The French Revolution provided a vast array of data points. The events that led up to the revolution, as well as the insanity that followed, were immediately and meticulously analyzed. If the code to fomenting revolutions could be cracked, it would become one of the most potent weapons in an army’s arsenal. For Prussia, an army that sought to control nations, this weaponry would be imperative if they were going to continue their march toward European domination.
While the French Revolution had Prussian fingerprints all over it, we can never be certain that it was a carefully orchestrated Prussian plan. However, we do know that Prussia was perpetually sandwiched between two great empires; the French and the Russians. If there was ever an opportunity to destabilize either regime, Prussia would not hesitate to take it. Frederick also viewed the French monarch as ancient and in stark contrast to his liberal progressive regime. From his logic, in the world of ideas, only one political ideology could survive. Frederick and his Enlightened regime was revered within the lodges of freemasonry, so it is hardly surprizing that most of the leaders in the French Revolution were masonic brothers aligned with Frederick’s point of view.
In spite of the revolution, the collapse of France did not result in a weakened state. After years of the Red Terror, many Frenchmen lost everything and were not particularly happy about it. From the ashes of hell, the nation instantly mobilized behind Napoleon, who then embarked on a megalomaniacal mission to take over Europe. The collective rage of Frenchmen was unleashed upon the Prussians in 1806, where Napoleon obliterated their forces at the Battle of Jena¹. Jena will play an interesting role in this story.
The humiliation of Prussia in 1806 changed Western civilization forever. Prussian nobility marvelled at the descent, collapse and miraculous revival of France. They wanted to understand the science behind revolution, and see if it could be harnessed for future wars.
Fichte
Johann Gottlieb Fichte arrived at the University of Jena in 1794. He had already developed an intense fascination with the French Revolution, and in the same year he published Contribution to the Rectification of the Public’s Judgment of the French Revolution². In this publication, he not only defended the actions of the revolutionaries, but also defended the universal right for the people to overthrow their government.
We must contrast Fichte’s assertions within the walls of Prussian politik. There is no way Prussia would tolerate any peoples’ uprising within their dominion, and yet here is Fichte advocating exactly that! Fichte, of course, never dreamt of inciting a Prussian insurrection. His assertions were aimed at other nation states, particularly those which presented a threat to Prussian sovereignty. This is perhaps why he was appointed to the University of Jena to continue his research³.
After the Prussian humiliation at Jena in 1806, Fichte was the academic man with a plan. In a series of lectures known as the Addresses to the German Nation⁴, Fichte outlined the intellectual framework required to transform Prussia into an unstoppable intellectual and military force.
 |
Fichte’s lectures transformed Prussian society. It marked the beginning of state-mandated public education, as we outlined in The Prussian Origins of Public Education. Fichte also came up with the plan to establish the University of Berlin, complete with a Prussian PhD program. With Fichte at the helm, Prussia was going to revive and thrive like never before.
Fichte began the intellectual march toward understanding the psychological mechanics of revolution. Using the data points from the French Revolution, his insights proved invaluable. After his death in 1814, Hegel took over at the University of Berlin, and continued the research into the science of revolution.
The Young Hegelians and Marx
We have already presented Hegel’s concepts around “dialectical idealism”. By the early 1800s, Hegel was world renown, and had developed a fanatical worldwide following. Students from around the globe flocked to hear the man speak. For example, after returning to Yale from studying in Berlin, William Huntington Russel co-founded the order of Skull & Bones⁵. But the most radical followers of Hegel were the Young Hegelians.
 |
⁶
In the Prussian Origins of Marxism, we showed how Marx was heavily influenced by the Young Hegelians while studying at the University of Berlin. We also presented evidence to suggest Marx was anything but a rebel with a communist cause. The data suggested Marx was a Prussian agent of chaos; a slovenly man with an obsession to maximize his personal pleasure and avoid pain at all costs.
He married into Prussian aristocracy. More importantly, he married the sister of the Prussian Interior Minister. Everywhere he travelled, his communist colleagues were arrested or executed while he somehow was able to find a way to escape. While in London, he was visited multiple times by the head of the Prussian secret police, Wilhelm Stieber. Stieber was Otto von Bismarck’s highly prized spy chief. Stieber was intimately involved in the assassination attempts on diplomats, heads of states, and instrumental in destabilizing regions from within before they were invaded by Prussia⁷.
