--Marxism: The Modern Poisonous Brew
Nor does this book contain any really intrinsic new theories. Marx
borrowed most of his socialist theories from Condorcet, Saint-Simon,
Auguste Compte and others. The theory of Thesis, Antithesis and
Synthesis, which he calls Dialectical Materialism, was lifted from
the works of G. W. Friederich Hegel. It is a useless and
unproductive theory that is no more than a play on words and can
best be described as Semitic semantic casuistry.
Nevertheless Marx's writings have been able to permeate and poison
the minds of most of today's world, and it therefore behooves us to
analyze and study why it did so and just what it was that Marx
wrote.
It must be added here that the spread of Marx's teachings has not
taken place because of their brilliance, or because of their
persuasiveness, nor because of their eloquence, nor because they had
something constructive to offer, nor even because there was anything
particularly new in his writings and his thinking. The reason they
have attained worldwide dissemination is because they have been
fervently promoted by the Jewish propaganda network and by force of
all the power and influence of the total Jewish conspiracy, just as
Christianity was. I repeat, Marxism has not spread because it was a
saleable product, nor was it wrapped in an attractive and desirable
package � no, it was spread and disseminated and perpetrated solely
by the force of the Jewish worldwide organized conspiracy with
thousands of speakers in union halls, on radio, on television,
injecting the poisons distilled by Marx down the throats of millions
and billions of unwitting victims. Like the Sermon on the Mount, it
did not offer new solutions, nor did it offer new hope, nor did it
offer any constructive doctrine, but on the contrary, like the
Sermon on the Mount, it offered a suicidal program for the
destruction of our White civilization.
The other work that Karl Marx wrote in collaboration with Friederich
Engels is the Communist Manifesto. It is shorter and was written
considerably earlier than Das Kapital. It is much more widely read
and is considered as the basis of communist doctrine.
Marx was born in Trier, Prussia in 1818. His real name was Moses
Mordecai Levy, son of a Jewish rabbi. His father was a proselyte Jew
who seemingly left the Jewish religion and turned to Christianity in
1824 when young Marx was six years old. We need not really take this
conversion seriously, since the Jews have a habit of parading under
false colors, and like the chameleon, merge into the environment
they are trying to infiltrate. Since in retrospect we can now see
the momentous role that the Jews have bestowed upon Karl Marx, it is
not only possible, but highly probable, that the hidden hand of
Jewry helped Engels and Marx write their poisonous diatribe. They
further, undoubtedly, especially picked Marx as the author so that
it could seemingly be attributed as originating from a non-Jew. Then
having compiled this assembled doctrine designed to poison the mind
of the Gentile, the whole Jewish network worked feverishly to
promote and distribute these revolutionary ideas, all in the service
of the Jewish race.
* * * * *
Let us digress at this point and get our bearings straight in
regards to Socialism vs. Communism. Although most people confuse the
two as being closely related, we beg to differ vigorously. Socialism
is not an evil as such, any more than is capitalism or money or
government or organization, or education, or many other essential
building blocks of our civilization. In fact the progress of mankind
can be measured by the degree in which mankind was able to live
together, institute government and law, organize the subdivision of
labor, and form a social community which as it grew, became nations
and countries. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, this is
all constructive, and all of these activities are socialistic
activities or collectivism in its truest sense.
In fact, the very idea of a group of people living under an
organized government is a socialistic endeavor as such, there is no
question about it. When we get together to build national highways,
to build airports, to create an Army and Navy for the defense of our
country, when we join together in common efforts to build a school
or schools to educate our children, we are definitely engaging in a
socialistic enterprise. All of this means that people collaborate in
a common or collectivist effort for their collective good and
achieve a benefit far beyond anything that they could do if they
acted solely as selfish individuals, each going their own individual
path. Socialism, in short, is organized society.
