…generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children, that … this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal.

Barack Obama, 2008

You can tell how dangerous a politician is by the grandiosity of his statements. As Jim Simpson points out in his latest book, Marxist politicians who hide their Marxism under benign-sounding slogans, are among the most grandiose and dangerous. Listen to their bragging and you will hear of their magical abilities – to change the weather, to lower sea level, to cure sickness and poverty. Such claims are self-aggrandizing, to be sure. Promising people free health care, free jobs, free money, etc., is a path to power, after all. And isn’t power like magic? Yet, that same power prefigures massive taxation and the plundering of private citizens, the shuttering of businesses, the degradation of healthcare. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Of course, Marxists rarely deliver on their promises. They rob Peter while forgetting about Paul. Instead, they pay themselves. And so, the Marxists are the real enemies of the people. Marxists, after all, have oppressed, murdered and robbed more people than anyone in history. Judging by what Marxism does, you would have to say that Marxism is all about destruction and murder. And yet Marxism – as the New Religion of mankind – appears to be taking over the world. They are succeeding on every front. Everywhere Marxism is concentrating power in the hands of its acolytes (under various banners and slogans). And they have grown so bold as to say: You will not have anything, but you will be happy!

Does happiness come from being robbed? Does it come from being threatened, vaccinated, locked-down, gaslit and disenfranchised? If that does not suffice, perhaps the Marxists in Beijing and Pyongyang can arrange to have us irradiated and blanked with smallpox. You will only have a pox, but you will be happy! (Even better, right?)

Does the average person see that nearly everything happening today is connected with Marxism? (Please note: China is a Marxist police state, the point of origin of COVID-19. And Joe Biden entered the Senate with the support of Armand Hammer, a known KGB agent according to Hammer’s Dossier). Does anyone see that all our latest isms are merely Marxism in disguise? – Feminism, environmentalism, anti-racism, vaccinism? And as it happens, the acolytes of the New Religion of socialism look to Karl Marx as the seminal theorist of the World Revolution. Right now they are bringing down capitalism with lockdowns and vaccine mandates – destroying businesses, crippling industries, breaking the supply chain. So maybe we ought to learn a little more about Karl Marx, the father of Marxism.

I earlier mentioned Jim Simpson’s latest book, which is all about Marx and his epigones. According to Simpson “It turns out that progressivism’s end product is merely the reflection of Marx’s personality, played out to devastating effect on the world stage.”[i] And how might we describe Karl Marx’s personality? Simpsons says that Marx was a fraud. His true followers are those who are ready to exploit and extend this fraud. As a personality, noted Simpson, Marx was “hypocritically greedy, petty, arrogant, lazy, selfish, dishonest … and brimming with hatred.”[ii]

Taking a quick look at Marx’s actual attitudes, he was an equal opportunity hater. He despised Germans as “stupid people.” Slavs, he said, were “ethnic trash.” His opinion of blacks cannot be repeated because his characterization included the “n” word. And he called the working class “rogues” and “asses.” In short, Marx was an ugly bigot. Of course, he believed in his own genius. In fact, he was spoiled by his parents and never worked a real job in his life. He married an aristocrat’s daughter, squandered at least one legacy, and sponged off his friend, Friedrich Engels. “Karl should accumulate capital instead of writing about it,” said Karl’s mother. But Karl was too busy plotting world revolution to properly support his wife and family. Indeed, his children starved. Of seven born to his wife, only three daughters survived into adulthood. Marx’s wife was an unfortunate woman. She left Karl twice, but returned. Marx was lecherous enough in the meanwhile so that he got the household maid pregnant, and pawned the child off on Engels.

Simpson argues that Marx was of a type; that is to say, a destructive type. Simpson also suggests that other revolutionaries belong to this type. From the murderous Russian nihilist Sergey Nachayev, to Mikhail Bakunin who was Marx’s rival within the revolutionary movement, we see the same raging desire for universal destruction combined with anti-social behaviors. It was Nachayev who wrote, “our task is terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction.” Bakunin wrote, “In this Revolution we will have to awaken the Devil in the people, to stir up the basest passions. Our mission is to destroy, not to edify.” Likewise, Marx and his co-author Friedrich Engels, shared a similar vision, in The Communist Manifesto, when they wrote “There are, besides eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

Imagine what that means – to act in contradiction to all past historical experience. It means, in essence, to act destructively. For we preserve ourselves best when we act in accordance with past historical experience. And by breaking with historical experience, we put our existence at risk. Destruction, therefore, is the central revolutionary theme. Yet how did this wicked man turn history upside down? How did his mode of thought capture Russia, China, North Korea, Harvard? Simpson says Marxism succeeds because we are awash in Marx-like personalities. Too many people today are spoiled, narcissistic, rotten, etc. They share Marx’s orientation because they share his personality.