Why would Stieber waste his time with Marx? After all, Prussia was busy preparing for battles against Austria, Denmark and France. Marx was supposedly living a loser-life in poverty and living in exile in London. What was so special about Marx to stimulate Stieber’s spy senses?
After Marx published the Communist Manifesto in 1848, communist revolutions erupted throughout Europe. France was, once again, seduced by the allure of a communist utopia and collapsed. But there were also Prussian communists who “fled” Prussia to escape persecution. The most notable were Solomon Loeb and Abraham Kuhn. They made a vast fortune selling clothes to the US military, and then transformed their capital into one of the most powerful banks in America. Kuhn Loeb & Co. became the American launching-pad for the man who would eventually arrive from Germany and install the Federal Reserve; Paul Warburg.
Marx’s toxic ideology was like a wrecking ball, and it was spreading everywhere. Believers in his Communist Manifesto behaved like their minds were infected with some sort of virus; a woke mind-virus. As this virus spread throughout Europe, Prussia remained relatively unscathed. Perhaps this was why Stieber was enthralled with Marx. Had Marx stumbled on the secret formula to radicalize and destroy rival nations from within? If so, Prussia could take control of nations without a single shot being fired.
If this was true, it would explain the constant surveillance of Marx by Stieber. Otto von Bismarck, no doubt, also understood the power of fomenting revolution within rival empires. France had fallen twice in 50 years to revolution. If Russia could eventually suffer the same fate, Prussia would be freed from their perpetual Russo-Franco geopolitical sandwich. Bizarrely, that’s exactly what happened in 1917.
Nonetheless, Marx completed his studies at the University of Berlin, but he did not submit his PhD there. Instead, he submitted it to the University of Jena. The place where Fichte began the Prussian research into the mechanics of revolution several decades prior, and where Prussia suffered its only defeat of the 19th century.
Regardless, Marx’s dissertation served as a priceless window into the minds of future Marxist revolutionaries. Jena served as the location where the blueprint for a psychological bioweapon was unleashed upon the world. Outbreaks of the Marxist woke mind-virus have been occurring ever since, wreaking havoc, destroying nations and billions of lives in the process.
Building the Marxist Garden
Marxist revolutions are collective human actions inspired by the thought processes of Karl Marx. Marx’s thoughts were derived from his worldview. Marx’s worldview can be understood through the lens of his PhD, the Communist Manifesto, and Das Kapital.
The goal of this section is to provide a summary of the worldview of Marx, and reveal how his ideology became the intellectual framework for Marxist revolutionaries. Marx was a lazy, fat, slovenly, incoherent, morally, financially and spiritually bankrupt individual. As we shall discover, Marx’s character is now the quintessential prototype for Marxists today; be it politicians, CEOs, central bankers, members of the ReichsWEF, or the 40 year old purple-haired brat currently living in their parents’ basement, waiting for the next Soros’ funded protest.
Our summary of this Marxist-reveal will draw upon lectures from brilliant researchers. These lectures provide several hours of invaluable information with respect to how the Marxian mind works. We highly recommend taking the time to listen to these lectures in conjunction with this article, as we will simply present the highlights from a Prussian point of view. We will supply links to these lectures below.
The Garden in the Chaos
Marx’s PhD was a comparative analysis of two Ancient Greek philosophers:
 |
⁸
Democritus is considered as one of the original thinkers. It is thought that he and his teacher developed the idea of atomism:
 |
⁹
Humans, according to Democritus, were also comprised of atoms, but while they were alive their soul was directing the movement of these atoms. The soul, of course, was also comprised of atoms, but of a different essence. These atoms were not created or destroyed. They always existed and simply changed their formations from time to time.
 |
Democritus’ philosophy broke down the universe into tiny, inseparable pieces, and then joined them back together to explain the physical world we live in. By doing so, Democritus created a method that was an essential constituent to the Age of Enlightenment.
 |
¹⁰
Whether he knew it or not, Democritus laid the foundations for deterministic materialism. The idea that everything is simply matter, including the mind and consciousness, was a concept that eventually was explained by the scientific method. The ultimate end-point of this idea was that human beings could one day be reduced to scientific formulas, or algorithms, and therefore replicated mechanically.
Some may recognize the philosophy of Democritus in the current development of Artificial Intelligence. However, it was really Marx’s ideology that provided the complete picture of the woke AI-virus. The problem with Democritus was that he also believed the soul was comprised of atoms, and therefore when a person dies, the atoms of their soul still exist¹¹. This allowed space for the potential for an afterlife, which Democritus did not disagree with.