It can truly be said that the measure of human progress can be
directly computed by the willingness of the individual to sacrifice
his own interests for that of the common good, and this is the
essence of socialism. There is absolutely nothing wrong, we repeat,
with socialism, per se, or collectivism, and during Hitler's short
peacetime period in Germany from 1933 to 1939 under National
Socialism, Germany built and created and progressed at an astounding
rate never before seen by any other nation in history. That was a
White Man's Socialism under the leadership of a great White Man and,
we repeat, the results were tremendously constructive, creative and
productive.
It is a different matter with communism, a Jewish perversion of
socialism designed not to build for the common effort, but designed
to destroy the White Man's nation, the White Man's country and the
White Man's civilization. Out of the ruins the Jews then forge a
hellish Jewish dictatorship. That is what communism is designed to
do and that is what the Jew means when he talks about socialism.
Again it is like every other tool that the Jew uses in his program
for world conquest: there is nothing wrong with money, but when he
uses money, he uses it for the destruction of the White Race and for
the creation of a Jewish world dictatorship; there is nothing wrong
with government as such, but when the Jew gets a hold of government
he uses it to destroy the White Gentiles and help to forge the
chains for their enslavement; there is nothing wrong with education
as such, but when the Jew gets a hold of it he uses it to pervert
the minds of our children, and turn them into hateful enemies of
their own culture, of their own civilization, of their own people,
and of their own country; there is nothing wrong with labor unions
as such, except when the Jew gets in control of them, which he has,
he turns them into shock troops to tear down our economic and
national structure; and so it goes with everything that the Jew
touches and everything that the Jew controls.
Unfortunately, most of the White intellectuals have not been able to
distinguish between socialism as such, and the form which the Jews
have perverted and converted it into, namely Jewish communism.
Unfortunately, in their ignorance the White Race has lumped
communism and socialism together as twin evils divided only by
degree, and if you are a socialist you must therefore be a blood
brother to the communists. This is patently false and deceptive. On
the contrary, socialism is the basic fabric of civilization. It is
the foundation of organized society. It is the basis of any possible
government, and the underlying ingredient of all the progress that
the civilized White Race has ever made. It does not take a great
deal of thought to come to the conclusion that if every man labored
only in his own selfish interests, in other words was completely
immersed in "individual enterprise" as the Conservatives are so
eager to espouse, humanity would still be back in the caveman stage.
In fact he would not even be able to build the basic unit of
society � which is the family � because that, too, takes cooperative
sacrifice of the individual for the good of the group, small though
it may be.
Communism, on the other hand, is an altogether different animal. In
fact it is a grizzly beast. Whereas National Socialism under Germany
retained private property for the individual; it retained private
enterprise as such; it not only retained but promoted family
building and family life; it promoted the idea of patriotism and the
idea of the loyalty to one's race; communism does none of these
things but seeks viciously to wipe them all from the face of the
earth. Under the aegis of National Socialism in Germany, during six
short years Hitler rebuilt a bankrupt and broken nation, a nation
broken morally, financially and spiritually. He built it and forged
it into one of the most progressive and productive nations that the
astounded eyes of the world had ever seen. The fact that the Jews
later through lying, connivery and conspiracy managed to corral the
rest of the White nations of the world together to smash Germany
from the outside is another story. Nevertheless the accomplishments
of Nation Socialism, which was a socialist government, during the
six peaceful years in Hitler's Germany is something that no amount
of lying Jewish propaganda can erase from the history of our times.
* * * * *
Now that we have drawn a distinguishing line between the creative
and constructive idea of socialism as such and separated it from
communism, let us examine just what some of the concepts of Jewish
communism were, as belched up by this Jew, Karl Marx.
The Jews are great dividers, and the theory of divide and conquer
has been developed by them to a treacherously fine art. There are a
number of ways of dividing humanity � by sexes, by age groups, by
religions, and by nations, and various other ways. But Karl Marx
chose to divide them into "Bourgeois and Proletarians." Whereas he
did not exactly invent these words, he, for all practical purposes,
pulled them out of a hat and made them the fighting words they are
today, with the help, of course, of the total worldwide conspiracy.