Of the great Revolutionaries, notes Simpson, “most were and are children of the wealthy….” Marx’s father was a successful lawyer. Lenin’s father was a successful school administrator elevated into the nobility. Mao Zedong’s father was the wealthiest of local farmers. Castro’s father was also successful. Raised with wealth and privilege, but unwilling to adjust to normal life, the violent revolutionary seeks unlimited power and unearned wealth. It is no accident that Fidel Castro died with a bankroll of nearly a billion dollars. Look at Putin’s wealth. Imagine the wealth that Xi Jinping controls!

According to Simpson, “Marxism appeals to those who grow up thinking they are special and by their very place, have nothing to prove. They already know it all. They are the kind of people attracted to simplistic, nihilistic, self-aggrandizing worldviews….”[iii] This fact was even recognized by Soviet strategists in decades past, who developed a profile of those capable of leading a communist revolution. That profile includes three key items: (1) a capacity for brutal conduct; (2) a sly and cunning intelligence; (3) and the appearance of caring about people.

When we look around today, we find closet Marxists in high places – in Congress, in the White House – and in local government bodies, like city councils, boards of health, or school boards. Marxists are drawn to power like moths to a flame. There are many small Marxists today operating on a small scale. These share Marx’s contempt for eternal truth, justice and goodness. When they talk of change, they are seeking to empower themselves. When they talk about “the children,” they are trying to get control of the future – to stay in power forever. When they talk about equality, they are out to rob one group of people in the name of another. Their self-aggrandizement may be hidden behind grand-sounding words, and you might even begin to believe they are well-intentioned; but their methods are always evil.

“Whenever the Left comes up with a new proclamation or policy,” says Simpson, “we tend to take it seriously, considering each one afresh as if it were some novel proposition on the laws of physics. But upon closer examination, we realize it is simply a repackaged version of the same old ideas first embraced by Marx – and even those were not new.” We should not be so docile or manipulable, says Simpson. It is the incredible flexibility of the Marxists that allow them to continually shift their positions, change the issue at hand, bend the rules, deploy intimidation tactics and misdirection to frighten and confuse. We must develop our sense of smell, or sense of foul play, at every level of government; for the Marxists are busy at every level.

Many people do not realize that there has been a communist push to take over America for over a hundred years. It is worthwhile, in this context, to support Simpson’s contentions with some quotes from R.N. Whitney’s Red’s In America, which brought to light communist documents captured in the Bridgman, Michigan raid of 1922. The documents seized in this raid reveal the political program of the American communists. These documents also included signed checks from prominent citizens, instructions from Moscow, theses, questionnaires and material related to the overthrow of the United States Government by an underground organization. And the whole thing was “inspired from Moscow and directed by Lenin and Trotsky.”[iv]

To show the effect of Marx’s doctrine on his Russian and American followers, Whitney explained, “It is known that agents of the Communists are working secretly, through ‘legal’ bodies, in labor circles, in society, in professional groups, in the Army and Navy, in Congress, in the schools and colleges of the country, in banks and business concerns, among the farmers, in the motion picture industry – in fact, in nearly every walk of life.”

Whitney goes on to describe the agents of the communist movement. “These agents,” he says, “are not ‘lowbrows,’ but are keen, clever, intelligent, educated men and women. They are experts in their several lines. Their programs, which are now known, show that their plans for inciting the Negroes, the farmers, the clerks, the workmen in industry, members of Congress, employees in government departments everywhere, to violence against the constituted authorities, have been drawn with almost uncanny appreciation of the psychology of each group, with facts and figures so manipulated as to appeal to those approached, with false premises so cleverly drawn as to fool almost anyone.”[v]

Fooling people is an essential ingredient in Marxist politics. Simpson quotes the communist master-strategist Willi Münzenberg: “We must avoid being a purely communist organization. We must bring in other names, other groups, to make persecution [of communists] more difficult.” And so, the communists have wrapped themselves in other causes – environmentalism, feminism, healthcare for all, racial equality, religion, etc. “We must organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink,” added Münzenberg. “Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life base, can we impose the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.”[vi]

The whole Marxist project is insidious. The destruction that is promoted by the communists is not merely physical destruction. It is about destroying cherished customs, laws, and folkways. Such is in keeping with the spirit of Karl Marx and his kind. It is hard to imagine a more malevolent program; that is, a program to corrupt society intentionally. But that, indeed, has long been one of Marx’s goals. If society’s corruption has grown worse of late, Marxism bears some degree of responsibility. Because a debased population is easier to manipulate, easier to intimidate, easier to rule over, the Marxist works to lower our moral standards. Citizens who are upright and honorable are not easily tyrannized. Citizens who use illegal drugs, employ abortion for birth control, and have no intellectual integrity are ready tools of the communists.

Finally, one of the things I liked the most about Jim Simpson’s book was his chapter, “All Roads Still Lead to Moscow.” Simpson knows that Putin’s Russia is not really conservative or nationalist. “Our eyes are all on China,” says Simpson. “But just recently, Russian hackers took down the Colonial gasoline pipeline, causing dramatically spiked fuel prices amidst all the other energy-related economic chaos….”[vii] Simpson points out that the Democrats’ obsession with Russia is a smokescreen that hides a longstanding pro-Russian collusion. For example, Hillary helped the Russians get American uranium. Obama was caught on camera eager to help Putin disarm us through future negotiations. Simpson points to unanswered questions about the suspicious murder of Seth Rich, the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC emails, and more. Russia is also mobilizing its armed might on the borders of Ukraine and NATO. “In terms of military strength,” notes Simpson, Russia is not to be despised.