This theory posed a serious problem for Marx. If there was the possibility of an afterlife, the idea of a French-style revolution was impossible. If future revolutionaries were going to commit the most heinous crimes imaginable, they needed to be reassured that there was no afterlife where they could be punished. The sins of torture, rape and murder needed to be confined to the material world with absolutely no retribution.
Enter Epicurus
Epicurus studied the teachings of Democritus, but he added a few extra twists. The philosophy and ethos of Epicurus sheds significant light into the Marxist belief system. Ethos, or ethics, is the way in which an individual lives their life according to their philosophical principles. In Epicurus’ case, he decided to build a garden.
 |
¹²
Epicurus prescribed to Democritus’ idea of a world comprised of inseparable atoms. However, he provided several additions to Democritus’ theory that whipped Karl Marx into a frenzy.
1. The Fine Line Between Pleasure and Pain
Epicurus professed that the ultimate goal of man is to maximize his personal pleasure while simultaneously avoiding pain at all cost. This became known as “egoistic hedonism”. By doing so, man could maximize what the world was offering, while he was alive. But it was not so easy to avoid the pain parlor, so Epicurus recommended that life should be lived as simply as possible, without complications.
For example, sex is an obvious pleasure, but if it means that you need to commit to an enduring relationship to do so, that relationship could bring pain in the future. The relationship could hurt you through separation, sickness or death. Therefore, if you are going to have sex, make it meaningless and ensure there is absolutely no connection with the lucky object of your desire.
Epicurus did not appear as a mad sexpot seeking out meaningless sex wherever possible. In fact, he was more about finding a relative balance between pleasure and pain. However, future Marxists thought they had found the perfect ideology that justified their sick, hedonistic practices.
If you can reduce a human being to nothing more than a material object, whose emotions and senses become mere physical atoms of irrelevancy, then you can begin to understand what type of people Jeffrey Epstein, and allegedly now P Diddy, were involved with. For Marx, it was a breakthrough. Followers of his ideology could see their enemies as nothing more than lumps of meat that were obstacles in their march toward a communist utopia. Is this why every Marxist revolution involved so much torture, rape, and murder?
 |
2. Pain of Religion
Apart from the practice of egoistic hedonism, Epicurus also understood that people had an inherent fear of the wrath of the gods. Their actions were dependent on their worldview - if they did not appease the gods, bad things would happen to them. This, according to Epicurus, was a source of pain that needed to be overcome if one was to lead a pleasurable existence.
The gods, Epircurus espoused, live in their own realm and therefore have nothing to do with man’s realm while he is alive. Therefore, while you are alive, there is no reason to fear the Gods, because they can’t do anything to your living self.
 |
This atheistic approach pissed off a lot of Greeks with religious beliefs. But for Epicurus, it was a pain-avoidance strategy. He used logic wherever possible to prove his point:
 |
With this logic, Epicurus now believed that he had freed himself and his garden dwellers from the chains of religion. However, there was one last ideological obstacle that needed to be overcome before successfully claiming his garden as a true vision of utopia.
3. Pain of Death
One of the great unanswerable questions for man is whether or not there is life after death. For many, religion is their connection with the unknown, unseen spirit world. This has been the case since the beginning of humankind. However, since this question can never be answered with any form of certainty, Epicurus believed it was another source of pain.
Armed with his usual arsenal of logic, Epicurus believed he had an answer to solve the problem of the uncertainty of life after death:
 |
This is where Epicurus significantly deviated from Democritus, who believed man had a soul made of atoms, and those atoms remained in the universe forever. Epicurus said that in death, we no longer exist. Ergo, Epicurus surmised that man does not have a soul, so live as pleasurably as possible on Earth while you’re alive, because you won’t exist afterwards.
Epicurus believed his Garden provided the utopian pathway to happiness. Man was simply made up of atoms, with a mandate to maximize his pleasure on Earth, free from pain, the fear of religion and the fear of death. It was time to party, not worry and be happy.
Garden Rules
There was one final condition to arriving at utopia within the Epicurean Garden walls. A set of rules needed to be followed. After all, it was Epicurus’ coin that purchased this little piece of real estate:
 |
¹³
Imagine a place so beautiful, with unlimited food and wine, where the head of the school sits at the top of the hierarchy and all the students have to pay homage to him. This must have peaked Marx’s interest. Moreover, Epicurus gave Marx the essential guide in how a community reaches the ultimate pleasure-state:
 |
¹⁴
Epicurus’ belief that collective happiness is obtained by “surviving difficult times” became the mantra for all modern-era Marxist revolutions. Constant struggle sessions, kangaroo courts, purges and executions have become synonymous with communist dictatorships. It appears that Marx borrowed the concept of struggle from Epicurus.
