Marxism – The Modern Poisonous Brew

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.

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.

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.

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
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.

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.