Simpson argues that we must organize against Marxism from the local level on up. He even lays out a program for doing this. Knowing who Marx was, and knowing the personality type of the communist revolutionary, is useful for those who are dealing with leftists in local and national politics. All political activity is of a piece. People do not do things at random. There is method in Marxist politics and we need to spot those methods when they are at work.

We need to know our enemy and Simpson’s book serves that end.    

[i] James Simpson, Who Was Karl Marx? The Men, the Motives and the Menace Behind Today’s Rampaging American Left (Kindle), p. 3.

[ii] Ibid, p. 4.

[iii] Ibid, p. 16.

[iv] R.N. Whitney, Reds in America (Boston: Western Islands, 1970), p. 15.

[v] Ibid, p. 16.

[vi] Simpson, p. 49.

[vii] Ibid, 100.


Quarterly Subscription (voluntary)



Click here for — The Fool and His Enemy: Toward a Metaphysics of Evil: Nyquist, J.R.: 9798666501382: Amazon.com: Books

61 thoughts on “Knowing Your Enemy: Who Was Karl Marx?

  1. Communism is the obvious enemy.But I think only two forces can now stand in the gap:racial consciousness and religion..This is btw how South African Whites for 40 years withstood the total onslauight.Unfortunately the Americans chose to betray their white christian brethren.-with notable exceptions like Jesse Helms,far and few between.The treachery in Europe was,needless to say,even worse.The Swedes had never seen a single negro in their entire lives but they nonetheless fancied themselves to be uniquely placed to dictate ‘internal affairs’ 12000 km from home.And dont get me started on the Dutch;our foreign minister literally broke down in tears upon hearing of Mandela’s demise.Humanly speaking we have no more hope but for the US..Please wake up.

    1. South Africa is not America and its history and culture teach different lessons. Of course, it is the Marxists who wish to destroy ethnic and cultural heritage and folkways — of all peoples and nations. South Africa’s ethnic problem begins with the fact of a country containing peoples belonging to very different tribal groups that cannot readily mix. Meanwhile, America is a multi-ethnic country where ethnicities and nations have actually merged to a greater extent than imagined, though serious differences remain. Brazil also has this kind of history, which is certainly problematic in terms of people retaining separate identities as the basis for political division, ethnic strife or even warfare. It is to be remembered that Nations take hundreds of years to form, and the process can be messy. Consider, as well, the profound cultural changes brought by technology. There are many moving parts here. Think it through again, from a wider standpoint. It is problematic to maintain that race consciousness and religious consciousness are the only things that can stop Marxism. The Marxists have used race in a divide-and-conquer game, and they have easily infiltrated and corrupted most religions — including the least susceptible of all, the Papacy in Rome. So the Marxists are ahead of you, and they forestalled your plan long ago. Modernity, by its nature, undermines tribal identity and religion. Marxism knows this and uses it. But we are not free to oppose our own modern nature. We would be lying to ourselves to say that we can return to the Christian Middle Ages or to tribal antiquity and paganism, without a nuclear biological war to take us there. And so, yours is not a political program that has any currency until mankind is largely wiped out. Only then will we see what happens. Given modernity the trend line is clear: How long did South Africans hold out against the Marxist strategy? If your strategy had been workable, why didn’t it work in Africa? Why didn’t Nazism work for Europe? Or Japanese Asiaticism in the Far East? One has to think carefully here. The racial basis of the national state was sullied by Hitler. The lessons of one war can only be unlearned by the counter-balancing lessons of the next. Europe will have to find its way back now, through terrible struggles, as its existence is threatened by Islam and Russia. America must face the threat from China. All nations, all ethnicities, are in the process of forming, changing, and becoming (through conflict and cultural intercourse). Alliances between races will occur. Race wars will occur. Religious wars will recur. Human beings are tribal and confessional. Marxism seeks to destroy all these distinctions, to confuse and disorganize, to divide and to conquer as I noted before. Shall we then compare the history of South Africa to that of Brazil? Your concepts do not entirely make sense in Brazil, an assimilationist culture. At the same time, Brazilian assimilationist attitudes do not make sense in South Africa. Here we do not have a “one size fits all” solution. Gustav le Bon referred in his writings to the French race, the English race, the German race, etc. Today’s reader is non-plussed by such a concept — that ethnic differences might be so profound. What is a race? What is a tribe? In what sense is America a single ethnicity? Why would I want to deny American national identity to people who have been American for more generations than my family? My ancestors were enemies of the Danes, yet we seem quite indistinguishable from Danes now. All nations were once composed of distinct tribes. Yet over time the Welshman and the Englishman and the Scotsman became British. And yet, they still are distinct. And there were once Danes in there, too — warring tribes united into one kingdom. Here in America, we already fought a terrible civil war on account of African slavery. What you are suggesting about race might make sense for a lost white tribe surrounded by Marxist Africans in Africa, but the strategy of Marxism takes advantage of this, typically aligning itself with the larger against the smaller in a cunning numbers game under the liberal logic of so-called “democracy.” Yes, I see how it works to your destruction and even to the destruction of my own country. It is, indeed, silly for Swedes to favor a black African communist and “former” terrorist in such a maudlin display as you describe. And surely it is not wicked to feel closer to people who are culturally and genetically closer to yourself. Yet it is wicked to enslave and persecute and exterminate alien tribes because you think them less human than yourself. Of course, I am not suggesting you mean to do this; only, it is a risk — that is, the moral hazard that encumbers racial politics. Consider the case of America: it was because of our Christianity that we found African slavery problematic. Many saw that it would have to be gradually phased out. But the slave owners, seeing their “way of life threatened,” devised an ideology of white supremacy and African slavery as the basis of a new nation — thus breaking with the Founding Fathers. Slavery was not going to gradually disappear. A new nation, based on a new racial ideology, tried to emerge. And it was doomed from the start. The Civil War was the most destructive and violent war of the nineteenth century. Napoleon’s Grand Army was nothing compared to the Army of the United States in that war. This is our heritage, and Marxism did not cause this, and we are still working it out. Please note: African-Americans were Europeanized, Christianized, and most of them now have some European blood. Race is therefore a more complicated issue for us than it is for a white tribe in Africa. Your history may actually be simpler than ours. Our terms of thought are full of paradoxes of our own making. Black Americans are Americans, and you cannot make them Africans again after two hundred years of Americanization. Certainly, I do not think Americans should impose their concepts of tribe and race on Africans black or white. We are working out our destiny and South Africa will work out its destiny. Tribes cannot always be combined. It is usually disastrous to force people together when they are seriously different. As for Christianity, you might think it an effective bulwark against Bolshevism; yet Christians have proven to be very inept and half-hearted enemies of communism overall. Only Christians with very intense sectarian views are truly anti-communist, and these are otherwise unable to form effective or large political combinations with other groups, leaving them marginalized and isolated in their respective minority groupings. That is what I see right now. Oh well.