By "Bourgeois" he meant the people in the class of modern
capitalists, or owners of the means of production and employers of
workers. In fact, just about anybody in the middle class who owned
even a small store or a small shop would be classified
as "Bourgeois." As we all know, the middle class is the real
strength and backbone of a nation, but it was even against these,
and especially these, that Marx turned his full invective and his
wrath, that as a class they must be destroyed.
"Bourgeoisie" had originally meant the inhabitants of cities, but by
the Romantic Age the term had come to mean the middle classes
whether they lived in cities or not. Businessmen from the greatest
textile magnates down to the smallest hole-in-the-wall shop-keepers,
doctors, lawyers, teachers and other educated and professional
people, all the groups that we now call "White Collar workers" were
part of the "Bourgeois" according to Marx, and must all be wiped
out. Marx's own definition was a new economic definition of the
Bourgeois "the owners of the means of capitalist production." And he
used this definition to include the middle class in its entirety.
Marx professed to be the great champion of the working class, for
whom he coined the word "Proletarians." For this word he reached far
back into ancient Roman history, for the Proletarians had originally
been the poverty-stricken class (of minor import) of ancient Rome,
who had no property save their children (proles). Although the Roman
poor had nothing whatsoever to do with factories, Marx liked the
term because he believed it had a grand romantic historical sweep.
Under the Proletarians he included not only the factory workers but
all the urban poor, whether they worked in factories or not, as well
as the peasants, who, he was sure, would be drawn into the city
sooner or later by economic necessity. The Bourgeois, too, would
sooner or later become Proletarians because they would bankrupt
themselves by capitalistic competition and would sink into the mass
of the Proletariat. The fact that a hundred years later this has not
happened, but on the contrary, the middle class has immensely grown
and prospered far beyond anything envisioned in the middle of the
nineteenth century, doesn't trouble the Jewish propagandist of today
in the least. They just keep espousing the same Marxist-Jewish
doctrine, forging forward towards enslavement of the world. We might
add that this is only one of many of the theories and predictions of
Karl Marx that time has proven completely wrong and fallacious.
Marx further wrote in the Communist Manifesto, "The working men have
no country. National differences and antagonisms are vanishing
gradually from day to day, owing to the development of the
Bourgeois, to freedom of commerce, to the world market." This also
was patently false, probably more obviously and stupidly false than
many of the other things that he wrote in his treatise � and he
wrote many things that were stupid and false. Since the Communist
Manifesto was written on the eve of the series of Jewish revolutions
unleashed in 1848, Marx judged that nationalistic feelings were on
the way out. He couldn't have been more wrong. It was the beginning
of a great resurgence of nationalistic feeling among the working
man, just at a time when Marx declared that the working man had no
country.
Marx was a master of delineating cleavage between two classes that
he had practically invented. In the first chapter of the Communist
Manifesto, Marx pictured Europe as being in the throes of a
tremendous struggle for "the upper hand between the rising Bourgeois
and the developing Proletariat." He pictured the future struggle was
to be marked by strikes, lockouts, sabotage, wage slashes,
bankruptcies, business crises, the simultaneous rise of industrial
combines and trade unions, increasing Proletarian "class
consciousness," and violence. He thereby drew the blueprint for
tearing apart a country and a nation which the powerful hidden hand
of the Jew was to promote with great zeal and energy, was to be used
to smash several of the great nations of the world, and is today
undermining those that have not yet fallen. He saw this as a vast
dramatic clash between two irreconcilable and hostile classes of
society who could pursue no other course but fight to the death. As
a follower of Hegel, he too believed that progress came through "the
fruitful struggle of opposite principles," and to this process Hegel
and Marx gave the celebrated name of "dialectics." By this he
described the struggle between two opposites, the thesis and the
antithesis, finally merging into a synthesis. The synthesis then
became the new thesis which soon developed an antithesis which then
would again evolve into a new synthesis and so on and on ad nauseum.
