Marxism is the output of the Jew, Karl Marx. His political theories led to the Bolshevik Revolution and the deaths of 85 to 100 million people. So he was, at best a A Deeply Sincere Fool. Another Jew, Theodor Herzl reported on the trial of Captain Dreyfus, a Jew in France who got done for espionage. The trial was fraudulent and driven by hatred of Jews. Herzl took the point and decided that they needed a bolt hole to escape from people. This is why Zionist crazies  stole Palestine from its owners. He does not seem to have thought that the hatred could be justified and that the right answer might be to clean up their act. As a result millions went to their deaths and there are fools who still admire him. Is anyone fool enough to believe in Marxism Today? It's not bad for the thugs running it but the Venezuela incarnation has achieved the highest rating in the misery index for 2013, 2014 and 2015.

It is claimed that Marxism is scientific. This is fairly evidently absurd. Karl Popper, a respected philosopher put the point on a strong basis. His view is that any real scientific theory can be falsified or not. The Wikipedia tells us that:-

It also inspired him [ Popper ] to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable. This led him to attack the claims of both psychoanalysis and contemporary Marxism to scientific status, on the basis that the theories enshrined by them are not falsifiable.
Curiously this is a Jew [  Karl Popper ] telling us that two other Jews [ Marx and Freud ] were feeding us tosh.


Fred Explains Marx
Fred is straightforward. Fred keeps it simple. Fred is an entertaining writer. Fred is right.


Cultural Marxism
Marxism has become cultural rather than military. It is more effective, more dangerous.


Dialectical Materialism
Consider this drivel then wonder whether Marxists know what they are talking about. Did Marx understand his own waffle?


Marxist Saints
See who they admire, then shudder. Wonder too just why it is that they don't like naughty, little Adolf, another Socialist.


Marx In Disguise 
Fred explains. Fred uses plain English. Fred is right again.


Class Consciousness
The rich are the enemy of the poor - therefore they should be exterminated. That is the theory. The reality led to the murder of 85 million people, who were mainly poor - see The Black Book of Communism


Communism Is Alive And Kicking In A Nation of Frogs
The title is a little odd but the analysis is excellent. Communists HAVE taken over the education, the media, universities, churches, law, business and worst of all,  governments.


Was a dismal rogue in the philosophy racket who influenced Marx; an embarrassing achievement. He also influenced Adolf, an interesting double. He looks suitably miserable about the whole thing.


Karl Marx
Is something about the fool/rogue/lunatic/psychopath/proven incompetent [ delete to taste ] behind the ideology.


Marxists Make False Claims
A rather lengthy article telling us that Marxists in England are lying to us and, quite possibly themselves.


Marxist Theory
Is an attempt to clarify turgid waffle.


Marxist Takeover Of The Ruling Class
It happened. It was achieved by cunning and treachery. They are running England and America NOW.


Marx Was A Deeply Sincere Fool
On the principle that leprosy is more fun if you understand why your fingers are falling off, permit me a few thoughts on Karl Marx, his witless theories, and our descent into a Disney version of them.

Marxism is a stupid, and almost comically wrong, hotchpotch of nonsense by a man who had little grasp of humanity, politics, or economics. He is an economist whose theories invariably lead to impoverishment. As a claim to greatness, this would seem defective. He is a major figure for the same reason that Typhoid Mary is-for damage done rather than intelligence exercised.

(Bear with me. This is not boilerplate denunciation of all things leftist. There is actually a point coming.)

Further, the errors of Marx were not of detail. They were fundamental. For example, he expected workingmen to unite. Instead, WWI showed that, with monotonous regularity (and perhaps questionable wisdom), their loyalty went to their countries. He thought that revolution would come in industrialized nations with suitable proletariats. Instead it came first in creaky agricultural countries, and never did come where he expected it. He thought that European economies would never give rise to the liberal democracies that seem today to be what everyone wants. They did.

In short, he was a crackpot. He was, however, either a crackpot who had correctly calculated the manipulability of the congenitally angry, or just lucky. No one, ever, has been responsible for as much death and brutality as Karl Marx. It wasn’t what he had in mind, not consciously anyway. But it is what he caused.

It is what Marxists always cause. With perfect predictability, Marxist states are police states. The chief trait of the workers’ paradise is that the workers all want to leave, and must be kept in with machine guns and land mines. In divided countries like Korea, we have what approach being laboratory experiments. South Korea is a high-tech industrial power. In North Korea, they eat grass and, occasionally, each other. If Korea is a geographical example, China is a temporal one: As soon as it began to abandon Marxism, it began to progress.

Marxism is a proven disaster. And Marxists know it. Elementary history is not a secret.

All of this would be of academic interest only, if the same spirit, under other names, were not so very active in America today. We see it in a variety of disguises. When Russia practiced censorship, we called it ” censorship.” Here, we call it political correctness. You still have to look over your shoulder before saying the wrong things. The difference is?what? In Russia, Marxists preached class warfare. Here they preach multiculturalism. The difference is?what? The Russians, unable to speak openly, passed around samizdat. We have the Internet. The difference, other than efficiency, is?what?

Our domestic Marxians are journalists, academics, racial professionals, multiculturalists, bilingualists, radical feminists, and educationists. Most of them lack the intelligence and schooling to know what they are helping to do. (I think the phrase is “useful idiots.”) The leaders, as for example in the universities, do know. They are less lethal than Lenin and Trotsky, but their direction is the same.

The key to understanding them is the recognition that Marxism is not a system but a mood: a grim, implacable, vengeful hostility toward the surrounding society. Its devotees are haters. This distinguishes it sharply from normal European democratic socialism. One may debate whether, say, Sweden is too socialist or not socialist enough. Yet Swedish socialism is not evil. Marxism is.

At its heart are (1) a desire for total control of everything, including of thought (2) a willingness to compel obedience by any means whatever, (3) an unconcern with economic reality and thus with material well-being, and (4) a contempt for humanity (“the masses”). It is simply resentment politicized, aimed not at helping the downtrodden, but at hurting the uptrodden.

Now, people who viscerally realize what is going on often want to debate with our Marxians. It is a mistake. Economics is not a mathematically verifiable subject. Politics also being imprecise, it is easy to argue for or against any position until the debate dissolves into murk. A case can easily be made for communism, or Nazism, or democracy, or Catholicism, or atheism, or paedophilia.

Instead, you have to remember at who they are, what they are. They are people who want to bring down ambient civilization.

This explains what might otherwise seem to be contradictions. For example, radical feminists, very Marxian in spirit, denounce imaginary discrimination against women in America, but say little about compulsory clitoridectomies in African and Moslem countries. This makes no sense if you believe that they want to benefit women. It makes perfect sense if their goal is to create division with an eye to destroying America.

Or note that the hard left talks endless about mistreatment of blacks in America, but conspicuously does not urge things, such as better schooling, that might help blacks. Why? Because (1) they do not really care about blacks, except as political tools, and (2) if blacks prospered, they might join the middle class and cease being usefully divisive.

Similarly, for Latino children our Marxians advocate bilingual education, which has a proven record of hindering the learning of English. Why? Latinos who spoke fluent English would marry people named Ferguson and become Americans. So much for class warfare.

And this is why Marxists, everywhere denouncing oppression, invariably practice it. There is no contradiction. They have no objection to oppression. It is central to their purposes. (Name a Marxist country that isn’t oppressive.) Denouncing it is just politically expedient.

The last thing they want is for backward countries to flourish and become liberal democracies.

Tactically, they are on solid ground in America. The United States always having been successful in assimilating groups, the Marxists needed to reverse the process so as to have class warfare. They couldn’t use the usual proletariat because it had moved into the middle class. They consequently needed to promote or invent new divisions. They did. It worked.

Black against white was an obviously useful fault line that the hard left didn’t invent but has carefully cultivated.. Opening the southern border amounted to importing a divisive class. Setting women against men was remarkably successful. Fanning homosexuals into hostility provided yet another serviceable resentment. The emotional terrorism practiced against boys is school (cops-and-robbers is violence), hate-speech laws, the punishment of dissent (as for example by being fired) are all the Soviet Union writ small. So far.

We will, I think, do nothing about it. Leprosy and docility are an unfortunate combination. But interesting.
Americans may be docile, too docile but they are fairly well armed. England does not have that advantage.


In spite of Marxism's evil it is worth knowing something about it. This is because it is evil and we need to know how to counter it. My attempt to clarify is at Marxist Theory

Marxists Driven By Hate Flood Us With Third World Third Undesirables [ 3 May 2013 ]
Peter Hitchens’s Show of Guilt: Enoch Powell Was Right

Now that Britain has been utterly transformed to the point that turning back the Multicultural assault and reclaiming the traditional British nation would be cataclysmic, we are treated to some hand-wringing in the mainstream media. In his “How I am partly to blame for mass immigration” Peter Hitchens writes that when he was a Trotskyite supporting as much immigration as possible,

it wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.  Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’.  If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.

Hitchens’ comment that “it wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain” is particularly noteworthy. As throughout the West, these transformations did not occur because of love of immigrants or love of humanity, but because of hatred to the traditional people and culture of the West. They were revolutions carried out by hostile elites against the wishes of the majority and hence without any legitimacy.......

Hitchens’s attack on Powell is dishonest because he avoids the core issues: What constitutes alienness? What constitutes an organic society? What is Englishness? This shows at the end where he eulogizes Britain as a hallowed place and envisions a utopian society where  a “great effort” will ”bring us all together, once again, in a shared love for this, the most beautiful and blessed plot of earth on the planet”
Professor MacDonald tells it like it is again. A point he may not have taken is that Hitchens is a Jew, albeit one that seems to have decent views regarding hanging etcetera. More evidence is at The Labour Party’s War Against White Britain.


Academics Hate The Truth - Another Book Burning In The Making [ 12 June 2017 ]
A cold civil war has been raging within academe, a war between “Biologians” and “Culturists.” American Historical Review,

Perspective: Many modern biologists, genomic scientists, and physical anthropologists are Biologians. They think evolutionary adaptations are partly responsible for some racial disparities. But most historians, social scientists, public leaders, and Main Stream Media journalists are culturists. They minimize the importance of biology and evolution and say that history and culture explain the variations in the distribution of human characteristics............

As it happened, a Marxist group at Harvard, Science for the People, responded to Sociobiology with printed leaflets and teach-ins that were harshly critical of Professor Wilson. For a few days, a protester in Harvard Square used a bullhorn to demand that the university fire Professor Wilson, and on one occasion two students invaded the professor’s class on evolutionary biology to shout slogans and deliver anti-sociobiology monologues.
Professor Wolters is a prominent man in his field. Here he explains why he has been censored for his part in the Nature Versus Nurture debate. It has turned nasty, very nasty in the same way as the Main Stream Media regarding Donald Trump. Recall that Marxists, or was it just Joe Stalin backed Trofim Lysenko, a blatantly fraudulent biologist? It was in Germany that naughty little Adolf had his Book Burnings.


Marxist Union Leader Wants Trouble  [ 13 September  2017 ]
Len McCluskey compared himself to Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela last night as his fellow union barons threatened a wave of illegal strikes. The hard-Left leader of Unite sparked outrage by suggesting that unlawful industrial action was no different to landmark campaigns for civil rights.............

Mr McCluskey suggested unions had a duty to defy a legal requirement for strike action to be approved by a ballot of more than 50 per cent, saying the threshold was 'artificial'.

'If that means we are outside the law, then so be it,' he said. 'The reality is that the law is wrong and it has to be resisted. I daresay if you'd have been interviewing Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi or the suffragettes you'd be telling them that they were breaking the law.

'When a law is wrong, not only is it important to stand up and say so, it is our duty to resist.'...........

Jacob Rees Mogg, Tory MP for North East Somerset, said: 'To compare himself to such people shows the vanity of a peacock. Breaking the law in a democracy is fundamentally different from doing so in an authoritarian state. Our laws are validated by the consent of the people.' [ Mogg is clearly a twerp who doesn't know what Democracy means - Editor ]
It looks as though the Hard Left wants trouble and thinks it can get away with it.  McDonnell is another agitator. See e.g. Corbyn's Marxist Mate Wants Revolution.



Errors & omissions, broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.

Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP KeyHome Page

Updated  on Wednesday, 27 September 2017 22:14:39