inclined to support Harris.

Why is she seemingly intent on driving them away?

So far, I have just discussed two of the elements of the plan that Harris has endorsed.  There are quite a few others that are also very troubling…

• Having small business owners pay taxes on their individual tax returns, up to 39.6 percent from the current 37 percent
• Imposing a second “death tax” — a mandatory capital gains tax at death — in addition to the current death tax
• Imposing a 21 percent global minimum corporate tax rate, which goes beyond the Organization for Economic Development’s (OECD) current 15 percent global minimum tax rate
• Quadrupling the tax on stock buybacks, which would impact Americans’ 401(k)s and other retirement accounts
• A 30 percent federal excise tax on electricity used in cryptocurrency mining
• A $37 billion tax on American energy
• A 32 percent increase in Medicare taxes

This is insane.

The federal government does not have a revenue problem.

Right now, the federal government is bringing in about 5 trillion dollars a year. What the federal government has is a spending problem.

We are trying to live way beyond our means, but the American people just keep sending the same big spenders back to Washington.

We are literally in the process of committing national suicide, and I really wish that I could get more people to understand that.

The national debt has surged past the 35 trillion dollar mark, and it continues to rise at a pace of more than 200 million dollars an hour.

Our federal government is the largest government in the entire history of our planet, and if #ComradeKamala gets into the White House it will inevitably get even larger.

Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Academic liberalism is an ideology constructed upon egalitarian values, in particular racial and gender equality. This is why universities in the West refer to “diversity, equality, and inclusivity” (DEI) as “our shared values”—they see egalitarian values as ideals to which “we” all aspire.

In Toward a Theory of Academic Liberalism, Fred Evans observes that “academics tend more frequently to think of themselves as politically ‘left’ or ‘liberal’ . . . The disproportionate liberalism of American academics means, in short, that they are disproportionately critical of the dominant groups and institutions of the larger society, and disproportionately favor egalitarian reform and innovation.”

The Failures of Academic “Liberalism”

Paul Gottfried has argued that wokism is best understood as an ideology that “arises out of the failure of liberalism.” His analysis is certainly true in the context of academic liberalism. Academic liberals spent decades gatekeeping acceptable liberal opinion. They long ago decreed that egalitarianism is a value that must be upheld by all reasonable people and that justice can only mean distributive justice. Academic liberals are now complaining about wokism not because they disagree with it in principle nor even because wokism departs from their liberal values, but simply because they are upset about being outflanked by their own colleagues on the Far Left. After all, wokists purport to uphold liberal values, so the only difference between liberals and wokists in this context is the degree of wokism they are prepared to endorse.

The differences between wokism and academic liberalism are differences of degree. As explained in the New York Times, wokists are progressives who see the entire West as “systemically racist” and ridden with “white supremacists,” while liberals would argue that “white supremacy” is “an extremist fringe of racists and antisemites” rather than “the inherent character of the nation.” Thus both liberals and wokists agree that white supremacy is a social problem, and they simply differ on the causes and extent of the problem.

A second example is that wokists see capitalism as inherently evil because it reflects “whiteness,” but liberals see capitalism as “something to be regulated or balanced.” They are both anticapitalist but differ in the degree of their opposition to capitalism.

To give a third example, wokists promote racial segregation for their favored minority groups through “anti-racist” schemes such as “blacks only” graduation ceremonies, while liberals promote “racial integration.” Thus, wokists and liberals differ on what is to be done to eradicate racism, but they are united in the view that something must be done to eradicate racism, that such schemes should be mandatory rather than voluntary and that the government and legal system must lead the charge.

Liberals who distance themselves from wokists want DEI schemes to be dismantled so that liberals can get back to enforcing “equal opportunities” and “a universalist ideal in which diverse people come together,” a goal that does not include any role for those who were long ago excluded from the academic citadel for the crime of opposing egalitarianism, antidiscrimination principles, and the alleged virtues of multiculturalism and diversity.

In that context, Gottfried is correct to argue that “those who complain about leftist intolerance practiced the same vice in relation to the right, until they were overtaken by greater powers on the left. They then became the fashionable mourners of a lost tolerance, the loss of which they themselves helped bring about.”