This pointless theory was then given a fancy name,
called "dialectical materialism."
In the second chapter of the Communist Manifesto entitled
Proletarians and Communists he presents an argument with Bourgeois
critics of Communism as to whether Communism is good or not. When he
asks the question "in what relation do the communists stand to the
Proletarians as a whole?" an honest answer would have been that
there was no relationship since there wasn't really any Communist
Party at this stage. However, Marx being as deceptive as he was
arrogant, (a trait very common to his race), blatantly strode forth
as if his party and the impending destruction of the Bourgeois was
already an established fact in this chapter he sets forth the
communist program of the abolition of private property and then goes
on to abuse and vilify the Bourgeois. He pictures them as thieving,
bloated, stupid villains of some vulgar horse opera, a stance that
has since been followed by his Jewish supporters over the past
century.
In this second chapter Marx steps up his invective, and the attack
against the Bourgeois becomes more vindictive and vicious. He
defends the communist program and its aims and objectives to
annihilate the state, to destroy culture, religion and the family,
claiming, of course, the Bourgeois have already done all this.
He claims there is nothing wrong with the Bourgeois losing their
private property since they have already stolen all their property
from the hard working heroic Proletarians and farmers that produced
it. According to Marx, back in 1848 everything had already been
destroyed by the Bourgeois and this included culture, the state
itself, religion, family life, private property and on such an
insane basis he justifies the communist aims of suicidal
annihilation for the nation, arguing that everything would be
wonderful as soon as everything was smashed and the working class
was in control. These charges are so ridiculous and so detached from
the real world that the average person might wonder if Marx had not
already lost his mental facilities, and if he hadn't, that he most
certainly could not have believed what he himself wrote.
The answer to this, of course, is that certainly he did not believe
what he wrote, certainly he did not think that the working class
would benefit by what he was advocating. He had no intention of the
working class benefiting from anything. We must keep in mind one
hard and fast fact, Karl Marx was a Jew, dedicated to his race in
the pursuit of the destruction of the White Race. Like the Sermon on
the Mount, which advocates "love your enemies, turn the other cheek,
sell all thou hast and give it to the poor, resist not evil," Marx's
ideas were pure destruction, annihilation and suicide. Nobody was
too interested and nobody really bought them. But it was with the
tremendous propaganda program of International Jewry behind these
ideas that foisted them on the world as they had done previously
nearly two thousand years ago when the Jews promoted the suicidal
ideas of the New Testament upon the then supreme Roman White world.
Marx then goes on to advocate the abolition of the family unit as
such. He defends this suicidal proposal (which certainly has no
support from the working class or anybody else) by launching another
vicious attack on the "Bourgeois." We must keep in mind that the
term "Bourgeois" meant nothing until Marx and the Jewish propaganda
network made it a household word, and it still means nothing, since
there are people in all walks of life with different sizes of
incomes and all kinds of variations in the amount of their net
worth. Nevertheless, Marx continues to hammer the "Bourgeois" as if
they were the devil personified and asks the question "on what
foundation is the present family, the Bourgeois family, based?" Then
he gives a non sequitur (it does not at all follow) answer and
says, "on capital, on private gain." He further states that 9/10 of
all the people presumably in Europe don't own any property. When
these two statements are taken together, they, of course, contradict
each other, since the Proletarians he claims make up 90 percent of
the people, also have families, in fact, they probably, on the
whole, have larger families than the so-called "Bourgeois."
According to his ridiculous line of reasoning, those 9/10 (since
they don't have any capital and since the family is based on
capital) shouldn't be having any family at all. And so it goes. He
jumps from one non sequitur argument to another ridiculous and
unfounded argument, but nevertheless he keeps justifying his brew
for the destruction of society, that is White society.