Which leads us to the question, was Epicurus’ philosophy an ancient attempt at communism?
 |
¹⁵
The answer is, of course, yes. However, there is one stark contrast between the communism of Ancient Greece and the communism envisaged by Karl Marx.
Epicurus, and others, created an environment whereby the commune was voluntary. If you were intrigued by what Epicurus’ philosophy was offering, you were free to come, stay, or go as you pleased. This could be seen as a social experiment amongst many experiments within Ancient Greece.
Marx and his ideological descendants knew communism would never work in 19th and 20th century unless it was forced onto the people. From Marx’s point of view, Democritus and Epicurus provided a clear, deterministic path toward a utopia of collective happiness, with him on the hedonistic throne, as philosopher king. It was a no-brainer for Marx, but nobody else could see his vision.
Marx realized there was only one way to force the people to appreciate his vision: Through the gates of hell, by revolution.
Turning Hegel on His Head
By analyzing the ancient philosophers that Marx examined in his PhD, we come to understand the thought processes underpinning Marxism. The best outcome for humanity was a material, deterministic and atheistic world; a communal utopia where collective happiness is a function of collective struggle. This would be a world which seeks to maximize the pleasures on offer with wanton abandon.
In the time of Epicurus, Greece was in terminal decline. Times were turbulent and prosperity was waning. Therefore, the Greeks were already in a collective struggle because their once mighty empire was going downhill. Epicurus provided a sanctuary of sorts, and a lifestyle that freed the individual from worry.
However, in the time of Marx, Western civilization was transforming rapidly because of the industrial revolution. A booming middle-class was on the rise. Capital and wealth was finding its way to ordinary citizens. Railroads were changing the social fabric by allowing cheap and fast travel throughout Europe. Goods from Russia were making their way to France in mere days. Celebrities, concerts and theatres were efficiently touring the continent. Life for the middle class was looking pretty good.
No one was particularly interested in transforming 19th century Europe into a Marxist commune. But Marx remained convinced that a communist utopia lay just around the corner, and that he was the change-agent that could transform the world. From his point of view, his ideology was the pinnacle endpoint of all ideas. The question was how he could convince the world to begin the transition towards communism.
This is where Marx utilized his studies at Berlin under the mentorship of Bruno Bauer, a Young Hegelian. Bruno taught Marx, in between their drinking escapades, the virtue of Hegel’s “dialectical idealism”. In this, warfare and radicalization go hand in hand. Radicalizing involved marginalizing a small group to become so passionate about a particular idea that they were willing to fight to the death over it. His theory: When two radical ideas clash, war ensues, and may the best idea win.
This was the light bulb moment for Marx. Transformation of society could not happen through an external force, it had to happen from within. A clash of ideas from within a society could provide exactly that; revolution, civil war, and transformation.
The puzzle for Marx was how to radicalize his followers to the point of revolution.
If we revert back to Democritus and Epicurus for a moment, their materialistic worldviews come into full view. Ideas were nothing more than atoms, which are part of the deterministic world of matter. Therefore, Marx believed that Hegel’s “dialectical idealism” was really just “dialectical materialism”.
The world did not need to fight about ideas, they needed to fight over things. The fight was about material things that one person possessed, and another did not. If you could convince enough people that their miserable existence was because of the greed and possessions of another group of people, you may just radicalize them enough to start a revolution.
Marx himself described the polarization of society with frightening clarity:
 |
Marx also knew that revolution was going to be bloody and messy as it wiped out the existing civilization:
 |
In essence, Marx sold Epicurus’ utopian commune as a fantastical endpoint. Those who became his followers, were gradually radicalized to believe that the obstacles in their way toward utopia were those who had accumulated wealth; namely the middle-class. The problem was that the middle-class had worked, saved and invested their way to prosperity, and they were not about to give up their capital for an ideology they could not even understand. This created a societal polarization where both sides believed the opposition to be an existential threat.
The blueprint for revolution was complete. Marx believed he’d overtaken Hegel in the field of “dialectics”, but really he was a plagiarist, and an unoriginal thinker. He even stole Hegel’s “War is progress” meme:
 |
There was a new Prussian freak on the scene, and the word “freak” is a gentlemanly term for Marx.