      1. To be clear:I’m not Southafrican,but as a European I have long felt a distinct kinship.Even as a child I remember the sense of loss everytime a news-item mentioned a Southafrican fighter being downed over Angola.Obviously hoping the pilot had survived,but aware also that this jet would not be replaced,aware that the means of resistance were being chiseled away at.

        For 6 or 7 million whites to have survived this long (against the entire world) was in itself nothing short of miraculous.And lets not forget the extraordinary lengths the powers that be went to to subjugate them.One of their leaders was murdered in parliament (Verwoerd),another quite possibly poisoned (PW Botha) and the last one (de Klerk) who knows?-bribed,blackmailed…

        Interestingly,theological liberalisation preceded the loosening of racial convictions.Together they opened the door to rainbow nation thinking.Finally,with the diabolical cunningness that is so typical of Marxism,the white referendum was framed as a choice between Nazism and the ‘reasonable and fair’ alternative of power-sharing.

      2. You will note that the National Party in South Africa surrendered power to the ANC only after the fall of the Soviet Union. This latter deception was the key to the whole African fiasco. The Soviet Union did not fold as everyone then believed, but was arranged to enable a larger strategy that has since delivered many countries to the communists, including Africa’s mineral storehouse astride the Cape sea route. It was therefore not safe for the National Party to surrender to communists (ANC) who were ready to bring the country into the Eastern Bloc (BRICS alliance adjunct). Liberalism has won only a few small countries in Eastern Europe while communism took even more strategic ground in Africa and South America, Washington, London, Paris and Berlin. The West’s belief in the victory of liberal principles in 1989-91 was self-deception. The same process began to unfold in the USA as in South Africa, especially with the election of Clinton, then Obama, and now Biden. We are now faced with the prospect of a one party state here in America, with whites denounced a racists by virtue of skin color, fraudulent elections and a pandemic-based “medical” dictatorship. In Moscow they are laughing at us as our nuclear arsenal rots from neglect.

  2. Hello, I owe a lot to Olavo de Carvalho -his books and texts – to wake me up to the frightening reality that surrounded me, and with each day this Marxist reality only increases. It amazes me how the general population is totally alienated and anesthetized.

  3. A great primer on Marxism. I just bought Mr. Simpson’s book based on this article. This statement especially rings with truth:

    Because a debased population is easier to manipulate, easier to intimidate, easier to rule over, the Marxist has not lost sight of his goal. Citizens who are upright and honorable are not easily tyrannized.

    That’s why I don’t have a lot of optimism for the future. We’ve become a very decadent and immoral society.

  4. China is NOT the sole source of Covid. Fauci and the NIH are partners. Even Fauci admits that the chain of custody came from a lab in Virginia. The Communist treat is real. Russia and China have nuclear arms, not to be dismissed, but Americans are already being challenged by their own government, and being tested by God. I will not be distracted form attacks on multiple fronts, with a narrow minded concern, about Russia and China, or even Progressive Democrats. Republicans have been infiltrated as well, and not just by Communists, Jesuits, and Fascists.