He then goes on in this vein of idiocy and advocates that women are
to be "freed" and are to be the objects of "free love." He defends
this by saying that there is no need for the communists really to
introduce this as such, since in any case "it has existed almost
from time immemorial." Therefore, all his good little communists
want to do is "to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically
concealed, an openly legalized system of free love."
He goes on. Destroy, destroy, destroy. All the known values that
previous civilization has set up, Marx wants to destroy.
It is very strange that the whole program and the whole book is
consumed with how to destroy the present "Bourgeois" system, how to
promote a revolution, how to overthrow, how to annihilate. When one
looks beyond the revolution and beyond the tearing down and beyond
the destruction, we find very few, if any, constructive ideas about
how to build something to take its place, or, in fact, how to build
anything. It is the old Jewish program of tear down, tear down,
destroy, annihilate. And the next communist plank is the abolition
of countries and nationality, arguing that the workmen have no
country, a treacherous lie! He then states that national differences
and antagonisms between peoples are daily vanishing, a statement
that back in the 1840's was completely contrary to fact and history.
Very seldom has nationalist feeling been as high as during that
period, and not only was it not diminishing, but it continued to
grow even stronger over the next half century.
Marx continues on in this kind of idiotic drivel, completely out of
contact with fact, history or reality, the main theme being destroy
everything, down with everything. The end result will be "the
Proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees,
all capital from the Bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of
production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the Proletariat
organized as the ruling class." The thing that he fails to mention
is whose hands the state will really be in. What he really has in
mind is that it will be concentrated in the hands of the Jews
themselves, as history has shown over the last 50 some years of
Jewish communist tyranny in Russia.
The end and culmination of the second chapter then winds up with
setting forth the famous ten points of the Communist Manifesto and
they are famous not because of any intrinsic wisdom contained in
them, but again, only because the Jewish worldwide conspiracy has
taken hold of them and foisted and propagated them on the rest of
the world, much to the sorrow of the unfortunate inhabitants
thereof.
We herewith set forth the ten points verbatim in order that we may
examine how much progress the Jews have already made in implementing
them, not only in the communist countries where they now rule
supreme, but also in the so-called "free" Western countries like the
United States where they are rapidly tearing down the frameworks of
these nations and the foundations of the White Race itself.
Here is the gibberish that the Jews have made so spectacularly
famous:
The Communist Manifesto
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of
land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a
national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the
hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the
state; the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, and the
improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial
armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more
equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of
children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of
education with industrial production, etc., etc.
In the third chapter Marx has no new material or ideas that are
worth mentioning. He spends most of the chapter justifying with
little substantiation and much twisted logic, trying to shore up
that which he has already said before. Mostly it is a case of
further trying to make a bogey man out of what he prefers to call
the "Bourgeois" and trying to whip up the hostile opposing group
which he calls "Proletariat."
One point that he does make that is rather interesting and
significant, although not in the manner he intended, is that
communism and Christianity have a great deal in common. He
says, "Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a
socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private
property, against marriage, against the state? Has it not preached
in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and
mortification of the flesh, monastic life, and Mother Church?
Christian socialism is but the Holy Water with which the Priest
consecrates the vexation of the aristocrat."
Whereas Marx did not at all state the case correctly, he
inadvertently brought up a point that needs emphasizing, and that is
the similarity between Jewish Christianity and Jewish communism,
which, we contend, are amazingly similar, although neither the
communists nor the Christians would ever admit this. Nevertheless,
they are extremely alike and we are going to make a comparison of
the two.
One of the main planks of the communist program is the abolition of
private property. Christianity, too, promotes such, in fact it
castigates again and again against those productive members of
society who have the energy and the foresight to provide for their
families. The New Testament says again and again, "sell all thou
hast and give it to the poor." "It shall be harder for a rich man to
enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to walk through the eye
of a needle." "My kingdom is not of this world." "Lay not up
treasures on this earth but lay up treasures in heaven. ""Behold the
lily in the field, it toils not yet your heavenly Father cares for
it." And so on and on. The theme is repeated again and again that
anybody that is energetic and ambitious enough to work for a living
and provide for his family is an extremely poor candidate to enter
into the kingdom of heaven.
