Reading the Signs
today's lesson: Karl Marx
by Miles Mathis
First published November 23, 2014
In short,
the leaders of
the progressive movement in Germany had already cut their own throats by focusing on religion instead of politics. Most workers weren't interested in overthrowing
the Church. Atheism was a pose mostly taken by university students, not by workers.
The masses weren't going to be swayed by talking to them about atheism, and Marx knew that. These attacks on Christianity only turned most of
the workers off. But
the leaders of
the progressive movements like Bauer were too ensconced in their ivory towers to see that. So Marx and Engels cleverly goaded them into thinking they had failed because they hadn't gone far enough in their attacks on religion. Marx's job was to push
the progressives into further radicalism, a radicalism that would both disenchant
the real workers and mobilize
the conservatives in government to shut down
the magazines and meetings.
The same sort of controlling
the opposition we see now was going on in
the 1840's. There are many subplots to this control, but one of them has always been encouraging
the progressives to play their hand too far and too early. Marx was inserted as a mole: a creator of dissension, a confuser, and a giver of bad advice.
We see more proof of that in 1849 when August Willich and Karl Schapper recommended an immediate uprising. Marx and Engels did everything they could to stop it, warning that it would be crushed by
the police.
Changes in society, Marx argued, are not achieved overnight through the efforts and will power of "a
handful of men.” [Fedoseyev, p. 233] Instead, they are brought about through a scientific analysis of
economic conditions of society and by moving toward revolution through different stages of social
development.
That is classical Marxist misdirection, of course, with
the blather about a scientific progression of history. It also refutes itself for at least two reasons: 1) Willich and Schapper weren't calling for action by a handful of men, they were calling for action by millions of men and women simultaneously across Europe—
the very thing
the industrialists feared most. 2)
The industrialists had changed society in a matter of decades, and they were in fact “a handful of men.” A few powerful people working together can achieve incredible things, and history is full of examples of that. Marx and his backers knew that, which is exactly why they were publishing manifestoes saying
the opposite.
I encourage you to study that last quoted sentence closely. Here it is again:
Instead, they are brought about through a scientific analysis of economic conditions of society and by moving toward revolution through different stages of social development. When did anything in history ever happen that way? Answer: it didn't.
The French Revolution happened in just
the opposite way, with no scientific analysis of economic conditions and no moving through stages of social development.
The 17th century overthrow of Charles by Cromwell didn't happen that way, either. Both real history and human nature are
the opposite of scientific. They are
the opposite of Marxist.
As more evidence of this, I beg you to reconsider Marx's pitting
the proletariat against
the bourgeoisie. This should have always seemed strange to you, seeing that
the great enemy of
the worker was not
the bourgeoisie, but
the very rich industrialists who owned
the companies. As now, it was
the super rich that were preying on
the workers, not
the middle class.
The lower class and
the middle class should have been natural allies against
the upper class, since both were and are being preyed upon mercilessly. Well,
the upper class recognized that fact, and had to prevent that alliance by any means possible. Enter Karl Marx.
Do you really think it is a coincidence that Marx came from a family of super wealthy industrialists, and that he was misdirecting attention away from them all along? You will tell me that when he returned to Cologne in 1848, he pressed four of
the ten points of
the Manifesto, believing that “thebourgeoisie must overthrow
the feudal monarchy and aristocracy before
the proletariat could overthrow
the bourgeoisie.” [Wheen, p. 129.] But again, that is misdirection, since his rich uncle Benny was neither monarchy nor aristocracy.
The Philips family was composed of bankers and industrialists, not aristocrats. In fact, these industrialists wanted to supplant
the existing aristocracy. It was upper class versus upper class, and in some parts of
the world it still is. Remind yourself what happened in Russia:
the monarchy and aristocracy were overthrown, but not by
the bourgeoisie. They were overthrown by a group of mysterious intellectuals like Marx—Lenin, Trotsky, etc.—and under closer examination we find they too were financed by bankers and industrialists.
I encourage you to read that last quoted sentence yet again, and despin it like this: Marx wanted to see
the bourgeoisie overthrow
the aristocracy before
the proletariat overthrew
the bourgeoisie. Why would he push that idea? I suggest to you that it is because
the overthrow of
the aristocracy was
the plan all along. All this talk about
the proles and bourgeoisie is just misdirection.
The goal was for
the aristocracy to be replaced by
the industrialists in Marx's family, after which
the proletariat could all go get hanged. Marx and his backers knew that
the proletariat would never gain
the ability to overthrow anyone, but they especially wouldn't have
the power to overthrow a new upper class that had just defeated
the old aristocracy and co-opted all their resources.
You see, recent history has been
the industrialists against everyone else. But they were always least worried about
the “proletariat.”
The lower class was mostly lower for a reason. They had
the fewest resources, intellectual and tangible. That is why
the industrialists were always misdirecting you toward them. They wanted
the world to think they were concerned with
the lower classes, but they weren't. They were most concerned with
the aristocracy, since
the aristocracy had all
the things they wanted. This is why Marx was advising that
the aristocracy needed to overthrown first.
He is actually tipping his hand toward us here, but almost no one has read the cards right. [
]
The secondary concern of
the industrialists and bankers was
the upper-middle class. They had to watch their flank while they were going after
the aristocracy. They couldn't have those just beneath them bite them in
the butt while they were pulling down kings. In hindsight, we see that they dealt with this by pushing a materialistic and economic worldview. This materialistic worldview kept
the upper-middle class chasing
the very wealthy above them, rather than attacking them.
The middle class didn't want to ally itself to
the lower class, since that would just pull them down. This effectively isolated
the lower class. It also isolated and ultimately doomed
the middle class, since after
the industrialists had defeated
the aristocracy, they turned and attacked
the stratum just beneath them.
The new upper class has now been preying voraciously on
the middle class for
the past half century—so much so that
the parasite may end up killing
the host. Once
the upper class has pushed
the entire middle class down into
the lower class, it will have only itself to feed upon. We are already seeing
the first stages of that.
http://mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf 