    As much as I respect you, Jeff, and appreciate your fine writing, I don’t find that you have proven your case.

    1. Fauci had no control over the Chinese lab in Wuhan, and certainly was not dictating terms to the Chinese. The virus was released by them, not by him. They used him, and probably bought him off. You should never put a corrupt individual on the same level as a vast communist state — with all its power and intelligence tools.

      1. This got posted out of context. I’ll take the blame. Are these corporations held by Chinese generals? Are they in your qualified pension plan?

      2. Do you imagine companies that make medicine are a match for communist empires that have killed tens of millions, oppressed billions, routinely overturnimg nations and governments?

  5. “Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy?” Prov. 27:4

    Solomon understood marxism long before it had a name; it is little more than the politics of envy. There truly is nothing new under the sun.

    Blessings in Christ

    1. I think there is actually more to Marxism than envy. Marxism is a complex body of thought, and its tactics/strategies bring revolutionary conspiracy and subversion to new levels of effectiveness.

      1. Seems to me that so-called, “Marxism,” goes well beyond what even Satanic Marx, had designed.

      2. No doubt there are many iterations and modes of implementation, but at its heart is the alinskyite deliberate chafing [friction] of [at least] one segment of society [citing grievances, real or imagined; mostly the latter imo] against another for the purpose of exploiting and/or subverting both.

      3. You’re hypothesis that under the Solar minimum, that China might seed US farmland, is credible. Do you discount an alliance of US transnational corporations with China, influencing Fauci? Might these corporations be more directly influential upon elected and bureaucratic US officials, than by China?

        Is China really injecting it’s citizens with the deadly, mRNA Covid serum? China has recently permitted three children per couple. This would seem incongruent with expectation of famine, so maybe China fully expects to feed them all? Or perhaps since China is so called, vaccinating everybody, let them have some last fun?

      4. No. China is not injecting its citizens with our mRNA vaccines. Their vaccine is different from ours. China, however, would certainly prefer to decrease its population of overaged pensioners. Their idea is to kill off old people who are no longer useful. Only we are ordering children vaccinated. As for corporations: Please go back and read my article on the Yenan Way which quotes Mao’s lectures on helping capitalists get rich in order to acquire the political power necessary to exterminate China’s enemies. Any corporation that cooperates with China is committing suicide. They will make money, but money is not real power. Guns and bombs and missiles are real power. Capitalists who help China will end up in a shallow grave.

      5. Is that to say that US transnational corporations are in fact colluding with China in depopulation the United States, or are they not? Might the not CEOs well think that they will be continue in their privileged relationship with China?

      6. You are ready to convict nameless CEO’s for a crime they do not need to wittingly carry out. Nobody who was trying to kill off entire continents would divulge it to anyone — CEO or janitor — who might become alarmed and blow the whistle. Real people in real corporations are motivated by money, not by blood lust. The whole scheme would have been revealed long ago if it was not all part of money-making, and China would never be so reckless as to show their hand to any foreigner. Every foreigner is told whatever lie works best, at each level, with incentives and implied threats. The history of this is well documented.

      7. “Their [The CCP] idea is to kill off old people who are no longer useful”

        Didn’t the Nazis back in the 1930s call the old and the infirm “useless eaters”? That is such a cold, inhumane phrase and a way of looking at things.

  6. I have been around communist-environmentalist circles and it’s very clear once you start hearing the mother gaia this, save the earth that, people putting animal life above human life, how humans are a plague and so on, it becomes evident some of those communist folk aren’t exactly atheists, there’s this mixing with animal worshiping gaia paganism in it. Then you look at Lenin’s mausoleum, that thing looks like a temple, is this where the communists go for a cult ritual or something? That’s the impression I get with how they clearly want to deify revolutionaries such as Che Guevara and mix cult-like aspects to the revolutionary movement, the picture of Mao that has to be around in China and if someone doesn’t pay respects to the supreme leader and false god, he’s going to suffer repercussions, isn’t this exactly what cult leaders do to people who aren’t true believers? They get abused for having little faith and may suffer some sort of public humiliation for not following the leader 100%. Perhaps communists want a certain return to the old Roman emperor status quo where the leader was deified.

    Communists also try to pit family members against each other, this can be seen when during elections, left wing journalists and writers openly saying how a family member voting for X candidate should be fought against as an enemy, how during holidays you should fight your father because he dares to vote for someone the communists don’t approve, it’s a sad thing, but again this is exactly how a cult leader operates, trying to separate his members from the family as much as possible, from anyone who can talk sense into the neophyte.

    When a young adult enters a university, and then the parents start noticing changes in behavior, who knows what the marxist teacher is putting in his/her mind, and then later the young student starts mentioning how dad is a capitalistic oppressor and similar drivel, the next step is for the person to cut ties with those family members who don’t want to join in the red cult of death, because you see they are oppressors if they are not pushing for the communist agenda in one way or the other. The end result is going to be a split in the family and the revolutionary member will resent the parents and family members who did not drink the kool-aid.