Then we come to the matter of family life. On this we find that
Jesus is quoted as saying, (Matthew 10, Verse 34) "Think not that I
am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a
sword. For I am come to set man at variance against his Father and
the daughter against her mother and the daughter-in-law against her
mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
For he that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me
and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of
me." Here we have clear evidence as quoted by Christ himself that
the objective of the new Christian religion is to divide � divide
the household, divide the family, destroy the family.
We may have other manifestations of the Christian church pulling
down the family and stifling the procreation of its members. For
nearly 2000 years the Catholic Church has been promoting celibacy
amongst its people. Priests were, and still are, forbidden to marry.
It has set up numerous monasteries, the members of which, namely
Monks, are dedicated to living out their life in an unmarried
state'. The best and the most devoted of the young women are deluded
into joining a convent and becoming a Nun and stripping themselves
of any form of womanly appeal that they might have originally had.
They are then rigidly regulated by the "Mother Superior," spending
the rest of their lives in a bleak Nunnery, finally withering away
and dying, unproductive and childless, having destroyed their
hereditary line with their religious perversion.
Another major similarity between Jewish communism and Jewish
Christianity is the philosophy with which both of them attack the
productive, creative leaders of society. We have already well
covered the vicious attacks that communism makes on the so-
called ''Bourgeois," and how it extols the virtues of
the "Proletarians," that is, these people who have not managed to
acquire anything. That the reason therefore might be due to their
own lack of ambition, is not mentioned.
In the same way the New Testament continuously denounces the rich
man or the man who has acquired any property or any assets. Whether
he did so by dint of his own hard work and perseverance is ignored.
It keeps repeating again and again that he is completely
disqualified from ever getting to heaven and it says, "For what
shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose
his own soul?" Then in the Sermon on the Mount it extols the virtues
of the shiftless, the unambitious and the lazy. It says, "blessed
are the poor in spirit," "blessed are the meek," and so on and on.
These concepts are completely contradictory to the ideals and
virtues of the White Man, who has always held such virtues as
productivity, creativity, ambition, progress, in high esteem.
In a later chapter, in Part II of this book, I will go more fully
into a detailed comparison between communism and Christianity.
Suffice it here to say that Marxism is a Jewish creation, designed
to undermine and disintegrate the White Man's society, to tear it
asunder, and lay it wide open like a dead carcass for the parasitic
Jew to feast upon.
Continuing on to the third and fourth chapters of the Communist
Manifesto, we find (a) a scattered and confused review of history at
large, with Marx doing much violence to history, trying to justify
his idiotic arguments (b) his appraisal of the then existing and
competing socialist parties. He has very little good to say about
any of them, and predicts their early demise. He insisted that he
was right and that every other group that called itself socialist
was inadequate, unscientific, wrong, and vile. Right or wrong, all
those groups soon disappeared, as Marx had predicted.
However, it is important to point out here that it was not due to
the fact that Marx's ideas, if they can be called such, had any
superior merits to these others. No, on the contrary, they were
probably more inadequate, more unscientific, more wrong, and more
vile than any of those that he denounced. The success of Marx's
ideas is solely due to the fact that it was his ideology that the
huge Jewish conspiratorial apparatus selected to make their vehicle
for their program of the destruction of the White Race.
This is what the whole program is aimed at. He insists on
the "forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions," with the
reckless abandon of a pyromaniac. He ends the last chapter with the
fiery appeal to the workers, "Let the ruling classes tremble at a
communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but
their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all
countries, unite!"