Marx’s Garden
Let’s briefly summarize the ideology of Karl Marx.
From Democritus, he observed that the world was simply matter; tiny atoms moving in a deterministic manner. Humans are also just matter, including their souls.
From Epicurus, he learned that the goal in life was to maximize pleasure and minimize any pain. Religion, relationships and death are all to be avoided if one was to break free from pain. He also discovered that in the communal garden, Epicurus sat at the top of the pile and his followers had to pledge allegiance to his thoughts.
From Hegel, he discovered that progress can only come about from the physical clash of ideologies. Ideas are what shapes a person’s worldview, which provides them with the thoughts that lead to their actions. When two ideas collide, it inevitably leads to a clash of human actions, physical confrontation, and war.
From all of this, Marx ascertained that utopia is a communist society, where everyone will pledge allegiance to his ideology. That human beings are simply lumps of matter that can be rebuilt, and that religion, relationships and death are irrelevant in his New World Order.
That’s basically Marxism summarized in a few paragraphs. How did Karl Marx’s ideology work out for him in the real world?
Can You Spare Me a Dime?
Considering Marx’s aversion to capitalism, it is not surprizing that he struggled to live a decent life through the greatest industrial revolution in history. However, for most people, poverty is something they try to avoid or work hard to get out of. Both Marx and his wife’s families had considerable wealth, and they were willing to help out the couple if needed. But every time Marx got some cash in his hands, it was gone. The guy could not manage his finances to save his family’s lives - literally.
As a result, his family continually lived in poverty, squalor and filth. As head of the house, Marx did not feel compelled to undertake any meaningful work. After all, he was going to be sitting on the throne of utopia when the revolution finally took hold. He tried to start newspapers and write editorials, but that required people spending money to buy his content.
Marx regularly failed to pay his workers, and in the end nobody other than his close Prussian colleague, Friedrich Engels, would lend him money. (Note: Engels met Marx after serving in the Prussian military, which confirms yet another link to revolution and Prussia)
On the whole, it seemed that Marx needed capitalism more than capitalism needed his communism.
Bath Time, Karl
One would think that in order to foment a revolution, Marx needed to front up to a few gatherings and espouse his communist leanings. That would not be an easy task, because the stench of the obese Karl Marx was insane. Who would want to sit in a lecture hall with this beast?
 |
¹⁶
Karl and Jenny, Sitting in a Tree
We’re not sure what Jenny saw in Karl. Marx’s parents did not appreciate the direction their son was taking. Jenny’s family, the von Westphalens, were certainly not impressed by the fat upstart trying to woo their daughter. However, they married in 1843, and in the next few decades Jenny would regularly write to her family about her miserable life with Karl.
After all, the man absolutely stank and was covered in open sores, some of which were around his groin. Jenny would lance and drain the boils, and then Karl would find a way to serenade her and “make love” to the poor woman. Even in the midst of mind-blowing poverty and filth, the Marx’s gave birth to seven children. Most likely due the squalor they were immersed in, Karl witnessed the death of four of his seven children.
Taking the lead from Epicurus, relationships were not Karl’s thing. He continued to write incessantly about the pending revolution, which provided him an escape from his family. At one stage, they were so poor, Jenny and Karl needed to share a dirty bed with their maid:
 |
¹⁷
Karl and the Devil
Epicurus’ logic decried there was no reason to be worried about the gods. Religion, therefore, is simply a manifestation of matter that inhibits the pathway toward a communist utopia. Karl took the religious matter into his own hands.
Both of his parents were Jewish, but they converted to Lutheranism for convenience. Karl, took a hatred to all religions, especially Judaism.
 |
 |
In spite of this, to claim Marx was an atheist is, perhaps, wrong. There was one entity from whom he sought guidance:
 |
¹⁸
Marx’s obsession with the Devil continued on throughout his life. Marx’s two daughters killed themselves in suicide pacts with their husbands. It was a pretty dark place in the Marx household. There was the filth, the open sores, the maid sharing the bed with mom and dad, and dad’s fascination with the Devil at the dinner table.
The hypocrisy is glaringly obvious. If Marx worshipped Satan, then it means, that while he was a devout atheist, he provided an exception for his god; the Prince of Darkness. Marx knew that the hell inflicted by the revolutions he desired would commit so many crimes of rape, torture and murder, that it could only be the work of the Devil.
The worship of Satan must have been a particular source of pain for Marx. Epicurus would not have been impressed.