  7. Jeff, not sure if you can comment, in regards to the Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Movement/Democracy Movement, that movement can be said was actually started by the Chinese Communist Party but it seems many Western nations trust the Hong Kong Democracy Movement, when I was talking with the Hong Kong Independence Party members about this, their remarks about the Hong Kong Democracy Movement is that it was started by the Chinese Communist Party as both founders of the Hong Kong Pro-Democracy Movement/Democracy Movement are known to have either had ties with the CCP or covertly worked for the CCP as in the case of Martin Lee and Szeto Wah

    1. Any movement that aims to loosen taboos need to be watched. I am not sure what the language basis of these democracy so called movements are. In fact, the word democracy is very suspicious from the outset. Even the word freedom is abused to antisocial levels in America, to the point of Libertarians going full circle and embracing trade with China. Liberty never meant ignoring Life, as in Life first, Liberty and pursuit of happiness.

      To me, any movement embracing the removal of taboos necessary for the joining of people, e g. Making marriage a personal private sex affair instead of one involving the tribe, is a word game. MetaMarxism is a word game of removing taboos to create new ones in opposition (making homosexuals jealous of heterosexuals, for example, through the ploy of “sexual freedom” movements) is patent.

      There is no need for such opposites, because, let us face it, virtue is the bigger taboo, but even lower taboos are still applicable. Indian tribes managed well homosexuality and transsexuality through specific collective rituals that amended for the deviations, preventing the witch from ejecting the tribe, alienating it. It was a manner of allowing controversial behavior so long harm for the group was mitigated in a ritual – ie the ritual occasion of tribal unison and peace was a far greater benefit than the relative small individual idiosyncratic behavioral quirks. Even “blessed” heterosexual relations were thus taboo and treated with the same caution.

      What the Marxist does is oppose behaviors and push for them to be done in absolute control forbidden behavior save from a ruler “expert” opinion maker blessing, or encourages people to selfishly sneak in the name of “my body my right”. The words like democracy and freedom in these movements are often modern and pre-debauched, as set in oppositions where there are none in a sane tribe.

  8. According to Richard Wurmbrand, a Jewish-Christian pastor who spent 14 years in communist concentration camps because of following Jesus, apparently Karl Marx became a satanist during his student days. That explains his hatred of everyone, and destructiveness. Just as Satan is called the father of lies, so Marxists are known for their fluency in lying. Wurmbrand also mentioned that Marx and his early co-workers were not atheists, rather they fought against a God whom they knew exists. There are more details of Marx’ life and work that Wurmbrand mentioned that led Wurmbrand to the conclusion that Marx was a Satanist since his student days.

    What I see as most effective against Marxism are people holding to another ideology based on a love that is tough and based on justice, judicial and societal justice, not just personal doing right. It also demands an intellectual honesty to recognize when true, not false, hatred and injustice are done and not turn away while opposing false claims of hatred and injustice. I know of only one such ideology. Only a small percentage of Americans follow that ideology. Because communists have infiltrated all organized groups claiming that ideology and perverted the organizations, I cannot recommend any one organization as being pure.

    1. It has been many years since I read Wurmbrandt’s controversial thesis on Marx. Only now I reread a copy of an improved version, “Marx and Satan.” Written after the fall of the Soviet Union. I see that Wurmbrand strengthened his thesis considerably by removing some dubious material — used in “Was Karl Marx a Satanist?” — which purported actual proof of Marx belonging to a Satanic sect. Direct proof of such is hard to obtain, and perhaps besides the point. I had found the source of that alleged proof to be spurious when I stumbled on the actual source book in a research library and saw it was a hoax — or written by a madman. The best case that Marx was a Satanist is a suggestive case, using Marx’s words and deeds to show a very definite orientation in favor of evil. Yet this is not absolute proof of Devil worship, so we must be careful not to overstate the case. I have known atheists in college to use Satanic metaphors, yet these people had no belief in the supernatural whatsoever. Of course, I did know a Marxist who practiced magic. I never asked how he reconciled all that. Who knows? Marx raised his children as atheists, as Wurmbrand himself admits, though this detail is not thoroughly analyzed by Wurmbrand. A letter from Marx’s son, which is addressed to “my dear Devil” is highly strange and disturbing, as is a bizarre letter from his wife, addressing him as a spiritual master. How we interpret certain statements of Marx and his family can be tricky, and the nuances of the family sense of humor may be misunderstood — but nonetheless, this is more than creepy. What is most bizarre, and disturbing, is the profound attraction so many communists have for evil symbols, words, metaphors, and the Satanic ideal. This has a deeply suggestive import, pointing to what lies within. I have noticed it in committed Marxists of my acquaintance. There is a spring of malevolence in some of them. Stepping outside the Western context, Mao said he hated Confucius from the age of eight. Wurmbrand rightly sees this as demonic, since Confucius preached goodness. Also, Stalin’s demonic personality is also touched on by Wurmbrand. Especially frightening are excerpts from an unpublished diary of Stalin’s sidekick, Kaganovich. Could these diaries be authentic? The comments are chilling, as if Stalin had no soul or was not human. As far as I know these diaries are not mentioned elsewhere. Does anyone know? Wurmbrand also mentions Lenin’s bizarre pyramid in Red Square. It was designed by Bolshevik Theosophists. One would think that dialectical materialists would not engage in occultism, but look at Hillary Clinton’s publicized involvement with seances and necromancy. Then there was Podesta’s “spirit cooking” emails. We should not expect a uniform and principled atheism from people who are so obsessed with power. Surely, if they ever came to suspect the efficacy of occult practices, they would apply themselves to evil spirits at the first opportunity — would they not? Power is their thing. Getting power by any means would be a lure for them. One might have to admit that Communism is the ultimate Antichrist movement of all time. Even Carl Jung, who was sympathetic to Christian Gnostic theology, said communism was a manifestation of Antichrist. Please note: Wurmbrand does not condemn those socialists who are misled into believing in Marxism, but laments their misguided ideas and misspent lives. I have come to believe that socialism is profoundly destructive, and the worst of it is immediately ahead of us. It is, perhaps, through the inversion of ontology that the greatest wickedness manifests itself.

      1. “Till heart’s bewitched, till senses reel:
        With Satan I have struck my deal.
        He chalks the signs, beats time for me,
        I play the death march fast and free.

        “I must play dark, I must play light,
        Till bowstrings break my heart outright.”

        The Fiddler saws the strings,
        His light brown hair he tosses and flings.
        He carries a sabre at his side,
        He wears a pleated habit wide.


      2. I find this very interesting. I realized some time ago that many teachings of communism are indeed inversions of what for example Ten Commandmends, the Law of Moses tells people. One should not desire something that belongs to another person, but this is exactly what communist do.

        Also there was interesting conspiracy theory circulating in social media here in Finland after Covid passport was adopted by the parliament. They said that it accepted with the Number of the Beast: 666

        Of the 200 MP’s:
        105 voted yes
        33 voted no
        60 were absent
        1 voted empty



        It is a curious coincidence. When I saw it, it made me think for a moment about the possibility of something going on Also there exists this World Economic Forum that preaches communist ideas about not owning anything etc. They also have this Number of the Beast hidden in their logo.

        w6rld ec6nomic f6rum

        Another coincidence.

      3. Oh then there is also 6uild 6ack 6etter, that they keep repeating all the time. Also Finnish politicians use this phrase .

  9. The communist clenched fist in itself (though not yet in use during Karl Marx’s lifetime) says it all already. Communists, whether consciously or not, are following in the footsteps of that one eternal – mind: super-brilliant – archangel who chose to rather reign in hell than serve in heaven. What drives the communists is rebellion; rebellion against a Godhead that to them (allegedly) doesn’t exist? Doesn’t make sense. In other words, they don’t deny God’s existence (as atheists would do), but fight it to the death (in order to put themselves in God’s place). It is this all-consuming, insane hatred of theirs that lies at the core of their false doctrine (indeed: their CULT), which is why they even call everything they do, a “struggle”.

    And we shouldn’t underestimate the catastrophic impact of particularly Goethe’s Faust (popular Part I of which was published in 1808, a decade before Marx was born) on the whole of 19th-century Germany and beyond. Young Karl Marx was obsessed with that very theme of a Faustian pact with the forces of darkness, and his demonically charged literary attempts from his student years give plenty of proof of that fatal attraction. Marx’s poem of 1837, “Invocation of One in Despair”, reveals, among so many other examples, the pitch-black reality of the communist sentiment, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and complete with the communists’ megalomaniac strive to rule over the earth AND the heavens:

    So a god has snatched from me my all
    In the curse and rack of Destiny.
    All his worlds are gone beyond recall!
    Nothing but revenge is left to me!

    On myself revenge I’ll proudly wreak,
    On that being, that enthroned Lord,
    Make my strength a patchwork of what’s weak,
    Leave my better self without reward!

    I shall build my throne high overhead,
    Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
    For its bulwark– superstitious dread,
    For its Marshall–blackest agony.

    Who looks on it with a healthy eye,
    Shall turn back, struck deathly pale and dumb;
    Clutched by blind and chill Mortality
    May his happiness prepare its tomb.

    And the Almighty’s lightning shall rebound
    From that massive iron giant.
    If he bring my walls and towers down,
    Eternity shall raise them up, defiant.

    1. And wasn’t it a telling choice for Lev Davidovich Bronstein to assume, as a young revolutionary of 22 years, the pseudonym “Trotsky” (German spelling: Trotzki)? Legend has it that it was his way of making fun of a jailer of that name of the Odessa prison where Trotsky had previously been incarcarated. However, “Trotzki” could also be understood as a derivative of the German word “Trotz”, which means: DEFIANCE!