And there we have a summation of the highly touted Communist
Manifesto. In short, Marx pulls out of ancient history two terms,
the Proletariats and the Bourgeois, twists them, gives them new
meaning, and uses them as a divisive wedge to create two
antagonistic groups where none existed before. He then unleashes a
campaign of vilification, slander and hatred to stir up the working
group to destroy just about anybody who has acquired any property
during their lifetime of productive work. On this flimsy "theory,"
if it can be called such, is launched a whole program to destroy
society, to destroy the family, to destroy the state, and in short,
as he himself says, to destroy "all existing social conditions."
Das Kapital
Marx's whole method was not that of observation and logical
deduction of that which he had observed. Rather, he had some very
Fixed conceptions � namely that society should be destroyed � and
then went to work to drag together a mass of fallacious "evidence"
that he twisted in such a fashion that it would seem to support his
untenable theories. Even at this he fails miserably. However, after
1000 pages of this kind of trash, he seems to have convinced many
people (although they haven't really read it and although they
really don't understand it) that somehow there must be something to
it. Even so, it has convinced hardly anyone who was not already
tinged with the ideas of Revolutionary Marxism previously.
Economists, historians, and philosophers have long since ceased to
take it as a serious contribution to any of their fields. It is so
long and so dull a book that even very few Marxists can stand to
read it, or can understand it.
The best function of the book, Das Kapital, to the world of Marxist
Socialism is to sit on the shelf, looking heavy and impressive, and
to be pointed to as evidence that somewhere in all those hundreds of
pages there must be some deep intellectual proof of anything that
any given Marxist may happen to feel at any given moment
The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. Volume I of Marx's
Kapital was published in 1867, nearly two decades later. This
amounted to approximately 800 pages. When Marx died in 1883, Volumes
II and III were no more than a confused mass of notes, references
and outline. It was Engels' lot to put them together in final form
and prepare them for publication. These appeared in 1885 and 1894,
respectively, bringing this massive accumulation of trash to more
than a thousand pages.
Most of Marx's organizational activities involved him in prolonged
quarrels with other socialist leaders, notably the German Trade
Unionist Ferdinand Lassalle and the Russian Anarchist Mikhail
Bakunin. He helped found an abortive working man's association in
1864, which is known in socialist history as the "First
International." However, his struggle to keep Bakunin from taking
over that organization helped wreck it in the early 1870's. When he
died there was no communist organization as such to speak of.
The greater development of the organizations that profess Marxist
doctrines came only after his death. From the 1880's on, the
International Jewish apparatus really took hold of his theories
which they had helped to propound and built them into parties of
major importance in most continental European countries, especially
Germany, France, and Italy. By 1889 they formed an international
coordinating committee called the "Second International."
Whereas Marx had tailored his program with the idea of Germany being
the first victim, history turned out somewhat differently. It
remained for Nikolai Lenin, another Jew, to found the important
Russian Marxist party. The Bolsheviki, between 1909 and 1913. These
later renamed themselves "communists" after Marx's term in the
Communist Manifesto.
Lenin's party, however, was very different from the theories
propounded by Karl Marx and could scarcely be called Marxist at all.
In fact, Lenin picked up most of his doctrine of "dialectical
materialism" from other Russian revolutionaries, particularly N.G.
Chernyshevskii rather than from Marx. He formed his plans for the
Bolshevik Party, a tiny, well disciplined, conspiratorial, elite
group in a vast backward peasant country, from earlier Russian
revolutionary theory and practice, and not from Marx, who had
rejected such ideas as "unscientific adventurism." The only thing
that Lenin really adopted from Marx was the "scientific" idea of
the "inevitability" of a socialist revolution and the emphasis on
the Proletariat.
Whereas we neither have the time nor the space to concern ourselves
with the history of the Russian Revolution, let us not, however,
delude ourselves that it was the attraction of either
Marx's "brilliant" theories, nor those of Lenin's. The grizzly story
of the destruction of the Russian people is something altogether
different.
Russia for centuries had been infested with more Jews than any other
country in the world. These Jews had been conspiring, agitating and
planning anarchy and revolution for a long time. Leon Trotsky,
another Jew, had been trained along with 3000 other cut throat
Jewish revolutionaries in East Side New York to do the strong arm
job for the overthrow of the Russian government. Jacob Schiff, a
Jewish financier of New York, contributed 20 million dollars to this
cause. When the proper time came, Trotsky and his band of
revolutionary cut-throats were shipped to Russia, and along with
their Jewish brethren they managed to pull a bloody coup d'etat. It
was strictly an example of Jewish conspiratorial tactics at their
best. The Russian people and the Russian "Proletariat" couldn't have
understood less as to what was going on. The Jewish propaganda
network both in Russia and in the outside world then loudly
proclaimed the triumph of the "poor, down-trodden" Russian workers
over the "tyrannical" regime of the Tsar.
Both of these representations were overwhelming, atrocious lies. If
the Russian Tsar had any faults they were not on the side of
tyranny, but rather on the side of tolerance, weakness and
vacillation. The Russian workers neither understood what was going
on nor did they have any conception of the ghastly fate that was in
store for them.
Once the Jews were in power in Russia they quickly seized all the
strategic posts in government and in propaganda. They immediately
launched a massive campaign to slaughter 20 million White Russians.
It must here be pointed out that it was the Nordic White Russians,
who for centuries had been the intellectual and creative leaders of
the Russian people, in fact, had built modern Russia. It was,
therefore, this select group of elite White Russians that was the
prime target of the Jewish takeover immediately after they had the
revolutionary government in their hands. They proceeded on a reign
of terror the likes of which the world had never before seen, a
reign of terror that continues even to this day. In a few years they
miserably slaughtered 20 million White Russians, the cream and
leadership of the Russian population, leaving the Russian Slavs and
Kulaks as a mass of slaves in the hands of their Jewish masters.
These now became the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for
their Jewish masters � who had promised them a worker's paradise.
Thus we witnessed the death of the Russian nation and the
establishment of Jewish communism with a worldwide operating base in
the largest country on the face of the earth, and with it, control
of its enormous natural resources.
This is also from N.E.R and is a good overall view of the subject of Marxism.
By no recognized standard may Karl Marx be considered a great
writer, nor even a great thinker. His famous production Das Kapital
is so dull and so boring that it is almost impossible to read.
Despite the fact that it has been highly touted by the Jewish
propaganda networks and tremendously promoted by international
Jewry, this book has been read very little, and is still, today,
very seldom read by anybody. In fact, the book was not even written
by Marx alone but was compiled with a great deal of help from
Friederich Engels, his Jewish collaborator and his financial angel.
Engels revised and re-arranged Marx's notes in a more readable form,
but even so, the whole production is as difficult to wade through as
to wade up stream in a river of cold molasses.
Not that there is any great logic attached to the above program, nor
is there evident any over-riding need for such changes.
Nevertheless, when we consider how much progress the Jews have made
in instituting and making this diabolical program become a reality,
it is gruesome to behold. It is fantastic to consider that the Jews
have created two seemingly antagonistic groups, have artificially
divided them, have synthetically labeled them as "Bourgeois"
and "Proletarians," and built on this unsubstantiated and flimsy
proposition a program for world conquest. Nevertheless, as fantastic
as it seems, with the power of money, propaganda, and organization
in their hands, this the Jews have done.
We now turn to that monumental one thousand page production that is
revered as his masterpiece, namely, Das Kapital. We are not,
however, going to waste much time on it because it is not worth it.
In all those thousand pages of garbage there is very little grain to
glean. Mostly it is all chaff. In fact, it is very dull, dry chaff,
at that. He tries to amalgamate and blend economic theory and
political theory with history, sociology and his own Utopian
thinking. The result is one unholy disaster. He makes a great to do
about his theory of "surplus value," something he really did not
invent, but derived from classical British economic doctrine of the
time.