The Real Outbreak
We come to the end of this part to the series. The goal was to gain an insight into how Karl Marx’s thought processes led to such a toxic ideology. Far from an original work, Marx took pieces of Democritus, Epicurus and Hegel that he liked and stuck them together to form….Marxism.
We know that Prussia had a peculiar fascination regarding the French revolution, and that Fichte, Hegel and Marx all drew upon the historical events of that period to develop a type of “revolutionary theory”. Bizarrely, all of these men did most of their revolutionary research at the University of Jena, the place where Napoleon utterly humiliated Prussia.
We know that Hegel and Fichte were die-hard Prussian loyalists, and that their philosophy was dedicated to ensuring Prussian supremacy throughout Europe. However, Marx continually denounced the Prussian state. His denouncement was particularly strange for a number of reasons:
His wife was from Prussian aristocracy, who continually wrote back to the family, thereby creating the potential for back channel communication with Prussia.
His brother-in-law was the Minister of the Interior of Prussia, which means that back-channel was the equivalent of the Prussian CIA at the time.
Stieber, the chief of the Prussian secret police (Gestapo), continually travelled to London to keep an eye on Marx.
Marx’s closest friend, Friedrich Engels, just finished his service with the Prussian military before he established his relationship with Karl.
Finally, after the 1848 revolutions, Prussian “Marxists” escaped their kingdom for the safety of America. Known as the “48ers” and the “Red Republicans”, Marx kept a continual line of communication open with these men. Some of them include Charles Pfizer, and the future bankers of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. The latter banking firm is responsible for the establishment of the US Federal Reserve.
Was Marx a true communist revolutionary, or was he an operative for Prussia? He was a man who submitted his PhD at Jena, and then created a communist revolutionary manual so radical that it almost burnt Europe to the ground, just before Prussia launched its military campaign to humiliate Denmark, Austria and France. Was the animosity between Marx and Prussian Empire real, or simply a ploy to create plausible deniability?
Regardless, Marx was loyal to his ideology until his dying breath. His atheistic life of poverty, squalor, infidelity, Satan worship and poor hygiene became the primary archetype for all future Marxist revolutionaries. When we look at the gender-bending pAntifa protesters today trying to burn down our Western culture and “unburden themselves from what has been”, we can thank their idol, Karl Marx.
But one has to wonder, what became of the idea of living in a beautiful utopian Epicurean Garden?
Despite the horrendous life of Marx, the fat, slovenly bastard still believed his mighty revolution was just around the corner. With four of his children gone, his two daughters on the brink of suicide, the repudiation of his bastard child, and the busted boils in his groin, Marx believed a communist utopia was imminent.
In other words, Marx’s Epicurean utopian garden was in his own head.
He was the first man to be infected by what we now know as the “Woke Mind-Virus”.
But it would not be until 1917, when the real outbreak of this devastating virus inflicted itself upon humanity.
To be continued……….
Further Analysis and Credit
If we want to break free from the looming Marxist revolution that we all face, we must understand how the United Nations and its partners, the World Economic Forum, think. When we know the minds of madmen, a meaningful strategy can be developed to deal with them.
This article would not be possible without the incredible work that is readily available on the internet. We consider what we write to be a brief summary, with a Prussian twist. The following lectures provide far more detail and insight into the development of Marx’s weaponized woke mind-virus.
The first is the dive into Epicurus. A brilliant lecture by Leanord Peikoff. The whole series of lectures are luminous, but Epicurus is in this video, starting at 6:30.
Probably the best summary of Marx’s life is from TIKHistory. This presentation on “The REAL Life of Karl Marx” goes for 2 ½ hours, but it never stops providing startling information about the joker that is Karl Marx. All of the information provided is fully sourced with real-time links. This is highly recommended viewing:
Finally, from the same content provider, I suggest his presentation on “dialectial materialism”. From Hegel to Marx, the dialectic is ideological garbage. #PrussiaGate contends that everything that came out of Prussia was always to serve Prussia over multiple time horizons. Hegel used his ideology to justify constant war, while Marx served to justify constant revolution. Today, Prussia no longer exists, but its kult is thriving within the halls of the UN and the ReichsWEF. This video from TIKhistory is a must listen to get a deeper understanding of the garbage of dialecticism.
In the next article, we will be focusing on the most successful Marxist revolution in history; the Soviet Union.
ibid
ibid
ibid
Prussia Gate is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Prussia Gate that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments.
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment