The globalist war on families continues with help of a once iconic business brand that now fronts for Marxists

Leo Strauss once observed that German political philosophy created a “tradition of contempt for common sense and the aims of human life.”

Such contempt, he contended, made the Nazis’ rise to power possible.

As an escapee from Nazi Germany, and as one of the most eminent political thinkers of his day, the University of Chicago professor understood that the urge toward nihilism that infected German thought would have long-lasting consequences.

He noted, for example, that the near twin of Nazism, Marxism, with its claim to know the future, undermines the “practical wisdom” of traditional Western values in favor of a faux modernism that attempts to make man “the highest being,” able to control history by clever maneuverings. 

The defeat of the Nazis and the widespread discrediting of Marxism – a German progressive political invention – as a practical or coherent political or economic philosophy has unfortunately not stopped today’s progressives from seizing on the belief of the perfectibility of humans by their ability to control the future simply by pushing the right buttons. 

But as a result of progressive political and social push-button policies, America and the rest of the world face a population crisis that affects more than just how many diapers are sold. 

Americans simply aren’t having enough babies to sustain economic growth. 

It’s a crisis that isn’t just concentrated in America, either.  

Developed countries and lesser developed countries, such as China and Thailand, also are suffering from a population crisis.    

Abortion-on-demand, universal birth control, China’s now aborted one-child policy, the attack on marriage and men, as well as a general hostility to families in progressive social and philosophical global circles are making having children and families harder for ordinary people.  

The population crisis has been crafted by governments around the world with the help of their allies in academic and quasi-governmental organizations that run cover for progressive, globalist policies. 

The results will be disastrous sooner rather than later, not just for economies, but for societies and social order, experts say. 

The obvious solution to the crisis caused by not having enough babies is, of course, to have more babies. 

Since the advent of modern human society, it’s been accepted common sense that population growth is a key driver of prosperity. 

And in fact, that most modern of American humans, Elon Musk, proposed having babies as a fix. 

“If people don’t have more children, civilization is going to crumble. Mark my words,” Musk told a crowd of investors in 2021.  

The comments are back in the news now because Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance continues to make similar comments in support of having kids.  

“Our people aren’t having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us,” Vance told a gathering in Washington, D.C. in 2019, according to the Associated Press (AP). 

The AP, coincidentally, just happened to trot out the 5-year-old story last month.  

He might have said that having babies is the aim of all human life, the aim in fact of all successful life. But for Vance, it was more cut and dried.  

“We want babies not just because they are economically useful. We want more babies because children are good. And we believe children are good, because we are not sociopaths,” Vance added.   

On cue, progressives rose to the bait offered by the AP, as if they had some sort of personality disorder. 

The environmental and social policy sociopaths at UC Davis and the University of Washington’s Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology denounced Vance’s and Musk’s plan of having babies as a “Ponzi scheme,” according to Fortune.  

“Manipulating fertility is an inefficient means of solving social, economic, and environmental problems that are almost always better addressed more directly through regulation and redistribution,” the academics noted, said Fortune (emphasis added).  

Musk responded to the comments by calling the university comrades “misanthropic.”  

Of course, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that people in academia are still clinging to Marxist theory. 

What should shock us and be absolutely unacceptable is that an iconic business publication, Fortune, that was founded on the meritocracy of business success should today be carrying water for Marxists. 

It gives these goofy, global, environmentalist and Marxist-inspired theories the patina of credence needed to sell the push-button ideas to the crowd that always wants push-button solutions: business people.  

Or maybe it shouldn’t shock us, since Fortune is owned today by a scion of Thailand’s richest family, younger son, Chatchaval Jiaravanon, who’s wealth, unlike Musk’s wealth, had little to do with merit. 

His family, headed by his uncle, makes money selling animal feed, being the biggest shrimp farmers and largest poultry producers in Thailand, with an estimated family net worth of $36 billion, said Forbes.  

Basic economics might suggest that those businesses will suffer if the Thai population stops growing. 

And no amount of “regulation and redistribution” will fix the Jiaravanon’s businesses no matter how much contempt the Fortune family shows for “common sense and the aims of human life.”