A good example would be the academic feminists who waged a decades-long war against the “patriarchy,” relentlessly demanding to be included in men-only sports and clubs and getting men fired for telling sexist jokes, only to later bemoan the woke onslaught against women-only sports and clubs that is now waged against them by woke feminists who defend gender ideology and the right of any man to declare himself a woman should he so wish.

Moreover, the solutions sought by academic liberals would merely entail reverting to the status quo ante described by Gottfried:

The liberalism that the woke left cancelled was a greatly weakened form of the liberal persuasion, the exponents of which had already ceased to argue very convincingly for open discussion. For decades, that attenuated liberalism excluded the right, except for a moderate centrist version of it that would not upset leftist gatekeepers. The parameters of allowable discussion on many issues had become more and more restricted before a late modern form of liberalism gave up the ghost entirely. By then, universities were already being ideologically controlled while both government and the media had prepared the way for this postliberal age.

Woke Marxism

Academic liberals are aghast at the suggestion that the woke disaster is in any way their own fault. They resist this notion ferociously, arguing that wokism is best understood as a form of Marxism: neo-Marxism, cultural Marxism, or race Marxism.

There are certainly many aspects of wokism that evoke socialist and Marxist ideals, and this explains why wokists are referred to as “commies” in popular discourse. In his book Socialism, Mises—following Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Scheler—described Marxist ideology as one founded on “dreams of bliss and revenge,” as Marxists dream of paradise and of vengeance against those whom they envy, their “class enemies.” In similar fashion, the wokists of our time dream of bliss and revenge against their two great enemies: “patriarchy” and “white supremacy.” The bliss of which wokists dream is that described by Thomas Sowell as “cosmic justice,” the creation of a utopia in which their historical grievances are assuaged and total equality is achieved. Their dreams of revenge evoke retribution against the groups they blame for their historical grievances and unhappy life circumstances.

In promoting their ideology, wokists notably draw upon the conceptual framework of Marxism, substituting the group identity of race and sex for Marxist class identity. They share with Marxists a collectivist worldview according to which group identity rather than individual effort determines people’s life outcomes, adopting what Gottfried describes as “a vocabulary and conceptual framework borrowed from the Marxist tradition.”

However, as Gottfried points out, the primary concerns of wokism have nothing to do with Marxism. Gottfried argues: “Marx was not in the least concerned with nonbinary oppression, raging homophobia, or the inherently evil nature of being white. This father of ‘scientific socialism’ focused on socioeconomic antagonisms expressing themselves as class conflict.”

Wokists, by contrast with Marxists, make no pretense of being concerned with science. The critical race theory literature rejects reason and rationality altogether, viewing these ideals as emanations of “whiteness,” and urging people instead to embrace “other ways of knowing.” Even when wokists do not reject science outright, they describe science as nothing more than a set of subjective beliefs. Thus, we hear, for example, that 29 percent of British scientists believe sex is not binary.

These examples illustrate why Gottfried argues that “unlike Marxism, moreover, the woke left has long ceased paying homage to science and rationality.” He adds: “Woke beliefs have no necessary connection to what is empirically provable, since from the woke perspective, Western science and empirical demonstration are tainted by white, masculine, racist prejudice.”

Liberalism in the Classical Tradition

The form of “liberalism” that has prevailed for decades in the academy is that described by Gottfried as “attenuated” liberalism. This liberalism has little to do with the liberalism of which Mises writes. The New York Times is exactly wrong to describe liberalism as necessarily egalitarian and even more wrong to assert that “liberals do not see government as the problem, but rather as a means to help the people it serves.” Liberalism in the classical tradition is the ideology of freedom, not the promotion of egalitarian ideals. Liberalism sees government as the greatest threat to human freedom, not as a way to help achieve ideological goals.

Bettina Bien Greaves observed in her 1985 preface to Liberalism that much would be lost by abandoning the word “liberal” to statists and collectivists:

In the Prefaces of both the second (1963) and third (1966) editions of his magnum opus, Human Action, Mises wrote that the advocates of the freedom philosophy should reclaim “the term ‘liberal’ . . . because there is simply no other term available to signify the great political and intellectual movement” that ushered in modern civilization by fostering the free market economy, limited government and individual freedom.

Greaves noted that Mises had changed the title to Liberalism to avoid confusion: “He called the English version The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth. By the following year, however, Mises had decided that the advocates of freedom and free markets should not relinquish ‘liberalism’ to the philosophical socialists.”

Nevertheless, it remains unclear whether there is much to be gained now by bemoaning the decades-long corruption of the term “liberalism.” Abandoning the term “liberals” to statists differs from Mises’s opinion, expressed in a time when there was a chance to save the term, but we can appeal to another Misesian point in support of our view. While Mises argued against relinquishing the term “liberal” to the statists who have corrupted it, he did not regard quarreling over terminology as a valuable exercise. In Socialism, discussing the contestation over what is properly defined as socialism, he comments:

But why quarrel over the wording of it! If anyone likes to call a social ideal which retains private ownership in the means of production socialistic, why, let him! A man may call a cat a dog and the sun the moon if it pleases him. But such a reversal of the usual terminology, which everyone understands, does no good and only creates misunderstandings.

There are certainly many misunderstandings surrounding the terminology used to describe political movements. Some self-styled libertarians, for example, are sworn enemies of each other for political and ideological reasons. Socialists too are notorious for dismissing criticisms of their failed schemes by saying the schemes were “not true socialism.” From communists, we often hear that “real communism has never been tried.” Moreover, socialists regularly revise the definitions and labels of their schemes to suit the prevailing winds. As Mises observes, “The socialist movement takes great pains to circulate frequently new labels for its ideally constructed state. Each worn-out label is preplaced by another which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.”

Nor is there anything that can be done to prevent socialists calling themselves “liberals,” as hapless academic egalitarians insist that they are really the only true “liberals” in a desperate bid to distance themselves from the havoc wreaked by woke fellow travelers.

Rather than debating terminology, the better approach is to revisit the tenets of Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition—to defend property rights, free markets, limited government, and individual freedom, and to stand with the allies of these values by whatever label it is called.

“The type of recruiting events they have—they have adopted this Marxist culture to permanently change our institutions like the FBI,” Garret O’Boyle, an FBI agent whom House Republicans hailed as a whistleblower, said Tuesday at an Oversight Project event at The Heritage Foundation. “Remember, the FBI are the people with the guns and badges who will come after you.”

O’Boyle was referring to the FBI’s decision to publicly champion identity politics celebrations such as Arab American Heritage Month and to use race as a factor in hiring.

The @FBI is laser focused on figuring out what to celebrate this April. Solving crimes doesn't appear to be at the top of their priorities.

Defund the FBI. https://t.co/iZDcvDgs3J pic.twitter.com/hspv5UVh2c

— Steve Friend (@RealStevefriend) April 6, 2024

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against job applicants based on race or sex.@Weaponization @USEEOC https://t.co/WmGxliHBi9

— Steve Friend (@RealStevefriend) April 6, 2024

O’Boyle, who became an FBI special agent in July 2018, recounted that he went to Congress in October 2021 to speak about the FBI’s “threat tag” assigned to concerned parents who spoke up at school board meetings.

“The FBI was stonewalling the Congress when they would ask for information about that threat tag,” he said. “I blew the whistle.”

O’Boyle also recalled interviewing an FBI informant within the pro-life movement, asking questions in light of the leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which a majority of justices overturned the court’s abortion precedent Roe v. Wade. He said his FBI superiors directed him to ask the informant about “how they’re going to attack abortion clinics and things of this nature.”

The days after the May 2022 leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion saw attacks on pro-life pregnancy centers and Catholic churches. Pro-abortion vandals attacked Catholic churches at least 236 times and pro-life pregnancy centers at least 90 times, according to Catholic Vote.

O’Boyle said he had driven out to Virginia to take a role at the FBI Academy in Quantico, and his family was in transition.

“I come to Virginia to report, [and] they suspended my security clearance, took my gun, my badge, accused me of leaking information to the media,” O’Boyle recalled.

Yet, he said, he has since heard from another whistleblower that those who accused him of leaking classified information to reporters knew “that was false from the beginning.”

“The FBI rendered us homeless with a 2-week-old baby,” O’Boyle added.

The FBI suspended O’Boyle without pay in September 2022, and he remains in limbo. The FBI refuses to allow him to take another job until he resigns.

Stephen Friend, another FBI whistleblower, said his wife’s Facebook account disappeared after she reached out to someone at the parental rights group Moms for Liberty.