      1. That would be the typical acculturation process of a Jew from his tribe which eventually causes schizophrenia. If Marxist Leninists are psychopaths who enjoy the crime not for the wealth but the emotional hurt it causes, the Trotskyist is indeed a full blown paranoid schizophrenic wallowing in dry material rejecting any kind of social orientation. In effect they are “emotional autists”

    2. I believe Goethe was a pedophile. This Faustian deal is not so surprising in its talk to the devil per say, but in the secretive and intimate setting of it.

      Right there is the locus of this Marxist neurosis making, and one indeed far more vicious and damaging than a puritan religious one. This hypocrite deal done in secret unbeknownst to the tribe is the main damage, imo. These are indeed similar seeds. We could call Goethe the MetaMarxism that inspires one to Marxism.

  10. Jeff, I have questions. First off, thank you for writing on this topic. I appreciate the information about Karl Marx’s upbringing and his attitudes. But there are things I don’t understand. Why did Frederick Engels stick with Marx? What was the attraction? I also can’t understand Karl’s wife either. What was wrong with her?

    1. Marx’s wife was manipulated by a very intelligent, willful and selfish man. Engels saw this same man as an intellect and force to be reckoned with. What was wrong with them? One might say they both fell under an evil spell, Engels because he was disillusioned, Jenny because Marx was somehow exciting and out of the ordinary. I do not know what her private thoughts were. Karl did not attend her funeral, which some reproach him for (though he may have been sick). He drank a lot, from what I’ve read. People who become involved with the like lack discernment. Perhaps it is a question of bad choices.

      1. Mr. Nyquist, I’d like to thank you for your answer to my question in the comments pertaining to your previous article. You are certainly right as regards the prevalence of over-grown spoiled brats in this dismal modern society. They’ll find out soon enough what oppression really is if they get their way. One thing that is disconcerting to say the least is the utter disregard for reason that has taken hold of a great section of the populace. It makes me think of something I read by Belloc the great historian about the rapidly worsening societal degeneration of his own time, the advance of infidelity & depravity : “Being Atheist, it is characteristic of the advancing wave that it
        repudiates the human reason. Such an attitude would seem again to
        be a contradiction in terms; for if you deny the value of human
        reason, if you say that we cannot through our reason arrive at any
        truth, then not even the affirmation so made can be true. Nothing
        can be true, and nothing is worth saying. But that great Modern
        Attack (which is more than a heresy) is indifferent to self-
        contradiction. It merely affirms. It advances like an animal,
        counting on strength alone. Indeed, it may be remarked in passing
        that this may well be the cause of its final defeat; for hitherto
        reason has always overcome its opponents; and man is the master of
        the beast through reason.” He wrote this more than 80 years ago, I can only imagine what he’d think if he were to come to this world & see the open sewer we have to live in now-a-days.Only God Himself can stop all of this now.

      2. I think we need to do everything we can to stand against this outbreak of madness — socialist government control of everything. Look where it is leading us. The vaccine mandates are the leading edge of the greatest criminal stupidity and malevolence I have seen in my life. Abortion is evil, but now they want to vaccinate all children, all pregnant women, all service members, all police, all firemen. I am stunned. What can anyone say to that? Marx breathed malevolence, and his epigones are following his example. They are the pushing the vaccine mandates. They are saying the vaccines are safe. Stand up to them — no matter the cost. Stand up, stand up, stand up.

  11. To think the vaccines used borderline illegally fetal cells to be produced tells us that the malevolence involves a subset of anti-hypocratic oath takers wanting to force it on children not aware of the danger to consent to such child abuse.

    I will always be amazed at how leftist trolls who categorically hate the schizophrenic bases they create (since they knowingly like the idea of these vaxes killing people and turning people into disposable non thinking slaves without past nor future) end up making those who oppose this schizophrenia looking as vax-sceptics people or as rationality hating bunch.

    A same movement flip occurs in the sexual mores where we know that heterosexuality has always been more punished than homosexuality throughout history. But the envy of money and wealth was also transposed into an envy of happy heterosexual couples, but in disguised forms of glorifying the deviant sterile behaviors and making them martyr. This is typical of Marxists to manipulate and oppose good vs bad taboos like these, even debauching heterosexual behavior into an antisocial libertarian behavior.

    Often I hear libertarians saying “they do not care what people do behind walls”. This is stupid since of course no one really cares when two people destroy themselves behind walls like the Schrodinger cat. Except the cat this time is refusing the antisocial experiment, for good reasons, and want an observer. This kind of thing can only infuriate Marxists and those manipulated by it who envy heterosexual behavior.

    Well, the same game is playing out with vaccines and money and everything else. Every single societal building taboo, which making money or getting a medical treatment should be, is getting destroyed by a double talk of protecting privacy and imposing a single opinion maker replacing the role of the tribe in allowing those taboos on conditional inter-tribal open contractual basis.

    It is amazing that Marxism which tends to be associated with collectivism is a destroyer of any tribe that shies from individualism in the first place!

    1. I have not read this book. I suppose the title could be related to someone who was murdered by a robber. The cause of death was not the robber, but the fact he had money. The thesis leaves me cold.

Comments are now closed.