“My wife’s Facebook account was permanently deleted when she sent a private message to someone with Moms for Liberty,” Friend recounted.

The FBI’s Richmond office notoriously cited the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-left activist group that puts mainstream conservative and Christian groups on a “hate map” alongside chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, in a memo last year about “radical-traditional Catholics.” A few months later, the SPLC added Moms for Liberty to that “hate map.”

Friend said he joined the FBI in 2014 and worked for seven years on Indian reservations. He then worked on child pornography cases in Florida, where he was told “that wasn’t a priority.” Later, he said, he was put on a joint terrorism task force focused on the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“It was apparent that we were manipulating statistics on those cases,” Friend told The Heritage Foundation audience. He said the FBI planned to send a “tactical team” to arrest a Jan. 6 protester, a significant escalation in Friend’s eyes.

“I came to my supervisor, expressed my concerns,” Friend said. “He activated this process. I had multiple meetings and they facilitated my suspension.”

Both O’Boyle and Friend said the FBI can circumvent laws protecting whistleblowers by suspending security clearances without firing FBI agents.

“Whistleblower protection exists but the FBI has a hack around it, which is they suspend your security clearance,” Friend explained. He said the FBI keeps agents “on unpaid suspension, until they assess whether you’re a threat to national security.”

Although the FBI claimed O’Boyle leaked to the media, Friend said in his case the FBI suspended his security clearance because “I opened the employee handbook improperly.”

“The process is the punishment for so many of us,” he added.

Friend ultimately resigned and joined the Center for Renewing America, a nonprofit organization run by Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Donald Trump White House. Last year, Friend published a book, “True Blue: My Journey From Beat Cop to Suspended FBI Whistleblower.“

Speaking at Heritage Tuesday, both FBI whistleblowers called for the end of the FBI.

“I think you have to abolish the FBI,” O’Boyle said.

Local police departments often coordinate with police departments in other parts of the country, O’Boyle noted. He conceded that some federal law enforcement agencies may be necessary, such as the Border Patrol, but insisted that the U.S. Marshals Service can take over many of the FBI’s roles.

“I think it needs to be shattered and scattered,” Friend said of the FBI. “Disarm the FBI … make them unarmed investigators, like they originally were, and force them to partner with local agencies.”

Friend urged Americans to press “our federal representatives” so that “it is no longer acceptable for them to say it is worse for us to have a temporary federal government shutdown than to have an armed law enforcement agency that is weaponized against the American people.”

Within the Catholic Church itself, many otherwise lucid members put on blinders regarding the Pope because they believe his teachings and leadership cannot be anti-Biblical since he was chosen by God to lead the church.

I’m posting this as a commentary for The JD Rucker Show because it’s not only relevant at a time when globalism is rising, but also because Pope Francis represents a possible connection to the Biblical end times.

Here is a portion of the conclusion from the article at Liberty Sentinel:

The pontiff’s attacks on those who worship the “God of money,” or the “idolatry of money” shows the Pope’s ignorance about free markets having lived his entire life in Argentina, a country that has never implemented capitalism properly. The “savage capitalist system”, an “economy that kills”, and “idolatry of money” that the Pope constantly condemns, is the only solution to end poverty and hunger in the world. Capitalism, when properly implemented, has brought millions of people out of poverty. Socialism and communism that the Pope supports not only have brought the killing of millions, but also hunger, misery and increased poverty.

There are an increasing number of critics in Wall Street, the Tea Party, conservative media, and religious figures who have slammed Pope Francis as a poorly camouflaged Marxist. There are many disaffected U.S. bishops, priests and parishioners who complain that the Pope has not given them enough support against the Biden regime over infanticide, abortion, gender ideology and gay marriage.

Many Catholics in the United States and around the world are not aware that the Vatican has been infiltrated by communists. However, despite the cover-up by many cardinals, bishops and priests in the United States and other countries of the world, the truth will eventually come to light. Pope Francis is undermining the Catholic doctrine and will create a split in the Catholic Church among the anti-Communist favoring free-market economics.

We should all pray to God that the communists are expelled from the Holy See. Pope Paul VI once said, “The smoke of Satan has entered through some crack in the Temple of God. We need to pray to God that the Devil’s smoke of Marxism is forever expelled from the Holy See!”

There is very little that could be argued against in that conclusion.

Alternative Video Sources: